F15c high fedilitize after F15e?

[F-2]

I do believe it was a requirement for the F-15K to be able to operate with out them and they do fly without them for some air superiority missions.

 

I know we are doing a US F-15E but if it’s ever economical it would be nice to have the option to remove them to simulate other users.

 You can see here some have it and some don’t. Of course it’s a US version but it would be nice to employ the same weapon according to different user doctrine.

[Nahen]

On 9/4/2021 at 7:46 PM, Rainmaker said:

FWIW, every engagement I can think of over the last 30 years has ended WVR. It may have started BVR, but by the time the actual shootdown has happened, they have been in the 5-10 mile range. The only grey area fights I can think of that tip toe that line are ones at night. A lot of that is dictated by ROEs, etc so there are variables to that of course which prohibit things starting at max range of the capabilities. 

 

Ok - so I would like to ask for examples of maneuvering combat involving the F-15 (apart from shooting at defenseless planes taking off from Iraqi airports) where the missiles were fired from the VISUAL distance of the target identification by the pilot.

 

8 miles of WVR ?? From this distance, can you see the target and identify it without the use of on-board electronics? Congratulations ... Without binoculars, I am not able to judge whether the passenger plane flying at an altitude of 10-12 km is a Boeing 737 or an Airbus 320 ... 10 - 12km its about 6-7 miles. I have not seen F-15C pilots flying with binoculars in the cockpit ...

 

 

I repeat - the "relatively equal" fights of the American F-15s are those in the former Yugoslavia. All MiGs were attacked from a distance classified as BVR. And destroyed at the border, at least 8-10 km with rockets fired in the BVR.

 

Again, if the pilot flying the F-15C - an air superiority plane - allows "visual" combat, it means that something went wrong. And that's about it.

 

 

When it comes to fighting in Israel, that "theater" is governed by completely different rules, if only because the skills of Israeli pilots and the technological advantage against the enemy allow for a completely different approach to combat with this type of plane. But the shots down by the Izraeli F-15s are also mostly those in the BVR.

[Nahen]

What are you guys troubling about?
USAF uses the F-15E with permanently attached CFT tanks. They are disconnected only occasionally. Why in Korean or Japanese F-15s the other way around have occasional CFT tanks installed? A simple answer - in the USAF, apart from the F-15E, there is a sufficient number of typically fighter F-15Cs, so it is not worth juggling tanks in "E" since you can send "C" versions quickly where needed.

In Korea or Japan, these aircraft are primarily intended to defend the airspace - hence the typical Air Superiority Fighter configuration - without CFT. But if necessary, they are assumed "once a year".

 

Whether RAZBAM will make it removable or not is in theory irrelevant - For today, if the "E" version module will have similar flight parameters to those from the F-15C FlaminngClifs, it will still dominate Air to Air even with CFT. Since the F-14 manages to accelerate to dizzying Mach 1.8-1.9 and the F-16 "from good downhill" to 1.6-1.8, the F-15, flying at Mach 2.5, is the only one with a real speed - in BVR he will have no opponent. The F-15E without a CFT in real life is faster than the F-15C by about 300 km / h. In DCS he does not have to, is enough for him around 2750km / h (Mach 2.54) like have "C".

 

It would be nice to be able to remove the tanks. But if it doesn't happen, it doesn't matter to me,  I will fly only with AMRAAM and Sidewinder. Whether with CFT or without - it makes no difference to me

[Rainmaker]

1 hour ago, Nahen said:

 

Ok - so I would like to ask for examples of maneuvering combat involving the F-15 (apart from shooting at defenseless planes taking off from Iraqi airports) where the missiles were fired from the VISUAL distance of the target identification by the pilot.

 

8 miles of WVR ?? From this distance, can you see the target and identify it without the use of on-board electronics? Congratulations ... Without binoculars, I am not able to judge whether the passenger plane flying at an altitude of 10-12 km is a Boeing 737 or an Airbus 320 ... 10 - 12km its about 6-7 miles. I have not seen F-15C pilots flying with binoculars in the cockpit ...

 

 

I repeat - the "relatively equal" fights of the American F-15s are those in the former Yugoslavia. All MiGs were attacked from a distance classified as BVR. And destroyed at the border, at least 8-10 km with rockets fired in the BVR.

 

Again, if the pilot flying the F-15C - an air superiority plane - allows "visual" combat, it means that something went wrong. And that's about it.

 

 

When it comes to fighting in Israel, that "theater" is governed by completely different rules, if only because the skills of Israeli pilots and the technological advantage against the enemy allow for a completely different approach to combat with this type of plane. But the shots down by the Izraeli F-15s are also mostly those in the BVR.

 

 

When did BVR mean you have to be close enough to identify aircraft type?

 

 

https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

 

https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-066.pdf

 

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/941015lessonsgulfiv-chap06.pdf

 

 

https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Airmen-at-War/Haulman-MannedAircraftLossesYugoslavia1994-1999.pdf?ver=2016-08-22-131404-383

 

 

 

 

Anything else?

Edited September 6, 2021 by Rainmaker

[Nahen]

20 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

 

Anything else?

 

 

Yea...

 

Do you understand what I'm writing? Show me an example of an F-15C / E maneuver combat with Sidewinder missiles.

Step back and read again what I wrote and what plane I am writing about. I am not interested in the F-16 which was created for such a fight.

 

You can read these documents of yours and carefully check what rockets and at what distances were used by pilots of the 493th over the former Yugoslavia.

 

I found nothing in these documents that would contradict my theory, except to confirm it on page 6 and nexts from  linked by you document:

 

https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Airmen-at-War/Haulman-MannedAircraftLossesYugoslavia1994-1999.pdf?ver=2016-08-22-131404-383

 

Well, I'm still waiting for what is more than maybe one example in several dozen. Let me remind you of the First Gulf War - all the F-15 kills with the SiM-7 Sparrow missiles. None with the Sidewinder. How was the Second War?

[Rainmaker]

7 minutes ago, Nahen said:

 

Yea...

 

Do you understand what I'm writing? Show me an example of an F-15C / E maneuver combat with Sidewinder missiles.

Step back and read again what I wrote and what plane I am writing about. I am not interested in the F-16 which was created for such a fight.

 

You can read these documents of yours and carefully check what rockets and at what distances were used by pilots of the 493th over the former Yugoslavia.

 

I found nothing in these documents that would contradict my theory, except to confirm it on page 6 and nexts from  linked by you document:

 

https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Airmen-at-War/Haulman-MannedAircraftLossesYugoslavia1994-1999.pdf?ver=2016-08-22-131404-383

 

Well, I'm still waiting for what is more than maybe one example in several dozen. Let me remind you of the First Gulf War - all the F-15 kills with the SiM-7 Sparrow missiles. None with the Sidewinder. How was the Second War?

 

No dude, you are just moving goal posts. First it was WVR/BVR, now it becomes specifically AIM-9s. Next it’ll be gun engagements. 
 

it’s obvious you haven’t done any actual research. 
 

Here’s your -9 engagement

 

 

 

And one more WVR engagement just because  

 

No need to move the goal posts again as I’m not going to waste my time responding to you any longer. 

[Nahen]

Hahaha
First film information about range - 15 miles distance - maybe first shot from 10 miles ... and according to you it's Sidewinder? Leader reports "FOX" shot, moments later his wingman also reports "FOX". FOX is the same as FOX ONE - it's Sparrow ... and besides, a Sidewinder from 10 miles ?? Congratulations on your ingenuity ...

 

Before active warhead rockets appeared, the term FOX referred to passive rockets of the AiM-7 Sparrow type, and FOX TWO - with an "infrared" warhead. So much for First Desert Storm and "Sidewinder kill"

Edited September 6, 2021 by Nahen

[jaguara5]

The OP asked if a -C version will come after the -E version. Considering the fact that the question was posted in Razbam's forums, he asked if Razbam will develop in the future the -C (not a pseudo -C in the form of  -E without CFT' s etc) version. We all can asume that the answer to this question is a big NO (though i personally would not be against the idea to provide the ability to remove the CFT's with the respective FM adjustments, but i doubt razbam would invest the extra required human resources for that). 

The only company who could eventually develop a true full fidelity F-15C is ED itself,  owner of the FC3 F-15C (which could be the basis for the further development of the product as a FF module).  Beside the fact that  a respective thread  is already running (in the wishlist forum or the FC3 ), i'm sure most of us (Eagle fans) remember that ED's CEO said in an interview (about a year ago?) that the -C version is not planned because it's lacking multirole capabilities (so it wouldn't be a big money production machine). 

IMO our only hope is  to convince ED that there is a market for such a product. 

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by jaguara5

[Superbug Echo]

The F-15C should have been the very first professional model.  Yes opinion!  C'mon, this has been the best gunfighter for 99% of the fighter "Jet Age", hands down!  Arguably, it still is!!!  I'm listening to folks say that there would be very little interested in a single role airplane...that it has to be multi-role.  Poppycock!!!  If that were true then the A-10 and AV-8 would still be on the shelf  Technically, the Mirage 2000C and F-14 Tomcat's were primarily used in the fighter, air supremacy role.  Both were capable of multi roles but were primarily used as fighters. The F-15 has always been in a league of its own and it reigned supreme in the realm of air superiority.  Because multi-role airplanes weren't a thing during the 60's and early 70's, we can only imagine what could have been...

 

 

IT'S TIME! Hī fəˈdelədē...

 

[Nahen]

23 hours ago, jaguara5 said:

The OP asked if a -C version will come after the -E version. Considering the fact that the question was posted in Razbam's forums, he asked if Razbam will develop in the future the -C (not a pseudo -C in the form of  -E without CFT' s etc) version. We all can asume that the answer to this question is a big NO (though i personally would not be against the idea to provide the ability to remove the CFT's with the respective FM adjustments, but i doubt razbam would invest the extra required human resources for that). 

The only company who could eventually develop a true full fidelity F-15C is ED itself,  owner of the FC3 F-15C (which could be the basis for the further development of the product as a FF module).  Beside the fact that  a respective thread  is already running (in the wishlist forum or the FC3 ), i'm sure most of us (Eagle fans) remember that ED's CEO said in an interview (about a year ago?) that the -C version is not planned because it's lacking multirole capabilities (so it wouldn't be a big money production machine). 

IMO our only hope is  to convince ED that there is a market for such a product. 

 

 

 

It is not a question of "converting" the F-15E model to the F-15C, because it entails a change of, for example, the cockpit, a change of a large part of the avionics installed in it. In short - it is impossible to make a ready-made "C" module from just a "E" version.

That is why RAZBAM will not make at 99.9% the "hi fidelity" "C" version .

 

The simplest and fastest way is to "upgrade" the current "C" module by ED.  So until, for example, the MiG-29A / Su-27 clickable appears - also the F-15C will not appear

But with their current policy, I do not believe that.

[Gierasimov]

ED did mention (I think it was Wags)  in one of the interviews that they have no intention of doing full fidelity C. However, since they want to do Fulcrum (after BS3), maybe their plans will change at some point as well with the relation to Eagle. In the latest interview with the team, ED confirmed they will do a cargo plane which previously was deemed a no go, Kate also seem to say that "some" FC3 aircraft will be clickable, although I am sure she meant MiG-29 only and that "some" was just translation issue. 

Anyway, I reckon if there is a chance of F-15C, that is within ED and not Razbam.

[falcon_120]

On 9/6/2021 at 3:41 PM, Nahen said:

Hahaha
First film information about range - 15 miles distance - maybe first shot from 10 miles ... and according to you it's Sidewinder? Leader reports "FOX" shot, moments later his wingman also reports "FOX". FOX is the same as FOX ONE - it's Sparrow ... and besides, a Sidewinder from 10 miles ?? Congratulations on your ingenuity ...

 

Before active warhead rockets appeared, the term FOX referred to passive rockets of the AiM-7 Sparrow type, and FOX TWO - with an "infrared" warhead. So much for First Desert Storm and "Sidewinder kill"

 

Just a note. The first video with the MIG25 shot down its a sidewinder not a sparrow, you can tell by the growling sound of the Aim9 as well as the request to his flight go out of burners seconds before.

[Rainmaker]

1 hour ago, falcon_120 said:

Just a note. The first video with the MIG25 shot down its a sidewinder not a sparrow, you can tell by the growling sound of the Aim9 as well as the request to his flight go out of burners seconds before.

The whole thing was recounted in a few different articles. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/eagle-vs-foxbat-when-usaf-f-15s-dogfighted-with-iraqi-or-russian-mig-25s-during-operation-desert-storm/

 

Also, anyone that can use their fingers to count could take the number of mig kills the C had and subtract the number of kills with -7s and figure out that 9s were used...there’s just no convincing some people they are wrong though so...  

[Nahen]

12 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

Just a note. The first video with the MIG25 shot down its a sidewinder not a sparrow, you can tell by the growling sound of the Aim9 as well as the request to his flight go out of burners seconds before.

Yessss.... but...

 

Why was the rocket launched when the signal did not confirm that the warhead was locked? Or maybe the movie is from a machine that didn't fire?

 

FOX - is a term for a radar-guided missile in the radar beam of the aircraft - Sparrow.

 

In official USAF reports from the post-Gulf War period, there is not a single case of an F-15C downing an enemy aircraft with a missile other than a Sparrow. 

[Reax178]

On 9/6/2021 at 10:01 AM, Nahen said:

What are you guys troubling about?
USAF uses the F-15E with permanently attached CFT tanks. They are disconnected only occasionally. Why in Korean or Japanese F-15s the other way around have occasional CFT tanks installed? A simple answer - in the USAF, apart from the F-15E, there is a sufficient number of typically fighter F-15Cs, so it is not worth juggling tanks in "E" since you can send "C" versions quickly where needed.

In Korea or Japan, these aircraft are primarily intended to defend the airspace - hence the typical Air Superiority Fighter configuration - without CFT. But if necessary, they are assumed "once a year".

 

Whether RAZBAM will make it removable or not is in theory irrelevant - For today, if the "E" version module will have similar flight parameters to those from the F-15C FlaminngClifs, it will still dominate Air to Air even with CFT. Since the F-14 manages to accelerate to dizzying Mach 1.8-1.9 and the F-16 "from good downhill" to 1.6-1.8, the F-15, flying at Mach 2.5, is the only one with a real speed - in BVR he will have no opponent. The F-15E without a CFT in real life is faster than the F-15C by about 300 km / h. In DCS he does not have to, is enough for him around 2750km / h (Mach 2.54) like have "C".

 

It would be nice to be able to remove the tanks. But if it doesn't happen, it doesn't matter to me,  I will fly only with AMRAAM and Sidewinder. Whether with CFT or without - it makes no difference to me

Do you really believe that the F15E can go mach 2.5+ with ordonnance and CFTs ? That seems very impossible to me, unless you have the source to prove it

[GGTharos]

It won't.   There's no source that'll say otherwise.   Technically you're not supposed to even try to get that high up in a 15C, with ordnance limitations (structural, not engine) placing the top speed at some M1.8.  

[dundun92]

9 hours ago, Nahen said:

n official USAF reports from the post-Gulf War period, there is not a single case of an F-15C downing an enemy aircraft with a missile other than a Sparrow. 

except there literally are, just read any of the countless pilot accounts, or the official Gulf War Air Power Survey, all of them mention countless AIM-9 kills.

[GGTharos]

Actually they are ... well counted.   The BVR survey is showing that more and more launches occur BVR.

[falcon_120]

Yessss.... but...
 
Why was the rocket launched when the signal did not confirm that the warhead was locked? Or maybe the movie is from a machine that didn't fire?
 
FOX - is a term for a radar-guided missile in the radar beam of the aircraft - Sparrow.
 
In official USAF reports from the post-Gulf War period, there is not a single case of an F-15C downing an enemy aircraft with a missile other than a Sparrow. 

Well Fox is generic, you have Fox 1, fox 2 and fox 3 depending if Sarh, IR, or active is shot.

Do you mean that fox without number is a Fox 1? I was not aware of that.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Rainmaker]

6 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Actually they are ... well counted.   The BVR survey is showing that more and more launches occur BVR.

occurred, but also a lot of fights ended WVR. The plan is hopefully to not get that point, but as history has shown, it doesnt end u that way. The last US mig shoot down was also WVR.  You can it the other way, but history tends to keep repeating itself, for a myriad  of different reasons. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Rainmaker

[Rainmaker]

Yep...no official accounts of -9s being fired by -15s...none...nada. 

[GGTharos]

12 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

The plan is hopefully to not get that point, but as history has shown, it doesnt end u that way.

 

No it isn't.  Missiles need time to get to their targets, those targets move in that time so ending the fight WVR is absolutely no surprise and expected.

 

12 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

The last US mig shoot down was also WVR.  You can it the other way, but history tends to keep repeating itself, for a myriad  of different reasons. 

 

No it doesn't.  History is literally showing that things are moving more towards BVR.  Maybe slower than desired/wished for, but steadily.

Edited September 10, 2021 by GGTharos

[Rainmaker]

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

No it isn't.  Missiles need time to get to their targets, those targets move in that time so ending the fight WVR is absolutely no surprise and expected.

 

 

No it doesn't.  History is literally showing that things are moving more towards BVR.  Maybe slower than desired/wished for, but steadily.

 

 

It hasn’t changed over the last 30+ years.  It’s actually gone backwards in a sense.  The mig kill, the drones we have engaged, etc...all WVR. 

[Nahen]

On 9/9/2021 at 4:28 PM, Reax178 said:

Do you really believe that the F15E can go mach 2.5+ with ordonnance and CFTs ? That seems very impossible to me, unless you have the source to prove it

 

I wrote that the F-15E is able to fly with CFT and armament 2.54+ Mach? No, I wrote that the F-15E has a maximum speed of about 300 km / h higher than the F-15C - around 3000-3100 km / h.
It is probably obvious that the maximum speeds are the result of technical trials and 99% are carried out on "bare" airframes. Which does not change the fact that the F-15E is much faster than the F-15C.

[GGTharos]

13 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

It hasn’t changed over the last 30+ years.  It’s actually gone backwards in a sense.  The mig kill, the drones we have engaged, etc...all WVR. 

 

https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

 

I'm not fussed about WVR drone kills, they're not in the same context of A2A combat.

Edited September 10, 2021 by GGTharos