Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle

F-15A MSIP Picture

@Fnlayson sorry, I assumed I had somehow messed up the placement and edited before thinking to check the revision history. I would like to ask, is there any way to have it moved down a paragraph? As it is it's placed next to the section on F-15C MSIP II instead of the section containing F-15A MSIP, which I would argue is more relevant. Lee0072001 (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Move it down another paragraph or so if that puts it closer to relevant text. Images should be on separate lines unless they are part of the text such as symbol images. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Reported F-15 Shootdown Kuwait 2026

If the F-15 was lost to friendly fire then shouldn't it be added in the Notable accidents section? Syed Ayan Ather (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed and somebody moved it. It is still currently 0 losses in combat. ChuckDabs (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That concerns a F-15E and the incident was moved to McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle#Operations against Iran (2026). This was a not an air to air combat event. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I totally get that. I removed my edit. ChuckDabs (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Also I requested temporary protection status and it was granted. ChuckDabs (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

But it was an air-to-air combat event? Per WSJ: A Kuwaiti F/A-18 fighter jet was the cause of the accidental shootdown of three American F-15s on Sunday, according to three people familiar with initial reports of the incident. One F/A-18 pilot launched three missiles against the U.S. aircraft, according to a U.S. official. All three U.S. aircraft went down, but their pilots ejected safely. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It has been added to McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle article, the variant which was involved in the incident. Syed Ayan Ather (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

it was not an air to air "combat" event no, because that would imply the F-15s were engaging in combat with the F-18 and that the incident was intentional, even if it was the general fighter aviation community doesnt count freindly fire towards losses or kills, rightfully so, for any aircraft. The real rasputin (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Qatar as F-15 operator

Why isn't Qatar Emiri Air Force in the operator section of this article and McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle, I know there is a separate Article for the Operators of F-15 but it still should be added to these articles. Syed Ayan Ather (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Since this is about the F-15E, you should ask on the F-15E's talk page (Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle) instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Noted, ty Syed Ayan Ather (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Qatar f15 shootdown

Could someone add information of the qatar f15 that shot down two Iranian su-24's on May 2nd? ~2026-14079-78 (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That was an F-15QA, should go under the F-15EX, as the QA variant is based on the F-15EX. FireLordAang (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Opening section

Might seem to some that it should be obvious and not need stating, but I note that the opening section of this article does not describe the aircraft as being a jet. This is one of the fundamental characteristics of the subject. ~2026-16898-98 (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Iran War

It seems that the plane that was just shot down was a Strike Eagle, and so were the ones earlier this year in the friendly fire incident. Should they be on this page at all? Seems to me they should on be on the Strike Eagle page... Justdoingmybesttoedit (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The out of place F-15E content was removed. See McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle article instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Different Operators

Hello,

The F-15 page does not have different operational history sections (such as one for Israel, one for America, one for Saudi Arabia, etc) which would be beneficial in separating operator history in my view. I would like to modify the page to be so, and was wondering what others thought of it. Rajbarage (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Excluding the 104-0 record claim

I think WP:EXCEPTIONAL should be applied here. I cannot find multiple mainstream sources, or any reliable ones for that matter, that support the air-to-air combat record. Any figure released by world air forces (usaf, iaf) also couldn't be included per WP:SELFSOURCE where the material included would be an exceptional claim. Shawtybaespade (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

National Interest, MSN.com. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It is ridiculous for anyone to boast that the F-15 has a perfect air-to-air kill record.

When you shoot down multiple friendlies, that tends to tarnish said record. It is like being at the World Cup, scoring multiple own goals, and then bragging about how your scoring record is perfect. No. It is not.

The article states: "The F-15 has a combined air-to-air combat record of 104 kills and no losses through 2008", with no mention of these friendly fire 'kills'. You have to hunt other places in the article to find that info. This needs to be FIXED. Here are exact quotes from your articles:

"Renowned for its 104-0 combat record without a loss..."

"The F-15 Eagle is one of the most successful fighter jets in military history, with a perfect 104–0 combat record."

Hogwash. Your articles just choose to IGNORE the multiple friendly kills. As though they never happened.

The air-to-air kill record of the F-15 is far from perfect. In the minds of certain people, it is atrocious. --Tdadamemd20 (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Friendly kills do not count. This is standard procedure in the military world - common useage - and thus Wikipedia follows it, whether you don't like it or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

You link to Wikipedia Policy articles. What has not been shown is any support for this notion that it is "standard procedure in the military world". Consider the status of being an "ace". I am not aware of any official military rule which defines this. I am certainly not aware of any military rule which defines what you are asserting. And even if one DOES exist, the proper way to present such info to the public is to EXPLAIN this policy. Example:

"Kill record of 104-to-0*"

* - (military standard does not count friendly fire kills)

Again, this hypothetical above only applies if such standard actually exists.

Earlier versions of this article mention the JASDF friendly fire shootdown, F-15J v F-15J killed with an AIM-9 in 1995. I no longer see that info presented here, so quite curious as to why this got removed. 1995 was the year after two more happened in combat, US Air Force v US Army. And I have a vague recollection of a 4th involving two Alaskan F-15s in a similar situation to the JASDF case. From memory (a very long ago memory) what happened was that two F-15s were being deployed to replace the Alert aircraft closer to the Russian border. The missiles were live and armed. One pilot forgot this fact. And he shot down his flight lead while doing a practice dogfight enroute. Something like that. Perhaps I am confusing the JASDF case as having been a USAF incident. But it seems clear that there are at least THREE such cases.

...and then there is the question that if the kill record of downing enemy aircraft is 104-to-0, then WHY does the lede assert "...with over 104 victories"?! 104 is not "over 104". Even when friendly fire is ignored, the facts presented in this article are INCONSISTENT. One explanation is that "over 104" actually includes the killing of friendlies. But then, no one in their right mind would count those as "victories". --Tdadamemd20 (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I actually did remember this Alaska friendly fire incident correctly. Except it was not an actual kill. The shot up F-15 amazingly made it back to the home base with severe damage. Accounting massaged the figures to make it a few dollars short of a Class A incident:

That Time a USAF F-15 Hit another USAF F-15 with an AIM-9 in the Skies Over Alaska

I'm glad to know that my memory was at least in part accurate, going back 36 years now. --Tdadamemd20 (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

F-15 Nicknames

This is a very long article. Yet there is some very basic info that is not being shared here. And that the general public is due to be presented with. For example, you can search this article for the word [tennis], and you'll see that no one is being told how a common nickname of this jet is the Flying Tennis Court. Other popular nicknames include Rodan. Both are ribbing the F-15 for its very large size, especially when compared to a jet like the F-16, or even more so with the F-5. Another common nickname is to call an F-15 pilot an "Ego Driver". Because those who fly it have extremely large egos (and of course, the pun). --Tdadamemd20 (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that state these are commonly used nicknames? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

There should be endless references which explain this. THIS one is by far the best, because of its hilarity:

- F-15 Pilots Playing Tennis On Top Of An F-15

Knowing fighter pilots, someone probably did a similar Rodan-theme photo (note the resemblance). But if so, I've never seen it. Yet this info is packed into many written sources. Here are just a handful...

- "Great Bird Rodan / Big Bird / Tennis Court (...) / Aluminum Overcast"

- "An unofficial nickname applied to the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle was the 'Big Bird'. ... Other unofficial nicknames ... include the 'Flying Tennis Court', 'Ego Jet' and 'Starship'."

- "With slight animosity, F-15 pilots were dubbed "Ego Drivers," and the jet was briefly known as the "Ego Jet."

- "The F-15's wing is sometimes called the "tennis court" due to its large surface area."

- "The large wing surface of 56.5m² inspired the nickname "Flying Tennis Court" for the F-15..."

- "...in fact, its massiveness earned it the nickname the Tennis Court."

- "Eagle, Big Bird, Aluminum Overcast, Great Bird Rodan, Rodan, Tennis Court"

This article has literally been around for decades. And the plane's nickname is some of the most basic information. Imagine the Wikipedia article on the F-16 failing to mention that pilots call it the 'Viper'. Or others who call it the 'Lawn Dart'. As Vizzini would say... Inconceivable. Yet that is the current state of this article here. Quite curious. --Tdadamemd20 (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected.

I just now looked over at the F-16 article, and nowhere does it state that one of its nicknames is the Lawn Dart. So this nickname travesty extends beyond this F-15 article. It would be good to know just how extensive these oversights are when it comes to aircraft nicknames. Does the P-47 article fail to say that it was called the Jug? That the A-10 is known as the Warthog? Etc, etc. It is apparent that a systematic review is needed. These articles not giving such simple, basic info is a MAJOR FAILURE of Wikipedia. Though far from the first, and certainly won't be the last. --Tdadamemd20 (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Some might wonder if it is literally true that the F-15 total planform area is actually the size of a tennis court. You can look this up, and you'll find that the F-15 wing area is, as stated in one of the references quoted above, 56.5m². That's 608 ft². The tail-elevator area adds another 111.36 ft². Put that together, along with the full fuselage area, and you get a total planform area of 1,050 ft². The surface area of a tennis court (singles, not doubles) is 2,106 ft². So the reality is that it is HALF. But the joke still works. And when you consider that you only play tennis on your side of the court, then you're now down to 1,053 ft², compared to the F-15 at 1,050 ft². So when you slice it this way, the joke is basically 100% accurate. And the fighter pilot standard for truth when telling a story is only needing to be 10% accurate.

Bottom line: YES. The F-15 is exactly the size of a tennis court.

Whoever was the first person was to figure this out must have had one heck of a laugh. It probably should be explained WHY this matters so much, as the average layperson would probably say, So what? When dogfighting in air-to-air combat, keeping sight of your opponent is critical. The mantra here is "Lose sight, lose fight". So being a BIG jet makes for a major disadvantage, because you're making it easy for that F-16 (F-5, etc) to keep a "Tally" on you. (Tally, coming from the British foxhunt cry of Tally-ho. Used by the RAF, and then adopted by US pilots, etc.)

...and this last point speaks to yet another Wikipedia deficiency. You go the that article, Tally-ho, and it does an excellent job of explaining the fox hunting origins. And explains how RAF pilots picked up this term to refer to sighting Luftwaffe aircraft. But it STOPS there. It never tells you how it became a NATO standard for Brevity Codes. Here again, a head-scratching curiosity why any editor would add the RAF info, yet decide to not explain the full enchilada. --Tdadamemd20 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

because of its hilarity It's also Reddit and not a reliable source. Most of the others look good, so feel free to add it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off myself, for the time being.

Of course, anyone is free to add this info. As has been the case for the entirety of the quarter of a century that this article has been around. The larger point here has been that there are major shortcomings that have been observed. Why has no one ever done this? Why no mention of the F-16 being ribbed as the 'Lawn Dart'? I have no idea. That photo of F-15 pilots playing tennis on top of their jets had been widely circulated decades before Reddit was ever a thing. With the plethora of books written on the F-15, surely someone has included it in theirs. As for reliability, this photo predates the era of Photoshop.

And there is an excellent history to Tennis Being Played on Top of the Wings of an Airplane. Most dramatically, being done while the plane is flying. Back in 2011, Novak Djokovic did a commercial for Head called 'WingTennis' (commercial, BTS, Making of). It's got well over a million views, and Mythbusters even did a spot on it (here).

Was Djokovic motivated by this Cold War-era photo of a bunch of fighter pilots goofing off? Possibly. Or the inspiration might go much further back. Way way back in 1926, there was THIS PHOTO taken of Gladys Roy & Ivan Unger on the top of a Curtiss JN-4 Jenny (said to be piloted by Frank Tomac). That's the famous one. And then there's this image, HERE. Now this last one is obviously photoshopped. Yet, even an image that springs forth from someone's imagination can serve to be inspiration for someone in real life. How they got Novak Djokovic to play tennis on the top of a flying airplane astounds me. The plane in that WingTennis commercial is an Antonov An-2, which has an extremely slow stall speed. Which makes this stunt a lot less impossible to pull off... like if anyone wanted to try it on an actual F-15.

So the F-15 is decades late for being the first airplane to be used as a tennis court. But it is the first to actually be as large as a real life tennis court, afaik. How will the general public get motivated to become editors and add all this great info to Wikipedia? A bunch of stuff has been highlighted in earlier posts, and now with this current one, it can be seen that the Novak Djokovic article does not mention him playing tennis on the top of a flying airplane. It's not mentioned in the Head article. Search the entirety of Wikipedia for 'WingTennis', and you come up empty. Again, this is a video with 1,295,026 views, currently. Not counting the attention it received at other sites, nor by the extremely popular Mythbusters. I am glad to see that the Gladys Roy article tells about her iconic wingtop photo. There's loads more to tell when it comes to the story of Tennis and Airplanes. Including the "F-15 Flying Tennis Court" will go a long way toward having Wikipedia presenting a much more complete story. --Tdadamemd20 (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

None of this is "very basic info" or "great info" - it is trivia pure and simple. This is meant to be an encyclopedia article about a real life weapon of war, not a collection of random amusing stuff found on the internet. Undue is a thing and the addition of laundry lists of rubbish is WP:undue.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Please read the Original Post to understand what has been recommended for inclusion into the article. No one has suggested adding any 'laundry list'. The recommendation stands that it will be helpful to mention:

Unofficial nicknames for the F-15 include the Flying Tennis Court, Rodan, and the Ego Jet.

That's a grand total of 15 words. And the further point remains that the F-16 article is incomplete without presenting the info that it has the unofficial nickname 'The Lawn Dart'.

I had added loads more info in the effort to help give context, so that people can understand the significance of what these nicknames mean. Nowhere is there any suggestion for adding "random amusing stuff found on the internet". These nicknames were well established long before the internet ever became a thing. And in adding this further info here in this Talk section, what I was attempting to communicate was that it would be helpful to include certain parts of that into pertinent articles. Like over on the Novak Djokovic article. I see improvement that can be done over there as well. Etc. --Tdadamemd20 (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

It also needs to be pointed out that you are misunderstanding WP:undue.

This particular policy applies to topics that have controversial opposing perspectives. It gives guidance on how much weight to give one perspective versus, say, a fringe perspective. The issue of our particular Talk section here has No Controversy whatsoever. It is a plain simple fact that the F-15 has these other nicknames. There is no balancing of weight that needs to be examined. It is like an edit over on the article about Money, and someone asserts that Money is also sometimes referred to as 'Bread' ...and you cry FOUL! Undue Weight!

That policy simply does not apply. Money is referred to as bread. Simple fact. The F-15 is sometimes called a Tennis Court. Another simple fact. --Tdadamemd20 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Scandalously, the Money article doesn't mention bread. (Hohum ^@) 22:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is an exact quote from said article:

"Governments at this point could use currency as an instrument of policy, printing paper currency such as the United States greenback, to pay for military expenditures."

Click thru, and there you'll find THIS:

"They were known popularly as "greenbacks", a name inherited from the earlier greenbacks, the Demand Notes, that they replaced in 1862."

I am done here. You all are explaining to me why this article is deficient. And persists in continuing to be for 25 years straight now. It has become apparent that you folks just like it this way. THREE editors now, instead of fixing the article, have decided that what is needing to be fixed is me. Push back on one of the BEST F-15 photos ever, with this excuse that Reddit is not reliable... knowing clearly that this photo has absolutely nothing to do with Reddit, and that anyone can publish it, as has been done HERE. And the subsequent two editors doing far worse.

I will not return to this article for at least one year. I may check back to see if anyone cares.

It has become clear that my problem is that I care too much. So I will no longer continue to swim upstream against this tide. Goodbye. --Tdadamemd20 (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

If you believe an article is deficient, you as a Wikipedia editor can fix the problem. What you cannot do is demand that other editors fix what you believe to be an urgent problem, then throw your toys out of the pram when they don't agree with you that the problem is so urgent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have not demanded anyone to do anything. What I have done is repeatedly scratched my head as to why the three of you place priority on criticizing me, versus putting effort instead toward improving the article.

I am well aware that I can make additions myself. I have explained that there appears to be a systemic problem going on, and that is why I have held back from doing so myself. It would be like putting a band aid on an arterial gash.

Nigel has misapplied WP. And with you, I do not see how your Pram Essay applies. I have left all of my "toys" right here in this Talk section bin for anyone and everyone to "play with", if they want to. The set of links organized above may prove useful. Or perhaps not. I have stated that I will check back after an extended period of time.

My hope is that things will have changed here. And perhaps you will see that an iconic photo posted to Reddit does not need to be ignored just because it got posted to Reddit. Pearls can be posted at places where noise levels can run high, and that is no reason to throw a baby out with the bathwater. It helps to put one's thinking cap on with an effort toward striving to understand the reason why a particular site has been generally deemed to be unreliable. A photo can only be unreliable if it has been manipulated. And this particular photo is from an era before Photoshopping became a widespread concern. There is no sign of manipulation whatsoever. It is exactly as I remember it from when I first saw it many decades ago.

Fighter pilots do this thing called a separation maneuver after having decided to disengage from an entanglement. And that is what I am trying to do here. I had said goodbye, and you layer on further criticism. Somehow having gotten the impression that I have made demands of anyone. Or that I feel that anything is urgent. I've repeatedly stated that this info has not been added over the span of 25 years. The issue that I have highlighted moves slower than a glacier. I clearly say I will check back after a full year has passed. And you take this to be me feeling some sort of urgency.

I have expressed my opinion. I have not asked anyone to agree with it. I have not even imposed my idea of improvements onto this article. There is absolutely nothing to revert. Because I changed nothing there. That "pram" was never touched. I expect there may be others who will want to insult me on my way out. I hope you all will understand if I choose to not reply to such further posts. --Tdadamemd20 (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

some one needs to make a list of what cartoons the f15 appeared in

one example would be the transformers in the 1980s ~2026-42648-75 (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Aircraft in fiction#F. Note that "X was a F-15" is not likely to be sufficiently noteworthy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)