Sierra99

No...F-15C Model ACES II Seats are Black...The FC3 model has Grey Seats. There is a small mod out there that fixes it...But I'm gonna assume ED will get it correct this time around...

To be quite honest I didn't do that on purpose...That being said your tone is pretty abrasive. You do you boo... I'm simply done arguing with you. You want it your way...that's fine. I sincerely apologize to everyone else on this thread for leading it astray.

Nobody is "Waving their hands about and asking people to believe them". To be honest I really don't care if you believe me or not. All I can do is try and educate you. Yes the -34 mentions manual release of Air to Ground Weapons...Now I invite you to read the rest of the -34 and answer the following questions for me. You will find the information in Section II NORMAL PROCEDURES. -- What Air to Ground weapons are listed that can be carried by the F-15? -- What are the Exterior inspection steps for Air to Ground Weapons? -- What are the Interior inspection steps for Air to Ground Weapons? -- What are the Air to Ground Attack steps inflight for each Air to Ground Weapon? What HUD mode is used to ensure accurate delivery? Finally... -- What stations are Air to Ground weapons you identify certified to be carried on? I know you folks HATE this answer but the simple fact is USAF F-15Cs did not employ Air to Ground Weapons for the variety of reasons listed. Israel did...Maybe Saudi Arabia although I don't think so...The USAF did not. I am basing my comments on empirical data, published articles and conversations with actual F-15C Pilots and Maintainers... Not a single sentence on Page 1-1 of a very old Dash-34.

I don't need any evidence beyond Basic Economics. I spent 22 years in the military and I know how the military does business. Committees decide what capabilities are and are not going to be used on aircraft for Various reasons. The thrust reversers on CFM-56 engines used to re-engine the KC-135 fleet were removed because the cost to maintain them out-weighed the operation advantages of having them...Economics. CAT III ILS equipment was removed from the KC-10A because the cost to maintain the systems and certify them out weighed the Operational advantages. Air to Ground capability was removed from the F-15s because the cost associated with testing and Maintaining the systems out weighed the operational advantages. ALSO...Politics plays a HUGE role. The Air Force wanted an Air Superiority Fighter...If it can drop bombs lets use it for that too. Not what the generals wanted so they made sure the capability was not available Yeah...Yeah it kind of does because A. Its not realistic... and B. It's unnecessary code that takes time and money to write...Just like the real airplane. I'm not sure for fact but I will bet folding money the wiring was not included on production aircraft because of A. Weight B. You don't put in wires you're not going to use Basic economics actually makes my case air tight. You understand were talking about the Mid Seventies right? By the time the F-15C entered production Air to Ground Capability had LONG been forgotten because it was to be an Air Superiority fighter...nothing else. The wiring and "Air to Ground Stuff" wouldn't have even been installed. Nothing there to use.

" The US Eagle jet also has the wiring in question, and all the software needed to use those bombs. The only thing preventing US Eagles from dropping bombs is pen pushers at the Pentagon not giving them any. " Incorrect...And comes down to basic economics... First, First the USAF removed the radar and HUD software used for air-to-ground operations. Every Hud / Delivery mode would needed to be created AND validated to ensure they didn't interfere with other modes or sub modes. Validation flights cost money and since F-15s were not going to be used for Air to Ground delivery...There was no need to create, test and maintain that capability. Second, Every squadron has a Wartime mission that they train for and are evaluated on. The mission of the F-15C is air-to-air combat...Period. Their Pilots train for that mission and that mission alone. They don't waste training / Flying hours flying around dropping bombs for fun when that is not their mission.

IYKYK...

I'm on that discord...Didn't see a logical place to request a new bird...But I will look again

Any possibility of a CH-46 in the future?

Skate the only comment I disagree with is this one... The aircraft the F-35B was meant to replace was the AV-8B. The Marines needed a more capable V/STOL aircraft to replace the Harrier but the costs associated with such a small projected production run of F-35B was fiscally prohibitive. The only way to get the F-35B for the Marines was to spread out over all three services. F-35As and F-35Cs exist to bring the per unit cost down to a reasonable level. A friend who worked on the Boeing JSF program said there were many internal conversations about "What would happen" and "How much it would cost" to produce a Marine only version of the F-32 vs all three versions. The common understanding was "it's to expensive to do it that way."

For me it is the simple fact that despite what people here want to believe...The USAF simply did not use them on the F-15C as widely as people want to believe. This is a direct quote from an article written by the Commander of Air Forces Iceland in 1990... With all due respect...I'm gonna take his word and my firsthand experience of never seeing one in 22 years over the opinions of those here who maintain otherwise.

Yes...It does. And I not assuming anything...It's a fact. F-15Es are delivered from the factory with CFTs. They are part of the Basic Aircraft Weight and Moment for each aircraft and are accounted for in the individual aircraft Chart C because each aircraft is a little different and they do not normally operate without them. Period. F-15Cs are not and were not delivered with CFTs. They are not part of the Basic Weight and Moment for each aircraft because they do not normally operate WITH them. Period. Since 21-202 does not list CFTs as part of ANY Standard Configuration Load (SCL) and "Changes to this instruction are significant requiring a complete review"...They are not Standard or Normal loadouts. They are not Authorized for use. Period. Now, obviously the 57th used them. And I guarantee you without a shadow of a doubt their use was coordinated through HQ PACAF/DOTW before they did it. It might have been a 57th FIS supplement to 21-202...it might have been a Base Operating Instruction that prescribed in detail the requirements for use. Same goes for the Alaska units. But the simple fact is they didn't just decide it was a good idea...go out and find some CFTs nobody was using and start using them. Somebody approved their use. Israeli and Saudi Charlies are a completely different subject because they don't fall under OUR regulations. (Apples and Oranges) When a regulation says compliance is mandatory...it's not a suggestion. People get fired or die for things like that. If it's not listed in a regulation...It does not exist. I'm kinda done arguing with you. I have 22 years of experience actually dealing with and understanding Air Force Operating Instructions and Weight and Balance procedures. I have taught weight and balance computations to students in a classroom setting and on cargo missions actually loading cargo. Unless you can match that experience...You simply don't know what you are talking about as far as how the Air Force computes Weight and Balance or loads weapons. So here's the deal...You find me a USAF regulation stating CFTs are cleared for Normal Operations on USAF F-15Cs...I'll accept your word. You find me a Wing or base Operating Instruction for someplace other than Alaska or Kef directing the use of CFTs I'll eat my words. But until then I stand by my statements. Good luck here, I'm done.

You're confusing the -50 with the SCL charts. The -50 is a record of items that are Permanently or Semi Permanently attached to the aircraft... Lets look at 21-202 again. At the very top of the first page it says "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY" Not recommended...not suggested...Mandatory. The very first paragraph says "This instruction implements AFPD 21-2, Nonnuclear and Nuclear Munitions. It provides the single standard naming convention for aircraft configurations to be used within PACAF." According to the Header...This is mandatory. Next is the summary of revisions "This revision removes the existing numerically designated conventional loads formerly published in PAC AFI 21-202 and implements SCL naming conventions for all aircraft. This naming convention aligns with joint air operations standards developed for use in the Theater Battle Management Core System (TBMCS). SCL codes and individual unit matrices are at Attachment 1. Changes to this instruction are significant requiring a complete review." This means if it's not listed...you can't load it. Finally we get to Attachment 1 "SCL COMPONENTS AND UNIT MATRICES" Table A1.1. List of SCL components. Scroll all the way down to the end of the instruction. Conformal Tanks are not listed one single time. They are not listed for the F-15E's because they are considered "Part of the Aircraft" and accounted for in the Chart C. They are not listed for the F-15C's because they were not regularly used and they were not part of any standard configuration standard according to this regulation. They could not be used "at will" as others maintain because the instruction specifically states "Changes to this instruction are significant requiring a complete review." 21-202 actually ends the discussion. The previous version of PACAFI 21-202, dated 1 August 1997. lists 610 gallon drop tanks not CFTs in the F-15C SCLs. PACAFI 21-202, dated 9 May 2003 lists "1 Tank, 2 Tanks, 3 Tanks not CFTs in the F-15C SCLs. Basically CFTs did not exist because they were not included in the SCL listing. I am trying to locate older wing documents for Kef and Elmendorf. They might contain specific instructions permitting / directing the use of CFTs...but that action would been coordinated through HQ PACAF/DOTW. https://users.libero.it/ulisse31/PACAF 21-202.pdf

Actually I am going to correct you on this point... You are correct. CFTs are not mentioned for Strike Eagles in 21-202 not because they aren't tanks or loadouts. They are accounted for in the aircraft Basic Weight and Moment as computed using TO-1-1B-50 (Weight and Balance calculations). Specifically Chart "C". Since F-15Es are normally configured with CFTs...the CFTs would be added as to the TO-1-1B-50 Chart C as part of the Basic Aircraft for Weight and Balance. (I.E. "Permanent".) If they are removed...An annotation would either be made to the Chart C accounting for their removal or accounted for on the 365-4 Form F. (WT and Balance Clearance form) Since they are not "tanks" they are not listed as part of the F-15E SCLs. Since they are not Standard they are not listed as part of the F-15C SCLs. The document says exactly what I have been telling you. For the terms of our discussion, CFTs are not a Normal or Standard loadout for F-15Cs. If they were they would have been listed as such.

Since I have already acknowledged the 75th at Kef used CFTs on a regular basis I’m not sure why you are trying to convince me it happened. That being said… They are not…and have never been “Standard” across the F-15C fleet. In the end we will have to wait and see what ED decides. You have your mind made up as far as what you want and I know what’s realistic. fly safe.

Because...It's not. Posting a few examples of aircraft fitted with CFTs does not make it a "Standard and Normal configuration". As I said before in 22 years of active duty flying and in the 15 years since retirement I have never seen a photo of a USAF F-15C configured with CFTs. Not once. I have found references to Occasional use in Kef and Alaska...but they are far from the Norm. Why? Because the USAF is quite proficient at Air Refueling. Fighters don't need to add CFTs because we just add tankers to the strike plan and send it. That being said obviously more definitive information is required... Google "PACAF INSTRUCTION 21-202. PACAF STANDARD CONVENTIONAL LOADS" " This document provides the single standard naming convention for aircraft configurations to be used within PACAF." In other words it is THE source document for what is considered a "Standard and Normal" load for PACAF Aircraft. There is not one single mention of conformal tanks in that Instruction. 1,2,and 3 external tanks are mentioned...but no conformal tanks. (Every command has a similar document...google is your friend) The USAF F-15Cs being modeled by DCS do not need Conformal tanks nor do they need General Air to Ground capability. ( That was removed early in the their existence. ) I could be added to account for the outliers but they were far from the norm.