F15c high fedilitize after F15e?

[Ddg1500]

Good day guys, i was thinking if there a possibility that after the explosive release of f15e strike eagle, the low fedility f15c could be upgrade into high fedility soon later, considering f15e and f15c are similar, some of the system could transfer to f15c with little tweak. The flight model of f15c is already reshaped to PFM, also the avionacs of f15c is actually not that complex with compare to f15e( only one MFD and a lot of already maked gagues), please be free to discuss, but remember BE FRENDLY

[Snappy]

While it would certainly be cool to have , I think ED stated in one of their recent interviews ( can't remember which one exactly) they have no intention of doing it.

Guess the potential market share is too small after the Strike Eagle, since apparently  the majority of people want AG / multirole capabilities and the -E will cater to that much much better while still retaining roughly 80-90 % of the air-to-air potential of the F15c performancewise when equipped with and air to air loadout.

 

Don't get me wrong. Personally I'd much prefer the pure Air to Air -c Variant ,or even the Vintage -A , but the chance of it materializing is very very small in

my personal opinion.

 

 

 

Regards,

Snappy.

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Snappy

[XtraChrisP]

I agree.  I wonder if there's some middle ground where you don't have to do the full system modeling but at least you can click buttons and switches.  I would definitely pay for that capability.

[bies]

ED is making MiG-29 9.12 after the Hind. It's 1980s Soviet fighter.

 

First it will pave the way from FC3 to full fidelity for other fighters and shows it's a possibility.

 

Second it will increase the need to have similar era western fighters.

Just like F-15C MSIP II from 1985 from FC3.

 

Third - it will be a low hanging fruit, just like MiG-29. ED already have close professional flight model for the F-15C, some external model, all it's weapon systems.

It will just require modeling 1980s single role avionics and radar + cockpit and still sell great.

 

 

Look how massively different real life pilots evaluate maneuverability of F-15C and F-15E. (grey points)

 

Instantaneous turn rate:

F-15C 4/5

F-15E 3/5

Sustained turn rate:

F-15C 4/5

F-15E 2/5

Responsiveness at slow speed:

F-15C 3.3/5

F-15E 2.7/5

Stack/scissors performance:

F-15C 3.2/5

F-15E 2.3/5

Ability to recover speed:

F-15C 4/5

F-15E 1.9/5

 

I guess F-15E is with CFT, without them and with 229 it would be strong dogfighter, but IRL they are always fly with CFT except for test flights.

Edited February 5, 2021 by bies

[Snappy]

Nice graphic, but there is close to zero information under which exact conditions with which loadout for which

aircraft the comparisons were made.
Of course a bomb truck F-15E with its typical AG plus AA self defense loadout plus full conformal fuel tanks

will be sluggish and fare worse compared to a spritely F-15c with only air to air loadout for a CAP in those rated areas.

No suprise that the Strike Eagle got worse marks all around. However (if you just wanted to use it for air to air) and would

give it only an air to air loadout, with maybe 2 missiles less and only 75% fuel, you'd get much better performance out of it.

 

The airframes itself are very very similar. Yes slightly more weight for the -E, but also an uprated engine, which however not

completely offsets the weight I think. Thats why I wrote 80-90%.

 

Point is, someone who wants to do air-air with it, can do it  almost as well with the Strike eagle.

Question is, are the people who want the remaining few % capability , plus the purists who want to specifically have a -C Model

enough to warrant developement? ED doesnt seem to think so.

 

 

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Snappy

[Nodak]

Just give it the ability to remove the conformal fuel packs, they are removable and it can fly perfectly fine without.

[F-2]

On 1/31/2021 at 1:44 AM, Nodak said:

Just give it the ability to remove the conformal fuel packs, they are removable and it can fly perfectly fine without.

It’s quite the rocket without them since the engines are pw-229s, I really hope they are removable in game. 

 

[VTJS17_Fire]

On 1/29/2021 at 4:37 PM, bies said:

ED is making MiG-29 9.12 after the Hind. It's 1980s Soviet fighter.

 

 

Source?

[bies]

ED's Discord.

[Eagle7907]

This has been talked about time and time again. Everyone wants a FF F-15C and ED knows it. If they could do it, it would have been done a decade ago. I wouldn’t get my hopes up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[dundun92]

On 2/11/2021 at 12:56 PM, Eagle7907 said:

ED knows it

and yet ED has said the opposite. And when you look at polls on, say, hoggit, or even on these forums about ratios of A2A players to A2G/Multirole, you will immediately see why a dedicated A2A fighter, while IMO would be a great addition and would be rather popular, will not outsell a multirole such as the F-16/18 or F-15E.

 

On 2/11/2021 at 12:56 PM, Eagle7907 said:

If they could do it, it would have been done a decade ago.

They can do it, theyve stated in the past that they have the documentation, and at one point way back afaik they were going for it.

 

On 2/11/2021 at 12:56 PM, Eagle7907 said:

I wouldn’t get my hopes up.

TBF, its not like ED, until this recent interview, has said outright they wouldnt do it. Wags himself commented at one point a year or two back that theyd "consider" a FF F-15C after the F-16 is finished, which appears to no longer be in the plans, but the point being, ED really has never ruled it out until recently. AKA, this looks like a marketing issue, and it makes sense.

[Eagle7907]

When did ED hint at making a FF 15C? My understanding was they wouldn’t because the USAF didn’t want them to or had no desire for one made. If ED did announce it, I completely missed it.


Still, I wouldn’t get my hopes up. Until there is a solid announcement that ED is doing it, then there is hope. But I haven’t heard a peep about it anywhere.

Also, I’m not against one being made(before you light up those torches). I’ve been asking ever since I got FC3 when it was first released.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[kseremak]

On 1/29/2021 at 3:11 PM, Snappy said:

Don't get me wrong. Personally I'd much prefer the pure Air to Air -c Variant ,or even the Vintage -A(...)

Me as well.

[Jester2138]

On 1/29/2021 at 6:11 AM, Snappy said:

the -E will cater to that much much better while still retaining roughly 80-90 % of the air-to-air potential of the F15c performancewise when equipped with and air to air loadout.

I've personally spoken to a pilot who flew both the E and the C models and fought between them and said that the C is hugely better in the merge than the E, and that it wasn't even close.

[Spurts]

On 5/16/2021 at 10:55 PM, Jester2138 said:

I've personally spoken to a pilot who flew both the E and the C models and fought between them and said that the C is hugely better in the merge than the E, and that it wasn't even close.

The E, even without CFTs, is a few thousand pounds heavier.  WITH CFTs it is far, far, heavier.  The E has the same wing as the C so that wing has to work harder for every G, adding drag and reducing available G.  If he was flying an older E, it even had the same engines.

[Hobo 1-1]

The E is as heavier at gross then C is at MTOW. The E, when configured for ATA, should perform roughly like a 2x3x2 loaded F-14A. 

[F-2]

This is from the April of 2012 issue of Eurofighter world. It seems the F-15SG was a tougher opponent then the hornet, Viper, and mig-29.

[Hobo 1-1]

I know how hostile this forum can be and how argumentative many are. I apologize ahead of time if my post comes off that way (not my intention). 

 

There is no conceivable way an F-15E outperformed a Typhoon in BFM.  Although the F-15E and C share the same basic airframe, they aren’t the same aircraft. The E is a much heavier, much lower TTW ratio and a much less 'clean' airframe compared to the C. Totally different performance. People talk here like removing the CFTs is an easy, common task that’s performed at anything other than depot level - it’s not.

 

I'm not trying to be hostile to you or what you linked to. I’m taking issue with it's claims (F-15E outperformed a Typhoon in BFM). Don't get me wrong, obviously tactics play a large role and it's not just *purely* a rate/TTW ratio argument - but after the merge it kinda is. 
 

ETA - load up the current C with three full drop tanks and go BFM. That will closely mimic the F-15E, weight wise. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Palmetto 1-1

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

+1 f15c from 95 is really cool

And it can do air to ground

[falcon_120]

I would love a FF F15c, also an F15E, I would buy both no doubt.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Hummingbird]

On 6/8/2021 at 3:34 PM, Palmetto 1-1 said:

I know how hostile this forum can be and how argumentative many are. I apologize ahead of time if my post comes off that way (not my intention). 

 

There is no conceivable way an F-15E outperformed a Typhoon in BFM.  Although the F-15E and C share the same basic airframe, they aren’t the same aircraft. The E is a much heavier, much lower TTW ratio and a much less 'clean' airframe compared to the C. Totally different performance. People talk here like removing the CFTs is an easy, common task that’s performed at anything other than depot level - it’s not.

 

I'm not trying to be hostile to you or what you linked to. I’m taking issue with it's claims (F-15E outperformed a Typhoon in BFM). Don't get me wrong, obviously tactics play a large role and it's not just *purely* a rate/TTW ratio argument - but after the merge it kinda is. 
 

ETA - load up the current C with three full drop tanks and go BFM. That will closely mimic the F-15E, weight wise. 

 

 

Nowhere was it claimed that the F-15E beat the EF in BFM, it reads that that the F-15E was a tougher opponent than the MiG29, F/A-18 & F-16 during the exercise, which no doubt encompassed a lot of simulated BVR engagements where the Singaporian F-15E with its AESA radar is no slouch. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Fri13]

27 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

 

Nowhere was it claimed that the F-15E beat the EF in BFM, it reads that that the F-15E was a tougher opponent than the MiG29, F/A-18 & F-16 during the exercise, which no doubt encompassed a lot of simulated BVR engagements where the Singaporian F-15E with its AESA radar is no slouch. 

 

It doesn't say either that EF beat others in combat, notice how example MiG-29 downside is given it endurance and not maneuverability, speed, BVR etc.

So "short legs" that dramatically can change how badly you perform in combat when you can't reach areas or can't engage to long timed combat operations.

 

Similar way others had their downsides. And this put EF to top because its overall performance and capabilities in various missions.

[Hummingbird]

36 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

It doesn't say either that EF beat others in combat, notice how example MiG-29 downside is given it endurance and not maneuverability, speed, BVR etc.

So "short legs" that dramatically can change how badly you perform in combat when you can't reach areas or can't engage to long timed combat operations.

 

Similar way others had their downsides. And this put EF to top because its overall performance and capabilities in various missions.

 

It heavily infers that the EF was the top dog in said exercise(s), and that it had a relatively easy time defeating the opposition.

 

I agree however that it doesn't specify the type of scenarios simulated, be it BVR or WVR etc.. hence how the F-15E was described as more tricky, no doubt because it's a force to be reckoned with in BVR engagements.

 

That said we can safely assume that when it comes to BFM the EF has it in spades over the other aircraft mentioned, be it ITR, STR, climb rate or acceleration, the EF should handily beat them all in those areas.  

Edited June 27, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

 

It heavily infers that the EF was the top dog in said exercise(s), and that it had a relatively easy time defeating the opposition.

 

It said that it was among top in the whole exercise as overall performer. That can include all kind sorties, like long range strikes with attacking through enemy fighters patrol. And even if you would win the air combat, but if you run out of fuel or you need to engage them because you don't have endurance to go around, you don't win the task.

 

2 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

I agree however that it doesn't specify the type of scenarios simulated, be it BVR or WVR etc.. hence how the F-15E was described as more tricky, no doubt because it's a force to be reckoned with in BVR engagements.

 

It doesn't even say is it a F-15E vs EF. It can be very well that you have same tasks and it is checked who can perform it better against similar scenario. If you perform better in that, you win the another.

 

So even in such scenarios EF can have a challenge as F-15E has speed and endurance with dedicated ground attack capabilities that can put EF to work harder.

 

Or if it is a BVR combat with example 2 vs 4 scenario that how can systems handle targeting and such.

 

2 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

That said we can safely assume that when it comes to BFM the EF has it in spades over the other aircraft mentioned, be it ITR, STR, climb rate or acceleration, the EF should handily beat them all in those areas.  

 

Exactly. We can assume things but when you don't know tests or competition etc it is difficult to say anything.

 

 

[Hummingbird]

Well I have to say the following puts it rather bluntly that the EF was dealing out a proper spanking:

 

1) "Typhoon proved to be the real winner in the exercise, despite aircraft performance being reduced for security purposes"

 

2) "At no time did a Typhoon pilot feel threatened"  

 

3) "Typhoons were always on top in air combat"

 

So whilst the F-15E might have proven more difficult than the others, it would appear from the text that it was still easy meat for the EF which never lost.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Hummingbird