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

[Kev2go]

9 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

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.

It also makes sense from to have a module have more versatility. Having a/g even if it's just dumb bombs using ccip/Crrp would still be nice to have. But I'm guessing apg63v1 will have some form of sarmapping which would allow greater usability for dumb bombs

 

If it's documented in dash 34 they are using then I hope to see it simulated.

Edited January 19 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

On 1/17/2025 at 10:25 AM, Harlikwin said:

 And we have the F15E for A/G. 

For now. F15E may as well be abandonware if the ed razbam dispute is not resolved. Forget about even getting it feature complete out of EA. Right now even basic bug fixes and maintenance aren't even being done on it. There's no guarantee a future patch won't break the jet at some point.

 

So if anything this just leaves an A/G gap left for the eagle as a platform. Having only dumb bombs won't allow f15c do everything a f15e would but the versatility is welcomed. The more versatile an airframe the more enticing it is to a broader audience. Aka more sales.

Edited January 19 by Kev2go

[mkellytx]

33 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

It also makes sense from to have a module have more versatility. Having a/g even if it's just dumb bombs using ccip/Crrp would still be nice to have. But I'm guessing apg63v1 will have some form of sarmapping which would allow greater usability for dumb bombs

 

If it's documented in dash 34 they are using then I hope to see it simulated.

The Israeli's seemed to like the CCIP well enough to use it quite a bit.  It's also pretty interesting that the Gray Eagle pics with Mk84's and FAST packs were at Elmendorf and Kadena.  I can see how in the CW gone hot in Europe how the PACAF guys would maintain that capability.  

As for DCS, I'm okay with not getting the capability day one, but think it would add a lot when maps included some of the more well-known historical missions where the capability was/would be used.

[Kev2go]

21 hours ago, mkellytx said:

The Israeli's seemed to like the CCIP well enough to use it quite a bit.  It's also pretty interesting that the Gray Eagle pics with Mk84's and FAST packs were at Elmendorf and Kadena.  I can see how in the CW gone hot in Europe how the PACAF guys would maintain that capability.  

As for DCS, I'm okay with not getting the capability day one, but think it would add a lot when maps included some of the more well-known historical missions where the capability was/would be used.

IF you want to cite missions like the Iranian reactor strike its worth recalling for the sake of context the timeframe and version of F15 used. Israelis had only the F15A at the time, and when most aircraft didn't have targeting pods,  precision guided muntions, or a good enough a/g radar, ccip delivery of unguided bombs was fine.

Circa 2005, having only unguided bombs utilizing ccip or cdip makes you more limited, and is no longer considered the peak of a/g bombing capabilities. It of course is still nice to have then just a pure a/a platform.

Even though in the usaf bombing in the eagle wasn't done, I'd think an f15c would have better bombing ability  then the f15a just due to assumption it will have sarmap capability. According to f15's radar development roadmap apg63 psp was supposed to get " high resolution" radar map in 1987. In turn according to forecast international they stated apg63v1 carried over operational modes of the apg70.

So I don't know for certain if the usaf detuned the air to ground capabilities of apg63v1 given f15c's missions is air to air or if strike eagle tier sarmap resolutions were retained, but the implication of what I read from forecast international seems to to impy the latter.

Of course i  haven't found a recent enough manual from time frame of apg63v1 was in use to self verify with certainty that's the case.

Edited January 20 by Kev2go

[mkellytx]

9 hours ago, Kev2go said:

IF you want to cite missions like the Iranian reactor strike its worth recalling for the sake of context the timeframe and version of F15 used. Israelis had only the F15A at the time, and when most aircraft didn't targeting pods,  precision guided muntions, or a good enough a/g radar, ccip delivery of unguided bombs was fine.

Circa 2005, having only unguided bombs and ccip or cdip makes you more limited, and is no longer considered the peak of a/g bombing capabilities. If course its still nice to have, then just a pure a/a platform.

Even though in the usaf bombing in the eagle wasn't done, I'd think an f15c would have better bombing ability  the the f15a  just due to assumption it will have sarmap capability. According to f15's radar development roadmap apg63 psp was supposed to get " high resolution" radar map in 1987. In turn according to forecast international they started apg63v1 carried over operational modes of the apg70.

 

So I don't know for certain if the airforce detuned the air to ground capabilities of apg63v1 given f15c's missions is air to air orif  strike eagle tier sarmap resolutions were retained, but the implication of what I read from forecast international seems to to impy as latter.

Of course i  haven't found s recent enough manual from time frame of apg63v1 was in use to self verify with certainty that's the case.

The particular mission I had in mind was the strike on the PLO headquarters in Tunis, which did use Charlies with FAST packs and a pairs of Mk84's.  The Osirak attack, Eagles flew top cover.  Three bags was plenty to get them there and pack on an A, Tunis however was a different story.  

Edited January 21 by mkellytx

[draconus]

On 1/18/2025 at 9:58 PM, NEW is my Callsign. said:

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.

Please don't spread misinformation. Current FC F-15C radar take into consideration: mode, gimbal limits, antenna momentary direction, range, target RCS, radar PRF, target aspect (relative speed, doppler gate), looking up/down differentiation, ground clutter (notching)... but it lacks some modes (ex. supersearch), fake targets, etc.

[NEW is my Callsign.]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Please don't spread misinformation. Current FC F-15C radar take into consideration: mode, gimbal limits, antenna momentary direction, range, target RCS, radar PRF, target aspect (relative speed, doppler gate), looking up/down differentiation, ground clutter (notching)... but it lacks some modes (ex. supersearch), fake targets, etc.

That was a rough way of explaining that yes, a new full fidelity f15 will probably have a "better radar" than the one we currently have, because the systems will be much more accurately modelled, like the F-15E having the best radar in the game. Sorry if I somehow offended you and ED, that was not my intention

[Kev2go]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

Please don't spread misinformation. Current FC F-15C radar take into consideration: mode, gimbal limits, antenna momentary direction, range, target RCS, radar PRF, target aspect (relative speed, doppler gate), looking up/down differentiation, ground clutter (notching)... but it lacks some modes (ex. supersearch), fake targets, etc.

He has  point the F15C radar has fixed detection ranges in the sense it doesn't take into account probability of detection.

Unless somethings changed recently and i missed it in the patch notes.

 

 

[Harlikwin]

7 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

He has  point the F15C radar has fixed detection ranges in the sense it doesn't take into account probability of detection.

Unless somethings changed recently and i missed it in the patch notes.

 

 

 

I mean FC3 radar is FC3 radar... Hopefully eventually the bulk of FF radars get to the point they are as well modeled the F15E radar model. 

[draconus]

2 hours ago, NEW is my Callsign. said:

Sorry if I somehow offended you and ED, that was not my intention

You didn't, you just made it sound like some arcade scanner when it's pretty fine simulation for a simplified avionics.

[Monarch]

Was this question answered? I see there's an orange tag that says "63(V)1 or 70" but I don't see a moderator answering the question

[draconus]

4 hours ago, Monarch said:

Was this question answered? I see there's an orange tag that says "63(V)1 or 70" but I don't see a moderator answering the question

You missed the tbd - to be decided. They're not sure yet.

[kotor633]

It says clearly here: 

"This will feature either the AN/APG-63(V)1 or AN/APG-70 radars (TBD which one)". For me that means that ED isn't quite sure yet and we just have to be patient a little longer.

[Monarch]

23 hours ago, kotor633 said:

It says clearly here: 

"This will feature either the AN/APG-63(V)1 or AN/APG-70 radars (TBD which one)". For me that means that ED isn't quite sure yet and we just have to be patient a little longer.

 

Okay the FAQ was updated with new language then because it did not initially say that.

[Wizard_03]

Is 63v1 better then 70 for A2A? According to wiki the APG-70 was replaced on F-15C/Ds by the 63v1 and only a small number of F-15Cs got 70 in the first place. If that's the case I hope we get the 63v1 as it seems more representative of F-15Cs in USAF/ANG service.

[F-2]

19 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Is 63v1 better then 70 for A2A? According to wiki the APG-70 was replaced on F-15C/Ds by the 63v1 and only a small number of F-15Cs got 70 in the first place. If that's the case I hope we get the 63v1 as it seems more representative of F-15Cs in USAF/ANG service.

It might be? It’s kinda unclear what apg-63(v)1 entails. At worst they are equal.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

I seem to remember someone in another thread stating that the difference mainly comes down to ease of maintenance and reliability. Perhaps some radar modes are different - I'd imagine the more advanced A/G modes to be removed/deactivated as there was little/no use for them...

[NEW is my Callsign.]

Would actually be weird if they did a 70 as that was barely representative of the C's lifetime. They got replaced really quickly by the 63v1 as the Strike Eagles needed parts for their own APG-70s... 

Edited February 13 by NEW is my Callsign.

[F-2]

On 1/19/2025 at 3:22 PM, Kev2go said:

It also makes sense from to have a module have more versatility. Having a/g even if it's just dumb bombs using ccip/Crrp would still be nice to have. But I'm guessing apg63v1 will have some form of sarmapping which would allow greater usability for dumb bombs

 

If it's documented in dash 34 they are using then I hope to see it simulated.

Might have the modes as it was used in the F-15K as well.

2 minutes ago, NEW is my Callsign. said:

Would actually be weird if they did a 70 as that was barely representative of the C's lifetime. They got replaced really quickly by the 63v1 as the Strike Eagles needed parts for their own APG-70s... 

over ten years and longer for export jets

[Sierra99]

" The US Eagle jet 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. "

Incorrect...And comes down to basic economics...

First, First the USAF removed the radar and HUD software used for air-to-ground operations. Every Hud / Delivery mode would needed to be created AND validated to ensure they didn't interfere with other modes or sub modes. Validation flights cost money and since F-15s were not going to be used for Air to Ground delivery...There was no need to create, test and maintain that capability.

Second, Every squadron has a Wartime mission that they train for and are evaluated on. The mission of the F-15C is air-to-air combat...Period. Their Pilots train for that mission and that mission alone. They don't waste training / Flying hours flying around dropping bombs for fun when that is not their mission.

 

[Dragon1-1]

19 hours ago, Sierra99 said:

Incorrect...And comes down to basic economics...

Do you have any evidence beyond "basic economics"? Because AFAIK, the air to ground stuff was in at least one Eaglejet manual. 

Yes, US Eaglejet squadrons don't train for air to ground, that's been established. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to to. We're not constrained by USAF doctrine. Only if they actually did remove the wiring should that capability be removed from our jet.

In fact, "basic economics" would make a good case against you. Air to ground stuff being INOP won't affect the primary mission, but actually removing it costs time, manpower and requires certifying a new configuration. So it's actually easier to leave it in physically and just not use it.

[Sierra99]

Quote

Do you have any evidence beyond "basic economics"? Because AFAIK, the air to ground stuff was in at least one Eagle manual. 

I don't need any evidence beyond Basic Economics. I spent 22 years in the military and I know how the military does business.

Committees decide what capabilities are and are not going to be used on aircraft for Various reasons.

The thrust reversers on CFM-56 engines used to re-engine the KC-135 fleet were removed because the cost to maintain them out-weighed the operation advantages of having them...Economics.

CAT III ILS equipment was removed from the KC-10A because the cost to maintain the systems and certify them out weighed the Operational advantages.

Air to Ground capability was removed from the F-15s because the cost associated with testing and Maintaining the systems out weighed the operational advantages.

ALSO...Politics plays a HUGE role. The Air Force wanted an Air Superiority Fighter...If it can drop bombs lets use it for that too. Not what the generals wanted so they made sure the capability was not available 

 

Quote

Yes, US Eagle squadrons don't train for air to ground, that's been established. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to to. We're not constrained by USAF doctrine.

Yeah...Yeah it kind of does because
A. Its not realistic...
and
B. It's unnecessary code that takes time and money to write...Just like the real airplane.

 

Quote

Only if they actually did remove the wiring should that capability be removed from our jet.

I'm not sure for fact but I will bet folding money the wiring was not included on production aircraft because of

A. Weight
B. You don't put in wires you're not going to use

 

Quote

In fact, "basic economics" would make a good case against you. Air to ground stuff being INOP won't affect the primary mission, but actually removing it costs time, manpower and requires certifying a new configuration. So it's actually easier to leave it in physically and just not use it.

Basic economics actually makes my case air tight. You understand were talking about the Mid Seventies right? By the time the F-15C entered production Air to Ground Capability had LONG been  forgotten because it was to be an Air Superiority fighter...nothing else. The wiring and "Air to Ground Stuff" wouldn't have even been installed.  Nothing there to use.
 

 

[Dragon1-1]

20 hours ago, Sierra99 said:

I don't need any evidence beyond Basic Economics. I spent 22 years in the military and I know how the military does business.

Yes, you do. Waving your hands about and asking people to believe you won't cut it. I haven't actually posted the FM, but it's probably not OK to post it, because it's from the 1981 (no, we're not talking about mid-70s, the C is an 80s bird), so past the cutoff, but it's easy enough to find. T.O. 1F-15C-34-1-1, page 1-1, at the bottom: "A secondary capability includes the automatic or manual release of air-to-ground (A/G) munitions. Refer to T.O. 1F-15C-34-1-2.". I don't have that air to ground manual, but I think you'll agree that they wouldn't have printed a whole publication just to say "nothing to see here, maybe you can strafe them, lol". 

Unless you were around actual Eaglejets and saw that wiring wasn't there, just dealing with Pentagon for 22 years is not evidence for this particular case. It certainly doesn't trump my evidence, which comes straight from actual F-15C documentation. Because weirder things have happened in military procurement. Just because all logic suggests it should have been removed doesn't mean it was. Besides, citing "basic economics" in a discussion about an organization which can't even properly explain where half its budget went (and it couldn't for at least six major audits) seems somewhat farcical to me...

If the -34-1-2 is too hard to find (can't imagine that publication was used much), that's fine, but if ED has that information, and they might, then this capability should be included, since it's part of the aircraft both physically and in documentation.

[Bulldog_1]

Time to close this thread. It has become economics/political and recent posts have nothing to do about the F-15C Radar.

[Sierra99]

Quote

T.O. 1F-15C-34-1-1, page 1-1, at the bottom: "A secondary capability includes the automatic or manual release of air-to-ground (A/G) munitions. Refer to T.O. 1F-15C-34-1-2.". I don't have that air to ground manual, but I think you'll agree that they wouldn't have printed a whole publication just to say "nothing to see here, maybe you can strafe them, lol". 

Nobody is "Waving their hands about and asking people to believe them". To be honest I really don't care if you believe me or not. All I can do is try and educate you.

Yes the -34 mentions manual release of Air to Ground Weapons...Now I invite you to read the rest of the -34 and answer the following questions for me.

You will find the information in Section II NORMAL PROCEDURES.
-- What Air to Ground weapons are listed that can be carried by the F-15?
-- What are the Exterior inspection steps for Air to Ground Weapons?
-- What are the Interior inspection steps for Air to Ground Weapons?
-- What are the Air to Ground Attack steps inflight for each Air to Ground Weapon? What HUD mode is used to ensure accurate delivery?
Finally...
-- What stations are Air to Ground weapons you identify certified to be carried on?

I know you folks HATE this answer but the simple fact is USAF F-15Cs did not employ Air to Ground Weapons for the variety of reasons listed. Israel did...Maybe Saudi Arabia although I don't think so...The USAF did not.

I am basing my comments on empirical data, published articles and conversations with actual F-15C Pilots and Maintainers...

Not a single sentence on Page 1-1 of a very old Dash-34.