F-15 Eagle: History, Performance & Discussion

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
2689

I don’t know, that probably refers to where CFT are attached thought

2690

I know that, but with that weight fuel remaining would be something like 6-7 minutes in game which is a laughable amount irl.

Also when CFT are included they seem to be listed

Screenshot 2024-11-20 at 21.59.36
Screenshot 2024-11-20 at 21.59.361524×1904 433 KB

2691

Airframe wise 15A > 15J = 15J(M) > 15C.

15J gets aam3.

Imho the difference will be noticeable since it’s over half a ton of extra weight and the 15A has better engines at dogfighting speeds and altitudes.

2 Likes
2692

They’re very strong in sim air.

The F-15E, besides being very capable in air to air, seems to be the best at what no other jet at top tier really could do well/efficiently, namely clearing battlefields and killing convoys. It does “seem” like BLUFOR teams are winning a lot quicker in sim now, but im not sure if the sample size of games ive had were too small or if other factors were at play.

Their inclusion on other jets also seems to have a lot of ppl running them for battlefield clears on jets that are less efficient at doing so (reduced AAM loads and the likes), such as the F-16’s and the Gripen. Overall, the fact every jet that can run them can run a decent bit of them leads to races to the battlefield objectives among multiple aircrafts at the same time, which is also mildly annoying to me, since I like doing mixed/ground attack runs in my jets, and now everybody is doing it…

2 Likes
2693

There is more advanced ordnance that was additionally referenced for both the A-10 and F-16 reports reports, with the GBU-39A/B (adds SALH seeker to existing SDB-I airframe) “Laser-SDB”, GBU-53/B ( IIR/ MMW seeker w/ HEAT warhead) “SDB-II”, and AGM-187A ( dual MMW/SALH seeker on Hellfire airframe, with later Trimodal (adds IIR detector) variant to yet enter service) additionally submitted for carriage on the BRU-61.

Also with proof of UAI compatibility there is also the potential for the ultra recent SPEAR 3 as well, for select airframes.

But yeah going forward the F/A-18E, F-15EX, F-22 & F-35A & -35C are only going to ramp things up even more.

And ordnance like the AGM-130, APKWS II w/ “APAM” warhead & proximity fuse, JSOW, DMLBG / EGBU, L-JDAM / JDAM-ER / P-JDAM among others are only going to really extend engagement ranges and shorten matches.

Let alone if something like the Hatchet missile, or Submunitions or various fuses, that would further expand the functional radius or GP warheads were to be added.

message-editor_1539103228617-hatchet
message-editor_1539103228617-hatchet1200×675 108 KB

message-editor_1539103524391-pod

1 Like
2694

The F15E lost 120 countermeasures while carrying the TGP, this report was accepted about 3 weeks ago, but so far there has been no news.

2695

Looks like gaijin didnt represent any report, except of speed nerf

2696

The targeting pod covers the panel that countermeasures would go into.
F-15E is supposed to lose that side of countermeasures.

2697

There are photos showing that chaff can be carried on the right side while carrying TGP.

2 Likes
2698

Your post says “lost 120” out of 240… it didn’t say lost 240, and on dev server it functioned correctly.
And I don’t see a screenshot of someone attempting to equip both store positions:

image
image1251×139 40.5 KB

2699

Wrong. It limits that side to using chaff. It should still be able to take 120 chaff & 120 flare. It is a gaijin fabrication, to say nothing of being the ONLY pod the F-15E uses that even has an effect on CM load

3 Likes
2700

I doubt it does.
Worst case it’s a linear change, in which case when bringing the targeting pod you just move the slider in the direction of the starboard countermeasures, whichever direction that is.
image

Best case it updates to 120, and it functions.
Worst case of the best case, they forgot to enable the slider.

2701

When LAU-128 bol pods?

2702

AGM-130A & AGM-130C for USAF F-15E

But F-111F trial AGM-130A only ?

The F-15E used EGBU-15

GBU-54(V)1/B & GBU-54(V)2/B

But 3 days ago gszabi99 add GBU-54(V)2/B

us_500_lbs_gbu_54v2b
us_500_lbs_gbu_54v2b1303×768 146 KB

AGM-154A, AGM-154A-1 and AGM-154C

For example fighter aircraft integrated AGM-154 JSOW

  • F/A-18A+
  • F/A-18C/D
  • F-16C Block 50 (USAF)
  • F/A-18E/F
  • F/A-18C/D MLU 2
2703

You don’t understand what you are talking about. In-game, it literally prevents usage of the left CM blocks when equipping the TGP. This means you are incorrectly limited to 120 CMs with the TGP equipped.

2704

@warthogboy09
Me: “The targeting pod blocks the countermeasure positions when equipped.”
You: “It literally prevents usage of the left countermeasures when equipping the TGP.”

Dude… you literally said what I said.

2705

There is an accepted bug report that states that the F-15E can carry 120 flares + 120 chaff when it has the TGP

2706

As far as I can tell it’s implied by ADA303692 that the F-111F mounted the -130A (Mk.84 2000lb GP Warhead), the -130B (Uses SUU-54 Submunition dispenser loaded with BLU-106 bomblets as the warhead, which completed development but was not procured) and -130C (BLU-109 2000lb, SAP warhead).

But future developments retained backwards compatibility even though the F-111F was to be retired.

I meant more so in the context of the Paveway series, as Paveway itself has a second source (dual source contract, not unlike that for the F-16’s engines, produced either by Lockheed Martin or Raytheon) and so INS/GPS enabled Paveway II kits are referred to as either “Dual Mode Laser Guided Bombs”(Lockheed Martin), or “Enhanced Guided Bomb Units”(Raytheon) depending on their source, due to legal issues surrounding the use of the trademarked term Paveway™ and the subsequent fallout, between the two manufacturers when they were competing for export contracts.

It’s also why there are seemingly duplicated / redundant designations, for example; The (E)GBU-12F/B and GBU-49(V)/B, are not the same item of ordnance ( The GBU-73/B is a further modernized 500lb “DMLGB Plus” kit) but due to diverging product lines the upgrade kits are sufficiently different, even though they would be almost functionally identical to the end user (Pilot / WSO / JTAC, etc.), some of their assembly and support components are not directly interchangeable so are tracked separately for good book keeping.

It gets worse considering that there are also similar kits for the Paveway III series as well, it seems mostly be due to converging requirements and to support any and all permutations in a client nation’s inventory so there is a way to allow them to remanufacture the components to extend their shelf life and double dip on FMS money and keep production lines open.

There would be much more of a difference if I could find a Paveway Flight profile /Timeline, I have one for the JDAM, but it’s mostly about how the trajectory is shaped would be the main reason for having access to both, GPS/INS + SALH stores (IRL cost, and terminal effect is the main decider, as we don’t yet have an APKWS II style distributed detector mounted to the strakes / forward fins that permits additional Nose fuses (e.g. DSU-33 )to be fitted). and it’s subsequent impact on minimum range / LAR.

Though if I had to guess they have to give something to the assorted F/A-18A / -A(+) / -C /-E , etc. That is expected to turn up with the next patch. It’ll be interesting to see if we see something spicy, like the GBU-39A/B or -53/B in the files since that would be a give away, that things are moving forward at pace.

Technically it’s also mentioned in the prior mentioned Thesis as something that was investigated for the F-14D & -14B(U), but It’s not made obvious what happened to said functionality, though I don’t think it reached the fleet.

2707
Spoiler

2.41.0.19 → 2.41.0.20

  • MiG-21bis [SWE]: no.9 fuel tank capacity: 396 → 656 l
  • [Operation] Sinai: high rank airfields changed to sandy ones

2.41.0.20 → 2.41.0.21

  • F-15E:

    • fuselage zero-lift drag coefficient increased from 0.0076 to 0.008
    • zero-lift drag coefficient Mach multiplier curve multiplier max increased from 2.5 to 2.9
      • will mean increased drag slightly before, during and after M1.15
    • thrust adjustments (note, these are at 110% throttle. Blue is new, orange is old):
    • approximate new top speeds by altitude, TAS km/h (blue new, orange old) comparison. Don’t take this as concrete, though! If you want exact numbers, test it yourself.

  • F-15I:

    • fuselage zero-lift drag coefficient increased from 0.0076 to 0.0078
    • zero-lift drag coefficient Mach multiplier curve multiplier max increased from 2.5 to 2.9
      • will mean increased drag slightly before, during and after M1.15
    • thrust adjustments (note, these are at 110% throttle. Blue is new, orange is old):
    • approximate new top speeds by altitude, TAS km/h (blue new, orange old) comparison. Don’t take this as concrete, though! If you want exact numbers, test it yourself.

  • F-100F: RWR: AN/APS-54A → AN/APR-25 (huge upgrade, more bands, more range, rangefinding, basic identifications)

  • Sea Harrier F.A. Mk. 2: RWR: ARI 18228 → ARI 18228/19 (more bands, more range, IFF, better identifications)

  • Tigre HAD/F B1:

    • sight camera position changed
    • bug, due to which target tracking failed outside horizontal -115° / 115° and vertical -25° / 25°, fixed
    • RWR: ALR-400 → AN/ALR-400 (copy-paste after the changes below)

  • Tigre HAD/F B2, Tigre HAP/F, UH Tiger: RWR: ALR-400 → AN/ALR-400 (copy-paste after the changes below)

Why does 15E and 15I have different drag?

2708

According to the F-111F’s manual, it used the AGM-130-A with Mk-84 warhead with TV seeker and AGM-130A-2 with Mk-84 warhead with IR(GS) seeker