F-15C avionics wishlist

[Cobra360]

Thanks for clearing that up D.

[sunwolf]

Hello all.

I wish:

1.to make a indicator for radar-antenna pitch angle.now the indicator at VSD left edge is showing target design box's altitude area.

2.to can use IFF in close air combat mode.

3.to change the VSD 3x3 fixed grid-lines more dark than other symbol,such as number.

4.to add a cannon aim mode without F-15's aircraft radar.

[D-Scythe]

Hmm, I thought that the F-15C had EEGS, you know, the funnel-thing that the A-10 has for A/A, but I was never too sure, and then just forgot about it. Of course, the problem with EEGS as it exists now in the game is that you cannot extend the width of the funnel to match the target's wingspan, which can reduce accuracy a lot.

 

An IFF mode needs to be added. Period.

 

The other changes are mostly cosmetic, and I think ED has more important things to worry about.

[Cobra360]

I think the funnel width feature could be very easily added and was overlooked in 1.1.

When you use the Su-25T targeting system you have to set the target size with the ctr+, ctrl-, keys.

 

These key commands could have been used for the EEGS aswell. Then only thing is there is no display to know what wingspan you have set if for.

[D-Scythe]

In LOMAC, I always thought that the APG-70 radar was in some ways under-modelled, but since I'm neither an F-15C pilot or the CEO for Raytheon, I kept my opinions to myself. But I've been doing some reading, and have found some interesting (yet vague, because of unclassified nature) accounts of the performance of U.S. weapon systems.

 

The most interesting is the results of the USAF/USN AIM-ACE missile shoot out, an exercise largely designed to come up with new tactics to exploit/counter all-aspect heat-seekers that were just entering service at that point. You can read about it in the Navy's Blue Baron Project report, or just read Wings of Fury by Robert Wilcox, which has several interesting excerpts from it (and which I read); the author managed to get the report declassified. Several key points that I would like to take note of:

 

- BVR engagements were not allowed; targets must be visually acquired (first use of telescopes mounted on Eagle's HUD)

- the best pilots of the USAF and USN were selected to fly in Blue Force F-15As/F-14As and Red Force F-5Es

- Initially, most Tomcat kills were head-on AIM-7 shots, according to the Blue Baron report; to counter, the F-5s "beamed" the Tomcats

- "The F-5s, however, couldn't use that tactic (beaming) with F-15s...because the Eagle radars were better and could hold the Tigers in the perpendicular" (presumably in WVR range)

 

The picture I get, with the early -63 radars on the F-15A, is that for the most part, the system can hold a lock on a really small target (an F-5) in visual range. Now in LOMAC, I had my lock broken by beaming fighters at 2-3 nm, and the CAC modes often don't lock onto anything beaming until the aspect changes, no matter what the range. Worse still, I can't reliably pick up any choppers at high aspect until about 2 nm (i.e. when they reduce that aspect to engage me).

 

Does this seem a bit overdone to anyone else? Combined with the cheating AI, decreased chaff/flares, decreased missile effectiveness, and target lock/launch warnings in HOJ with the F-15C, the Eagle sorta seemed to have taken a turn for the worse in V1.1, whether you play single player or multiplayer. If an F-15A can hold a lock on beaming F-5s in WVR, I sorta expect that an F-15C with AMRAAM capability should be able to hold a lock onto anything within 6-8 miles in LOMAC, beaming or not.

 

Just my thoughts. Was sorta bored.

[Kula66]

- "The F-5s, however, couldn't use that tactic (beaming) with F-15s...because the Eagle radars were better and could hold the Tigers in the perpendicular" (presumably in WVR range)

Given that beaming is based on a physical property of doppler radar ... is it possible that the radars can switch to non-doppler mode in situations where doppler has problems? This would not help of course if a target was low AND beaming.

[GGTharos]

It is possible, but I don't think it's a 'pure' physical switch ... you might have interleaved radar modes as well as other factors such as look-ahead algorithms and adaptive notch- gate sizing.

 

Furthermore, I'm quite certain that such engagements don't take place particularely low, so even if the radar is 'looking down' it's like not 'looking down enough'. In other words even though it's looking down the angle's shallow enough that ground clutter is not a factor because the energy bounced back from it is too low.

[SwingKid]

The original APG-63 used in AIM-ACE had a manual rotary switch to "Pulse" (i.e. non-Doppler) mode. AFAIK this mode has since been removed in APG-70 and APG-63V1. I'm not sure if it explains anything but it may be another factor to consider.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

I can think of two reasons ...

 

1. Ineffective

2. Unnecessary after upgrade.

[tflash]

Good article on F-15 Sparrow kills!

 

In the latest Vol. 7, No 2 issue of the European edition of Combat Aircraft there is a very detailed and informative article on some of the 1991 Gulf War F-15C kills, by the pilots involved: one Mig-29 intercept, one Mirage F1. Really a must read, since it clearly shows the Mig-29 kills was a real combat engagement, and not just shooting at planes fleeing to the Iran border: the Mig-29 did have a lock on the Eagle also! Reading it also convinced me how realistic FC 1.1 really is.

E.g.: contact at 35 nm; lock at 15 nm; launch at 12 nm at medium altitude

 

- ROE required EID and Awacs bandit confirmation

- they consistently used IFF (this really should be implemented in Lockon!!!)

- Sparrow proved mature: they often shot more than one missile, but in many cases the first gave the kill, in one instance the first missile went bananas

- they do not mention the use of NCTR, in one instance they only knew afterwards the shot-down aircraft was a Mig-29.

 

In both accounts the pilots started immediate evasive manoevres after launching their missile, because they were locked by the opponent, I guess still keeping the lock however on the target!

 

One target was banking away "at near beaming direction". In none of the accounts they mention losing lock or problems locking. I guess this is the main difference with the Lockon simulation :=) The Mig-29 intecept was typically look-down: coming in from 30.000 feet at a bandit going from 7000 to 17000 ft

[SwingKid]

But I've been doing some reading, and have found some interesting (yet vague, because of unclassified nature) accounts of the performance of U.S. weapon systems.

 

The most interesting is the results of the USAF/USN AIM-ACE missile shoot out, an exercise largely designed to come up with new tactics to exploit/counter all-aspect heat-seekers that were just entering service at that point.

 

Where did you read about it? Was there any description of the "Expand" radar mode that was added to APG-63psp after AIM-ACE?

 

-SK

[Kula66]

SK, I've just started reading the same book ... I'll keep an eye out. Is the Expand mode the one that allows you to split up closely space contacts and designate them separately? A bit like a zoom function.

[SwingKid]

Is the Expand mode the one that allows you to split up closely space contacts and designate them separately? A bit like a zoom function.

 

That's what I would think from the description, but... all aircrew, manuals, everybody I've talked to that should "know"... all unanimously agree there is not, and never has been any "zoom" display. So I'm at a loss to understand how this mode works.

 

Which book is it? Davies/Thornborough?

 

-SK

[Kula66]

I think he referred to 'Wings of Fury' by Robert Wilcox ... quite a good read. I'm about 1/2 way through, describes various NATO figther incidents in the 80s/90s ...

 

SK, In one book of mine the modes for the 15 are LRS/VS/SRS/PULSE/BCN/DPLR/RNG A2G/MAP ...granted this is an early 15A with the switch PACS ... was expand added later?

[D-Scythe]

In the latest Vol. 7, No 2 issue of the European edition of Combat Aircraft there is a very detailed and informative article on some of the 1991 Gulf War F-15C kills, by the pilots involved: one Mig-29 intercept, one Mirage F1. Really a must read, since it clearly shows the Mig-29 kills was a real combat engagement, and not just shooting at planes fleeing to the Iran border: the Mig-29 did have a lock on the Eagle also! Reading it also convinced me how realistic FC 1.1 really is.

E.g.: contact at 35 nm; lock at 15 nm; launch at 12 nm at medium altitude

 

Well, I'm always highly suspicious of numbers, because they often don't give you the whole picture. I mean, you have to remember, the F-15Cs were the *last* aircraft into Iraq that first night, which means that their VSDs were probably covered by friendly contacts, probably with ECM on (imagine that in LOMAC). Furthermore, U.S. pilots often would not lock their targets until they were only a couple miles out of missile range, because entering SST would often trip the target's RWR and send it running in the opposite direction.

 

Furthermore, there aren't really any solid indications that the MiG's "locked" the Eagles, except that they were spiked. Remember, there were a lot of other strikers out there, most of which (F-15Es, F-16s and F/A-18Cs) which have their A/A radars and missiles. They were bound to get ansty when AWACs suddenly calls bandits in their immediate vicinity.

 

Read Wings of Fury. It gives a much better account of A/A combat in Operation Desert Storm (and the training that led up to it).

[Kula66]

Assuming F-15 and F-16 HUD displays are similar symbology wise ... Just found a doc showing F-16 HUD shots and still can't find any reference to friendly target in HUD... however did find this picture - which shows an AMRAAM shot on a target ... previous comments weren't refering to this by mistake were they?

[GGTharos]

Actually no, they're not the same. Not the same at all.

 

It also so happens that the F-16 has no IFF interrogator built in (last I heard) while the F-15 does.

[ThirdELTPoznan]

It also so happens that the F-16 has no IFF interrogator built in (last I heard) while the F-15 does.

Well... Actually you are wrong. F-16 HAS the IFF build in.

i.e: F-16C Blk40/42/50/52 has the Raytheon AN/APX-113 IFF transponder.

Earlier F-16s were equipped with AN/APX-101 IFF.

[Kula66]

Actually no, they're not the same. Not the same at all.

 

It also so happens that the F-16 has no IFF interrogator built in (last I heard) while the F-15 does.

 

Sorry, GGT can't believe that!! Even the F-4 had one!

 

Quoting from a MLU doc:

 

"Description. The APX-113 AIFF system functions as a traditional IFF transponder and provides an added capability to interrogate other IFF systems. The transponder responds to interrogations of IFF Modes (1, 2,

3/A, 4, C, and S) and the interrogator is capable of interrogating all IFF modes except Modes C and S. Mode S is a new mode that currently provides Mode 3 and altitude to the air traffic control system. However, the

mode can be expanded to include two way datalink communications with air traffic control."

[GGTharos]

The F-16 has an IFF transponder, yes, not an IFF INTERROGATOR.

 

See the difference?

[Kula66]

Yes I know the difference... see my edited previous message!

[ThirdELTPoznan]

The F-16 has an IFF transponder, yes, not an IFF INTERROGATOR.

 

See the difference?

Well the AN/APX-113 is Combined IFF Interrogator/Transponder

[Olgerd]

Only F-16A ADF, F-16AM and F-16CJ (CCIPed aircrafts and newest built) have interrogators. All others versions have only transponders.

CCIP for F-16CG just started as I know, so most of block 40/42 have not interrogators.

[Kula66]

Well the doc I'm looking at (which I got from the WEB) is regarding the F-16A/B Block 10/15 MLU capabilities ... and is dated 1998.

[Olgerd]

Do you know that "F-16A/B MLU" name equals to "F-16AM/BM"?