no air-to-ground APG-63 or APG-63(V)1

[Harlikwin]

29 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

Yeah its bizarre to me. Why are we talking about bombs we should be talking about shooting things down. 

Yup. The F15C was at least in "the press" not a pound for air to ground. And we have the F15E for A/G. 

Edited January 17 by Harlikwin

[Dragon1-1]

10 hours ago, NineLine said:

We are not modelling a Japanese version of the F-15C, we are doing the US one, but we did say we could include some liveries for Japan, all this is in the FAQ. Thanks. 

The US Eaglejet also has the wiring in question, and all the software needed to use those bombs. The only thing preventing US Eagles from dropping bombs is pen pushers at the Pentagon not giving them any. We in DCS should be fully able to ignore the pen pushers and do so anyway.

Remember the F-16 quad HARMs debacle. A typical US SEAD combat mission would not carry that many (with US Vipers you'd hardly see anything but bags on those inboards), but in some squadrons the pylons were wired for them. In this case, no US squadron uses the wiring in question, but that doesn't mean the wiring doesn't exist. I'll let people better versed in the jet to throw manual pages around, but someone from ED mentioned that it's more capable in air to ground than Su-27.

Edited January 17 by Dragon1-1

[Wizard_03]

57 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The US Eaglejet also has the wiring in question, and all the software needed to use those bombs. The only thing preventing US Eagles from dropping bombs is pen pushers at the Pentagon not giving them any. We in DCS should be fully able to ignore the pen pushers and do so anyway.

Remember the F-16 quad HARMs debacle. A typical US SEAD combat mission would not carry that many (with US Vipers you'd hardly see anything but bags on those inboards), but in some squadrons the pylons were wired for them. In this case, no US squadron uses the wiring in question, but that doesn't mean the wiring doesn't exist. I'll let people better versed in the jet to throw manual pages around, but someone from ED mentioned that it's more capable in air to ground than Su-27.

Pen pushers and common sense 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

2 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Yeah its bizarre to me. Why are we talking about bombs we should be talking about shooting things down. 

Because we already have a 30+ page thread on why the FF F-15C deserves a spot in DCS. We're just talking about completing its functionality - I for one don't plan on actually using it in DCS but I'd prefer the capability to be present.

[F-2]

https://books.google.com/books?id=uAVEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA182&dq=f-15+equivalent+ground+attack&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxjdGmyf2KAxVOF1kFHajpN0sQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=f-15 equivalent ground attack&f=false
 

1975 F-15 ground attack

https://books.google.com/books?id=pHvQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA165&dq=f-15+equivalent+ground+attack&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxjdGmyf2KAxVOF1kFHajpN0sQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=f-15 equivalent ground attack&f=false

1978 F-15 ground attack compared to mirage F1

 

[MudMoverGSH]

This is not about asking for the Japanese or Israeli version, this is about adding the AG modes that DO exist on the US version,  especially since this is meant to be a "full fidelity" module. NO ONE doesn't know that the Charlie is an air superiority fighter. That's not the point. For sure it doesn’t need to be a priority, but I really hope it can be added in the future..

Yes, there is already an E model for bombing, but that E model can pretty much do the AA mission as well. So by the same logic, if I say "why even bother making a C model?", this would make no sense, right? And not to mention the ongoing issues btwn its developer and ED and tbh it doesn't look optimistic.

Sure, the USAF doesn't hook bombs on their C (not sure whether their Eagle drivers ever do any AG training tho). But then again, the USAF also doesn’t paint their aircraft in Japanese, Israeli, or Saudi Arabian liveries. So is that a valid excuse to omit those liveries?

In a way, it's similar to the reasoning behind implementing features like circuit breakers, failures, backup control system, or even detailed engine/radar/etc physic simulations.

Adding AG modes would complete the "full fidelity" promise and create opportunities for more gameplay, like recreating Israeli bombing missions.

 

Edited January 18 by MudMoverGSH

[KPenn5]

Personally, I don't understand the fascination with putting bombs on the C model. Sure someone hung some bombs on a few at one time, but that's not what the purpose of it is. The F-15C is an air superiority fighter. Yeah I get it, the Israeli's used it in an air to ground role, but that was the exception, not the rule.

At some point you need to draw a line in the sand. At times, ED's stance on things drives me bonkers. Take the F-16 for example. Serial number 91-342 F-16C Block 50 on 10/27/2006 at precisely 1537 hours, didn't have this loadout, so we aren't modeling it. It's ignorant sometimes. That being said, the USAF has never used the F-15C, or A for that matter, as an air to ground platform. Now if they said they were modeling an Israeli F-15A with no air to ground abilities, then I could understand the uproar.

13 minutes ago, MudMoverGSH said:

This is not about asking for the Japanese or Israeli version, this is about adding the AG modes that DO exist on the US version,  especially since this is meant to be a "full fidelity" module. For sure it doesn’t need to be a priority, but I really hope it can be added in the future..

Yes, there is already an E model for bombing, but that E model can pretty much do the AA mission as well. So by the same logic, why even bother making a C model? That would make no sense.  And not to mention the ongoing issues btwn its developer and ED and tbh it doesn't look optimistic.

Sure, the USAF doesn't hook bombs on their C (not sure whether their Eagle drivers ever do any AG training tho). But then again, the USAF also doesn’t paint their aircraft in Japanese, Israeli, or Saudi Arabian liveries. So is that a valid excuse to omit those liveries?

Adding AG modes would complete the "full fidelity" promise and create opportunities for more gameplay, like recreating Israeli bombing missions.

 

Because the C model is a pure Air Superiority fighter, were the E model was intended as a long range strike platform to replace the F-111, and just so happens to have an air to air capability.

[Lyrode]

Cutting out AG ability probably means also cutting out the radar ground mode. So if we don't do AG but want to navigate in bad weather, we can't.

Edited January 18 by Lyrode

[Kev2go]

if A/G capability is in the manual it aught to be modelled. Pretty sure F14A never actually saw use in combat with dumb bombs or zunis either.

 

 

Edited January 19 by Kev2go

[Dragon1-1]

There you go, a US Eaglejet with bombs strapped on.  Even if it's just for show. If nothing else, it proves that it fits.  Also shows how good the Eagle's air to ground systems are - those guys never trained for air to ground, and yet were able to do a reasonably good job at it.

9 hours ago, Lyrode said:

Cutting out AG ability probably means also cutting out the radar ground mode. So if we don't do AG but want to navigate in bad weather, we can't.

Not really, you can have AG radar without actually being able to select bombs in the loadout tab. I suspect that's all this "no air to ground" is supposed to amount to. Radar would be modeled, but you wouldn't have an option to pick bombs, and bombing modes such as CCIP wouldn't be modeled. I do hope they change their mind on this, especially after actually working on the radar and finding out how much it can do for air to ground.

 

Edited January 18 by Dragon1-1

[Bremspropeller]

14 hours ago, KPenn5 said:

At some point you need to draw a line in the sand. At times, ED's stance on things drives me bonkers. Take the F-16 for example. Serial number 91-342 F-16C Block 50 on 10/27/2006 at precisely 1537 hours, didn't have this loadout, so we aren't modeling it. It's ignorant sometimes. That being said, the USAF has never used the F-15C, or A for that matter, as an air to ground platform. Now if they said they were modeling an Israeli F-15A with no air to ground abilities, then I could understand the uproar.

But why did the USAF never use it as such? For political reasons and political reasons only. And thats what you have to take into consideration as well. The jet is perfectly capable of doing it, so why let it out of it's game-representation?

[Lyrode]

5小时前，Dragon1-1说：

Not really, you can have AG radar without actually being able to select bombs in the loadout tab. I suspect that's all this "no air to ground" is supposed to amount to. Radar would be modeled, but you wouldn't have an option to pick bombs, and bombing modes such as CCIP wouldn't be modeled. I do hope they change their mind on this, especially after actually working on the radar and finding out how much it can do for air to ground.

I personally don't bother the AG ability loss, but their decision to ditch the AG mode worries me. It's not just a button or page on MFD, but is supported by many systems, including the most-likely-to-get Apg63v1

I hope they change mind too, since Mapping mode is pretty crucial for an All weather jet fighter.

[TotenDead]

How will the radar capabilities differ from the FC4 version?

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

2 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

How will the radar capabilities differ from the FC4 version?

Just look at the Strike Eagle's radar. In a DCS context, any differences between an APG63v1 and APG-70 shouldn't matter (IRL the APG-63v1 is very likely superior).

[NEW is my Callsign.]

43 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

How will the radar capabilities differ from the FC4 version?

The radar will be simulated a lot better. Currently the F-15C radar works like this: if inside 60 mile range, show brick.

This wouldn't happen in a better simulated radar, so it would probably have better detection ranges sometimes depending on RCS and stuff.

[TacoGrease]

Can only speak for the 194th FS at Fresno, but the maximum extent of their “A-G Training” consists of putting a conex container in the desert, making a strafing run, and vaguely having to get close to it with the M61. Charlie guys want to spend as little time on A2G as possible - they’re laser focused on air superiority. It’s a different mentality.

[KPenn5]

12 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

But why did the USAF never use it as such? For political reasons and political reasons only. And thats what you have to take into consideration as well. The jet is perfectly capable of doing it, so why let it out of it's game-representation?

It's a doctrinal choice by the USAF. I think it's well known how much money the US Military spends on equipment and unlike a lot of other nation's air forces, they can afford to spend money on very dedicated platforms. The Eagle was always looked at as the high end, air superiority fighter, while the F-16 was that jack of all trades, master of none platform that designed to be affordable. All part of that "High/Low" mix that was preached during the Cold War.

Everything is political, especially in the defense industry. I also see the merit in having a dedicated air to air platform. That allows those pilots to focus on ONE mission, vs multirole pilots that have to focus on all the missions. It's the same thought as the A-10, you won't find any better CAS pilots than those that fly the warthog, just as you won't find any better air to air pilots than those that fly the Eagle/Raptor

 

[SuperKermit]

Do I understand correctly: the APG-63(v1) is more modern than the APG-70? Which one was used in which iteration of the Eagle?

[Bremspropeller]

8 hours ago, KPenn5 said:

It's a doctrinal choice by the USAF. I think it's well known how much money the US Military spends on equipment and unlike a lot of other nation's air forces, they can afford to spend money on very dedicated platforms. The Eagle was always looked at as the high end, air superiority fighter, while the F-16 was that jack of all trades, master of none platform that designed to be affordable. All part of that "High/Low" mix that was preached during the Cold War.

Everything is political, especially in the defense industry. I also see the merit in having a dedicated air to air platform. That allows those pilots to focus on ONE mission, vs multirole pilots that have to focus on all the missions. It's the same thought as the A-10, you won't find any better CAS pilots than those that fly the warthog, just as you won't find any better air to air pilots than those that fly the Eagle/Raptor

Exactly. There is no such limitation for ED to present us with the whole capability of the airplane, though. Which it had in the first place but the USAF didn't elect to use it.

In an actual Cold War scenario, day three will have you scratch together all the assets you have and using them for whatever they're good for. There'll be no artificial political games anymore when tanks are crossing the Rhine River into the wrong direction.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

3 hours ago, SuperKermit said:

Do I understand correctly: the APG-63(v1) is more modern than the APG-70? Which one was used in which iteration of the Eagle?

That seems to be the case, yes: APG-63<APG-70<APG-63v1.

According to Wiki, the -70 was used as a stopgap for a while on Light Greys but later replaced by the -63v1 which is a decade more modern.

[Dragon1-1]

10 hours ago, KPenn5 said:

It's the same thought as the A-10, you won't find any better CAS pilots than those that fly the warthog, just as you won't find any better air to air pilots than those that fly the Eagle/Raptor

Warthog pilots do train for air to air, though, and the systems for this are modeled in DCS. It's not an air superiority fighter, but neither is it an easy kill. It can also hunt helicopters and other slow movers, and is in fact better suited to it than the Eaglejet, for which helo hunting can be bit of a white knuckle affair. We get Sidewinders and the funnel gunsight, even including the training mode (check out the Iron Flag campaign to have some fun with it), so we should get bombs on the Eagle.

[F-2]

6 hours ago, SuperKermit said:

Do I understand correctly: the APG-63(v1) is more modern than the APG-70? Which one was used in which iteration of the Eagle?

Yea, APG-70 entered service in 1988, APG-63(v)1 in mid 2001, actually a few months before APG-63(v)2 (April vs December)

https://aviationweek.com/af-begins-deploying-apg-63v1-radar-upgrades-f-15-fleet

 

i don’t know if APG-63(v)1 is actually that different in performance or if it’s mostly a reliability replacement modification. As I understand it apg-63 and apg-70 were out of production and in need of parts

 

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2001/prior1415s/01-05_PA_F-15.pdf

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

7 minutes ago, F-2 said:

https://aviationweek.com/af-begins-deploying-apg-63v1-radar-upgrades-f-15-fleet

That article is sadly behind a paywall...

[F-2]

4 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

That article is sadly behind a paywall...

I just wanted the date

[SuperKermit]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb F-2:

i don’t know if APG-63(v)1 is actually that different in performance or if it’s mostly a reliability replacement modification. As I understand it apg-63 and apg-70 were out of production and in need of parts

 

Thx for the information!

Would be great if someone knowledgeable could elaborate!