Nahen

But still AiM-7 can fire only in STT mode like all Semi-Active missiles for "longer" distances than 10 miles. I skip the HOJ mode and the like..

So you're right, but as you wrote - it's not RWR that judges the distance. Every RWR has been evaluating the threat by signal strength for several decades - it estimates that the stronger the signal, the greater the threat - I don't know why, people interpret it as "stronger signal = greater threat = radar closer to RWR" ... Not it at all is. If you set the AWACS, MiG-31, F-14, MiG-29 and Su-27 at the same distance, the RWR will show the "closest" AWACS, then the MIG-31 and F-14 and the furthest MiG-29 and Su-27. I will say more, the MiG-31 and F-14 will be shown closer even if the MiG-29 and Su-27 will be much further. Why don't people understand that RWR DOESN'T JUDGE DISTANCE TO SIGNAL SOURCE??? In the latest fighters (and not only), data from RWR are supplemented with data from datalink, AWACS, aircraft and airspace control systems. They may be displayed on something like a RWR/SA hybrid, but that's not RWR data. RWR is still only supposed to show the direction from which the signal appears and evaluate its "value" based on the signal strength.

We write in the thread about CFT tanks without pylons for armament - that is, we write about fiction in the DCS world and even more about fiction in the real world. So when I writing about the power to weight ratio, talking about the real F-15C and F-15E. I added, in case you didn't notice, that depending on the version of the F-15E, it doesn't necessarily have lower power-to-weight ratio than the F-15C. Something's wrong ?

Empty F-15C airframe mass 12,701 kg (28,000 lb) Empty F-15 E airframe mass 14,379 kg (31,700 lb) 2 × F100-PW-220 thrust: 14,590 lbf (64.9 kN); 23,770 lbf (105.7 kN) with afterburner 2 × F100-PW-229, thrust: 17,800 lb dry (79 kN); 29,160 lb (129.7 kN) with afterburner

Well, let me repeat - I base comparisons as to the time of developing the modules not on the basis of individual statements of individual people from EA or RAZBAM, but on the basis of officially posted threads on the forum related to the modules in production. For me, this is much more reliable than single announcements of something that maybe someone will do.

Maybe instead of inventing, count? The factors I gave are calculated for the weight of the F-15E more than 2 tons higher than the F-15C. Support structure - the structure of the F-15E airframe is more than two tons heavier than the F-15C. What I gave is just calculated for this mass. For the mass of the airframe itself, without CFT.

I would be careful with this better power-to-weight ratio ... Because while you are right with the F100-PW-220 engines, the versions with the F100-PW-229 engines have a better power-to-weight ratio than the F-15C: kg of thrust / one kilogram of weight F-15C: 1.69 (F100-PW-220) F-15E: 1.49 (F100-PW-220) F-15E: 1.84 (F100-PW-229)

So, in total, such a system sucks. Why? Because he comes up with, not "estimates" the distance. Each same "emitter type" can have a different transmitter power. Depending on the radar operating mode in which the average fighter's radar at the moment is, it emits a weaker or stronger beam - in each radar the beam power is appropriately modulated depending on whether the radar is in the target tracking mode, search mode, or in the RWS mode or TWS, etc. What with the radars in which, depending on the needs, the pilot / RIO / WSO can "manually" switch the beam parameters - its power. Stealth planes, e.g. So I dare say I prefer the traditional RWR which identifies the source of the signal and determines its "threat value". At least I will not be mistaken to read false data provided.

And how is it supposed to "estimate" the range? Can someone explain to me?

I feel "offended" I ONLY fly the F-15C and will not accept the F-15E module with removable CFT or "bare CFT" fantasy. I will only agree to this when I find out about the first OPERATIONAL use of the F-15E without CFT. Instead of removable CFTs in the Strike version, I 100 x more prefer to believe that one day we will get the F-15C FullFidelity. Forgive me, but I had to I can't imagine a topic about "taking CFT off" or flying with "naked CFT" without my participation A question by the way - why fly with "naked CFTs" if they do not exist in real life? All pylons on CFT are integral with them.

I base the information on threads created for a given type of module on this forum. The oldest I see for the F-16 is from 2019, for the F-15E it's from 2012...

I'm not sure if any announced module waited more than 10 years like for the F-15E.

what is three years of waiting for the OH-58 when waiting forever for the F-15E??

>>>>The APG-63(V)3 radar is a more modern variant of the APG-63(V)2, applying the same AESA technology utilized in Raytheon's APG-79. The (V)3 is currently being retrofitted into F-15C/D and deployed in Singapore's new F-15SG aircraft and Saudi Arabia's new F-15SA aircraft. Raytheon delivered the first prototype APG-63(V)3 system in June 2006.[2] The company started work on an initial production order in October 2007<<<< Not to mention the AN/APG-82... So how is the Hornet's AESA radar better than the F-15E AESA radar? The words in >>> <<< are not my words, but a quote from a study on radars >>AN/APG-63 radar family<<

Hmm... >>>>The APG-73 is a late 1980s "upgrade of the APG-65 that provides higher throughputs, greater memory capacity, improved reliability, and easier maintenance".[1] To reduce production costs, many of the upgraded radar's modules are common with the APG-70 (F-15E Strike Eagle) radar; its software engineers chose the JOVIAL programming language so that they could borrow and adapt existing software written for the APG-70. When fitted with a motion-sensing subsystem and stretch waveform generator and special test equipment, the APG-73 can generate high resolution ground maps and make use of 'advanced' image correlation algorithms to enhance weapon designation accuracy. <<<< And one more thing... why don't you compare the AN/APG-82 Radar to that of the Hornet? Is it "weaker? The words in >>> <<< are not my words, but a quote from a study on radars >>AN/APG-63 radar family<<

Why don't you start comparing the F/A-18 E Super Hornet to the F-15SA/QA/EX?? Although maybe it's better not to... why kick a lying on the ground

The number of tracked targets has no value if you are not able to attack them with sense - I am writing only about Air to Air - F-15 and F-14 at some stage could have the ability to track several dozen targets simultaneously (I am writing about the years around 1980), why was the limited up to - if I remember - 8 targets? Because planes only took 8 Air to Air missiles. "Sometimes more is less". Today, there is more and more talk about information noise and overwhelming pilots, tank crews, etc. with the amount of information. So what if you see dozens of targets and your own objects if you waste time selecting them, assessing threats and finally choosing them? Avionics suggests, takes part of the work is for the pilot, determines what threatens him in the first place and what not ... etc. But it does not change the fact that in some situations it is better to have "less on your mind" than to be overwhelmed with information. That's damned important in a dogfight. On the example of DCS - I fly only F-15C ... I don't need Datalink. I'm doing fine without him. On PvP servers I often hear complaints that something was not on the datalink, that something was ... I don't have this problem

The first thing - if you start without suspended tanks, only with fuel in the inner fuselage and wing tanks, after refueling you will hear "Transfer complete, disconect". If you take additional tanks and don't throw them away during the flight, you will sometimes hear a message after refueling and sometimes not. If you take additional tanks, use up fuel from them (or don't use them) and discard the tanks, you certainly won't get a message about the end of refueling. The second thing - I wrote that I don't consider it a significant problem. Yes, that's what I think. Why? Because during refueling I can look at the fuel gauge at any time, I can set it so that it shows me specific amounts of fuel in the tanks of the fuselage, wings, in the outer tanks under the wings or under the fuselage. I know how much fuel is in integral tanks, I know how much is in underwing tanks and in a set of three tanks. It is not a problem to control the amount of fuel when refueling. Besides, this problem has been reported for several years and if it hasn't been "fixed" to this day, what would suddenly change?

Honestly? I have absolutely no interest in what would offend you, etc. I react to your vision of a DCS world without women. You are very wrong to assume that they are a "minor part" of the fun. For me, 10% (and I bet it could be more) is a hell of a lot. That I mention the fact of not knowing how many times (assuming you fly on public PvP servers) you've been shot down by a "girl" is just a simple statement of fact. Just because you haven't consciously met a Shaolin monk doesn't mean they don't exist. Just like the fact that you haven't seen many things in the world that you only know about from stories, television, radio, books, etc. I assure you that a woman / girl in DCS is not a phenomenon on the scale of Bigfoot or Yeti ... Bay the way, this fact does not appeal to me at all for the need to introduce "female voices" other than "BitchinBetty" to modules or "female" models of remotes, etc. This is pure stupidity having absolutely nothing to do with discrimination against anyone.

I get the impression that some people forget the origins of the F-15E...they forget that the Strike Eagle is based on the best air superiority fighter that ever (until the F-22) flew. The F-15E hasn't lost any of its BvR combat capability, I'd venture to say it has gained an additional advantage - even higher speed. All F/A-18s are just the naval equivalent of the F-16. And unfortunately, even their greatest supporters, I don't know how they cursed reality, these planes have no chance in a hypothetical clash with the F-15C / E, not to mention the EX. A multi-role fighter is a completely different thing than a strike aircraft made from an air superiority fighter - from the best air superiority fighter. The avionics of both of these machines are suitable for each of them. And any plane it's as good as the whole machine and its pilot put together. So as long as Hornet doesn't annoy StrikeEagle, it be the best at my job, just like Strike Eagle at his... but Hornet no point in fighting with F-15, its no his clas.

Pit one F-15E against one Super Hornet 150 miles apart, give each a full set of A-A weapons and we'll see who gets back to the airfield... I'm betting on Strike Eagle... The Hornet will fall before can fire successfully self rockets

I don't think it's a big enough problem to be dealt with in any special way. Maybe someday we'll get the F-15C in the full fidelity version and the problem will disappear

Since on the public servers of the Virtual Fighter Wing of which I was a member, or on the servers of another community, of which I was also a member a few years ago, there were regularly women / girls flying as part of community squadrons or as unaffiliated. I dare say that in other communities of other countries it is similar . Both communities have 4 servers each, with at least 100-150 people active on both community Discord. About 10% of them are women/girls. I don't need much research, just based on what I see. I would like to add that the Polish 304th Virtual Fighter Wing has recently prepared, in cooperation with a girl who is currently at the Air Force Academy, a video material from a typical SEAD mission in DCS - cooperation, communication, etc. as part of her final home work. Besides, it's probably not only in our air force that women fly fighter jets. If you think that DCS is the "kingdom of guys" then you probably don't even know how many times you've been beaten by a girl on public PvP servers

You're joking right?