DCS: F-15C

[Buzz313th]

14 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

conclusions i made from a paper i read

 

https://etd.auburn.edu/xmlui/handle/10415/595

 

argues officers who were veterans of the lessons learned in Vietnam were more important drivers in air forces culture and doctrine change, then a group of  theorists whose vision for the perfect fighter were dated for 70s timeframe. Ultimately an emphasis on training, armament reliability maintence,  plus advancements in technology is what was more important.

again E/M is an important consideration  for air superiority fighter design especially for its time, but not at the expense of other things which the fighter mafia couldn't help themselves with. Evident that that thier ideal fighter would of been a even simpler F16A.

 

Thanks for posting that link.  Will give it a read a bit later..  

Cheers

[Kev2go]

 

6 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

AND the heavier nose, AND the suboptimal airflow over the canopy, AND the stiffer wings, …

 

Simply removing CFTs still won’t magically turn a dark grey into a light grey…

Sounds like you described the f15ex that's is replacing part of the the f15c fleet .light grey airframes are no longer built but more advanced derivative of the f15e frame is. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Kev2go

[Buzz313th]

14 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

Sounds like you described the f15ex that's is replacing part of the the f15c fleet .light grey airframes are no longer built but more advanced derivative of the f15e frame is. 

LOL, we would like to assume the "EX" might match the performance of the "C", but more likely it won't and wasn't designed to do so.  I'm guessing it's primary design goal is as a Missile Gun for a remote aircraft doing the designation, tracking and missile guidance.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Buzz313th

[Kev2go]

9 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

And yet the F16 was and is used for CAP. The F15E is not as far as I know(granted I'm very much not an expert)

With the new radar upgrades to the F16 is quite good. And even if it has a bit lower radar range than the SE. You'd never fly CAP without AWACS support anyway. So you don't generally rely on your own radar for enemy detection.

And in the end all 4th gen planes in DCS is stuck with 120C5. So being able to lock a target a 10-20 NM sooner has little practical effects.

And in BVR if you need to crank and go low. You'll usually end up slow and you'll have to climb back up in that big heavy thing. While the F16 will just shoot up back into effective Fox 3 altitude in no time.

Same can be said with the SE. F15e's in recent years have also been upgraded with aesa radars, which are in turn expected to be much better in range detection besides the other benefits that AESA's offer over mech array. F15AE Also currently in the process of getting a newer EW suite originating from  the f15ex retrofitted into the frame as well.

 

One the things I noticed in dcs F15E is the apg70 is able to maintain locks in STT  much better at targets attempting to notch. That matters too. Maybe it's just razbams radar modeling though. Not sure how true this is real life relative apg68 or 73.

 

6 hours ago, Buzz313th said:

LOL, we would like to assume the "EX" might match the performance of the "C", but more likely it won't and wasn't designed to do so.  I'm guessing it's primary design goal is as a Missile Gun for a remote aircraft doing the designation, tracking and missile guidance.

 

Exactly it doesn't need to just like f22 was excused for not having jhmcs or aim9x. That given Its stealth and radar combination it wouldn't need to be put in a situation where it needs to use a  helmet cued high offboresight dogfight missile

Edited December 5, 2023 by Kev2go

[Buzz313th]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

Exactly it doesn't need to just like f22 was excused for not having jhmcs or aim9x. That given Its stealth and radar combination it wouldn't need to be put in a situation where it needs to use a  helmet cued high off boresight dogfight missile

 

It doesn't need to because it's primary design adaptation was not to be our air superiority fighter, the F-22 owns that role.  Just like the F-15C before it.  Just like the F-15E is our premier "MudMover". 

I doubt the F-22 was "Excused" from having the "9X" and the JHMCS simply because they didn't see the need for the 22 to close to the merge.  Lets not forget the thrust vectoring nozzles on the 22 as well.   

 Read on below regarding why the 22 might be limited with the "9X"....

I do believe that for the Aim9x or any "Heater" for that matter to be effective, that the "IR" seeker on the nose of the missile needs to be slewed to the IR source for a lock.  This means that to get a lock, the seeker would need an unobstructed view of the IR source.   With the 22 and 35 carrying most of their weapons in the bays, to get a lock (Target designation) for a heater outside of the radar gimble range (Off Boresight) would require the heater to be lowered outside of the bay, or mounted externally before a lock can be achieved.  

With that being said, I highly doubt that the 22 and obviously the 35 don't have the full ability to use the "9x" or the helmet.  I think it's just a matter of what gets put on the aircraft for a particular mission.  I think I heard that both aircraft can mount external pylons for weapons, I don't know if either of the two aircraft have the ability to lower or expose missiles from the bays before they take a shot.  I would guess that they cannot, since the physical engineering used to lower a weapon from the bay would take up precious space that can be used to carry more weapons.

Considering the HMCS is not only a targeting device, but also an SA device, I highly doubt the 22 drivers aren't wearing JHMCS.  

 

But I do appreciate your tenacity on trying to get me say in so many words that nowadays, systems are more important than performance...

 

Bravo...

Edited December 4, 2023 by Buzz313th

[streakeagle]

RAZBAM has refused to make it possible to remove the CFTs from the F-15E. Even with the CFTs removed, it is at least 2 or 3,000 lbs heavier than the F-15C, and the F-15C is heavier than the F-15A. The F-15A's engines were troublesome, but they also had a higher thrust rating. The F-15A and early F-15C still have the "turkey feathers" on the engine nozzles. I bought the F-15E, but I prefer to fly air-to-air. The Flaming Cliffs 3 F-15C's flight model is great, but the non-clickable cockpit and simplified systems are strikes against it. I could see a heatblur solution where there is the F-15A, FC3 level F-15C and then either an early F-15C or a modern F-15C. If there can only be one variant, I would accept the FC3 F-15C, but I would still rather have an F-15A. An F-15E with CFTs installed cannot fill the role of any single seat version in ACM except for the Alaska interceptors that carried CFTs. Even without the CFTs, the F-15E would only make a marginally effective substitute.

[Tank50us]

4 hours ago, streakeagle said:

RAZBAM has refused to make it possible to remove the CFTs from the F-15E. Even with the CFTs removed, it is at least 2 or 3,000 lbs heavier than the F-15C, and the F-15C is heavier than the F-15A. The F-15A's engines were troublesome, but they also had a higher thrust rating. The F-15A and early F-15C still have the "turkey feathers" on the engine nozzles. I bought the F-15E, but I prefer to fly air-to-air. The Flaming Cliffs 3 F-15C's flight model is great, but the non-clickable cockpit and simplified systems are strikes against it. I could see a heatblur solution where there is the F-15A, FC3 level F-15C and then either an early F-15C or a modern F-15C. If there can only be one variant, I would accept the FC3 F-15C, but I would still rather have an F-15A. An F-15E with CFTs installed cannot fill the role of any single seat version in ACM except for the Alaska interceptors that carried CFTs. Even without the CFTs, the F-15E would only make a marginally effective substitute.

The reason for that is because it would require a completely different flight model to accomplish. I do get the desire, but operationally, the F-15E doesn't operate without the CFTs since that's where the Bombs are mounted. Other nations may remove the CFTs when operating their versions of the E in a pure Air-to-Air role, but currently the USAF does not.

Now, I know someone will undoubtedly go on Google, and pull up pictures of USAF F-15Es taking off without their CFTs, but these are usually test flights, done after some serious maintenance was done on the plane.

Now, all of this said... I do agree that having multiple versions of various aircraft would be nice. Personally, I wouldn't mind if we had an "Introductory version" that's just a step above FC3 is right now, but compared to a FF aircraft, is still considerably simpler to operate than the other. This could either take the form of a very early version of the aircraft (like an F-15A, F-16A, or F/A-18A), or it can be like the FC3 planes are right now, with a few extra features added to prevent premature balding (like being able to manipulate the farking radios).

[Kev2go]

To clarify im not complaining at all about Razbam not  allowing an options to remove CFT's from the F15E. I fully understand and respect the decision to not do so. I just understand why people would want those removable and without the ability to remove them why  it can be used to help build a stronger case  for a FF F15C, for those who are A2A oriented.

 

Although im personally not holding my breath for the more recent interations of a  "modern" F15C (  the AESA radars, APG63v2 or AGP63V3,  and the second MFD) even if tomorrow it was confirmed that ED or a 3rd party has committed to a F15C project.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Kev2go

[henshao]

6 hours ago, streakeagle said:

RAZBAM has refused to make it possible to remove the CFTs from the F-15E. Even with the CFTs removed, it is at least 2 or 3,000 lbs heavier than the F-15C, and the F-15C is heavier than the F-15A. The F-15A's engines were troublesome, but they also had a higher thrust rating. The F-15A and early F-15C still have the "turkey feathers" on the engine nozzles. I bought the F-15E, but I prefer to fly air-to-air. The Flaming Cliffs 3 F-15C's flight model is great, but the non-clickable cockpit and simplified systems are strikes against it. I could see a heatblur solution where there is the F-15A, FC3 level F-15C and then either an early F-15C or a modern F-15C. If there can only be one variant, I would accept the FC3 F-15C, but I would still rather have an F-15A. An F-15E with CFTs installed cannot fill the role of any single seat version in ACM except for the Alaska interceptors that carried CFTs. Even without the CFTs, the F-15E would only make a marginally effective substitute.

the -220 F-15C's engines are more powerful than the -100 A's under nearly all conditions except static on a test stand and the -229 engines in the F-15E are (much) more powerful still. You can tell by the relative acceleration of these aircraft at a given weight on their charts

 

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

The reason for that is because it would require a completely different flight model to accomplish. I do get the desire, but operationally, the F-15E doesn't operate without the CFTs since that's where the Bombs are mounted. Other nations may remove the CFTs when operating their versions of the E in a pure Air-to-Air role, but currently the USAF does not.

Now, I know someone will undoubtedly go on Google, and pull up pictures of USAF F-15Es taking off without their CFTs, but these are usually test flights, done after some serious maintenance was done on the plane.

Now, all of this said... I do agree that having multiple versions of various aircraft would be nice. Personally, I wouldn't mind if we had an "Introductory version" that's just a step above FC3 is right now, but compared to a FF aircraft, is still considerably simpler to operate than the other. This could either take the form of a very early version of the aircraft (like an F-15A, F-16A, or F/A-18A), or it can be like the FC3 planes are right now, with a few extra features added to prevent premature balding (like being able to manipulate the farking radios).

 

I don't know what it will take for this information to become widespread but here you go

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-15e-strike-eagles-now-flying-without-conformal-fuel-tanks-on-air-defense-missions

 

without those bomb racks the -229 F-15E has performance in the realm of the Typhoon IMO

[Buzz313th]

27 minutes ago, henshao said:

the -220 F-15C's engines are more powerful than the -100 A's under nearly all conditions except static on a test stand and the -229 engines in the F-15E are (much) more powerful still. You can tell by the relative acceleration of these aircraft at a given weight on their charts

 

 

I don't know what it will take for this information to become widespread but here you go

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-15e-strike-eagles-now-flying-without-conformal-fuel-tanks-on-air-defense-missions

 

without those bomb racks the -229 F-15E has performance in the realm of the Typhoon IMO

That's a great article..  

Hey Razbam, have you seen this article?  It's time to start figuring out a way.

 

LOL

[draconus]

6 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Personally, I wouldn't mind if we had an "Introductory version" that's just a step above FC3 is right now, but compared to a FF aircraft, is still considerably simpler to operate than the other. This could either take the form of a very early version of the aircraft (like an F-15A, F-16A, or F/A-18A), or it can be like the FC3 planes are right now, with a few extra features added to prevent premature balding (like being able to manipulate the farking radios).

Only small minority wants simplified avionics in DCS these days. FC3 is still there for the aircraft it represents but ED is not interested in developing any more of them apart from possible MAC project.

[Tank50us]

4 minutes ago, draconus said:

Only small minority wants simplified avionics in DCS these days. FC3 is still there for the aircraft it represents but ED is not interested in developing any more of them apart from possible MAC project.

My theory is that it could all be packaged together, like with the F-14. For example, buying the F-16 module would net you the F-16C that we already have, which comes with all of its bells and whistles, as well as an F-16D for training, and an F-16A for those that want a simpler F-16 since much of the modern Avionics our C has, didn't even exist when the F-16A was first introduced. But, outside of the appropriate setting, someone flying an A going up against a C is going to have a significant disadvantage.

[draconus]

8 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

My theory is that it could all be packaged together, like with the F-14. For example, buying the F-16 module would net you the F-16C that we already have, which comes with all of its bells and whistles, as well as an F-16D for training, and an F-16A for those that want a simpler F-16 since much of the modern Avionics our C has, didn't even exist when the F-16A was first introduced. But, outside of the appropriate setting, someone flying an A going up against a C is going to have a significant disadvantage.

In ideal world we would have one type and all versions but the reality is quite different. In DCS module development terms they are all different aircraft in cockpit, sounds, systems and FM.

[streakeagle]

By the way, the F-15E has been operating without CFTs for some time. Select units have been assuming the role of F-15Cs in recent years as the number of F-15Cs went down. As for the flight model being different without CFTs, it would largely be the F-15C flight model with more weight and maybe a slightly different center of gravity.

F-15E Strike Eagles Now Flying Without Conformal Fuel Tanks On Air Defense Missions (thedrive.com)

So, RAZBAM may not be able to afford the time and money to allow the flight model to accommodate the absence of CFTs on its F-15E, but there is real-world justification to do so. beyond "a small minority of people" who want an air-to-air variant of the F-15 with a clickable cockpit.

[SuperKermit]

vor 18 Minuten schrieb streakeagle:

So, RAZBAM may not be able to afford the time and money to allow the flight model to accommodate the absence of CFTs on its F-15E, but there is real-world justification to do so. beyond "a small minority of people" who want an air-to-air variant of the F-15 with a clickable cockpit.

Does anybody have an idea what the most time and resource consuming part of a module development is?

Is it rather the FM, the systems modeling or the aircraft design?

[draconus]

21 minutes ago, SuperKermit said:

Does anybody have an idea what the most time and resource consuming part of a module development is?

Is it rather the FM, the systems modeling or the aircraft design?

Afaik it's the systems.

[MAXsenna]

Does anybody have an idea what the most time and resource consuming part of a module development is?
Is it rather the FM, the systems modeling or the aircraft design?

ED has stated that making an FC3 level takes as much time as an FF level. FC3 does not make any sense anymore, except for MAC, if they're still gonna call it that, that is.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[SuperKermit]

vor 26 Minuten schrieb MAXsenna:

ED has stated that making an FC3 level takes as much time as an FF level. FC3 does not make any sense anymore, except for MAC, if they're still gonna call it that, that is.

I was just thinking whether it would be easier for ED or for Razbam to derive an FF F-15A/C from their existing product.

[henshao]

5 minutes ago, SuperKermit said:

I was just thinking whether it would be easier for ED or for Razbam to derive an FF F-15A/C from their existing product.

Hard to say. the F-15C has a great deal in common with its little brother the Hornet, but not as much as the Mudhen

[draconus]

6 minutes ago, SuperKermit said:

I was just thinking whether it would be easier for ED or for Razbam to derive an FF F-15A/C from their existing product.

Of course some parts can be reused or tweaked but most of the job is usually still done from scratch. RAZBAM was allowed to use the ED's F-15E external model.

[Dragon1-1]

It would be another module, just like F-16A would be. Different systems (one MFD, old school radar screen), different engines, different FM. 

[GGTharos]

4 hours ago, streakeagle said:

By the way, the F-15E has been operating without CFTs for some time. Select units have been assuming the role of F-15Cs in recent years as the number of F-15Cs went down. As for the flight model being different without CFTs, it would largely be the F-15C flight model with more weight and maybe a slightly different center of gravity.

If only reality was that simple and easy 

[MAXsenna]

I was just thinking whether it would be easier for ED or for Razbam to derive an FF F-15A/C from their existing product.

Sure! I'm just pointing out that making a "simpler" version, like others have suggested, (not you), might take as much time as an FF module.
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[streakeagle]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

If only reality was that simple and easy 

Aerodynamically, the F-15E and F-15C are nearly identical. The only difference is the internal equipment which affects both total weight and weight distribution. Lift and drag coefficients would be virtually identical. The only changes should be modest changes in center of gravity, inertia, and total weight. If an F-15E has the CFTs removed and burns off enough fuel to weight the same as the F-15C, they should have near identical performance. Likewise, and F-15C with CFTs should fly near identically to an F-15E at the same weight. The only significant aerodynamic difference is the canopy shape, which doesn't dramatically impact overall performance.

[Buzz313th]

7 minutes ago, streakeagle said:

Aerodynamically, the F-15E and F-15C are nearly identical. The only difference is the internal equipment which affects both total weight and weight distribution. Lift and drag coefficients would be virtually identical. The only changes should be modest changes in center of gravity, inertia, and total weight. If an F-15E has the CFTs removed and burns off enough fuel to weight the same as the F-15C, they should have near identical performance. Likewise, and F-15C with CFTs should fly near identically to an F-15E at the same weight. The only significant aerodynamic difference is the canopy shape, which doesn't dramatically impact overall performance.

Is this a hunch?