AGM for E?

[ThunderStrike]

What AGMs are planned for E?

[Capn kamikaze]

The AGM-130 is.

Not sure about anything else, but the E could carry AGM-65's and AGM-88's, though not commonly, so maybe maybe not.

[av8orDave]

9 minutes ago, Capn kamikaze said:

The AGM-130 is.

Not sure about anything else, but the E could carry AGM-65's and AGM-88's, though not commonly, so maybe maybe not.

To the best of my knowledge, the -65 and the -88 have been tested but have never been carried operationally. It wouldn't be terribly surprising to learn that the -65 has been carried operationally at some point (although infrequently) but I'd be very surprised if the -88 has.

Edited June 28, 2023 by davidrbarnette

[Njinsa]

Maverick D,G,K versions are planned as they're all already in DCS, but it will take some time Razbam figure how that should work at all.

Only MountainHome guys had it for CAS training hence very limited insight.

AGM-130 is planned, but depends on when ED plan to support all code required to run & guide this baby.

No HARM in any case.

 

 

[JOEM423]

4 hours ago, ThunderStrike said:

What AGMs are planned for E?

Bump

[Trueno]

love it

[Iron Sights]

Trueno is right I think the AGM-130 is what I saw on the list. I think that will work.

[Vince]

10 hours ago, Njinsa said:

[...]

No HARM in any case.

 

 

That is only correct for the USAF F-15E.

The F-15I Ra'am can carry and does use HARM on a regular basis.
As we have the F-15I in DCS i fully expect for HARM to be available in the near future, so that we can recreate IAF missions on the Syria and Sinai maps correctly.

[draconus]

55 minutes ago, Vince said:

As we have the F-15I in DCS

We do?

[bfr]

3 hours ago, Vince said:

That is only correct for the USAF F-15E.

The F-15I Ra'am can carry and does use HARM on a regular basis.
As we have the F-15I in DCS i fully expect for HARM to be available in the near future, so that we can recreate IAF missions on the Syria and Sinai maps correctly.

We don't. Its an F-15E with a F-15I paintjob and turkey feathers reinstated and there is zero intention to do stuff that would genuinely make it a -I like model the avionics differences.

[Vince]

19 hours ago, bfr said:

We don't. Its an F-15E with a F-15I paintjob and turkey feathers reinstated and there is zero intention to do stuff that would genuinely make it a -I like model the avionics differences.

Yeah I realised that as well when I tried it yesterday evening.
I was kinda hoping, now I feel a bit let down.

[bfr]

1 hour ago, Vince said:

Yeah I realised that as well when I tried it yesterday evening.
I was kinda hoping, now I feel a bit let down.

Its understandable. I'd assume detailed documentation of the avionics changes Israel made aren't exactly readily available, plus there is already quite a lot of work pending to just fully implement the -E and the later suites of it that are to follow.  Nor is it like they've branched particularly into production variants with the other modules (they sort of did it with the A-10 but that was basically producing a new module, and the forthcoming F-4 variants will be separate modules too by the look of it).

Edited June 30, 2023 by bfr

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Vince said:

I was kinda hoping, now I feel a bit let down.

But why?

"The subject of this study level simulation is the F-15E Suite 4E+ software installed in F-15E's in around 2003."

[bfr]

5 minutes ago, draconus said:

But why?

"The subject of this study level simulation is the F-15E Suite 4E+ software installed in F-15E's in around 2003."

And if you add one variant then where do you stop? e.g. people will then probably ask for the K model that ROK bought which was tweaked to support SLAM-ER and Harpoon.

[QuiGon]

On 6/28/2023 at 9:13 PM, ThunderStrike said:

What AGMs are planned for E?

AGM-130
AGM-154
AGM-65

As per FAQ: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/544231925263630336/1008508215643873381/Frequently_Asked_Questions_ver_2.pdf

Fun part about the Mavericks:

[bfr]

14 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

AGM-130
AGM-154
AGM-65

As per FAQ: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/544231925263630336/1008508215643873381/Frequently_Asked_Questions_ver_2.pdf

Fun part about the Mavericks:

I'm assuming that will only be the A version though for historical accuracy purposes? (IIRC only the Navy ever bought the C?)

[QuiGon]

11 minutes ago, bfr said:

I'm assuming that will only be the A version though for historical accuracy purposes? (IIRC only the Navy ever bought the C?)

Correct

[Skoop]

Yeah, I don’t buy the no harms for F15Es.  The manual says the 15E was designed to carry everything in the airforce arsenal and even has a picture of it flying with them on the rail.  
 

I don’t care the SMEs insist that they never used or trained with harms, they were never in a conflict that required them. 
 

For example, the high intensity conflicts we usually fly in dcs missions, you can’t tell me the USAF wouldn’t be loading up everything under the sun on 15Es for a red storm rising WWIII scenario if it happened in real life.

 

I heard the same sentiment from Apache pilots on a pod cast about Apaches.  They were asked about tackling a2a with other helos.  They were like “ahhh no we don’t do that”.  You don’t think If nato went to Ukraine tomorrow, those Apaches would be armed with sidewinders ?  Hell yeah they would, and they were spec’d to carry them, they just haven’t needed to yet.

[draconus]

What was tested or carried doesn't count. Doesn't matter if it was never used. If the simulated aircraft version can fire it without sw/hw mods it's in.

[NeedzWD40]

1 hour ago, Skoop said:

You don’t think If nato went to Ukraine tomorrow, those Apaches would be armed with sidewinders ?  Hell yeah they would, and they were spec’d to carry them, they just haven’t needed to yet.

No, and I'll tell you why:

12 batteries of MIM-104 PAC-3 (assume all from 5-7 ADA BDE, additional brigades likely later shipped from stateside)
~Buttload of M1097 and FIM-92
211 x F-15C
218 x F-15E
936 x F-16C/D
186 x F-22A
272 x F-35A

*2021 USAF inventory numbers, may differ from 2023 numbers. US Army ADA numbers may vary upwards. Factor in other NATO forces for an additional boost of F-16s, F-35s, Typhoons, Gripens, air defenses, et al.

Only testbed AH-64s have ever used AIM-9. ATAS integration was slated for the latest AH-64Es on the primary weapon stations, but to date I've yet to see any actual testing or application of this, so I'd bet it was put on the back burner for funding reasons. And, y'know, the fact that everybody and his brother is slinging AIM-120, AIM-9, Meteor, IRIS-T, cannons of all calibers, arrows, rocks, and harsh language at anything in the sky that's remotely suspected of being unfriendly. Not much of a reason to give up gas or A/G weaponry for an A/A capability that nobody trains to use or in the case of the US Army, even has.

Same thing with the F-15E: why throw HARMs at something that you can just kill with all those wonderful toys instead? More than enough HARM shooters around. Even nastier weapons in NATO arsenals keep those radars off. And those weapons might knock out a radar; an F-15E or two can blow up the whole damn site.

[Bartek16194]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

What was tested or carried doesn't count. Doesn't matter if it was never used. 

Then what about 4 HARM in F-16, changing laser codes in flight in hornet, KA-50 III Iglas and MWS, J-8 module, and many other things?

[Tholozor]

1 hour ago, Bartek16194 said:

Then what about 4 HARM in F-16, changing laser codes in flight in hornet

4-HARM F-16 was squadron-dependent. Some had aircraft with an additional plug in the wiring harness to allow data/video transfer for the inboard stations.

Changing laser codes from the cockpit in the Hornet is a stop-gap until the codes can be set on the rearm panel (same could be said for the A-10).

[draconus]

6 hours ago, Bartek16194 said:

Then what about 4 HARM in F-16, changing laser codes in flight in hornet, KA-50 III Iglas and MWS, J-8 module, and many other things?

Not my toys but I wouldn't approve, if you ask me.

[bfr]

12 hours ago, Skoop said:

Yeah, I don’t buy the no harms for F15Es.  The manual says the 15E was designed to carry everything in the airforce arsenal and even has a picture of it flying with them on the rail.  
 

I don’t care the SMEs insist that they never used or trained with harms, they were never in a conflict that required them. 
 

For example, the high intensity conflicts we usually fly in dcs missions, you can’t tell me the USAF wouldn’t be loading up everything under the sun on 15Es for a red storm rising WWIII scenario if it happened in real life.

 

I heard the same sentiment from Apache pilots on a pod cast about Apaches.  They were asked about tackling a2a with other helos.  They were like “ahhh no we don’t do that”.  You don’t think If nato went to Ukraine tomorrow, those Apaches would be armed with sidewinders ?  Hell yeah they would, and they were spec’d to carry them, they just haven’t needed to yet.

Is there any documentation or other sources available though that shows how HARM would work if carried by an F-15E though? Its one thing enabling the plane to carry them, another to integrate them realistically.

[JB3DG]

7 hours ago, bfr said:

Is there any documentation or other sources available though that shows how HARM would work if carried by an F-15E though? Its one thing enabling the plane to carry them, another to integrate them realistically.

There is not to my knowledge. There aren't even any MPD pages that would handle HARM targeting. Also none of the stores limitation configurations in the -1 include the HARM.

Edited July 4, 2023 by JB3DG