F-15E vs. F-18C

[falcon_120]

It is off topic indeed but it is an amazing debate for me(Meteor and aim120 D design principles and strength),

So if I get this right the meteor design makes it really good at following receding targets and perhaps at low to medium altitudes, as well as keeping high terminal speed for the end game. As a trade off it is actually slower in a high altitude engament versus a traditional rocket/lofting design like the aim120D is that right?

On the other hand, the possibility to stop the engine and reignite later seems awesome if coupled with a data link and advance algorithms...Would it be possible to for example make it like pitch up and turn off the engine to wait for a target behind a mountain to several seconds later reignite to gain speed again once it has popped up? I might very well reading too much into this as to make it something useful tactically


EDIT: Just found this interesting article answering some of my questions, just in case is interesting to anyone
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4678/is-the-european-meteor-air-to-air-missile-really-the-best-in-the-world

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Pede]

6 hours ago, Scott-S6 said:

That ability to selectively coast while retaining the option of burning to maintain speed while manoeuvring make the meteor drastically different. Is the data out there on the missile decision making process in order simulate it properly? Will ED do the work (since it would fall to ED rather than heatblur) or it will it just be an amraam with different stats? (which would be disappointing)

As I understand it, the meteor will be modeled by HB, the project lead flew the jet and has first hand experience with the platform. 

[Scott-S6]

19 minutes ago, Pede said:

As I understand it, the meteor will be modeled by HB, the project lead flew the jet and has first hand experience with the platform. 

As I understand it missiles exist outside of the aircraft module (which makes sense since you don't need to have the module to be shot by the missile...) and require ED to integrate them into the core engine. HB could do the work and hand it to them as a finished package but there is still a degree of work and cooperation required from ED to test and integrate. Testing will be unusually complex if any of the unusual behaviours are simulated. Many of the current, much simpler, missiles are simulated rather crudely, suggesting that this is not an area ED sees as a priority.

Also, flying a typhoon doesn't mean that he has much insight into the detail of the missile's decision making process and behaviours, especially since he will not have had the opportunity to observe it's behaviour in combat at all, let alone the many times that would be required to infer that. Even if he did have that insight (dubious) if public documentation is not available then it can't be used in the module. So the question remains, do we have sources detailing the decision making processes and behaviours of the meteor?

Edited December 4, 2022 by Scott-S6

[Spurts]

11 hours ago, Pede said:

I know this is incredibly off topic at this point, but the meteor is not an "air breathing" missile any more than the AMRAAM or any other rocket powered missile. This is why it is important to note that the Meteor is a ducted rocket and not a ramjet; a ramjet is an air breathing jet engine that uses its momentum to produce thrust, a ducted rocket is a traditional rocket engine that uses ambient atmosphere as its oxidizer instead of carrying oxidizer internally. The purpose of the ducts on a ramjet is to control the compression of the airflow into the engine, the purpose of the ducts on a ducted rocket is to control the oxidizer flow into the active chemical reaction. 

 

In regards to the Meteor specifically, it does in fact translate to a generally lower impulse (even at max burn) compared to traditional motors. However it's required atmospheric intake is dramatically lower than that of a ramjet or scramjet engine so there is no massive performance drop off at high altitudes (leaving aside for a moment the lower motor impulse compared to a traditional rocket motor). 

 

As an aside, there isn't really a way to gauge the maximum range the Meteor could fly without specifics on the boron based compound the fuel consists of or the total battery life of the missile. This is due not only to the unique flight characteristics that come with a ducted rocket using ambient atmosphere as an oxidizer, but also the fact that the Meteor can entirely shut down its motor and reignite it at any time in its flight. The boron-based compound spontaneously combusts upon contact with ambient atmosphere which not only allows for this capability, but also means there is no minimum ratio for the motor to die out, with the exception of total vacuum of course. 

Another paper I had read said there is a minimum mass flow out the nozzle required to not gum it up.  This is what set the lower bound of the "throttle-ability" of the Meteor.  As to turning the motor off and on again, I don't know if I have seen anything about that and I certainly cannot simulate that in my model (yet) but what you mention about it being a chemical reaction sounds plausible.  Thank you for sharing that.  That does not negate what I have read about needing a minimum mass flow rate however, nor does it negate the temperature imposed maximum speed I have read, and these two things determine my models maximum cruising altitude.  Given then total battery life is not much longer than motor burn time at minimum throttle in my model there is no real advantage to turning off the motor either.  The Meteor brings a level of nuance not found in other AAMs for sure.

[Pede]

4 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

It is off topic indeed but it is an amazing debate for me(Meteor and aim120 D design principles and strength),

So if I get this right the meteor design makes it really good at following receding targets and perhaps at low to medium altitudes, as well as keeping high terminal speed for the end game. As a trade off it is actually slower in a high altitude engament versus a traditional rocket/lofting design like the aim120D is that right?

On the other hand, the possibility to stop the engine and reignite later seems awesome if coupled with a data link and advance algorithms...Would it be possible to for example make it like pitch up and turn off the engine to wait for a target behind a mountain to several seconds later reignite to gain speed again once it has popped up? I might very well reading too much into this as to make it something useful tactically


EDIT: Just found this interesting article answering some of my questions, just in case is interesting to anyone
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4678/is-the-european-meteor-air-to-air-missile-really-the-best-in-the-world

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk






 

Mostly correct as I understand it, however there are some caveats; for one the meteor has a small traditional solid stage launch motor so the initial impulse should be similar to conventional rocket motors (albeit a much shorter impulse as it is only a launch motor, which once fully burned out forms the pathway for the primary liquid boron motor). The second caveat is that because the primary motor is inherently reactive to ambient atmosphere, depriving it of oxygen it dramatically extends the burn time while providing a lower impulse. There would be a point where a conventional rocket motor system would be outpacing a meteor at high altitude due to a higher specific impulse, however because that total burn time is increasing, the meteor could continue to accelerate for many times longer so while there is a window where the meteor will be slower at altitude, it would eventually be faster as it would be accelerating while a conventional missile would be decelerating.

 

 To be frank the primary tradeoffs the meteor suffers from are complexity, resource intensity, and cost (the meteor being about twice as expensive as an aim120D). 

 

As for tactics/employment, I have no idea about the meteor's use and capabilities however I do imagine it to be a dramatic shift from its contemporaries, and likely much more complex to employ. 

[Pede]

19 minutes ago, Scott-S6 said:

As I understand it missiles exist outside of the aircraft module (which makes sense since you don't need to have the module to be shot by the missile...) and require ED to integrate them into the core engine. HB could do the work and hand it to them as a finished package but there is still a degree of work and cooperation required from ED to test and integrate. Testing will be unusually complex if any of the unusual behaviours are simulated. Many of the current, much simpler, missiles are simulated rather crudely, suggesting that this is not an area ED sees as a priority.

Also, flying a typhoon doesn't mean that he has much insight into the detail of the missile's decision making process and behaviours, especially since he will not have had the opportunity to observe it's behaviour in combat at all, let alone the many times that would be required to infer that. Even if he did have that insight (dubious) if public documentation is not available then it can't be used in the module. So the question remains, do we have sources detailing the decision making processes and behaviours of the meteor?

 

In general ED does handle the munitions, however in some cases like the Aim54 which is also modeled by HB or the JF17's unique A2G weapons, they are handled by the third party. I assume the Meteor will also be managed in this way. 

 

I can't speak for the airforce, but on the ground we were required to understand exactly how our systems worked and had manuals to that effect. Not only for the sake of understanding capabilities, but also to be able to troubleshoot issues in real time. My assumption is that pilots similarly are required to have such an understanding (and also documentation) to an even greater degree. 

[Scott-S6]

2 hours ago, Pede said:

In general ED does handle the munitions, however in some cases like the Aim54 which is also modeled by HB or the JF17's unique A2G weapons, they are handled by the third party. I assume the Meteor will also be managed in this way. 

 

I can't speak for the airforce, but on the ground we were required to understand exactly how our systems worked and had manuals to that effect. Not only for the sake of understanding capabilities, but also to be able to troubleshoot issues in real time. My assumption is that pilots similarly are required to have such an understanding (and also documentation) to an even greater degree. 

So, as I said, the willingness of ED to test (because they aren't going to integrate someone else's work into the core engine without testing) is going to impact how complex the modelling of the meteor can be.

Pilots don't need to know, for example, which algorithm the missile uses to calculate predicted target movement. And even if the HB Devs did know that level of detail they can't use it unless there's public documentation

[Pede]

15 minutes ago, Scott-S6 said:

So, as I said, the willingness of ED to test (because they aren't going to integrate someone else's work into the core engine without testing) is going to impact how complex the modelling of the meteor can be.

Pilots don't need to know, for example, which algorithm the missile uses to calculate predicted target movement. And even if the HB Devs did know that level of detail they can't use it unless there's public documentation

That is true, however I've seen nothing to doubt that ED will prevent it being modeled accurately.

 

While pilots might not know the algorithm(s) the missile uses, I'm certain they have an understanding of how they function and ultimately that is all that is required because it's a simulation of the missile and not the missile itself. 

 

As for documentation, there isn't really such a thing as "public" documentation. For instance I can go out and get a copy of the F15E's -1, however ITARS prevents people from other countries from doing so (this is as I understand ITARS so anyone more privy to its intricacies feel free to correct me). As I understand it, most of what we have in DCS in regards to full fidelity modules is not based on public documentation. The only people that need be privy to the actual documentation are the developers and as I understand it, there is generally a lengthy process for the devs to get ahold of such documentation and the permission to use it. For example, the vast majority of us will never have access to documentation regarding the KA-50 and it's systems, however ED has secured that documentation. Since HB is actively developing the EF2000 and has former pilots within its team, I'd say it's safe to assume they have met the proper documentation requirements to make such a module. 

[Scott-S6]

2 hours ago, Pede said:

That is true, however I've seen nothing to doubt that ED will prevent it being modeled accurately.

 

While pilots might not know the algorithm(s) the missile uses, I'm certain they have an understanding of how they function and ultimately that is all that is required because it's a simulation of the missile and not the missile itself. 

 

As for documentation, there isn't really such a thing as "public" documentation. For instance I can go out and get a copy of the F15E's -1, however ITARS prevents people from other countries from doing so (this is as I understand ITARS so anyone more privy to its intricacies feel free to correct me). As I understand it, most of what we have in DCS in regards to full fidelity modules is not based on public documentation. The only people that need be privy to the actual documentation are the developers and as I understand it, there is generally a lengthy process for the devs to get ahold of such documentation and the permission to use it. For example, the vast majority of us will never have access to documentation regarding the KA-50 and it's systems, however ED has secured that documentation. Since HB is actively developing the EF2000 and has former pilots within its team, I'd say it's safe to assume they have met the proper documentation requirements to make such a module. 

The simulated missile needs an algorithm to predict target movement or it isn't going to be able to make hits. This is inherent to simulating a functional missile (ED is actually in the process of changing that algorithm for a bunch of missiles because they are using the wrong one). This is the kind of level of detail needed for a simulation. The meteor has a pretty complex behavioural logic Are we going to stimulate that (because we know that logic) or just guess at it? 

If the devs simulate that logic accurately then they are making that information public which is a problem if it wasn't public. The KA50 example is a bit of a red herring as Russia is wierd about this stuff but for the US and most of Europe there is a very clear delineation between classified information (which obviously can't be embodied in the module because it is then public) and not classified which can be made public with a FOIA request or equivalent.

ITAR is obviously irrelevant in the case of the typhoon/meteor.

[Beirut]

Oh man, after watching the latest NAV/FLIR video from RAZBAM, the F-15E is definitely going to be my Space Shuttle of Death. Lots of cool night vision and MFDs. And with the GBU-28... "beeg badaboom!" 

 

I think the rest of the planes in my stable will be neglected for a long while when this thing comes out.

[Gunfreak]

28 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Oh man, after watching the latest NAV/FLIR video from RAZBAM, the F-15E is definitely going to be my Space Shuttle of Death. Lots of cool night vision and MFDs. And with the GBU-28... "beeg badaboom!" 

 

I think the rest of the planes in my stable will be neglected for a long while when this thing comes out.

I wonder how the 28 will work. Already the effects of the GBU10 is less in effect vs of gbu 12 than in real life. So will the gbu28 just be a tiny bit bigger than the 10? 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Gunfreak

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

I wonder how the 28 will work. Already the effects of the GBU10 is less in effect vs of gbu 12 than in real life. So will the gbu28 just be a tiny bit bigger than the 10? 

 

 

I'm hoping for a quality badaboom!

[Hobel]

Am 7.12.2022 um 23:43 schrieb Gunfreak:

I wonder how the 28 will work. Already the effects of the GBU10 is less in effect vs of gbu 12 than in real life. So will the gbu28 just be a tiny bit bigger than the 10? 

 

More Range

because of that

 

[henshao]

ah the EF2000 acceleration, truly she is a mighty jet. various figures abound on the internet, brakes off to 36k and m1.6 in 150s, or m0.9 to m2.0 in 2min at 36k feet. Quicker than the bird from 1972 for sure, only the -229 F-15E without CFTs that we won't be getting, could hang with that. Aside from the Raptor of course.

 

I did see something earlier that was inaccurate; the APG-70 does start building track files in the background, on hits in RWS

[shaneduce]

F-15E is be better in all aspects over the F/A-18C. 

[Cab]

56 minutes ago, shaneduce said:

F-15E is be better in all aspects over the F/A-18C. 

Except carrier ops.

It sucks at that. 

[Nahen]

I've never understood NAVY pilots... what's the point of taking off and landing from a piece of wobbly boat in the middle of the ocean... Can't  take off and land from airports like normal people?

[Cab]

11 minutes ago, Nahen said:

I've never understood NAVY pilots... what's the point of taking off and landing from a piece of wobbly boat in the middle of the ocean... Can't  take off and land from airports like normal people?

No, because the CDI factor is off the charts for Navy pilots. (CDI = Chicks Dig It)

[Spurts]

On 12/31/2022 at 10:47 PM, shaneduce said:

F-15E is be better in all aspects over the F/A-18C. 

 

On 12/31/2022 at 11:45 PM, Cab said:

Except carrier ops.

It sucks at that. 

And low speed maneuvering.  And SEAD.  And ASh.

[Nahen]

52 minutes ago, Spurts said:

 

And low speed maneuvering.  And SEAD.  And ASh.

The F-15 is better than the F/A-18 in SEAD missions... you know why? Because these matters are handled for him by the F-16 And he's definitely better at it than the F/A-18
The F-15 doesn't have to be better at low speed maneuvering why? Because if someone during the fight has to maneuver in such conditions - it means that he is a fool and can't use the advantages of speed and height

[falcon_120]

The F-15 is better than the F/A-18 in SEAD missions... you know why? Because these matters are handled for him by the F-16 And he's definitely better at it than the F/A-18
The F-15 doesn't have to be better at low speed maneuvering why? Because if someone during the fight has to maneuver in such conditions - it means that he is a fool and can't use the advantages of speed and height

Following the same logic the US navy will tell you they have the king of SEAD in the form of the EA18G growler.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Cab]

On 12/31/2022 at 9:47 PM, shaneduce said:

F-15E is be better in all aspects over the F/A-18C. 

“The F-15E is better at the missions it’s designed to do over the F/A-18C.”

Fixed it for you. 

[Bremspropeller]

On 1/2/2023 at 6:38 PM, Nahen said:

The F-15 is better than the F/A-18 in SEAD missions... you know why? Because these matters are handled for him by the F-16 And he's definitely better at it than the F/A-18

I must admit, flawless logic is strong with this one!

[bies]

On 12/4/2022 at 5:59 PM, Scott-S6 said:

Also, flying a typhoon doesn't mean that he has much insight into the detail of the missile's

Gero Finke, True grit developer pilot from German Lufy, left EF many years before the first Meteor missile.

BTW the first Meteor missile Integration with EF in Luftwaffe started in 2021.

In short: nobody have insight into Meteor specification, data, performance, guidance logic and even if someone would know that he would never disclose that to public.

[Iron Sights]

For me, I’ll be flying them both, since I will own both. Since the Strike will a new module, so I’m hoping the graphics will be better and systems are heavily modeled. That’s the fun part to me, just getting into the systems and learning to use everything.