DCS: F-15C

[Nahen]

6 minutes ago, Cab said:

Keeper Of All Eagle Knowledge, proszę podać źródło, z którego wynika, że J był „całkowicie odmiennym samolotem skonfigurowanym” od C, kiedy zjechał z linii produkcyjnej.

I wrote what you can look for. I will give you a hint that just as the avionics elements were changed in it, the ECM was removed and replaced, like many other systems, with Japanese ones. You have access to the same internet - look for yourself.

Its difference consisted precisely in the fact that many elements of the avionics itself as well as the ECM systems mentioned above were replaced/replaced with Japanese ones. Some elements were not needed by the Japanese, others apparently did not meet their standards/requirements. Find the details yourself.

If you think that the F-15J, F-15K, F-15QA, F-15SA differ in markings only because the colors of the countries paying for them are painted on them and some of the instruments are described in the languages of these countries, then congratulations ...

Just now, F-2 said:

Maybe now they are, and only the 80-100 or so they modified. But the original aircraft produced from the early 80s were MSIP I equivalent with some Japan specific changes mostly related to the electronic warfare and added Data link. JMSIP in the early 2000s brought about 80 planes to a similar standard to ongoing upgrades in the US, apg-63(v)1, increased computing power, and provisions for Japanese specific weapons like AAM-4 and AAM-5. It’s only now 40 years after introduction that these aircraft are becoming EX like.

 

...

[draconus]

13 minutes ago, Nahen said:

many elements of the avionics itself as well as the ECM systems

This is the stuff that let's them rack up some bombs, right?

[Nahen]

13 minutes ago, draconus said:

This is the stuff that let's them rack up some bombs, right?

What is avionics? Because as far as I remember, McDonnell Douglas probably didn't mount Norden sights on the F-15C to allow them to drop bombs?

All in all, it can be assumed that the F-15C is a super universal machine, bomber, fighter and is also great for CQB missions and MOUT... After all, it has an M4 carbine under the pilot's seat, right?

[Cab]

2 hours ago, Nahen said:

I wrote what you can look for. I will give you a hint that just as the avionics elements were changed in it, the ECM was removed and replaced, like many other systems, with Japanese ones. You have access to the same internet - look for yourself.

Its difference consisted precisely in the fact that many elements of the avionics itself as well as the ECM systems mentioned above were replaced/replaced with Japanese ones. Some elements were not needed by the Japanese, others apparently did not meet their standards/requirements. Find the details yourself.

If you think that the F-15J, F-15K, F-15QA, F-15SA differ in markings only because the colors of the countries paying for them are painted on them and some of the instruments are described in the languages of these countries, then congratulations ...

...

You said the F-15J is a “completely different configured aircraft” compared to the F-15C. I understand there is a language barrier here, and that’s understandable due to the international nature of this forum, but what you wrote above does not raise to that standard.

And your comment above about the J, K, QA, and SA is just plain insulting, and in my opinion, betrays an unserious approach to this discussion.

[bies]

Few months passed and guys still argue how capable F-15 was in A/G?

Every F-15 including A and C had rudimentary A/G capabilities due to USAF requirements, it was able to drop dumb bombs in CCIP, which was quite modern in 1970s, comparable to some specialised A/G platforms.

Most squadrons never used this capabilities, never trained to use them, only in desperation USAF would use expensive specialised A/A platform for risky low altitude visual bombing.

Still fighters capable of only basic A/G like Su-27S, F-15A/C, MiG-29 9.12 would be more than welcome in DCS by big part of community. According to ED F/A-18 and F-16 had priority being truly multirole. Realistically speaking the best chance for F-15A/C seems to be RAZBAM after F-15E completion.

[Nahen]

2 hours ago, bies said:

Few months passed and guys still argue how capable F-15 was in A/G?

Every F-15 including A and C had rudimentary A/G capabilities due to USAF requirements, it was able to drop dumb bombs in CCIP, which was quite modern in 1970s, comparable to some specialised A/G platforms.

Most squadrons never used this capabilities, never trained to use them, only in desperation USAF would use expensive specialised A/A platform for risky low altitude visual bombing.

Still fighters capable of only basic A/G like Su-27S, F-15A/C, MiG-29 9.12 would be more than welcome in DCS by big part of community. According to ED F/A-18 and F-16 had priority being truly multirole. Realistically speaking the best chance for F-15A/C seems to be RAZBAM after F-15E completion.

Totally agree with a minor exception - Why fool around with bombs in the F-15C after the release of the F-15E?

[bies]

29 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Totally agree with a minor exception - Why fool around with bombs in the F-15C after the release of the F-15E?

For me - no point. Fore some, maybe accuracy.

Would i like for full fidelity Soviet Su-27S or MiG-29 9.12 to be able to carry dumb bombs? Probably yes, for accuracy as technically they had this capability (which was disabled for PVO Strany Su-27P after the fall of USSR due to international disarmament agreement). Would i use this capability often or even train to use it? Probably no, maybe never.

Another thing may be different timeframe - if we would have ONLY post Cold War F-15C AMRAAM truck - no point, Strike Eagle would do A/G whole lot better in any case with everything. But if we would have Cold War F-15A or C as well, who knows, maybe sometimes it could have some use. But even then it would be 99% pure air to air anyway.

Edited January 22, 2023 by bies

[Nahen]

3 hours ago, bies said:

For me - no point. Fore some, maybe accuracy.

Would i like for full fidelity Soviet Su-27S or MiG-29 9.12 to be able to carry dumb bombs? Probably yes, for accuracy as technically they had this capability (which was disabled for PVO Strany Su-27P after the fall of USSR due to international disarmament agreement). Would i use this capability often or even train to use it? Probably no, maybe never.

Another thing may be different timeframe - if we would have ONLY post Cold War F-15C AMRAAM truck - no point, Strike Eagle would do A/G whole lot better in any case with everything. But if we would have Cold War F-15A or C as well, who knows, maybe sometimes it could have some use. But even then it would be 99% pure air to air anyway.

 

In the case of Russian machines in DCS, the problem is that they are basically non-existent - relatively modern. And since there is no real module, such as the F-16, F / A-18 but "eastern", then as you write MiG-29, Su-27 FF would be most useful. The A-G issue in their case is a bit different than in the F-15A/C - MiG-29 and the more Su-27 were used to attack ground targets, and such elements were in the official training programs.

[Silver_Dragon]

4 hours ago, bies said:

For me - no point. Fore some, maybe accuracy.

Would i like for full fidelity Soviet Su-27S or MiG-29 9.12 to be able to carry dumb bombs? Probably yes, for accuracy as technically they had this capability (which was disabled for PVO Strany Su-27P after the fall of USSR due to international disarmament agreement). Would i use this capability often or even train to use it? Probably no, maybe never.

Another thing may be different timeframe - if we would have ONLY post Cold War F-15C AMRAAM truck - no point, Strike Eagle would do A/G whole lot better in any case with everything. But if we would have Cold War F-15A or C as well, who knows, maybe sometimes it could have some use. But even then it would be 99% pure air to air anyway.

 

You dont need a F-15C with bomb loads. Coming the real USAF/UsNavy ground attack aircrafts on develop as A-6E, A-7E, F-4E and F-15E, and someone on the future build a  A-4, A-5, A-37, F-105 and F-111.

[Rick50]

7 hours ago, Nahen said:

Totally agree with a minor exception - Why fool around with bombs in the F-15C after the release of the F-15E?

 

"because you can" maybe?

I mean, no one's ignoring the F-5E, F-86 and Mig-19 just because we have Amraam dump trucks spamming up the skies 

 

With maps that would fit IDF / Israel, it's quite conceivable that in a sudden attack on their nation, that a sudden shortage of airframes capable of dropping iron, with overwhelming armored advances from multiple locations, could easily occur long before E's appear in the IDF inventory.  Yea, maybe not in the super giant USAF... but other nations may not have the EXTREME LUXURY of not using an asset they can muster in a national existential crisis.

Yes, it's true the E will be better suited to precision strike than a C... no one's arguing that. But in real world, sometimes desperation turns into an "all hands on deck" situation, doing things you might not have even had one minute of training for. Cooks suddenly having to use Browning heavy MG's. Specops having to drive a supply truck. Mechanics having to escort ambulances. 

Also remember, there was a substantial time between the Eagle and the first Beagle going operational.

Ultimately, we  won't be dropping millions of tons from C's, but that's not the point: it was able to do it, at least by CCIP, and darn it, if a module for DCS doesn't match the actual capabilities, people will complain, full stop.

[Nahen]

28 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

 

"because you can" maybe?

I mean, no one's ignoring the F-5E, F-86 and Mig-19 just because we have Amraam dump trucks spamming up the skies 

 

With maps that would fit IDF / Israel, it's quite conceivable that in a sudden attack on their nation, that a sudden shortage of airframes capable of dropping iron, with overwhelming armored advances from multiple locations, could easily occur long before E's appear in the IDF inventory.  Yea, maybe not in the super giant USAF... but other nations may not have the EXTREME LUXURY of not using an asset they can muster in a national existential crisis.

Yes, it's true the E will be better suited to precision strike than a C... no one's arguing that. But in real world, sometimes desperation turns into an "all hands on deck" situation, doing things you might not have even had one minute of training for. Cooks suddenly having to use Browning heavy MG's. Specops having to drive a supply truck. Mechanics having to escort ambulances. 

Also remember, there was a substantial time between the Eagle and the first Beagle going operational.

Ultimately, we  won't be dropping millions of tons from C's, but that's not the point: it was able to do it, at least by CCIP, and darn it, if a module for DCS doesn't match the actual capabilities, people will complain, full stop.

Let's add the ASM-135 ASAT missiles, after all the F-15s in two squadrons - 318 and 48 were adapted to use this missile in 1988

[Dragon1-1]

Those were quite significantly modified from baseline Cs, though. I wouldn't really be opposed to ASAT, but it was neither an operational weapon (although it could have been) nor does it have a use in DCS, what with not having any satellites to shoot. 

Again, before the E came along, there were C and D squadrons that very much did train in some form of air to ground. While not terribly suited for precision strike missions (although they could carry LGBs, as well), their high speed, good range and reasonably large bombload would lend itself to deep, low level penetration strikes, and in absence of large and expensive B-1, they could conceivably have found themselves pressed into that mission. Basically, they could do most of the same missions the Mudhen does today, just much less well, but somewhat better than the Phantom. 

[Exorcet]

9 hours ago, Nahen said:

Totally agree with a minor exception - Why fool around with bombs in the F-15C after the release of the F-15E?

To drop bombs from the E, one needs to own the E. If they only own the C, then that's their bomber I guess.

Beyond that, why not? Maybe someone has a creative pre E scenario where C's are performing ground attack, or they're using the C as a stand in for export Eagles that have done more AG.

[Silver_Dragon]

59 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Those were quite significantly modified from baseline Cs, though. I wouldn't really be opposed to ASAT, but it was neither an operational weapon (although it could have been) nor does it have a use in DCS, what with not having any satellites to shoot. 

Again, before the E came along, there were C and D squadrons that very much did train in some form of air to ground. While not terribly suited for precision strike missions (although they could carry LGBs, as well), their high speed, good range and reasonably large bombload would lend itself to deep, low level penetration strikes, and in absence of large and expensive B-1, they could conceivably have found themselves pressed into that mission. Basically, they could do most of the same missions the Mudhen does today, just much less well, but somewhat better than the Phantom. 

Before the F-15E, the Usaf was A-7D, F-4E, F-5E, F-16A/C, some little F-105 and F-111 as ground main attack role. The F-15C/D was only used has "interinum" ground attack aircraft on a 3WW event, but all primary focus on the Eagle Squadrons was centred on Air Defense / Counter Air. If ED build a F-15C (USAF) hardcore module surely expect that remanent ground attack capability, but surely you dont see on the future Dynamic Campaing, F-15A/B/C/D making any ground attack.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[western_JPN]

On 1/22/2023 at 7:04 AM, F-2 said:

Maybe now they are, and only the 80-100 or so they modified. But the original aircraft produced from the early 80s were MSIP I equivalent with some Japan specific changes mostly related to the electronic warfare and added Data link. JMSIP in the early 2000s brought about 80 planes to a similar standard to ongoing upgrades in the US, apg-63(v)1, increased computing power, and provisions for Japanese specific weapons like AAM-4 and AAM-5. It’s only now 40 years after introduction that these aircraft are becoming EX like.

Those words choice are .... a bit confusing between "in US / in English" or "in Japan / in Japanese" about F-15J/DJ.

Based on Japanese publishing, F-15J/DJ are separated in those two groups.
Pre-MSIP : Lot C1 - C5, 98x J + 12x DJ, delivered between 1981 - 1984, no modernized (except 1x J), carrying only AIM-7/9s as AAMs first, AAM-3 capability was added after.
J-MSIP : Lot C6 - C-17, 67x J + 36x DJ (+ 1x J modernized from Pre-), delivered between 1985 - 1999, modernized many times, carrying AAM-3/4/5 or AIM-120 after modernized.

So, no modernized Pre-MSIP group is a bit majority in JASDF F-15J/DJs.
Their first built designs were almost same to basic (un-modernized, before MSIP-2) USAF F-15C/D.
Difference was RWR and Datalink as F-2 said; they are small things.
Later changes were also minimum .... only AAM-3 capability and replacing F100 engine ? 

[bies]

6 hours ago, Nahen said:

then as you write MiG-29, Su-27 FF would be most useful. The A-G issue in their case is a bit different than in the F-15A/C - MiG-29 and the more Su-27 were used to attack ground targets, and such elements were in the official training programs.

Good to remember though big majority of Su-27 fleet served in Soviet PVO Strany (Air Defense Forces) and their pilots didn't train any ground attacks, PVO didn't even use or store bombs.

Only small part of Su-27 fleet served in Frontal Aviation and train A/G elements at all.

With MiG-29 it was the other way around, thy served in Frontal Aviation and their pilots trained A/G elements.

[Rick50]

4 hours ago, Nahen said:

Let's add the ASM-135 ASAT missiles, after all the F-15s in two squadrons - 318 and 48 were adapted to use this missile in 1988

 

Sure, why not? I dunno if they were ever in service... unlike say CCIP and iron bombs.

I mean, sure, mildly silly due to probably high difficulty at getting documentation, and also lack of satellites to shoot at...

... but thinking about it, for the future global map, maybe the editor could allow the addition of some satellites! LOL!

 

[draconus]

6 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

If ED build a F-15C (USAF) hardcore module surely expect that remanent ground attack capability...

And that's the whole point - if the aircraft has the capability without modifications, it has to be modeled, no matter if it was ever used or not.

[Dragon1-1]

7 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Before the F-15E, the Usaf was A-7D, F-4E, F-5E, F-16A/C, some little F-105 and F-111 as ground main attack role.

The F-16A was even less of a bomber than the Eaglejet, and had short legs now as well as then, likewise the C. The F-5E was only used for DACT, they'd sooner conscript Eaglejets into ground pounding role than give anyone an opportunity to question their wisdom in passing the F-5 over. The A-7 was slow. The F-4 was dated by that point and had less range and power than the F-15C. Thud was retired immediately after Vietnam and the F-111, while overall better suited to the deep strike mission (indeed, made specifically for it), was a bomber that could haul nukes, which could be a liability in a tense situation around the end of the Cold War.

The point it, the capability was there on the F-15A and C, and it's possible to imagine a scenario where it would have been the best one for the job. Whether USAF politics would allow the plan to go ahead is another matter, but we can imagine a maverick colonel with either a lot of push, or far enough from the generals that the mission will be done by the time they get their hands on him. In a DC, sure, it shouldn't be fragged as air to ground unless the player manually creates such a mission.

[Silver_Dragon]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The F-16A was even less of a bomber than the Eaglejet, and had short legs now as well as then, likewise the C. The F-5E was only used for DACT, they'd sooner conscript Eaglejets into ground pounding role than give anyone an opportunity to question their wisdom in passing the F-5 over. The A-7 was slow. The F-4 was dated by that point and had less range and power than the F-15C. Thud was retired immediately after Vietnam and the F-111, while overall better suited to the deep strike mission (indeed, made specifically for it), was a bomber that could haul nukes, which could be a liability in a tense situation around the end of the Cold War.

The point it, the capability was there on the F-15A and C, and it's possible to imagine a scenario where it would have been the best one for the job. Whether USAF politics would allow the plan to go ahead is another matter, but we can imagine a maverick colonel with either a lot of push, or far enough from the generals that the mission will be done by the time they get their hands on him. In a DC, sure, it shouldn't be fragged as air to ground unless the player manually creates such a mission.

Please no convert that discussión on a "F-15 super dupper"... we talking about real operations, no fantasy... example USAF Cold War Europe deployment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_the_U.S._Air_Force_in_Europe_at_the_end_of_the_Cold_War

- F-16C Block 25/30 on Air / Ground attack role
- F-15C Block on Air Superiority
- F-111E/F on Interdiction / Ground Attack on UK not only as nuclear attack, remember The Dorado Canyon operations (F-111/FB-111 nuclear capables has retain by the SAC)
- A-10A on CAS / Ground Attack
- F-4D/E ANG units deployed on Reforger on 70/80s
- A-7D ANG units deployed on Reforger on 70/80s
- F-105G was maintain operative on the ANG to the 83 and ground attack versions by the AFRES on 84.
And no, I dont like "maveriks" inself... I repeat the same, F-15 bombing capability has "marginal", has the same situation with a P-3C has loaded with Mk-84 bombs to attack a land target. Or actually the magic "HB F-14A bombers".... we delete all A-6/A-7/F-4 new module by the new magic ground attack capability on some modules?

Edited January 23, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[draconus]

33 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Or actually the magic "HB F-14A bombers".... we delete all A-6/A-7/F-4 new module by the new magic ground attack capability on some modules?

There's no magic with either F-15C being able to drop bombs or F-14A 135GR being a Bombcat. It's called capability and this is what is simulated in DCS. If you prefer you can stick to simulating only history and it has nothing to do with other attack aircraft.

[Dragon1-1]

17 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

And no, I dont like "maveriks" inself... I repeat the same, F-15 bombing capability has "marginal", has the same situation with a P-3C has loaded with Mk-84 bombs to attack a land target. Or actually the magic "HB F-14A bombers".... we delete all A-6/A-7/F-4 new module by the new magic ground attack capability on some modules?

Take a rain check on your "magic" F-14A bombcat. Now, this thing here is an early test aircraft, but bombs were a thing on the Tomcat from the very start. They had some trouble getting them to separate cleanly in the prototypes, so Marines passed on it for that reason, but the original assumption was that both USN and USMC would operate it. As such, air to ground HUD mode and ability to carry bombs was there from the start.

All it takes for an F-15C to be employed as a bomber is a situation that would, politically or tactically, require this capability to be utilized. Radar-assisted bombing with 18 Mk82s (3xBRU-2GA, with six bombs each, on wing bag station) is not "marginal" capability, it's on par with fighters of the time. From this article:
https://www.ausairpower.net/Profile-F-15A-D.html

Quote

TAC's requirement for ground attack capability followed as a result of the Rapid Deployment Force intervention oriented restructuring, though currently only the F-15Cs of the 1st TFW (Langley, Va) actually practice strike sorties. In support of the RDF TAC would deploy FAST pack fitted F-15Cs supported by KC-10 tankers to potential or actual trouble-spots in hours.

The C/D may be fitted with BRU-2GA 6X bomb racks which are cleared for supersonic release; typically the aircraft would carry 18 cluster bombs or 500 lb Mk 82s on two wing racks and one centreline rack. The gross weight limit is set at 68,000 lb.

So, if we want to simulate flying as part of the 1st TFW, we need air to ground capability. The fun part is, if you don't mind a skimpy fuel load, you can carry all 18 bombs on top of a full air to air loadout. It seems that despite all the "not a pound for air to ground" talk, the F-15C would actually make a formidable bomber (I honestly didn't realize it could take MERs, I thought it'd be more like 6 or 9 bombs). This is no fantasy, this is a real scenario that was planned for and trained for. 

32 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

example USAF Cold War Europe deployment.

Europe. The flashpoint, and very much the focus of Cold War era defense policy. What did they have, say, in the Middle East? Or in Africa? Or anywhere that's not considered an "important" theater. The question is, of course, whether an unimportant theater would rate F-15s at all, but I'm pretty sure campaign and mission makers would easily justify such a mission, if they wanted one.

[Silver_Dragon]

I know very clear the F-14A carring bomb capability, but some part has convert them on "super bombers fighters" with none UsNavy doctrinal paper never use them as a conventional bomber..... What is the future? Making Air superiority with a future A-6/A-7/Tornado IDS with only carry Sidewinders? That is the point.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Dragon1-1]

How people use those aircraft is up to them. If they want to use Tornado IDS as a ghetto Tornado ADV, they're free to try. Yes, the F-14 makes for a pretty good bomber, this is why they were used that way IRL. So will the F-15, although unlike the F-14, this capability was not a big deal until someone came up with the Mudhen. Tornado, by all accounts, made for a pretty meh fighter even in the ADV version, but it worked. If a mission maker wants an air to air mission with Tornado IDS, it will be possible, as it was for the real Tornado. Two Sidewinders and the guns could get you through the day, if you're smart with how you use them.

European conditions are irrelevant since we don't have a Cold War era map of Europe, except for Caucasus, which was Soviet territory at the time. Our maps focus on different places, where the ATO could be much less comprehensive.

[draconus]

6 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

That is the point.

No, it's not. The point is to recreate capability of the simulated aircraft, not its history. You can take your IDS and fly against fighters if you wish so. If you want to forbid it then you're against all DCS missions and campaigns cause they are all fictional.