F-15E SECONDARY Air-to-Air Role

[Nahen]

On 2/19/2023 at 4:01 PM, JB3DG said:

Correct. I got mixed up with the A-10.

In A-10, GAU-8 Avenger:

>>>The magazine can hold 1,174 rounds, although 1,150 is the typical load-out.<<<

Edited February 20, 2023 by Nahen

[Rifter]

2 hours ago, tusler said:

According to this IRL F15E pilot the F/A18C will have problems...

He will only have problems when the Eagle driver is clearly above average.
But I guess the typical DCS Eagle aficionado is above average, so…never mind.

For the sake of a balanced opinion, here are some statements from Chuck Magill (USMC Hornet pilot, later USAF F-15C pilot) comparing F-15 to F-18:

‘You don’t really want to get into the visual arena in the F-15.’

‘In the hornet we wanted to get in the visual arena because then we thought we had an advantage.’

‘But I did learn if you got the nose low it didn’t have the responsiveness of the hornet. You didn’t want to get low and slow with the nose down in the Eagle.’

‘You did not have the high alpha capability that you had in the Hornet. What you had though was an extraordinary amount of thrust on a 9 G airplane and that’s how you employed it. If you fighted against a Hornet and he wanted to get slow, you could do that but you had to be pretty damn good.’

 

10 Percent true

 

 

[shagrat]

Am 18.2.2023 um 15:33 schrieb Horns:

Haha - part of the reason I posted this was that I realized that, being completely honest, much of my interest in the Mudhen was really about hoping it would be an F-15C that could also carry bombs, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that way. I'm curious just how <profanity> out of luck we're going to be when we learn the truth 

The issue with that is, it has a different airframe, a second seat, additional equipment and not only the CFTs.

It is developed as a Strike Fighter, based on the airframe design of the F-15, but not just an air-superiority fighter with CFTs and bomb capable pylons and renewed engines.

It can definitely defend itself, but I doubt the dream of some PvP focused players to get a "full fidelity F-15C in disguise", if they can get rid of the CFTs, will likely not come true.

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, shagrat said:

It can definitely defend itself, but I doubt the dream of some PvP focused players to get a "full fidelity F-15C in disguise", if they can get rid of the CFTs, will likely not come true.

That is correct.  The F-15E replaced the F-111 and the hardware added to make this so causes it to perform more poorly in areas that people on this forum apparently don't even think about - although someone's already mentioned the higher departure risk and that's one big part.  Even without the CFTs, there are things that it can't match the F-15C at.

[Exorcet]

On 2/18/2023 at 9:33 AM, Horns said:

Haha - part of the reason I posted this was that I realized that, being completely honest, much of my interest in the Mudhen was really about hoping it would be an F-15C that could also carry bombs

I missed this before, but the lack of bombs on the FC F-15 is just an FC thing. If we get a full F-15C, it will in fact be able to drop bombs including LGB's.

[Pede]

3 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I missed this before, but the lack of bombs on the FC F-15 is just an FC thing. If we get a full F-15C, it will in fact be able to drop bombs including LGB's.

Will be pretty difficult to drop LGB's without any sort of TPOD. 

[draconus]

44 minutes ago, Pede said:

Will be pretty difficult to drop LGB's without any sort of TPOD. 

No, it's pretty easy - you just drop it dumb - someone will have to lase for it though.

[Nahen]

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

The issue with that is, it has a different airframe, a second seat, additional equipment and not only the CFTs.

It is developed as a Strike Fighter, based on the airframe design of the F-15, but not just an air-superiority fighter with CFTs and bomb capable pylons and renewed engines.

It can definitely defend itself, but I doubt the dream of some PvP focused players to get a "full fidelity F-15C in disguise", if they can get rid of the CFTs, will likely not come true.

The F-15 was never meant to be a maneuver fight aircraft. Neither version A nor version C. The fact that by the way it turned out that it has good technical and aerodynamic conditions to fight maneuvers quite effectively was a bonus to completely different assumptions.

Therefore, in DCS, the F-15E will continue to be as effective an air superiority aircraft as the F-15C. Why? Because it's a structure that is supposed to shoot missiles at the enemy at high altitudes and high speed before he can effectively respond. I The F-15E will do just fine in this role, provided that it does not get castrated A-A radar, such as the F-16C or F/A-18C, and will be able to reach a ceiling and speed similar to that of the F-15C module. But if he can't get to around Mach 2.2 with load of 8 A-A rockets, get to 50-60,000 feet, and can see targets from 60 miles on the radar and lock from 35, that's the module I'll put on the virtual shelf...

[draconus]

23 minutes ago, Nahen said:

But if he can't get to around Mach 2.2 with load of 8 A-A rockets, get to 50-60,000 feet, and can see targets from 60 miles on the radar and lock from 35, that's the module I'll put on the virtual shelf...

Good luck, even Raptor can't fulfill all your specs.

All F-X, VFX programs and even fighter mafia called for maneuverability as one of the key aspects of new design and so was F-15.

Edited February 21, 2023 by draconus

[Nahen]

Yes, I know, radars in the 21st century on planes see 50 miles and rockets fly at 20 and hit 10...

[shagrat]

vor 21 Minuten schrieb Nahen:

The F-15 was never meant to be a maneuver fight aircraft. Neither version A nor version C. The fact that by the way it turned out that it has good technical and aerodynamic conditions to fight maneuvers quite effectively was a bonus to completely different assumptions.

Therefore, in DCS, the F-15E will continue to be as effective an air superiority aircraft as the F-15C. Why? Because it's a structure that is supposed to shoot missiles at the enemy at high altitudes and high speed before he can effectively respond. I The F-15E will do just fine in this role, provided that it does not get castrated A-A radar, such as the F-16C or F/A-18C, and will be able to reach a ceiling and speed similar to that of the F-15C module. But if he can't get to around Mach 2.2 with load of 8 A-A rockets, get to 50-60,000 feet, and can see targets from 60 miles on the radar and lock from 35, that's the module I'll put on the virtual shelf...

Yeah, BVR is definitely the reason people ask for the option to remove the CFTs... Not the idea to get the same PvP maneuverability as in the FC3 F-15C.

[Nahen]

29 minutes ago, draconus said:

Good luck, even Raptor can't fulfill all your specs.

All F-X, VFX programs and even fighter mafia called for maneuverability as one of the key aspects of new design and so was F-15.

 

The guidelines of the VFX / FX program have changed drastically after the appearance of the MiG-25...
Quote from assumptions:
>In September 1968, a request for proposals was released to major aerospace companies. These requirements called for single-seat fighter having a maximum take-off weight of 40,000 pounds (18,000 kg) for the air-to-air role with a maximum speed of Mach 2.5 and a thrust-to-weight ratio of nearly 1:1 at mission weight.<
And this was the basis after the appearance of the MiG-25
The F-15 was created not as a maneuverable fighter but as a response to the MiG-25 and nothing else. That he surpassed him in every way is another story.

But you do know that right?

For maneuver combat, the YF-16/ YF-17 was being developed at the same time. if anyone thinks otherwise...

Edited February 21, 2023 by Nahen

[doedkoett]

24 minutes ago, draconus said:

Good luck, even Raptor can't fulfill all your specs.

All F-X, VFX programs and even fighter mafia called for maneuverability as one of the key aspects of new design and so was F-15.

 

Wasn't it the "Energy-Maneuverability theory" by John Boyd and Thomas P Christie that laid the foundation for the design of both the F-15 and the F-16?
The lack of maneuverability of the USAF aircraft compared to the soviet types used by North Vietnam forced a complete re-think of the A2A arena for the USAF.
At least that is the history as I have understood it. Not trying to argument against Draconus, just adding to his comment.

[Nahen]

3 minutes ago, doedkoett said:

Wasn't it the "Energy-Maneuverability theory" by John Boyd and Thomas P Christie that laid the foundation for the design of both the F-15 and the F-16?
The lack of maneuverability of the USAF aircraft compared to the soviet types used by North Vietnam forced a complete re-think of the A2A arena for the USAF.
At least that is the history as I have understood it. Not trying to argument against Draconus, just adding to his comment.

I don't want the same thing over and over again...
what was the point of creating the F-15, F-16, A-10? After all, the F-15 does everything, doesn't it? Somehow, however, someone decided that next to the F-15, an agile fighter was needed. The programs from which the F-15 and F-16 grew basically ran in parallel. So I ask the question - WHY??

[doedkoett]

Why bring the A-10 in to this, it has a completely different mission and requirements, while the F-16 and the F-15 at least share some of the requirements.
The answer to the "why" is simply cost. The F-15 was designed to beat anything out there, from Mig-21 to Mig-25. Twin engines and a highly advanced radar made it very expensive however.

The F-16 was envisioned as a cheap, short range point defence fighter with the bare minimum in the sensor department that could augment the F-15 with sheer numbers.

But you know this already. I don't know why you want us to believe the F-15 was designed as just an interceptor and the agility of the aircraft was somehow just a happy accident.

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Nahen said:

...and a thrust-to-weight ratio of nearly 1:1 at mission weight.

Think about it for a moment, let it sink in.

Edited February 21, 2023 by draconus

[Cab]

1 hour ago, Nahen said:

The F-15 was never meant to be a maneuver fight aircraft.

Do you really believe this? In the middle of the Vietnam war, the USAF was designing their next gen fighter with no dogfighting capability?

[shagrat]

vor 28 Minuten schrieb Cab:

Do you really believe this? In the middle of the Vietnam war, the USAF was designing their next gen fighter with no dogfighting capability?

-sarcasm on- Maybe that is, why the F-15C has no gun? ...wait a minute? -sarcasm off-

[Spurts]

The F-15 was the FIRST fighter built with Ps requirements in the design.  This is a historical fact.  It absolutely was built to maneuver.  That is why it has a conical camber on the leading edge which adds drag in supersonic dash, because it was less complex and less weight compared to adding LEFs and the drag penalty was considered to be worth it for the benefit gained in maneuvering.  The F-16 was being developed after the fact to get a Hi/Lo mix of vastly capable but expensive airframes paired with a higher number of less capable and less expensive airframes.  It was the F-16 where GD went above and beyond the required maneuvering specification of 9G sustained at 60% fuel and instead delivered 9G sustained at 100% fuel.

[Nahen]

A simple question - how many times an F-15 shot down an enemy plane during maneuver combat? How many of the 104 kills were the result of maneuver combat? I will ask for examples.

[Exorcet]

8 minutes ago, Nahen said:

A simple question - how many times an F-15 shot down an enemy plane during maneuver combat? How many of the 104 kills were the result of maneuver combat? I will ask for examples.

Why does this even matter? The B-52 was designed to drop nuclear weapons, how many nuclear strikes has it made? The F-15 was pretty clearly designed to dogfight. Even factoring in the MiG-25, the west initially believed that it was an agile plane. This wasn't totally debunked until 1976 when Eagles were already flying.

[Spurts]

16 minutes ago, Nahen said:

A simple question - how many times an F-15 shot down an enemy plane during maneuver combat? How many of the 104 kills were the result of maneuver combat? I will ask for examples.

Study up then.  The first engagement the F-15 got kills with Sparrow, Sidewinder, and canon all in one mission.  So the answer is more than 0.  The F-15 was designed to be dominant in all phases of fighter combat.  Why engage in WVR where risk is greater if you can kill them all BVR?  The bubble canopy, low wing loading, conical camber, and 900+ rounds of canon ammo are all things that would hinder it if it was only meant to be a better interceptor than an F-4.  BTW, the F-4 was faster than the F-15.  Operation Skyburner gives an idea of what the F-4 would have been capable of if given J79-GE-19 motors.

[Top Jockey]

3 hours ago, Nahen said:

The guidelines of the VFX / FX program have changed drastically after the appearance of the MiG-25...
Quote from assumptions:
>In September 1968, a request for proposals was released to major aerospace companies. These requirements called for single-seat fighter having a maximum take-off weight of 40,000 pounds (18,000 kg) for the air-to-air role with a maximum speed of Mach 2.5 and a thrust-to-weight ratio of nearly 1:1 at mission weight.<
And this was the basis after the appearance of the MiG-25
The F-15 was created not as a maneuverable fighter but as a response to the MiG-25 and nothing else. That he surpassed him in every way is another story.

But you do know that right?

For maneuver combat, the YF-16/ YF-17 was being developed at the same time. if anyone thinks otherwise...

 

 

I would say it's a little bit different:

That with the YF-16 / YF-17 the maneuver combat concept was instead taken to even higher degrees, than the already existing ones - i.e. the F-15.

[Nahen]

47 minutes ago, Spurts said:

Study up then.  The first engagement the F-15 got kills with Sparrow, Sidewinder, and canon all in one mission.  So the answer is more than 0.  The F-15 was designed to be dominant in all phases of fighter combat.  Why engage in WVR where risk is greater if you can kill them all BVR?  The bubble canopy, low wing loading, conical camber, and 900+ rounds of canon ammo are all things that would hinder it if it was only meant to be a better interceptor than an F-4.  BTW, the F-4 was faster than the F-15.  Operation Skyburner gives an idea of what the F-4 would have been capable of if given J79-GE-19 motors.

Well look, the cannon, its ammunition, maneuverability did not prevent the F-14, from being designed for interception and not for maneuvering combat ... Strange no?

51 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Why does this even matter? The B-52 was designed to drop nuclear weapons, how many nuclear strikes has it made? The F-15 was pretty clearly designed to dogfight. Even factoring in the MiG-25, the west initially believed that it was an agile plane. This wasn't totally debunked until 1976 when Eagles were already flying.

The B-52s, like the B-17s and B-29s before, were designed as strategic bombers, not "nuclear" bombers - can you see the difference? The B-52 was not created as a "nuclear bomber" but a strategic one - Does this difference matter to you? In the same way, the F-15 was created as an air superiority fighter - I would go further - as a strategic air superiority fighter. Not as a tactical fighter.

[Nahen]

53 minutes ago, Spurts said:

Study up then.  The first engagement the F-15 got kills with Sparrow, Sidewinder, and canon all in one mission.  So the answer is more than 0.  The F-15 was designed to be dominant in all phases of fighter combat.  Why engage in WVR where risk is greater if you can kill them all BVR?  The bubble canopy, low wing loading, conical camber, and 900+ rounds of canon ammo are all things that would hinder it if it was only meant to be a better interceptor than an F-4.  BTW, the F-4 was faster than the F-15.  Operation Skyburner gives an idea of what the F-4 would have been capable of if given J79-GE-19 motors.

May I ask the source from which you got the information that the F-4 was faster than the F-15? I was very interested in it...