AGM-65 for F-15?

[Aoi Kaze]

Hi all. I don't know if I'm writing in the correct place. If so, sorry for that.

The new F-15e can't load mavericks, right? if so, why? I've seen pictures of f-15e's carrying them...

I've also noticed they can't have SEAD missions?

 

Thanks in advance!

[Gunfreak]

4 minutes ago, Aoi Kaze said:

Hi all. I don't know if I'm writing in the correct place. If so, sorry for that.

The new F-15e can't load mavericks, right? if so, why? I've seen pictures of f-15e's carrying them...

I've also noticed they can't have SEAD missions?

 

Thanks in advance!

F15 isn't a SEAD plane. Its a strike aircraft. SEAD and CAS isn't really Its thing, that's the F16s purview as well as the A10 for CAS.

[Aoi Kaze]

hace 3 horas, Gunfreak dijo:

F15 isn't a SEAD plane. Its a strike aircraft. SEAD and CAS isn't really Its thing, that's the F16s purview as well as the A10 for CAS.

yes, I get that. But I don't get why. It has more power, it's faster and it has a more potent radar. Why don't they use it as such? Because it's a strike aircraft, but they use it too as an interceptor. F-10 is a very specific purpose oriented plane. There are many things it can't do but it's the best in what it does. But f-15, f-16, f-18 are all weather/all conditions/multipurpose aircraft. They have differences, yes, but again: why it cannot use a maverick? Again, i've seen photos of them carrying them, so I don't get it...

[Gunfreak]

20 minutes ago, Aoi Kaze said:

yes, I get that. But I don't get why. It has more power, it's faster and it has a more potent radar. Why don't they use it as such? Because it's a strike aircraft, but they use it too as an interceptor. F-10 is a very specific purpose oriented plane. There are many things it can't do but it's the best in what it does. But f-15, f-16, f-18 are all weather/all conditions/multipurpose aircraft. They have differences, yes, but again: why it cannot use a maverick? Again, i've seen photos of them carrying them, so I don't get it...

F15E is big, heavy and far less maneuverable than an F16, meaning going in and out of CAS takes longer, and also makes it a far easier target for ground fire,  be it SAMs, AAA or mandpads. It also has slower acceleration than the F16. Why send in something like that when you have the F16 which is also a lot cheaper. 

[Jackjack171]

20 minutes ago, Aoi Kaze said:

yes, I get that. But I don't get why. It has more power, it's faster and it has a more potent radar. Why don't they use it as such? Because it's a strike aircraft, but they use it too as an interceptor. F-10 is a very specific purpose oriented plane. There are many things it can't do but it's the best in what it does. But f-15, f-16, f-18 are all weather/all conditions/multipurpose aircraft. They have differences, yes, but again: why it cannot use a maverick? Again, i've seen photos of them carrying them, so I don't get it...

Most aircraft are designed to carry a lot of things. They are tested but never fielded. The F-14 could carry Harpoon. It was tested, never used operationally. There are also photos of a VF-14 F-14A firing zuni rockets, never really used operationally. When you see a photo, take it with a grain of salt and do a deep dive. It is ultimately up to the battlefield commanders and such to make the call on how they want to use a platform. As was said earlier, we have dedicated CAS and SEAD aircraft for those purposes. 

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Aoi Kaze said:

yes, I get that. But I don't get why. It has more power, it's faster and it has a more potent radar. Why don't they use it as such? Because it's a strike aircraft, but they use it too as an interceptor. F-10 is a very specific purpose oriented plane. There are many things it can't do but it's the best in what it does. But f-15, f-16, f-18 are all weather/all conditions/multipurpose aircraft. They have differences, yes, but again: why it cannot use a maverick? Again, i've seen photos of them carrying them, so I don't get it...

The F-15E replaces the F-111.   It's job is to get behind enemy lines, get into their bases and kill their dudes, potentially with nukes.   It doesn't do CAS or SEAD because other aircraft and squadrons have dedicated capabilities and training for this.   Basically these types of weapons are not needed for the F-15E mission so it doesn't carry them - the payloads are dedicated to carrying professional explosive landscaping tools.

[Ramsay]

6 hours ago, Aoi Kaze said:

The new F-15e can't load mavericks, right? if so, why? I've seen pictures of f-15e's carrying them...

AFAIK we will get mavericks later during early access as they were tested on the F-15E and pilots were trained to use them.

Mavericks were never deployed operationally, so having them for the initial EA release was (understandably) a low priority compared to having a solid TGP/LGB implementation.

6 hours ago, Aoi Kaze said:

I've also noticed they can't have SEAD missions?

Later in development the F-15E will get the AGM-130 which was used against bridges and SAM sites, however it was more a DEAD (Destruction of Enemy Air Defences) weapon than SEAD.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Ramsay

[Aoi Kaze]

Fair enough. Thanks to all for your explanations!

[Beirut]

I don't mind if there's no Maverick for the Strike Eagle. This thing is all about serious door to door service. Big bombs delivered day and night, all weather, cross country. Mavericks seem a bit too small and close range for the F-15E. 

 

Long range... pinpoint... "KABOOM!"

[Mathius_001]

The Maverick was listed in the diagram on the forums that showed what weapons will be available. In the manual the chapter under guided missiles says "not available during early access". So it appears they will be available at some point.

[Foxmike]

AI F15e single Mavs can be loaded at wing stations, so I guess and hope Mavs will come later.

[bfr]

1 hour ago, Foxmike said:

AI F15e single Mavs can be loaded at wing stations, so I guess and hope Mavs will come later.

As @Mathius_001 mentioned, they were on the list that was put out of what we should eventually expect (wing stations only with up to 3 per station on a MER for a max total of 6)

[badger7966]

Its got AGM-65 on the weapons loadout panel.

 

[YoYo]

Found in the net.

Quote

The AGM-65 is no longer part of the F-15E’s repertoire, and hasn’t been for quite some time.  I flew the jet from 2009-2016 and Mavericks had been long gone by then.  The old hats talked about them being a unique weapon that only the Mountain Home guys (391st at the time) trained on for a brief time in the 90s.  I cannot even recall seeing an AGM-65 in the PACS  (programmable armament selection).  
 

Anyways, from a modeling perspective it looks like a single AGM-65 on stations 2/8 (wing stations) are your options.  And the bird needs to be a test jet or a 391st jet from the 90s (-220 powered tails before those jets swapped out to the 90th FS at Elmendorf)
 

Alternatively, the Saudis appear to still be using Mavericks on their F-15S in combat operations in Yemen.  Pic below from 2018

F-15E Strike Eagle Launches AGM-65B Maverick Missile
An AGM-65B Maverick missile is launched from an F-15E during the aircraft's first fight test involving a live "smart" weapon. The test demonstrated that the F-15E's advanced radar and infrared sensor systems could quickly and precisedly locate small tactical targets. It also demonstrated that the F-15E's avionics could direct the missile's electro-optical sensor system where to look to acquire and lock onto the target. The capability gave the F-15E flight crew an extremely high degree of confidence that the missile was locked onto its intended target. Supplied with such precise data, the missile guided itself to the target and struck it with pinpoint accuracy.

Btw. I hope it will be, we have version from 2006 when AGM-65 was used by SE.

Edited July 20, 2023 by YoYo

[silverdevil]

3 hours ago, YoYo said:

An AGM-65B Maverick missile

somehow that seems like a long time ago.

Quote

AGM-65B "Scene Magnified" version began in 1975 before it was delivered during the late 1970s. When production of the AGM-65A/B was ended in 1978, more than 35,000 missiles had been built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-65_Maverick

it looks like the US bailed on that version and ended up selling to other countries. F-5E/F (AGM-65B). that would be cool.

[bfr]

23 minutes ago, silverdevil said:

somehow that seems like a long time ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-65_Maverick

it looks like the US bailed on that version and ended up selling to other countries. F-5E/F (AGM-65B). that would be cool.

So the Razbam FAQ implies, they're going all the way back to A (but obviously not doing the Navy/USMC 'exclusive' variants along the way). Although you'd assume the ones that don't exist in the game already probably won't be any time soon.

[strikeeagle]

Anything with “OT” or “WA” on the tail doesn’t mean a thing. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

8 hours ago, YoYo said:

an extremely high degree of confidence that the missile was locked onto its intended target

That's the opposite of what Starbaby said in one of his interviews on the "10 Percent True" podcast: he called it useless or something to that effect.

[Erazor]

9 hours ago, strikeeagle said:

Anything with “OT” or “WA” on the tail doesn’t mean a thing. 

Care to elaborate why?

[t_hedlund]

39 minutes ago, erazor said:

Care to elaborate why?

"OT" is an Operational Test aircraft, it is used to help develop weapon system and test the effectiveness a new weapon platform. From my understanding once the Development group is happy with the results, they start working with Nellis "WA" aircraft to create employment practices for the unit level. So, any photos with an "OT" or "WA" deploying a weapon don't mean that it was ever handed down to a unit or used in combat. 

[Erazor]

2 hours ago, t_hedlund said:

"OT" is an Operational Test aircraft, it is used to help develop weapon system and test the effectiveness a new weapon platform. From my understanding once the Development group is happy with the results, they start working with Nellis "WA" aircraft to create employment practices for the unit level. So, any photos with an "OT" or "WA" deploying a weapon don't mean that it was ever handed down to a unit or used in combat. 

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

[razorseal]

interesting info here.

I rather just drop bombs on vehicles anyway. lol

[strikeeagle]

11 hours ago, erazor said:

Care to elaborate why?

Exactly what was just explained.  OT is Operational Test out of Eglin AFB.  They also have a detachment out of Nellis.  They are responsible for testing all new weapons and avionics for each airplane type.  They essentially give the "thumbs up/down" for those systems.  Just because certain weapons are seen on those aircraft, including WA, doesn't mean it's carried in the operational world.  However, it doesn't mean other countries that operate those airplanes do or do not carry those munitions because OT/WA may test them for ALL operators.

In the nine years I spent at SJ, I have never seen an AGM-65 installed or anywhere on the base for that matter. 

[razorseal]

So what did the SE carry mostly? LGBs and JDAMs? I heard notso talk about he never really carried dumb bombs on tour and all he ever carried was LGBs and towards the end of his career, he got JDAMs with the + model.

[strikeeagle]

3 minutes ago, razorseal said:

So what did the SE carry mostly? LGBs and JDAMs? I heard notso talk about he never really carried dumb bombs on tour and all he ever carried was LGBs and towards the end of his career, he got JDAMs with the + model.

Mostly precision.  Dumb bombs during training to keep the skills up, but the main focus was GBU-everything.  One weapon that's not mentioned is the AGM-130.  During my time, it was still being used.  It was being trained w/constantly by the 335th and 336th minus the fins and rocket motor.