On that note, a full load F-15C with ~20,000kg of weight would have a wing loading of 354 kg/m2.
The F-14B has a wing loading of around 276 kg/m2 at 26,000kg load thanks to the additional lift from the body.
… But anyway, my point is that the thrust to weight is not everything and I pointed out some inaccuracies within your statements. My point regarding the F-4, specifically I’ll discuss the F-4C and the MiG-21SMT… they have similar wing loading and similar thrust to weight. One of the aircraft is significantly heavier as well, but neither performs similarly at all. In the case of the F-14 and F-15, both are fantastic dogfighters, and despite being lighter… the F-15 has higher wing loading and overall a worse design if you want sustained turn rate because it simply doesn’t have the advantages of a swing wing. Neither capitalizes on more advanced aerodynamic design such as relaxed static stability either.
The F-14 has better nose authority, and similar or better sustained turn rate especially with flaps and at usable optimal speeds. I don’t see the F-15 being anything other than variety for the US tech tree without some sort of improved armament over the F-14 as I have stated many times now.
You’re wrong. The devs have stated clearly that the only missiles that will maneuver in combined plane are those that were designed to do so all the time such as magic 2… and in this case the Phoenix. The magic 2 physically cannot maneuver in single plane, and the Phoenix’ guidance system was specifically designed to actively seek combined plane when maneuvering towards target vector as evidenced by the outsider’s view document.
Anyhow, the addition of combined plane to all missiles would not benefit them unilaterally, as only the ones designed to roll to combined plane towards target would do so all the time. Any other missiles would only get that benefit by happenstance due to target position in relation to the missile.
and i think MiG-29M it’s similar for F-15C with 120A/B
MiG Zhuk radar ( like in YAK-141 but better ) up to 8 R-73/77 or 2 ( 4 ? ) R-27R/ER/T/ET + R-73 4/6
and better fly performance
1- it’s real data?
2- no counter for him?
3- the upgrade specifically mentions improvements to multiple aspects of the missile including changing everything to solid state.
Performance improvements against all kinds of targets and including in heavy ECCM indicates improvements in processing power, methods, etc. There is no change in resistance to countermeasures between the AIM-54A and AIM-54C. It also clearly states the AIM-54C is now capable of hitting beaming targets. These are not improvements seen on the AIM-54C in-game.
1 Like
Wing loading is an irrelevancy because we know the actual E-M performance of both aircraft. I’ve stated multiple times what this looks like- the F-14B has a small sustained turn and energy performance at mid to low speeds, while the F-15 has the advantage past that. Both aircraft have identical instantaneous rate performance- they will both deliver a 2000ft radius turn at 15k feet, for instance.
What inaccuracies? You constantly waffle and attempt to counter things, but it’s generally obviously wrong. Like this “better nose authority” thing, which is a lie. The F-15 has the same instantaneous rate abilities as the F-14, and if we take the aircraft’s characteristics into account that implies that the F-15 likely pulls more AoA.
In general less wing but more power and later stall(higher AoA) is a better aircraft. The F-15 has similar turning performance by merit of brute force, and that same brute force means it will accelerate and climb faster, both advantages over the F-14. You are wrong.
The relevancy of the wing loading is that the two airframes are not so similar that you can simply compare them solely based on thrust to weight as I said.
The F-14B has similar sustained turn performance as you said, I’ve pointed out the region where the F-15 has an advantage is not sustainable. The “same instantaneous rate abilities” of the F-14 and F-15 based on documentation is not going to take into consideration the higher G loading and AoA that players in war thunder will enjoy with air RB and mouse aim. Also, the F-14 has demonstrated superior high-alpha capacity over the F-15 in a number of tests and documents.
Less wing, higher thrust to weight at low airspeeds but less overall lift as well. If the F-14 ditches into a vertical fight it may lose to this, but it will also lose to a MiG-29 doing the same thing… I don’t see the point. The MiG-29 definitely hasn’t been dominant over the F-14 based on it’s flight performance alone. It was suffering terribly with horrid winrates and efficiency until the R-27ER came along.
Likewise, the F-14 and F-15 will be nothing but variety unless the F-15 gets something unique in the way of armament as I have said now many many times.
So it was an argument, an opinion. IDK how you’re struggling to realize that testimony is not data.
Aim-54Cs can currently track low flying targets over water perfectly in WT. Even Aim-54As can.
@MiG_23M F-14D is not in game to claim variety.
F-15C will still be 12.3 with an identical loadout to F-14B.
Specifically the AIM-54C received a digital electronics unit, improved receiver/transmitter and target detection device. Later, it had programming to improve ECCM that was completed in 1983-1984.
Note, the improved receiver/transmitter and target detection device are separate of the digital electronics upgrade and mentioned specifically.
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1078877088087552102/1105573438241902735/image.png?width=1539&height=889
Citation
The manufacturer states 25G turn capability
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1105616507968434256/7-644839.png
This following transcript describes the dogfight capacity of the Phoenix;
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1078877088087552102/1119773868828139520/image0.jpg?width=517&height=889
2 Likes
The F-5E, F-4E, and F-4J all added some variety to the game. The F-4S adds variety and a nice premium. Prior to that we had multiple 10.3s of different types all that perform similarly or better to one another and have unique advantages. The same will go for the F-15’s addition. We don’t need to justify it by saying it performs better or worse, has better or worse armaments etc.
1 Like
E-M diagrams plus TWR is closer than just quoting an arbitrary wing loading number.
Yes, if we min-fuel the planes with no weapons and fight on the deck, the F-15’s sustained rate suffers from g-loc. So, uh, don’t do that? It’s not usually a good idea anyways(third-parties), and the F-15’s vertical performance means it should be able to avoid that fight. Also you just do not understand how instantaneous performance works. Once past low speeds, instantaneous rate performance doesn’t change relative to speed(well, actually the F-14 sweep change alters it to be worse than F-15, but that’s unusual). You get a straight line until the lift limit impacts the G limit. So yes, the g limit for both aircraft will be higher, but they will not pull any more rate than the other at the same speeds.
You got schooled pretty bad in the old forums about the Mig-29 versus F-14, and I think that pretty much holds as the F-15 has a very similar set of advantages over the F-14.
You can say however many times you want, but you’re wrong.
Yes, F-15C will add a cracked airframe with a great radar.
That’s the variety.
USA gets its “Mig-29” but better.
Not taking into account all factors of an equation is not the proper way to a solution. You’ll need to consider all available information. Ignoring some of it and pretending you’ve won the argument like they continued to do on the old forum is not going to do anything but derail the thread for… no reason… again.
My original point and I’ll restate it as many times as I need to until it’s acknowledged is that the F-15 will add nothing but variety to the US tech tree unless it is provided some unique set of armament. It’s performance in a dogfight (worse than the F-14s) will not make much of a difference if the armament is similar. It will perform similarly.
If it is given such things as HMS, improved Sparrows, or even AIM-120s it may be placed at a higher BR and suffer further due to it’s performance. What you’re suggesting is that if the F-15 and MiG-29 have similar thrust to weight advantages over the F-14… they should both stomp it? This hasn’t been the case, with the exception of the addition of the R-27ER thus far.
An airframe no better than the F-14 with a radar that doesn’t add any significantly improved features and potentially no improved ordinance… yes… it’s just variety.
1 Like
If you think F-14B’s airframe is equivalent to F-15C & Mig-29 then boy oh boy you’ve bought into some serious myths about the Tomcat.
Wing loading is an inferior form of information to an E-M diagram, everything you could know from wing loading you would know better from an E-M diagram. If you wanted to contest that, you’d need to figure out a bunch of parameters of the F-14 and F-15’s wings and body in addition to the wing loading(lift coefficent at various AoA, critical stall AoA, oswald efficiency factor, Cd0, changes to these parameters from wing sweep or control surface deflection, etc, etc).
You can hold that position however much you want. You’re wrong, and we’ll get to laugh at you when the F-15 becomes FotM, but w/e.
1 Like
Of course the “new” aircraft is usually the hot popular new item, but that doesn’t change the fact that the F-15 really won’t perform spectacularly better than the F-14 without some improvement in armament. Having a slight edge in sustained turn at high speed means quite literally nothing as shown by the F-16 vs MiG-29… the pilots can’t handle it in the first place. We’ve run in circles where I make a valid point, you sidestep it… the sidesteps continue until we get back to square one again. No point in arguing further with you.
Projection much? You’re the one who has been continually retreating and making up bullshit arguments that fall apart. First it was that the F-14B has better sustained rate. It didn’t. So you claimed that because the F-15’s rate speed is higher, it would run into g-loc issues. But your example was rating with 10 minutes fuel on the deck, which even you couldn’t claim was realistic. Then you advanced that the F-14B’s TWR was actually comparable at combat speeds- nope, it was easy to compare the actual weights and performance of the engines ingame to determine that the F-15 will have considerably better TWR. Then you said that the issue was that sparrows would make it less than 1:1, as if that was the arbitrary benchmark(only one person mentioned it, and it wasn’t who you were responding to). That was very silly to do given that F-14 carries the same weapons, and it wasn’t even true either. You’ve also tossed around “nose authority” and wingloading, but nah, both have the same instantaneous rates. Then you were like “oh but WT aircraft don’t have the same g-limits,” which turns out to be irrelevant because instantaneous rates are proportional to speed, so higher g-limits doesn’t change things.
Pretty much this whole time you have spent retreating and raising new arguments to try and compensate for the collapse of the previous one. You have refused to actually engage pretty much any argument once you were called out, which has made this embarrassingly easy tbh.
3 Likes
F-15C would be 12.7 MINIMUM with improved armament. We don’t have 12.3 currently.
At least you state there’s no point in arguing further with an expert.
Curious to know how this actually was in practice. Because stated capability is not often 1 to 1 with reality.
-
Around the time that the AIM-54C was stated to be capable of tackling small low flying targets, the Patriot was said to be capable of defeating SCUD missiles but in practice failed to.
-
Stepanovich has commented on some of these claims of missiles being able to properly target low flying targets, he noted that the R-27 was stated to be able to go as low as 20 meters, but in actual testing, it failed to multiple times.
-
After the introduction of AIM-54C and its stated capabilities, anti ship missile design did not change drastically for about 20 years after, indicating that the AIM-54C capability is exaggerated and likely that more modern newer missiles are finally able to reliably do so. We now have stealth anti-ship missiles to make it harder to intercept.
