JB3DG

There is not to my knowledge. There aren't even any MPD pages that would handle HARM targeting. Also none of the stores limitation configurations in the -1 include the HARM.

What were those issues?

You adjusting your TDC mode to TGT from things like CUE or MARK etc?

Yeah the F-15E does have an attack vector built into the designation system.

Time for "Don't call me Shirley"?

Not an E pit tho....

Engagement dynamics weren't even close. They didn't even get into a maneuvering fight. It was all headshots with AIM-7s and all-aspect AIM-9Ms. No need to dump bombs if you can kill before the merge with missiles. The F-4E would be different as the AIM-9E/J are all still tail aspect shots only. Maybe could get AIM-7s off if you could identify the bandit early on.

I believe there had to be some caution to avoid locking onto a side-lobe return rather than the main which could affect your ranging accuracy considerably.

If they are accurate enough to score direct hits on a row of tanks, think of being able to plink 12 or more in a single pass, vs say 5 or 6 very close to eachother with a single GBU-28, which is unlikely to have as much effect in open air since most of its mass is in the penetrator to survive going 100ft underground and only has about 675lbs of explosive. That explosive effect has much more power under ground since shockwaves travel faster through earth than air plus there's the cavern effect. Its good for taking down structures. SDBs, especially the II variant with its laser guided/multi sensor capability, are a force multiplier for wiping out vehicles in the field. Smaller leaner meaner keener.

I think only the F-4S had some sort of datalink and I don't think it was anything like the Tomcat.

While the F-16 stick is based on force sensing, it still moves a small amount and requires quite a bit of force to move it. And no, there are indeed women out there with way more power than many computer based folks (my previous gym instructor is a petit girl with a beastly amount of strength that I aspired to. Routinely won Toyota black ops warrior races which are all upper body strength), so I'm not surprised that there are very capable women flying fighters. Also I'm not saying it's godlike strength, just describing the sharp difference in force between what actual aircraft have vs desktop sticks which are pretty flimsy in comparison. Finally I was talking in general, jets like the F-18 and F-15 have that much large range of motion. In the F-16, it would translate to a much larger range of force required. You aren't going to go from the heavy forces in a T-38 to a featherweight touch in an F-16. The designers would be sure to make it of equivalent sensitivity.

That's not a software problem. I got to try the full cockpit T-38C simulators at Sheppard AFB as well as the VR simulators I work on with commercial grade forcefeedback hardware. I'm a pretty skinny guy and found it took considerable effort just to move the stick in the full pit sim. The base commander jumped in and demonstrated a few things and if he threw a TM warthog around like he did that stick he would have snapped the shaft clean off the base. Stick forces in real aircraft are designed for guys who routinely pump quite a bit of iron at the gym, not lightweights with desktop sticks. And I found my own precision at formation flight took a giant leap with the higher force sticks compared to what I run at home, which is also due to the fact that they have a much greater range of motion compared to your average desktop stick. 1 inch of movement on a warthog vs 1 inch of movement on those sticks is considerably different.

Yeah I've seen the effects of intake geometry on the T-38A vs the PMP T-38C (dropped max mach from 1.6 to 1.15). The F-15 does have variable inlets and exhausts though, I believe more advanced and capable than the F-111. That said, I would want to see total form drag as well as wave drag numbers. Greater mass means lower acceleration even when in level flight (simple a = F/m) and if the pig has a larger frontal area than the F-15E the total drag is still going to be worse. Combined with lower acceleration means you would have to spend more time in burner to simply get to the same speed which makes it less practical.

The F-15E does have flight controls in the rear IRL, so it should be flyable from the rear as well.

Just checked my '93 -1 for the 15E, -229 engines. Max mach at full burner at low altitude is 1.2 at sea level (goes up to 1.3 at 10 000ft) for a clean jet, which is also the structural design limit. Put 12 Mk-82s, LANTIRN, 4 AIM-9s, + CFTs, and it drops to about 1.05 at sea level, 1.2 at 10 000ft, with 1.25 being the CFT design limit at that altitude. In addition, a clean jet level acceleration to mach 1.2 at 10 000ft takes between 26 and 32 seconds depending on temperature deviation. With the above 12 Mk-82 loadout, that jumps up to 64 seconds on a STD-10°C day, and simply won't reach mach 1.2 on a STD+10°C day. More like Mach 1.1. I don't have performance charts for the F-111F (the most powerful variant), but given that the max AB thrust was only 25000lbf, while the -229 is 29000lbf, plus the 111F is 16000lbs heavier, I don't think it would better the numbers much. At the very least the low level acceleration would be worse than the F-15E, even if the max mach was higher. It is doubtful that a clean F-111F would have gone over Mach 1.3 at full burner at low alt. For comparison though, I looked up the F-105D and it is also only marginally better at Mach 1.2 at sea level to Mach 1.4 at 10000ft for a clean jet. Performance tanked comparably to the F-15E when loaded. Even the F-16 doesn't do much better than any of the above jets when clean, and does considerably worse when loaded. Finally, the F-4E charts with 4 AIM-7s only equals the above numbers, which means that anything else added on is only going to get worse from there. I can't post the charts, but someone who has them like GGTharos (I assume?) can back me up on this. Technology doesn't get better going back in history. It gets worse.

This. The T-38C received the performance modification program (PMP) upgrades which improved low altitude performance and reduced takeoff distance. But the intake design chosen dropped the max mach from 1.6 at altitude to 1.15.

Super at low altitude is the key here. Mach 1.1 at 1000ft is a very different beast to Mach 1.1 at 25-30 000ft. Not only is the speed of sound higher, but the gap between IAS and TAS is considerably smaller because of much greater air density, and as a result, the drag penalty is proportionately greater. You *might* achieve at least Mach 1 with stores and full AB at high altitude. Not going to happen at low altitude. Supersonic capability at all should be thought of rather as a side effect of low altitude requirements design. If you try to reduce drag and increase power to be able to hit 600kts at low altitude, you are probably going to sail through mach at high altitude.

No jet, not even the F-111, is going to go over Mach 1 at low alt with anything hanging outside the bomb bay. The F-111 is actually worse in terms of thrust vs drag compared to the F-15E.

They all got occasions where they show up at fighter pilot meetups and the moment they say something heads snap around and eyes get misty cuz there's usually at least one pilot in the room who owes their neck to her command.

The original betty in the F-15E and C, as well as the early Hornets and AV-8Bs is Kim Crow. I got actual voice recordings straight from her for a commercial sim I worked on. Did some other recordings with her for various other jets as well. In the F-16 it was Erica Lane. Eurofighter has Sue Milne. Leslie Shook was the newer betty for newer commands in the Superhornet, and Joan Elms was the "Sexy Sally" in the B-58 Hustler. Patricia Hoyt is the betty for the Boeing 717 and C-17.

This. IRL I would far rather do the F-111's mission in an F-15E than the pig. Situational Awareness goes up sharply for a huge drop in task saturation.

The avionics in the F-111 made a 2 crew jet. The complexity of everything being older tech made it much more of a challenge compared to operating an F-15E with all its HOTAS and glass cockpit power.

Tactical bushes

So long as the TGP is turned on with the switch in the rear cockpit, along with the countermeasures controls, the upfront HOTAS is completely capable of doing everything the rear does with the A-G radar, the TGP, the A-A radar, individual weapon sensors (ie GBU-15/AGM-130/AGM-65), etc.

The way they could tell if it was an airborne radar vs a ground based radar is by how the strobe would move around the display. Azimuth would change differently for an airborne interceptor vs a ground based radar.