Weaponry?

[CypherGrunyev]

Uh, this section seems a bit dead and I hate to know less and less about the Eagle!

 

Can RAZBAM or community members issue ANY sort of statement, perhaps giving the full list of capable weaponry within the F-15E, or those planned to be added? Will these weapons be available straight away or slowly added in?

 

Personally I'd REALLY love to see the AGM-130 input into DCS! Imagine rifling off Ruskie Arty sites from 30 Miles out, or dropping bridges to stop advancing armor columns.

 

[Jimbolya]

Uh, this section seems a bit dead and I hate to know less and less about the Eagle!

 

Can RAZBAM or community members issue ANY sort of statement, perhaps giving the full list of capable weaponry within the F-15E, or those planned to be added? Will these weapons be available straight away or slowly added in?

 

Personally I'd REALLY love to see the AGM-130 input into DCS! Imagine rifling off Ruskie Arty sites from 30 Miles out, or dropping bridges to stop advancing armor columns.

 

 

Yea i had the old Janes version. Good times indeed - i'm hoping this comes out lol.

[mangeface]

I'd like to see the Matra Durandal. Stop 'em before they can even get off the ground.

[Iron Sights]

I don’t know if Razbam will follow suite, but the F-15E can carry all air to ground weapons in the USAF inventory. That includes conventional or nuclear, which I know you won’t get nukes. Also I’m sure you won’t get all of that at once. So myself, I’m hoping that it will at the least have all the weapons we have now available. Maybe a couple extra.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Iron Sights

[Nahen]

"Can carry" not same "carrying"

Edited January 23, 2023 by Nahen

[Coole28]

14 hours ago, Iron Sights said:

I don’t know if Razbam will follow suite, but the F-15E can carry all air to ground weapons in the USAF inventory. 

 

Operational USAF F-15Es can not employ AGM-88s, Hydra 70s, APKWS, or AGM-84 (harpoon variant).  Only export models can use the AGM-88 and -84, and to my knowledge no F-15 models can use any kind of rockets.  These are just the weapons off the top of my head I know are currently in game and also used at some point or another by the USAF.

RAZBAM already posted the planned weapons list awhile ago btw, no need to guess.

[Beirut]

As long as what it carries is big.

 

Big!

[Coole28]

Oh it big alright.  Big Large McHuge in fact.

[Beirut]

5000lb of love.

 

Now I'm happy. Thank you. 

[Deano87]

@Beirut See I’m more interested in the SDBs… hitting a bunch of targets with small bombs. But I can respect the fact that you seem to be all about blowing as big a hole in the ground as possible. Lol

 

I’m imagining your normal loadout will be 3x GBU-28s and then 8 GBU-12s just to mop up any thing that wasn’t already a huge smoking crater. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Deano87

[Beirut]

2 hours ago, Deano87 said:

@Beirut See I’m more interested in the SDBs… hitting a bunch of targets with small bombs. But I can respect the fact that you seem to be all about blowing as big a hole in the ground as possible. Lol

 

I’m imagining your normal loadout will be 3x GBU-28s and then 8 GBU-12s just to mop up any thing that wasn’t already a huge smoking crater. 

 

 

Yes, huge smoking craters. We understand each other.   

 

But I'm with you on the SDBs. It's good to be able to target one particular SOB in his pickup and not rattle the windows nearby. I mean, you don't always want to annoy the neighbours when going about your business. One of my guilty pleasures in DCS is getting up above 40,000' and dropping one little guided weapon on some poor unsuspecting schlob from miles away and then watching the show on the MFD. Better than most Hollywood movies these days.

[=DROOPY=]

 

On 1/23/2023 at 3:00 PM, Beirut said:

 

Yes, huge smoking craters. We understand each other.   

Or smoking piles of MI-24's...

https://taskandpurpose.com/history/air-force-f-15-gulf-war-bomb-iraqi-helicopter/

That will be my measure of success with the Strike. I wonder if actually accomplished in game, if you will be credited with the Air-to-Air kill?

The crew that did it IRL , had to fight for the credit. 

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by =DROOPY=

[evilnate]

Hopefully we get AGM-154B

[Coole28]

22 hours ago, evilnate said:

Hopefully we get AGM-154B

B variant never reached operational status so its almost certainly not being added.  Airforce only purchased a handful of them for testing (21 to be exact, according to the contract awarded to Raytheon).  Fortunately we will get CBU-105s which, as far as DCS is concerned, are more effective than the hypothetical AGM-154B since they can’t be intercepted by SAMs. 

[Rainmaker]

On 1/23/2023 at 1:29 PM, Deano87 said:

@Beirut See I’m more interested in the SDBs… hitting a bunch of targets with small bombs. But I can respect the fact that you seem to be all about blowing as big a hole in the ground as possible. Lol

 

I’m imagining your normal loadout will be 3x GBU-28s and then 8 GBU-12s just to mop up any thing that wasn’t already a huge smoking crater. 

 

You’d be breaking a number of loadout restrictions to do so, so I highly doubt you’ll be doing that. 

[Cunning_Raven]

10 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

You’d be breaking a number of loadout restrictions to do so, so I highly doubt you’ll be doing that. 

Maybe they were talking about a two-ship of F-15s? That's be entirely possible, if you can carry 3x GBU-28s, of course

[PD919]

I think that RAZBAM should add import functionality to the F-15E instead of keeping it restricted to USAF.  Obviously, it doesn't have to be first on the list, but it would be fun to launch HARMS on an F-15E.  In general every DCS module should model more off of manufacturing specs vs military restrictions, like how export Hornets have an ILS even if the Navy doesn't.

[Coole28]

No F-15E is or ever was AGM-88 capable anywhere in the world, with the possible exception of one or a few testbeds.  The F-15E is not exported to other countries; export variants of the F-15 are custom built for the countries buying them, though the E model airframe is used as the basis for many of them.  Avionics, radars, sensors, interface, etc. are often all different on export models, there’s simply no way to correlate how an export model handles an AGM-88 with how an E model systems work.  AGM-88 is not a simple weapon.

[Northstar98]

On 1/26/2023 at 12:59 PM, PD919 said:

I think that RAZBAM should add import functionality to the F-15E instead of keeping it restricted to USAF. 

Yeah, but this means trying to hunt down documentation on those specific weapons systems for whatever operator. Which may not even be the same variant.

On 1/26/2023 at 12:59 PM, PD919 said:

In general every DCS module should model more off of manufacturing specs vs military restrictions

What do you mean by manufacturing specifications? Because for some stuff, they physically cannot employ certain weapons without modification.

Not only that, but if an aircraft is only supposed to represent 'x' I see no problem with it being precisely that.

On 1/26/2023 at 12:59 PM, PD919 said:

like how export Hornets have an ILS even if the Navy doesn't.

The problem with that is you've now dramatically increased the scope of modules (some by an order of magnitude), when we have enough issues as it is just getting the current narrow scopes of our aircraft finished and working. And that's after you consider that there are items our aircraft should have and fit within the stated narrow scope, but aren't planned or were taken off the list of planned features (particularly for the F-16 and F/A-18).

Edited March 22, 2023 by Northstar98
grammar

[PD919]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Yeah, but this means trying to hunt down documentation on those specific weapons systems for whatever operator. Which may not even be the same variant.

What do you mean by manufacturing specifications? Because for some stuff, they physically cannot employ certain weapons without modification.

Not only that, but if an aircraft is only supposed to represent 'x' I see no problem with it doing precisely that.

The problem with that is you've now dramatically increases the scope of modules (some by an order of magnitude), when we have enough issues as it is just getting the current narrow scopes of our aircraft finished and working. And that's after you consider that there are items our aircraft should have and fit within the stated narrow scope, but aren't planned or were taken off the list of planned features (particularly for the F-16 and F/A-18).

Who cares about the scope.  It's a great way to support the plane after EA.

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, PD919 said:

Who cares about the scope.

Developers for a start...

7 hours ago, PD919 said:

It's a great way to support the plane after EA.

It's also a great way of making sure aircraft take way longer to develop and research, or even ensure that they don't get finished at all.

Again - we already have enough problems getting stuff wholly constrained to the current, narrow scope of some aircraft, without needing to add any more. And it gets worse when you consider items that fit within said scope, but are otherwise not planned or removed from the planned features.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Northstar98

[Scott-S6]

6 hours ago, PD919 said:

Who cares about the scope.  It's a great way to support the plane after EA.

Look at how many unfinished modules we have. If we can get some more aircraft out of EA, that would be nice before growing the scope.of them.

Also, what you're asking for simply isn't possible in many cases. It's not just that some version can use HARM so just turn it on. If that version has very different systems then how do you reconcile the HARM integration with the systems that our E has? You end up with different countries versions being different modules in many cases. That said, there are some weapons that are just variants and require no special systems modelling but those generally aren't the ones people are asking for.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Scott-S6

[McCloud]

I take it the AIM120-D's wont be implemented with the F15?

[Cytarabine]

On 1/26/2023 at 11:59 PM, PD919 said:

I think that RAZBAM should add import functionality to the F-15E instead of keeping it restricted to USAF.  Obviously, it doesn't have to be first on the list, but it would be fun to launch HARMS on an F-15E.  In general every DCS module should model more off of manufacturing specs vs military restrictions, like how export Hornets have an ILS even if the Navy doesn't.

If you want a USAF jet that can sling HARMS get a Viper. It’s what they use to do it, and it has the HTS to do the job properly.

RAZBAM are already adding stuff from across the service life of the mudhen with the USAF and that is great. There’s a lot of varied ordinance to carry, and even if you can’t be a HARM shooter there’s more than one way to nail a SAM site. 

[Shot]

So the published loadout is final? I bought the harrier and have seen the loadout shrink over the years.