Nahen

If Sidewinder's shooting from a distance of 7-8 miles is a maneuvering combat... Well, 10-15 kilometers for me is not a maneuvering combat. Even more so when you have 10-20 thousand feet of advantage of height ... This is how look 80-90% of kills by F-15 with use Sidewinders... By the way, in DCS you can fire the Sidewinder M from a distance of about 20 miles and hit successfully.

And let's end here because you are creating some your own theories - show me where I wrote that the F-15 was created to fight Russian bombers? Just don't take anything out of context - show me word for word where I wrote it. Just like the fact that I wrote - supposedly - that maneuvering issues were not taken into account when designing the F-15? show me? It makes me laugh - as someone wrote above, one guy goes against the flow and is surprised ... Only none of these "others" can give specific arguments ... The arguments of others - one documented maneuvering dogfight against 102 other dogfights. - hypothetical possibilities of maneuver fights against zero documented maneuver fights in the last 20 years, - "go look for how many kills there were with Sidewinders" against specific data on a specific conflict with numbers... This is how it looks .. and who is going against the flow here? I'm looking for a quarrel? Cool... One thing is certain, as I can see, we have a lot of professionals here who can use calculators, but they are completely unable to compare certain issues with reality. For me, the end of the topic - yes, the F-15 is the best close dogfighter in the world, especially in the E version with CFT and 3 tons more weight than the previous versions, it escapes physics, it does not succumb to inertia. However, it is completely unsuitable for BvR. And the F-16 actually sees 50 miles, and can fire missiles up to 25. So does the Hornet... Congratulations on your well-being, more calculators and charts. do not accidentally confront the real life because it can have tragic consequences.

Great, and how does this compare to your theory of most kills with Sidewinders? Why is no one else confirming this other than you? Can you tell me where you got this information from if it's not available anywhere? It amuses me to discuss with someone like that who comes and undermines someone's words without ANY substantive arguments. If you're going to write about nothing, why don't you go to a Kardashian forum or something...

I do not understand the question? Are you conflating the concept of maneuvering combat with the fact that the plane make evasive manouvers before missile? Hmm, that doesn't really make sense anymore...

Typical - speak up but without arguments, insulting the other side. you have arguments, give them, you don't have, go discuss something else. I wrote - I don't know everything, I'm eager to learn about maneuvering fights of F-15 pilots. Do you have any example besides the one mentioned? You don't have, go do anything constructive. Sure, I'm wrong.. and that's why for the last 20, maybe 30 years, there hasn't been any maneuvering combat... but that's how it always will be... Funny... If I'm wrong, give me one example... I don't know everything so give me an example

In 1991, 36 F-15 victories, 26 with AiM-7 Sparrow and 10 with AiM-9 Sidewinder... hmm so out of 104 victories you say the rest is AiM-9? I seriously doubt it... first of all, most of the kills are Israeli pilots - and they don't use Sidewinders, they use their own Python missiles. So Sidewinders? Are Pythons? Reading the descriptions of Israeli fights, most of them had a standard course - rockets fired most often from a distance of 7-15 miles. In most cases again AiM-7... So how is it really?

F-15EX It's enough for me, as on a PvP server for one flight with 6x120 and 2x9 I come back with 2-3 kills and two-three AMRAAMs, two Sidewinders under the plane. I consider this a successful flight. But if you manage to come back with 5-6 kills and without AMRAAMs, I'm not complaining either I don't know what I would do with 10 x AiM-120 there probably wouldn't be enough fuel to use them

True.

If you are sure, give examples. Because how else than information can you build your confidence? Have I downplayed the importance of maneuvering combat anywhere? Tactical fighters were, are and will be exposed to it to a much greater extent than air superiority fighters. No, I defend the thesis that the F-15 is an aircraft that was not designed for this type of combat. Its priority task/destiny is BvR combat. His 40 years of "service" confirms this thesis - 104 confirmed kills, one of which - F-15A at a time when A-A missiles were just developing and were not as effective as they are today - using a cannon that was definitely maneuvering combat. To my knowledge, all other kills were obtained with missiles fired from a range of not less than 7-10 miles. Of course, if there were other cases of shooting down in typical maneuver combat conditions, I would be happy to learn about them and expand my knowledge. For today, I defend my thesis based on what I read, found on the web, discussed with a dozen or so F-15 pilots in the 90s. But I'm open to specific information - which I think I showed in the CFT discussion. It just so happens that I personally treat DCS as a simulator. So everything I do in it in terms of flight and combat, I try to make it as close to reality as possible. Of course, as far as the DCS itself or the equipment I use allows, etc. So based on that, I'm saying - maybe I'm wrong - that maneuver fights in DCS are a kind of fetish. I understand that people have an inner need to compete, and it's best if the defeated opponent sees the happy face of the winner. Hence the love for these types of fights in DCS and beyond. I focus on hours of preparation for the mission, briefings, analyzing and planning the execution of the mission so that, above all, I can do it without my own losses. Especially when it comes to my wingmen. That's why I fly the F-15C and hope that the F-15E module retains the BvR combat capabilities of its real counterpart. So - yes - for me, the fetish is this and not another approach to DCS. This also translates into "recreational" flying on public PvP servers. You say that BvR is a fetish in DCS because there is a lot of information and discussion about it... cool, just one thing I'm wondering how can you fight effectively in BvR when most modules have castrated radars? Would you like to see the faces of F-16 pilots who found out in their time, at what distance you can detect and lock the MiG-29 in DCS in TWS... BvR theory, and practice at the minimum limits of this type of combat - the reality of DCS. Fetish as hell.

Ben-Eliyahu... Did you know that an F-15E shot down a helicopter with a bomb? Damn, why did they give him the ability to carry A-A rockets ... That's more or less the line of reasoning - 1 out of 104 cases bravo You ... You still haven't given an example of an F-15 maneuvering combat in the last 20 years...

First of all - as I wrote - the MiG-29 was supposed to be an opponent for tactical fighter aircraft such as the F-16. Hence the emphasis on MANEUVERABILITY. So you're telling me the MiG-29 was designed on the same lines as the F-15? I don't think so. Again, tell me the number in history F-15 kills in maneuvering combat? I'll repeat another thing because I don't think you understand - DCS is a fun fetish of maneuvering combat, the reality is avoiding maneuvering combat at all costs. What did not you understand? Since the end of the Vietnam War, USAF pilots probably conducted maneuver fights only during RED FLAG and similar - Baltops, for example. Besides, USANavy pilots did the same in Miramar and other school events. Ask any F-15 pilot if he'll go into a maneuvering fight with the advantage of speed and altitude, radar, missile quality? Analyze, for example, the shooting downs of the MiG-29 over the former Yugoslavia ... etc ... Why do you have to write about the same thing over and over again? Example in last 20 years? It varies from time to time

No, the F-15 is not the F-14, it wasn't supposed to be an antidote to bombers, it was supposed to be a baricade for fighters, bombers, and ballistic and cruise missiles to the best of its abilities. That's why the unit in Alaska was so important, and that's why there were so many "grinds" between the US and Canadian authorities in 1970's when F-15As were sent there with the task of potentially shooting down nuclear missiles flying over Canada.

That's why it's funny to me in the discussion about a real plane from end cold war era to push the importance of the possibility of maneuvering combat ... unless we're talking about the First or Second World War.

Nowhere did I say that maneuverability was not an assumption of the F-15 design. I wrote that the priority was speed and altitude, I took it for granted that maneuverability must be considered when designing a fighter, but it was not a priority here. If it was, first of all, the F-15 would be created like the F-16 as an aerodynamically unstable aircraft with an active FbW control system. These types of planes are much more maneuverable than the F-15. am I raving? I don't think so... Secondly, at that time, apart from planes, missiles carrying nuclear warheads were also a threat - the F-15 was also supposed to shoot them down - and maneuverability is completely unnecessary here - speed and altitude. Tell that to the pilots who in the 90s of the last century in Poland had the opportunity to conduct training dogfights with Polish MiG-29s, especially those flying the F-15 and F-16 Baltops 2000 for example. The MiG-29 was supposed to be a counterbalance to the F-16 - agreed, but the Su-27 was just counterbalance for the F-15. At low altitudes, only the F-16 and Mirage 2000 had a chance against the MiG-29 And - I am writing this based on the pilots' reports from these trainings and not on the basis of "technical data".

And again, in reality, no one in their right mind dont goes into maneuver combat. And this is the DCS fetish... these hundreds of timely comments from people I shot down: "spaamram" - although I usually shoot one rocket at one target and hit, " come down here and we'll fight " - I won't drive on the ground because I play with an airplane simulator, not a car... " noob flying > 2 Mach and I think it's funny " - yes I fly because I can.

The MiG-29 and Su-27 have much higher "maneuverability" than the F-15. They are aerodynamically superior to any other generation 4 aircraft. The discussion started with questions about whether the F-15E in DCS will be able to "take" the place of the F-15C - YES under the conditions I gave - radar, speed, ceiling. And that's basically where the discussion should end. I don't fly anything other than F-15C waiting for E. I'll risk the thesis that unless I make a stupid mistake and don't push closer than 20 miles to the enemy, currently no module is able to threaten me. If the F-15E's radar in A-A mode works as it should and the plane itself can accelerate to around Mach 2.2-2.3 at an altitude of 40-50 thousand feet, it will be just as insurmountable. And so it should be.

Only DCS fanboys fight in close dogfigts with smille on face. In fact, every pilot avoids this kind of combat as much as possible, and the F-15 was designed for that. And among the DCS gamers there is some fetish of "maneuver fighting" Well DCS boys it's not reality - it's where you die for real...

When do you think the F-15 was designed? It was during the determination of the assumptions and the subsequent project that it was assumed that the F-15 was to match the MiG-25 and one of the basic parameters taken into account was the speed "estimated" at around Mach 3, which the USSR at that time emphasized wherever it could -> " MiG-25 the fastest plane in the world that can a catch up the SR-71". That's why the plane was created, which for 40 years had others far behind it. And there was created others after him that could easily outmaneuver him - and the F-15 continued to knock them down without getting into a maneuvering fight. No - I believe it was designing a plane that won't have to fight at close range. Because it's always a lottery. And as you can see, it works from 1975 to today

May I ask the source from which you got the information that the F-4 was faster than the F-15? I was very interested in it...

Well look, the cannon, its ammunition, maneuverability did not prevent the F-14, from being designed for interception and not for maneuvering combat ... Strange no? The B-52s, like the B-17s and B-29s before, were designed as strategic bombers, not "nuclear" bombers - can you see the difference? The B-52 was not created as a "nuclear bomber" but a strategic one - Does this difference matter to you? In the same way, the F-15 was created as an air superiority fighter - I would go further - as a strategic air superiority fighter. Not as a tactical fighter.

A simple question - how many times an F-15 shot down an enemy plane during maneuver combat? How many of the 104 kills were the result of maneuver combat? I will ask for examples.

I don't want the same thing over and over again... what was the point of creating the F-15, F-16, A-10? After all, the F-15 does everything, doesn't it? Somehow, however, someone decided that next to the F-15, an agile fighter was needed. The programs from which the F-15 and F-16 grew basically ran in parallel. So I ask the question - WHY??

The guidelines of the VFX / FX program have changed drastically after the appearance of the MiG-25... Quote from assumptions: >In September 1968, a request for proposals was released to major aerospace companies. These requirements called for single-seat fighter having a maximum take-off weight of 40,000 pounds (18,000 kg) for the air-to-air role with a maximum speed of Mach 2.5 and a thrust-to-weight ratio of nearly 1:1 at mission weight.< And this was the basis after the appearance of the MiG-25 The F-15 was created not as a maneuverable fighter but as a response to the MiG-25 and nothing else. That he surpassed him in every way is another story. But you do know that right? For maneuver combat, the YF-16/ YF-17 was being developed at the same time. if anyone thinks otherwise...

Yes, I know, radars in the 21st century on planes see 50 miles and rockets fly at 20 and hit 10...

Let me repeat - a community that my friends and I created and where there are currently about 100 active people. Once a week, on average, we fly "serious" missions involving an average of 25-35 people. It may be much more. Over 90% of mission issues with performance, disconnections, strange controllers behavior are reported by people flying the Steam version. What other source do you want? When they switch to standalone version the problems either end or their frequency drops drastically. Especially for those with "weaker" computers. What would you dont come up with - by running DCS Steam edition, you run the Steam overlay which takes up some resources. And even if both versions were 1 to 1 the same, in the case of Steam Edition there is an additional unnecessary soft that works in the background. And most likely, he generates problems. And on my own example - once I installed WarThunder from Steam ... I never played because despite several reinstalls it crashed during startup. The version from the developer's website went without problems ... Coincidence? I don't think so. And I had more than a few such cases, and so did my friends. And by the way, I've been using Steam for many years. But unfortunately, in my and many other cases, the truth is that steam as such - overlay, "system" can generate problems.