F-15E vs. F-18C

[Catseye]

On 2/20/2023 at 11:18 AM, Nahen said:

Maybe read a bit about him?
Yes maybe. Therefore, the successor of the E - F-15EX is produced as a two-seater, but in principle does not need a second crew member for "standard" use. The pilot is able to perform 90% of tasks related to attacking ground targets. Of course, the second person - WSO facilitates, extends and makes the Strike Eagle a much more effective strike aircraft. But this is not an F-14 in which you can't do anything without RIO...

Thank goodnes there will be no pop-up wheel of comms between backseater and pilot that totally destroys the sense of disbelief that I find in ED's F-14 and the main reason I will not fly that module.

 

[bfr]

7 hours ago, Catseye said:

Thank goodnes there will be no pop-up wheel of comms between backseater and pilot that totally destroys the sense of disbelief that I find in ED's F-14 and the main reason I will not fly that module.

 

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Jester either, although i probably need to dive into it again to see if its improved any. I believe the mudhen will allow the vast majority of things to be done from the front seat and won't be as dependent on the backseat to fight.

Front v back seat workload will also likely hold me back on the F-4E until I've seen a bit more about it.

[Catseye]

16 hours ago, bfr said:

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Jester either, although i probably need to dive into it again to see if its improved any. I believe the mudhen will allow the vast majority of things to be done from the front seat and won't be as dependent on the backseat to fight.

Front v back seat workload will also likely hold me back on the F-4E until I've seen a bit more about it.

I will also wait to see how the F-4E is rolled out in that regard. Good point!

[Aussie_Mantis]

On 4/16/2023 at 9:06 PM, bfr said:

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Jester either, although i probably need to dive into it again to see if its improved any. I believe the mudhen will allow the vast majority of things to be done from the front seat and won't be as dependent on the backseat to fight.

Front v back seat workload will also likely hold me back on the F-4E until I've seen a bit more about it.

 

On 4/17/2023 at 1:57 PM, Catseye said:

I will also wait to see how the F-4E is rolled out in that regard. Good point!

Radar is fully rear-seat only, same goes for targeting pod and laser designation. The Mavericks I'm not sure about, but I believe the rear guy locks it and the front guy fires.

Pilot has controls for having a carbon copy of what's displayed on rear seater's screen **or** switching to the 5nm ACM Boresight mode. He can fire Sidewinders, gun and sparrow using a 3-way switch on the right-hand side of the throttle. What I do remember is that you use the same switch you use for nose-wheel steering to switch from Trim to AGM-65 guidance.

Switching from AA to AG is as simple as a single button press on the throttle. 

[bfr]

7 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

 

Radar is fully rear-seat only, same goes for targeting pod and laser designation. The Mavericks I'm not sure about, but I believe the rear guy locks it and the front guy fires.

Pilot has controls for having a carbon copy of what's displayed on rear seater's screen **or** switching to the 5nm ACM Boresight mode. He can fire Sidewinders, gun and sparrow using a 3-way switch on the right-hand side of the throttle. What I do remember is that you use the same switch you use for nose-wheel steering to switch from Trim to AGM-65 guidance.

Switching from AA to AG is as simple as a single button press on the throttle. 

Yeah, I get what the division of labour is in real life. After all, if the guy in the back wasn't needed/useful then he wouldn't be there. The point is whether you'll be able to do a passable job in DCS without either an AI/human back seater or constantly having to hop in the back yourself.  From what i've read it seems you should at least get by from the front seat in the F-15 (perhaps having to switch some things on in the back pre-take off) for most scenarios but I expect the F-4 will be a bit more like the F-14 where there are things you genuinely can't do without some kind of assistance/hopping in the back.

[Aussie_Mantis]

25 minutes ago, bfr said:

Yeah, I get what the division of labour is in real life. After all, if the guy in the back wasn't needed/useful then he wouldn't be there. The point is whether you'll be able to do a passable job in DCS without either an AI/human back seater or constantly having to hop in the back yourself.  From what i've read it seems you should at least get by from the front seat in the F-15 (perhaps having to switch some things on in the back pre-take off) for most scenarios but I expect the F-4 will be a bit more like the F-14 where there are things you genuinely can't do without some kind of assistance/hopping in the back.

I should have answered the question but you are correct- most complex tasks can't be done without the GIB. Lasing, mavericks, etc, like I've said, are all GIB stuff and you have no control over it.

[Steel Jaw]

On 4/28/2023 at 8:55 AM, bfr said:

Yeah, I get what the division of labour is in real life. After all, if the guy in the back wasn't needed/useful then he wouldn't be there.

Oh I dunno, ask a Viper or Hornet pilot, they seem to manage.  The Hornet in DCS is really a fighter-bomber and I can handle the workload myself.

[norman99]

10 minutes ago, Steel Jaw said:

Oh I dunno, ask a Viper or Hornet pilot, they seem to manage.  The Hornet in DCS is really a fighter-bomber and I can handle the workload myself.

But how often are you (or viper/hornet drivers) heads down, working the radar & TGT pod, whilst simultaneously flying at <200ft agl, at night without NVGs?……

This is the mission the F-15E was designed for. (It’s basically a poor man’s F-111 replacement).

Edited May 2, 2023 by norman99

[GGTharos]

It is THE F-111 replacement, more capable than an F-111.  The F-111 has an advantage in combat radius which is important but that isn't everything.

[JB3DG]

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

It is THE F-111 replacement, more capable than an F-111.  The F-111 has an advantage in combat radius which is important but that isn't everything.

The avionics in the F-111 made a 2 crew jet. The complexity of everything being older tech made it much more of a challenge compared to operating an F-15E with all its HOTAS and glass cockpit power.

[henshao]

The F-15E is not a poor man's anything lol

[JB3DG]

On 5/2/2023 at 8:17 AM, henshao said:

The F-15E is not a poor man's anything lol

This. IRL I would far rather do the F-111's mission in an F-15E than the pig. Situational Awareness goes up sharply for a huge drop in task saturation.

[bfr]

19 hours ago, JB3DG said:

This. IRL I would far rather do the F-111's mission in an F-15E than the pig. Situational Awareness goes up sharply for a huge drop in task saturation.

They should do an F-111 module though, just so we can compare  They were lovely looking things. I saw them a handful of times prior to being retired (been past the old RAF Upper Heyford a few times back in the day) and one of my brothers said he was practically run over by one on low level exercise in northern England when he was out on a big cross-country hike.

[Raisuli]

12 minutes ago, bfr said:

They should do an F-111 module though, just so we can compare  They were lovely looking things. I saw them a handful of times prior to being retired (been past the old RAF Upper Heyford a few times back in the day) and one of my brothers said he was practically run over by one on low level exercise in northern England when he was out on a big cross-country hike.

I got to sit in one for a few seconds when I was 15, so about three weeks after the Wright Flyer took to the air.  Richards-Gabauer AFB south of Kansas City.  About all I remember (it's been a long time since Kitty Hawk) is the throttles were on the wrong side and I couldn't see over the brow, which is a shame because years later I worked with a 'Vark pilot who transitioned to BONEs once those were retired.  I've got a picture of me sitting in a P-47, but that's a different forum.

My dad was bomber crew in that war, and the F-15E always fascinated him just for the sheer amount of iron it could carry at mach speeds.

[bfr]

1 minute ago, Raisuli said:

when I was 15, so about three weeks after the Wright Flyer took to the air

I don't think i've actually sat in any fighter or bomber, although I did get to go up the ladder of a Vulcan for about 30 seconds and have a nosey once.

[Father Cool]

I've sat in a Vulcan bomber and a Lightning, and tootled about in a Nimrod but that's it for me sadly.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Father Cool

[Temetre]

Am 2.5.2023 um 03:15 schrieb Steel Jaw:

Oh I dunno, ask a Viper or Hornet pilot, they seem to manage.  The Hornet in DCS is really a fighter-bomber and I can handle the workload myself.

Viper and Hornet got much more modern avionics and ergonomics controls, that makes things easier. But even then theres twin-seat Super Hornets for a reason.

The french air foce (or navy?) actually increased their share of twin seat Rafales, specifically because they proved more effective in strike missions. 

[Temetre]

Am 2.5.2023 um 03:25 schrieb norman99:

But how often are you (or viper/hornet drivers) heads down, working the radar & TGT pod, whilst simultaneously flying at <200ft agl, at night without NVGs?……

This is the mission the F-15E was designed for. (It’s basically a poor man’s F-111 replacement).

Btw, can you please expand on that? I know the F-15E replaced the F-111, but I had the impression that the low flying attacks became more of a secondary mission. That the F-15E was more about flying very high altitude and striking targets deeper in enemy territory with precision weaponry.

Also, that this change in mission was basically a justification for using the F-15 chassis, which seems more like a flier optimized for high altitude?

Maybe im wrong though, would love to hear.

[bfr]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

Btw, can you please expand on that? I know the F-15E replaced the F-111, but I had the impression that the low flying attacks became more of a secondary mission. That the F-15E was more about flying very high altitude and striking targets deeper in enemy territory with precision weaponry.

Also, that this change in mission was basically a justification for using the F-15 chassis, which seems more like a flier optimized for high altitude?

Maybe im wrong though, would love to hear.

AFAIK it was always intended to do stuff at low level and many of the systems reflect that capability (LANTIRN, TFR etc).  In practice when you're up against an enemy that has had its SAM & fighter capability severely curtailed then you're probably going to switch to doing your thing from upon high because its much safer.  Much like the RAF Tornado force switched from low level to high level attacks in the first Gulf War because it became safer to do so and what losses they did suffer mostly came from ground fire at low level.

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

Btw, can you please expand on that? I know the F-15E replaced the F-111, but I had the impression that the low flying attacks became more of a secondary mission. That the F-15E was more about flying very high altitude and striking targets deeper in enemy territory with precision weaponry.

Also, that this change in mission was basically a justification for using the F-15 chassis, which seems more like a flier optimized for high altitude?

Maybe im wrong though, would love to hear.

The wing loading is increased enough by the extra weight that a low altitude ride shouldn't be too uncomfortable compared to an F-111.   Flying low isn't about the wing, it's about avoiding detection, MERAD/HIRAD and having enough fuel to pull it off.

[CarbonFox]

Wasn't the F-111, particularly the F model with upgraded engines a better performer as far as speed at very low level compared to the Strike Eagle? I can't imagine those massive intakes or CFTs helping the F-15E speed along in thicker air.

[GGTharos]

They're not going to be that different when carrying a payload.

[Beirut]

2 hours ago, Father Cool said:

I've sat in a Vulcan bomber and a Lightning, and tootled about in a Nimrod but that's it for me sadly.

 

 

I sat in an F-111 at an airshow. I was in the left seat and my buddy was in the right seat. Cost $5, you got a Polaroid, and the money went to charity. 

[Father Cool]

9 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

I sat in an F-111 at an airshow. I was in the left seat and my buddy was in the right seat. Cost $5, you got a Polaroid, and the money went to charity. 

Nice, mine were at a local air museum to me, it was an open day and it was free to sit in them if you queued.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Father Cool

[Temetre]

vor 53 Minuten schrieb bfr:

AFAIK it was always intended to do stuff at low level and many of the systems reflect that capability (LANTIRN, TFR etc).  In practice when you're up against an enemy that has had its SAM & fighter capability severely curtailed then you're probably going to switch to doing your thing from upon high because its much safer.  Much like the RAF Tornado force switched from low level to high level attacks in the first Gulf War because it became safer to do so and what losses they did suffer mostly came from ground fire at low level.

Probably also helped that precision guidance allowed you to do more 'standoffy' stuff and could accurately hit targets from high altitudes and speeds. Even tornado was made when guided weapons were still in its very early phase, and you had to come close or fly low for precisition strikes. Desert Storm was IIRC where guided munitions were first time used in massive numbers? Our beloved Maverick became famous there.

But yeh, I know the SE has TFR and can do the missions; even the F-15C turned out a lot more versatile in terms of flight regime than I expected. Just seems strange to take a high altitude fighter and make it do low attack run jobs from a specialized low altitude swept wing bomber. Made me wonder whats the drawbacks, theres gotta be some.

vor 43 Minuten schrieb GGTharos:

The wing loading is increased enough by the extra weight that a low altitude ride shouldn't be too uncomfortable compared to an F-111.   Flying low isn't about the wing, it's about avoiding detection, MERAD/HIRAD and having enough fuel to pull it off.

Good point, high flying fighters seems like they can rely on their huge wings flying low with heavier payloads? Guess it might be more draggy, or the engines might not be as optimized for low altitude. Not that it should be that hard to beat TF-30s with upgraded 80s engines.

I guess the trade-off really might just be range for the most part then? Could imagine that especially low flight profile missions have a much shorter radius. For most DCS maps its probably gonna be more than enough though. I actually just flew through a good chunk of Syria in a low level flight F-18 bombing mission (Viggens wouldve been proud). Probably couldve done >1 hour of flight at ~mach 0.7 with 8000lb of bombs and 1x CFT. F-15E should do even more.

Actually, do we know if the F-15E can go supersonic at sea level with reasonable bomb loads? Looks like F-111 was rated up to mach 1.2 at low altitude. Or I guess the question would be "is rated to go supersonic at low altitude with bombs", im sure its capable to do so.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Temetre