F-15E vs. F-18C

[Kev2go]

On 11/24/2022 at 12:55 PM, falcon_120 said:

It is if you compare it against a legacy hornet not against an Aesa super hornet.

On the other hand the radar is not the primary sensor for A2G in recent wars, the targeting pod is. Unless of course someone brings up the need to use radar on IFR conditions for bombing though the CEP in that situation is no where near what a targeting pod gives you, could be enough for airfields or industrial complexes though.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

thats only as a result of "GWOT" aka low intensity wars. the moment you look at conventional wars again, and especially IFR conditions suddenly A2G radar will find use again. and yes there are radars  on aircraft in US service that can manage to attack targets smaller than an Airfield runway or Industrial park. F35 , F15E, F/A18E/F ( if its APG79) , although the F35 will be the best of the bunch due to the advertised ability to discriminate between vehicle types.

 

also consider the US navy is still using ATFLIR in present day and that pod is aged, relative to  both newer versions of Litening 2, and Sniper.   It has not yet been replaced or upgraded. Since DCS doesn't simulate digital zoom degradation this results in even the Litening 2 AT being superior to ATFLIR, since it can produce the same image quality but get zoom in closer on a target.

[Hobel]

Am 21.11.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Beamscanner:

The rings should take threat and range into account, but EDs only takes threat type into account. 

do you have a reference that the current F18 RWR should show the range?

[Harker]

do you have a reference that the current F18 RWR should show the range?

It's not supposed to show range, it's supposed to consider the range estimate to the emitter in its classification of the threat.

[Hobel]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Harker:

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Hobel:

do you have a reference that the current F18 RWR should show the range?

It's not supposed to show range, it's supposed to consider the range estimate to the emitter in its classification of the threat.

I know what is meant by this, but thx

 

[Nahen]

And how is it supposed to "estimate" the range? Can someone explain to me?

[Harker]

And how is it supposed to "estimate" the range? Can someone explain to me?

I'm far from well informed in the matter, but from what I understand, in very simple terms, it can use the received signal strength vs the expected max signal strength for the emitter type. IIRC there's a thesis on the ALR-67 that discusses this to some extent.

Also consider that other RWRs are also capable of this, such as the ALR-56, which places the icon closer to the middle, as the emitter signal strength increases, or the SPO-15, which indicates the signal strength of the primary emitter.

The ALR-67 takes it a step further and can combine that estimated range/signal strength with a lethality factor (e.g. a MiG-29 is not lethal at 60 nmi, but a MiG-31 can be), in order to classify the emitter as Safe or Lethal. I'm also unsure about this, but I suspect that the system is conservative in its range estimation and is biased towards a shorter estimated range, for safety.

[Nahen]

So, in total, such a system sucks. Why? Because he comes up with, not "estimates" the distance. Each same "emitter type" can have a different transmitter power. Depending on the radar operating mode in which the average fighter's radar at the moment is, it emits a weaker or stronger beam - in each radar the beam power is appropriately modulated depending on whether the radar is in the target tracking mode, search mode, or in the RWS mode or TWS, etc. What with the radars in which, depending on the needs, the pilot / RIO / WSO can "manually" switch the beam parameters - its power. Stealth planes, e.g.
So I dare say I prefer the traditional RWR which identifies the source of the signal and determines its "threat value". At least I will not be mistaken to read false data provided. 

[Harker]

So, in total, such a system sucks. Why? Because he comes up with, not "estimates" the distance. Each same "emitter type" can have a different transmitter power. Depending on the radar operating mode in which the average fighter's radar at the moment is, it emits a weaker or stronger beam - in each radar the beam power is appropriately modulated depending on whether the radar is in the target tracking mode, search mode, or in the RWS mode or TWS, etc. What with the radars in which, depending on the needs, the pilot / RIO / WSO can "manually" switch the beam parameters - its power. Stealth planes, e.g.
So I dare say I prefer the traditional RWR which identifies the source of the signal and determines its "threat value". At least I will not be mistaken to read false data provided. 

To be fair, I've found precious little about the range estimation feature. But it's nothing more than the RWR receiving a signal strength. AFAIK, most RWRs display the signal strength in some way, also taking into account the things you mentioned (frequency range, scan frequency, radar mode). I would expect that a threat that's far away, but has STT on you, would be considered more lethal than one that's just searching, at the same range. And there's a host of other things the RWR suite considers.

Some signal strength estimation, alongside the emitter type etc, to determine the lethality of a threat, is necessary. How can the RWR (which can only process a limited number of signals at the same time) or the pilot looking at the screen, determine which emitter out there belongs to a priority threat vs one that's far away? In heavily populated airspaces, this becomes very important in order to maintain SA.

Otherwise you either have 16 Lethal emitters and you don't know which ones are actually a threat, or you have zero Lethal emitters, until one of them starts tracking you in STT, which may never happen until it's too late, if at all.

[Nahen]

4 hours ago, Harker said:

 

 

To be fair, I've found precious little about the range estimation feature. But it's nothing more than the RWR receiving a signal strength. AFAIK, most RWRs display the signal strength in some way, also taking into account the things you mentioned (frequency range, scan frequency, radar mode). I would expect that a threat that's far away, but has STT on you, would be considered more lethal than one that's just searching, at the same range. And there's a host of other things the RWR suite considers.

Some signal strength estimation, alongside the emitter type etc, to determine the lethality of a threat, is necessary. How can the RWR (which can only process a limited number of signals at the same time) or the pilot looking at the screen, determine which emitter out there belongs to a priority threat vs one that's far away? In heavily populated airspaces, this becomes very important in order to maintain SA.

Otherwise you either have 16 Lethal emitters and you don't know which ones are actually a threat, or you have zero Lethal emitters, until one of them starts tracking you in STT, which may never happen until it's too late, if at all.

 

So you're right, but as you wrote - it's not RWR that judges the distance.

Every RWR has been evaluating the threat by signal strength for several decades - it estimates that the stronger the signal, the greater the threat - I don't know why, people interpret it as "stronger signal = greater threat = radar closer to RWR" ... Not it at all is. If you set the AWACS, MiG-31, F-14, MiG-29 and Su-27 at the same distance, the RWR will show the "closest" AWACS, then the MIG-31 and F-14 and the furthest MiG-29 and Su-27. I will say more, the MiG-31 and F-14 will be shown closer even if the MiG-29 and Su-27 will be much further. Why don't people understand that RWR DOESN'T JUDGE DISTANCE TO SIGNAL SOURCE???

In the latest fighters (and not only), data from RWR are supplemented with data from datalink, AWACS, aircraft and airspace control systems. They may be displayed on something like a RWR/SA hybrid, but that's not RWR data. RWR is still only supposed to show the direction from which the signal appears and evaluate its "value" based on the signal strength.

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Nahen

[WinterH]

From the top of my head, and for us average DCS pilots:

Not entirely sure, but I think the F-15E we're getting may not have JHMCS and GPS navigation compared to Hornet we have. Strike Eagle also won't have HARM.

On the flip side, it's radar is much, much better in building a picture of the ground, and can be used to make precise fixes and finding/identifying/engaging ground targets even in no visibility conditions a lot better than Hornet's radar. Also, it will have terrain following radar for low altitude penetration in bad weather and night.

Strike Eagle will also be able to haul around a lot bigger load outs, and will have a lot better endurance.

Finally, Strike Eagle's party trick for DCS would be two seater capabilities. Front and back seats will be able to use different sensors and do different things at the same time to build SA/do targeting more efficiently, theoretically.

[dedlike.]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb WinterH:

From the top of my head, and for us average DCS pilots:

Not entirely sure, but I think the F-15E we're getting may not have JHMCS and GPS navigation compared to Hornet we have. Strike Eagle also won't have HARM.

On the flip side, it's radar is much, much better in building a picture of the ground, and can be used to make precise fixes and finding/identifying/engaging ground targets even in no visibility conditions a lot better than Hornet's radar. Also, it will have terrain following radar for low altitude penetration in bad weather and night.

Strike Eagle will also be able to haul around a lot bigger load outs, and will have a lot better endurance.

Finally, Strike Eagle's party trick for DCS would be two seater capabilities. Front and back seats will be able to use different sensors and do different things at the same time to build SA/do targeting more efficiently, theoretically.

as far as i know it will get the JHMCS later on, that is confirmed, but as you sayd it does not have any harms, wich is a big downside for me( still going to get it tho)

another thing is that the link 16 and the Radar are not exactly combined like in the Fa18, its more along the lines of how the Jeff does it, where you will se the link 16 targets on the SA page but not on your radar page

[Nahen]

2 hours ago, dedlike. said:

another thing is that the link 16 and the Radar are not exactly combined like in the Fa18, its more along the lines of how the Jeff does it, where you will se the link 16 targets on the SA page but not on your radar page

The rest he will do himself, with his own radar

[Ignition]

On 11/29/2022 at 6:28 AM, WinterH said:

From the top of my head, and for us average DCS pilots:

Not entirely sure, but I think the F-15E we're getting may not have JHMCS and GPS navigation compared to Hornet we have. Strike Eagle also won't have HARM.

On the flip side, it's radar is much, much better in building a picture of the ground, and can be used to make precise fixes and finding/identifying/engaging ground targets even in no visibility conditions a lot better than Hornet's radar. Also, it will have terrain following radar for low altitude penetration in bad weather and night.

Strike Eagle will also be able to haul around a lot bigger load outs, and will have a lot better endurance.

Finally, Strike Eagle's party trick for DCS would be two seater capabilities. Front and back seats will be able to use different sensors and do different things at the same time to build SA/do targeting more efficiently, theoretically.

It will have GPS.

[doedkoett]

On 10/4/2022 at 12:47 PM, Beirut said:

I'm not the most learned aircraft guy, so please be gentle.

 

As far as having a "Space Shuttle of Death", which of course I want, will the F-15E beat the F18C for tech and toys? I'm looking forward to the F-15E as my new favourite plane, but was curious if it out-techs the F-18C.

 

Thanks. 

I haven't seen anyone mention it yet in the thread (might have missed it) - but what I am looking forward to, that I can't get from the Hornet module, is the thrill of night time low level penetration of enemy territory, with the weather cranked up to 11, using the terrain following radar and the HUD-projected FLIR. 

[Spurts]

11 minutes ago, doedkoett said:

I haven't seen anyone mention it yet in the thread (might have missed it) - but what I am looking forward to, that I can't get from the Hornet module, is the thrill of night time low level penetration of enemy territory, with the weather cranked up to 11, using the terrain following radar and the HUD-projected FLIR. 

I mean, if you want a RIDE to the target then sure, use TFR.  If you want to FLY to the target then you can already do that with AV-8B

[doedkoett]

Yeah, but maybe I am in a bit of a hurry and haven't got all day!

Anyway, the OP didn´t include the Harrier, so I thought I´d keep to the subject. I mean, we all know that the Viggen is the best anyway, right?

[Nahen]

29 minutes ago, doedkoett said:

I haven't seen anyone mention it yet in the thread (might have missed it) - but what I am looking forward to, that I can't get from the Hornet module, is the thrill of night time low level penetration of enemy territory, with the weather cranked up to 11, using the terrain following radar and the HUD-projected FLIR. 

You must wait for Tornado

[Beirut]

26 minutes ago, Nahen said:

You must wait for Tornado

 

You mean the F-15E's skinny little cousin? 

 

[doedkoett]

1 hour ago, Nahen said:

You must wait for Tornado

Oh, I´d love to have the Tornado.. I know very little about how the Tornado works, so I look forward to learning it. So many great modules, so little time!

[Nahen]

3 hours ago, Beirut said:

 

You mean the F-15E's skinny little cousin? 

 

And older 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Nahen

[skywalker22]

No more conversation which radar is better? It was very intriguing reading  

[Beamscanner]

Fun fact, the APG-73 was given a lot more processing (and room for more processor cards) than needed in order to support a future swap to an AESA that would replace the APG-65 planer slotted waveguide array that was still utilized by the APG-73. (ie the AESA upgrade would only swap out the antenna and still use the radar processing from the APG-73)

 

Though the Navy never did upgrade the F/A-18Cs with a 'front-end' AESA. Instead, the Super Hornets got the fully kitted APG-79 AESA.

[F-2]

3 hours ago, Beamscanner said:

Fun fact, the APG-73 was given a lot more processing (and room for more processor cards) than needed in order to support a future swap to an AESA that would replace the APG-65 planer slotted waveguide array that was still utilized by the APG-73. (ie the AESA upgrade would only swap out the antenna and still use the radar processing from the APG-73)

 

Though the Navy never did upgrade the F/A-18Cs with a 'front-end' AESA. Instead, the Super Hornets got the fully kitted APG-79 AESA.

I’ve actually been dying to know if the proposed APG-73 AESA upgrade was related to apg-79. Thank you!

 

do you have any information on what APG-73 AESA would have entailed?

[Rav]

On 11/21/2022 at 3:29 PM, Nahen said:

And I'd venture to say that apart from the F-22 and F-35, no non-stealth fighter can surpass the F-15C/EX in air combat.

You are forgetting the Eurofighter. It came two decades later as the European answer to the Flanker (which was itself a response to the Eagle), with all the benefits of technological progress this allows. It's kinetic performance is undoubtedly better. It can out-accelerate and out-climb the Eagle while being more maneuverable and having greater pylon capacity than the C, not to mention lower RCS, FWIW. Its trickier to compare sensors and electronics as there are many variants and upgrade levels on both aircraft and we lack hard data on the more interesting, recent systems. As for AA weapons there is an overlap/parity, with the glaring exception of the Meteor, which as of now has no equivalent on the US side.

[Nahen]

41 minutes ago, Rav said:

You are forgetting the Eurofighter. It came two decades later as the European answer to the Flanker (which was itself a response to the Eagle), with all the benefits of technological progress this allows. It's kinetic performance is undoubtedly better. It can out-accelerate and out-climb the Eagle while being more maneuverable and having greater pylon capacity than the C, not to mention lower RCS, FWIW. Its trickier to compare sensors and electronics as there are many variants and upgrade levels on both aircraft and we lack hard data on the more interesting, recent systems. As for AA weapons there is an overlap/parity, with the glaring exception of the Meteor, which as of now has no equivalent on the US side.

Still the EF2000 is much slower, and addition, the F-15 has a greater combat range - it can prepare the situation for an attack much longer than the EF2000, so it has no chance in BvR. Meteor vs AMRAAM 120D - basically the same missiles, similar ranges, speeds, etc. The F-15 still has a kill ratio of 104:0. I still say that the only fighters that can threaten the F-15 family in real combat are "stealth" fighters. Anyone else could be equal to or even better than the Eagle in maneuvering combat, but not in BvR.