RShackleford

Where's the hype for this project recently? Bumping this thread just to show that people like me really want this. I will buy every razbam product after the F-15E comes along if they actually make it. Here's a sweet F-15E dropping a GBU-28 bunker buster,

General flight training for a fighter jet itself actually has very few time spent doing navigation and formation training, usually first 6-8 flights plus 5-6 sims before that. The students all come in with around 150-200 hours of flight training in other aircraft to train basic flight, nav, and formation, so when you get to a fighter unit you're expected to already be proficient at that so you're just getting those flights and sims to learn the new systems and basic handling characteristics. Also before that you get a whole ton of academics of course. Air to air and air to ground training generally goes from low situational awareness to high situational awareness. A2A being 1v1 close range in offensive, defensive, then high aspect, then 2v1 from close range in a defensive position to medium range in neutral position but needing to close to WVR (for ROE) to fight, then 2v2 BVR, and finally 4v4 BVR. A2G will do something similar, just basic premade bombing patterns at the range, then moving to more dynamic things such as dynamic tasking and close air support. Near the end for platforms that can do it, you start combining A2A and A2G by fighting your way to the target area, dropping bombs, then fighting out. Those are the basics, of course it gets much more difficult when you get to an operational squadron and do their training, plus participating in large force exercises. After awhile as a wingman, you go through 2 ship flight lead upgrade training, then 4 ship, then instructor.

If you deselect power from them, that's probably the case. I don't think that will happen unless you specifically flip a switch to turn everything off though. In that case, anything with a 1760/1553 bus connection will need to power up again, including your missiles (though they power up quick.) I'm personally looking forward to some real smart weapons capabilities, if they allow you to transfer coordinates into different bombs. Could allow you to even self target using the ATFLIR or A2G radar and put all those coordinates into separate bombs from a distance, then overflying and rippling everything off in one pass if it is a high risk area rather than performing multiple passes. Used to try doing this with DCS A-10C but it would require you to make mark points then stepping across them really quick and designating each target after each drop to get multiple bombs off in a single pass.

That's true, and other other certain circumstances can cause a fuel tank in one spot of the aircraft to be worse than if it's placed at a different spot even with the same aerodynamic shape. This is why you will never see a 3 bag F-15E, the center tank combined with the nav and targeting pods gives so much interference drag, it actually gives nearly 0 benefit to range. It would help if you fed fuel only from the center tank until it was empty and then drop it but like you mentioned, dropping tanks isn't a common occurrence IRL.

I didn't mean that it was wrong, I meant that the guidance of the missiles needs to utilize going up high to utilize the low air resistance rather than directly to the target

More reason the AIM-120 guidance needs updating in DCS. You can see how long the missile retains its energy when it's high up in thin air even with gravity working directly against it. Effective range becomes more limited by battery life when you send the missile up then over rather than on a pure intercept course and it gains a lot of speed back for high maneuverability in the terminal phase.

The Combat Hammer patch was pretty great. All the maintainers wanted it, Combat Hammer staff wanted it, and Strike Eagle bros like yourself wanted it. We dropped GBU-12s, GBU-31s, GBU-38s, GBU-54s, and even some CBU-105s and EGBU-28s, so a pretty awesome TDY. Thanks for buying patches, it goes to our coffee/beer/jalapeno popcorn fund ;). If you really want an aggressor patch I could potentially find one, but they're somewhat banned right now so snacko might not have any in stock lol

Ah, you met a couple of SPs from my squadron! Both are good dudes

Not all of the TPOD HOTAS is available in the front seat. Workload sharing is such a huge benefit when you're with an actual WSO but it will be difficult to find people in MP that are competent WSOs.

USAF fighter pilots start as wingmen flying as number 2 or 4, then it goes to 2-ship flight lead which can be a flight lead of just a 2-ship or it can be number 3 as an element lead of a 4-ship. Then there's a 4-ship flight lead which I've seen be in charge of up to 6 aircraft at once (generally on cross country flights, a tanker dragging 6 aircraft from one place to another.) After that there's instructor, who can instruct for all the upgrades to those different positions. Finally there's mission commander, who will usually be leading a 4-ship in the fight but ultimately responsible for the success of a much larger force. Beyond that, few pilots/WSOs are sent to fighter weapons instructor course and some are brought back there to be instructors at the course. WIC is definitely not for everyone, as they're spending 16-18 hours a day with maybe 1-2 hours of that being flying and the rest of the time debriefing to every detail of a flight, but the final product of WIC is not just extremely good flyers but also human encyclopedias for every system and weapon the aircraft is able to employ.

I don't think any JHMCS is anything but just the right eye in all US fighters except for the F-35, which is a completely different helmet. The helmet in the F-15E is just one eye, but USAF doesn't put as much money into 4th gen as Navy does so it could be different. If the USN does have better helmets I'd wager it's only for super hornets while legacy is using the old JHMCS.

Maybe. It could be an easy "use the same lift and drag models, just add weight due to the increased empty weight without" if that is how the flight of the C is modeled. If it is based more on performance charts, then probably a no go. With AFM/PFM I feel like it is likely more the former but I have no idea how the AFM/PFM actually work lol. This goes the other way of how PFM might be, which again, idk how it works. If simply changing the model to a 2-seater requires completely different modeling, high likelihood the F-15E will not have a non-cft version due to even more changes from the D model. Maybe years after the product is fully developed it could happen.

They do fly F-16s without externals very often in training because it is far easier to do than taking CFTs off and it is good for the F-16s training to BFM. First thing the F-16 will do in the merge is punch the tanks, so makes sense to train in BFM without them. It actually alters the performance a lot more than just a bomb or missile on the jet. Affects lift on the jet in a much different way than stores do and it causes all sorts of small instability nuances to the flight characteristics.

Kinda goes against the realism of the game, as F-15Es will never ever deploy without CFTs.

Speaking from experience in the F-15C in DCS only and flying the F-15E in real life, the F-15C in DCS is a monster compared to the F-15E. I don't know how well the F-15C performs in real life, but it sounds like it can rate around at 9Gs with just a slight nose low trajectory flight path. F-15E is also a bit heavier than F-15C even without CFTs due to bomb carrying requirements (stronger wings.) Basically all BFM fights, even at low fuel weight, consist of a 7-9G break turn followed by fighting around 5Gs after the initial break turn. This is with 220 engines.

Yeah I apologize, I was doing my math backwards. 15nm at 30k would be 20 degrees NL, pretty aggressive. 30nm at 30k would be 10 degrees, 60nm at 30k would be 5 degrees, so your math isn't correct either though. Using the rule of thumb it is a 5 degree descent, not 10. Using actually trigonometry, it is 4.8 degrees so still pretty close to rule of thumb. If the math is hard for people (like it apparently is for me lol) then just setup the intended airfield as a waypoint and wait for it to be 5 degrees nose low before starting the idle gliding descent, assuming the hornet can glide fine at a 5 degree descent which seems reasonable to me.

I don't think that is quite right. Of course this isn't an end all for all aircraft because it depends on glide ratio of each in idle power, but you aren't going to start your descent at 60nm from a field when cruising at 30k feet in most fighters. That would equate to roughly a 0.5 degree descent if my mental aviation math is right.

Thing is, if they allow non-CFT AA configs, it will make the F-15C in game useless if going with PW 229 engine F-15Es. 229 F-15Es without CFTs are beasts. I imagine RAZBAM is going to go with that model since it will be more fun for the players, giving you a kind of fighting chance in BFM and also give some performance when fully loaded out with bombs above 20k ft. It won't be fun for 220 engine F-15Es in game, having to use afterburner just to midair refuel with a full bomb load.

On the topic of max range, good rule of thumb to use for is climb to 1/3 of the range to where you're going. For example: if a field is 90nm away, climb to 30k ft, then slow to max range AoA (4.2.) Another rule of thumb is start your descent at 1/2 of your altitude, so for the 30k ft example you would start at 15nm from the base and it is idle power until getting to max endurance AoA (5.6, it's the same AoA as best glide ratio) then starting the descent. These aren't as precise as actually using the checklist to find what altitudes and speeds to fly but it works well for the most part and it's easy math to do in your head.

Depending on the year modeled, there is a SITP and a SITW, so both can be in command of the SIT but on a different "display." I've heard there used to be fights over who controlled the SIT back in the day before there were two lol.

Front seat should definitely have primary control unless it is within the deadzone of the stick, then rear seat. If rear seat inputs commands are way higher than front seat, it should be overridden. Would be cool to see that in game, where front seater is too focused looking back to see the ground, WSO sees the ground and recovers the jet. Pretty realistic that way too, since WSO doesn't touch the stick unless it is a safety of flight concern. I have let my WSO fly portions of low levels though... and oh my god is it scary. I never realized how awkward it is to be in more than 90 degrees of bank so close to the ground. Mad respect to WSOs for not yelling at me in those situations.

I think it's going to need to be heavily keyboard intensive, since they have two hand controllers and I doubt there will be a HOTAS being made for that. Thankfully you won't need to fly while using combat controls. As you can see in the pic you posted, there's almost no HOTAS for the stick and throttle in the back seat. TrackIR + mouse and keyboard will actually be a great setup IMO. Don't need to worry about Gs in a sim.

"Last ditch" is what you call a maneuver to maximize the distance between a missile homing on you so that best case you have minor damage to the jet and worse case you survive enough to eject. Seems that the show is showing different types of jinks. I would not recommend trying these in DCS because high AoA performance is still not well modeled.

Oh yes, the one with wires covering it at all times lol. Was thinking VNE when you said VMAX. I almost forgot that switch exists. Referring to my bad memory, I think it only gives 2-3% more thrust though, not nearly as much as a even -229 will give you.

Honestly, the resolution on the current litening II pod the A-10Cs have in game is better than sniper XR IRL (sniper being better than litening II IRL) so if anything, it will be better than real life conditions. Could be more realistically modeled since this is a newer jet ED is putting out though, with images looking more blurred on your screens