israel i wager considering israel has pretty much no path forward for better f15 variants
USA off of what was said last CM notes and the fact that the 428th Fighter Squadron exists
Sure, however that’s not a post that talks about the immediate future.
It will come to USA in the future, but I doubt it’ll come before F-15EX.
F15EX will likely be 14.3 or 14.7 and the SG will probably before it with the EX under it will be a nice counter to the rafale
F15SG could be foldered under the F15E and next in line could F15EX
1 Like
I wonder if there are any other characteristics that could possibly lead to a performance disparity between these aircraft… I’m sure it’ll come to me
1 Like
there is no images that exist of either aircraft carrying the pylons, this is simply baseless excuse making on your part
Su-27SM was pretty DOA before they buffed it several times lmao
They also buffed the r77 to help the 27sm
his post also fails to mention that most of those aircraft are not 14.3 for a reason, very dishonest
Su-30SM is the worst flight performance above 13.7, and F-18C is among the best general flight performance while having a similar missile count.
F-18C was dismissed by the user that post replied to, and the Su-30SM was praised.
AESA radar was dismissed, and the user’s posts implied mechanical scan was similar to the performance of AESA radars.
There are a lot if inconsistent arguments among the user’s posts that post was responding to, and that question was one to get them to form consistent foundation for their positions rather than switching foundations each time a different aircraft was mentioned.
I understood all of Daniel’s posts in this form: None of these are statements his posts made directly. These are purely my perspectives based on the statements in his posts.
AESA only matters if it’s Rafale.
Good flight performance only matters if it’s Rafale/Typhoon, but not if it’s F-2A, F-18C, or F-15C.
Bad flight performance doesn’t matter if it’s Su-30SM, but does matter if it’s Mig-29SMT.
Missile count only matters if the flight performance is bad, but doesn’t matter if it’s good.
Missile capability only matters if it’s Soviet, but doesn’t matter if it’s American.
Countermeasure count doesn’t matter… for some reason.
The double, and sometimes triple+ standards I’ve seen in those posts I didn’t overtly call out, because I was hoping with my entire soul that they’d pick a lane to use as their foundation.
Some of my views: Top speed doesn’t matter except in high altitude BVR, and escaping.
Acceleration matters a little, but ultimately in an air RB match, acceleration, or thrust, primarily matters toward the end of a match.
Countermeasure count is more opportunities to do reckless tactics.
Missile count matters to about 8 missiles, it will matter a whole lot less if/when pylon drag gets modeled on aircraft.
All top active missiles are competitive and capable, with the ones that use standard fin maneuvering being easier to use for people coming from SARHMs.
And AESA… huge upgrade over mechanical scan radars, absolutely massive upgrade.
Now @Papa_Daniel Nothing of what I said is meant as an attack toward you. It’s a criticism of your posts, and I just want your posts to have a consistent position. I don’t care if we agree or disagree, I just want your posts to be good.
It appears that the case of F-15C GE’s potential missiles is closed due to the findings made by many people here.
Unless Boeing makes an official statement, I don’t expect MRMLs on wet pylons for any F-15, much to my mild annoyance.
Boeing’s even claiming 12 missiles on F-15EX, and 8 of those are in the standard positions, while the extra 4 are on new pylons using the MRMLs.
See:
As for
Quite literally one of the worst flight models of top tier, in every way. How am I supposed to keep reading this wall of text when I’m immediately assaulted with two takes like this in the very first sentence.
3 Likes
@WolfTangoFoxtrot
You mean the exact benefits on Su-30SM that my posts talk about. Which was its PESA radar, and R-77-1 missile.
Those are Su-30SM’s benefits, which are shared among F-15C GE… while the F-15 has superior flight performance, and countermeasure count.
If you think every aircraft worse than… J-10A and F-16I Sufa are “the worst flight models of top tier”… I have a bridge to sell you.
It’s quicker to list the vehicles better than F-18C than those that are worst.
Rafale, F-2A, Gripen, Typhoon, F-16I Sufa, and J-10A.
F-16C and F-16AM performs as well. J-11B and Su-27SM perform okay against them at high speed, but worse at mid speeds and slower.
F-15, Su-34, Su-30SM, F-16C/D Barak II.
I am omitting J-11A as it’s moving to 13.3 next major update.
So that’s 6 platforms better than F-18C, 2 that perform as well, and 6 platforms that perform worse. The F-18C is quite literally in the middle of the aircraft, a median fighter. And the F-18C’s average flight performance among them is above average total.
This isn’t just maneuverability either.
This is accounting acceleration [which includes climb rates], and sustained agility within the context of an air RB match [which means high-speeds rather than the lower speeds of 1v1s].
The F-15 flies better for the purposes of ARB imo
1 Like
I believe it. My preferences for air RB are what works for me, and what works for me is staying subsonic and wasting enemy missiles while gaining ground.
I do that best in aircraft that aren’t large [Su-30SM], or have poor roll rates [F-15E].
However, my tactic is one of many valid tactics, it’s not the only one that works, and will never be that way. It’s probably not even the best, it’s just enough for me to perform above what I want to perform in matches.
1 Like
same with F16…
and from what ive heard thats also true for J11, su27sm, and su30
1 Like
Do you stay low? Also, isn’t the hornet’s loadout not especially suited for close quarters fighting?
One of those features is shared, the other it absolutely does not have. I’ll let you figure out which.
It’s still bad.
This has to be ragebait. The J-10 is maybe valid to bring up, although only the 5th-ish best performing airframe so I’m not sure why it was your go-to. I can’t even begin to fathom why you brought the heavy F-16s into the comparison.
If you’re framing this in terms of duels, you forgot Flankers, excluding the SU-30 (still a far better FM for Air RB), and every other F-16 variant (do I need to say anything). Which leaves F-15C (far better flight model for Air RB), Mirage 2000 (also insanely better for Air RB + MICA for ARB omegalul), the F-15E at least excels in BVR, which really only leaves the SU-34. Yea. The Hornet FM sucks, for all purposes.
It has terrible acceleration when loaded (the literal only reason to play it, missile quantity), climb performance, and ESPECIALLY energy retention. You’ve really turned ragebait into an art form.
2 Likes
I’ve dabbled in high, and can do the tactics well enough, but all my dopamine comes from pushing the enemy low and fast.
Making them feel like their missiles are useless, then getting a low shot high from me as close as possible.
Of course, I do not apply my tactics to this analysis, I take into account high altitude BVR in these discussions even if I don’t prefer it.
F-15C does it best out of the F-15s, E’s just too heavy. Even Su-30SM feels lighter than F-15E despite Su-30SM just being worse than running F-18C, F-2A, Typhoon, or Rafale for those tactics.
Su-30SM can’t do high altitude, and it does low altitude worse than even F-16C.
AESA plays a role in both high altitude and low altitude.
Of the high altitude aircraft, there are some factors: Fast [acceleration], supersonic speed retention, countermeasures, and radar. [Obviously having R-77-1s or AIM-120C-5s is usually mandatory.]
Rafale has acceleration, but it can’t keep its speed, and it lacks countermeasures, so this is stuck staying low.
Typhoon has acceleration and countermeasures, and has okay speed retention. That’s good.
F-15E has acceleration, countermeasures, and speed retention.
F-15C still has acceleration, countermeasures, and speed retention. Just lacks the AIM-120Cs that C GE is getting.
J-11B has acceleration, and speed retention [I know, weird]. It lacks countermeasures though.
@WolfTangoFoxtrot
The F-16I is among the top 6 best performing aircraft in flight performance. Obviously it’s going to be beaten by the big 3: F-2, Rafale, and Typhoon, but it’s up there.
F-18C accelerates from 0 to 1000kph in 35 seconds, same as Rafale, and 4 seconds slower than Typhoon. That’s with each having their full missile loads.
F-18C’s time to 10,000 meters is 65 seconds. Rafale’s is 57 seconds.
F-18C’s sustained turn rate AKA energy retention, is 16.4 degrees per second with full fuel. Rafale’s is 17.2 at 1000kph. Statshark is a lovely tool.
and you like the f18
lol
Yea the reason you feel like things are so contradictory is because you’re out of touch with the meta and what is and isn’t good.
There’s a trinity of qualities that planes must be good in at least two of to be good. Flight Performance, Avionics, and Armament (which can be split into subcategories of quality and quantity).
Let’s take your dichotomy of
The SU-30SM has excellent avionics, and insane armament due to both quality and quantity (best in game for both). It loses out on flight performance but those make up for it.
The SMT has excellent avionics, horrific flight performance, and mediocre armament (mediocre quality base R-77s, bad quantity).
Now apply the same formula the to F-15C GE with respect to it’s fellow 14.3s. (The flight performance is not good, nor is the missile quantity or quality anything more than average at best, all of its missiles are off-meta and are further hindered by the aforementioned flight performance.)
3 Likes