F-15E SECONDARY Air-to-Air Role

[Spurts]

Lookup Operation Skyburner.

And the F-14 was absolutely designed for maneuver combat along with high speed interception.  

Edited February 21, 2023 by Spurts

[Cab]

12 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Well look, the cannon, its ammunition, maneuverability did not prevent the F-14, from being designed for interception and not for maneuvering combat 

I knew this was coming. 
 

Once again, do you really believe this? In the middle of the Vietnam war, the USN was designing it’s next gen fighter with no dogfighting capability?

[Nahen]

57 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

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.

When do you think the F-15 was designed? It was during the determination of the assumptions and the subsequent project that it was assumed that the F-15 was to match the MiG-25 and one of the basic parameters taken into account was the speed "estimated" at around Mach 3, which the USSR at that time emphasized wherever it could -> " MiG-25 the fastest plane in the world that can a catch up the SR-71".
That's why the plane was created, which for 40 years had others far behind it. And there was created others after him that could easily outmaneuver him - and the F-15 continued to knock them down without getting into a maneuvering fight.

Just now, Cab said:

I knew this was coming. 
 

Once again, do you really believe this? In the middle of the Vietnam war, the USN was designing it’s next gen fighter with no dogfighting capability?

No - I believe it was designing a plane that won't have to fight at close range. Because it's always a lottery. And as you can see, it works from 1975 to today

[Nahen]

Only DCS fanboys fight in close dogfigts with smille on face. 
In fact, every pilot avoids this kind of combat as much as possible, and the F-15 was designed for that. And among the DCS gamers there is some fetish of "maneuver fighting" Well DCS boys it's not reality - it's where you die for real...

[Exorcet]

32 minutes ago, Nahen said:

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.

The B-17 and B-29 predate nuclear weapons. There is no comparing them. The B-52 is a post nuclear aircraft, and like just about everything in the USAF in the 50's it was built with nuclear weaponry in mind. This doesn't change the fact that it never delivered nuclear weapons in combat. This make the point about how many dogfights the F-15 has been in meaningless, it doesn't imply anything about its ability to dogfight.

12 minutes ago, Nahen said:

When do you think the F-15 was designed?

Factually the process began before the MiG-25 was even know to exist in the US.

12 minutes ago, Nahen said:

It was during the determination of the assumptions and the subsequent project that it was assumed that the F-15 was to match the MiG-25 and one of the basic parameters taken into account was the speed "estimated" at around Mach 3, which the USSR at that time emphasized wherever it could -> " MiG-25 the fastest plane in the world that can a catch up the SR-71".

Curiously the F-15 was never required to reach Mach 3. We know the US knew how to get to that speed, however it was deemed less important than having maneuverability, especially since Vietnam was fresh in the Air Force's mind.

12 minutes ago, Nahen said:

That's why the plane was created, which for 40 years had others far behind it. And there was created others after him that could easily outmaneuver him - and the F-15 continued to knock them down without getting into a maneuvering fight.

The F-15 was created because militaries don't get complacent. The instant that F-4's were rolling off production lines is when someone started thinking about what would replace it. That doesn't mean that the MiG-25 wasn't an important influence on the design, but the F-15 was never meant to be a dedicated MiG-25 equivalent or counter. It didn't even have different weapons from the F-4 initially.

There also weren't any planes that would "easily outmaneuver" the F-15. Everything in the 4th gen is fairly competitive with each other including the F-15, MiG-29, and Su-27. F-15 pilots were told to avoid dogfighting MiG's in the Gulf War not because the F-15 couldn't dogfight but because that was the one area where the MiG wasn't lagging behind, especially with R-73's.

12 minutes ago, Nahen said:

No - I believe it was designing a plane that won't have to fight at close range. Because it's always a lottery. And as you can see, it works from 1975 to today

Partially right. The F-15 was designed to win at BVR to avoid dogfighting, but it's also designed to dogfight if the BVR win isn't achieved.

[Nahen]

1 minute ago, Exorcet said:

There also weren't any planes that would "easily outmaneuver" the F-15. Everything in the 4th gen is fairly competitive with each other including the F-15, MiG-29, and Su-27. F-15 pilots were told to avoid dogfighting MiG's in the Gulf War not because the F-15 couldn't dogfight but because that was the one area where the MiG wasn't lagging behind, especially with R-73's.

The MiG-29 and Su-27 have much higher "maneuverability" than the F-15. They are aerodynamically superior to any other generation 4 aircraft.

 

2 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Partially right. The F-15 was designed to win at BVR to avoid dogfighting, but it's also designed to dogfight if the BVR win isn't achieved.

The discussion started with questions about whether the F-15E in DCS will be able to "take" the place of the F-15C - YES under the conditions I gave - radar, speed, ceiling. And that's basically where the discussion should end.
I don't fly anything other than F-15C  waiting for E. I'll risk the thesis that unless I make a stupid mistake and don't push closer than 20 miles to the enemy, currently no module is able to threaten me. If the F-15E's radar in A-A mode works as it should and the plane itself can accelerate to around Mach 2.2-2.3 at an altitude of 40-50 thousand feet, it will be just as insurmountable. And so it should be.

[doedkoett]

The thing left out of this discussion so far is the need for maneuverability in a BVR scenario - the energy management thing. It is easy to think that energy management and high G turns are for getting gun solutions only, but real BVR combat incorporates a bit of supersonic turning. Which is one important reason why more modern aircraft have so called relaxed static stability - it makes them more maneuverable and more aerodynamic in the supersonic regime too, not just for close range dogfights.
So Nahen has a point saying the F-15 was optimised for BVR, but loses it again when claiming maneuverability was not a design criteria.
Maneuverability was absolute a design criteria, else it would have looked like the interceptor designs of the 50's, like the Rapier or Avro Arrow. They were fast, but required a continent to turn. Just like the Mig-25.

[Nahen]

And again, in reality, no one in their right mind dont goes into maneuver combat. And this is the DCS fetish... these hundreds of timely comments from people I shot down:
  "spaamram" - although I usually shoot one rocket at one target and hit,
  " come down here and we'll fight " - I won't drive on the ground because I play with an airplane simulator, not a car...
  " noob flying > 2 Mach and I think it's funny " - yes I fly because I can.

[doedkoett]

5 minutes ago, Nahen said:

The MiG-29 and Su-27 have much higher "maneuverability" than the F-15. They are aerodynamically superior to any other generation 4 aircraft.

No, they aren't. They are just designed to a different philosophy. It´s like saying the Hornet is superior to the F-16 since the latter has an AoA-limit and the former not. 

[Nahen]

17 minutes ago, doedkoett said:

The thing left out of this discussion so far is the need for maneuverability in a BVR scenario - the energy management thing. It is easy to think that energy management and high G turns are for getting gun solutions only, but real BVR combat incorporates a bit of supersonic turning. Which is one important reason why more modern aircraft have so called relaxed static stability - it makes them more maneuverable and more aerodynamic in the supersonic regime too, not just for close range dogfights.
So Nahen has a point saying the F-15 was optimised for BVR, but loses it again when claiming maneuverability was not a design criteria.
Maneuverability was absolute a design criteria, else it would have looked like the interceptor designs of the 50's, like the Rapier or Avro Arrow. They were fast, but required a continent to turn. Just like the Mig-25.

Nowhere did I say that maneuverability was not an assumption of the F-15 design. I wrote that the priority was speed and altitude, I took it for granted that maneuverability must be considered when designing a fighter, but it was not a priority here. If it was, first of all, the F-15 would be created like the F-16 as an aerodynamically unstable aircraft with an active FbW control system. These types of planes are much more maneuverable than the F-15. am I raving? I don't think so...

Secondly, at that time, apart from planes, missiles carrying nuclear warheads were also a threat - the F-15 was also supposed to shoot them down - and maneuverability is completely unnecessary here - speed and altitude.

14 minutes ago, doedkoett said:

No, they aren't. They are just designed to a different philosophy. It´s like saying the Hornet is superior to the F-16 since the latter has an AoA-limit and the former not. 

Tell that to the pilots who in the 90s of the last century in Poland had the opportunity to conduct training dogfights with Polish MiG-29s, especially those flying the F-15 and F-16 Baltops 2000 for example. The MiG-29 was supposed to be a counterbalance to the F-16 - agreed, but the Su-27 was just counterbalance for the F-15. At low altitudes, only the F-16 and Mirage 2000 had a chance against the MiG-29

And - I am writing this based on the pilots' reports from these trainings and not on the basis of "technical data".

Edited February 21, 2023 by Nahen

[doedkoett]

3 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Nowhere did I say that maneuverability was not an assumption of the F-15 design. I wrote that the priority was speed and altitude, I took it for granted that maneuverability must be considered when designing a fighter, but it was not a priority here. If it was, first of all, the F-15 would be created like the F-16 as an aerodynamically unstable aircraft with an active FbW control system. These types of planes are much more maneuverable than the F-15. am I raving? I don't think so...

Secondly, at that time, apart from planes, missiles carrying nuclear warheads were also a threat - the F-15 was also supposed to shoot them down - and maneuverability is completely unnecessary here - speed and altitude.

But the F-15 is not a one trick pony designed only to face slow soviet bombers, right? 

[Top Jockey]

24 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Only DCS fanboys fight in close dogfigts with smille on face. 
In fact, every pilot avoids this kind of combat as much as possible, and the F-15 was designed for that. And among the DCS gamers there is some fetish of "maneuver fighting" Well DCS boys it's not reality - it's where you die for real...

 

9 minutes ago, Nahen said:

And again, in reality, no one in their right mind dont goes into maneuver combat. And this is the DCS fetish... these hundreds of timely comments from people I shot down:
  "spaamram" - although I usually shoot one rocket at one target and hit,
  " come down here and we'll fight " - I won't drive on the ground because I play with an airplane simulator, not a car...
  " noob flying > 2 Mach and I think it's funny " - yes I fly because I can.

 

So what ? I don't see anything wrong with it.

People come to DCS to get from it whatever enjoys them the most... if it is close quarters air combat / dogfight, what's wrong it that ?

 

[Nahen]

25 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

 

 

So what ? I don't see anything wrong with it.

People come to DCS to get from it whatever enjoys them the most... if it is close quarters air combat / dogfight, what's wrong it that ?

 

That's why it's funny to me in the discussion about a real plane from end cold war era to push the importance of the possibility of maneuvering combat ... unless we're talking about the First or Second World War.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Nahen

[Nahen]

29 minutes ago, doedkoett said:

But the F-15 is not a one trick pony designed only to face slow soviet bombers, right? 

No, the F-15 is not the F-14, it wasn't supposed to be an antidote to bombers, it was supposed to be a baricade for fighters, bombers, and ballistic and cruise missiles to the best of its abilities.
That's why the unit in Alaska was so important, and that's why there were so many "grinds" between the US and Canadian authorities in 1970's when F-15As were sent there with the task of potentially shooting down nuclear missiles flying over Canada.

[shagrat]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Spurts:

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.

^this

[Cab]

@Nahen you are relentless in trying to prove points that are incorrect. I am never sure if you actually believe what you write, or if you are just trolling for fun.

[Top Jockey]

4 minutes ago, Nahen said:

That's why it's funny to me in the discussion about a real plane from end cold war era to push the importance of the possibility of maneuvering combat ... unless we're talking about the First or Second World War.

 

Several points here :

- again ... the MiG-29 you praise (jet I also admire) is all about that in bold - the importance of maneuvering combat

- because military analysts of several countries saw enough evidence that, close quarters maneuvering fights were not completely finished

- Korean war also featured close quarters air combat, Vietnam, Falklands, etc.

- even today the continuous development of jet fighter maneuverability, JHMCS and High Of Boresight missiles, shows the possibility of close quarters fight can arise in the heat of the conflict

[Nahen]

7 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

 

Several points here :

- again ... the MiG-29 you praise (jet I also admire) is all about that in bold - the importance of maneuvering combat

- because military analysts of several countries saw enough evidence that, close quarters maneuvering fights were not completely finished

- Korean war also featured close quarters air combat, Vietnam, Falklands, etc.

 

First of all - as I wrote - the MiG-29 was supposed to be an opponent for tactical fighter aircraft such as the F-16. Hence the emphasis on MANEUVERABILITY. So you're telling me the MiG-29 was designed on the same lines as the F-15? I don't think so.

Again, tell me the number in history F-15 kills in maneuvering combat? I'll repeat another thing because I don't think you understand - DCS is a fun fetish of maneuvering combat, the reality is avoiding maneuvering combat at all costs. What did not you understand? Since the end of the Vietnam War, USAF pilots probably conducted maneuver fights only during RED FLAG and similar - Baltops, for example. Besides, USANavy pilots did the same in Miramar and other school events. Ask any F-15 pilot if he'll go into a maneuvering fight with the advantage of speed and altitude, radar, missile quality? Analyze, for example, the shooting downs of the MiG-29 over the former Yugoslavia ... etc ...

Why do you have to write about the same thing over and over again?

7 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

- even today the continuous development of jet fighter maneuverability, JHMCS and High Of Boresight missiles, shows the possibility of close quarters fight can arise in the heat of the conflict

Example in last 20 years?

28 minutes ago, Cab said:

@Nahen you are relentless in trying to prove points that are incorrect. I am never sure if you actually believe what you write, or if you are just trolling for fun.

It varies from time to time

[shagrat]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Nahen:

No - I believe it was designing a plane that won't have to fight at close range. Because it's always a lottery. And as you can see, it works from 1975 to today

Then it failed spectacularly... You may want to read about the first combat engagement of an F-15 to understand what people are talking about.

 

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Nahen:

Example in last 20 years?

Every intercept with ROE to VID the opponent as hostile... Basically, Gulf War, Operations Northern/Southern Watch, Syria... You don't want to have a BVR kill of a coalition aircraft, because your IFF had compatibility issues.

[Nahen]

5 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Then it failed spectacularly... You may want to read about the first combat engagement of an F-15 to understand what people are talking about.

 

Ben-Eliyahu...

Did you know that an F-15E shot down a helicopter with a bomb? Damn, why did they give him the ability to carry A-A rockets ... That's more or less the line of reasoning - 1 out of 104 cases bravo You ...

 

8 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Every intercept with ROE to VID the opponent as hostile... Basically, Gulf War, Operations Northern/Southern Watch, Syria... You don't want to have a BVR kill of a coalition aircraft, because your IFF had compatibility issues.

 

You still haven't given an example of an F-15 maneuvering combat in the last 20 years...

 

[Top Jockey]

37 minutes ago, Nahen said:

First of all - as I wrote - the MiG-29 was supposed to be an opponent for tactical fighter aircraft such as the F-16. Hence the emphasis on MANEUVERABILITY. So you're telling me the MiG-29 was designed on the same lines as the F-15? I don't think so.

Again, tell me the number in history F-15 kills in maneuvering combat? I'll repeat another thing because I don't think you understand - DCS is a fun fetish of maneuvering combat, the reality is avoiding maneuvering combat at all costs. What did not you understand? Since the end of the Vietnam War, USAF pilots probably conducted maneuver fights only during RED FLAG and similar - Baltops, for example. Besides, USANavy pilots did the same in Miramar and other school events. Ask any F-15 pilot if he'll go into a maneuvering fight with the advantage of speed and altitude, radar, missile quality? Analyze, for example, the shooting downs of the MiG-29 over the former Yugoslavia ... etc ...

Why do you have to write about the same thing over and over again?

Example in last 20 years?

It varies from time to time

 

I see you didn't understood (or didn't want to) my points:

- I never meant to compare the MiG-29 to the F-15

- you were downplaying the importance / reality of close quarters combat / maneuverability / etc ... and I mentioned you that, the very same jet you praise - the MiG-29 highly embodens much of these concepts ;

- you constantly say "DCS is a fun fetish of maneuvering combat" ... so in all true you should also say:  "DCS is BVR fun fetish" ; as a HUGE amount of discussions here at the forum are precisely about BVR missiles tactics, BVR missiles performance comparison, BVR missiles realism, etc.

edit

On the F-15 maneuvering kills, I'm sure Israeli Air Force does have quite a few, although I don't have the slightest idea if they were in the 'last 20 years', or to what level of detail they will share that info publicly.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Top Jockey

[Spurts]

How many AA kills in total have there been in the last 20 years?

All else aside, to Nahen's original point, the F-15E will do just fine in BVR.  If BVR fails it will be fast enough and have enough fuel to run away and allow "contempt of engagement."  Anyone who takes the Mudhen into a 1v1 gunfight server clearly likes a challenge, but I also see videos of people being successful with the AV-8B there too so if that's your jam then go for it.

[Nahen]

36 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

On the F-15 maneuvering kills, I'm sure Israeli Air Force does have quite a few, although I don't have the slightest idea if they were in the 'last 20 years', or to what level of detail they will share that info publicly.

 

If you are sure, give examples. Because how else than information can you build your confidence?

36 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

I see you didn't understood (or didn't want to) my points:

- I never meant to compare the MiG-29 to the F-15

- you were downplaying the importance / reality of close quarters combat / maneuverability / etc ... and I mentioned you that, the very same jet you praise - the MiG-29 highly embodens much of these concepts ;

Have I downplayed the importance of maneuvering combat anywhere? Tactical fighters were, are and will be exposed to it to a much greater extent than air superiority fighters.
No, I defend the thesis that the F-15 is an aircraft that was not designed for this type of combat. Its priority task/destiny is BvR combat. His 40 years of "service" confirms this thesis - 104 confirmed kills, one of which - F-15A at a time when A-A missiles were just developing and were not as effective as they are today - using a cannon that was definitely maneuvering combat. To my knowledge, all other kills were obtained with missiles fired from a range of not less than 7-10 miles. Of course, if there were other cases of shooting down in typical maneuver combat conditions, I would be happy to learn about them and expand my knowledge. For today, I defend my thesis based on what I read, found on the web, discussed with a dozen or so F-15 pilots in the 90s.

But I'm open to specific information - which I think I showed in the CFT discussion.

37 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

- you constantly say "DCS is a fun fetish of maneuvering combat" ... so in all true you should also say:  "DCS is BVR fun fetish" ; as a HUGE amount of discussions here at the forum are precisely about BVR missiles tactics, BVR missiles performance comparison, BVR missiles realism, etc.

It just so happens that I personally treat DCS as a simulator. So everything I do in it in terms of flight and combat, I try to make it as close to reality as possible. Of course, as far as the DCS itself or the equipment I use allows, etc.

So based on that, I'm saying - maybe I'm wrong - that maneuver fights in DCS are a kind of fetish. I understand that people have an inner need to compete, and it's best if the defeated opponent sees the happy face of the winner. Hence the love for these types of fights in DCS and beyond.

I focus on hours of preparation for the mission, briefings, analyzing and planning the execution of the mission so that, above all, I can do it without my own losses. Especially when it comes to my wingmen. That's why I fly the F-15C and hope that the F-15E module retains the BvR combat capabilities of its real counterpart.

So - yes - for me, the fetish is this and not another approach to DCS.
This also translates into "recreational" flying on public PvP servers.

You say that BvR is a fetish in DCS because there is a lot of information and discussion about it... cool, just one thing I'm wondering how can you fight effectively in BvR when most modules have castrated radars? Would you like to see the faces of F-16 pilots who found out in their time, at what distance you can detect and lock the MiG-29 in DCS in TWS... 
BvR theory, and practice at the minimum limits of this type of combat - the reality of DCS.

Fetish as hell.

[Nahen]

16 minutes ago, Spurts said:

How many AA kills in total have there been in the last 20 years?

All else aside, to Nahen's original point, the F-15E will do just fine in BVR.  If BVR fails it will be fast enough and have enough fuel to run away and allow "contempt of engagement."  Anyone who takes the Mudhen into a 1v1 gunfight server clearly likes a challenge, but I also see videos of people being successful with the AV-8B there too so if that's your jam then go for it.

True.

[GGTharos]

2 minutes ago, Nahen said:

If you are sure, give examples. Because how else than information can you build your confidence?

You can't look them up?  I mean you obviously did not.  The F-15 has dogfight kills against MiG-21s, 25s and 29s.  They are all well documented, this is an exercise for you to look them up.

2 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Have I downplayed the importance of maneuvering combat anywhere?

You're overplaying your knowledge.   Maybe you could consider that your knowledge here is lacking?  Like, severely lacking.

2 minutes ago, Nahen said:

No, I defend the thesis that the F-15 is an aircraft that was not designed for this type of combat.

You are very wrong.  I was designed to dominate in all phases of combat, taking major lessons from the F-4.  That doesn't mean it'll be 'better' than everything out there, but it was way to deal with everything out there.  The BVR attrition comes from ACEVAL, where it was shown that otherwise low-level threats with all-aspect missiles become high level threats in a dogfight.   This is true for all aircraft.

BTW guess what, the F-22 was designed to dominate all aspects or air combat as well, taking lessons from he F-15.

2 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Its priority task/destiny is BvR combat. His 40 years of "service" confirms this thesis - 104 confirmed kills, one of which - F-15A at a time when A-A missiles were just developing and were not as effective as they are today - using a cannon that was definitely maneuvering combat. To my knowledge, all other kills were obtained with missiles fired from a range of not less than 7-10 miles.

Your knowledge is lacking.  Yep, the gun was used one time (not a surprise, guns don't get much A2A use these days).   The majority of kills for the eagle was done with sidewinders ... what's the range on that now?  Again, it's an exercise for you to bone up on your knowledge, so don't ask me for links

2 minutes ago, Nahen said:

It just so happens that I personally treat DCS as a simulator. So everything I do in it in terms of flight and combat, I try to make it as close to reality as possible. Of course, as far as the DCS itself or the equipment I use allows, etc.

I think your knowledge limits you more than the DCS equipment.

2 minutes ago, Nahen said:

So based on that, I'm saying - maybe I'm wrong - that maneuver fights in DCS are a kind of fetish.

You're absolutely wrong.   Maneuvering fights will always exist and for reasons most people don't want to even think of in a game.   There are the most modern approaches these days with HOBS missiles etc, but even now the aircraft needs to maneuver. 

2 minutes ago, Nahen said:

I focus on hours of preparation for the mission, briefings, analyzing and planning the execution of the mission so that, above all, I can do it without my own losses. Especially when it comes to my wingmen. That's why I fly the F-15C and hope that the F-15E module retains the BvR combat capabilities of its real counterpart.

Have you spent hours preparing your BFM/ACM skills too?  Maybe that's coloring your opinions.  Preparing for BVR is great and you always should, and you should always attrit your enemy BVR as much as you can because you will eventually end up in a mission where you cannot retreat and must merge.  All of this 'lulz I'll just go cold' is DCS virtual pilot garbage.  Yes it's valid IRL, but not the way it's used in game (in particular in MP servers where it's all lonewolves for the most part)