Any thoughts/ideas about creating a F-15E Strike Eagle?

[RickB]

Curious....how difficult would it be to design & add a second seat on the F-15c? The developers already have the model, they would just have to modify it a bit.

 

Does anyone know how to modify the payload on the F-15C in LOMAC to be a strike aircraft?

 

If anyone has an idea of how to do it or can guide me, that will do until the devlopers either release a editor of some sort to import models into it or develop new aircraft addons.

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated, that is if it's possible. Thanks in advance.

[GGTharos]

Currently not possible for a numebr of reasons - liek non-existant second seat, no ground radar, and so on and so on.

[Iron Legionnaire]

I think an F-15E would be an "interesting" addition, but I also think there would be quite a bit more work involved in its creation than you are suggesting. For instance, the F-15E has A2G radar, something that the F-15C doesn't have. It also has avionics that allow it to use guided A2G munitions, again, something that the F-15C doesn't have. 2-seater modelling, new avionics, new flight model (if necessary), modified aircraft model... It adds up to a lot of work.

[GGTharos]

The F-15C DOES have the radar modes and avionics, but LOMAC has no ground radar. ;) That's the real problem. And the whole two-seater part, too.

[D-Scythe]

A flyable F-15E is virtually an impossibility - besides avionics and the second seat, such a project would require cockpits with multi-function displays, a new FM (with CFTs and Dash 229s, an F-15E different enough to warrant one), A/G weapons old and new, and accurate systems/procedures to employ them.

 

Instead, I'd take what I can get and settle for an AI F-15E - it'd be fun escorting some of them into dodge and knowing that if somethin got by you, there'd be a jet just as capable as yours a couple miles behind waiting with Slammers on its rails 8)

[169th_Cobra]

I'd take the F/A-18 over an F-15E (omg what have i started with this) in that it would fit in a lot better with the supposed time frame and also give us carrier ops.

 

Instead, I'd take what I can get and settle for an AI F-15E - it'd be fun escorting some of them into dodge and knowing that if somethin got by you, there'd be a jet just as capable as yours a couple miles behind waiting with Slammers on its rails 8)

 

I'd definately go for what D-Scythe suggested as well!

 

Cheers to the devs and everyone at ED for making this such a great game.

[MikeRocker]

Here we go...

 

Most people here probably followed the discussion pro-contra the F/A-18 for LOMAC that went on over at the UBI forums earlier this year. I think SwingKid was at the center of it.

 

One of the central points was the fact that no US carrier would EVER enter the Black Sea (and neither the Kuznetsov,for that matter), especially not with a shooting war going on. Apart from the fact that there is an international treaty banning it, it would be a stupid waste of a perfectly good carrier. So in that context, which strike aircraft would be more likely involved in US/NATO action over Crimea: the F-15E or the Hornet? Figure it out yourself.

 

For people that don't care about historic context and tactical realism, the Hornet will seem an enticing proposition. But in my opinion, carrier aviation is not viable in the theater of operation that we have. So before there is a new location featuring open seas, I am in favour of developing land-based aviation to a more complete force structure.

[ThirdELTPoznan]

It would be big thing to modell but what fun it would be to fly it :)

[GGTharos]

I'm sorry but the Kuz is already there and being used, so what's the problem with a US Carrier again? 'Selective realism' not permitting it to enter?

[britgliderpilot]

I'm sorry but the Kuz is already there and being used, so what's the problem with a US Carrier again? 'Selective realism' not permitting it to enter?

 

The Kuz is classed as an "Aviation Cruiser", so there's a grey area about allowing it to pass through the Bosporus.

 

It was built on the Black Sea, and remained there for a while . . . . Saki is the training facility for the Russian Navy pilots - the Black Sea is really the home of the Kuznetsov.

 

The US carriers don't really suffer that . . . . .

 

 

In a realistic scenario, the Turks may or may not allow a US carrier through the Bosporus . . . if it's in their interest to attempt to stabilise any conflict, they may well see an exception to their law (letting the US carrier through) as a good thing.

 

Shrug.

[ALDEGA]

In Lomac's timeframe the Kuznetsov was in the Black Sea (afaik), no US Navy carrier was. It would have had to enter via the Bosphorus strait.

The Kuz is classed as an "Aviation Cruiser", so there's a grey area about allowing it to pass through the Bosporus

If you know the Varyag story you know how hard the Turks oppose something like that happening. Even if you would call it a fishing boat ;)

 

Also keeping in mind the Turkish stance regarding the latest US-lead war in Iraq (allowing Turkish bases to be used by coalition aircraft, etc), you cannot consider the Turks to be very easy to convince to choose to become part of a conflict. Letting a US carrier pass through the Boshporus would be considered taking sides by other countries. Not exactly a positive thing.

 

Don't look for an excuse to have US carriers in the Black Sea. ;)

A skandinavian area map (I believe JF18 had this) would be more suitable for such a conflict. Hey, the Admiral is currently in the Northern fleet, isn't it? :wink:

[Alfa]

ALDEGA wrote:

If you know the Varyag story you know how hard the Turks oppose something like that happening. Even if you would call it a fishing boat ;)

 

Aldega - the yard(Nikolayev South) which built all aviation cruisers operated by the Soviet Union is located in the Black Sea - and all these exited the Back Sea via the Bosphorous strait as they had completed their initial sea trials and entered again from time to time for repairs.

 

The reason why the Turks were opposing the Varyag "passing" through the Bosphorous was not due to some carrier treaty, but because the Varyag in its dismantled condition is 30000 + ton of un-steerable hull....no engines or rudders to steer it through a narrow and very busy strait ;) . ....meaning that a major towing effort had to be made and the Turks were quite simply afraid that, in case something went wrong, the civilian traffic could be disturbed for days or weeks with huge economical consequences. :) . The towing got the green light only when the consortium behind it managed to convince the Turkish authorities that it could be made in a safe way.

 

Don't look for an excuse to have US carriers in the Black Sea. ;)

 

No need for excuses - in Lock-on, there is one there already ;) .

 

A skandinavian area map (I believe JF18 had this) would be more suitable for such a conflict. Hey, the Admiral is currently in the Northern fleet, isn't it? :wink:

 

Yes a North Atlantic map would be more suitable - and yes the Admiral Kuznetsov(there are quite a few "Admirals" among Russian naval vessels ;) ) is the flagship of the Northern Fleet, so it is very much there :)

 

However, my personal opinion is that considering the amount of attention required for the naval aspect to reach a proper standard, the location of the sea on which the ships are sailing is the last thing to worry about :D

[ALDEGA]

Alfa, I'm glad you're on the beta team :)

[SUBS17]

I have no problems with the idea of an F-15E or F/A-18 in Lockon. The major hurdle is the A/G radar. The 2 seat issue could be worked around as I've seen in some of the Mods. Some people have mentioned that the workload would be a problem but I very much doubt that. The workload for the pilot in Lockon would be the same for a single seat as well as 2 seater. The only difference being the switching between cockpits or use of an AI WSO(which would make it very easy) Also the geographical region and the use of US carriers there, who cares. It makes no difference in the game.

cheers

Subs

[D-Scythe]

I have no problems with the idea of an F-15E or F/A-18 in Lockon. The major hurdle is the A/G radar. The 2 seat issue could be worked around as I've seen in some of the Mods. Some people have mentioned that the workload would be a problem but I very much doubt that. The workload for the pilot in Lockon would be the same for a single seat as well as 2 seater. The only difference being the switching between cockpits or use of an AI WSO(which would make it very easy) Also the geographical region and the use of US carriers there, who cares. It makes no difference in the game.

cheers

Subs

 

Wrong. The major hurdle is not the A/G radar; rather, it is the modelling of all the procedures and systems needed to employ every weapon that the F-15E or F/A-18 can carry, which is a lot. Sure, ED can do a half-assed job in this like Jane's USAF, but if they ever want to simulate everything somewhat accurately (let's not even talk realistic right now ;) ), it would require:

- a reworking of the entire cockpit to include MFDs and MPCDs, with some clickable push buttons or if not, a $hit load of hot keys

- an accurate representation of the AN/AAQ-13 Nav pod, to include TFR, a NOE autopilot and FLIR imagery superimposed on the HUD. Any one of these will take a LOT of work

- accurate representation of the AN/AAQ-14 TR pod, with the laser and targeting functions associated with the delivery of LGBs and Mavericks

- Reworking of the TV/IR code to make provisions for one of the principle weapons: the GBU-15/AGM-130 glide bomb, including the datalink to actually guide it post launch

- Accurate flight models for bombs and glide bombs. The current system is flawed and needs vast improvement (ever seen an LGB dropped? It's slow as hell, ~200-300 kmph, even when perpendicular to the ground). Cluster bomb dispersion characteristics is also too scripted

- Accurate modelling of the huge arsenal of weapons available to the F-15E, including LGBs, general purpose bombs, high drag low altitude bombs, CBUs, Maverick and AGM-130/GBU-15 missiles. And these are only the weapons BEFORE Desert Storm

 

Now add to that the full plethora of A/G functions typical to a F-15E APG-70 radar, including patch maps, GMT, etc., plus the second seat, plus the new FM...the list goes on. Far too much work, imo, and something ED wouldn't finish in a few years.

 

The time and resources needed to build an F-15E could be far better invested into other things, like improvements to the F-15C's avionics and the AI.

[SUBS17]

The set up in Janes F-15 would do me, I think you are confusing Lockon to Falcon 4! The reason I say that is we aren't talking about button for button cockpits. Thats not the level of complexity that this game is focused on. Hence the ability to incorporate an F-15E is not impossible. As for the weapons well sure I'd agree the F-15E has quite alot of weapons it can carry but alot of them are already modeled.

[MikeRocker]

Well, everyone seems to have a different opinion on this issue, but I feel that there is a fundamental problem with simulating a two-seat aircraft as flyable. The Strike Eagle is a highly advanced and integrated weapons system, designed from the ground up to be operated by TWO PEOPLE! Now of course the pilot can assume control over almost any function in the jet, but that is hardly the point, is it?

 

I think most of the problems cited so far are technical issues or simulation details that can be approximated to a satisfactory extent (well, some are never satisfied :roll: ) But the basic problem remains: how to solve the two-seat issue.

 

Now for multi-player, it's not such a problem (apart from stopping network lag between partners etc.) but would you want to fly with an AI WSO or pilot, given the AI performance in LOMAC to date?

[D-Scythe]

The set up in Janes F-15 would do me, I think you are confusing Lockon to Falcon 4! The reason I say that is we aren't talking about button for button cockpits.

 

Did Janes F-15 not have clickable buttons in the pit? :roll: And the set up in Janes F-15 is far beyond LOMAC, FYI. It was an F-15E study sim.

 

 

Hence the ability to incorporate an F-15E is not impossible.

 

Yes it is impossible to do unless your willing to wait a few long years.

 

As for the weapons well sure I'd agree the F-15E has quite alot of weapons it can carry but alot of them are already modeled.

 

If you read my post, I said that most of the weapons are modelled, but no where *near* accurately. Furthermore, the actual delivery of said weapons systems (i.e. lasing an LGB into a target) is not modelled.

 

Nobody's asking for F4 type realism here - certainly no one brought it up before you. Asking for a Jane's F-15 set up is absurd...as I said, that was a STUDY sim FOR the F-15E. If we were to incorporate an F-15E in the timeframe and with the resources your asking for, the Janes USAF F-15E would be more realistic, and that's an oxymoron.

[SUBS17]

No not the Janes USAF F-15, I was talking about the Janes F-15E. Yes it had a clickable pit but the keyboard would do. A clickable pit is a nice feature but not always necessary. As for Janes F-15 being a study Sim, in my view it was a flight sim and quite a good one. As for LGBs, I'd probably look at the different ways in which they are used and incorporate them in some way. eg ground lasing, wingmen and self lasing. Maybe a modification of the Maverick set up could be used. F-15E is a nice aircraft and whether flyable or AI it would be nice to see. Someone mentioned that the LGBs travelled too slow, all you would have to remember there is the speed of which an object accelerates in freefall and apply that(cant remember the numbers but I'm sure I got it written down somewhere!)

cheers

Subs

[D-Scythe]

No not the Janes USAF F-15, I was talking about the Janes F-15E. Yes it had a clickable pit but the keyboard would do.

 

As I said...then there would be a $hit load of hot keys, and then it would end up more like Falcon 4 with all the keyboard stuff. It'll get really complicated, you know, setting up each MFD, switching them if need be, etc. Unlike the F-15C, the F-15E cockpit has far fewer gauges and more electronic displays - a true glass cockpit. Even the RWR is represented in the MFD as opposed to its own unique display.

 

For example, if you're F-15E was damaged, nothing would tell you anything - you'd need to bring up your ADI page.

 

A clickable pit is a nice feature but not always necessary.

 

It would actually be simpler to have a clickable pit...just the MFD pushbuttons if nothing else. Personally, I don't want to be pushing SHIFT-CTRL-F just to bring up a FLIR page.

 

As for LGBs, I'd probably look at the different ways in which they are used and incorporate them in some way. eg ground lasing, wingmen and self lasing.

 

That would be even more complicated than self lasing.

 

Maybe a modification of the Maverick set up could be used.

 

Mavs don't lase. Maybe a modification of the Vikhr targeting set up from V1.1.

 

F-15E is a nice aircraft and whether flyable or AI it would be nice to see. Someone mentioned that the LGBs travelled too slow, all you would have to remember there is the speed of which an object accelerates in freefall and apply that(cant remember the numbers but I'm sure I got it written down somewhere!)

cheers

Subs

 

Objects fall at 9.8m/s^2, up until terminal velocity. A 2000 lb laser guided bomb is released from an aircraft going at 900 kmph, and slows down to 300 kmph in the free fall, of which the last 80% of its flight the bomb is pointing straight down (which normally doesn't happen btw).

 

You do the math.

 

If you think a LGB having a terminal velocity of 300 kmph is realistic, then fine. I think it's completely off.

[SUBS17]

If you think that the LGBs rate of decent is incorrect then maybe you should mention that to ED! Its no big deal to me whether the F-15E gets put in or not. But if it does in the future then it would be a great asset for taking out ground targets and could be used as a template for other bombers such as Su34, B1B, B52, F111 etc. The best approach would be multirole aircraft as that could pave the way for alot of aircraft types. Although I have heard that this will never happen with Lockon but there is the possibilty of a future Sim based on the Lockon engine. Either way I guess we'll have to wait and see.

cheers

Subs

[SwingKid]

Was the original poster asking about a flyable F-15E?

 

I have been hoping for an AI F-15E for a long time, for the same reasons expressed by D-Scythe. There won't be one in v1.1, but there are still hopes that maybe soon after. :wink:

 

If we are talking about new flyables, I think we can almost see the path now that ED is taking... Make each new aircraft be an incremental addition of features, instead of trying to do everything at once from scratch. Hence v1.1's Su-25T is an incremental improvement of the existing Su-25, using a similar TV- and laser-guided weapons system that is a combination of A-10A Maverick and Su-25 technology, then v1.2's Ka-50, which introduces helo ops but uses a similar weapons system to Su-25T...

 

If you take the list of modern combat aircraft, I think you can arrange them in a sort of sequence from "most easily developed" to "hardest". For example, the F/A-18 would appear later on the list than the F-16, because the Hornet has practically all the avionics and weapons of the Falcon, plus anti-ship missiles and carrier ops.

 

I don't know what ED has in store after v1.2, but if my life depended on a guess, I'd start flipping through airplane books looking for other cool things that can use optical- or laser-guided weapons, would benefit from an advanced physics/flight model, maybe takes off like a helicopter... to take advantage of what v1.2 will already provide, while introducing enough new features to serve as a good basis for consecutive flyables down the road. This could provide a steady stream of ever-expanding sims, without such horrendously expensive development time between releases.

 

As for the map's effect, it's not so much to me that carriers in the Black Sea are a bad idea, as it is that carriers in the ocean are a better idea. If you are planning (hypothetically) to develop two sims in the future, a Su-25T sim and an F/A-18 sim, and you've got two theaters, one a conflict between Russia and Georgia on a map you have ready to go now, and later, something between China and Taiwan, which jet should be chosen to package together with which map? You could put the F/A-18 into Georgia, but... what would you do for an encore?

 

I hope I didn't lead anyone into thinking I was opposed to naval ops... On the contrary, much like Alfa, we all want to see that whatever is done, is done "well." For ED to succeed with something as complex as making sims, they need to plan well beyond the next immediate product release. IMHO Su-25T for v1.1 was an awesome plan, better than anything I could have come up with, and I hope ED will continue to be guided by such, "patient wisdom." :)

 

-SK

 

Lock On v1.1 "Flaming Cliffs" beta tester

[SwingKid]

If you think that the LGBs rate of decent is incorrect then maybe you should mention that to ED!

 

The bomb flight paths were tweaked in Lock On v1.0 to ensure that the pipper would be visible in the HUD at the desired dive angles. This was because in the cramped space on the computer monitor, the HUD field of view was made artificially smaller to try to cram in as many visible cockpit instruments as possible - a realistic trajectory would not have allowed CCIP bombing at any angle, except at very low altitude and high speed, since the bomb impact point was always below the lower limit of the shrunken HUD.

 

Except for the original Su-25 (for which I'm not sure), the HUD FOVs have now been increased in v1.1 to more realistic proportions, and it's up to the user to decide how to solve the instrument-viewing problem with snap-views, zoom levels or TrackIR. This should allow the bomb trajectories to be corrected to more realistic values, but I don't know if that's been done just yet.

 

-SK

 

Lock On v1.1 "Flaming Cliffs" beta tester

[Starlight]

wanna fly the F-15E? simple, check this out:

 

http://www.simmersworld.com/ss2.php?sl=F15Epit1.jpg

 

 

http://www.simmersworld.com/ss2.php?sl=F15Epit2.jpg

 

 

http://www.simmersworld.com/ss2.php?sl=F15Epit3.jpg

[SUBS17]

I agree with you on that one, the Su25T was definately a good idea for the next add-on. One question, those screenshots, are they an add-on for Falcon4? Very impressive cockpit shots. One more thing, is the Ka50 going to have AFM? Just a few questions.

cheers

Subs