F-15E SECONDARY Air-to-Air Role

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Sure, I will include this in all of my AA missions which feature F-15C.

[AhSoul]

We can use it how we like

I would think that even if it's not quite as good as the C, pilot skill plays such a large part anyway that it will be perfectly competent....

[Horns]

Here’s a dumb question: For the F-15-A through -D they followed the convention (for aircraft that have variants with different crew capacities) of designating the single seaters with the ‘odd’ letter, and the 2-seaters the ‘even’. Why isn’t the Strike Eagle designated the F-15F?

[Exorcet]

4 minutes ago, Horns said:

Here’s a dumb question: For the F-15-A through -D they followed the convention (for aircraft that have variants with different crew capacities) of designating the single seaters with the ‘odd’ letter, and the 2-seaters the ‘even’. Why isn’t the Strike Eagle designated the F-15F?

It was the 5th model. A/B and C/D were designed together.

 

There was a proposed F-15F. It was a single seater F-15E. Never built.

[Horns]

1 minute ago, Exorcet said:

It was the 5th model. A/B and C/D were designed together.

 

There was a proposed F-15F. It was a single seater F-15E. Never built.

Oh ok gotcha, so they wouldn’t skip the letter, that makes sense.

[Swordsman422]

Bear in mind that it's not universally true for US aircraft. The F-14 being a prime example (original F-14B prototype, F-14A+ production aircraft assuming the F-14B label later on, etc). The waters get muddier the further back you go, especially in USN inventories (looking at you, F-4 Phantom and F-8 Crusader).

[Spurts]

Then there's the H-1.  From UH-1A to AH-1Z

[Aussie_Mantis]

The debate on the F-15E's 'secondary' air to air role feels like people when they delude themselves into believing the F-4 was a "bomber" first and a dogfighter "second", because they're convinced that it wasn't able to dogfight at all.

In the case of the F-4, training was what mattered most. It had the performance to kick the ass of any contemporary MiG-21.

In the case of the F-15E, I might note that most of the export F-15s, which are expected to fill A2G and A2A roles, and are equipped with things such as IRST and the like, are all derivatives or variants there-of of the E-model. The F-15A/C never really saw the export success that the E-models did later on. The A/C models went to Japan (license-production), Saudi Arabia, and Israel. The Sauds and Israelis evidently decided buying more twin-seater F-15s was a better idea, while Singapore, Qatar and South Korea, when offered with the single-seat version, decided buying the twin-seaters were better. The Aussies (that's us!) decided that between the single-seat, air-to-air only F-15 versus the "inferior", multirole F/A-18A, the F/A-18A was the better horse to bet on.

I think we're giving the F-15E too much flak. It's got ~6000lbs more of thrust dry and only 2000lbs more empty weight, so I think something's probably up.

[GGTharos]

It's not just '2000lbs more empty weight'.   It will fly with more drag, more fuel and more lbs overall in terms compared to a combat loaded C and it will never have the AoA performance of a C.

Everyone who buys multi-role aircraft cannot afford to have single-role squadrons, and that is all there is to that.  Those aircraft are expected to face 'lower threat' opponents on average comes to air to air combat.   Those aircraft are there to fit a need; as for who does 'better air to air', it's still the C, but if it's just not needed at that level, why spend on it?

[Aussie_Mantis]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

It's not just '2000lbs more empty weight'.   It will fly with more drag, more fuel and more lbs overall in terms compared to a combat loaded C and it will never have the AoA performance of a C.

Everyone who buys multi-role aircraft cannot afford to have single-role squadrons, and that is all there is to that.  Those aircraft are expected to face 'lower threat' opponents on average comes to air to air combat.   Those aircraft are there to fit a need; as for who does 'better air to air', it's still the C, but if it's just not needed at that level, why spend on it?

I don't think Korea, Qatar, Singapore and Saudi Arabia classify as countries that can't afford to have single-role squadrons. Also, at that rate, then why does the US bother with making multirole aircraft? Every major US aerial platform is a versatile multirole weapons platform. Every modern 21st century aircraft is a multirole platform, and the effectiveness of a good multirole platform has been proven in nearly every single major conflict to date from Vietnam 'til now, most particularly in the Gulf.

It's not just that it's a "can't afford" thing. On a cost-for-cost basis, a single-role fighter is cheaper than a multirole platform- the F-15C is a few million dollars cheaper than an F-15E. It's more affordable on a purely cost basis to just buy single-role aircraft, such as a cheap strike aircraft plus a single-role air to air platform. The thing is that multirole aircraft are straight up just better than a single-role aircraft for any given role. It's not like how in games there's a sacrifice of one thing for the gain of another; more often than not in The Real World^tm it's a gain of capabilities for no real loss. Sure, there are some savings across the fleet as a whole for making them multirole, but there's also just the versatility as a whole. An A-10 or A-7 that ditches its load due to enemy action is that, an A-10 or an A-7. An F-16 assigned to a strike mission that ditches its load is an F-16, now minus a few tons of payload.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[GGTharos]

Single role aircraft aren't single role because that's the way they were built (sometimes they are, but generally they can all do a multitude of roles).   It's not about cheap r cheaper aircraft, it's about training - and that ends up quite expensive.   Dedicating a high number of pilots and aircraft to a single role is quite expensive.

Single-role pilots will be better than multi-role pilots at the given role.

[Aussie_Mantis]

5 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Single role aircraft aren't single role because that's the way they were built (sometimes they are, but generally they can all do a multitude of roles).   It's not about cheap r cheaper aircraft, it's about training - and that ends up quite expensive.   Dedicating a high number of pilots and aircraft to a single role is quite expensive.

Single-role pilots will be better than multi-role pilots at the given role.

 

Dedicating them to do multiple roles and cross train would be more expensive, wouldn't it? That doesn't make sense. Training them on a single role and only having to maintain flight hours necessary for a single role is less expensive than training for multiple roles.

Also, it's not necessarily like that. You get taught multiple things at school but you can be better at one subject and trash at another, but you're expected to maintain competency across a wide variety of roles and excel at them as well. Most air forces don't teach you to fly only one mission profile, they train you to fly them all. The Iraqi Air Force in '91 was a crack, single-role but highly combat-experienced arm of highly motivated pilots. They lost to multirole pilots who didn't have a lick of combat experience. "Single-Role is Better than Multirole" is a mentality that died the moment planes started to be able to become highly maneuverable and large enough to carry an appreciable payload- arguably with the F-4 Phantom, in my opinion.

[Dscross]

Guys, 

I hate to break up the party... but I too wondered about how the F15E will fare inside the merge. 

I tested it. 

I put AI F15E's in, gave them half fuel and only guns. 

I got in my F14B, full fuel, 4 AIM-54, 2 AIM-7, 2 AIM-9. I only used guns. 

It was the same every time I ran it. The F15E went into the merge, and within 1/2-1 turn my tomcat was behind it and I was putting 20mm into the Eagle. EVERYTIME. 

So, I tried the F14A. Same result. 

I lowered the fuel in the Mudhen, fully loaded an F14A. Again, dead F15E in very short order. 

I personally sort of dislike the F16. Its whatever, but it's just not my favorite. I flew it anyway, and again I was behind that Mudhen very quicky and gunning it. Hornet... Same, inside the merge it ALWAYS resulted in a dead F15E. The Mirage 2000 was just silly as in all the others, a dead eagle in very short order. 

Now I'm not a guy who gets on PvP dogfight servers and does that. It's not my thing. I like intricate long missions to strike something, hit a tanker, all that. That's what I like. So I generally avoid merging with stuff unless I'm in my Tomcat and doing CAP. Then I'm game. But close in dogfighting just doesn't hold much interest for me. (Partly because I generally fly PVE and the AI flight model is stupid broken.)  I can do it if I have to, but I'm not the best. Radio navigation? that's neat. So If I can almost effortlessly slap an AI F15E with a fully loaded Tomcat (no I didn't jettison anything) then I'd venture to guess most of you ACM addicts can slap one pretty quickly. The F15E has a TON of drag from those bomb racks. (The Dash-1 is on amazon, and it lists drag index's for the jet, go get your copy). 

As a side note, I also put a 4 ship if F15Es' up, have them 2 bags, 2 x AIM-9 and 6 x AIM-120's. Three of us from the squadron got in Hornets and went to get them. We got smoked. BVR the F15E is MEAN. it can go fast and chuck those AMRAMS out at long range. When the E does come out, and you're in your PVP playland, avoid it if you're in something you're not comfortable in. Guns only? well, I'm sure a reasonable Hog driver can kill it. (Never mind, Hog drivers never jettison, even if they're on fire with one wing. "I can make it home..." lol. you guys know who you are...) 

Of course, this is all dependent on how well the flight model on the in game F15E is. I can't answer that. I've put them in missions and tried to compare the AI flight performance to the F15E Dash 1, but... Meh... So, take this all with a grain of salt. But you can test it, get mission editor up, toss in some F15Es, fight them, see how you do. Run the same test with F15C's and compare the results. 

Again, my best bet is that if you know your jet, you'll probably be okay against an F15E inside the merge. And you'll probably be in trouble if the F15E has BVR missiles. 

[draconus]

7 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

It's not like how in games there's a sacrifice of one thing for the gain of another; more often than not in The Real World^tm it's a gain of capabilities for no real loss.

Well, check again: weight, drag, AoA, crew A2A training.

US doesn't have superiority fighters instead of some multiroles - they have them as additional force (and costs) and they fly frequently as a protecting support for multiroles.

[Exorcet]

3 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

"Single-Role is Better than Multirole" is a mentality that died the moment planes started to be able to become highly maneuverable and large enough to carry an appreciable payload- arguably with the F-4 Phantom, in my opinion.

I'd say that's at odds with many aircraft that followed the Phantom, including the F-15 and F-22. Yes both of those planes had ground attack capability, but they clearly leaned toward one purpose over another. In the 70's and beyond, it simply became so easy to attack bombs/rockets to a fighter that it was a universal capability (and it wasn't really the first time, see WWII/Korea) regardless to whether a fighter was designed for a single role, like the F-15, F-16, YF-17. All of these aircraft despite having some level of AG capability from the start were eventually modified to improve AG performance, ie Strike Eagle, later block F-16's/F-2, F/A-18. The F-22 also had the FB-22 proposed. Also, just looking at things from a design perspective, it's pretty clear that single role can still have advantages over multi. If you don't have to accept a wide range of AG weapons you can shrink your weapons bay or specialize your hardpoints. You may also be able to get away with not having certain sensors which will save weight. AG aircraft also tend to be larger and heavier to handle big payloads, which can be avoided with a specialized AA design.

[bfr]

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I'd say that's at odds with many aircraft that followed the Phantom, including the F-15 and F-22. Yes both of those planes had ground attack capability, but they clearly leaned toward one purpose over another. In the 70's and beyond, it simply became so easy to attack bombs/rockets to a fighter that it was a universal capability (and it wasn't really the first time, see WWII/Korea) regardless to whether a fighter was designed for a single role, like the F-15, F-16, YF-17. All of these aircraft despite having some level of AG capability from the start were eventually modified to improve AG performance, ie Strike Eagle, later block F-16's/F-2, F/A-18. The F-22 also had the FB-22 proposed. Also, just looking at things from a design perspective, it's pretty clear that single role can still have advantages over multi. If you don't have to accept a wide range of AG weapons you can shrink your weapons bay or specialize your hardpoints. You may also be able to get away with not having certain sensors which will save weight. AG aircraft also tend to be larger and heavier to handle big payloads, which can be avoided with a specialized AA design.

I should imagine for most multi-role operators then its a question of simple economics. As has already been said, operating multiple types can bring additional expense in a few areas (training for air & ground crews, parts inventory, integration etc) so if one type can do both jobs to a satisfactory level then great.  There's also a decent correlation between the Cold War ending and the greater proliferation of multi-role platforms in a lot of air forces. This would be partly economic with less defence spend knocking around, and i'd also suggest its partly the kind of conflicts they expect to find themselves fighting in (which have been strike-heavy with any question about air superiority being more about the threat from enemy SAMs than opposing fighter jets).

Edited March 30, 2023 by bfr

[Top Jockey]

17 hours ago, GGTharos said:

It's not just '2000lbs more empty weight'.   It will fly with more drag, more fuel and more lbs overall in terms compared to a combat loaded C and it will never have the AoA performance of a C.

Everyone who buys multi-role aircraft cannot afford to have single-role squadrons, and that is all there is to that.  Those aircraft are expected to face 'lower threat' opponents on average comes to air to air combat.   Those aircraft are there to fit a need; as for who does 'better air to air', it's still the C, but if it's just not needed at that level, why spend on it?

 

Hello,

Allow my curiosity, is that because some sort of fly-by-wire limitation or something ?

[Eviscerador]

8 hours ago, Dscross said:

Guns only? well, I'm sure a reasonable Hog driver can kill it. (Never mind, Hog drivers never jettison, even if they're on fire with one wing. "I can make it home..." lol. you guys know who you are...) 

I loled hard... been there, done that.

[GGTharos]

10 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

 

Dedicating them to do multiple roles and cross train would be more expensive, wouldn't it?

No, because you can use fewer squadrons overall.

1 hour ago, Top Jockey said:

Hello,

Allow my curiosity, is that because some sort of fly-by-wire limitation or something ?

No, just physics.  F-15Es are different in where the CG/CL lies, the nose force arm is much larger (consider it's a much heavier nose, check accident reports for F-15Cs involving departure under high AoA caused by deformations of the nose cone - there's at least one that's public), different airflow because of the CFTs etc.

Edited March 30, 2023 by GGTharos

[Top Jockey]

11 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

...

No, just physics.  F-15Es are different in where the CG/CL lies, the nose force arm is much larger, different airflow because of the CFTs etc.

 

Very good.

At first sight for less knowledgeable guy, the more pronounced differences between the C and E variants airframe wise, are the conformal fuel tanks and the double seat cockpit ... but as you explained there's much more to it.

Thank you.

[GGTharos]

6 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

 

Very good.

At first sight for less knowledgeable guy, the more pronounced differences between the C and E variants airframe wise, are the conformal fuel tanks and the double seat cockpit ... but as you explained there's much more to it.

Thank you.

You're welcome.  Those very things that you see also have a direct effect on aerodynamics.

[Rifter]

18 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

It's not like how in games there's a sacrifice of one thing for the gain of another; more often than not in The Real World^tm it's a gain of capabilities for no real loss.

!?!?!?

This sentence denies the fundamental principles on which our whole universe is build on - the physical laws.

I spend 30 years in the industry as a development engineer and I never stumbled over a single piece of technology in which a gain of capabilities could be achieved without any trade offs. There is no such thing as a win-win situation in technical systems.

The simple rule for every piece of technology in the The Real World is:
The sum of all inconveniences in a technical system always remains constant. The only freedom you have is to decide which kind of inconvenience you are willing to live with.

Let me therefore correct your sentence for you:

It's not like in The Real World where there is always a sacrifice of one thing for the gain of another; more often than not in games there is a gain of capabilities for no real loss.

Your welcome!

[Njinsa]

On 3/29/2023 at 11:45 PM, Aussie_Mantis said:

The F-15A/C never really saw the export success that the E-models did later on. The A/C models went to Japan (license-production), Saudi Arabia, and Israel. The Sauds and Israelis evidently decided buying more twin-seater F-15s was a better idea, while Singapore, Qatar and South Korea, when offered with the single-seat version, decided buying the twin-seaters were better. The Aussies (that's us!) decided that between the single-seat, air-to-air only F-15 versus the "inferior", multirole F/A-18A, the F/A-18A was the better horse to bet on.

I beg to differ.

A/C were export success too as you have to account the production line runtime, strategic value those presented at that point of time and competition from other vendors.

A/C were tip of the spear for at least mid 80s being extremely expensive and offered only to closest or highly reliable allies. Yes, only 3 export customers, but in total 339 units in about 15 years runtime.

E and derivatives, being in production for more than 35 years still fall short of that figure. In fact, with Qatar order still being on delivery, it's only 302 with no chances to overtake legacy Eagles even if Indonesian deal fully gets through. Of course, that does not change or take away anything from E, just saying that it's different era and evolution of F-15 in general. 

Next. After F-15C production ceased, there was dead end for single seater variant. All offers were drawn from F-15E tooling. In fact, dual seat strike fighter concept in E was and still is best crew workload implementation. You can't beat that with single seat and any kind of avionics fusion/automation. Yet.

Agree - too shame you went with Hornet as Eagle or even later some E derivative for Australia would be a real beast ruling the theater.

BR

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Njinsa

[bfr]

11 hours ago, Njinsa said:

I beg to differ.

A/C were export success too as you have to account the production line runtime, strategic value those presented at that point of time and competition from other vendors.

A/C were tip of the spear for at least mid 80s being extremely expensive and offered only to closest or highly reliable allies. Yes, only 3 export customers, but in total 339 units in about 15 years runtime.

E and derivatives, being in production for more than 35 years still fall short of that figure. In fact, with Qatar order still being on delivery, it's only 302 with no chances to overtake legacy Eagles even if Indonesian deal fully gets through. Of course, that does not change or take away anything from E, just saying that it's different era and evolution of F-15 in general. 

Next. After F-15C production ceased, there was dead end for single seater variant. All offers were drawn from F-15E tooling. In fact, dual seat strike fighter concept in E was and still is best crew workload implementation. You can't beat that with single seat and any kind of avionics fusion/automation. Yet.

Agree - too shame you went with Hornet as Eagle or even later some E derivative for Australia would be a real beast ruling the theater.

BR

 

 

Do you mean when Australia bought the legacy Hornet or the Super Hornets bought to fill the gap post-F111 retirement/F-35 availability? I don't think the F-15E had even had its first test flight when purchase of the former was decided upon.  Also, I don't think the RAAF operated any boom-equipped tankers at that time despite the F-111 still being very much in service, so that would've potentially added to the bill.

[Aussie_Mantis]

22 hours ago, Top Jockey said:

 

Very good.

At first sight for less knowledgeable guy, the more pronounced differences between the C and E variants airframe wise, are the conformal fuel tanks and the double seat cockpit ... but as you explained there's much more to it.

Thank you.

IIRC The F-15C has CFTs as well, but they're far more bulky. The difference between the C and E models are very different, though, I agree.

 

22 hours ago, GGTharos said:

No, because you can use fewer squadrons overall.

No, just physics.  F-15Es are different in where the CG/CL lies, the nose force arm is much larger (consider it's a much heavier nose, check accident reports for F-15Cs involving departure under high AoA caused by deformations of the nose cone - there's at least one that's public), different airflow because of the CFTs etc.

 

If you're acquiring 50 aircraft, you're acquiring 50 aircraft. Whether that's 20 fighters and 30 attackers or 50 multiroles plays no difference to that. Even so, I do agree that you can save in some areas, like maintenance bill, but I'd argue that it's an advantage in and of itself.

 

On 3/31/2023 at 12:01 AM, bfr said:

I should imagine for most multi-role operators then its a question of simple economics. As has already been said, operating multiple types can bring additional expense in a few areas (training for air & ground crews, parts inventory, integration etc) so if one type can do both jobs to a satisfactory level then great.  There's also a decent correlation between the Cold War ending and the greater proliferation of multi-role platforms in a lot of air forces. This would be partly economic with less defence spend knocking around, and i'd also suggest its partly the kind of conflicts they expect to find themselves fighting in (which have been strike-heavy with any question about air superiority being more about the threat from enemy SAMs than opposing fighter jets).

 

Perhaps- maintaining 30 ground attack and 20 fighters to escort them is a higher cost and maintenance load than 40-50 of the same plane. But I think that even then, a multirole aircraft does shine. The F-4 was intended to do only air to air roles, but the USAF pressed it into service as their tactical bomber for the Vietnam war as well as having packages of F-4s escorted by F-4s. The A-7 and F-111 did exist, but up until the introduction of the F-15, even when defence spending was at its highest pre-Reagan, the F-4 was the workhorse of the air force. Even during the Reagan era, the F-16 was expected to do both A2G and A2A roles like the F-4 before it. The only exceptions i can think of within the teen series are F-14s and F-15s, which while predominantly air to air, were kitted out for and were sometimes used in air to ground roles (F-14A in iranian service, F-15A in Israeli service). The best example of a cold war multirole platform that I can think of are the F-16 and the F-4, which saw high use and proliferation, and saw use in A2G as well as A2A roles in all of the countries they served- the Osirak Nuclear Reactor raid was not performed by A-4N Ayits, nor F-4s, but by a formation of F-16s escorted by F-15As, and Operation Wooden Leg was conducted by F-15s escorting F-15s that both dropped bombs- however, this is an outlier, since Israel is the only force at present to have used the original fighter variants of F-15s in that role.

 

On 3/30/2023 at 9:06 PM, Exorcet said:

I'd say that's at odds with many aircraft that followed the Phantom, including the F-15 and F-22. Yes both of those planes had ground attack capability, but they clearly leaned toward one purpose over another. In the 70's and beyond, it simply became so easy to attack bombs/rockets to a fighter that it was a universal capability (and it wasn't really the first time, see WWII/Korea) regardless to whether a fighter was designed for a single role, like the F-15, F-16, YF-17. All of these aircraft despite having some level of AG capability from the start were eventually modified to improve AG performance, ie Strike Eagle, later block F-16's/F-2, F/A-18. The F-22 also had the FB-22 proposed. Also, just looking at things from a design perspective, it's pretty clear that single role can still have advantages over multi. If you don't have to accept a wide range of AG weapons you can shrink your weapons bay or specialize your hardpoints. You may also be able to get away with not having certain sensors which will save weight. AG aircraft also tend to be larger and heavier to handle big payloads, which can be avoided with a specialized AA design.

While they did favour one role or the other, I don't think it's appropriate to really describe it as single-role. The F-15A and F-15C have the exact same range of wing pylons for attaching bombs and rockets and guns to, and that wasn't exactly due to the F-15 being multirole- there's other reasons to have big pylons, such as what the A/C mainly used their pylons for- fuel tanks. It's not like you're deliberately not going to have large pylons just because your plane is designed for air to ground combat. And the F-22 negates that completely by just storing everything internally, and the weapons bay on F-35 was designed from the outset to fit things like JDAMs. I'm not sure whether SDB was designed to fit into the F-22's bay or if the bay was designed to fit SDB, though. 

As for the F-22, I have nothing to say regarding that. Touche. However, I might mention that even the F-22 ultimately can and will be used in strike roles, indicating at least some consideration from the outset of multirole capability, ergo, I propose that multirole capability is a highly important aspect of an aircraft and will paly an important part in future gen 5 development.

However, from a design capacity, I think that the "universal capacity" here where a fighter can essentially double as a strong attack/CAS plane with a wide range of pylons and ordnance is really an indicator of aircraft swinging more towards the multirole part of the spectrum- I can't really name any new fighter designs that are meant to be single-role. Especially with the newer gen5s, the name of the game seems to be multirole aircraft, and even with the older 4.5s, multirole was hardly an afterthought- aircraft like the EF Typhoon, which was designed to be the next aerial superiority fighter of Europe, were designed with that multirole capability in mind, and many more single-role aircraft received upgrades to perform multirole actions. It's really just easier and more convenient, as well as more potent to have a plane that does both- maybe not to the extent that you convert your plane into a strike fighter a la F-15A to F-15E, but at least from, say, F-14A to F-14B/D plus bombs, or from early Typhoons fitted for but not with targeting pods and later with that capability integrated in.

You are, ultimately, right, though. I highly doubt that it was intentional at the start- it probably was easier to just strap stuff to planes at that point. But I think the point does stand that most fighter development programs sell multirole capability as a plus, because at this point we can develop air to ground capability in an aircraft without sacrificing air to air capability.