Nahen

How many times can write - for service and testing purposes, SOMETIMES are taken off the CFT for training, sometimes for air shows. If, however, someone comes up with the idea of replacing the F-15C with the E version (which is a pointless move for today), it may be in the future - until the number of EX is sufficient to take over the role of Air Superiority after the F-15C, MAYBE F- 15E will / start to fly routinely without CFT. For today, routinely - combat - every day - according to plan - according to the adopted doctrine and tactical assumptions - F-15E DOES NOT FLY WITHOUT CFT.

Ask those who shot the movie and those who flew - why they did it ...

First of all, in Poland - "at my window" I can see F-16 and F-22 plus EF2000 which are to guard the sky. The F-15Es when they are in Poland are not popping up to provide a CAP umbrella and still have CFT. Our F-16s are for that. Second, the F-15E without CFT will never match the F-15C in maneuverability, acceleration, and overall maneuverability. Why? Because it is much heavier, and even more powerful engines will not change the inertia of a heavier machine. Anyway, this topic was rolled over a million times. The F-15A / C is simply more maneuverable due to its lighter weight. And do not try to say that without the CFT the F-15E is comparatively lighter because the difference of more than two tons of weight - almost three is the weight of the airframe structure itself - the reinforcement of the structure for the E version is just an additional almost three tons. CFT is out this So no one in their right mind will make the F-15E an air superiority fighter, the more so as today it has nothing to replace it in its primary impact role. When the EX comes in, it will be so advanced that it will certainly be a better successor to the F-15C than E. The difference between E and EX today is not as great as between C and EX. In addition, before its implementation into serial production, the promoted and most frequently shown / discussed / advertised role of EX was air superiority with more numbers of the AiM-120 and equipped with systems that are primarily to give it an advantage in air combat. So I don't think anyone wasting a purebred strike machine and sending it to fighter tasks, the more so as it is still inferior to its predecessor in this matter. I don't think anybody has ever used an F-15E without a CFT in combat. When I see I will change my mind. I do not see such a need for today and the next 10-15 years.

For today, there is no risk of meeting a fighter that could threaten the F-15EX ...

PEACE

You do not understand what I wrote - the F-15E NEVER FLYS WITHOUT CFT neither in training, combat, it is never used without CFT. It flies, it has flown and will fly well without and with CFT. But it is never USED without CFT.

Again and again and again ... Have you read this entire thread? I do not think so... Sometimes when I repair my cars, I disconnect the fuel hose from the tank and put it in a bottle with gasoline. Does it mean that you meet cars such fuel-powered on the streets? How many times can it be the same, the F-15E WILL NOT FLY WITHOUT CFT except for technical reviews, tests, and sometimes airshows. It is basically an integral part of this machine, but it can be disassembled for maintenance, technical reviews etc. Anyway, why am I typing about it again? In a few days or weeks again someone will come back with a photo or a movie of the F-15E without CFT...

During PvP fights I have never approached the opponent at a distance from which I could launch a Sparrow, let alone a Sidewinder ... If you need Sparrow, you should fly typical multi-role fighters like F-16, F / A-18 and not an air superiority fighter

I think there is a problem with the damage module in the case of, for example, landing in difficult terrain. If I crash the plane, it is still intact, but it is not possible to start the engine, for example, if it went out earlier. And the icon disappears from the map as in the case of "death". But if the engines are fine, you can still try to take off and fly.

It's true about textures. It is worth cutting them a little during the next update or make two versions to choose from with smaller and larger ones.

Its my preciousssssss !!!!!! Great work guys, Please takes care of him and fine-tune him to the max: D

RLY?? In fact, there is nothing to discuss ... Do you know that the Russians and the Chinese have the same physics as the US? And after some 30 years, they finally made planes that supposedly can measure up to the F-22 ... So think, think about it, and maybe in the next 20 years you will make a sensible F-22 module for DCS;)

Yes, this is fiction - if someone makes up something, guesses without data, it's 99% fiction. Unless he is an engineer overseeing the technological process of changing the color in a pencil - then there is a chance that he will specify a specific color by asking what is this on producig line. I do not think that among the creators of ED there were specialists in the production of, for example, AN / APG-77 radars and "guessing" their parameters for the creation of the F-22 module... Today, hardly any model of modern machines in DCS correctly reflects the work of radars. I cannot judge why. I have contact with pilots flying the MiG-29 and F-16C Block52. I will not quote their opinion about radars in the MiG-29 and F-16C modules in DCS. I know the ED line on this issue, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with reality. Thus, it is impossible to "invent" the operation of the system without even basic data about it. Hence, we have the radars we have, which frustrate many virtual pilots playing in DCS. Fortunately, I personally have been treating DCS for a long time as the best simulation game for today - but not a simulator. So much. That is why I am so fiercely punkt ideas to bring the "newest" planes to the DCS. Although ... one UFO this way or that won't make a special difference ...

Ok, how many of them, while flying in the army, had the opportunity to actually "reach the limits" of their machines? Because as far as I know, no air force accepts the pilots who overdo it too much...

So you want Star Wars;) Growler? As far as I know, today it is one of the most closely guarded aircraft in terms of its avionics and equipment ... But if you want, Boeing will send documentation to ED quickly so that you can fly with it ... Unless you just need an simulator like a Ace Combat... then you can prepare the documentation yourself and let someone make a Growler based on it ... It's really so hard to understand that if you want a simulator and not an airborne arcade shooter, you need documentation of a real machine to recreate it ? Otherwise you will get a fiction like the F-22 mod based on the F-15C and reflecting the dreams of its creator?

Well, if I can see the markings on the tail correctly, it is not surprising that the F-15A from 131 FW ordered in 1977, brought to the C standard, wanted to remember how it used to be years ago... It does not change the fact that you probably haven't read it - I wrote about the fact that until the "second war" in the Gulf such combinations could have taken place. AiM-120 Revision B began to be delivered in 1994, revision C in 1996. Since the AiM-7 Sparrow has be produced more than 70,000 units by the time the AiM-120 came in, it is probably logical that for many years people tried to get rid of them in other ways than just scrapping them. Find me a photo of an F-15C / E flying in combat mission over Syria, Afghanistan, Europe in the last 15 years with AiM-7s suspended. Yes, you can, just like removing the CFT from the E version, but does anyone in their right mind do it from the moment when the amount of AiM-120 in warehouses provides full service facilities for all USAF and USNavy aircraft? I am waiting for you to specify exactly which planes are not recognized by NCTR

At the time when AMRAAMs were a novelty, there weren't enough of them for every fighter to be operationally armed only with them - possible ... From time when the production of the AiM-120 fully covered the demand for missiles in linear units - the Sparrows were be dismissed in the F-15C - somehow after the First Gulf War. Or maybe after Second War I don't remember. Since C versions came into service, B + C + Sidewinders flew again, but also only until the magazines were filled in C versions and their subsequent modifications. Nobody, having the ability to send an F-15 armed with the best rockets to fight, never hung on them any antiquities. Only in training missions.

But the F-15E with four AMRAAMs and four Sidewinders is nothing special.

Who normally flies with more than two types of A-A missiles under the F-15C? ILS mode ALWAYS selects the first airport you take off from. If you mix up something, it shows different. By default, it ALWAYS gives the course to the starting point. The unladen weight is the unladen weight - usually the weight of the machine complete with fuel. Weapon masses are included in the total mass, not the curb mass. NCTR identifies too few aircraft types? Can you give which, for example, it does not identify?

>>>We all know anything they touch turns to gold.<<< Especially phoenixes Which don't hit anything from 40 miles away But ok, I am able to throw it on ED and not Heatblur - once these missiles worked much better ... Today somehow they are not something terrible for me when they fly to me

We will wait... Ok, and when we wait, who will judge if what we got corresponds to the real model of the machine? Who of you actually fly / flew the EF-2000 BlockI? or the F-15C? I treat each of the modules that have already been released, are under development and will be released in the future as a SIMULATION GAME - not as a simulator of a specific type of aircraft. The only thing that can be considered a simulation is holding the control stick in your hand;) And this is on the condition that the stick is a copy of a specific stick;) Everything else is an attempt to reflect the actual model of the aircraft and its characteristics plus the fantasy / imagination of the creators. But as - I mentioned earlier - I risk saying that WWII aircraft and those whose production ended sometime between 1970 and 1780 may be considered a simulation ... although this is just a risky statement and not necessarily in line with reality.

In our wing, we chose so with individual markings - each of the machines we use - A-10, F-15C, F-16C, F / A-18C have general squadron painting with a set of markings. And everyone who wants and decides to be with us "longer" gets an individual skin with his nickname, number, etc. I do only for the F-15C and my friend does the rest;) Why so? Because I only fly F-15C and maybe I will switch to E when it comes out ... although I would prefer full fidelity C But I do not have any special hopes in this theme

Yeah ... The manufacturer of Eurofighter provides the data of his flagship machine so that the ED can make a real simulator ... This is how he provides the data of the unproduced - outdated for today Block 1 model. To make a real simulator, you need to get data describing the flight model, avionics and its operating parameters, and much more. The Americans do not sell F-22 for billions of dollars, they do not share its technology with their closest allies, they do not want to share even YF-23 technology - but they are already rushing with documentation for ED so that it can make a realistic F-22 module for DCS ... Due to the fact that currently the EF2000 Block 1 is not being produced, but only Block 3, it may be possible to obtain some documentation on avionics that is no longer used, and some parameters related to the flight model. But I bet some 30% of this module is fiction. Each aircraft currently in use, modified and modernized on an ongoing basis in order to provide it with an advantage on the real battlefield is covered by the clauses> TOP SECRET <and no complete documentation will be made available to anyone. And even the pilots flying these planes are not able to assess their limit capabilities and parameters, even if only the flight model. They can provide information, share their observations, but still these are not specific technical data. So it will be something that is subject to INTERPRETATION - full of imagination and presumptions. Therefore, in the DCS, the second-war modules of the Korean war period are real, modules such as the MiG-21 - based on the documentation provided by the old allies of the USSR currently on the other side, the MiG-23 will also maybe quite faithful, the F-4 Phantom too. F-14 why not share its documentation, since he is no longer there and will not come back. F-16? A few more months he had nothing to do with the actual flight model, now he is starting to do. But avionics is about 10-15 years behind what the actually offers today. F-15C - OK, not produced for a long time and obsolete - another version of E, the question is how much real information about its avionics has been obtained, but it will again be about 10 years back. And here we start talking about modern aircraft - F-22? F-35? EF2000 Bock2 / 3, Grippen? Rafale - even with Mirage 2000-5 there is no certainty about the data ?? Let's establish what means "more modern / new modules? Each of the ones listed at the end will be 30, 50, 80% fiction ...