My reply on the other forum to a similar post by Old Bird;
Combat proven over the past 20 years means jack-squat, if the
design is so old as to be obsolete and would lose against the
untried, unproven new boys.
If combat proven means so much, RAF would have persisted with
Hurricanes over Spitfires, the F-86 would have been rejected and
P-51s used against the DPRK over Korea, the US would have continued
using F-105s against MiGs instead of F-4s over North Vietnam, and
no-one would have chosen the F-15 in the 1970s, since there was the
already "combat-proven" F-4.
"Computerised gimmicks"? Give me those anyday, if it means those
gimmicks means I can shoot an advanced AAM at 60 degrees off
boresight while my opponent is still trying to get me into his 30
degree FOV HUD. If it means I can see, shoot and scoot while hes
trying to locate me for his missiles which need continuous
guidance. If it allows me to run rings around him. Let me at those
"gimmicks".
"outclimb and out accelerate is crucial". If that is the case, the
Eagle will lose. Payload I have already dealt with a couple of
pages back, for even the Strike Eagle never carries to its full
payload on combat missions these days. If you can't move fast then
you need stealth? Eagle is not that much faster, and in terms of
stealth it is the worst of the lot.
The F-15 was a great plane, and will forever be a classic. But in
todays environment and opponents, it's time has come and
gone.
It is indeed time to separate the men from the boys. Time to
separate those who are over the hill and past it, from the
realities of the future. 
Honestly, those defending the Eagle on this and other forums are
really clutching at straws. 
