Jump to content

Option to remove CFTs


carss

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Krez said:

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

this is an extremely silly game to play...how many times has an f-16 gone head to head with 5 su-27s while carrying a single amraam on the right wing?

8 hours ago, FMBluecher said:

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.

There is a business argument to be made both ways. They've weighed and measured it in favor of not modeling the jet without CFTs, and probably that is the financially sound choice, however if it made business sense to do so I'm sure they would (ie if it was certain to double sales, or similar). Ultimately it is a product, and a video game, and it all comes back to the green

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, henshao said:

There is a business argument to be made both ways. They've weighed and measured it in favor of not modeling the jet without CFTs, and probably that is the financially sound choice, however if it made business sense to do so I'm sure they would (ie if it was certain to double sales, or similar). Ultimately it is a product, and a video game, and it all comes back to the green

Now on this, I completely agree with you!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, henshao said:

this is an extremely silly game to play...how many times has an f-16 gone head to head with 5 su-27s while carrying a single amraam on the right wing?

If this is a game - it can't be stupid since so many people play it. And since this is a game, it does not have to relate to reality. So your question about the F-16 confrontation with the Su-27 is very childish.

But I will tell you that there is one more aspect that you may not understand, since you treat it as a game. There are people, companies, governmental institutions that use this type of "games" as simulators to reproduce a substitute for real possible scenarios. Whether it's in terms of driving a car, a train, controlling production machines, performing surgical operations, and finally, we come to the use of civil and military airplanes. And here - it may surprise you - such a DCS can be treated as a simulator of hypothetical clashes in the air between aircraft models simulated on its platform. Under the conditions imposed by its manufacturer.

And in such realities, making a machine in a configuration which no-one uses anywhere, completely misses the goal of a real use SIMULATION. And it makes much more sense to clash the F-16 with the Su-27 10 times a day, as long as they are realistically reproduced, than flying something that does not exist, except in very exceptional situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2022 at 1:49 PM, 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.

And I say that you drastically overestimate how many people care about how "powerful" an airframe is, versus having a module that has the characterstics of the aircraft as it served. 

Not to mention - where is the detailed data on the F15E-minus-CFT's performance from which to build the flight model?


Edited by Scott-S6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, henshao said:

this is an extremely silly game to play...how many times has an f-16 gone head to head with 5 su-27s while carrying a single amraam on the right wing?

You are conflating two separate things.

Can the F-16 carry the AARAM? Yes.
Could the F-16 go head to head with 5 SU-27's? Yes.

Has the F-15E ever been used in training or combat without CFT's? No.
 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Krez said:

Has the F-15E ever been used in training or combat without CFT's? No.

I'll correct it for you:

Could the F-15E ever been used in training or combat without CFT's? Yes.

It's not my wish btw.

  • Like 3

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay -
Does the F-16 carry the AiM-120 AMRAAM? YES
Has the F-16 ever meet the Su-27? YES (very often - if someone doubts, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the course of the all BALTIC AIR POLICING missions over the Baltic Sea and over Batlic Countries)
Is the F-15 used without CFT? NOT.
 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2022 at 9:25 AM, draconus said:

I'll correct it for you:

Could the F-15E ever been used in training or combat without CFT's? Yes.

It's not my wish btw.

No, it could not be used for training or combat without CFT. Why not?
Training - because pilots are not trained on machines that they do not fly - in this case, the F-15E without CFT.
 Fighting - because no one has ever shipped, or will ship an F-15E into the air without CFT in the future (except for testing, maintenance and research)
Do you think otherwise?
Do you think Abrams tanks can fight without a turret? I have seen such ones driving around the maneuvering yards of the factory in which they are produced - it means that they can. If someone is going to make a tank combat simulator, it should be possible to remove the turret from the Abrams ...


Edited by Nahen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

All those people asking for CFT removal really want is an F-15C. 🙂 RAZBAM take note.

Not really. depending on the era, the F-15C is fully bomb-capable, but RAZBAM wouldn't model it "because the USAF doesn't do it" as seen in this thread. Nevermind if say Israel has done it in combat on numerous occasions. Also, an F-15E without CFTs is as mentioned earlier, a different animal still to a light-grey bird. Heavier but more powerful with stronger wings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you want bombs, you won't mind the armpit tanks. 🙂 That said, I think that hanging bombs off an F-15C is more likely than removing CFTs from a Mudhen. Note that F-15Es don't fly without CFTs in other countries, either, not in combat at any rate. 

There's no need to fly the F-15E into combat without the CFTs, either in DCS or IRL. Only reason one would do that was if F-15C was somehow not available. In DCS, well, this is going to be the case at least until someone makes the Eaglejet.


Edited by Dragon1-1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, henshao said:

Not really. depending on the era, the F-15C is fully bomb-capable, but RAZBAM wouldn't model it "because the USAF doesn't do it" as seen in this thread. Nevermind if say Israel has done it in combat on numerous occasions.

F-15I is based on F-15E afaik.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2022 at 2:28 AM, Nahen said:

Fighting - because no one has ever shipped, or will ship an F-15E into the air without CFT in the future (except for testing, maintenance and research)

This is a naive comment.

The only reason no one uses the E this way is because it has always been more valuable as a striker. If, on the other hand, a scenario presented itself where a significant number of highly maneuverable fighters were required, they would strip CFTs off and send them up.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the old F-15E.info website there was a list of all known combat loadouts from ODS, OAF, OIF, OEF.  It included an Air Superiority mission undertaken by Mudhens.  Guess what?  CFTs, LANTIRN pods, and wing tanks were carried along with the 8 AAMs.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, draconus said:

F-15I is based on F-15E afaik.

Not to get sidetracked with the exploits of the A and C eagles, but here: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/operation-wooden-leg-f-15-baz-fighters-became-bombers-performed-longest-air-strike-iaf-history/

 

Basically the E exists because of the success of the D in the strike role (and israel's much greater imagination than the USAF)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, henshao said:

Not to get sidetracked with the exploits of the A and C eagles, but here: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/operation-wooden-leg-f-15-baz-fighters-became-bombers-performed-longest-air-strike-iaf-history/

Basically the E exists because of the success of the D in the strike role (and israel's much greater imagination than the USAF)

Cool story, but it says they had CFTs 🙂

  • Like 4

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cab said:

This is a naive comment.

The only reason no one uses the E this way is because it has always been more valuable as a striker. If, on the other hand, a scenario presented itself where a significant number of highly maneuverable fighters were required, they would strip CFTs off and send them up.

You think so? Today, the F-15Cs are still flying, they are starting to slowly enter service the F-15EX, and you say that the day will come, that there will be no fighter planes (there are still F-22s) and the USAF will remove the CFT from "E" to send them to air combat ?
If necessary, they will fly with CFT in Air to Air configuration and no one will take off the CFT - and you know why? Because the pilots couldn't fight without them. If someone flies for hours and masters the plane to perfection in combat maneuvers - suddenly he will get a plane wieght change, with a changed flight "model" - a simple path to failure ... Training, procedures - there is no fight anywhere without CFT for the F-15E. Difficult to understand?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Because the pilots couldn't fight without them.

Now you're making things up. After reduction of a bit drug and weight they'd rather say: Hell yeah! Like a new girl.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, draconus said:

Now you're making things up. After reduction of a bit drug and weight they'd rather say: Hell yeah! Like a new girl.

Ask Strike Eagle pilots how often they practice air combat without CFT ...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...