McDonnell Douglas F-15A Eagle

[falcon_120]

I want a full fidelity C with datalink. That would be awesome! True air superiority fighter.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[Kev2go]

Even before the 63 got PSP, it was still a superior radar to the N-001:

 

and? the Agp63 is superior to the F14's AWG9 apart from max range. F14B with its additional thrust is very competitive as it also has other means to offset F15's advantages ( such as AIm54) in spite of its inferior radar However the point it the aircraft has other advantages that can offset another.

 

 

The Least an F15 could have against a flanker would be additional radar superiority, to justify its BVR expertise, since otherwise as mentioned the Flanker already has HOBS advantage in WVR as well as datalinking capabilities. Something the Eagle didn't get until 21st century.

 

IN practice however judding by FC3 the F15's radar isn't going to a disparative advantage . Radar on its own isn't everything. Aim120 is the biggest difference maker. a Fox 1 limited F15C against a Flanker is a very close matchup and a balanced one at that since you seem to be so fixated whats "fair and balanced". Overall "balancing" with munitions should be a choice left to the mission designer and not forced by the developers.

 

F15C or bust

Edited December 18, 2019 by Kev2go

[bies]

Every Eagle fighter variant would be very much velcome. A or C or C MSIP II.

 

And considering similarities between Hornet and Eagle in terms of avionics and radar and ED already having capable flight model and external model of F-15 i wouldn't be surprised if they would make it somewhere after the Viper.

 

F-15A variant from 1970s with it's even more powerfull (but less reliable..) engines with mysterious VMAX switch working for 27200 lbf class-rated thrust and being slightly lighter than C would be a rocket ship with T/W higher than MiG-29 and GE F-16.

 

And 1970s air warfare with lot of dogfights and less reliance on computers would be arguably more interesting than AMRAAMs shoot and RTB type of warfare when you preferably don't see the enemy at all.

Edited December 20, 2019 by bies

[SDsc0rch]

I want a full fidelity C with datalink. That would be awesome! True air superiority fighter.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

 

 

hoo-ya! the latest iteration they can legally get away with 8)

[wilbur81]

Nah, only the "C" interests me given the current level of simulation (C Viper, C Hornet, etc)

[SDsc0rch]

Nah, only the "C" interests me given the current level of simulation (C Viper, C Hornet, etc)

 

yepyep

[Kev2go]

Every Eagle fighter variant would be very much velcome. A or C or C MSIP II.

 

And considering similarities between Hornet and Eagle in terms of avionics and radar and ED already having capable flight model and external model of F-15 i wouldn't be surprised if they would make it somewhere after the Viper.

 

F-15A variant from 1970s with it's even more powerfull (but less reliable..) engines with mysterious VMAX switch working for 27200 lbf class-rated thrust and being slightly lighter than C would be a rocket ship with T/W higher than MiG-29 and GE F-16.

 

And 1970s air warfare with lot of dogfights and less reliance on computers would be arguably more interesting them AMRAAMs shoot and RTB type of warfare when you preferably don't see the enemy at all.

 

you have a point, but to an extent you can already have older school dogfights by simply restricting fox 3 on various aircraft on missions or for MP and limiting them to just Fox 1 and 2.

 

F15C post MSIP 2 doesn't actually have an excess of computers or overly modern avionics either relative to a Hornet or Viper. Its got a single multi function display and its mostly just used for displaying Armament page and BIt test results. F15C otherwise still has plently of analog gauges, nor is the aircraft FBW.

 

The F15C doesn't really get more use for that MFD until 21st century with the integration of Link 16 and having an HSD type page added with it.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Kev2go

[Weta43]

and?

and so this:

F15A didnt even have PSP. and in the earliest days service life the APG63 didnt even have functioning TWS. the SU27S already has some advantage to FC3 F15C due to R73 and helmet monacle and due to possessing data linking capabilities.

doesn't make sense.

 

the Agp63 is superior to the F14's AWG9 apart from max range.

Yes, as I said, even an F-15A has a vastly superior radar to the Su-27S, & the absence of a working GCI/Data Link for the Su-27 in MP means that even the "A" will have a major advantage in BVR (especially if a more accurate ASM version of the N001 more accurately displaying some of its shortcomings were modelled).

 

The R-73 & HMCD do mean that the Su-27 has some advantage if the fight gets to the merge, but because an F-15A's AGP63 is already so superior to the N001, the only real advantage of the "C" is that it gets to carry the AIM-120 (& the improvements in data display / MFD / cockpit functionality).

 

When it comes to BVR against an Su-27 an "A", is much like a Fox 1 limited "C" & as you said, when considering both BVR and WVR:

(...) a Fox 1 limited F15C against a Flanker is a very close matchup and a balanced one (...)

 

So an "A" would allow modelling the full capabilities of a period appropriate aircraft, & result in a "a very close matchup and a balanced one"

[Harlikwin]

would rather have an F15C MSIP 2 full fidelity module of the FC3 eagle we have now.

 

Or if possible maybe even a slightly more modern version ( early to mid 2000s) upgraded with Link 16 functionality , JHMCS and AIm9x

 

Although i also am interested in the F15E. given its multi role nature and having a dual crew aircraft that has modern digital avionics for the land based air force

 

I mean.... even the "Fleet defender" can bomb stuff with PGM.

 

Well, the "Fleet defender" mainly got that capability because they retired the "Bomber". So they needed something that could go more than 2 city blocks and drop bombs... (and yes I am talking trash about the bridget the midget legs on the F18C)

[streakeagle]

I will gladly by any well modeled version of the F-15 released A/C/E with whatever revision level that is picked. But if I could have any version, it would be an F-15A. The older the better as far as I am concerned. I would also have preferred an F-16A, an F/A-18A, and an F-14A. The F-14A is supposed to eventually be available, but when?

 

I love old steam gage cockpits. Aside from the nice radar, HUD, and RWR/ECM system, the F-15A is more like a single seat F-4E with a massive thrust to weight improvement and a bubble canopy. My kind of plane!

[bies]

I will gladly by any well modeled version of the F-15 released A/C/E with whatever revision level that is picked. But if I could have any version, it would be an F-15A. The older the better as far as I am concerned. I would also have preferred an F-16A, an F/A-18A, and an F-14A. The F-14A is supposed to eventually be available, but when?

 

I love old steam gage cockpits. Aside from the nice radar, HUD, and RWR/ECM system, the F-15A is more like a single seat F-4E with a massive thrust to weight improvement and a bubble canopy. My kind of plane!

 

This. Dogfights and VVR close air combat up to Desert Storm looks simply more interesting for me than BVR AMRAAM shoot and run tactics which is simply a bit schematic and repetitive, a war of computers and systems.

 

 

The problem with ~2005-2007 F-15C, counterpart for our Hornet nad Viper variants, is it's radar.

Since year 2000 F-15C started to receive Ratheon's AN/APG-63(v)2 Active Electronically Scanned Array radars. And good luck receiving license and data of this device with it's characteristics, modes, capabilities etc.

Edited December 19, 2019 by bies

[falcon_120]

This. Dogfights and VVR close air combat up to Desert Storm looks simply more interesting for me than BVR AMRAAM shoot and run tactics which is simply a bit schematic and repetitive, a war of computers and systems.

 

 

The problem with ~2005-2007 F-15C, so counterpart for our Hornet nad Viper variants, is it's radar.

Started from year 2000 F-15C started to receive Ratheon's AN/APG-63(v)2 Active Electronically Scanned Array radars. And good luck receiving license and data of this device with it's characteristics, modes, capabilities etc.

Well, even though they started receiving it many of them used mechanical srray radar well up to 2010ish, so an f15c with datalink and apg63 (non AESA) radar is perfectly valid I think.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[bies]

Well, even though they started receiving it many of them used mechanical srray radar well up to 2010ish, so an f15c with datalink and apg63 (non AESA) radar is perfectly valid I think.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

 

Valid? Yes of course.

Kind of second-class lower capabilities F-15 of mid 2000s? Also yes.

 

Anyway, mid 2000s F-22 Raptors were operational so any F-15, even with AESA, would be second-class less capable plane for less intensity conflicts or less dangerous missions.

 

Meanwhile up to Desert Storm it was the king of the air.

And up to Desert Storm Eagle fought real full scale wars shooting down real enemies.

 

That's why I don't understand why some folks are so desperate to have the most modern variant of any plane when often it means kind of outdated plane, very often close to being phased out or being cheaper older second-class part of the mix.

Edited December 20, 2019 by bies

[Kev2go]

and so this:

doesn't make sense.

 

 

Yes, as I said, even an F-15A has a vastly superior radar to the Su-27S, & the absence of a working GCI/Data Link for the Su-27 in MP means that even the "A" will have a major advantage in BVR (especially if a more accurate ASM version of the N001 more accurately displaying some of its shortcomings were modelled).

 

The R-73 & HMCD do mean that the Su-27 has some advantage if the fight gets to the merge, but because an F-15A's AGP63 is already so superior to the N001, the only real advantage of the "C" is that it gets to carry the AIM-120 (& the improvements in data display / MFD / cockpit functionality).

 

When it comes to BVR against an Su-27 an "A", is much like a Fox 1 limited "C" & as you said, when considering both BVR and WVR:

 

 

So an "A" would allow modelling the full capabilities of a period appropriate aircraft, & result in a "a very close matchup and a balanced one"

 

And thats what the F15 needs to have its main advantage. So a less mature radar but F15A does also have a higher T/W. Being so obsessed with radars, by that line of thinking there is no point to flying a smaller lighter weight fighters, since they all have smaller radars than large fighters, because by your logic there is no point to flying any aircraft if you are at greater disadvantage until a merge.. Su27S has enough dissimilar advantages with the appropriate tactics, And you ignore other things how the F15C is more historically relevant, and has much vaster service life. Flanker isn't the only aircraft in game, and its not just about 1 vs 1 against a type of aircraft. If you are so obsessed with "balance" you have servers to limit munitions, and if that is still not enough that other games that take that above all else.

 

FC3 is in facts great analogy of these two dissimilar aircraft. The Su27S is still very competitive, has unique medium missiles, just use different tactics, stop trying to fly it like an F15 if you know you don't have as good BVR capabilities, due to less advanced radar, between those two. If it was a full fidelity module GCI data linking would work, and a further advantage to the Su27 would be a working IRST, giving an ability to visually IFF a target in BVR. Now with to also mention With J11A, has R77's, and now the JEFF to fill the lightweight multi role.

 

SO i really am tired of whining and spin tactics from the redforce community about how Flankers are unable to compete or how they don't have anything remotely like viper or Hornet, or now how Bluforce should only get the earliest and least mature of Gen 4, because "muh inferior radars"

Edited December 20, 2019 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

Valid? Yes of course.

Kind of second-class lower capabilities F-15 of mid 2000s? Also yes.

 

Anyway, mid 2000s F-22 Raptors were operational so any F-15, even with AESA, would be second-class less capable plane for less intensity conflicts or less dangerous missions.

 

Meanwhile up to Desert Storm it was the king of the air.

And up to Desert Storm Eagle fought in real full scale wars shooting down real enemies.

 

That's why I don't understand why some folks are so desperate to have the most modern variant of any plane when often it means kind of outdated plane, very often close to being phased out or being cheaper older second-class part of the mix.

 

because we all know we shouldn't expect to see an F35 or F22 full fidelity module for a very long time. Maybe if ED is still around by the time anyone having a child now, that will then be in adulthood graduating from post secondary studies when those "may" be possible :D

 

 

so so called "second rate" aircraft close to the end of thier life cycle with post production modernization packages from the 21st century is the next best thing.

 

Although personally the F15C with AESA isn't really second rate when most "neer peer" adversaries still predominantly have gen 4 fleets with gen 4.5 and very few gen 5. Until Gen 5's become more mainstream with foreign operators, an F15C will continue to have relevancy. At the time of the Raptors introduction, it was the only stealth fighter in the world. The reason they are still in service and expect to be in service for many years to come is because there simply arent enough "1st rate" F22's to replace them in Air superiority. 180 something Raptors as awesome as they are aren't enough to fufill America's needs. Unlike the F35 which will have enough units produced to eventually replace entire F16 fleet in active duty service, as they are only being handed down and expected to remain in ANG only.

 

As another theory based on some observation Its a generational thing. Depending on what age group people belong too they seem to be interested in aircraft, that they grew up with. AS a generalization ( since obviously people play varying eras or only into era's they they were not alive in) , Boomers seem to like thier gen 3 aircraft like phantoms or early gen 4 like the Tomcats. Gen X seem to like Gen 4 circa gulf war- post gulf war circa Yugoslavia, Millennials, seem to be into Gen 4 from GWOT - present.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

Well, the "Fleet defender" mainly got that capability because they retired the "Bomber". So they needed something that could go more than 2 city blocks and drop bombs... (and yes I am talking trash about the bridget the midget legs on the F18C)

 

Actually it was also but mostly because the F14's main reason of existence ceased to exist ( Fleet defense), and they needed a new job for it to justify its service. But that wasn't the point of my post, of RL reasons, but to point out that irregardless of any real life ( perceived or otherwise) reason for it, the F14 is more versatile in roles due to presence of precision strike capability purely from consumerist POV of what the module offers. But sure the F15 has a radar is that better in every regard minus max detection range setting. and AMRAAM capacity. ( if going for post MSIP 2) along with better pilot - vehicle interface especially with the MSIP 2.

 

 

That being said the F15A and C do have unguided bombing capability ( and some guidance in the form of EO bomb) that have simply remained dormant in USAF use, but otherwise an existing, documented and tested capability. Israel has utilized the AS eagles existing capabilities a bombing role in the past, and in present even modded them to include JDAM's.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Kev2go

[Weta43]

As I said in another thread a moment ago, when my boy was 8 he used to play age of empires & his favourite thing to do was start up the Camaro with a bazooka cheat, then drive around blowing up Romans with impunity.

 

Some people think that's fun - never quite saw the appeal myself.

 

As someone else said above

(a F-15A) against a Flanker is a very close matchup and a balanced one

 

Seems more interesting to me.

[bies]

F-15A had been already withdrawn from TAC Europe air wings and replaced by C variant before first Flankers became operational.

 

In 1985 when very first Flankers start being received by USSR units F-15A served only in second-class air defence units on US soil and National Air Guard, so potential combat between -A and Flankers wouldn't be really even possible.

 

US TAC units were receiving C MSIP II paralell to Soviet units receiving first Su-27s.

Just saying.

Edited December 20, 2019 by bies

[falcon_120]

And thats what the F15 needs to have its main advantage. So a less mature radar but F15A does also have a higher T/W.

"

 

Is this true? Does the A has superior T/W than a C model?

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[bies]

Is this true? Does the A has superior T/W than a C model?

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

 

Yes -A had even greater T/W than -C. It had the highest T/W until F-22.

F-15A variant had F100-PW-100 engines with VMAX switch working for 27200 lbf class-rated thrust, this switch increasing thrust was only for war use and it was a part requirement added in the final phase of the developement to be able to go beyound Mach 2.5.

 

F-15 had been developed to fly Mach 2.3 (like every later fighter for air combat) so McDonnell engineers had two possible solutions, to change the whole project adding heavy steel and lower visibility heavy canopy and compromise dogfight capabilities or to add a switch which increased the power slightly beyound previously set limit of the engine.

 

They have chosen the second option, F-15 preserved ligh weight maneuverable airframe but was it able to go Mach 2.5 only slightly and only for about 3 minutes or so before the duralumin structure became to hot and canopy start to lose it's structural integrity. Practice shown it was very much correct choice, extreme speeds had been used very rarely.

 

Additional acceleration, especially to add energy to the Sparrow before the shoot, was another thing and VMAX had been used in this role.

 

 

 

Difference between -A and -C. (and quite interesting look at the air combat tactics in potential full scale conflict in 1980s)

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-F-15A-more-maneuverable-than-the-F-15C

 

As others have stated, the primary difference is going to be fuel, though there were a few weight changes inherent to the switch to the digital PSP on the APG-63V and quite a few more when they added the AESA in the V2 (some 400lbs worth of ballast had to be added to the rear to maintain balance).

 

Most jets, like men, as they grow older, gain weight and can never get enough tail.

 

In this case however; even when new, the F-15A had a lot of Hangar Queen issues among them being that the structure was in fact a little too light, a fact made worse by the incredible amount of hassling the community did in the early years, double what MDD and Pratt had predicted. Coupled to a flaw in the fuel management system, it could be hard to keep the wing fuel 'squared and balanced' during ACMT, even with an initial rating on the F-15A of only 7G. It is not hard to crank 11Gs on the airframe if you're willing to put up with Colonel Betty and the Maintenance Officer's 30 minute hate session, post flight. And so there were literally early jets that came back after a hard play session with one wing higher than the other. Bent jets were on their third set of wings, by the end of the 1980s.

 

Add to this the tendency for a .7 bypass ratio engine to try and feed itself it's own bad air, leading to endless compressor stalls and/or duct buzz which also required some alpha restrictions on the otherwise excellent inlet system and you have an early Eagle which is more likely to be specifically placarded against over stress and engine failure as a constraint upon absolute maneuvering potential.

 

They fixed most of that with the C, clearing out the full envelope, modifying the CAS laws and generally beefing the airframe as part of early MSIP I preparation for a 'multi-role' Albino (the Langley people actually got the CFT and bomb racks to do this, as part of the RDF commitment, the F-15 having roughly A-7D equivalent accuracy in CDIP). These mods brought the airframe up to a genuine 9G capability, though it was still one of the slowest jets, down low, and was always short of IRT power so you couldn't always get to an energy state to use what was theoretically available.

 

It took the better part of another decade before they started fixing the engines; unlike the F-16 which got the PW-200 modification almost immediately and was generally a lot zippier airframe with the FBW and variable LEF. I guess they figured it was 'plausible' that you could limp home on one powerplant in a combat situation or maybe a hung engines politely refuses to shred itself, in wartime...

 

Anyway, what is true is that the F100-PW-100 engines were a LOT more powerful at max reheat than the later PW-220s and 220Es that the C/E fleets first got.

 

The latter were flat rated to around 23.8, all the way up to about 27K. Though the 220E+ could do some things with a change in the components as DEEC codes to trade hours for thrust, all upgraded engines came factory set for max-life on the core. The one thing that was nice about them from an ops perspective was that you didn't constantly have to pull jets from the schedule to retrim their engines.

 

That said, the early mudhens in particular were nearly crippled as result of -220 derating, barely able to haul a pair of Mk.82s up to a tanker track and having to toboggan as they filled. The -229 fixed their problems, though it took a series of engine fires to get the engine bays properly configured with added cooling air, but the IPE cost about four times what the mod kit did, so the Fighter community never got much love beyond a _very_ prolonged conversion to the 220E. I think the last one went through around 2003.

 

The original engines with the mechanical fuel controls and huge BPRs were basically 'infinitely variable', depending on how fast you wanted to exceed the core exit temps and chew through the burner liner. A legacy of the anti-Foxbat mission set, when they were tuned a couple microns beyond Swiss Watch levels and given you only had about 2hrs of total run time after flipping the switch before they had to be pulled and torn down for a complete inspection and rerun through the hush house; the VMAX could take the base engine from the class-rated 25K to about 27.2 in a fashion which also effected ramp scheduling, giving you a lot more pressure recovery at higher altitudes. The result was pretty startling acceleration-

 

Ten knots per second, zero to 1,200 knots, in twenty miles as two minutes, from ground level on a stripped down aircraft. Now start at 35K and .76, unload the jet and stroke the burners, letting the engines wind up fully before you hit the VMAX switch, crossing Mach 1, and realize: you'll increase those acceleration curves by 30%. With a weapons load.

 

Given the F-15A was already pushing 1.34 T/Wr at USAFE fight entry weights with a single centerline and 8 missiles, it was pretty awe-mazing.

 

One thing we learned from AIMVAL/ACEVAL was that aspect as fusing and sprint values as F-pole control were the key to making SARH weapons viable in an ALASCA heat shot world. You did not want to go thundering past the radar merge (say 8-10nm) into a visual fight, galloping in atop a blowtorch that could be mistaken for certain cloud formations. Not when the enemy had FQ heat weapons. Especially not at night. Nor did you really want to get outside the squirrel cage when they had so many radar SAMs and your RCS was bus-like. There was safety in the swarm, provided you kept the up/down angles sufficiently exotic to stay outside threat sensor/weapons cone and below their canopy sill lines.

 

And so the ability to get to supersonic, quickly, take the lead shot and drop to low zone (another big slam of deceleration) while cranking off to ASE limits, going nose low before turning back in to take another shot and wade into the visual fight, could mean the difference between a 20 and 25 second TOF on the initial Sparrow F with a first hit or a mutual kill condition in the difference between those 5 seconds (given the other side had many more shooters and the R-24T IR MRM on a Flogger G which was also no slouch when it came to jack rabbiting...).

 

High closure rates also helped hold target lock, when you had to manually step the early radar into Hi PRF to get it to emulate CW for the Sparrow. VMAX was part of that overall geometry control, given you started over The Netherlands and swept East, under AWACS control, in sequential Walls Of Eagles. Breaking up the threat over Central Germany, like an 800 knot snowplow.

 

Nothing at Bitburg or even CNA would likely survive, on the ground, the first hour of Round 3, all NATO MOBs being so heavily overtargeted by Russian theater missiles.

 

So you hoped the spooks gave you enough heads up to relocate to France or England, where you could then come back in over the North Sea, tank and start earning your combat pay. With TAC (Langley, Tyndall, Eglin) about 16 hours out, if it was a no escalation surprise attack, you had an exceedingly target rich environment 'all to yourself' (roughly 90 Eagles, split between the 32nd TFS and 36th TFW) for the first day.

 

I think we actually hit a seeker dome limit on the period AIM-9L around 1.7 and a coolant bottle time constraint at about 1.5. So somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 is likely going to be your sweet spot for dodging in and out of FA strike package formations with best kinematics/tracking reliability on Foxtrot and early Mike Sparrows. SSPK on The Great White Hope was _terrible_ unless you maxed the missile's energy at launch.

 

So Wall 1 knocks down the lead sweep elements and shotgun escorts, allowing the next division to then break into what we assumed would likely be gorilla packages of Su-17/MiG-21/27 doing point SEAD and CAS/BAI with streaming cards of Su-24s screaming in at 600+ below them. MiG-25PD and BM running high cover, from behind.

 

WARPAC wants you to make a tactics choice between which threat you are set up to tackle and we couldn't let that happen so we ran high energy, sequential intercept, with four ship teams to meet theirs.

 

In this, you would also be looking to mess with their EWR (No SUAWACS yet) as datalink vectoring, since the period MiG-21/23/25 had lousy view from their cockpits and a really narrow swept volume on their Jaybird/High Lark radars. Something which the later NO-10 and NO-19 Slot Backs would thankfully Cassegrain maintain for the first Flanker and Fulcrum series.

 

But their datalink, based on the old Markham set as it was, was pretty good compared to our Voice Vector which got stepped on quite a bit, even with Have Quick in a jam-free training environment restricted to a couple dozen jets at most.

 

Quartering SARH shots that 'merged into traffic' for follow-on heat cleanups before breaking low or high, away from our SAM free fire lanes, let you scatter the herd from inside, making things so confused, their GCI couldn't keep track of everyone and their close-control system broke down.

 

This would then let the wolves run amok with the ALR-56 and Mode-4 helping with the often IFR sort as you turned back in from the flanks, slashed through a couple K under their mean altitude band for collision separation, then extended out the other side of the fight, look-shoot-looking, as you went. Hit the guarded exit lane over Denmark, tap another KC-135 and rush home to turn for the sequel, an hour later.

 

Much of this likely occurring at night, pre-NVG, in-weather, with an expectation of as many as 600 threat jets constantly in the air for the first 24 hours, made absolute control over missile firing geometry essential as a threat package, ducking HAWKs and later Patriots, would fire up through the surface clag and you would not see the inbound threat missile, at all.

 

Of course, this was part of the challenge and it meant late 1970s-80s USAFE, even given the airspace restrictions (compared to say the 18th), was The Place To Be in the Air Superiority community.

 

The lance point did not get any sharper, west of Tel Nof.

 

The point of this is, when you are fighting a peer opponent in a guided missile environment, traditional 'maneuverability' is secondary to the acceleration fighter ability to rapidly add and subtract energy to the airframe to boost it's AAMs and dominate the intercept geometry. In this, the F-15 has always excelled, though it did so, largely, by cheating. Having the same amount of internal fuel as the F-4 Phantom and similar TSFC (.86pph vs. .73pph and 1.96pph vs. 1.94pph, IRT and AB) but with significantly less mil thrust, requiring more burner use.

 

If your F-X radius design point is SEA with Ubon to Hanoi at around 361nm and USAFE is similar with say, Lakenheath to Bremen being 451nm, you can get away with it.

 

As soon as you are talking say...Dhahran to Baghdad (roughly 580nm), the radius increment begins to penalize your fuel fraction choice (47,660lbs mission weight, 12,000lbs internal fuel = .25) and from that, your supersonics time to the point where you are either dropping tanks, every engaged mission, or lugging CFTs which destroy both your maneuverability and your supersonic abilities together.

 

The F-15, A or C, is a AB hotrod. With the fuel tank of a dirt bike. And when it drops external gas, it is on an engaged/disengaged clock that doesn't support operations deep within an enemy controlled IADS. The ATF was designed, partly, as a stealth enclosure, around a 20-25,000lb internal fuel requirement, to meet the perceived rise of a late-80s Soviet match to our multi support mission strike warfare model and (as an HVA Sniper) was going to take the 'break them apart and shoot them as they scatter' model a lot further east. Because the F-15 was just not energy survivable, over Poland or Belarus.

 

The reason the fighter version of the F-15 remains competitive today is the AMRAAM and the very large USAF tanker fleet. Along with our refusal to fight an enemy with effective LR-SAM that can challenge these support assets, across the fence.

Edited December 20, 2019 by bies

[Knock-Knock]

Amazing read, thank you for this bies :thumbup:.

[Kev2go]

As I said in another thread a moment ago, when my boy was 8 he used to play age of empires & his favourite thing to do was start up the Camaro with a bazooka cheat, then drive around blowing up Romans with impunity.

 

Some people think that's fun - never quite saw the appeal myself.

 

As someone else said above

 

Seems more interesting to me.

 

The tech disparity between the F15 Eagle and Su27 Is not even remotely close to being as drastic as your analogy, especially when the Flanker has its unique sets of avionics and weapons that when utilized with the right tactics still make it competitive. Obsession with exact balance is only relevant for those only interested for 16 vs 16 air quake type servers for 1 vs 1 dogfights. But frankly if anything i would find it boring fighting apples with apples. ( IE an aircraft adversary that was exactly like the eagle)

 

 

F14 vs A6M2 Zero would be a more comparable aviation analogy to a bazooka Camaro vs Romans.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Kev2go