F-15C vs F-15E

Hi guys,

We know that Razbam is working on the F15E with an undefined release date. Some guys are also speculating about the next ED jet being a full fidelity F-15C.

I'm no expert about the eagle family but it looks like the E can use every weapon the C can. So, except for a tiny little extra drag created by the conformal tank, I cant see how an E wouldnt be the best version to have in DCS if we had to choose.

What can a C do that a Strike Eagle can't ?

Other consideration : when Razbam releases its Strike Eagle, I dont see another 3rd party taking on the C project because sales will have been sucked dry by the earlier release of the E. I doubt people will buy a second module at full price that's so similar and less versatile than the one they already have in the hangar (queue the 10 die-hard f15c fans "a C eagle would be instabuy for me").

As you worked out yourself, the E can do everything the C can do with a tiny bit less maneuverability/speed. That doesn't mean the C will be useless:

- Some people just prefer the simplified FC3 type of aircraft and don't want to be bothered with clickable cockpits and complicated avionic systems, so they will still prefer the C.

- If you just go doing A2A, then there is no advantage in the F-15E.

- And the biggest factor for me: We don't know how well made the F-15E will be. If it's poorly made and full of bugs then it will be no joy either.

The F15C if made a full fidelty module would have a edge in a2a to the F15E due to potential JHMCs and Aim9X integration.

F15E's got them later relative to the C's , and AFAIK it seems the Razbam F15E won't be getting those.

If I recall the E's CFT's are actually fairly draggy (which is why the C doesn't use them very much). Increased thrust helps with acceleration, but when it comes to maneuvering the C has a fair advantage.

The C is also capable of air to ground, obviously not as good as the E, but it's not strictly limited to AA.

If you're interested in historical conflicts, the C is also going to be preferred for earlier timeframes (since it came first) and was used in the air to air role more often.

I don't see why both can't exist next to each other in DCS. We have people interested in the F-14A and different Harrier variants already.

The F15C if made a full fidelty module would have a edge in a2a to the F15E due to potential JHMCs and Aim9X integration.

 

F15E's got them later relative to the C's , and AFAIK it seems the Razbam F15E won't be getting those.

A full fidelity DCS F-15C could also be of a later date without AIM-9X and JHMCS integration...

Also, I have not seen any confirmation that RAZBAMs F-15E won't have AIM-9X and JHMCS.

Correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not a big fan of the F-15(i just don't like it looks). If i would have to choose i would go for the "ED F-15C" instead of the Razbam F-15E. Why?

- F-15C is a single seat aircraft

- F-15E is dual seat

If i remember correct Razbam said they will not add an AI WSO like HB did with Jester. I love the AG role but an dedicated 2 seat Strike Eagle without an AI in the backseat? (i don't fly in MP that often), sounds useless to me. But on the other hand, maybe you can do most things from the front seat, as i said i don't know much about the F-15.

Correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not a big fan of the F-15(i just don't like it looks). If i would have to choose i would go for the "ED F-15C" instead of the Razbam F-15E. Why?

- F-15C is a single seat aircraft

- F-15E is dual seat

If i remember correct Razbam said they will not add an AI WSO like HB did with Jester. I love the AG role but an dedicated 2 seat Strike Eagle without an AI in the backseat? (i don't fly in MP that often), sounds useless to me. But on the other hand, maybe you can do most things from the front seat, as i said i don't know much about the F-15.

I dunno. I get the impression the WSO has been redundant for sometime. In the 60s/70s they were fairly useful, but aside from being extra eyes, they really don't have a purpose (thus being almost completely phased out these days). I mean, think about all the single seat attackers with tpods/radar etc... pilot can do all that stuff just fine on his own with a decent UI in 9/10 other aircraft... so what makes the Strike Eagle unique in that it has to have one? *whisper* Nothing.

Correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not a big fan of the F-15(i just don't like it looks). If i would have to choose i would go for the "ED F-15C" instead of the Razbam F-15E. Why?

- F-15C is a single seat aircraft

- F-15E is dual seat

If i remember correct Razbam said they will not add an AI WSO like HB did with Jester. I love the AG role but an dedicated 2 seat Strike Eagle without an AI in the backseat? (i don't fly in MP that often), sounds useless to me. But on the other hand, maybe you can do most things from the front seat, as i said i don't know much about the F-15.

Unlike the F-14 the F-15E has completely redundant cockpits, so both crewmembers can do everything, including flying the aircraft.

Hi,

I read on these forums that a F-15E pilot can do everything from the front seat and the WSO is only here for better SA and mitigate task saturation. (unlike the F-14 or Tornado with 2 specific cockpits for example)

My first post was published with that assumption in mind. I probably should have mentioned it.

The only "smart" business decision i could see is for someone to release the C first and the same company or another one to release the E a couple years later. I could see myself buying both in that case.

If the E comes first, I'd buy it (if in a decent state of course) but wouldnt buy an upcoming C model unless yeeeaaaaarrrsssss later and probably not until it's with an interesting discount.

My 2 cents.

EDIT : Zhukov and QuiGon posted while i was typing this

razbam's artistic and fm production quality simply isn't up to ed standard regardless of feature completion

A full fidelity DCS F-15C could also be of a later date without AIM-9X and JHMCS integration...

Also, I have not seen any confirmation that RAZBAMs F-15E won't have AIM-9X and JHMCS.

Although razbam didnt officialy confirm or deny it, I have been following the thread, and they said they were using a 1993 publication as the basis of the strike eagle development.

And coupled with some WSO commentary from that thread made it clear that first JHMCS didnt become fielded into strike eagles until around 2009, with AIm9X not being integrated until suite 8 upgrades ( circa 2018 )

so yeah with such recent upgrades for that specific platform, it is highly improbable Razbam will stick in JHMCS and Aim9x, especially when there are other changes regards to software, hardware and other weapons types that were implemented between 1993 and by 2018.

https://www.mountainhome.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1479980/366th-fighter-wing-receives-new-weapon-for-f-15e/

My 2 cents.

The C is obviously the dedicated A/A platform, its lighter and less draggy etc. And more importantly to me its actually a single seat plane.

The E, with the CFT's has a decent bit more drag, its heavier, and then if you add stores it goes south quick. But more to the point, no AI WSO make it a no-go for me. Contrary to what Zhukov thinks, there are really good reasons to have WSO's. I mean the USAF with the most experience with 4th gen single seat multirole fighters at the time decided to go with 2 seat design for the mudhen. So IDK, maybe they had some actual good reasons for that. Like one guy focuses on flying at high speed on the deck, while the GIB does GIB stuff.

And really the E was meant to be a strike fighter and have self escort capability not be an air superiority fighter.

My 2 cents.

 

The C is obviously the dedicated A/A platform, its lighter and less draggy etc. And more importantly to me its actually a single seat plane.

 

The E, with the CFT's has a decent bit more drag, its heavier, and then if you add stores it goes south quick. But more to the point, no AI WSO make it a no-go for me. Contrary to what Zhukov thinks, there are really good reasons to have WSO's. I mean the USAF with the most experience with 4th gen single seat multirole fighters at the time decided to go with 2 seat design for the mudhen. So IDK, maybe they had some actual good reasons for that. Like one guy focuses on flying at high speed on the deck, while the GIB does GIB stuff.

 

And really the E was meant to be a strike fighter and have self escort capability not be an air superiority fighter.

WSO is there for workload reduction. as pointed out unlike F14, the Pilot can do everything a WSO can. There is not the sort of dependency you have in the Tomcat where a pilot can't so much as wipe his own arse without a RIO.

An AI WSO would have been nice but not mandatory for this sort of platform compared to the F14.

IRRC there was a study ( originating with the USMC) that found 2 seater WSO concept is only really offers enough improvements in efficiency and workload reduction to justify the cost of 2nd person is for low level or austere weather condition A/G work. And even so the USMC F/A18D's have a unique role of also specializing as a aerial FAC, as well as performing reconnaissance beyond generic A/G, where the second pair of eyes and someone to manage radio coordination is more nessary.

With regards why the USAF chose the 2 seat for the mudhen is to consider when it was designed. It was designed in the 80s where targeting pods were barely a thing ( and much more limited compared to present day ones) , and at the time there was far greater emphasis on relying on Radar as primary sensor for A/G strike compared to today.

That being said the OP does have a point to an extent. the Strike eagle will appeal to in sales to a greater portion of the community likely because it is a multipurpose plane and because of a more modern digital interfacing.

WSO is there for workload reduction. as pointed out unlike F14, the Pilot can do everything a WSO can. There is not the sort of dependency you have in the Tomcat where a pilot can't so much as wipe his own arse without a RIO.

 

An AI WSO would have been nice but not mandatory for this sort of platform compared to the F14.

 

IRRC there was a study ( originating with the USMC) that found 2 seater WSO concept is only really offers enough improvements in efficiency and workload reduction to justify the cost of 2nd person is for low level or austere weather condition A/G work. And even so the USMC F/A18D's have a unique role of also specializing as a aerial FAC, as well as performing reconnaissance beyond generic A/G, where the second pair of eyes and someone to manage radio coordination is more nessary.

 

With regards why the USAF chose the 2 seat for the mudhen is to consider when it was designed. It was designed in the 80s where targeting pods were barely a thing ( and much more limited compared to present day ones) , and at the time there was far greater emphasis on relying on Radar as primary sensor for A/G strike compared to today.

 

 

That being said the OP does have a point to an extent. the Strike eagle will appeal to in sales to a greater portion of the community likely because it is a multipurpose plane and because of a more modern digital interfacing.

Kev,

I fully get that the systems are redundant full stop. And yes task saturation is the reason, but its a crap excuse to omit a WSO in a "realistic" simulator. Rather than the whole "Ace DCS UberGoober Crew". Look its a one man band! I personally get quite task saturated in DCS depending on what I'm doing in the F18, F16, and JF17, and having flown the F14 its GREAT when I have a human RIO to help out, jester less so. But I'd rather have "Lester the back seat molester" Rather than playing Razcroprose magically do it all F15E strikez eaglez.

But hey maybe the USAF, that had been running low altitude strike fighters in all weather conditions for decades, i.e. IFR at 50ft off the deck in say Germany while getting simulated SAM's tossed at them, though, hey you know what, the pilot needs pretty much all his skill to do that fighter pilot stuff like not running into hills and trees. And I know that the average sortie in DCS for the vast majority of players is basically a nice sunny summers day with no wind and perfect visibility so this doesn't actually mean anything (yup check GAW on a "bad weather" day, literally no strike flying) So this absolutely does not resonate in the least with the average DCS'er.

And yes the Mudhen used lantrin, which isn't anywhere as good as modern pods, and relied heavily on radar, pre-gps nav etc which means the full attention of some dude doing "heads down stuff". And whoa, also running the ECM gear and which well, we probably won't get anyway. And IIRC Raz is doing the 93 version, so fewer fancy toys. Though at a guess it will be a mix-master just like their nebulous M2k and harrier verisons.

Honestly I think if we consider this Dev specifically, most people have it backwards.

I would actually think about buying a Raz F15C, systems wise its a bit more of stretch than the M2K, but not a ton. And honestly I think they have done an "OK" job on the 2k, even though its taken them a great many years to do it, and there are still plenty of things that are broken, wrong, missing. And really this is main reason I'll probably get their Mig23 at some point, I think its basically gonna be a M2K with a russian skin. Though I'm sure I'll be amused by the FM...

F15E, which is way more complex, and IMO really needs that backseater (maybe adapted from the Mi24 gunner AI). From Razbam, lol no, I think they have shown with the harrier that they are incapable of making a complex modern fighter aircraft at anything other than a near arcade systems level, take a look at how their entire bombing model works, or how the ARBS is modeled (or rather isn't).

Harli, are you a former wizzo? Sounds like you're trying awfully hard to justify 200lbs of dead weight.

Harli, are you a former wizzo? Sounds like you're trying awfully hard to justify 200lbs of dead weight.

LOL, nope. I don't even know how to operate anything in back of the F-14, that's Lester's job.

But at the end of the day I want to operate the fighter how it was done IRL, or as close as possible. And in the USAF, they guy in the front wasn't the one dropping bombs or doing any of the backseat stuff. Whether or not he "could" is pretty irrelevant because he didn't. So that basically puts me in the odd spot where I have to go find a reliable human "lester" which given my F14 experience is pretty hit or miss.

The other thing about the F15E, is that I observe a pretty disturbing trend with the 3rd parties and ED.

On the one hand you have teams like HB, and Deka basically raising the bar for DCS, be that with Jester and an actual working multicrew or their own ground mapping radar in the viggen (in both cases something ED has yet to accomplish), or Deka with releasing a basically complete 4th gen fighter (again, ED isn't there yet) and giving away a ton of free Chinese units. And on the other hand you have razbam that basically thinks this is a limbo contest and whats the absolute bare minimum that suckers will buy because they have some pretty screenshots and whats the bare minimum effort that they can put into "maintaining" it. And please don't bring up the mirage, the ADA paid them to do that.

I think the point on the back seat being necessary to simulate the real world use of the plane is a good one. I'm firmly on the single seat side when it comes to preference. It's easier, more engaging, and more effective in my opinion. The Tomcat confirmed that for me. Still I like having the ability to rely on Jester in a two seat aircraft (though I absolutely wish for the ability to control things for myself in situations where Jester is underperforming or totally useless, even if the pilot wouldn't be able to do these things). The Strike Eagle won't have this problem since the front seat can do it all, but that's not how the real plane was flown. It would be nice to simulate that in a simulator.

I think the point on the back seat being necessary to simulate the real world use of the plane is a good one. I'm firmly on the single seat side when it comes to preference. It's easier, more engaging, and more effective in my opinion. The Tomcat confirmed that for me. Still I like having the ability to rely on Jester in a two seat aircraft (though I absolutely wish for the ability to control things for myself in situations where Jester is underperforming or totally useless, even if the pilot wouldn't be able to do these things). The Strike Eagle won't have this problem since the front seat can do it all, but that's not how the real plane was flown. It would be nice to simulate that in a simulator.

Exactly.

And honestly once HB gets the A/G component of Jester done, I'll probably fly the Tomcat as a striker as a stand in for the eagle.

I also, don't see much of a reason for Raz not license Jester and adapt it for the F15 either. Aside from their own inflated ego's. Hell I think ED should just adopt it as I'm sure its a general enough API or pay HB to turn it into one.

My 2 cents.

 

The C is obviously the dedicated A/A platform, its lighter and less draggy etc. And more importantly to me its actually a single seat plane.

100%. The F-15C is the only pure air to air, single seat U.S. fighter available in DCS. I won't purchase the Strike Eagle (I love the strike and WVR capabilities of the Hornet). An F-15C full fidelity would be a day one, pre purchase for me, though.

100%. The F-15C is the only pure air to air, single seat U.S. fighter available in DCS. I won't purchase the Strike Eagle (I love the strike and WVR capabilities of the Hornet). An F-15C full fidelity would be a day one, pre purchase for me, though.

Yeah, its an odd choice to do the E vs the C from Raz, again biting off way more than they can chew IMO.

If you look at it, the M2k, Mig19, Mig23, and F15C are more or less the same plane with fairly similar systems (though with wildly different capabilities). So, they can re-cycle those bits of code for them. Yes the graphical presentation is quite different, as are the FM's, but they are all basically A/A planes with some limited ground attack capability. Yes there are differences in how for example the radars work, but at the end of the day, the M2k/F15C both have TWS system, not sure on the mig23 at the moment but it had a 'ish pulse doppler radar system. So that lets them save a ton of time and effort and its something that they have shown they know how to do.

LOL, nope. I don't even know how to operate anything in back of the F-14, that's Lester's job.

 

But at the end of the day I want to operate the fighter how it was done IRL, or as close as possible. And in the USAF, they guy in the front wasn't the one dropping bombs or doing any of the backseat stuff. Whether or not he "could" is pretty irrelevant because he didn't. So that basically puts me in the odd spot where I have to go find a reliable human "lester" which given my F14 experience is pretty hit or miss.

 

The other thing about the F15E, is that I observe a pretty disturbing trend with the 3rd parties and ED.

 

On the one hand you have teams like HB, and Deka basically raising the bar for DCS, be that with Jester and an actual working multicrew or their own ground mapping radar in the viggen (in both cases something ED has yet to accomplish), or Deka with releasing a basically complete 4th gen fighter (again, ED isn't there yet) and giving away a ton of free Chinese units. And on the other hand you have razbam that basically thinks this is a limbo contest and whats the absolute bare minimum that suckers will buy because they have some pretty screenshots and whats the bare minimum effort that they can put into "maintaining" it. And please don't bring up the mirage, the ADA paid them to do that.

Actually Dekka RBM mapping mode is based off ED ground radar API. Its not an in house solution.

ED has not simply adjusted it yet to the Hornet at the time, but it is certainly soon to release in the next patch as per screenshots that wags shared.

Even so The Radars on the JF17 and Hornet are far more sophisticated and have more A/G mode types and processes then viggen.

Actually Dekka RBM mapping mode is based off ED ground radar API. Its not an in house solution.

Where did he claimed that?

...be that with Jester and an actual working multicrew or their own ground mapping radar in the viggen (in both cases something ED has yet to accomplish)...

Is clearly aiming at HB.

Even so The Radars on the JF17 and Hornet are far more sophisticated and have more A/G mode types and processes then viggen.

Anyone denied that? But that doesn't change the fact:

On the one hand you have teams like HB, and Deka basically raising the bar for DCS, ... , or Deka with releasing a basically complete 4th gen fighter (again, ED isn't there yet) and giving away a ton of free Chinese units.

Where did he claimed that?

 

 

Is clearly aiming at HB.

 

 

Anyone denied that? But that doesn't change the fact:

Yup. I was talking about HB.

Deka for their part now has the most complete 4th gen fighter in game. Which given the fact its their first full fi module is quite the accomplishment.

Where did he claimed that?

 

 

Is clearly aiming at HB.

 

 

Anyone denied that? But that doesn't change the fact:

Heatblur and Dekka dont have an entire game engine to support and expand upon. They have the luxuary of only making modules.

Heatblur and Dekka dont have an entire game engine to support and expand upon. They have the luxuary of only making modules.

Excellent point! :thumbup: