DCS: F-15C Poll

[Dragon1-1]

Yeah, and on top of that, in one of the latest Strike Eagle videos Notso confirmed that some USAF F-15C squadrons did, in fact, train with air to ground munitions. USAF didn't like to advertise that fact, but they did, and the F-15C is perfectly capable of dropping bombs, using air to ground radar, and strafing. "Not a pound for air to ground" is just posturing, dropping bombs from an F-15C is not a common use for them, but a very possible one nonetheless.

[Nahen]

7 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Yeah, and on top of that, in one of the latest Strike Eagle videos Notso confirmed that some USAF F-15C squadrons did, in fact, train with air to ground munitions. USAF didn't like to advertise that fact, but they did, and the F-15C is perfectly capable of dropping bombs, using air to ground radar, and strafing. "Not a pound for air to ground" is just posturing, dropping bombs from an F-15C is not a common use for them, but a very possible one nonetheless.

Ehhh again like with CFT... the F-15A/C was never used to attack ground targets. The fact that there were assumptions and some trials / tests does not matter. The result of these trials was the F-15E. Apart from the Israeli versions of the F-15, no F-15A/C has ever been used for attacking ground targets and was not intended to be used like that - that's why the USAF had F-16s, A-10s, B-52s. The F-15A/C has ALWAYS been an air superiority fighter and was used as such in the USAF. Perhaps for a while some pilots were trained in this direction, and perhaps they were the first F-15E pilots. But that's exactly as important as the fact that someone drove a Ford Mustang into the mud and since then claims the Mustang is an off-road vehicle...

[Dragon1-1]

4 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Perhaps for a while some pilots were trained in this direction, and perhaps they were the first F-15E pilots. 

Exactly my point. There was a time, before Strike Eagle came along, that some USAF squadrons trained to use the F-15C in an air to ground role, in addition to air to air. This shows that the aircraft itself has all the features needed to fly air to ground missions. It was never used that was operationally, but they trained for it, and if it ever became necessary, it could have been. In fact, a scenario where a CAP flight has to do some emergency strafing to get some grunts out of a fix is very easy to imagine. And if they ever had to do it, they'd have a CCIP reticle to help with that.

If you drive a Mustang into the mud, and find out it doesn't really bother it as much as you'd expect, then it indicates an overlooked capability to be used as an off-road vehicle. As it happens, with its high speed, respectable bombload and excellent self-escort capabilities, the F-15C is a very competent bomber. Yes, the USAF has better ground pounders, but that's besides the point. And unlike the Mudhen CFTs (note, flying without them was never part of any operator's training, unlike bombing in the F-15C), this capability is always there, just waiting for you to press the A/G switch.

Bottom line is, hanging bombs off the F-15 and dropping them had been done by the USAF, in operational squadrons, on a somewhat regular basis for at least part of the aircraft's lifetime. So if people want to use it as a bomber in DCS, they should be free to do so.

[Nahen]

I'm not convinced... I remember, among other things, while asking the pilots of the 493 Squadron the 48th Fighter Wing from Lakenheath, when around 1993-95, they regularly flew to Poland to the base of the 28rd Fighter Regiment flying on the MiG-23. And then these few pilots said they "heard it could be done" but they never did it and they didn't train for it...

Edited December 21, 2022 by Nahen

[blkspade]

On 12/17/2022 at 12:10 PM, Nahen said:

You obviously don't know how to use the mission editor...
You set up the AI plane, you set the waypoints for it, when you fly over to it, you get close to a set distance, the plane ignores its waypoints, enters to the formation with you that you set with your plane and flies wherever you fly.
If it makes sense, you intercept such a plane, and fly it to the indicated place - it can be a specific airport, a specific place on the border between countries, or any place/zone set by the missionmaker. There, the AI plane executes a script that tells it to, for example, land at the indicated airport, flies to a new indicated place abroad or performs any action you come up with in the zone to which it will be escorted.
Where do you see the problem? I've done missions like this, I've flown missions like this, and I don't see a problem with that. It's a matter of knowing ME mechanics and being able to support yourself with scripts. It takes some time to fine-tune the details, but it's easy to do.

Yeah, so something that has to be explicitly scripted by the user to implement a function that could be a standard feature. You know, pilot things in flight sim. Not really part of the core product like I described. As I mentioned, there is an included F-14 mission that clearly has this intent, that basically does nothing. I flew up to a bomber, and if I fly away it keeps going its own way. In the scope of them trying to market a single role air superiority aircraft to their supposed "large single player base" (a degree of context you might not get), it probably shouldn't require scripting knowledge. I'm personally all aboard the MP train as I got bored of the AI back in the LO:MAC days. I just bring up SP because AI has been various forms of busted for over a decade, yet evidence points to ED being generally more focused on SP. Strike jets make more sense in that respect. Even though ground unit AI isn't "perfect" it's more forgivable. No dynamic campaign still. Ok, I'll stop throwing 20mm now.

[draconus]

On 12/21/2022 at 5:06 PM, Nahen said:

the F-15A/C was never used to attack ground targets

Don't confuse simulation and history. If the simulated aircraft has the capability it should be simulated and we should be able to use it.

[Exorcet]

On 12/21/2022 at 5:21 PM, blkspade said:

Yeah, so something that has to be explicitly scripted by the user to implement a function that could be a standard feature. You know, pilot things in flight sim. Not really part of the core product like I described. As I mentioned, there is an included F-14 mission that clearly has this intent, that basically does nothing. I flew up to a bomber, and if I fly away it keeps going its own way. In the scope of them trying to market a single role air superiority aircraft to their supposed "large single player base" (a degree of context you might not get), it probably shouldn't require scripting knowledge.

It doesn't require scripting, just the use of some ME tools. I think the only outstanding issue here is that "follow" is coalition locked, other wise doing what you want isn't that hard.

On 12/21/2022 at 5:21 PM, blkspade said:

Strike jets make more sense in that respect. Even though ground unit AI isn't "perfect" it's more forgivable. No dynamic campaign still. Ok, I'll stop throwing 20mm now.

To each their own. I'd much rather deal with the air units that actually do things rather than completely static ground units. In my opinion until SAM's at the very least do more than sit around with their radar on forever waiting to die, they'll never be as interesting as fighting DCS's air AI.

[Jenson]

Here is my wallet, 59.99USD is prepared. 

[Jenson]

I will pay 59.99USD for it. 

[Nahen]

10 hours ago, Jenson said:

Here is my wallet, 59.99USD is prepared. 

These are not cheap things...
Might not be enough...

But don't worry you still have 3 or 5 years before you need money for this module

[jaguara5]

There are so many requests  / threads for a FF F-15C, that i'm confident that we will get one (some time in the future, from ED or perhaps Razbam). 

[Nahen]

Mby...

[AvgeekJoe]

Count me in for $59.99 USD.

[WilliamLink]

This has been my #1 wish ever since I started playing Lock On - Modern Air Combat, back in 2013~2014. Even before I got into DCS and bought the Flaming Cliffs 3.

If a high fidelity module isn't in the realm of possibilities, I think at least the FC3 F-15 deserves and desperately needs an update. Switches, dials and knobs in the consoles lack the animation of flipping and turning, like the Flankers have for some of them. Interior lighting looks awful at night, honestly.  Super unbalanced cockpit displays, instument panels and flood lights. Exterior model and textures would also greatly benefit from a rework.

[Nahen]

I think best move be in the future make all modules from FC3 as full fidelity. 

 

Great day be when full fidelity modules of MiG-29, Su-27/33, F-15C can meet with others FF modules in virtual sky...

This is my little wish and dream.

[Superbug Echo]

Let's make this happen!

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Seems like it could just be a matter of allocating resources and finding the right mark of F-15 to work with that balances accessibility with how modern its integrated systems are.

[Superbug Echo]

[Kalasnkova74]

On 12/21/2022 at 11:06 AM, Nahen said:

Ehhh again like with CFT... the F-15A/C was never used to attack ground targets. The fact that there were assumptions and some trials / tests does not matter. The result of these trials was the F-15E. Apart from the Israeli versions of the F-15, no F-15A/C has ever been used for attacking ground targets and was not intended to be used like that …

This statement is incorrect. See below for F-15Cs conducting air to ground strafing. 

While the USAF marketed “not a pound for air to ground”, the financial reality is the United States Air Force always builds air to ground capability in its tactical fighters, even the “air superiority” ones. When one aircraft cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire and $30k+ in hourly operating costs to use, Congress rightfully expects that aircraft to be relevant on the battlefield. “Not a pound for air to ground” doesn’t fly at a Senate budget hearing. 

Both the F-15 single seat and F-14 Tomcat were built with air to ground capability from the start. For political and force structure reasons neither service emphasized this mission, but both were very capable of it. The Tomcat would later be modified to dedicated strike roles, and F-15Cs were rotated to USCENTCOM for air to ground operations.

Rudimentary? Yes, but strafing ISIS still counts. No modern US tactical aircraft can be considered a truly dedicated air to air platform, and rightly so. 

 

[Nahen]

45 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

To stwierdzenie jest nieprawidłowe. Zobacz poniżej F-15C przeprowadzające ostrzał powietrze-ziemia. 

Podczas gdy USAF sprzedawały „ani funta za powietrze-ziemia”, rzeczywistość finansowa jest taka, że Siły Powietrzne Stanów Zjednoczonych zawsze budują zdolność powietrze-ziemia w swoich myśliwcach taktycznych, nawet tych o „przewadze w powietrzu”. Kiedy zakup jednego samolotu kosztuje dziesiątki lub setki milionów dolarów, a godzinowe koszty operacyjne ponad 30 000 USD, Kongres słusznie oczekuje, że samolot ten będzie odpowiedni na polu bitwy. „Ani funta za powietrze do ziemi” nie lata na przesłuchaniu budżetowym w Senacie. 

Zarówno jednomiejscowy F-15, jak i F-14 Tomcat od samego początku były budowane z możliwością lotu powietrze-ziemia. Ze względów politycznych i struktury sił żadna ze służb nie podkreślała tej misji, ale obie były do tego bardzo zdolne. Tomcat został później zmodyfikowany do dedykowanych ról uderzeniowych, a F-15C zostały przeniesione do USCENTCOM w celu przeprowadzenia operacji powietrze-ziemia.

Prymitywny? Tak, ale ostrzeliwanie ISIS nadal się liczy. Żadnego współczesnego amerykańskiego samolotu taktycznego nie można uznać za prawdziwie dedykowaną platformę powietrze-powietrze i słusznie. 

 

Do you know what "show force" is in fighting ground forces? It has nothing to do with shooting at anything on the ground. It's about demonstrating presence and strength. What this video shows is nothing more than an "attack" on a ground target using a "sonic boom" that has the same effectiveness. Did you know that the cannon in the F-15C has a completely different angle of "wedge" than in the F-15E? Do you know why?
No one has ever used the F-15C in combat to attack ground targets. Equally well, you can fly in AWACS E3 and shoot ISIS positions through the open door with M4 rifle

[F-2]

Every air to air platform can be an air to ground platform at least once.

[=DROOPY=]

Yeah... the whole 'Not a pound for air-to-ground' really depends on what Commander is issuing the ATO's. Would *you* go to General Tommy Franks, and tell him there's absolutely *no way* your precious fighters are able to strafe enemy positions w/ US troops in contact if called upon and your in the area? 

That would hands down be career suicide, no matter the branch or rank, and the squadron/Air wing/ branch air arms humiliation, would be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. They would no doubt be on the top of the deactivation list if it even *looked* like defense spending needed to be reallocated. 

Edited January 14, 2023 by =DROOPY=

[draconus]

18 hours ago, Nahen said:

No one has ever used the F-15C in combat to attack ground targets.

DCS simulates aircraft - not history.

[Cab]

36 minutes ago, draconus said:

DCS simulates aircraft - not history.

This 

[Nahen]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

DCS simulates aircraft - not history.

Hmm, why don't we add to Spitfires, Me-109s, FW-190s - AMRAAMs and Sidewinders? They could and did carry rockets, right? And History.. what can you say, We simulate planes... And besides, Digital Combat Simulation is what DCS stands for? So it doesn't simulate planes, it's a DIGITAL COMBAT/BATTLEFIELD SIMULATION?? Right or not? So if so, the simulation is usually a "pretend" of something real - in this case it is a simulation of real combat/battlefield, isnt? So show me when, for example, the F-15C was used in combat and on the battlefield to REALLY attack targets on the ground and not to "show force" because that's not the same thing.