Full Fidelity F15C eagle

[HiJack]

A full featured F-15C Eagle will be completely different from a F-15E Strike Eagle!

A full featured F-15C Eagle will be completely different from the FC3 aircraft.

 

We need a full featured F-15C Eagle now! :):joystick::D

[bies]

It is definitely doable but it depends which variand we choose:

 

Option (1) FC3 F-15C is the MISP II version from about 1985-1995. This is a cold war/Desert Storm fighter (with possible AMRAAM armament) without Datalink, AESA, JHMCS, 9X etc. This variant would be suited for cold war/Desert Storm scenarios but not for latest DCS multiplayer with 2004-2007 planes. It would be Heatblur's F-14B contemporary. Which is ok but some people would be dissapointed it's not better than Hornet or F-16 modeled as 10-15 years more modern planes

 

Option (2) Full fidelity A-10, F/A-18, Harrier, F-16 are modeled as about 2004-2007 planes. If F-15 would meant to be compatible with them (and able in modern DCS multiplayer enviroment) it would be 2004-2007 standard with datalink, MFD, JHMCS, AIM-9X and - what is most important - it would have AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA radar. F-15s started to receive AESA radars in year 2000.

Is this counterpart of F/A-18C Lot 20 or F-16C block 50 with AESA radar doable? I don't know.

Edited October 30, 2019 by bies

[veenee]

I love reading statements made as "Fact" when nobody except ED knows the real story.

I seem to remember some of you are the same people who stated as "FACT" the F-16 would "Never" be ready for early access this year because it took them so long to do the F-18. .

 

I would not call it 'ready' for EA :-)

 

(I still bought it, but won't fly it for another year or so, as it's a waste of time right now - there are better modules around.)

 

I also would like to see full fidelity F-15C, so count me in.

Edited October 30, 2019 by veenee

[nessuno0505]

It is definitely doable but it depends which variand we choose:

 

Option (1) FC3 F-15C is the MISP II version from about 1985-1995. This is a cold war/Desert Storm fighter (with possible AMRAAM armament) without Datalink, AESA, JHMCS, 9X etc. This variant would be suited for cold war/Desert Storm scenarios but not for latest DCS multiplayer with 2004-2007 planes. It would be Heatblur's F-14B contemporary. Which is ok but some people would be dissapointed it's not better than Hornet or F-16 modeled as 10-15 years more modern planes

 

Option (2) Full fidelity A-10, F/A-18, Harrier, F-16 are modeled as about 2004-2007 planes. If F-15 would meant to be compatible with them (and able in modern DCS multiplayer enviroment) it would be 2004-2007 standard with datalink, MFD, JHMCS, AIM-9X and - what is most important - it would have AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA radar. F-15s started to receive AESA radars in year 2000.

Is this counterpart of F/A-18C Lot 20 or F-16C block 50 with AESA radar doable? I don't know.

 

That's a good and interesting point. I do not know if aesa radar Is doable; if so It would be great to have a 15 contemporary to 16 and 18; if not, maybe a 15 contemporary to 14b would not be as much interesting imho, in that case I'd prefer to see other modules (every flying vehicle Is interesting but we cannot have them all since resources are limited and It takes time). What kind of radar does a 2004-2007 15 strike eagle have?

[Silver_Dragon]

The F-15C cockpit from FC-3 release, was maked as a clicleable cockpit with conectors and animations as the A-10A, but never turn into "pilotable" hardcore module.

 

A old video from 2013

[veenee]

That's a good and interesting point. I do not know if aesa radar Is doable; if so It would be great to have a 15 contemporary to 16 and 18; if not, maybe a 15 contemporary to 14b would not be as much interesting imho, in that case I'd prefer to see other modules (every flying vehicle Is interesting but we cannot have them all since resources are limited and It takes time). What kind of radar does a 2004-2007 15 strike eagle have?

Non AESA APG-70, they started raplacing them with APG-82 but it is ongoing process right now.

 

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsusafs-f-15e-strike-eagle-to-receive-radar-upgrade-from-boeing-5695608/

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Harlikwin]

Well, it is very plausible addition to the so called "red side" even though pakistan is a NATO allied. I think many MP servers will add it as a Chinese asset.

 

Yeah, being an export fighter anyway it can "whatever" it wants. And since its not a canonical "western" f-teen fighter it will likely plug the hole for a advanced redfor jet on most servers IMO.

[Harlikwin]

It is definitely doable but it depends which variand we choose:

 

Option (1) FC3 F-15C is the MISP II version from about 1985-1995. This is a cold war/Desert Storm fighter (with possible AMRAAM armament) without Datalink, AESA, JHMCS, 9X etc. This variant would be suited for cold war/Desert Storm scenarios but not for latest DCS multiplayer with 2004-2007 planes. It would be Heatblur's F-14B contemporary. Which is ok but some people would be dissapointed it's not better than Hornet or F-16 modeled as 10-15 years more modern planes

 

Option (2) Full fidelity A-10, F/A-18, Harrier, F-16 are modeled as about 2004-2007 planes. If F-15 would meant to be compatible with them (and able in modern DCS multiplayer enviroment) it would be 2004-2007 standard with datalink, MFD, JHMCS, AIM-9X and - what is most important - it would have AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA radar. F-15s started to receive AESA radars in year 2000.

Is this counterpart of F/A-18C Lot 20 or F-16C block 50 with AESA radar doable? I don't know.

 

I'd be good either way. At what point did C-eagles get link16?

[Harlikwin]

The F-15C cockpit from FC-3 release, was maked as a clicleable cockpit with conectors and animations as the A-10A, but never turn into "pilotable" hardcore module.

 

A old video from 2013

 

Yeah, but given the fact they are re-doing the old pits anyway this doesn't mean alot.

[The Falcon]

We have already so many american full-fidelity planes in DCS, that I actually would prefer more foreign aircrafts, like the Tornado or the MiG-23.

:)

[upyr1]

Not just your opinion. Plus the E won't come with an AI back seater like it should.

 

They need to get Jeter back there

[Kev2go]

It is definitely doable but it depends which variand we choose:

 

Option (1) FC3 F-15C is the MISP II version from about 1985-1995. This is a cold war/Desert Storm fighter (with possible AMRAAM armament) without Datalink, AESA, JHMCS, 9X etc. This variant would be suited for cold war/Desert Storm scenarios but not for latest DCS multiplayer with 2004-2007 planes. It would be Heatblur's F-14B contemporary. Which is ok but some people would be dissapointed it's not better than Hornet or F-16 modeled as 10-15 years more modern planes

 

Option (2) Full fidelity A-10, F/A-18, Harrier, F-16 are modeled as about 2004-2007 planes. If F-15 would meant to be compatible with them (and able in modern DCS multiplayer enviroment) it would be 2004-2007 standard with datalink, MFD, JHMCS, AIM-9X and - what is most important - it would have AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA radar. F-15s started to receive AESA radars in year 2000.

Is this counterpart of F/A-18C Lot 20 or F-16C block 50 with AESA radar doable? I don't know.

 

 

Actually the f15 didnt get asea in any meaningful numbers until recently.

 

And even to date not all f15c,s are upgraded with an/apg63 v2 or v3 AESA radars.

 

So all ed would need to do with current eagle to be representative of a

mid 2000s era would be addition of link 16, followed by jhmcs + aim9x, for it to be more in line with capabilties of other modules

 

As such They can still be flying with an/apg63 v1 or an/apg70 ( depending on production block)

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said I wouldnt exactly consider 90s f15 equivalent of an f14b we have in dcs. Because it already has more modern systems from the msip stage 2 upgrades.

 

1) hud. F15 always had a more modern HUD even as far back as f15a. You dont need to use analog instruments unless as a backup. Its HUD presents more information like speed , altitude , g force etc etc.

 

2) mfd. Present sinc msip 2 upgradesThe ones on lower left corner that's typically showing weapons stores page ( but also sa/had type page for link 16 equipped eagles)

 

3) Radar. Although on paper the f14 awg9 system has longer detection range , it is worth noting ( even from the get go) the an/apg63 had some advantages over awg9 system namely newer components that enabled use of medium prf waveforms which allow greater all aspect detection capabilties. Awg 9 radar with only low and high pulse modes is not as reliable in detecting and tracking of targets in side or rear aspects relative to apg63. The an/apg63 is also better at tracking targets at low altitude against ground clutter interference.

 

As a bonus apg63 is capable of air to ground mapping modes even if f15c is not strike fighter it's nice to have

 

If looking at a mid to late 90s eagle you also looking at more modern apg apg63 due to v1 reliability uprades.

 

4) PSP ( programmable signal processor )

 

Starting in 1979 this is what f15 had upgraded to the original an/apg63. This allowed radar to have software updates to add new radar modes, weapons capabilities, without nessesitating a hardware upgrade to do so as well as counter new electronic threats. Although is very simplified in dcs it is worth noting that nonetheless the an/apg63 post PSP upgrades is more jam resistant than awg9

 

The dod,s Defense technical information institute on thier website has has open source information for more reading.

 

Apg63 radar case report study although preminatnelty on maintenance and reliability issues has some pertinent information of the apg63 and its modes as well as its evolution of its development if you want more detail

Edited November 8, 2019 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

I'd be good either way. At what point did C-eagles get link16?

 

Found an article from 2003 that says f15 training squadrons have it and will be in full operational use by 2004

 

 

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/138458/fighters-benefit-from-link-16/

[WildBillKelsoe]

+1

 

Yes I want a full fidelity F-15C. I love the Eagle.

[Harlikwin]

Found an article from 2003 that says f15 training squadrons have it and will be in full operational use by 2004

 

 

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/138458/fighters-benefit-from-link-16/

 

That seems crazy late.

[Fri13]

I have started to generate the opinion that I would prefer more that ED and 3rd party studios would focus more for the old Cold War era aircrafts first.

 

meaning, make first the F-15A, then generate the upgrade licensed payware variant of F-15C, and then later the F-15E.

 

This way you get three modules, each payware and requiring previous one.

F-15A > F-15C > F-15E.

 

And now you have three versions, each can be set on specific era missions.

 

Su-27S > Su-27SKM > Su-27M (Su-35)

Mig-23S > Mig-23P > Mig-23MLA

Mi-24V > Mi-24P > Mi-24VP

 

Then anyone can get what ever they want, and newer just requires you pay like 69€ + 29€ + 29€ for the upgrades. So in total if you want that F-15E, you pay for it that 127€ in total.

[Kev2go]

That seems crazy late.

 

is it really?

 

F16C block's 50/52's didnt get Link 16 until CCIP phase 2, which didn't begin initial implementation until July of 2003.

 

Similar enough timeframe.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

I have started to generate the opinion that I would prefer more that ED and 3rd party studios would focus more for the old Cold War era aircrafts first.

 

meaning, make first the F-15A, then generate the upgrade licensed payware variant of F-15C, and then later the F-15E.

 

This way you get three modules, each payware and requiring previous one.

F-15A > F-15C > F-15E.

 

And now you have three versions, each can be set on specific era missions.

 

Su-27S > Su-27SKM > Su-27M (Su-35)

Mig-23S > Mig-23P > Mig-23MLA

Mi-24V > Mi-24P > Mi-24VP

 

Then anyone can get what ever they want, and newer just requires you pay like 69€ + 29€ + 29€ for the upgrades. So in total if you want that F-15E, you pay for it that 127€ in total.

 

 

Besides overall not favouring with such an idea i'm going to point something out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You run into problems with such an idea in instances where ED isn't actually making all variants of a given airframe

 

FOr eg F15E is being made by Razbam, in such instance would result in forcing players have to buy preceding F15's made by another developer like ED. That is just not right.

 

Not a good business practice to screw over 3rd party partners and the general consumer base at the same time.

 

 

 

I would also point in there are different time periods for various versions.

 

For EG F15C from 1979 is fairly different from F15C post MSIP 2 circa 1985-95, and a 21st century F15C also gets new features. SO you can still have a cold war F15C, and a modern era F15C.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Kev2go

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I have started to generate the opinion that I would prefer more that ED and 3rd party studios would focus more for the old Cold War era aircrafts first.

 

meaning, make first the F-15A, then generate the upgrade licensed payware variant of F-15C, and then later the F-15E.

 

This way you get three modules, each payware and requiring previous one.

F-15A > F-15C > F-15E.

 

And now you have three versions, each can be set on specific era missions.

 

Su-27S > Su-27SKM > Su-27M (Su-35)

Mig-23S > Mig-23P > Mig-23MLA

Mi-24V > Mi-24P > Mi-24VP

 

Then anyone can get what ever they want, and newer just requires you pay like 69€ + 29€ + 29€ for the upgrades. So in total if you want that F-15E, you pay for it that 127€ in total.

That idea is pretty stupid honestly a better way to go about it is how HB is doing the tomcat so for example instead of just selling a noughties CCIP upgrade F-16C blk 50 alone you also get a retro say southern watch spec F-16CG Blk 40 Night Falcon and make the retail price a tad higher

 

 

 

Probably the best way to sell many planes that are similar enough to people without stepping on any toes

[Harlikwin]

I have started to generate the opinion that I would prefer more that ED and 3rd party studios would focus more for the old Cold War era aircrafts first.

 

meaning, make first the F-15A, then generate the upgrade licensed payware variant of F-15C, and then later the F-15E.

 

This way you get three modules, each payware and requiring previous one.

F-15A > F-15C > F-15E.

 

And now you have three versions, each can be set on specific era missions.

 

Su-27S > Su-27SKM > Su-27M (Su-35)

Mig-23S > Mig-23P > Mig-23MLA

Mi-24V > Mi-24P > Mi-24VP

 

Then anyone can get what ever they want, and newer just requires you pay like 69€ + 29€ + 29€ for the upgrades. So in total if you want that F-15E, you pay for it that 127€ in total.

 

Brilliant!

 

[Harlikwin]

is it really?

 

F16C block's 50/52's didnt get Link 16 until CCIP phase 2, which didn't begin initial implementation until July of 2003.

 

Similar enough timeframe.

 

I guess I always thought link16 was an early 90's tech upgrade... Guess not. Maybe the poors just got it late...

[Harlikwin]

Besides overall not favouring with such an idea i'm going to point something out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You run into problems with such an idea in instances where ED isn't actually making all variants of a given airframe

 

FOr eg F15E is being made by Razbam, in such instance would result in forcing players have to buy preceding F15's made by another developer like ED. That is just not right.

 

Not a good business practice to screw over 3rd party partners and the general consumer base at the same time.

 

 

 

I would also point in there are different time periods for various versions.

 

For EG F15C from 1979 is fairly different from F15C post MSIP 2 circa 1985-95, and a 21st century F15C also gets new features. SO you can still have a cold war F15C, and a modern era F15C.

 

Yeah, but guess who gets to say who develops what? ED gets to say... Sooooo… ED could say... Yeah we will start with the F16 block whatever for XX dollars, then do the C blk 30 for XX more, then BLK 40 for XX more, then Blk 50 for more...

 

I mean, it is a dick move from the player perspective but if ED needs a money that's the business model they should use. And if it keeps ED alive, it GTG from my perspective. F4b, F4C, F4E etc... :)

[Oceandar]

 

Option (2) Full fidelity A-10, F/A-18, Harrier, F-16 are modeled as about 2004-2007 planes. If F-15 would meant to be compatible with them (and able in modern DCS multiplayer enviroment) it would be 2004-2007 standard with datalink, MFD, JHMCS, AIM-9X and - what is most important - it would have AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA radar. F-15s started to receive AESA radars in year 2000.

Is this counterpart of F/A-18C Lot 20 or F-16C block 50 with AESA radar doable? I don't know.

 

Is this AESA radar view ?

[Kev2go]

Yeah, but guess who gets to say who develops what? ED gets to say... Sooooo… ED could say... Yeah we will start with the F16 block whatever for XX dollars, then do the C blk 30 for XX more, then BLK 40 for XX more, then Blk 50 for more...

 

I mean, it is a dick move from the player perspective but if ED needs a money that's the business model they should use. And if it keeps ED alive, it GTG from my perspective. F4b, F4C, F4E etc... :)

 

Actually 3rd parties develop what they want..... These are thier own choices. that are merely aproved by ED for a 3rd party liscense. IN some cases these are outright passion projects from specific nations the developers originate from. So far i have not seen ED dismiss a license because ED wanted to "steal" that development module from another 3rd party.

 

And that isnt the point. You aready have 3rd parties developing other variations of aircraft. Again Razbam is already doing an F15E. ED cant just say " oh btw now hey people cant buy your module, unless they buy an F15A and C first because of this new system"

 

It isnt just a dick move for players but for 3rd party developers. If you mess with a 3rd parties profits with such a system, they wont want to, develop modules. if it makes them sell profitable.

 

So this isnt going to keep ED longer, because they get a 30% cut from 3rd party profits by doing so would discourage current and future potential 3rd parties from developing in DCS, in addition to reducing players sales, by forcing variants of aircraft that people may not want, and therfore not purchasing. Youve now reduced a 3rd parties sales due to this paywall idea you want to support, and de-motivate them from developing future modules.

 

What further already weakens such an idea is that already people have these aircraft under the current system. what of those that already have F18C or F16C? guess what they arent buying F16A or F18A unless they genuinely want to. You cant force them. What about putting in a system that prevents you from playing originally purchased module? unless you buy others? that is again even more anti consumerist and are going to further alienate your consumerbase. Also at that point i can actually see someone attempting to enact a civil suits for such a move.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Kev2go

[draconus]

Far better would be selling any version for a full module price. That way you buy only what you want. If you already have one and still want to try other you can buy other versions with a huge discount. Doesn't solve the 3rd party problem though when different versions come from different producers.