F-15E SECONDARY Air-to-Air Role

[Scott-S6]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

Even if not good, when no other is better, it's automatically the best.

"The best" doesn't automatically mean "good".

[draconus]

8 minutes ago, Scott-S6 said:

"The best" doesn't automatically mean "good".

If that was your point about A-10 being terrible at CAS then... ok.

[davidrbarnette]

3 hours ago, Scott-S6 said:

"The best" doesn't automatically mean "good".

Some philosophy: "Good" becomes irrelevant when compared to "best". How? If the A-10 is better than everything else, an outside definition of "good" is meaningless unless used in the context of creating something new better than the current "best."

A fun example might be baseball. In baseball batting, success is often defined as getting a hit, and the best players only succeed about 3 out of 10 times. Does failing 7 out of 10 times mean you aren't "good"? Not unless there is someone (or something in this case of CAS) that can do better. A batting average of .300 consistently makes you one of the best players, often to the tune of earning tens of millions of dollars per year, despite failing 7 out of 10 times. 

 

[Scott-S6]

1 hour ago, davidrbarnette said:

Some philosophy: "Good" becomes irrelevant when compared to "best". How? If the A-10 is better than everything else, an outside definition of "good" is meaningless unless used in the context of creating something new better than the current "best."

A fun example might be baseball. In baseball batting, success is often defined as getting a hit, and the best players only succeed about 3 out of 10 times. Does failing 7 out of 10 times mean you aren't "good"? Not unless there is someone (or something in this case of CAS) that can do better. A batting average of .300 consistently makes you one of the best players, often to the tune of earning tens of millions of dollars per year, despite failing 7 out of 10 times. 

 

If you want to argue philosophy, relativism might not be a good place to start...

It should be clear that in this context "good" means "able to deliver to the requirements in the operating environment". Either something can do that or it can't. That the very limited set of options available at that time of doesn't include anything that can does not change that miss into a hit.

[davidrbarnette]

2 hours ago, Scott-S6 said:

If you want to argue philosophy, relativism might not be a good place to start...

It should be clear that in this context "good" means "able to deliver to the requirements in the operating environment". Either something can do that or it can't. That the very limited set of options available at that time of doesn't include anything that can does not change that miss into a hit.

Well, in a practical sense, I don't think I agree. Relativism, especially when discussing topics like warfighting, is probably the only place to start. 

Many would likely argue that in the history of close air support, the A-10C is the best, effectively defining what close air support is (and is not). Close air support is not on-demand firepower with no risk of blue-on-blue, it is a last ditch option when in desperate need of help. If you are redefining close air support as we know it, then you might have the luxury of saying the A-10 isn't very good at it. 

[Scott-S6]

1 hour ago, davidrbarnette said:

Well, in a practical sense, I don't think I agree. Relativism, especially when discussing topics like warfighting, is probably the only place to start. 

Many would likely argue that in the history of close air support, the A-10C is the best, effectively defining what close air support is (and is not). Close air support is not on-demand firepower with no risk of blue-on-blue, it is a last ditch option when in desperate need of help. If you are redefining close air support as we know it, then you might have the luxury of saying the A-10 isn't very good at it. 

Perhaps you weren't following where I was telling about the A10A? Which desperately needed the C upgrade package in order to perform that function? As I've said repeatedly.

[Aussie_Mantis]

Rerailing this convo back to the F-15E's secondary air to air role, 

Can someone direct me to the posts where people were discussing its performance in air to air? I know the distinction is a bit more than just less gun ammo, less AoA, more thrust etc, but I'd like the details.

[Horns]

6 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Rerailing this convo back to the F-15E's secondary air to air role, 

Can someone direct me to the posts where people were discussing its performance in air to air? I know the distinction is a bit more than just less gun ammo, less AoA, more thrust etc, but I'd like the details.

This seems to me to be a decent place to start. Many worthwhile posts follow.

[USA_Recon]

On 2/18/2023 at 9:23 AM, Rifter said:

I just gazed deeply into my crystal ball and this is what I saw:
When people find out about the F-15Es radar and situational awareness capabilities they will praise it as the new ultimate air-to-air platform in the BVR theatre.
When their victims finally exploit the F-15Es disadvantages in air-to-air, the community will demand with a deafening noise level an option to remove the CFTs to have a ‘pure’ F-15 being as close as possible to the F-15C or the guys from IDF Mods will try to create a F-15C Mod around the F-15E avionics.

 

Ok, ok - I know. You don’t need a crystal ball to foresee that…

the guys from IDF Mods will try to create a F-15C Mod around the F-15E avionics

that would be amazing!

[Swayer]

I might be late but I do know that an F15E squadron based in England has flown some A-A sorties with Typhoons from the test and evaluation squadron in Coningsby

[Horns]

1 hour ago, Swayer said:

I might be late but I do know that an F15E squadron based in England has flown some A-A sorties with Typhoons from the test and evaluation squadron in Coningsby

That is interesting. Any idea how they went?

[Swayer]

On 4/13/2023 at 3:08 PM, Horns said:

That is interesting. Any idea how they went?

No , but I’m sure the Typhoons did have the upper hand though 

[Bananabrai]

Sorry guys, didn't read the pages 2-7, just a bit of p1 and 8.

A friend showed me a rumor screenshot of the rearming window, with CFT fields...
Just in case Razbam decides to make them removable, the Mudhen should get a lot closer to F-15D performance, shouln't it?
And D is not too far off from C I guess. What do you think?

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

What do you think?

I think you should read previous pages as it is what was already talked about.

[Temetre]

Btw, reading up, F-15Cs could mount conformal fuel tanks as well, couldnt they? It only is an universal practice with the F-15E, but its apparently a similar or the same system.

Was a bit surprising to learn after people talked like that was such a massive difference. Tbf maybe thats because theres really not that many differences. Most relevant C->E upgrade seemes to be more modern avionics.

[GGTharos]

The F-15C used something different, but yes.  These were used by the Icelandic Eagles for example.  F-15E also sports a much more beefed up structure.

[Spurts]

There is substantial difference in drag.  The drag of the C CFT (DI 4) is on the order of a single underwing drop tank (DI 5.5-6.0 depending on CFT presence).  The drag of the E CFT (DI 21.3) is on the order of all three external tanks (DI 23.1-24.2 depending on CFT presence).

 

 

The C CFT weighs 2,487lb for the pair and carries 9,514lb of fuel.  The E CFT weighs 4,386lb for the pair and carries 9,352lb of fuel.  The pylons are not "attached to" the CFT, they are integral with it and have structural supports and data buses.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Spurts
adding info

[Bananabrai]

On 4/2/2023 at 12:17 AM, Alpha said:

Training matters big time.

So in the end the F-15E will be good for A-A for us then, as we do not train as much as real pilots anyway.

[GGTharos]

The moment you run into someone who understands the difference, you'll feel it.

[Temetre]

Am 27.4.2023 um 13:14 schrieb Spurts:

There is substantial difference in drag.  The drag of the C CFT (DI 4) is on the order of a single underwing drop tank (DI 5.5-6.0 depending on CFT presence).  The drag of the E CFT (DI 21.3) is on the order of all three external tanks (DI 23.1-24.2 depending on CFT presence).

The C CFT weighs 2,487lb for the pair and carries 9,514lb of fuel.  The E CFT weighs 4,386lb for the pair and carries 9,352lb of fuel.  The pylons are not "attached to" the CFT, they are integral with it and have structural supports and data buses.

Thx! Thats actually a crazy difference, those pylons must be extremely draggy. 

Am 27.4.2023 um 14:20 schrieb Bananabrai:

So in the end the F-15E will be good for A-A for us then, as we do not train as much as real pilots anyway.

I feel like the conclusion is more, the airframe matters less, especially if you train a lot. Because skill is more important than some small differences. And in DCS a good pilot can beat technically or role-wise far superior aircraft.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Temetre

[GGTharos]

The airframes matter.   Training matters a lot but this entire argument about being better in a technically inferior (in some aspects) airframe is contrived.  Sure, it'll happen now and then (maybe even a lot, if people who do primarily air to air decide to fly the 15E a lot and continuously encounter basically newbs skillwise) but the point is not the exceptions - the rule is the rule, it's not the exceptions that are the rule.

Edited May 4, 2023 by GGTharos

[Spurts]

4 hours ago, Temetre said:

 those pylons must be extremely draggy. 

 

12 big pylons that stick way out there vs 4 flush pylons that have the lowest profile possible.

[Temetre]

vor 49 Minuten schrieb Spurts:

12 big pylons that stick way out there vs 4 flush pylons that have the lowest profile possible.

Yeah they probably cause a lot more disturbance than wing pylons, with the air flowing around the fuselage.

[Eviscerador]

Still the SE will be a powerhouse in A/A. It won't be a F15C eagle, but still more than a match for any mission loaded fighter.

[FlankerKiller]

On 2/18/2023 at 10:13 AM, Exorcet said:

Don't forget to factor in acceleration though, as both planes would likely be subsonic before they detected each other. The Strike Eagle has some speed limitations that the C does not, but the acceleration is still decently good depending on loadout.

Range numbers need to be paired with firing conditions though, or they are hard to use. What we do know right now is that the F-15C with AMRAAM holds the record for the longest air to air kill according to the USAF:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40184/f-15-eagle-scores-longest-known-air-to-air-missile-shot-during-u-s-air-force-test

Also while the Super Tomcat and Strike Eagle have similar radar technology, they don't use exactly the same unit. The Tomcat used the 71, the Strike Eagle the 70. Sadly both the Tomcat and the Eagle never reached their full potential in any case with the wind down of the Cold War, budget cuts, and newer planes incoming. I'd have loved to see F-14D's in extended service along with F-15F's (F-15C with all the improvements gained with the E, and refocused for air to air).

F-15EX?