Rainmaker

Maybe let them get the aircraft out the door with usable features before nit-picking numbers that are essentially eye candy? That all takes code, code takes time, coders arent plentiful.

Yep. That’s correct. Really not all that much visual difference when they went LCD. Maybe a bit cleaner, but nothing all that noticeable.

Does not exist. The MPCDs were updated to LCD. The MPDs are still the same ones from the 80s/90s

Yes, its just a CATM. No sense flying things that can just fall off for training.

Take command works with a long press as well in the front.

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

Depends on the seat. Front seat uses the castle switch. Rear seat uses coolies on the HCUs

The V1 was still not as good, no. It was a stop gap upgrade. It used some of the -70s parts to do that. It still was not any greater. In addition, DCS is most certainly not modeling the V1…properly anyway.

-229s. The C's radar, non-AESA at least, is certainly not better than an E's FWIW. To be clear, I could care less about the whole CFT debate, just clarifying certain points.

Think of the CFT as one big MER, because that’s generally what it is, and how its treated by the PACS.

Again, you are drawing conclusions, not speaking in facts You wanna be told you are wrong again? Because you are. RWS returns on the strike eagle are track files. Again, commenting on something you dont know about As for the rest of it. I’m not the one that claimed any aircraft was ‘more modern’ than another. You did. And then tried to put yourself above all the ‘armchair experts’ when you were asked about it. Yet, your resume is equal to the rest. I only quoted what you already said. I didnt bring up BITS or digital. You did. I responded again when you said I didnt highlight what you were wrong about. I did so…again. There were no goalposts moved.

And where does all that leave you.... More importantly...where does that leave a DCS user? - Fewer TWS displayed track files seen by the pilot vs the eagle - Still a narrower beam width scan for actual target detection in both AA and AG. That isn't even bringing 'range' into account here. - Poorer SAR map capability (By pretty much all accounts except maybe Raytheon who's trying to market a radar) "You have yet to explain why my "data is wrong on many accounts in this post." "The F/A-18C generally has more modern avionics." Unless the radar is your only category for 'more modern', then no. In terms of the radar, lets not forget the original antenna, a smaller ECS package to cool the 'newer' transmitter, smaller main generators to power all of it, etc. Exactly why I said size matters in one of my posts above. "MSI, more trackfile processing, more computational capacity, integrated Radar/RWR, fully digitized aircraft with all system BIT" Don't assume that MSI means 'more modern' than something else. The eagle integrates a lot of things just fine. MSI is nothing more than a hornet buzzword, and you are assuming that the hornet does things that the eagle does not since it doesn't use the term MSI, even if it's the same things done differently. So no. As for the track files, see above. This is exactly why I asked you about the eagle in my previous post. The eagle processes/displays more to the pilot. Computational capacity (okay, I'll give you that for the radar). Unless you know what the rest of the avionics package in an eagle looks like, then no. Integrated Radar/RWR. Unless you are just doubling up on your MSI thing, and repeating that to boost examples even though they are the same thing, they are all integrated. They have to be, as well as with many other systems on the jet. Even considering MSI, again, unless you know that to be an equipment limitation, and you know exactly what the eagle can/can't do, speculation that it's 'more modern' isn't true. What exact capes are there is not really for discussion here, other than to say your thoughts are wrong. Fully digitized aircraft. Again, no. I've already pointed out why that isn't the case. All systems BIT? We can go down that road again if you want to? And if you look at DTOE reports, the hornet's radar BIT system has been less than stellar on accuracy. And there are systems that do not BIT, if you wanna get really into it. But again, the eagle has done all that and then some for a long time now. Has plenty of BIT types, continuous and user/situation initiated, yada yada. We can however start comparing systems if you want to? So yes, you have a lot of that incorrect. Relative to the OP's post of tech and toys, well, if you wanna start listing them out, I can roll through a list of other systems that aren't even on the Hornet. If your definition of things that you think aren't on both aircraft constitutes 'more modern'? Just relegate yourself to the fact that comparing the two, is about as equal to you looking at two PCs, one built in 2010, and one in 2012, and you have no idea what's in them or what OS is actually on them. You are just pointing at one and saying it's 'more modern' than the other. That's basically what this is equivalent to. Overall performance could be equally as good, you just don't really know.

How do you know they do run at the same speed? What if the E’s systems are faster already? Unless you know what’s in both jets, you arent going to. That’s my point. And again, if the data rates of the mux arent a bottleneck…its not an issue. Is it future-proofing? Maybe. Still irrelevant if the older systems are upgraded, or have been upgraded already. You are taking snippets of what was said, and turning into something that was never stated. But again, topic title, this wasnt an E vs SH discussiom…it was E vs C. When some of the articles you are sourcing compare those two, let me know As far as upgrades go, you are simplifying that process way more than what the reality of ‘upgrading’ things are actually like.

LOL. If you look back. I never said either aircraft was ‘more modern’. That’s the point here. You did. And yet, it’s very apparent you dont have any actual experience with either aircraft (certainly not a -15) so you actually don’t know any more than any of the other ‘armchair experts’ that you attempt to try and elevate yourself above. That’s also my point. If you haven't been there or done that, don't try to put yourself on a pedestal. Here’s a few other trivia questions for you. Ones I would expect you to know if you are going to compare the two. What’s the memory capacity and speed of the -610 and -111 in an APG-70? How many tracks are processed and displayed on a -15E’s scope? I’ll wait.

You brought that into the discussion. I know what it means, and what it does, which is why I understand when it has context or just a buzz word being thrown out there. For the 'digital comment'. I don't think you quite understand how these system actually work in an actual component, on a jet, and communicate with one another, in the real-world sense. Your 'classification' of digital is not going to meet what actually makes something analog-less. I don't live in a brochure world...if I did...the military wouldn't have needed to train me on how to troubleshoot and fix things that the brochure said it would all do itself. And not a single system that I have ever worked, even if the boxes ended in the word computer, was ever all digital. Even on Gen 5 or Gen 6....they are likely not to be all digital.....and certainly not gen 4...don't care which aircraft you are talking about. On the subject of computational capacity....You know this to be fact? You entire mindset seems to be centered around the RADAR. So we are only talking about the radar now that makes it more modern? That's one system....out of like 100...and has it's own computers....which shares some of the same stuff as the original -70 if we talk about the -73. It's not even close if you wanna talk the previous editions. So, now we are talking roughly equal to but certainly not greater than. What about the others? What about the display processor? What about the mission computer? Weapons system computer? Pilot interface computers? Jamming suite? Ability to actually use all those systems at once? If you are basing your comments of being more modern solely on nothing but the RADAR...then I dunno what to tell you other than you are being very biased on something that you have some theory knowledge on...and leaving out about 100 other things that wind up making the end result. I dont care if the radar can track 1000 targets...if it doesn't get to the display...and the pilot can't make use of it....then it matters none. The radar isn't what makes all that magic happen in the cockpit.

Well, I know when you use buzz words like more 'computational capacity'....and throw in ones like 'fully digitized' and 'all systems BIT'. I actually understand what that means when it comes to being in an actual aircraft. Which BIT types you wanna discuss? F BITS G BITS C BITS M BITS P BITS I can name more if you want.... The eagle has that and more....had them since....forever. More modern? Are you familiar with what the eagle has in it? Just because it was built before....doesn't mean anything. Unless you know what specific systems are in the jet, saying one has more 'computational capacity' doesnt mean anything.

No, but as stated before, can and does is relevant here. No different than PCIE 4 vs 5. Is the data bus the limiting factor in any of this? Bus doesn't matter if its not even completely utilized or the system is a bottle neck. Saying one system is superior to another and can do more, or does do more is a completely relevant topic. This wasnt even a super hornet vs E topic anyway. Also, you have a link to this comparison as I am interested? If you are referring to posts such as this... Yes, I have seen them. And I think you'll find there is some cherry-picking going on when you make direct comparisons using posts like that. Their developments were at different timelines, and just like he doesn't go into specifics, "These things did get retrofit on older fighters at varying stages, but as you can imagine, it's a lot harder to retrofit things into something that was never designed for it."...doesn't mean it wasn't done. Drawing a comparison to directly say 'superior' is quite a bold leap off what is written...."drastically superior' even being more so.

Well, I can tell you that the -15E is not made up of one computer, it has multiple, that all contribute. The size of the platform matters in this case. The mux infrastructure has seen updates as well where needed. Again though, unless you are aware of what upgrades have been done under the hood, making an assumption that the platform is inferior is just a blind guess. Can/could/and does are different.

“At that point the comparison is made to the Super Hornet and that's a drastically superior platform in this regard.“ You think or you know?

Your data is wrong on many accounts in this post.

There’s way to much ‘glory’ being given to MSI as being some sort of revolutionary thing that has all these solutions to real life problems. As for the ‘processing’ power topic, I would put the E’s systems up against just about anything. The jet has seen plenty of upgrades in these areas along the way, with more on the horizon. Comparing initial field implementation of either aircraft is just inaccurate by a huge amount.

I flew the F-18 with folks last night who where flying the F-16. As they were set up in the same package, the guys flying the -16 could see my lock line with a ground designation and such. Not sure if that's what you were asking about, but that's currently what I know of that's operable.

My comment is irrelevant to whatever this thread has turned into, but CFT removal and installs are not a big deal. A few hours, for both. No depot level anything required. It takes longer to defuel one than it does to change it. Also, pods cannot be flown without CFTs, not allowed. That’s why you wont see them.

That website is inclusive to all variants, not just the US E model. Its not a different opinion.... There was no SLAM use on the US E as stated above.

By default, yes. That does not mean it’s restricted to only that.