I do, actually; he says it himself in the video. And the F15 didn't start as a multi-purpose fighter; it started as a single-purpose fighter. It was when the bureaucratic process started that the design of the plane changed and arguably ruined the design.

Ruined? You've got to be kidding.

The motto when the Eagle was being designed was "Not a pound for air to ground." This was consistent through the A model to the C model. But a funny thing happens when you design an aircraft with incredible performance; it can often succeed in secondary roles. This was true of the F-15, and it was also true of the F-14. This isn't something new, it harkens back to WW2 with the P-47.

Considering the success of the F-15 in all of it's models, I'd love to see what you consider is ruined about its design.

And as I've been reading in Fire In The Sky: The Air War In The South Pacific (http://www.amazon.com/Fire-In-The-Sky-Pacific/dp/0813338697/), also many other 2nd generation US WWII air superiority fighters (2nd generation are those after the Wildcat and P-40). Could also fire rockets, and the author says in theory (and assuming you hit the target, a bit of trick back then), a salvo of 5 inch ones would roughly equal a destroyer's broadside.

> it harkens back to WW2 with the P-47.

Also true of the Hawker Typhoon, built as a balls to the wall interceptor turned into a very very good light bomber.

Someone managed to put enough thrust on the thing, such that the design couldn't get too ruined. The F-15 has enough thrust to fly a brick! One landed safely with a wing torn off by a mid-air collision.

Partially it was thrust that allowed the one with no wing to land but also that the fuselage was designed as a lifting body itself creating significant lift.