the F-15 on display there still isnt the F-15C GE we got in WT
that is all iam saying
1 Like
It’s an F-15C, maybe it doesn’t have APG-63v3 but at the end of the day it’s still an F-15C
ANG airframes are a blight on the US air tree
/s but only like 90% /s
you should know that there are differences between the F-15Cs
the original F-15C is different from the F-15C MSIP, which has differences to the F-15C MSIP 2 which again is different to the F-15C GE
it is like saying the Mig-29M 9.15 should have the R-77-1 because the Mig-29M 9.41 does
You can open the comments in this video and see plenty of cope about F-15EX should actually have similar performance to the F-22
Spoiler
There’s an irony for you to say this after saying the IA (an EX type) and EX are two different F-15s, but two different F-15Cs are the same
0 irony. F-16C PoBIT is still a block 50/52 despite getting most of the upgrades of a block 70 since it is an upgrade of existing jet. Same with the F-15C.
Ok then which is shown in the picture. It has to be post MSIP II and very likely does have the APG-63v3 based on when it was taken
I wouldn’t necessarily want it because I would personally still run HARMs on those pylons, but it can do it. 4 HARMs + 20 GBU-53s is already insanely good, especially for nuke thunder.
2 Likes
What’s the source of that first picture? Not seen it before and that’s a strange config for a mudhen, so wondering if it’s an Eglin jet - looks like it is, and the training use BRU-61 would back that up. Second one is also an Eglin jet, and the results of that were that the BRU-61 creates a separation risk as far as I’m aware. Problem was specifically with the BRU-61, not the munition type - so it’s SDB I/II agnostic.
I’ve got no clue what evidence was used to give the F-15C SDBs ingame, but I certainly cannot find any that indicates that they are actually capable. There’s no linked bug report in the Heavy Cavalry changelog, and I couldn’t find a bug report on the issue tracker either - I think it could be a case of Gaijin just adding it to give the aircraft some reason to remain relevant?
What I can say with absolute certainty is that the E is not cleared for BRU-61. Don’t know about the EX, but I know that the trials did not result in it being successfully cleared on the mudhen. That is directly from an F-15E WSO. It’s pretty common knowledge aside from that.
@Stona_WT I’ve bugged Smin enough so I’m bugging you this time - would you be able to find out what evidence was used in Heavy Cavalry to give the F-15C GBU-39s internally please? There is absolutely no evidence that I can find that indicates it, only evidence to the contrary.
I’m not actually sure where it originally comes from. I just copied it from a bug report on the bug reporting forum, and if I do a reverse image search, it has showed up a couple of times in the forums here as well (here’s one example, it’s all the way down at the bottom of this message). I can also find it in this news article with it, but it’s just captioned “Illustrative photo of GBU-39. Photo from open sources” so I have no idea where they got it from either
Gaijin also tends to be a bit selective on whether or not they care about that. There are some planes where they have been given a munition that was risky to use IRL, with Gaijin justifying it with “it can still use it tho”. And other cases like the A-10C where it can’t carry the sniper pod with mavericks because some ANG units have a rule to not do that because it messes up the paint on the sniper pod…
Does it apply to the AGM-187A as well? Because there are also a few pics out there of F-15Es carrying them on the wing stations during testing with them.
Yeah I found that a bit odd as well, AFAIK the F-15Cs were designed with the same philosiphy as the As, “Not a pound for air to ground”. The only exception being more recently with the APKWS being integrated. While the APKWS can do A2G, its primary purpose for being included on the F-15Cs is to be a lower cost interceptor vs drones.
First picture looks like an Eglin jet to me so let’s just put that one aside especially without a clear source.
Do you have any examples of that? In the case of the F-15E, it’d require changes to the aircraft to be able to employ on the wing stations as far as I’m aware as SWP would need to be updated.
No idea, but those are also Eglin jets. It could be that it is being trialed for a different operator with different requirements, or investigating whether or not it’s worth trying to adapt the BRU-61 to work on the wing stations if deemed worthwhile? No clue. LM’s brochure only depicts an eagle with them on the CFT stations, and I can’t find any images except for that one.
Yesn’t. They were capable of it, but load crew never even trained for it - and as far as I’m aware air crew didn’t either.
Called it.
with how APKWS performs in game I would never have guessed
by this logic, couldn’t the US F-15EX use Derby’s, spice 250, etc?
The same can apply to IA with stormbreakers , jagmJAGM, etc
Why pick and choose?
American mains would whine about exclusivity and the rest
The 3 or 4 israeli mains would happily accept
Israel possesses AIM-120Ds for it’s F-35 fleet, this was a total waste of a report
Wdym? Its still labeled not a bug right?
The pettiness some people have…
The most obvious Not a Bug ever.
Not really. There’s really no top tier system that America has that is exclusive.
What US does have to offer is a lineup of very competitive vehicles.
At this point I kind of given up on exclusivity for the US because due to the inconsistent technical compatibility standard.
I wouldn’t mind seeing brimstones, spices, dirby, etc in US TT. Unpopular opinion I know.
2 Likes