So then how is the KH-38MT justified using these same rules for being mounted on so many airframes? Considering No image of a non-mockup AUR, or seeker has ever surfaced.
It also puts the GPU-5/A in the same list.
Which as has been outlined many times, fits on MAU-12 bomb racks with no modification necessary for the F-15 airframe.
As I explained earlier, the photo of the F-15E with AGM-84H was taken during aerodynamic testing.
The flight captured F-15 aerodynamic performance information while carrying the SLAM-ER Missile and AWW-13K Data Link Pod and supported the Republic of Korea’s (ROK) F-15K program.
Although this is a completely different matter, the Kh-38 brochure states that it can be mounted on “all variants” of the Su-27/30. They have proven the technical compatibility. I will not comment further on Kh-38.
Simple gun pods and complex missiles are entirely different. In the case of gun pods, they can often be used simply by supplying power, so they have been easily installed and used on a temporary basis even in the field. Furthermore, the previous report failed to prove that the F-15E can use the GPU-5/A, and the same applies to this video. This video shows only a modified F-15B.
If a brochure’s good enough for one, but not the other. And besides it’s not like the F-15E doesn’t have access to the AGM-65D which shares the AN/WGU-10/B IIR seeker with the baseline SLAM so it’s not as if actually needs any additional hardware to deal with EO / IIR seekers since everything need would already exist onboard to facilitate the capability.
And the Datalink if needed would be handled by GBU-15 / AGM-130 capable datalinks, since the SLAM & GBU-15 / AGM-130 just reuses the Walleye Datalink module. Everything else is the same as a regular Harpoon and so no different.
So then bug report mangers have screwed up previously and so should invert which of the two reports were passed. On that Basis that the F-15A is identical to the prototype TF-15A Strike Eagle airframe.
It’s really quite sad that it’s now that you got around to “fixing” things a year later.
In what significant ways does the F-15B Strike Eagle Prototype, differ from the F-15E?
The AGM-84 can be mounted on the F-15 according to Boeing. So why can’t the Eagle get it? That feels very double standard.
I think the equivalent would be if it’s stated to be compatible with all variants of F-15.
Can’t the same argument be used to it as it was used about the others AH-64E’s receiving JAGM’s and the DIRCM?
Can be mounted on AN f-15 versus can be mounted on EVERY su27/30
No this is the reverse, mounted on the normal one, so export gets it, complete opposite situation. this is also why ka52k (proposed) could have carried spikes, doesn’t mean the ka 52 ingame can. Don’t think it’s that hard to understand but yeah
But if the agm84h is mounted and cam be fired from the F15K which isn’t much different from the F15E, why can’t the same logic be applied, because “technically” if the K cam carry it, the E should too, no?
No source stated that it can launch it, F-15E only conducted aerodynamics test. also sources that state the F-15 can carry it doesn’t say EVERY f15 can carry it, also kinda useless weapon anyway
Because its not said “this can be used on every F-15”, its “we mounted this on the F-15E to see how it affects aerodynamics, then we will test it on the F-15K that is capable of firing it”.
Theres a big difference between mounting and being capable of using it. There’s a Thai Trainer Harrier with an AIM-120 mounted on it but it obviously cannot use it because it doesn’t have a radar nor was it ever integrated on the AV-8S. The AIM-120 was mounted on it after retirement and in a hangar (?) with other retired jets.
So can we remove the Yak-141 since none of the configurations are similar, and the weapons, IRST & radar only planned, or known to be wooden mockups.
So in effect there is no configuration that demonstrated both simultaneously.
and another person that dosent understand that production/ service aircraft are treated differently from prototypes
so lets remove the guns from the xp-50, xp-55, kikka and ho-229
prototypes will get what they were intended to recive in service
production aircraft will only recive what they got in service
And how many prototype airframes were ordered for the F-15E program, None.
You will not find any registration for XF-15E’s. There is only the TF-15A (F-15B) converted to serve as demonstrator airframes because none were ordered for the program.
And besides if it’s not an TF-15A(known to be similar to the F-15A), or notionally similar to the F-15E why modify and use it for testing as representative production aircraft for the developmental studies.
So then why does, the F-5C have flares? or the F-5A have MER’s it was only ever Ground tested and not certified for the production airframes.
The Yak-141 has detailed documentation showing what it would’ve gotten had it carried on into service. It was a prototype and is therefore held at a different standard.
But even if the F-15E and Yak-141 were held to the same standard, the F-15E has never been planned to integrate AGM-84 as far as your sources show. It was mounted (without avionics integration) to test aerodynamics for the F-15K. The F-15K would have the avionics needed to be tested. As a result, the F-15E was never planned to be able to use the AGM-84, and therefore would not receive it in game as it was never planned nor was it actually integrated.
In reality though, the F-15E in game represents a service aircraft. Service aircraft get things based off of technical compatibility rather than planned integration. So, even if it was planned to get AGM-84s and it never fell through, it wouldn’t qualify as the F-15E represented in game would need a modification that it never got in service.
This is true; but the question is why it isn’t in the F-15E, which it’s proven it can mount via Boeing news, effectively the same reliability if not more reliable as the Kh-38 source.
Yes, but again the question is the F-15E specifically, which STILL doesn’t have it. Kind of the point of the frustration here. I’m not asking for the F-15A and Cs to get it; just the E.
And before people go “oh but the avionics” (which I’m 95% sure it has mounted before) who says every Su-27/30 has the avionics? The brochure says it can be mounted, not that it would have the avionics needed to actually use it. Therefore in my eyes, this is nothing but a double standard
Can you not see the row that mentions the AGM-84 Harpoon by name? Is that somehow not a planned addition capability?
What specific avionics is the F-15E lacking? As mentioned previously the SLAM is composed entirely of off the shelf modules that the F-15 already supports, with the AGM-65 / GBU-15 providing the IIR seeker and Datalink module. and the Harpoon itself handling Guidance and post launch support.
Again F-5A MER & F-5C Flares. or are we going to pretend that the F-5 didn’t see service. Should I make a report for the AIM-9C or AIM-4.
they hate to see the US get anything lol
First where does this image come from? Reverse searching just shows pictures from you and a reddit post. There is nothing here showing its a credible source.
This I’m not 100% sure about, but I’m telling it to you how it is. Your source (the one I was talking about) has zero proof the F-15E is capable of firing it. If you have proof the F-15E and F-15K use the same avionics (or that it wasn’t changed), use that in a bug report to show technical compatibility rather than “The F-15E mounted it in an aerodynamic test.”
No idea about those. As far as I’m aware they’re ahistorical and show also be removed.
@quartas121 I would rather the US gets it than not. Mavericks are pathetic and if the Harpoon is able to be launched by other Maverick carriers, that opens up A LOT of possibilities for other nations (including Japan, which I play (F-15JSI, maybe F-16C/D IDN / F-16Vs))
both use ADCP no?
