Jump to content

F-15 Eagle: History, Performance & Discussion


spacenavy90
 Share

Best answer

Guys, I'm going to say this very clearly for everyone.

 

If you cannot definitively prove something is legally publicly available, fully declassified and without any restrictions, do not post it at all. 

 

No ifs, buts or it "maybes". If you cannot prove it, Don't do it at all. Your personal opinion on what you think it is will not be used or taken into consideration. If you cannot provide proof, it will be removed.

 

We will begin issuing account punishments of a serious level if anyone chooses to further ignore this warning. This is not a matter to simply be taken lightly and if people continue treating it as such they will lose access to the forum and potentially accounts entirely.

 

Not only can we not use such material, will not handle it in any way, you also risk only yourselves.

 

Take this as final warning.

 

Equally, going to other platforms in order to spread rumours, accuse or create a heated situation does not aid or help matters in any way for anyone. All it does is create more confusion, issues and aggravation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Suizu_Aika said:

Hey space!, Can I do another suggestion on this threat?, If yes I suggest called Update threat, I usually confuse what new on the threat so I thought to you if it's ok for you to add Update threat for example like this
Example:
Update:
- Specifications / F-15J / added 500 lb GCS-1 infrared guided bomb s
-F-15E/Updated article

I hope you have a nice day ^^

 

 

Hi there! Thank you for the suggestion. I have considered added a changelog to my forum posts, but I consider them living documents that are constantly updated and it seems like a hassle to try to keep both updated. But in the future perhaps I will add a changelog for any large changes I make, but definitely not for just adding a few line changes.

  • Like 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

It's all blank tests and unfilled out student workbooks, not sure where he found them but they're not even usable as a source.
Regardless, it's an interesting find.

 

Blank tests? I'm not sure which one you opened, but it is much more than that...

Look at "RDR-3_Air-to-Air_Modes_Switchology__Displays.pdf" or "LAN-3_Targeting_IR.pdf"

Edited by spacenavy90
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MiG_23M said:

It's all blank tests and unfilled out student workbooks, not sure where he found them but they're not even usable as a source.
Regardless, it's an interesting find.

 

really? i find some of them to be very relevant. AGD-5 tells you it has Auto(CCRP) and CDIP ( CCIP) bombing delivery modes. and shows how it looks like via HUD.(AGD4 has some complimentary that might be pertinent to hud)

 

 

LAN 3 Targeting IR relevant for realistic modelling of that particular targeting pod. tells you its  tracking modes, its FOV levels of magnification/zoom for example and how information is displayed on hud.  Also  shows how Target Pod imagery can be projected onto the HUD, which would be nice for rare night time maps.

 

RDR3 shows Apg70  Air to Air modes as displayed on MPD. various radar operating modes and their scan patterns. I think thats relevant information.

 

AGR2 and AGR3 show  information regarding Air to surface modes. ( should gajin model air to surface radar capability in the future) as it pertains to that particular radar set.

 

 

These sorts of documents are almost like what you see in Dash 34, but merely divided in piecemeal fashion to educate students learning to be Strike eagle pilots. I posted it because we can't otherwise use any sort of restricted information.

Edited by RanchSauce39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

Blank tests? I'm not sure which one you opened, but it is much more than that...

Look at "RDR-3_Air-to-Air_Modes_Switchology__Displays.pdf" or "LAN-3_Targeting_IR.pdf"

I just took a quick look, I'm sure there is a lot of relevant info in there but you already know you have a lot of good stuff in the OP so I was thinking maybe the only thing you'd get from this is already known or generally logical info. If there's some stuff you don't have then this is particularly valuable.

 

2 minutes ago, RanchSauce39 said:

 

really? i find some of them to be very relevant. AGD-5 tells you it has Auto(CCRP) and CDIP ( CCIP) bombing delivery modes. and shows how it looks like via HUD.(AGD4 has some complimentary that might be pertinent to hud)

 

and shows how it looks like via HUD.

 

LAN 3 Targeting IR relevant for realistic modelling of that particular targeting pod. tells you its FOV levels of zoom for example and how information is displayed on hud. Also Target Pod imagery can be projected onto the HUD for night time maps.

 

RDR3 shows Apg70  Air to Air modes as displayed on MPD. various radar operating modes and their scan patterns. I think thats relevant information.

 

AGR2 and AGR3 show  information regarding Air to surface modes. ( should gajin model air to surface radar capability in the future) as it pertains to that particular radar set.

 

 

These sorts of documents are almost like what you see in Dash 34, but merely divided in piecemeal fashion to educate students learning to be Strike eagle pilots. I posted it because we can't otherwise use any sort of restricted information.

Ah I see, That's pretty neat. I didn't have the time to check all of the documents I just figured that they were pretty "bland" when I scrolled through the first one quickly.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

I just find it very interesting the parallels between this and "recent events". But I suppose because it doesn't have a distribution statement clearly shown its fine right? Despite the information inside clearly being extremely detailed about a modern aircraft still in active service and dated around 20 years ago...

 

Personally, not even I would've posted this. At the very least, not the full unedited PDFs.

They were never marked CUI in any way so they're publicly distributable. 

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

I just find it very interesting the parallels between this and "recent events". But I suppose because it doesn't have a distribution statement clearly shown its fine right? Despite the information inside clearly being extremely detailed about a modern aircraft still in active service and dated around 20 years ago...

 

Personally, not even I would've posted this. At the very least, not the full unedited PDFs.

 

 

only OFP suite 4 and later academic workbooks got distribution statements issued on them. So any workbooks that you find up to Suite 3 should be fine.

 

Suite 4 Strike eagles got FDL, Fighter Data link ( which was MIDS/Link16 ) and Suite 4 plus ( a in between update before suite 5)  had Jdam integration, and Litening 2 Target pod as a interim solution to Strike eagle fleets. because it was needed for the OIF invasion during 2003 since lantirn was feeling its age, and Sniper pod was not yet ready for service. Which is a shame because being able to provide sources for more modern TGP would be nice in  hypothetical F15E for war thunder.

 

as an example of later workbook, how distribution statement looks.

 

2015 ofp suite 7.jpg

Edited by RanchSauce39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

Pretty sure this manual is though, which it is taking reference from...

Feeling a distinct double standard here to be honest.

 

LV4fLlI.png

You can contact Seymour Johnson Air Force Base regarding these manuals and ask if they were improperly marked when containing possible "CUI".

At this time there are no markings, no legal responsibility falls on Gaijin or anyone distributing these. Even if the air force retroactively decides to say they were improperly marked it's too late. They must be considered at this point "available for public distribution". If they wanted to limit that however, they could enforce that no DoD personnel are to further distribute these documents in any public capacity.

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RanchSauce39 said:

 

 

only OFP suite 4 and later academic workbooks got distribution statements issued on them. So any workbooks that you find up to Suite 3 should be fine.

 

Suite 4 Strike eagles got FDL, Fighter Data link ( which was MIDS/Link16 ) and Suite 4 plus ( a in between update before suite 5)  had Jdam integration, and Litening 2 Target pod as a interim solution to Strike eagle fleets. because it was needed for the OIF invasion during 2003 since lantirn was feeling its age, and Sniper was not yet ready.

 

 

 

2015 ofp suite 7.jpg

 

I'm sorry but I don't agree here, as interesting as the documents are. Looking at the standard F-15E manual from 1993 (TO 1F-15E-1) it shows a DoD only distribution and export control restriction. At least some of these manuals are referencing TO 1F-15E-34-1-1, an even more restricted version of this manual.

 

Sorry but I find it very hypocritical that I can be attacked for posting simple screenshots about the F-16A from 1982, but this is considered just fine. So much for caring about the protection of sensitive military information I guess...

 

LV4fLlI.png

192TuD9.png

Edited by spacenavy90
  • Like 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

I'm sorry but I don't agree here, as interesting as the documents are. Looking at the standard F-15E manual from 1993 (TO 1F-15E-1) it shows a DoD only distribution and export control restriction. At least some of these manuals are referencing TO 1F-15E-34-1-1, an even more restricted version of this manual.

 

Sorry but I find it very hypocritical that I can be attacked for posting simple screenshots about the F-16A from 1982, but this is considered just fine. So much for caring about the protection of sensitive military information I guess...

The information was distributed by Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, it is currently in the public domain, as per my last post.

 

1 hour ago, MiG_23M said:

You can contact Seymour Johnson Air Force Base regarding these manuals and ask if they were improperly marked when containing possible "CUI".

At this time there are no markings, no legal responsibility falls on Gaijin or anyone distributing these. Even if the air force retroactively decides to say they were improperly marked it's too late. They must be considered at this point "available for public distribution". If they wanted to limit that however, they could enforce that no DoD personnel are to further distribute these documents in any public capacity.

 

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MiG_23M said:

The information was distributed by Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, it is currently in the public domain, as per my last post.

 

You have no proof of this, you are simply speculating based on the lack of markings on the document itself. For all we know the document could have been edited to remove any CUI markings too.

If it is in fact public domain, where is it accessible?

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

You have no proof of this, you are simply speculating based on the lack of markings on the document itself. For all we know the document could have been edited to remove any CUI markings too.

If it is in fact public domain, where is it accessible?

Seymour Johnson Air Force Base would have the authority to cite specific parts of the manual and post them (following current regulations) without markings as long as no actual CUI information is in them. If you believe this is CUI you can make an inquiry to them via email. It is up to Gaijin staff (but no liability befalls them in this case as far as I am concerned) to remove the information pending verification that it is or isn't CUI since it is newer than 30 yrs old.

 

I think it is reasonable to ask Gaijin staff to remove it for now pending proof it's available for public distribution.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ACOMETS said:
Hide contents

Yeah... kinda felt like MiG-23 was trying to discredit you because he was losing an argument so he went "haha guys look he's leaking stuff"

Never xxxx liked that guy

Sorry the community just made a mountain out of a molehill cuz theyre idiots

that is more like "abusing". 

you wanted something done and you acted , prematurely . at least this is how most people in the community see it.

 

Same applies to you, this isn't the place to talk drama. Please stay on topic okay?

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ACOMETS said:
Reveal hidden contents

Yeah... kinda felt like MiG-23 was trying to discredit you because he was losing an argument so he went "haha guys look he's leaking stuff"

Never xxxx liked that guy

Sorry the community just made a mountain out of a molehill cuz theyre idiots

that is more like "abusing". 

you wanted something done and you acted , prematurely . at least this is how most people in the community see it.

I messaged him in private, was then removed from his discord and blocked in almost all platforms. He ignored my requests to take it down and only then did I message Gaijin staff to remove it in lieu of other options.

 

12 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

I'm not "obligated" to do anything.

 

And why don't you stay on topic and take your drama-posting elsewhere?

Yes let's end this discussion here. I've already let Gaijin staff know they should take it down until it is shown to be publicly distributable, though I think it would be better if you stopped lying to people about the circumstances regarding how you got those documents.

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

And why don't you stay on topic and take your drama-posting elsewhere?

 

Does your Reddit post today not count as drama posting? My understanding (I've not look at them) is that none of these documents have any classification or distribution markings on them. And this argument is basically "I think this is restricted" Vs "I think it's not" without conclusive evidence either way.

 

In which case all that Reddit post serves to do is kick up a bunch of drama on the sub-reddit that there's been another "classified documents leak" (I'm aware you never make that claim; but what do you think the average player is going to interpret your title as?). Particularly seeing as it isn't even confirmed that the documents in question have any restrictions on them.

 

And this isn't me defending MiG_23M. I just think this whole argument is getting a bit ridiculous now. It's starting to come across as you and MiG_23M trying to one-up eachother rather than having a genuine concern over the documents in question.

Edited by Flame2512
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Flame2512 said:

 

Does your Reddit post today not count as drama posting? My understanding (I've not look at them) is that none of these documents have any classification or distribution markings on them. And this argument is basically "I think this is restricted" Vs "I think it's not" without conclusive evidence either way.

 

In which case all that Reddit post serves to do is kick up a bunch of drama on the sub-reddit that there's been another "classified documents leak" (I'm aware you never make that claim; but what do you think the average player is going to interpret your title as?). Particularly seeing as it isn't even confirmed that the documents in question have any restrictions on them.

 

And this isn't me defending MiG-23M. I just think this whole argument is getting a bit ridiculous now. It's starting to come across as you and MiG-23M trying to one-up eachother rather than having a genuine concern over the documents in question.

 

While I understand your point, that is Reddit and this is the WT forums. We can discuss this more via PM if you would like to.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

Same applies to you, this isn't the place to talk drama. Please stay on topic okay?

I try to but likewise , I don't want to drop an nuke on myself trying to share data , do people now have to delete 90% of the manuals uploaded to the forum?

at the very end many people just want there favourite thing if not in game at least on the forum (and most of them don't even know how to check me included )

 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I'm going to say this very clearly for everyone.

 

If you cannot definitively prove something is legally publicly available, fully declassified and without any restrictions, do not post it at all. 

 

No ifs, buts or it "maybes". If you cannot prove it, Don't do it at all. Your personal opinion on what you think it is will not be used or taken into consideration. If you cannot provide proof, it will be removed.

 

We will begin issuing account punishments of a serious level if anyone chooses to further ignore this warning. This is not a matter to simply be taken lightly and if people continue treating it as such they will lose access to the forum and potentially accounts entirely.

 

Not only can we not use such material, will not handle it in any way, you also risk only yourselves.

 

Take this as final warning.

 

Equally, going to other platforms in order to spread rumours, accuse or create a heated situation does not aid or help matters in any way for anyone. All it does is create more confusion, issues and aggravation. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

Guys, I'm going to say this very clearly for everyone.

 

If you cannot definitively prove something is legally publicly available, fully declassified and without any restrictions, do not post it at all. 

 

No ifs, buts or it "maybes". If you cannot prove it, Don't do it at all. Your personal opinion on what you think it is will not be used or taken into consideration. If you cannot provide proof, it will be removed.

 

We will begin issuing account punishments of a serious level if anyone chooses to further ignore this warning. This is not a matter to simply be taken lightly and if people continue treating it as such they will lose access to the forum and potentially accounts entirely.

 

Not only can we not use such material, will not handle it in any way, you also risk only yourselves.

 

Take this as final warning.

 

Equally, going to other platforms in order to spread rumours, accuse or create a heated situation does not aid or help matters in any way for anyone. All it does is create more confusion, issues and aggravation. 

 

What if I found it under the bench of a bus stop?

 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grimtax said:

 

What if I found it under the bench of a bus stop?

 

 

Where you found it is irrelevant. If you can't prove it's legally declassified and not restricted in any way, then it can't be used, shared or posted.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Where you found it is irrelevant. If you can't prove it's legally declassified and not restricted in any way, then it can't be used, shared or posted.


What is considered proof?
And what if the said document is published by another (3rd party) country's government, but not yet by the country of origin?

 

Edited by Cpt__Maverick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...