Rainmaker

It’s just repeating the same things I have already said over, and over, and over again. You know what I’ve stated here already, you can see what the -1 flight manual has for authorized configs, you can choose to believe it or not believe it. Constantly repeating it over and over again is not going to change anyone’s opinion if they choose to continue to believe whatever it is they want to believe. My answers aren’t going to change.

And in come the conspiracy theories. You honesty really dont know much about the subject, pretty obvious, but stop trying to overthink it.

If they are not covered, there’s 4 big holes in the side of the airframe where the cft mounts and umbilicals are.

They are specific. Pic 3 (up close) is not that tail number. Foreign writing on fuselage,panel designations are wrong, ram air scoops wrong type, wrong paint, etc. easy to spot when you know what you are looking at. And no, I’m soeaking of AA loads on CFT stations (RC/LC)

Quite common for PDM jets to not carry CFTs depending on maintenance schedule and CFT availability. It goes back and forth. The jet you posted with AA on cheek station without CFT is an export varient, it’s not an E model. I have plenty of pictures of E’s with combat A-A loads on LC and RC stations from combat missions. Time and a place and not rare depending on the mission. They are perfectly capable of both.

Correct, that is the newer UFC.

Yes, US E models have an updated UFC. Don’t have the delam problems the old ones did and are NVIS friendly out of the box as opposed to having to use filter kits.

Haha! That’s funny, and completely believable.

Ah...gotcha. :thumbup:

No, they can both select the same screens or different. Difference being only one can "take control" of the display at any given time. By take control, I mean using the TGP, RDR, SIT display, moving map, etc. Both can view or not view, but only one can control. Front seat can take control of one display in the front, back seat can take control of two independent screens due to having two hand controllers. For example, front can control RDR while backseat controls TGP and SIT display...all simultaneously. Each can view those displays at the same time.

15’s is guarded with copper safety wire, not magnetically held though. I think function is about the same, only effects full AB, 2% RPM increase, FTIT rise but I would have to look up the values again.

Mmmm...I'm more referring to the little red-covered "go faster" switch above the left console

Meh. There's always VMAX :D

No, the manual is not wrong, your interpretation of a picture in the manual is.

That’s an incorrect assumption ghostrider....

Sure thing, then go ahead and fly with 4 less available a-a weapons and about 8500lbs less fuel.

There’s pages upon pages of reference material, so I won’t be repeating myself over and over again. :)

The two are not directly related, the other 17 pages of this thread will explain that

It hashad no direct effect in the past but not sure of they attempted to change anything

Well neat, be interesting to see if it’s broken on cold start too

System operation is essentially the same, but your TGP, RWR/ICS, etc switches are on the back seat console. The GIB also has a little more HOTAS functionality with the L/R hand controllers. Can all still be done through hand-jamming buttons, but the GIB can work multiple displays at the same time.

Good question. Notmally there was nothing additional to the buckles, but I have fingerbanged those before at some point, I just can’t remember when/where. Maybe AFE swapped the risors at some point during my time? Maybe they were on trainer seats? I really can’t rememeber to be honest. Definetly UWARS now.

We’ll just have to wait and see what’s on the table as far as modeling goes, wheather they give some sort of timeline for a model or whether it will be a bit of a cocktail on systems they can/can’t model. Most of the stuff people are asking for is post 2000 era capabilities so it will be hard to model unless they have additional documentation/support from somewhere. And there is still plenty of stuff I know about but am not really a SME on, can’t openly pass on information about, etc.

It’s like saying Link-16 is the same across all the different airframes. They are not. Different airframes, different HOTAS, different mission sets, fielded and implemented by different companies. Real life is a lot different than reading it in a news article. Boeing could be helping them out with the JHMCS or not giving them anything, who knows, we’ll just have to wait and see. i haven’t seen anything to confirm or deny. Upgrading the TGP is a bit different when you are making enhancements on a system that functions in much the same way as the legacy system did vs implementing something that you have no starting point for. There are still functions such as CCTV that were different and it will be a wait and see game to see if they get it right or not. They also could have data on the SNIPER outside of what’s in the -34 as the manufacturers also put out supplemental guidance. Just because they are choosing to implement doesn’t mean they have to wing it and guess.

This is the F-15E thread? JHMCS systems are not fundamentally equal and serve different capabilities depending on the aircraft, avionics suite, HOTAS functionality, etc. you can’t just take bits and pieces and accurately model a system just for the sake of making it a feature. My statement would yave no reason to be inaccurate. ;). I was around the first units to get the capability. I knew the guys that installed it, along with many of the other upgrades that came around the same time. I don't have a need to guess or speculate.