Nahen

Right after the F-15

This is the result of the fact that a large part of people coming to DCS are looking for an arcade air equivalent of Counter Strike rather than a simulation ... Almost like wishes for hanging a set of 8 pieces of AGM-114 or 4 pieces of M134 under the OH-58D ... And probably in the topic for each module, such "flowers" are found. In the case of this topic, after the declaration from RAZBAM that there will be no option to remove the CFT, this topic should be ended. But unfortunately, every now and then someone comes who hasn't read more than the last page, maybe two... and so on...

The day ED goes into massive Counter Strike-type fun will be my last in this "world". In this day I apologize BMS, or I'll stop playing with modern warplane flight simulators until someone else decides to do something that will be a simulation and not an arcade game. ED don't go this way.

Because the OH-58D wouldn't be able to fly with it? Because people develop modules based on the technical data of real machines? Because, although it's not obvious to everyone, DCS is a SIMULATION and not an arcade game?

With implemented "great balls of fire!" ???

One Thrustmaster "Top Gun" USB joystick plus two DIY joysticks with grip as original.

Probably the only movies that are here where the F-15E flies WITHOUT CFT are the movies that I uploaded. I wrote CLEARLY that from about half a year, when the F-15C was withdrawn from the Lakennheath base in the UK, the 492nd Squadron started flying on several machines without CFT to somehow replace / patch the hole left by the F-15C. So far - I will repeat - NEVER the F-15E has flown operationally without CFT. The discussion started before this fact. So, apart from treating it as a curiosity, it has nothing to do with the problem discussed here. What's more, after talking to two of the 492nd pilots, I received information that such flights and training make sense only here in Europe. Why? Because anywhere else F-15E will fly on any combat mission with CFT, even if some of them will fly in A-A configuration - the reason is simple - "equalization" of ranges during the mission. In Europe, the range of the F-15 without CFT is sufficient as long as the mission takes place over the territory of NATO countries. So don't talk about films that confirm the operational use of the F-15E without CFT because there are none. Unless from air shows or technical inspections, etc.

Faith makes miracles...

It be looooongest month in my life...

Don't shout, just go and get it

Read the quote I posted a few posts above - it's a quote - a statement from a man who was serving there at Kadena AFB at the time this photo was taken. Maybe you don't have access to documents, first-hand information, I still know some people and I know where such information can be found. I learned nothing about CFT - F-15Es have never been used in combat without CFT and I will not change my opinion based on my information. Today - and precisely since the withdrawal of the F-15C from Lakennheath, pilots 492 and 494 began (about half a year ago) to perform training flights without CFT due to the need to replace the F-15C - I also wrote about it there. But it still doesn't change the fact that F-15Es have never been used anywhere without CFT. So again, the F-15C pilots have NEVER been by official trained in attacking ground targets, and never attacking ground targets with the F-15A/B/C/D was part of the OFFICIAL training in the USAF. There were tests for various programs run by the air force, but they were never regular and official training. Maybe it's incomprehensible to you because maybe you're too young - today there are still dozens if not hundreds of USAF pilots who flew the F-15A/B/C/D in the 1970s and 1980s. Reach them, talk, find out something and don't say that "today there are no documents and information".

The basis in BvR is altitude and speed. If you are unable to accelerate before the attack and attack from a reasonable height, you must defend yourself quickly and run away, or engage in close combat. It's good to know what machine you're up against. I'll give you a hint - if your opponent is F-14, F-15 on high altitude and very fast, don't try to fight him in a typical BvR. He will always shoot much faster than you, and he will be able to perform a defensive maneuver much faster in which he will still have a chance to maintain his speed and altitude advantage. BvR is all about speed and altitude.

Such a "curiosity" - when I fly on PvP servers such as "Growling Sidewinder", about 80% of my kills are rockets fired by me from a distance of over 50 miles The F-15 systems do not yet inform about the readiness to launch the rocket - about entering within range not only that, I often manage to launch the Sidewinder M from a distance of 20 miles, which easily hits the target But one condition - speed > 2 Mach

They didn't train - they tested it, it's a big difference... How many times can write the same thing over and over again?

I do not deny the reach of Steam and its "strength" in this topic. From the beginning I wrote - I put forward the thesis that if such a study were to be carried out - there would be definitely more free mods among the "Steam DCS community" than in "standalone DCS" community. I may be wrong but that's what I think. OK Im end this OET

I can judge based on "my own environment". About 300-500 people visit each year, some come for a few days, others for a few weeks, and others disappear after a few months. These are the people who most often have the "Steam edition", bought one module or fly the Su-25 most often. Those who stay for a little longer decide to buy a module and after some time the contact ends. In my experience, they don't even master this module 100% - maybe in 50%. Some of these people stay "for a long time". Currently, it's about 200 active people divided between two communities who are on Discord every day, flying an average of two hours a day on online servers. These people 95% of the time they switch to the "standalone" and beta version and buy more modules. They have been with us for several years, some of them do not accept mods at all, some play with mods, mods such as BlackHawk 60L/60R or A-4 appear on our servers. I definitely hear about different mods more often from the part of people who pops in "for a moment". So, based on that, I'm making my theory. In my opinion, a large part of people who come into contact with DCS via Steam end up at the stage of free "base" plus mods. Ofcourse Im may wrong. Skipping the issue that I always had problems with the Steam version, especially when creating missions and working in the editor. About 5 years ago I installed the Steam version and very quickly said goodbye to it, since then I have peace of mind ...

The F-14 entered service on aircraft carriers where the F-4, A-6, A-7, and A-8 were stationed. So both F-4 and F-14 were used on the same aircraft carriers and on the same catapult systems. The information that F-4s cannot use aircraft carriers - rather, it concerns "modern" aircraft carriers. When the F-4s left their service, there was no need to adapt them to the new aircraft carriers. Diferent the F-14 that served "a few" more years on aircraft carriers. Forrestall should normally support F-14, F-4, A-4, A-6, A-7, etc.

I think the free DCS bundle with the TF-51 and Su-25 is enough to "reach the Steam community". And so, sooner or later, more serious flyers switch to standalone and beta and buy more modules rather directly from ED just so that ED has more money for development. It's quite logical. I bet that if you did the research, it would turn out that the greatest use of free mods, at the same time going hand in hand with the smallest number of purchased modules, are Steam accounts.

That's why I wrote "laser" and not laser

In level flight with 100% engines without afterburning (i.e. 96% on the RPM clocks and NOZ POS at 0) at altitudes of 20,000-40,000 feet, maximum speeds are around Mach 0.7-0.9. 350-250kts on HUD. As for the maneuver combat, get used to the fact that it is conducted on boosters. And the basic dependence - the higher you are, the less fuel you use. That's why the F-15C is not to be used for close manouvers dogfights. Because while without the use of the afterburner is probably in the entire DCS (I mean jet fighters) the plane that has the longest range and is really economical - but on high altitude - at low altitudes on the afterburner you will most often not know when you run out of fuel. The joke is that you can fly it on afterburners for about an hour But you have to stay high at 45,000 - 55,000 feet, it allows for quite effective BvR combat at speeds around Mach 2.

Many new F-15Cs have trouble maintaining speed and accelerating the aircraft. The Eagle is very heavy and any maneuver with the boosters off can cause you to lose speed and turn your nose up. Re-acceleration without the use of afterburner requires a little knowledge of the aircraft. Once you get to know it, flying at speeds of Mach 2 is not a problem as well as fuel control..

Provided that you do not use the "image" guidance system, i.e. a TV/CCTV camera and manual guidance of the missile. Only WSO can its.

And cool So AGM-65 should also be available

It's just that AGM-65s fell out of the armament standard for the F-15E even before 2009 - confirmed by the F-15E pilot that since 2009, when he flew the F-15E, they had not been used for "a few nice" years. The question is in what years did RAZBAM place its module?

And the same thing over and over again... The F-15A/C had an avionics mode for "simple" air-to-ground attacks. THERE WAS NEVER ANY USAF UNITS READY TO USE F-15A/C TO ATTACK ON GROUND TARGETS. Yes, pilots of some squadrons practiced attacks on ground targets as part of the tests. This photo, as far as I can remember, is a photo from one of the proving grounds in early 80's where one of the last tests and comparisons of the possibility and effectiveness of attacks on ground targets between the F-16 and F-15 were carried out, which were directly related to the work on the F-15E. No A-G systems have ever been removed from the F-15C. They are still on board and in aircraft avionics to this day. Ground attack training was never removed from the regulatory training standards because it was never included in the training of F-15 pilots. Some units practiced, but this was not the standard in the USAF. And here's a statement from a guy who was serving in Kaden when this photo was taken, maybe you'll see how wrong you are. >>>>When I worked wing scheduling at Kadena in the early 80s we were told from on high to test the bombing capabilities of our Eagles using only the supplied on board equipment. When we told our three squadrons, they weren't overjoyed about this assignment but they got right to work on it. All results were sent to the pilots working in our office who sent them to the appropriate commanders. From what I was told, they did quite well for guys that never did air to ground work. This shot was taken during a airshow we had during a carnival for a local orphanage.<<<