Updated;
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/zdfjZ3IlRdQ0?comment=v9dHMURxfqo8msCqhsOhAY43
3 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ivfZtB6B7Gy7
F-15C should be 300 kilos lighter
3 Likes
For some reason gaijin believes that is weight without “CFT internal equipment”. Despite McDonnell product support digest states that all F-15Cs from very first have CFT equipment integrated
I’ve seen in the past bug reports on it that the specified weight was without pilot and gun ammo or oil. In this source it is specified that that is the operating weight. 29000 lbs with ammo, pilot, oil and disposable fuel.
Radar range is also shit form 160 NM or 300 km instrumented range to just 120km. No supersearch or anything interesing. If they don’t fix my beloved F-15’s radar, I will pull an “American main” and request the AN/APG-82(V)1, although I see gaijin butchering that radar too :(
You could only do 82v1 for the E sadly
1 Like
Sadly?
F-15E is better than any F-15(besides the I), although i love the C, the E is simply better. With the arrival of the 9X for ground i can only expect them on planes by this winter update. There goes the need to turn. Hell, give me the EX. Turning better than the E and with more missiles.
well i would also like to see it on the C, i dont mean E is bad i mean its sad theres only one variant where you can ask for the radar to be swapped to 82v1 (everything else has it from the start)
1 Like
We can always ask AESA radar equipped F-15C version.
Already too late
But with double pylon racks - maybe
With the JHMCS present on the C, we can request the AN/APG-63(V)3 and the dual racks because muh SU-27
Those double racks aren’t from the F-15EX btw, it has a max of 12 missiles
2 Likes
The max, and what it is operationally cleared for, are two very distinct things. The maximum we know an F-15 can carry is up to 22, MAYBE 24 in a war thunder-esque loadout. Obviously it is unrealistic to see them equipped with so many in real life.
2 Likes
If you give it the AMBER racks that were proposed for the F-15C 2040 then sure maybe, but that wasn’t proposed for the F-15EX and Boeing themselves say it carries a maximum of 12 AMRAAM. If we’re using that logic then the F-15C can get 16 AMRAAMs right now.
1 Like
Su-27sm and su-30 both get the double racks of the su-35s, I don’t see why f-15 ex can’t also get the racks of the f-15c. OFC the only difference is that the racks on the f-15c weren’t functional, which is a pretty big thing for wt
Additionally, there is a single website source from Boeing stating 12 missiles but this was already confirmed by other officials as not being the upper limit - only the current cleared operational limit pending further testing.
3 Likes
Of course it COULD get it, but claiming that the EX has them is the issue here. Every F-15 in service could have double the AMRAAMs if someone paid for integration. I wouldn’t be upset if Gaijin decided to add them in some form.
1 Like
Which officials if you don’t mind me asking? And yeah, it COULD get more.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ivfZtB6B7Gy7
can yall boost this a bit. Might get the American closer to the Japanese one
Is there a dedicated thread for the AGM-65? Couldn’t find one, so as this one was used for it a bit in the past, I guess I’ll post it here for those interested.
Anyways, seems that the rumored AGM-65 fixes from the leaks was only limited to the tracking rate of the laser variants and FoVs of the IIR ones. Sadly nothing yet on drag and rocket engine. So I went tinkering a bit myself.
Calibrated using AGM-65G graphs from the AV-8B tactical manual and 3 datapoints for sealevel. Not a lot of tested points at this moment either, but it took quite a while anyway. Might update post with more datapoint to test against.
Performance according to manual calibrated against (all sealevel M0.9):
6.7km – 20s – ~282 m/s
9.15km – 30s – slightly over 244 m/s
13.1km – 50s - less than 213 m/s
Live performance:
6.7km – 23.1s (+15.5%) – 216.6 m/s (-13.2%)
9.15km – 36.0s (+20%) – 162.5 m/s (-33.4%)
13.1km – could not reach target, crashed at 11km
Tweaked performance:
6.7km – 19.9s (-0.5%) – 281.4 m/s (-0.2%), interestingly this one overshot the target slightly
9.15km – 28.8s (-4%) – 247.2 m/s (+1.3%, but it has to be a bit higher)
13.1km – 47.3s (-5.4%)-- 190.6 m/s (-10.5%, but it has to be lower)
Loft wasn’t touched, as at least visually it looked very similarly to what it is supposed to do as described in another weapon delivery manual. It gains ~700m in altitude at sealevel at long range launches and M0.9 speed, which corresponds to the manual as well.
Videoset of one such test:
(idk what happened regarding the audio, also don’t mind the damage, it was intentionally set to really low)
Spoiler
Original:
Tweaked:
TLDR: to get roughly within ~5% or so from manual graphs, with real engine performance inputted, drag needs to be additionally decreased by ~38% to 0.95, whilst wing area multiplier slightly decreases with ~18% (decreasing lift) to 1.25.
EDIT: I seem to have made one major mistake lmao. I accidently left thrust vectoring code in the file, so this is a thrust vectoring Maverick. However luckily it seemed to have made not a huge difference, pretty much same exact performance can be achieved now however with a drag coefficient of 0.98, so a ~36% less than live. This also means the chart for live performance isn’t correct, and it actually performs worse.
EDIT2: I tested it against some extra datapoints of the M0.5 and M0.7 curve, and it actually matches up still within ~5% error. I honestly didn’t think it could match so well. Sadly I don’t think Gaijin would accept this sort of method for bug reporting.
3 Likes
Nice. Gaijob doesn’t care unfortunately