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.
4 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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
2 Likes
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.
10 Likes
they hate to see the US get anything lol
8 Likes
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?
I’ve never heard of F-15E using Harpoons, or whether it was a later modification that also came with the F-15K. I’m not going to pretend I know the ins and outs of American equipment. I’m just saying that the source being discussed earlier proves nothing and comparing a service aircraft to a prototype is pointless.
ADCP is the main computer of the aircraft that deals with weapons and other stuff
just doctrine for USAF
Ok, Sure. How would I even produce anything that would meet your nonspecific requirements? Do I need to go get it notarized somehow? Nothing I could possibly do to prove a chain of custody couldn’t be faked.
What exactly would even be accepted here? JEDS designations for the electronics?
Sure, but that’s not going to happen on Technical compatibility grounds, on on service aircraft. (even if it didn’t occur with the specific configuration).
That isn’t technical compat. though. The F-5C predate F-5A modifications to get CMs.
So? The F-5C is still a service configuration. and Said specific airframes remained in service.
There is no requirement for things to be contemporaneous otherwise there are a number of others that could similarly be brought up, such as the MiG-23M’s access to the Strake / Fence countermeasure dispensers (especially considering We get a Russian service configuration, not the export configuration).
It’s not for the EX.
It is for the F-15 Advanced, which outside of its FBW and more modern cockpit is basically a F-15E in its brains.
It’s all ADCP II
If the F-15K is considered an advanced variant of the F-15E thus SlamEr being incompatible with the F-15E, what does that say about the 64E V6 to V1/4s (what Taiwan and Indonesian uses)?
Can we get an actual response on this?
1 Like
There is more evidence to suggest the SLAM-ER is compatible with the F-15E than there is to suggest:
- KH-38 was ever mounted on SU-25SM3 or SU-30
- SPICE-250 was ever mounted on EF2000
- The dual amraam racks on the EF2000 are functional
- The Mirage had the capability to operate the 6Mica + 2Magic loadout
- The F-5C had an RWR
- The Eurofighter Typhoon has recieved an AESA radar in german, italian and british service
Like what exactly are we missing?
8 Likes
Huh? Typhoon’s have flown with AESA, it’s also planned to be a part of the Phase 4 Enhancement upgrade along with other features.
1 (ONE) prototype with the RAF has flown with an AESA radar
there are production typhoons with AESA in foreign service (Kuwait, Qatar)
as for sources that SLAM-ER can be mounted on F-15E we haaveee
an aerodynamic test
a f-15EX brochure
an F-15E brochure
we KNOW its capable on F-15K
the standard of implementation for GJN is if it HAS the capability, and it does considering it uses ADCP which allows for compatibility with SLAM-ER, Harpoon, etc.
like it should just recieve it man if we have SU30/SU25SM3 KH38 and Spice250 eurobomber
9 Likes
I just hoped we could’ve applied the same Gaijin logic like they did with the AH64E for the F15E carrying the SLAM-ER
1 Like