Should the F-15C Get JHMCS

[Seaeagle]

If the real-life version of the DCS F-15C has or had the JHMCS then yes, we should have it in DCS. If it didn't then our F-15C shouldn't either.

 

The F-15 in the sim is a "constructed" version - it lacks lots of things that even early versions had, while it has other things(such as AMRAAM compatibility) that only came after several upgrades.

 

DCS should reflect reality, "balance" is meaningless in a sim like this and should have no place whatsoever in the development process. Simple as that.

 

"Reality" in regards to specific capabilities of an aircraft depends on time frame as well as the variant. "Balance" is only meaningless if you want to make it so - i.e. there are different ways of pursuing it.

 

Bad way: cherry-pick features - adding or subtracting with no consideration to actual real life configurations or nerfing/over model others in order to obtain some sort of perceived parity with other aircraft.

 

Good way: introduce aircraft in variants that are contemporary, model them as close to real life specs as possible and then take whatever resulting inferiority/superiority in the stride :) .

 

There are currently 3 different versions of the MiG-29 in the sim although at least two of them are practically identical, while there is only one version of the F-15 although it has a longer service history and has been through more upgrades.

[Sweep]

and not forget

 

Airquake also consists of blueforce and redforce having mixed aircraft ( that is what i most dislike about air quake) so Bluforce Su27s will fight Redforce F15s or F15 vs F15 which is silly

 

Typically, okay, but it could easily just be Hawk vs L-39 only and still be airquake. The composition of forces doesn't play a role in defining the term, IMHO. Any of the above is a bad thing to base a wishlist on, tho'!

[RaceFuel85]

Wanna bet? In an F-15 the switches are set in the cockpit. You fire up the APU, slide the throttles into idle, electrics come on automatically once the 50% switch drops (one engine spooled up to 45% RPM), and once both engines are up you go.

 

The F-16 and A-10 isn't likely to be very different either.

You can align in the air.

 

Like I said, the time consuming part is procedure and checks. They're very important in RL, but not in our simulated aircraft ... including the DCS level stuff.

 

Realize that alert 5 aircraft alert to launch when bandits are at a certain time point from their base, not this 50nm between bases silliness that you have in airquake...

When playing airquake, the quick turn around is just what players want most of the time.

When playing something more proper with larger distances, those quickly mitigate most startup shenanigans.

 

Pretty much..I live near the 173rd FW (Oregon ANG) and back about 10 years ago was able to visit the base frequently under their old Wing CO (the current one revoked my credentials and started "locking the doors" as it were). One day I was visiting for an article I was writing on the role of a local base in the transformation of the USAF (since Kingsley is the school house for the F-15C) and watched a full on practice scramble of a 104th FW student. From the time the siren started until they were wheels up was only around 6 minutes..which wasn't even their best time from what I was told.

[pr1malr8ge]

Wanna bet? In an F-15 the switches are set in the cockpit. You fire up the APU, slide the throttles into idle, electrics come on automatically once the 50% switch drops (one engine spooled up to 45% RPM), and once both engines are up you go.

 

The F-16 and A-10 isn't likely to be very different either.

You can align in the air.

 

Like I said, the time consuming part is procedure and checks. They're very important in RL, but not in our simulated aircraft ... including the DCS level stuff.

 

Realize that alert 5 aircraft alert to launch when bandits are at a certain time point from their base, not this 50nm between bases silliness that you have in airquake...

When playing airquake, the quick turn around is just what players want most of the time.

When playing something more proper with larger distances, those quickly mitigate most startup shenanigans.

 

Speaking for the f16.. I thought when an f16 is placed in an Alert status isn't the plane put in a "special" mode for this? I thought I read somewhere that an INS alignment is performed then stored and either put in a sort-of sleep mode or left on ground power? I would assume the f15 is the same also? Might be asking my SME this question soon.. got me curios now.

[mvsgas]

Speaking for the f16.. I thought when an f16 is placed in an Alert status isn't the plane put in a "special" mode for this? I thought I read somewhere that an INS alignment is performed then stored and either put in a sort-of sleep mode or left on ground power? I would assume the f15 is the same also? Might be asking my SME this question soon.. got me curios now.

 

INS is aligned and all switches set. On some places, all pins are removed except the Emergency Power Unit (EPU). Never was assigned to a "scramble" unit, but, blocks 40 and above need little time even doing the checks. Flight control check takes 42 sec, INS alignment is good ( for this purpose) in 90 sec. Aircraft can be position at at the end of the runway and be in the runway in 30 sec. You can see shelter and the end of the runway in bases like Kunsan AB ROK, South of Gunsan Airport in Google maps. Gunsan's runway is Kunsan AB.

 

As for the original post. No, I do not think the F-15 should get JHMCS because the F/A-18 may get it. I would rather they concentrate on a full model F-15, and later on add features like that if possible. Additionally, keep in mind the JHMCS is essentially a sensor and as such, pilots can use it against A2G as well as A2A target. I thinks F/A-18 would actually use it more that F-15. It can also show wing man locations, WP, targets, threads, etc. Depending which version (referring to different helmets with different software updates) it can be very capable.

Edited April 15, 2017 by mvsgas

[frixon28]

For those against the JHMCS in the Eagle what do you recomend for the merge against the Hornet with AIM-9X?

[mvsgas]

Don't get in merge with a F/A-18.

[Sweep]

For those against the JHMCS in the Eagle what do you recomend for the merge against the Hornet with AIM-9X?

 

This but with a wingman;

 

[AegisFX]

Speed up.. with as much cms as the eagle has, set it to auto dispense when the 18 is behind you.

 

Why are so many people forgetting the 18 is a bomb truck? Yes, it can defend itself with it's weaponry and manoeuvring but it is not a fighter in the sense of the 15c, 27, or 33.

[Sweep]

Speed up.. with as much cms as the eagle has, set it to auto dispense when the 18 is behind you.

 

Why are so many people forgetting the 18 is a bomb truck? Yes, it can defend itself with it's weaponry and manoeuvring but it is not a fighter in the sense of the 15c, 27, or 33.

 

AIM-9X doesn't eat flares, FYI.

 

I'd bet on it not eating flares in the sim, either...Prepare for the worst, etc.

 

Speeding up, though, and using sheer kinematics to avoid the DLZ is just a fine idea. :)

[AegisFX]

The missile might not be fooled, but I've had situations of trying to chase someone *in the f15c with 9m* and it either locks the flare or doesn't lock anything. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that's the plane unable to track. Unless it's using the missile as sensor.

 

*I assumed that, other than the a10c, planes with A2A missiles use onboard sensors to track, with the weapon tracking after launch. Upon further thought, I suppose the tracking is all done using the warhead seeker?

Edited April 16, 2017 by AegisFX
Edited for clarification

[Sweep]

The missile might no, but I've had situations of trying to chase someone and it either locks the flare or doesn't lock anything. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that's the plane unable to track. Unless it's using the missile as sensor

 

Did you mod the 9X onto your Eagle or something?

 

The 9X in-game doesn't represent the AIM-9X, IMO...I have a feeling ED will make changes to it before the Hornet releases (right now it's an R-60M seeker on an AIM-9X body, basically).

[AegisFX]

No, just the 15c and 9m. I believe i may have been mistaken as to how target tracking happens. That said, I'm unsure if the 9x performance is real. I'm confident that the community will find ways to defeat the 9x as modeled with the 18c.

[Sweep]

I'm confident that the community will find ways to defeat the 9x as modeled with the 18c.

 

Certainly! I'd just train like it's gonna wreck everybody all day every day and go from there...What's the worst that happens, you defeat an AIM-9X in the merge? Sounds horrible...:lol:

 

Rmin tactics (i.e. offset to the merge) should work, but you're gonna need to be idle for a long time...It's gonna be a fun missile to work/fight with, for sure. The good thing there is that the Hornet can't run to save its own life (literally!), so you can always avoid the DLZ to begin with.

[Weltensegler]

Let's just wait gentlemen.

There is always the way of missile restrictions as many mp servers already do for different reasons.

[gavagai]

Speed up.. with as much cms as the eagle has, set it to auto dispense when the 18 is behind you.

 

Why are so many people forgetting the 18 is a bomb truck? Yes, it can defend itself with it's weaponry and manoeuvring but it is not a fighter in the sense of the 15c, 27, or 33.

 

The F/A-18 is most definitely a fighter. It will be the most dangerous fighter in DCS when it is introduced. I'm glad it is making people nervous about the F-15. If we ever get a DCS F-15C then maybe the Eagle will be top-dog again.

 

I'm unsure if the 9x performance is real. I'm confident that the community will find ways to defeat the 9x as modeled with the 18c.

 

Avoid being within range of it. That is how you defeat it.

Edited April 16, 2017 by gavagai

[DarkFire]

The F-15 in the sim is a "constructed" version - it lacks lots of things that even early versions had, while it has other things(such as AMRAAM compatibility) that only came after several upgrades.

 

"Reality" in regards to specific capabilities of an aircraft depends on time frame as well as the variant. "Balance" is only meaningless if you want to make it so - i.e. there are different ways of pursuing it.

 

Bad way: cherry-pick features - adding or subtracting with no consideration to actual real life configurations or nerfing/over model others in order to obtain some sort of perceived parity with other aircraft.

 

Good way: introduce aircraft in variants that are contemporary, model them as close to real life specs as possible and then take whatever resulting inferiority/superiority in the stride :) .

 

There are currently 3 different versions of the MiG-29 in the sim although at least two of them are practically identical, while there is only one version of the F-15 although it has a longer service history and has been through more upgrades.

 

I agree entirely with the 'good way' you described. My original comments are relevant to any feature on any aircraft. As for aircraft variants, personally I'd like to see the most modern and advanced variants for which there's sufficient data to build an accurate simulation, and/or the most recent variant for which significant features aren't so secret that introducing the aircraft as a whole would be merely guesswork, e.g. the F-22, F-35 and T-50.

[captain_dalan]

The Bug can sure point its nose around pretty fast, but it can't run, and once out of juice, it will stay that way for quite some time. Add to that your more powerful radar, and just keep it on the defense. Why going head to head with it, with heaters alone???

[blkspade]

The high tech systems are really just crutches for the modern fighter pilot to ensure that even the poorest of pilots have a higher chance to survive an engagement. That is their true purpose.

 

This is the most nonsensical thing anyone could say. Those modern bits are whats called a force multiplier. In something like the Eagle (an air superiority fighter) its basically designed to win even if outnumbered. That was made especially true going up against a Russian doctrine of cheap but plentiful aircraft. The gun is literally backup weapon for when you've gotten too close to an enemy. By the time you're using it, you would have hoped to have sufficiently thinned the herd with your missiles. An Eagle with TWS and the AIM-120 can track and engage 4 bandits for a reason, that the gun won't get you.

[AegisFX]

First, I apologize for not keeping up with the conversation. With that out of the way, I want to tidy up some statements.

 

I said the 18 was a bomb truck. I believe that. Players looking for another f16c styled dogfighter, or a long endurance superiority fighter like the 15c, not just in fuel but armament as well (can the 18 carry 2 amraams on a pylon like the E?) are going to be disappointed.

 

However, it does have the best slow speed agility, HMD+9X, and a few other features that help it fight. Being able to fight and win doesn't make it a fighter in the design though. Relatively poor acceleration, climb, and payload (15c) mean the new wave of hornet pilots will need to rethink A2A methods.

 

I think many of us have a practical understanding of those differences, but I'm starting to get the feel that others may have unrealistic expectations. Partly due to love of the craft, partly from years of anticipation.

 

I'm sure the 18c can defend itself, but I doubt any of the FC3 craft have anything to fear if played to their roles.

[blkspade]

In all likelihood I'd imagine the Eagle will get the 9X, without JHMCS. They've added support for other AIM-9 variants that the Eagle could carry, though they were older. Radar based cueing of up to 60 degrees, at longer range than the M (which has impressive range), with the same smokeless motor, is still going to own. It's like a better version of the ET and 73 combined in one missile.

[Vampyre]

This is the most nonsensical thing anyone could say. Those modern bits are whats called a force multiplier. In something like the Eagle (an air superiority fighter) its basically designed to win even if outnumbered. That was made especially true going up against a Russian doctrine of cheap but plentiful aircraft. The gun is literally backup weapon for when you've gotten too close to an enemy. By the time you're using it, you would have hoped to have sufficiently thinned the herd with your missiles. An Eagle with TWS and the AIM-120 can track and engage 4 bandits for a reason, that the gun won't get you.

 

What is the purpose of technology? The answer is to make tasks easier and more effective. To give the pilot with the poorest skills a chance at survival technology was added to equalize the playing field with opposing pilots of a higher caliber who do not have access to these fielded technologies but the task is harder. In skilled hands a fighter without JHMCS can still be successful in an engagement with one that has JHMCS, the field is more level. The technology has to be designed to the lowest common denominator. 2nd Lt Schmuckatelli with the basic knowledge of how his airplane works and understands most of the systems straight out of the RAG is that lowest common denominator. JHMCS makes his job easier and therefore makes him more effective.

 

Are they force multipliers? Yes.

Is it a crutch? Yes.

Is this the most nonsensical thing one can say? Should I ask if you even overhear other people talking about the news? There was a lot more nonsense put out by so called "professional" news agencies in the past hour than that little snippet.

[Sweep]

What's also nice, from the sim perspective, is that JHMCS and AIM-9X especially force the other guy to get better at his craft. No more 3 bag fly NOE and roll pure at 5 miles - You gotta fly it right or you take an X-ray to the face.

[blkspade]

What is the purpose of technology? The answer is to make tasks easier and more effective. To give the pilot with the poorest skills a chance at survival technology was added to equalize the playing field with opposing pilots of a higher caliber who do not have access to these fielded technologies but the task is harder. In skilled hands a fighter without JHMCS can still be successful in an engagement with one that has JHMCS, the field is more level. The technology has to be designed to the lowest common denominator. 2nd Lt Schmuckatelli with the basic knowledge of how his airplane works and understands most of the systems straight out of the RAG is that lowest common denominator. JHMCS makes his job easier and therefore makes him more effective.

 

Are they force multipliers? Yes.

Is it a crutch? Yes.

Is this the most nonsensical thing one can say? Should I ask if you even overhear other people talking about the news? There was a lot more nonsense put out by so called "professional" news agencies in the past hour than that little snippet.

 

Nonsensical, within the context of this discussion. Not having these things would be a distinct disadvantage against a force that does. The best assumption a pilot can make going in to the air is that the other guy is at least equally trained as them. Technology is then used to give an edge above that. Otherwise, you might as well consider Jet engines a crutch (maybe true for ME-262 pilots). The P-51D is all we ever needed. There is simply a point where no amount of raw skill can make up for platform deficiencies. Something like JHMCS is a thing because A: its needed to maximize the capability of the AIM-9X, and B: contemporary opponents have this capability. It makes up for something the platform could not do. If a Flanker can both turn better and fire HOBS weapons, and you can't, its best not to merge in the first place. Since various factors could force one to happen, having the right tools as an option can go a long way.

[JINX_1391]

Can I ask for a DASH and Python-5's for my F-5 now? It only carries two and I'm not asking for upgraded radar or anything.