henshao

I didn't say it worked, just that they apparently tried it

reminds me of a tidbit I read about during ACEVAL/AIMVAL, some of the techniques pilots were using to try to get around the revenge fox-2 vulnerability due to visual id requirements on sparrow launches, and tomcats guiding one another's sparrows. I assume the lead ship would visual ID (confirm hostile) shoot sparrow and break away from revenge fox-2 while the distant trailing fighter held lock and guided. don't know if it worked or not, though.

supposing you do have a set multiple search/track/guidance channels for a given radar, if the purpose is to deconflict with other aircraft why would it would switch between launches on the same jet

mechanically I have no idea why guiding a second sparrow would make the first sparrow go dumb therefore I was confused by this statement by a former Tomcat pilot? rio? "Leo fires a second sparrow, which makes the first one go stupid"

An F-15A/C module could come down to whether this video game ever gets serious about being a simulator and allows for the air-to-ground ordnance ALL eagles were built to carry, whether USAF used it or not (inspired by israel they did, briefly, before the strike eagle was delivered)

I find the TWS indicator an interesting feature...normally TWS explicitly does not give a lock warning in DCS

unfailingly pedantic as always, draconus

Oh, and minor note: these were Idaho birds, not Alaska. IE the JTIDS eagles were not the AESA eagles AFAIK

You think that's low, go check out the Tumanskys on the Foxbat...compressor section on those jets was almost cosmetic

AMRAAM capability is one of the bigger clues, at the absolute earliest mid-87. lack of aim-9x support also bookends the other way but I'm not sure on that side

Oh, there's no confusion that the original JTIDS and the later MIDS are different animals. Just that ~25 birds had JTIDS at least before '93 (5 in '86). Of course much of this has been discussed ad nauseum over the decades. I know we'll never get DL for the FC3 F-15C. ED won't even fix basic discrepancies which have been around for years, let alone give us a functional new SIT-uation page or that simple ability to drop an iron bomb which McDonnell engineers worked so hard at (and occasionally was so successfully used; Eagle's accuracy was considered equal or better than A-7D/E, A-6A, F-111A/D). My main point was really that a similar number of F-15Cs from the era had a Link-16 datalink, as MiG-29Gs or Su-33s (other FC3 modules) that ever operated; it would have been justified, had ED done so (perhaps they would have split the module into F-15C and F-15C/DL, or something). My research shows that the 125lb JTIDS terminal in question, AN/URC-107(V6), was the same as was later put into the F-14D although without some of the Tomcat's limitations. A minor point of note is the F-15C JTIDS terminal output power is 200MW, as compared to the later F-15C MIDS-LVT3/FDL terminal 50MW output (USQ-140(V)3(C)) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36720827.pdf (IOC 1992 for F-15) join me in my lamentations

Did they have issues with update rate or something? Or avionics weight?

I'm still trying to replicate the issue I haven't been on DCS much

There are two aspects of this to consider: The lookdown performance of the radar, and The lookdown performance of the missile In theory so long as the radar tracks well enough to keep the target illuminated, it comes down to the missile's seeker to do the hard work

Interesting, then, that he was giving me the range (150)

Boom or hose?

Now this is contrary to what I've heard from F-15 pilots, at least for something as simple as increasing or decreasing level speed, but I can't prove it for sure

the APG-63 for the F-15 was underperforming. The thread for that bug was recently locked. In the latest patch I notice no increase in detection range however my F-15 wingman is reporting contacts at 150 miles and seemingly beyond. I think ED touched the Eagle's radar but made a mistake somewhere.

Which is the PTC trying to hold steady, the aircraft nose or the velocity vector? because it is doing neither

Let me know if you watched the video I added. If the jet is holding 1g the flight path should not change as it does

If you want to go deeper into the F-15 control inaccuracies, the jet will pitch up or down based on whether the AOA is increasing or decreasing. That is to say, the velocity vector and the aircraft datum (nose) will gravitate towards each other under acceleration, and away from each other under deceleration. The F-15's CAS should hold the datum steady under those conditions. It has been this way since LOMAC iirc. f15pitchcasbug01.trk

Might set Razbam back ANOTHER 5 years...

They exist for a reason

Not to get sidetracked with the exploits of the A and C eagles, but here: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/operation-wooden-leg-f-15-baz-fighters-became-bombers-performed-longest-air-strike-iaf-history/ Basically the E exists because of the success of the D in the strike role (and israel's much greater imagination than the USAF)