I do think instantaneus turn is underperforming.
I’m only getting lower values than the maximum usable in the SAC.
Spoiler
On other news the underperforming wing strenght has already been reported.
10 Likes
Thanks! I don’t actually expect any magic from the F-15 and try to ignore the F-16 as a comparison after what I’ve heard about that. But I do still believe that it is currently missing power. This also seems evident in the lower service ceiling (16764m to 19812m) and top speed (2656km/h to 3087km/h).
If it is truely missing power this could also explain the turn performance difference people seem to be noticing.
3 Likes
The whole thing is underperforming.
Anyone that thinks F-15a with 4 Aim7M’s is going to fair well against a SU-27 with 6 R-27ERs is stupid. Thats what this whole thing is. Stupid.
If the F-15 is only getting Aim7Ms it should have been in game for a year now. What a joke.
2 Likes
From my Tornado release experience last year we got a incomplete and unfinished flight model. Isn’t it very likely that the whole flightmodel is just not finished? I mean sure you would think that it would be completed but at speeds above 500 km/h it’s doing quite well IMO. Just the low speed turns and wing rip seem unfinished. I mean I don’t know how many reports and tweeks there were after the first Dev Server and at launch day to fix Tornado. Could be wrong tho but wouldn’t be surprised if there are going to be tweeks and updates to the FM before the update drops.
1 Like
Yes of course is just the dev server, weirdest thing would be the FM not changing in the future.
7 Likes
Just use the performance manual…
Don’t forget first pic is with 97.7% trim, you can run the PW100 at 102%(more thrust) without issue. Its not the Vmax Switch(which gives ~10% more thrust)
Is there anything about the radar which is literally not an apg 63?F-15 Eagle: History, Performance & Discussion - #459 by MaMoran20
5 Likes
its super WIP, velocity search somehow has less range than RWS hprf which I found funny, we need to make reports on the correct ranges and lack of a CW illuminator
That is sustained not instantaneus.
2 Likes
I was only looking at available AoA, which seems good / realistic.
ITR does seem to underperform by 1g with ~same mass and altitude
1 Like
Serial production of the ER began in 1985
And the AMRAAM’s (AIM-20) design was frozen in 1979, doesn’t mean it worked the first time.
The only tree that actually sees a meta improvement due to the F-15’s addition is Japan, and even then it’s only once things come down to a duel due to the apparent lack of a HMD and anything with a performance advantage over the -27Ex / R-73 or various F-16 / F-14 mirror match ups due to similar ordnance.
unless a lot of work gets done on the radar, and even then due to how SARH missiles are modeled there is going to be an obvious and easily abuseable flaw, that the performance won’t save.
1 Like
State trials were complete of the missile R-27R/T in 1984. The R-27E variants were already in trials on the Su-27 as of 1983. The AIM-7F didn’t enter service until '76 and the AIM-7M '82. Russia had already been using monopulse seekers since the introduction of the R-23 in the 70s.
It is unfair that the F-15 is stuck with the AIM-7F/M. It is.
However, the whole pointing towards timelines thing is dumb. If they wanted equivalency and not bias towards their side they should ask for equivalent equipment.
The AIM-120A would be a good counter to the R-27ER but it isn’t exactly a 1:1 symmetrical one. It would again have advantages and disadvantages. It would at least be closer to balance than the current R-27ER vs AIM-7M situation.
Fixing the Phoenix might also be a good balancing cue but leaves other countries behind.
6 Likes
There is no mechanism for that though, since vehicle limiting only occurs in RB in full down-tiers predicating reserved rungs at top BRs for unbalanced vehicles to sit by themselves to avoid compression, though limiting their quantitative advantage, I just am and questioning what the next step would be since AMRAAMs aren’t ready yet, considering the response to the MiG-29 doing poorly for all of three days post release was the -27ER, not the R-73, it’s not like they can hand out the -9X or a HMD(to each F-15) so its obvious that the established precedent is not an option for said F-15s, and it runs counter to the later addition of AMRAAM capable variants.
Seriously though what is the next option Skip forward to the F-22, F-35? Restore the balance What of the other nations that don’t have such a wide array of intermediary options so would nominially rely on ordnance updates, and so the next step cases yet larger performance deltas, even if Gaijin were to Hyper-focus on bloating the trees out with minor additions as best they could (e.g. numerous Challenger 2 / M1 variants, with minor variations and tweaks), but for aircraft, at least more so then they already are with the Tranches of C&P airframes that they have been.
The point I’m making is that things are entirely out of order for the way Gaijin’s Symmetric balancing, The only thing the Su-27 lacks is guided A2G ordinance, which is a minor issue and practically irrelevant. The closest performing airframe is probably the F-14, and even then is arbitrarily constrained by a lower BR to couldn’t get contemporary ordnance let alone the lack of utility features like the HMD( VTAS II & -III was trialed by F-14A-90s) and various issues with the radar and other utility features (AN/ALR-23, AN/AXX-1, etc.) to keep pace with the new addition. and the other nations are in an even worse spot since their limited offerings either don’t have the legs or are stuck with Sparrows of all things for the most part.
The entire point of the timeline argument is point out that if things were balanced based on year of introduction / First flight / IOC etc. , practically the entirely of toptier would be the other way around, with NATO / US not having to fight with a 5~30 year handicap would practically smoke the opposition from BVR endlessly past 8.3 or so when missiles show up (AIM-7E-2 or -7F vs R-3R is not an even match up), even with the currently modeled inaccuracies in features and ordnance.
and further in this explicit case, the F-15A in question would be facing off against the MiG-23ML / -23MLD / MiG-21Bis, maybe an early MiG-29 or two depending on which configuration(s) the F-15 is in.
Especially considering for example that there are few modeled differences between the AIM-7F and -7M at this point, many of the potential differences are practically irrelevant, provisions were provided for Countermeasures from the airframes introduction, but they were not fitted until later so for the same reason the ML gets their strake dispenser rack; a hypothetical F-15A (Introductory) / Early could as well.
The Maps, Objectives and Matchmaker causing specific issues doesn’t help either, but those are getting addressed slowly over time and aren’t really something that airframe to airframe balance should take into account.
3 Likes
Yea most of the time F-15s will just try to evade all those 27ers lol
Most of the time, the radars aren’t ready on dev and are just a copy-paste. N001 on the Su-27 seems to be a copy of the N010 (I think), for example.
Bulannikov said that it was decided to issue FOX-3 missiles to all (countries/aircraft who could use them) at once- most likely in the second update of 2024…Therefore, Grippen has a SkyfLash for now…
Why in the second update of 2024? why do you think that?
BVVD told, arh missile come in first or second update 2024, more likely in second
1 Like
Oh I did not know! well those are great news, at least we know they will come soon