The F-15’s Current Performance in War Thunder Feels Incorrect and Unfair

[Code_649]

Super long post, read if you can be arsed

@kevinuncle

I want to discuss the F-15 in War Thunder, specifically the thrust, flight performance, and overall balance. When you look at public data, the F-15’s engines are listed at around 23,770 lbf, which converts to around 10,781 kgf. In War Thunder, the F-15 is only getting around 8,000, which means it is missing a little over 2,000 kgf of thrust. I understand there are factors like airspeed and altitude, but that doesn’t explain why the numbers inside the hangar do not match or why the difference is this large.

F-15A? C? E?

It’s been explained to death that the difference is due to installed (what you see) vs static thrust (“total” thrust) and channel losses.

@kevinuncle

The F-15 in real life could climb almost vertically with enough fuel and weight balance. In War Thunder, trying to replicate that climb feels almost impossible. I know the game cannot allow a lore-accurate F-15 because it would probably be a monster, but the current version feels like it’s performing below what it should, not slightly below, but noticeably below.

Literally every jet can do this up to a certain point? Let’s not try and make the F-15 something it’s not–it follows the same laws of physics as everyone else

@kevinuncle

At the moment, whether I fly the C variant or the E variant, Eurofighters can keep up with me in a climb, out dogfight me, and out missile me. So it feels like there is no upside to flying the F-15 at its BR. Yes, eventually the F-15 will build up speed and start outrunning something in a straight line, but that isn’t much of an advantage when maps are small, and most engagements are already happening inside missile range and inside maneuver ranges.

Gosh, it’s almost like the Eurofighter is a do-it-all multirole QRF interceptor and that’s what it was designed to do. Out of all NATO jets bar Rafale, it is always going to be the first to get up to speed + altitude no matter what. The good thing about F-15s is that it eventually could outrun the Eurofighter with its higher top speed.

@kevinuncle

This brings up another issue, which is that the maps feel too small for modern aircraft. With things like the MiG-25 coming, the current RB maps don’t feel right for it. The Sim maps, in my opinion, are big enough and create good gameplay because it doesn’t instantly turn into a furball. When we get a Sim-size map in RB, which happens sometimes, it feels much more rewarding. You actually get BVR combat, and sometimes it’s just you and one other person trying to outshoot each other before a dogfight even begins, and that feels more like how these jets should play.

No complaints here, however EC maps are exactly the kind of place planes like the MiG-25 (well, there really isnt any other plane like it) can shine.

@kevinuncle

Another thing is the BR spread. The F-15C Golden Eagle only really gets better radar and more countermeasures compared to the normal 13.7 F-15C, and if the standard F-15C didn’t get constant uptiers, it would actually be a lot more enjoyable to play because you wouldn’t be thrown against Eurofighters and Rafales every match. Fighting MiG-29s, Su-27s, or even Su-30s still feels like a fair fight and possible to win, but once you start constantly facing Eurofighters and Rafales, in my opinion it becomes one-sided. That is why it’s difficult to understand why both the F-15C f15c golden eagle and F-15E feel left behind, especially with the F-18E coming which looks like it will have more missiles and more thrust according to what the hangar shows on the dev server. It makes it hard to see the reason the F-15 variants stay where they are when they keep running into aircraft that simply outperform them in almost every area.

13.7 F-15C might struggle in an uptier, but the F-15C GE wouldn’t–not really. Yes, it’s annoying when France isn’t on your team (it rarely is, unless you squad up with a friend who has Rafale) but the name of the game with the GE is to survive, not flying head-first into delta canard or 14-missile Russian danger.

Sorry? F-15E? Left behind? It’s one of the only USA jets capable enough to face the Eurofighters and Rafales. Sure, it won’t out dogfight or out-WVR them (as it shouldn’t…) but it can still hang with the big boys.

@kevinuncle

And while this isn’t the main topic, I want to mention that I hope the Super Hornet doesn’t get given to nations like the UK or Germany, because they already have the Eurofighter. In my opinion, they don’t need another top tier aircraft when they already have one of the strongest. I also don’t think China needs an Abrams when they already have their own MBTs. Gaijin added Taiwan to China’s tree, yet Russia cannot get Ukraine in theirs, even though a lot of players already use Ukrainian flags on Russian vehicles in-game. Since flags can now be changed, players could simply choose the Ukrainian flag if they wanted to, so the decision still feels inconsistent. and now that we can change flags, players could switch them anyway. That’s a small part of this topic, but it still feels inconsistent.

1. Australia used/uses Super Hornets, so probably will be given to GB either now or at some point. Reasons like “they already have the eurofighter” makes no sense as nations are bound to have 2-3 vehicles at each BR especially at top tier. For example, Britain is already (or will be?) topped out of Tornados, so the only real additions to flesh it out is either Super Hornet or the Indian Su-30MKI or Rafale. It’s nothing special and only really gives Britain/other nations a further CAS option.
2. As with all things with a sensitive political nature, Gaijin tries not to immediately jump from the frying pan and into hellfire by doing what you’re describing. Yes, the USSR tree is likely where that should go, but other people will see it differently. Also, deliberate team killing of players for having such flag(s) still happens.

@kevinuncle

To sum it up, I don’t want the F-15 to be unbeatable. I just want it to perform closer to what it is supposed to in real life, and right now it does not feel fair. The climb, the thrust, the energy retention, the BR position, and the map size all make the F-15 feel weaker than it should be when compared to the aircraft it is forced to fight.

Bit of an incorrect summary :p but it does perform “closer to what it is supposed to” at present.

[Cravenplayz]

To be fair the F-15 is a 1970s air frame compared to modern Euro canards of the 2000s. You cant expect and plane older than its competitors by nearly 3 decades to be very close to its competitors, no matter how many upgrades. Not saying its not Unfair for the F-15 though, the EFT now has a better radar, more missiles, and a better FM.

[Beeschurger]

@Cravenplayz

the EFT now has a better radar

Maybe the AESA variant on the devserver but the CAPTOR M is pure ahh.

[Alpharius11348]

@Beeschurger

ill admit its not my forte and I might have got this one wrong, but isnt that issue of istalled vs static thrust?

it is but, the in game static thrust is ~20% bellow the uninstalled thrust which is absurd

most planes in game this is in the 5-10% range, and given the size and design of the F15s intakes it should be on the low end of that range

[Alpharius11348]

@Code_649

It’s been explained to death that the difference is due to installed (what you see) vs static thrust (“total” thrust) and channel losses.

and yet nobody has been able to explain why the F15 loses such a high percentage of its thrust
even planes with both smaller intakes and S-bend ducting (both of which should increase their installation losses) lose significantly less thrust

[Beeschurger]

@Alpharius11348

it is but, the in game static thrust is ~20% bellow the uninstalled thrust which is absurd

Well then THAT is actually issue worth of making fuss about and should be bug reported ASAP.

[Toilet_man_3_0]

not to mention they nerfed every f15’s drag soon after the E’s release and limit its mach number to just mach 2.36 due to a cut off in the flight manual

[VALKEN]

Sadly people have tried same for the flight model Its good enough so gaijin just doesn’t plan on fixing it essentially which sucks heavily, shares the same problem as the mig29 and su27 flight models 2 years ago.

[BACKRAGE44428-live]

i think large open ocean maps would help toptier by making it easier to multipath as some planes do rely on it

[Zyranovos]

Imagine how bad it feels to play the Su-34 right now…

It’s in the same situation, but with worse maneuverability, worse top speed, no HMS, worse missile.

[Zannafrancy]

To put this into perspective the al-31f/p on su27 and su30mk2(and sm), looses only 6.7% of thrust, and for the love of good the number is just a coincidence.

[Zannafrancy]

whilst i agree, the su34 is even more specialized for ground strike than the f15e/ex

[Zyranovos]

I mean, kind of, the KH-38MT’s need to be removed, because they aren’t real. The built in system doesn’t use thermals, so it puts you at a disadvantage already. (Not to mention historically GLONASS is absolute rubbish and barely works half the time compared to other GNSS)

But it really is lacking in air combat.

[Bad_Sign]

Side note the F 15 c lost a QRA from wheels on tarmac to 360 (36000ft)to an EE lightning in Germany. It could never out climb the lightning. It lost against the Indian mig 21 Bison 9-0 in the air combat where the F 15 pilot said we were out flown . Only pilot testimonial should be used not notes and manuals created to sell aircraft. British flight manuals use facts not exaggerated figures like the Russians and American’s use.

[MrBombastic8]

thing is that
this is base on the very basic calculation on the intake size and how channel loss works
its quite basic
but gaijin dont take basic calculation or any common sense
they need documents
and well there isnt documents about actual thrust of f15 is there

[Caernarvon02]

[kizvy]

yeah because it’s… meant to be like that?

[kizvy]

it still fairly closely matches performance charts for its acceleration (at least for 15a) - likely the drag is much too low and the engine is much too weak.
courtesy of squishface

[Zannafrancy]

I’m not contesting that it’s low on the al31fp, I’m pointing out that the f15 is very much unusually high.

[itango]

@MrBombastic8

they need documents
and well there isnt documents about actual thrust of f15 is there

You mean like this from NASA?

19810006485.pdf

or this?

19780015152.pdf

(don’t put these into AI, you will not like the answer)