F-15 Eagle: History, Performance & Discussion

I don’t know the details

It has ranging capability

Anyone have picture(s) of american HUD IFF symbology?

I remember having seen a picture in the past in which a friendly lock appears as lock box with an “X” inside for an F-15, while for the F/A-18 the word “FRIENDLY” (or somsthing of the kind) is written underneath.

Ive noticed HUD IFF indicators appear to be completely lacking from the game, alongside IFF on an STT lock.

This is a massive hassle in sim where some players play with their radars turned off, or only use them forblast second locks, and use RWR for target identification, seeing as the brilliant minds at gaijin have elected to continue putting copy-paste jets in everyones TT’s. Its hard not to teamkill when often the ONLY way to identify if a target is friend or foe is your unlocked radar screen, as nations like China run both REDFOR and BLUFOR jets (J-11 and F-16 for example), or germany running MiG-29’s despite often being on BLUFOR, or in the worst case, Italy running around with F-16 + MiG-29 + Gripen, almost garanteeing misidentification.


Earlier systems e.g. 'Nam era F-4’s that used the AN/APX-76A (The F-14A uses the AN/APX-76(V), F-14D uses the AN/APX-76B(V) ) should get both a indication on the head down radar screen(a ghost return 1 or 2 miles in front of (below) the radar contact; if using mode 4 a bar behind the contact will be included if they also return the correct code) and a sequence of aural tones (400Hz tone) for both headsets depending on the status of the identification (in-progress, No response( 8 second time out), Fail(Jammed), Pass(wrong mode or code if in mode 4),Correct(Correct mode (either mode 4 type A or B) and code)), though the associated challenging is only able to be performed by the RIO, not the pilot using their hand controller.

The F-15 & F-16 SAC’s don’t seem to specify the specific system that they use. But according to the AN/APX-100 listing it is likely what replaced the -76 at some point and so probably expands on the capabilities of the system to be duplicated on the HUD, I don’t think it was refitted alongside the F-14B’s Sparrow Hawk HUD upgrade package(aka VDIG-R) though, so it may not have said improved capabilities.

1 Like

They should just get rid of all the copy paste jets in Italy, except for Blue for. Get rid of all blufor copy paste in the Chinese tree, China has a great ground tree, good helis, and great air tree without any Taiwanese airplanes (should keep WW2 Taiwanese as it’s the only option really available)

F-15 High AoA/Spin testing, and tailslide.

…the F-15A exhibited outstanding high angle of attack characteristics when compared to any other tactical jet
fighters currently in the Air Force inventory. It proved capable of effective operation at angles of attack in excess
of those attainable by previous Air Force fighters. These excellent characteristics should greatly enhance the capa-
bility of the F-15A to fulfill its primary mission of air superiority….
USAF general, 1976.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

For the pleasure of the ears and eyes.


Alexa play Stressed Out by Twenty-one Pilots


F-15 vs. F-18 from the perspective of an Eagle driver

Overall, the F-18 has a advantage of under 350 knots due to its excellent maneuverability. But the F-18’s weak spot shows up here as well. It’s high drag and less power… in the Eagle I never had a problem slowing down with the Hornet… I could fly around 100 knots and be able to match the Hornet, the advantage I enjoyed was power… even at low speeds I could outrun the Hornet. Accelerating at these low speeds I could get to 100 knots in about 3 seconds, the Hornet around 60 knots in same time. Eventually I was gaining speed and power for a vertical or out rate advantage against the Hornet. But if an Eagle pilot is not good in low speed duels, he will lose to a good Hornet pilot … very fast.

The APG-65 was also better than the early APG-63 too no?

The APG-63 offered better range, and the Eagle’s avionics package gave it better BVR capabilities than both the F-16 and F-18.



(medium target = 2m² target)
Apg 63 is vastly better in the A2A role


Is that confirmed somewhere? I would have expected it to be 5 m2.

If we know that the APG 66 detects a 1.3m² target( T-38) at ~20 Nautical miles

and on the chart the apg 66 has a “medium” target at 22NM and the apg 63 is 3.5x the apg 66s range. You can just work the math out


There’s a reason dcs changed the values like a year and half ago, after like 5 years on the forums of discussions.

This is for a 5.5 m² target. Where the range is of the apg63 is 65NM. Which is ~105km for a 3m² target. Which we know where that value came from(soviet booklet). The fixed it to 85NM, which is 67NM for a 2m² target. On the next pic you’ll see the F15E when it got added. Basically the same range figure at 50%. You can also see the Su27 radar range figure, which is the same as the old F15C radar.

This is how the F15E looks as of now.
That 92NM at 50% throws out 71.5 NM for a 2m^2 target.

Its like they had a dev like our current one and like here, 5 years of proof fell to deaf ears. Dunno if they changed the radar dev on dcs bc the f16, f18s, f15s radar were suddenly changed to more realistic values. Heatblur’s F15E also had work input from SE WSOs which is a factor aswell.


In DCS I tried comparing the game to reality at higher angles of attack and I was surprised that they are quite nicely simulated.

Are there more sources on F-15 radar ranges that can be review?

1 Like

I put everything within the realms of publicly available here

The indication that a weapons delivery manual(81’ and aswell 89’) state that the half power beamwidth is 2.5° and not 3° like it is incorrectly stated in that canadian document gives a clue the document is wrong aswell
2.5° is aswell supported by F14s antenna which is similar, 42 slots and diameter, and mathematically through optical wave theory. With a loss in directivity using amplitude tapering for sidelobes control and/or antenna efficiency parameters


Lmao at those “not a bug” labels.