Kev2go

If its the cobra i hope its the Ah1W not the Ah1F. Whiskey can still use TOW's for those who want an olderschool missile, but it can carry the Hellfires too. Plus wingtip Aim9's or AGM122 sidearm.

The L would be an L " badum tsss" attempt at pun aside. I really do think Uh60M would fit better along what we have in terms of helos Like Ch47F,Ah46D and Oh58D all having glass cockpits.

unless you have a different reference material then i do, the 2006 natops which covers F5E/F/N variants the F5N still has a radar installed with operation of APQ 159 described. Only some F5F's did not have radars installed and the above aforementioned manual has cockpit diagrams for radar and non radar installed F5F. The only thing missing from making it an F5N proper is the lack of digital radios and INS which is what the swiss had, which is noted in the manual to describe the difference between the F5N and the older F5E aggressors Navy had. There was no explicit mention of removal of guns, and the manual still had diagrams of how they are installed, and instruction on how to do aerial gunnery with with the gunsight and/or aid of radar.

sure GPS updating can be removed by date forcing nav system to fallback to INS only, but the new nav system can't be removed ( unless ED plans to do both variants). The pre EGI jets have different nav system with a different physical panel.

with the exception of the flight stick yea. looks about the same.

He has point the F15C radar has fixed detection ranges in the sense it doesn't take into account probability of detection. Unless somethings changed recently and i missed it in the patch notes.

I get what your saying but F15e that razbam was modelling wasnt even all that early. Like day 1 ea. The f15e variant came with egi navigation suite. So that alone made it unsuitable for gulf era, unless you turned off the gps within the ufc functions, and then just kept in mind armament limitations for 1st gulf war. Suite 4 + was supposed to be the baseline. And this was a circa 2003-2005 era aircraft. At a time when it got datalink and jdam integration( with plus version) with features from later iterations that were planned to be added down the line. Of course not all baseline suite 4 features got a chance to be completed but that another topic. But to get back to your point of course the ideal solution to make everyone happy is either having multiple iterations of the f15c ( eg msip 2 circa gw1 and a msip 2 late) or having a checkbox what features are enabled or not

IF you want to cite missions like the Iranian reactor strike its worth recalling for the sake of context the timeframe and version of F15 used. Israelis had only the F15A at the time, and when most aircraft didn't have targeting pods, precision guided muntions, or a good enough a/g radar, ccip delivery of unguided bombs was fine. Circa 2005, having only unguided bombs utilizing ccip or cdip makes you more limited, and is no longer considered the peak of a/g bombing capabilities. It of course is still nice to have then just a pure a/a platform. Even though in the usaf bombing in the eagle wasn't done, I'd think an f15c would have better bombing ability then the f15a just due to assumption it will have sarmap capability. According to f15's radar development roadmap apg63 psp was supposed to get " high resolution" radar map in 1987. In turn according to forecast international they stated apg63v1 carried over operational modes of the apg70. So I don't know for certain if the usaf detuned the air to ground capabilities of apg63v1 given f15c's missions is air to air or if strike eagle tier sarmap resolutions were retained, but the implication of what I read from forecast international seems to to impy the latter. Of course i haven't found a recent enough manual from time frame of apg63v1 was in use to self verify with certainty that's the case.

I don't think the old f15c photo I shared was a non msip 2 bird since it has mpcd. No what I mean is original msip 2 birds didnt have have advanced stick. I think It's a 1990s upgrade to the msip 2. There are various in incremental changes that don't differentiate an original 1985 msip 2 versus a post gulf war version terms of nomenclature but in terms of functionality some stuff like flight stick got replaced later.

Also not sure how prevelant ins+gps or egi was circa 2005. I found some photos from a 2008 airshow and this f15c still has the original ins panel. Maybe not all birds had it? https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air-Force/McDonnell-Douglas-F-15C-Eagle/1370483 https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/6288723

I'm not sure if the new stick grip was added initially. The 1980s manuals I've seen have msip as having original stick grip like in this photo

For now. F15E may as well be abandonware if the ed razbam dispute is not resolved. Forget about even getting it feature complete out of EA. Right now even basic bug fixes and maintenance aren't even being done on it. There's no guarantee a future patch won't break the jet at some point. So if anything this just leaves an A/G gap left for the eagle as a platform. Having only dumb bombs won't allow f15c do everything a f15e would but the versatility is welcomed. The more versatile an airframe the more enticing it is to a broader audience. Aka more sales.

It also makes sense from to have a module have more versatility. Having a/g even if it's just dumb bombs using ccip/Crrp would still be nice to have. But I'm guessing apg63v1 will have some form of sarmapping which would allow greater usability for dumb bombs If it's documented in dash 34 they are using then I hope to see it simulated.

if A/G capability is in the manual it aught to be modelled. Pretty sure F14A never actually saw use in combat with dumb bombs or zunis either.

im not mistaking anything I am just working under assumption we are getting APG63 v1 and not AESA Apg63 v2, and therefore am expecting JTIDS system. The other 3 lettered sim's F15C manual references theirs as the JTID eagles. The Sit page format is similar to F15E's FDL Sit page.

apparently only squadron with APG63V1 and datalink was the 390th from Idaho. 20 aircraft. https://skytrailer.nl/eagle-squadrons/390th-fighter-squadron/

yeah block 3i being an initial version followed by block 3F as the full "100%" mission capability or something. I just think it would make more sense for an circa 2015 initial IOC F35B to have this software, not a USAF F35A. So like not only does ED admits in Q&A they need to crutch on lockmart F35 simulators as thier main means of source material, it still means they have to use the wrong software suite for a different service variant of the F35.

ive read that the block 2b software is what the USMC F35B became IOC with. F35A reached IOC at a later date with a newer software suite, IF i recall correctly block 3i should be the earliest for an initial USAF service F35A.

agreed. i would of thought this would make sense as an AI asset, or maybe even a Flaming cliffs level aircraft, But a full fidelity? I dont think ED has access to Dash 1 and Dash 34 documentation for a block 2b.

F5E-3 is simply the airframe. You can have F5E-3 airframe with various features. It just wont be accurate for an USAF aggressor model for an F5E3 to have ALR87 RWR and Countermeasures. Only the swiss buybacks in the navy had those circa 2006. The buyback Swiss F5E's that the US navy received must not have been the quad rail variants( most photos of Swiss F5's only have wingtip mounts), because its not in the 2006 natops. Only wingtip sidewinder mounts are considered valid for a US aggressor based on that publication. With the Aim7M on the F4E you mentioned wasn't done simply because the community wanted it. Even if in practice F4 squadrons didn't have Aim7M's issued in stock, IT is at least referenced in some of the later published manuals and is therefore valid. IRRC the F4E 1990 dash 1 has Aim7M in the stores loading section. Can't say the same for the F5E swiss buybacks and the additional aim9 rails. F5N didnt get upgraded with new features until later. A circa 2006 era F5N as per the natops has the exact same avionics as the Swiss F5E models. IF you really want quad rails without having another franken bird as a US operated agressor F5, best compromise would be to just split it into 2 versions. Swiss F5E3 and then F5N, with the only difference being quad rails and the nation its flown by. Not a big deal for ED since they have done so with other modules. There are 2 versions of the P51D , and 3 versions of the P47D both of which have such minor variations.

yeah having some airfields on the channel islands would be nice for v2.0 of normandy

coming back to old posts, we now have CH47F as a EA module. With this being the most modern utility helicopter, it makes me want a Uh60M more especially since there is a Uh60L community mod, and a glass cockpit Uh60 would feel more in line with the technology level the Ch47F offers. And no the Uh60M doesn't actually have FBW, There was some white paper about it but never came to fruition. Actually produced UH60M's in service are still using some form of SCAS system, it looks like the same one as Uh60L based on comparing scas panels between both Uh60L and Uh60M versions.

yeah it appears to be the same Inertial navigator thats referenced in the 2006 natops. So yeah guess this INS was available as early as 1974 for the customers that wanted it.

Yes flaming cliffs 2024 sold as a new product for its price tag should looked like a 2024 game and just be fc3 with dumbed down copy paste mig15, f86, and f5e thrown in. Reflect maybe why it had mixed reviews on steam unlike Fc3, precisely for the sort of reasons i stated above. The reason an individual ff module costs as much as it does is the systems complexity not because the 3d model looks pretty for the time it was developed, compared to a predessor.

The only difference between ff and fc tier should be lower complexity of operations. Ie the lack of clickability of cockpits and simpler avionics systems, not visual quality. If not by the same logic ed should of downgraded mig15, f86 , and f5e 3d models so the ff modules look better then what was included in fc 2024