Scrape

Strike Eagle. The last true fighter-bomber.

Huh? Sorry I'm not clear what you meant.

Buddy lasing between different aircraft, like helos and planes is possible in real world. Laser codes or frequencies can be changed in real world to match up with other designators. Its not an unreasonable request, just a difficult one to program. Right now KA 50s can't even buddy lase for each other, in game.

Air to air missile firing is not allowed in Nevada or California, no live missile training. F4 drones are stationed in Florida.

Thanks for clearing that up Sov13T. I understand your point of view. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to obtain operational information about airforce jets for modeling. I have an insiders point of view, but id be willing to open doors that would otherwise be closed to the public. If DCS can model the avionic package from the A10 then the F15E is a realistic goal. I've worked closely with F16 abd F 15Es for the USAF, thus my bias ,)

That's rude to say, fantasy. Can you explain your comparison between the -37 and -15E? The E model aircraft has been in service since the late eighties and early nineties has seen combat several times. Would you suggest that modeling a Super Hornet would be so much easier? They essentially fill the same role albiet with the exception of crew and payload capacity there isn't much difference is there?

With the commitment of DCS programmers I think its safe to say that experimental or prototype aircraft won't be represented because they can't be. There's a 360 trust vectoring package for the F15 tested and ready to go, but its not used so we won't see it out of DCS. All the work theyve done to get the sims as real as possible wouldn't mean much if tthey started making stuff up. Now the F15E is used by a few different countries, fully operational, and allows for complete versatility. (Shameless plug)

Janes released a good sim for the time in their last. Janes F18 avionics were very accurately represented. Where as a Super Hornet sim would be nice. (I think that given the quality of DCS sims we'd be happy with their choice regardless) I'd like to see a sim around the F-15E Strike Eagle Different in so many ways to the C model, and with the worlds most advanced and probably last true fighter bomber it would be a great aircraft to develop missions for. The possibilities are endless. It can do anything, and does everything well. Going one up from that. Allowing two players to fly in the same fighter. Never been done before for a fighter sim, right? Tell me that wouldn't be cool.

When deployed all A-A combat kills are not reported due to the tactics invovled, but F-15 stick actuators have scored kills against -29s and -27s that I know of while I was deployed. The accidental friendly fire of an F-15 shooting down another F-15 is true. The pilot of the downed a/c was able to eject safely.

I had understood that the design team knew it wouldn't pan out to be a great fighter (a jet that flys well, flys well) especially with such a non-traditional fighter cockpit, but that going through the motions or earning the F designator was money motivated. That the F designation would allow for faster and easier production rather than calling it an attack aircraft. Can't remember where I read that though so...

GGTharos, I'm aware of the missile fires from the F-111, I was referring to an operational loadout. As far as I know there were no approved SCAL loads with Air to Air missile included for the US. You missed my scarcasm when is came to #7. I'm well aware of the properties of aerodynamics on cars, my comments were directed to vanir and what he had posted.

1. Can you verify that the F-111 although given the F designation wasn't flown as a tactical bomber. Air Superiority? The-111? Where did they put the missiles? 2. Can you explain how this is true? Usuing data and math. 3. Is there a point here? Nothing plain about it. 4,5. Great job reading the first two lines of the first post. How did this thread start again? 6. I was speculating (stated in post) how about an intelligent counter point? 7. The parallel wasn't about engines, but its nice that you tried to sound smart here, but the analogy was to aerodynamics versus frame structuer. Not speed on the ground vs high speed flight. Can you elaborate your point how aerodynamics only affects objects that are off the ground? And what is wider valve timing? Have a good debate make a good argument. With respect.

The chance of that happening is extremly nil. If it does happen then China loses big time. You own a house that you purchaced at 300K. That house is now worth 100K. You havn't lost 200K only the value of the house has dropped. The only way you would loose 200K is if you sold the house for 100K. As long as you don't sell it the loss never incurs. That's why China won't cash in just yet. By putting US money into other countries we've actually secured our currency value. The US dollar will never dissapear from the world market. What's been understood as a fear is in fact a market saftey net.

There are two ways to win a fight. Beat the other guy to a pulp or convince him he won't ever possibly come close to winning. The F-22 serves as the latter. Its capabilities make it something to be wary of. Down right scary if its ever turned loose on you. US F-15s have a perfect dogfight record in live combat, and it is clear that the F-22 stands above the F-15. It also has the ability to deliver precision munitions as well as dominating the airspace. The people that request the numbers...its not their fault. Their responsibility is to find a replacement to the F-15, our oldest fighter. Do we need it? Yes and no. There is an valid argument from either perspective. Depends on your stance of national defense.

NASA's goal for the X-15A2 was mach 8 in atmosphere and there was damage done at mach 6.7 cutting the test short however it was a relatively minor design flaw and the engineers could solve the problem. They were excited and confident that they'd reach their goal, but then the Mercury project began and NASA wasn't allowed any buget for any project out side of landing on the moon. Using the lessons learned as a stepping stone and lessons learned from the A-12 could it be that this problem had been solved to some extent? SR-71 wings do have to be replaced after three top speed runs due to heat stress so the aircraft isn't immune to heat. uuhh BTW

For that speculation we'd have to know the temperature difference of the speeds mentioned. An object traveling at mach at sea level is going to be hotter than an object at 50K ASL traveling at the same speed. More air molecules at lower alt. means more friction, and that means more heat...doesn't it? The SR-71 uses an unusual design but was also designed a long time ago, and much has been learned from its weaknesses. Looking at the technology available and the design of the airframe from an aeronautic point of view it probably maxed out closer to mach 6. (There's my speculation) The X-15 A2 achieved 6.2 mach before the space race began and it didn't use the corrogated design style that the SR-71 did to the same extent. Alloys have become more advanced since then, so maybe a maybe is appropriate. NASCARs are more robust and much heavier than F1 cars, but they easily cruise at high speeds with comparable horsepower, so there is more to it wouldn't you agree?

Do you mean a compressor stall? Cutting fuel always does the trick, and that's connected to the throttle, could you explain?

I had no reason to believe that the pilots were hamming it up with story telling about the 1.7 low level mach because it wasn't the atmosphere and they are more professional than that at work. A C5 corvette wasn't designed to drive at speeds above 200mph but it can, with modifications, and it won't explode if it does so its still a high performance machine. Yes the stress on an airframe at mach three is significant, but not impossible. The jet wouldn't explode and neither would the engine. Its not like going past the redline with a car engine. Doing 1.7 mach at 100ASL is mighty tough on an airframe, much more so than mach 2 at high altitude. The wing spars and frame of the F-111 is beastly compared to other fighters, it was very robust, but I'm not carrying the torch of my old argument. The pilots said maybe, and I'll leave it at that. To my understanding one of the Mig-25's problems was couldn't control its shockwave properly which would cause the damage from high speed flight. Around mach three the shockwave from the sound barrier would start to angle down the intake and contact the engine blades creating severe turbulence in the compressor stage and damaging the engines. Not all aircraft had this problem. The cone protruding from the SR-71 engine intake is on a track that allows it to manipulate the shockwave. The F-15 intake changes shape for this same reason.

Recently I made a post about the top speed of the F-111 being a mach three jet. Some of you may remember that... I was wrong...:doh: I talked with older pilots who have had flight experiance with the airframe and they broke it down for me. They said it was pretty tough for the 111 to get past mach 2 compared to most jets. It was explained that the engines (I'm not sure if this differs from other countries or if they use the same engines) but as far as the US version was concerned the engines were designed for low level flight. Down low the F-111 ws said to be "wicked fast" and there wasn't a fighter that could keep up with it. I heard the following numbers from one colonel and a major with whom the 111 was thier first jet earlier today. It could reach 1.7 mach at 100 feet or 30 meters Above Sea Level. Most fighters like the F-15 are designed to perform well at high altitudes and so they were outpaced down low in thicker air. This limitation is largely based on engine design and not the airframe. Playing a bit of devils advocate on my behalf I asked if it were possible to max out at high altitude then dive and reach mach 3. They hesitated and said maybe, and they were sure the airframe could take it, but they didn't know of anyone who tried. 111s went up high to get fuel or for ferry flights, but for mission training it was mostly low level NOE type flying staying within the engines designed performance envelope. If you were wondering where I got mach 3 number from my first supervisor recieved a ride in the 111. He described a scenario where the pilot maxed out at 30,000 feet about 9100 meters rolled inverted and pulled into a dive. He explained watching the mach needle hit three and how the pilot laughed at him when he freaked out. He was a man who never indulged in embellishment so I believe him, but I was still wrong about the 111 being a mach three jet. :notworthy:

I understand what you are saying, but the kind of books that state the performance evelope of these aircraft are not allowed to be posted on the web, getting my hands on a book for the 111 at this point would be a bit challenging at the base I'm at now which is Nellis AFB, NV. My first duty station was Cannon AFB, NM one of the last if not the last base that was home to the F-111. I'm new to the forum so I understand if I haven't built enough repor with you guys to understand that I'm not making things up to sound cool but I've been working fighters and their weapons systems for a decade. My AFSC code is 2W171 in the USAF; Armament Systems Specialist. EtherealN you mentioned detail...could you explain what detail you are referring to? Detail of the performance envelope of the 111? Or its weapons capapbilities? Gentlemen the numbers that are in those books are the numbers that the military or supporting company tells them to write and for good reason. Would you trust a journalist or author that must be escorted, and into areas the are set up for his or her arrival, or would you trust the word of someone whos put their hands onto the same systems you have read about? Would you trust someone who watched the mach needle wrap around or stats in a book. Those stats that were posted were very inconsistent, if it were fact why would that be? Please don't take my tone to be cynical or anything like that I'm just stating my position.

lol those CFTs never come off for flight. It can but they don't fly them that way. Vote: F-15E Big bag fast brusier. Not really steathly with hollywood futuristic looks of the 22 or 35, but those jets put together couldn't bring the pain like a Strike Eagle. Every weapon in the inventory minus only ALCMs and CALCMs.:thumbup:

I agree that would be cool. I've always thought about that especially since I working hung bomb / gun issues sometimes. I can tell you this though from a maintainers viewpoint. When things turn real, and its not just another sortie day pilots stop breaking the jets and squak code one often. Working in that kind of coding means that the mission would have to recognise that you had a system failure that wasn't your fault. Otherwise say you had an emergency half way to the target and had to drop out of the attack group. Squak IFE get the light show and then land. Exit mission and..."Mission Fail" because you didn't destroy the targets. Now what?

Okay guys I understand that you may have well read those figures in a book, but since the a/c is no longer in the USAF inventory I can talk about it to some degree leaving some things out of course. While you read about the 111 in a book I trained on it and was task to maintain its weapons systems, soon after I moved to the F-16 and now the F-15E. I don't have to quote a book I am speaking from experience. That jet could literally fly so fast that it would fade the paint. I'd like for you to keep in mind how the USAF feels about the capability of its a/c and the threat they pose to other nations. If intelligence gathering was as simple as picking up a book in B Daultons then there would be no need to have restricted areas on base. I'm not sure about what other countries have in their 111s but like the 15 we keep the best parts for ourselves.

While the Tornado is impressive in its own right it was no 111. The 111 had a staggering 100,000 pound max take off weight, thats about 45 thousand kilograms for you metric guys. It had a top speed of mach 3 and its terrain following radar/auto pilot was unmatched. The autopilot could maintain beyond mach at 500 feet over any terrain, city or otherwise. The upgraded version of that system resides in the B1. Even though it carried an F designation it was more of a tactical bomber. I can tell you that the pilots who flew it were crazy and wild. They provided great TDY stories. Different breed of todays stick actuators.

I had similar problems with the autopilot while my firend whom I fly with did not, so I trained myself to be able to hover on demand even with my head view down (noticing the slight head movements is how I can 'feel' drift). I click all of the blue buttons on, which I believe disables the assist from the FLCS and it makes things ten times easier. I havn't used AP since. Maybe that will work for you as well.