Option to remove CFTs

[Voyager]

@Nahen It's been a while since I followed SATAL, but I gather it was the Radar Warning Receiver that was considered excessively omnicient. But again, that was a while ago. 

[Nahen]

This is my LOVE:

 

[Nahen]

7 minutes ago, Voyager said:

@Nahen It's been a while since I followed SATAL, but I gather it was the Radar Warning Receiver that was considered excessively omnicient. But again, that was a while ago. 

 I hear such opinions ... but the truth is that as long as the rocket fired in the "TWS" mode does not turn into a PITBULL nothing is known about it. Another thing is how who is flying the F-15C. If I know what opponent - the plane - I fight, I often react "to feeling" before the opponent's rocket enters the pitbull, and sometimes I go "in defense", not knowing that the opponent did not even shoot

I think that hardly anyone flies around 2Mach during the fight and that changes everything both in attack and defense.

The F-15C is just a BVR fighter. As such it was created - the fact that it does quite well in maneuvering duels is another matter. I always try to keep a minimum distance of 15-20 miles from the enemy

[SCPanda]

On 4/19/2022 at 1:41 AM, Nahen said:

Let me just say this - for me, only Air to Air flying counts. The F-15C is all I need. The F-15E, in spite of maintaining the full air combat capabilities of the "C" version, by, among other things, increasing the airframe weight and changing the air resistance coefficient by CFT tanks, is not a typical air superiority aircraft like the "C" version. The idea was to create a powerful strike machine that could defend itself, or that could fight its way through the air to its target. The fact of using the "C" version for the cover of the "E" version during the operation over Iraq proves one thing very clearly - it makes no sense to use the "E" version without CFT tanks - it is better to give them cover of the "C" version. Therefore, I do not see the point and do not need to beg for a removable CFT because it is not an air combat machine. And after removing the CFT, Eagles potential of ground strike drastically decreases - so I am absolutely in favor of CFT being permanent and that's it.

But DCS F-15C doesn't have datalink, HSD, and extra pairs of eyes and hands sitting in the back. SA sometimes is more important than performance in BVR. 

[Nahen]

7 hours ago, SCPanda said:

But DCS F-15C doesn't have datalink, HSD, and extra pairs of eyes and hands sitting in the back. SA sometimes is more important than performance in BVR. 

Somehow it does not bother me. Everything you need for air combat is in the F-15C. It does not need any datalink, etc. The radar and RWR in the F-15C do everything - one condition is that you must be able to use it. And if there is AWACS, it is full of happiness. 

[henshao]

On 4/18/2022 at 10:13 AM, FoxOne007 said:

We’re not getting removable CFT’s, regardless of how much the community begs for it

boy isn't that the mark of a great product and developer

[Nahen]

And again and again and again ...
Please understand the "E" version of this plane is not operated without CFT. Strengthening the structure - increased weight, more powerful engines, more weapons - all this requires more fuel.
After removing the CFT, you lose half of the suspension points and half of the operating range - what's the point? Rather than moaning about making the non- removable CFTs maybe you'd better moan about making the full model "C" version?

[nubbins_]

Isn't the 2000s+ single seat cockpit completely different? So even if you could mod a CFT-less -E to get there, it'd require some serious suspension of disbelief to pose as a -C

A modern full fidelity -C is always #1 on my wishlist, because despite FC3 visual quality the consistent APG-63v1 is comfortable to use as opposed to ED constantly torturing the APG-68's performance. But Strike Eagle is a weird place to look for one's -C fix.........I mean if you really want to fly a long mission with 4 AAMs and internal fuel LOL

On 5/22/2022 at 4:07 PM, henshao said:

boy isn't that the mark of a great product and developer

Just caving to random community demands doesn't make for a good dev either...

Edited May 24, 2022 by nubbins_

[Allesmor Obranna]

Since RAZBAM clearly stated that the CFTs will not be able to remove, we should see, how capable is the F-15E without them, from maneuvering prospective. 

In the mid-90's, there was a proposal for the F-15F, the single seater E modification, with the Dash229 engines, modified engine bays, stronger airframe, modified flight control system twin seater canopy - but with a single cockpit and seat. It was a dedicated A2A platform which was able to use the potential of the much more capable Strike Eagle.

It was mostly offered for the Royal Saudi Air Force, but also mentioned as a after-2000 European combat aircraft. It remained as a proposal, but after 2000, for the foreign customers, the demonstartion flights included the slow speed, high AoA maneuvering - without the CFTs. The key person in this project was the chief test pilot of the Boeing (after the transition/aquistion of the McDD) Joe Felock, who built up a complete, series of high AoA demo sequence, such as the Hornet-related square loop. He flew the plane alone and right from the start, he managed a vertical double Immelman to demonstrate the exceptionel thrust to weight ratio of the CFT-free Strike Eagle airframe. Due to the lack of drag, the plane has not just huge raw energy potential, but a very high acceleration as well. Even with the huge wing pylons, because back then, the station 1-9 was not an option, so the Smokewinders was on the huge wing hardpoint. 

Here is Joe Felock's demo flights:

Regarding to this, the "dedicated to air combat" F-15C is just a dumb muscle car, rather than a sophisticated F-15E. The point is: the USAF simply just never ever use the Strike Eagle in air combat role, however, it is far more capable either in dogfight, or in BVR. 

 

Later, the Israeli Air Force also removed the CFTs for the F-15I Ra'am flight demonstartions:

Singapore also use the F-15SG (with the F110GE129C engines) without the CFTs for the flight demos and quite often for A2A practice as well:

Finally, here is an USAF Strike Eagle (a later model from 1997), with the F100PW229 engines and without the CFTs. The airshow was in the main maintenace depot of USAF, at Robins AFB, so the surprise factor was this engine test flight integrated to the show:

From simulation standpoint the lack of CFTs either would be nice, or inaccurate, but it is really up to the developers demand. 

[_DK_]

On 5/23/2022 at 5:09 PM, Nahen said:

And again and again and again ...
Please understand the "E" version of this plane is not operated without CFT. Strengthening the structure - increased weight, more powerful engines, more weapons - all this requires more fuel.
After removing the CFT, you lose half of the suspension points and half of the operating range - what's the point? Rather than moaning about making the non- removable CFTs maybe you'd better moan about making the full model "C" version?

 

I am not one to lobby for a non-CFT F-15E in DCS but objectively, a purely A-A configured E either equals or vastly outperforms the C in every A-A category except low speed, high alpha manoeuvring. It out accelerates the Charlie by ~30% and sustain turns up to 25% more G between mach 1.2 and 1.6 (at 40,000 ft for these examples). The operating range is mitigated by drop tanks which in their common x2 wing configuration, is less draggy and lighter than the CFTs (and can be jettisoned!). Granted, you cannot have the exceptional loiter time that CFTs + 2/3 bags can give you but no respectable fighter pilot should willingly commit into a fight handicapped by that much weight anyway.

[draconus]

On 4/19/2022 at 11:33 AM, Talon Karde said:

I just can't understand why people want to use Strike Eagle for a mission which IS NOT its mission... Moreover, weaponts anchor points are ON THE CFT !

Want a fighter / bomber? Go for F-16 or F/A-18...

Right... yet the first "mission" video devs do is about F-15E spaamraming some poor MiG.

[Spurts]

F-15Es have been used for CAP.  They can still carry 8AAMs and have unreal loiter time.

[Nahen]

5 hours ago, _DK_ said:

 

I am not one to lobby for a non-CFT F-15E in DCS but objectively, a purely A-A configured E either equals or vastly outperforms the C in every A-A category except low speed, high alpha manoeuvring. It out accelerates the Charlie by ~30% and sustain turns up to 25% more G between mach 1.2 and 1.6 (at 40,000 ft for these examples). The operating range is mitigated by drop tanks which in their common x2 wing configuration, is less draggy and lighter than the CFTs (and can be jettisoned!). Granted, you cannot have the exceptional loiter time that CFTs + 2/3 bags can give you but no respectable fighter pilot should willingly commit into a fight handicapped by that much weight anyway.

What is DCS for you? A simulator or an arcade game?
The F-15E HAS NEVER FLYED WITHOUT CFT. THE F-15E HAS NEVER BEEN USED IN COMBAT AS AN  AIR FIGHTER - ONLY FOR AIR COMBAT. It is a strictly assault plane which, due to its design based on the F-15 airframe, a large part of avionics, and the same family of radars, has retained full BWR and WVR air combat capabilities. But HAS NEVER BEEN SUCHLY USED IN AIRFIGHT. Compare the number  air kills by F-15C with the number air kills by F-15E during the wars in Iraq.
As far as I'm not mistaken, the F-15E have one air victory ... with a bomb ... What does that mean? That these planes always fly under the umbrella of their own air cover and, as a rule, in conditions of air superiority - although specifically this plane, its mode of operation does not require operating in air superiority conditions. It can be sent to the area where the enemy's air force is active and still perform / try to perform ground attacks. But no one will ever send him on any combat mission without CFT.

How many times can write about the same thing?
You can always talk to the guys from WarThunder or Ace Combat and have fun there without CFT after they take them off.

[Nahen]

On 6/2/2022 at 9:33 AM, Allesmor Obranna said:

Since RAZBAM clearly stated that the CFTs will not be able to remove, we should see, how capable is the F-15E without them, from maneuvering prospective. 

In the mid-90's, there was a proposal for the F-15F, the single seater E modification, with the Dash229 engines, modified engine bays, stronger airframe, modified flight control system twin seater canopy - but with a single cockpit and seat. It was a dedicated A2A platform which was able to use the potential of the much more capable Strike Eagle.

It was mostly offered for the Royal Saudi Air Force, but also mentioned as a after-2000 European combat aircraft. It remained as a proposal, but after 2000, for the foreign customers, the demonstartion flights included the slow speed, high AoA maneuvering - without the CFTs. The key person in this project was the chief test pilot of the Boeing (after the transition/aquistion of the McDD) Joe Felock, who built up a complete, series of high AoA demo sequence, such as the Hornet-related square loop. He flew the plane alone and right from the start, he managed a vertical double Immelman to demonstrate the exceptionel thrust to weight ratio of the CFT-free Strike Eagle airframe. Due to the lack of drag, the plane has not just huge raw energy potential, but a very high acceleration as well. Even with the huge wing pylons, because back then, the station 1-9 was not an option, so the Smokewinders was on the huge wing hardpoint. 

Here is Joe Felock's demo flights:

Regarding to this, the "dedicated to air combat" F-15C is just a dumb muscle car, rather than a sophisticated F-15E. The point is: the USAF simply just never ever use the Strike Eagle in air combat role, however, it is far more capable either in dogfight, or in BVR. 

 

Later, the Israeli Air Force also removed the CFTs for the F-15I Ra'am flight demonstartions:

Singapore also use the F-15SG (with the F110GE129C engines) without the CFTs for the flight demos and quite often for A2A practice as well:

Finally, here is an USAF Strike Eagle (a later model from 1997), with the F100PW229 engines and without the CFTs. The airshow was in the main maintenace depot of USAF, at Robins AFB, so the surprise factor was this engine test flight integrated to the show:

From simulation standpoint the lack of CFTs either would be nice, or inaccurate, but it is really up to the developers demand. 

Can you distinguish between tests, air shows, inspections after repairs or service - from the normal use of the plane?

 

I will tell you something - DCS - Digital Combat Simulation - is it ASS - Air Show Simulation? or TES - Test and Egzamination Simulation? Or maybe AATS - Advertising and Arms Tenders Simulation.
I do not think so...

Edited June 4, 2022 by Nahen

[_DK_]

6 hours ago, _DK_ said:

 

I am not one to lobby for a non-CFT F-15E in DCS ...

 

44 minutes ago, Nahen said:

What is DCS for you? A simulator or an arcade game?
The F-15E HAS NEVER FLYED WITHOUT CFT. THE F-15E HAS NEVER BEEN USED IN COMBAT AS AN  AIR FIGHTER - ONLY FOR AIR COMBAT. It is a strictly assault plane which, due to its design based on the F-15 airframe, a large part of avionics, and the same family of radars, has retained full BWR and WVR air combat capabilities. But HAS NEVER BEEN SUCHLY USED IN AIRFIGHT. Compare the number  air kills by F-15C with the number air kills by F-15E during the wars in Iraq.
As far as I'm not mistaken, the F-15E have one air victory ... with a bomb ... What does that mean? That these planes always fly under the umbrella of their own air cover and, as a rule, in conditions of air superiority - although specifically this plane, its mode of operation does not require operating in air superiority conditions. It can be sent to the area where the enemy's air force is active and still perform / try to perform ground attacks. But no one will ever send him on any combat mission without CFT.

How many times can write about the same thing?
You can always talk to the guys from WarThunder or Ace Combat and have fun there without CFT after they take them off.

I'm just counteracting your point that making a full fidelity F-15C is not the equivalent of a CFT-less F-15E, I explicitly stated that I am not supporting for the latter in DCS. Chill.

Edited June 2, 2022 by _DK_

[Lima29]

1 hour ago, Nahen said:

Can you distinguish between tests, air shows, inspections after repairs or service - from the normal use of the plane?

 

I will tell you something - DCS - Digital Combat Simulation - is it ASS - Air Show Simulation? or TES - Test and Egzamination Simulation? Or maybe AATS - Advertising and Arms Tenders Simulation.
I do not think so...

 

Have you actually read what he wrote….

I do not think so….

 

He was being informative & telling people about a test/sales program where an aircraft that was virtually an F-15E was flown without CFT & then he posted some videos showing those flights as well as some videos showing the F-15E & F-15I being flown without CFT to show people what it would be like.

At no point did he ever say that he was showing the F-15E as it would be flown in combat.

[henshao]

I have no idea why someone would get so emotional in their free-time-policing of the desires of others.

[Nahen]

I do not understand that someone can take part in the discussion and do not take the basic trouble of reading it from the beginning ... Already a page or two ago, someone uploaded photos of the F-15E without CFT, a few people wrote about the fact that these are cases from very individual situations.
But every two pages of this topic someone pops in and repeats something that has already been said ... and again ... and again ... Maybe it is worth reading what was written before, so as not to write the same next over and over?

[Allesmor Obranna]

19 hours ago, Nahen said:

Can you distinguish between tests, air shows, inspections after repairs or service - from the normal use of the plane?

 

I will tell you something - DCS - Digital Combat Simulation - is it ASS - Air Show Simulation? or TES - Test and Egzamination Simulation? Or maybe AATS - Advertising and Arms Tenders Simulation.
I do not think so...

 

Honestly, for me, the DCS is/was always a high fidelity military flight/air show/maneuvering simulator and really not a combat simulator thing. Especially due to the lack of accuracy in the weapon/avionics/radar and air combat/MI question. Since even the explosion and weapon effects are highly inaccurate, while the radars and other really important avionics (for example EW) are not so real, the only real fun is to simulate the flying characteristic as much is it possible. From this point of view, the raw airplane option would be the best. Dropping a PGM or launching an AMRAAM, while I know, the radar mode is just far from even the "kind of", not so interesting. However, to see, how we repeat from the armchair a typical flat spin attitude of the F-14, or a high AoA departure attitude of the F-15... this is what I really looking for. We are not the same. 

[Nahen]

On 6/3/2022 at 12:12 PM, Allesmor Obranna said:

Honestly, for me, the DCS is/was always a high fidelity military flight/air show/maneuvering simulator and really not a combat simulator thing. Especially due to the lack of accuracy in the weapon/avionics/radar and air combat/MI question. Since even the explosion and weapon effects are highly inaccurate, while the radars and other really important avionics (for example EW) are not so real, the only real fun is to simulate the flying characteristic as much is it possible. From this point of view, the raw airplane option would be the best. Dropping a PGM or launching an AMRAAM, while I know, the radar mode is just far from even the "kind of", not so interesting. However, to see, how we repeat from the armchair a typical flat spin attitude of the F-14, or a high AoA departure attitude of the F-15... this is what I really looking for. We are not the same. 

Quite an interesting approach;) The flight models in many modules cannot be specifically called a simulation - especially when it comes to speeds, energy recovery, maintaining energy during maneuvers, etc. So I would not call DCS a flight simulator as such ...
Another thing - DCS - Digital COMBAT Simulation ... Where are we talking about anything other than simulation in non-combat conditions?
Maybe you should spend more time in MSFS or Flight Simulator ??
In this "system" 99% of airplanes / helicopters - I will be silent about Combined Arms - are combat / military machines. So I expect that their parameters, equipment and the way they are used will be primarily oriented towards their COMBAT APPLICATION.
And the fact that someone is looking for something else here ... well, it should in no way affect the BASIC ASSUMPTIONS of this "simulation system". So if a plane is used 99.9% of the time in this configuration, then we should get one, if it is still a Digital COMBAT Simulator.

I know that there are those who buy Arma3 to race karts ... There are also those in DCS who fly sports / aerobatic machine mods. I do not forbid anyone. But if about 1% of users of this system is to make the rest of the users get something that they do not need to be happy ... well ... It seems to me, on average, appropriate. If RAZBAM at the end of the production of the F-15E is to devote time and energy to satisfying unnecessary frills, I am against. And so we have been waiting a long time for this module. To delay it by the invention of unnecessarily disassembled CFTs. Better be RAZBAM spend this time on perfecting the flight model, the work of weapons systems, etc.

[Scott-S6]

On 5/23/2022 at 12:07 AM, henshao said:

boy isn't that the mark of a great product and developer

In this case, yes. The work to develop the FM for removed CTs, especially considering the drastically less available data, just so a handful of people can use the modules a crude facsimile of something it's not is not a good use of developer effort.

[henshao]

And I say you drastically underestimate how many people want or would want such a thing. Especially after the first Growling Sidewinder or whoever video demonstrated just how powerful the unencumbered airframe is.

[Krez]

8 minutes ago, henshao said:

And I say you drastically underestimate how many people want or would want such a thing. Especially after the first Growling Sidewinder or whoever video demonstrated just how powerful the unencumbered airframe is.

How many sorties combat or combat training sorties were done with an F-15E, without CFT's, by any country?

[FMBluecher]

2 hours ago, henshao said:

And I say you drastically underestimate how many people want or would want such a thing. Especially after the first Growling Sidewinder or whoever video demonstrated just how powerful the unencumbered airframe is.

There might be a big difference between how many people would want it if all RAZBAM had to do was flip a switch and enable removing CFTs, versus how many people would want it if they realized how much time, money, and effort RAZBAM would need to divert to it as opposed to spending said time, money, and effort on other things.

If it was trivial for RAZBAM to do it? Sure! I'd never use it once, but I'd be happy for other people to get a silly, fun feature.

But it's not. It's a question of them spending a non-trivial amount of resources to model an unrealistic option to remove CFTs versus them spending more resources getting the actual features of the F-15E done properly and quickly, and then starting work on other modules that people also clearly want, like the MiG-23. And in that context, I wholeheartedly support RAZBAM's decision (which they have already made) to not model removing the CFTs.

[Nahen]

How much more needs to be written so that a certain (apparently significant) number of people understand that the F-15E is not the F-15C? That it is a specially designed, modified and manufactured impact version of the F-15 airframe? That no one has ever assumed using it without CFT? That its greater mass does not result from its CFT and fuel in them, but from the modified internal structural features, which, despite more powerful engines, do not eliminate its greater inertia, which e.g. caused and causes that it is not used considered a fighter for air combat.
And if someone wants to "have" the clickable F-15C in DCS in this way, it probably exaggerates a bit ... especially if he thinks that DCS is a simulator and not an arcade game.
Let me repeat - it's a pity to waste time and energy of RAZBAM team on such senseless and unnecessary, basically fictional elements.