Because it’s currently the US’ chief BVR aircraft which will obviously draw eyes from other top BVR aircraft like the EFT, it’s common sense, not to mention any variant of the F-15 in service today simply won’t be an airframe from before 1990 because none of them have that sort of service life, on top of the MLUs and Software updates still make it a competitive aircraft, just not quite up to the challenge provided by European 4.5 gen fighters (outside maybe the gripen since it has a limited hardpoint capacity)
I still can’t comprehend this argument that US airframes are from 30-50 years ago and still being flown today, the first variants of the f-15 and 16 were either upgraded, sold or mothballed decades ago and to sit here and whine about how old US aircraft are compared to competitors while fielding airframes that are the same age as the competition is just plain idiocrasy, truly a display of the intellect of US mains. It really doesn’t matter how old an aircraft is if it was built at the same time as a competitor, it’s like saying you are stuck driving a mustang from 1975 (when you can just go and drive one from 2024) and complaining about being beaten by another car from 2024
In most situations it is simply better and easier to perform in the EFT than the raptor, realistically if I were Air Policing, CAS, Anti-Ship, BVR, QRA, SEAD, CAP, literally any role outside of sheer air superiority I would rather be in the cockpit of a Eurofighter because it’s simply the better platform for a ‘swing role’ and still beats every virtually other airframe when it comes to consistency and reliability.
One on One, although I’d personally rather the F-22 over the EFT, I can get this. The F-35 I especially understand.
However.
There are currently 600 EFTs in all of Europe, with a planned 680 total. In the US alone, there are 630 F-35s, with a planned total of well over 2,000. One huge benefit is that not only do we have a good aircraft, we have a LOT of them. And the pilots to back it up. While the EFT may be “great” (although I disagree), it lacks both the numbers and pilotage to back up of more were ordered. The F-35 is also somewhat simple to maintain; needing what is roughly 5 MMH/FH, while the EFT from the consensus I have gathered seems to sit at around 9-10. By the time you have serviced two F-35s, you have finished servicing your first EFT.
Of course, none of this, the simplicities, the complexities, the cost, the cost, the numbers, are reflected in a game like this. Logistics, maintenance, all the most important things in the real world- they don’t reflect. So of course, in a game like this, the F-35 will do much worse. However, In the real world in a real circumstance, there are absolutely reasons to use the F-35 over the Typhoon.
It is also important to consider that the US usually runs it’s rounds and trainings and scenarios with its jets at a natural disadvantage to figure out how to make things better. Yes, the Raffle/EFT/etc. may have beaten an American F-22 or F-35, however odds are there was an intentionally disadvantaged American plane at the helm (which I understand is important however it also just needs to be recognized, as people will go and say "Raffle beat the F-22!!! Without understanding context).
1 Like
Well F-15C gets 8x Aim-120A now
And same with the F-15J(M)
Although the japanese only tested Aim-120B so hopefully gaijin will correct that
1 Like
Is it at all worth pointing out that the F-16C is missing a number of items of ordnance like the GBU-39/A & AIM-9X for example, that would / should be present for a configuration circa 2006.
Except for the fact that the US has sufficient airframes, pilots and infrastructure in place so that requiring an airframe to be able to do all of them is unneeded, and the relevant airframes that would handle any specific mission probably outdo the Eurofighter, Take the A-10 for example; It would almost certainly out do them in relation to CAS, Interdiction and Search & Rescue related mission sets due to extended time on station and sheer ordnance count (especially with the A-10C receiving 4x BRU-61A/A capability, providing access to 16x GBU-39A/A, -53/A and AGM-187A).
You have the B-1B, B-2, B-21, B-52, F-22, F-15EX & F-16V-7x, F-22 & F-35, S-3, AV-8B as well that would have similar advantages with their own, which only further magnify considering the scale at which they could be employed to support one another.
Requiring everything to be able to self-escort wastes performance and money that could be better spent elsewhere, specialization to a degree is important. But knowing where you can save on expenses is key.
You also get ordnance like the RGM-184, AGM-88G, AGM-187A that have recently really improved the performance of a internal only loading for the F-35 for their particular relevant target sets, I’m sure that whenever the other TR-4 stores turn up things are only going to get more interesting, though I do to some degree foresee similar problems being caused due to bay dimensions again, as happened with the AIM-132 and the F-22 and its impacts on stagnating ordnance and interoperability going forward.
2 Likes
A 2024 Mustang is very different than a 1975 Mustang. A Mustang designed in 1975 but updated for 1980 will still be based off the 1975 design. It will still be limited by the base design. The only thing in common between a 1975 Mustang and a 2024 Mustang is the name.
There are limits to what can be done to upgrade an existing air frame. There were discussions to update the Raptor with some of the tech from the F35 program but it was too costly.
1 Like
The Hunter was introduced 5 years after the Sabre, and the Gnat 10 years later.
By the time the Hunter was 2 months in service, F100 Super Sabre was introduced
2 Likes
I want gaijin add AIM-9M-8 & AIM-9M-9 for USA fighter aircraft top tier at 13.0 - 13.3 someday
Irrelevant, they are still a much older design.
Obviously if the USAF got some newly manufactured Curtiss P-36s (extreme example), it wouldn’t matter if they’re made in 2024 or not, they’re not gonna stack up to a fighter designed and originally produced in the 70s.
In comparison, the Rafale only came a mere 4 years before the F-22, and it stands absolutely no chance in BVR, with WVR being a tough ask as well.
1 Like
depends on the weather and IRSTs
most aircrafts equipped with it can guide a fox 3 through datalink at 70+ km, so yeah
1 Like
No. Let’s put it in perspective, the youngest F-15Cs still in service today were produced in 1986, just shy of 40 years ago. You can upgrade the systems significantly and the flight performance to a degree, but you can’t compare an airframe literally designed with a slide-rule to one done with CAD and computer simulation
1 Like
Also if its known (or expect) that they will be fighting or not, IRST range is somewhat reduced at lower altitudes( diffraction & and absorption more significant due to higher fluid density), and significantly by not flying supersonic(Skin heating), take for example the performance of the AN/ALR-23 IRSTS from the F-14.
And that doesn’t take into account any potential Signature control features that may or may not be present(e.g. Active cooling using on board Fuel as a heat sink, or variable / high bypass ratio engines), though it is certainly likely to be more reliable than the radar at range.
2 Likes
not at all, it’s closer in relation to the aim7M than the aim120 if anything being designed at the 203mm standard and designed to fit into places aim7s already had (they even planned it for their F4s but that got canned for cost reasons post cold war). It also went into service around the same time so unless they had a time machine that’d be hard.
It will have range advantages over an early amrram but that’s also because its a singifignatly larger missile. This means it can both have more fuel and a more powerful seeker with the same technology, but of couse the downsides of extra weight and not being as small and flexible as the amraam (which can even fit on the wingtips of an F16). Just differnt design rules and tradeoffs.
Only in this case the AAM-4 is a domestically developed and manufactured missile from Japan for Japanese service Aircraft and U.S has no claim to it whatsoever
well rather funny the AAM-4 was based off an AIM-7M just that they did their own stuff in there specially in the electronics, making it stupidly good for a first attempt on an ARH, the missile overall performs pretty similarly to an AIM-7M but with really good turn rate for how heavy it is, aswell as having a decently good range too