F-15E vs. F-18C

[Fromthedeep]

19 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

You think or you know?

The only people who actually know would be aircrew or other SMEs that worked on both platforms. There is such a description on Reddit by a test pilot who has flight hours in pretty much all relevant 4th gen platforms, including the Super Hornet and the Strike Eagle. According to their statement, the SH has much better fibre optic data buses, more roboust and easily scalable programming architecture and so on.

[Rainmaker]

1 hour ago, Fromthedeep said:

The only people who actually know would be aircrew or other SMEs that worked on both platforms. There is such a description on Reddit by a test pilot who has flight hours in pretty much all relevant 4th gen platforms, including the Super Hornet and the Strike Eagle. According to their statement, the SH has much better fibre optic data buses, more roboust and easily scalable programming architecture and so on.

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. 

[Fromthedeep]

2 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

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. 

I've never said that the F-15E only has one computer. I've also never said that the F-15E didn't receive upgrades during its lifetime. As I've said, I'm not guessing about anything, there's a very extensive comparison made by a pilot who flew both platforms. And according to him, the Super Hornet does in fact have the advantage compared to the F-15E when it comes to data buses and similar aspects. If a person with flight hours in virtually every platform except for the F-35 considers that one platform is superior in one aspect, it's wise to listen to him. There really aren't that many people who can make a factual comparison. You know the Strike Eagle very well obviously, but what do you know about the Super Hornet compared to someone who works on it? Do you have enough knowledge about its systems, data buses, computing power, programming architecture and whatnot to make an assessment?

Edited November 23, 2022 by Fromthedeep

[Rainmaker]

1 hour ago, Fromthedeep said:

I've never said that the F-15E only has one computer. I've also never said that the F-15E didn't receive upgrades during its lifetime. As I've said, I'm not guessing about anything, there's a very extensive comparison made by a pilot who flew both platforms. And according to him, the Super Hornet does in fact have the advantage compared to the F-15E when it comes to data buses and similar aspects. If a person with flight hours in virtually every platform except for the F-35 considers that one platform is superior in one aspect, it's wise to listen to him. There really aren't that many people who can make a factual comparison. You know the Strike Eagle very well obviously, but what do you know about the Super Hornet compared to someone who works on it? Do you have enough knowledge about its systems, data buses, computing power, programming architecture and whatnot to make an assessment?

 

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.

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Rainmaker

[Beamscanner]

On 11/21/2022 at 1:07 AM, Bananabrai said:

So this is about the threat ring logic only? Or is there something else?
Because for me, the Harrier's RWR also seems to be too precise, which is more disturbing for me, than the incorrect threat ring logic on the Hornet. 

I have no doubt that every RWR in DCS (bar the F-14s) is way too accurate. I was only referring to the threat logic. 

 

On 11/21/2022 at 5:37 PM, Rainmaker said:

Your data is wrong on many accounts in this post. 

 

Excellent rebuttal!

Edited November 23, 2022 by Beamscanner
added quote

[Rainmaker]

12 minutes ago, Beamscanner said:

Excellent rebuttal!

 

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.

[Beamscanner]

25 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

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.

I dont think the number of BIT categories is an indication of avionic superiority. But we do know that that the F/A-18 was built around being entirely digital.

 

Yes, I am.. By computational capacity I mean it has more RAM, performs larger and faster FFTs, and can track more targets.

 

Saying that one is more modern, is not the same as saying the F-15E isn't modern.

[Rainmaker]

39 minutes ago, Beamscanner said:

I dont think the number of BIT categories is an indication of avionic superiority. But we do know that that the F/A-18 was built around being entirely digital.

 

Yes, I am.. By computational capacity I mean it has more RAM, performs larger and faster FFTs, and can track more targets.

 

Saying that one is more modern, is not the same as saying the F-15E isn't modern.

 

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.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Rainmaker

[Nahen]

The number of tracked targets has no value if you are not able to attack them with sense - I am writing only about Air to Air - F-15 and F-14 at some stage could have the ability to track several dozen targets simultaneously (I am writing about the years around 1980), why was the limited up to - if I remember - 8 targets? Because planes only took 8 Air to Air missiles. "Sometimes more is less".

Today, there is more and more talk about information noise and overwhelming pilots, tank crews, etc. with the amount of information. So what if you see dozens of targets and your own objects if you waste time selecting them, assessing threats and finally choosing them? Avionics suggests, takes part of the work is for the pilot, determines what threatens him in the first place and what not ... etc. But it does not change the fact that in some situations it is better to have "less on your mind" than to be overwhelmed with information. That's damned important in a dogfight.
On the example of DCS - I fly only F-15C ... I don't need Datalink. I'm doing fine without him. On PvP servers I often hear complaints that something was not on the datalink, that something was ... I don't have this problem

[Beamscanner]

3 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

 

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.

 

 

I see a lot of 'what-about-ism'. 

 

It seems you are trying to sell yourself rather than the F-15E. Otherwise you would provide details on why you believe, through your tactical maintenance experience, the F-15E is (in general) more modern than the F/A-18C. 

 

Most of the the systems you mentioned are still superior on the Hornet. 

• The tri-color displays?
• The 2 mission computers that fuse data from 5 simultaneous sensors?
• Weapon systems computer? Well it works in both jets... But the Hornet can employ more varied weapon types.
• Pilot interface? You mean like Fly-By-Wire, ACLS, Auto throttle, Spin recovery?
• Jamming suite? Smaller RCS wins in the SPJ category (not that DCS cares). 
• I'm pretty sure both jets can use most of their systems at once.

I dont need to stop at the radar, either. I believe the RWR is the same dated one from the F-15C. The F/A-18C's ALR-67(v2) is certainly more modern. Integrated with Jammer, HARM, Radar, INS.

 

Stop making this about you. Provide some bullet points as to why you believe the F-15E has more modern avionics than the F/A-18C.

[Rainmaker]

1 hour ago, Beamscanner said:

 

I see a lot of 'what-about-ism'. 

 

It seems you are trying to sell yourself rather than the F-15E. Otherwise you would provide details on why you believe, through your tactical maintenance experience, the F-15E is (in general) more modern than the F/A-18C. 

 

Most of the the systems you mentioned are still superior on the Hornet. 

• The tri-color displays?
• The 2 mission computers that fuse data from 5 simultaneous sensors?
• Weapon systems computer? Well it works in both jets... But the Hornet can employ more varied weapon types.
• Pilot interface? You mean like Fly-By-Wire, ACLS, Auto throttle, Spin recovery?
• Jamming suite? Smaller RCS wins in the SPJ category (not that DCS cares). 
• I'm pretty sure both jets can use most of their systems at once.

I dont need to stop at the radar, either. I believe the RWR is the same dated one from the F-15C. The F/A-18C's ALR-67(v2) is certainly more modern. Integrated with Jammer, HARM, Radar, INS.

 

Stop making this about you. Provide some bullet points as to why you believe the F-15E has more modern avionics than the F/A-18C.

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. 

[Nahen]

2 hours ago, Beamscanner said:

 

I see a lot of 'what-about-ism'. 

 

It seems you are trying to sell yourself rather than the F-15E. Otherwise you would provide details on why you believe, through your tactical maintenance experience, the F-15E is (in general) more modern than the F/A-18C. 

 

Most of the the systems you mentioned are still superior on the Hornet. 

• The tri-color displays?
• The 2 mission computers that fuse data from 5 simultaneous sensors?
• Weapon systems computer? Well it works in both jets... But the Hornet can employ more varied weapon types.
• Pilot interface? You mean like Fly-By-Wire, ACLS, Auto throttle, Spin recovery?
• Jamming suite? Smaller RCS wins in the SPJ category (not that DCS cares). 
• I'm pretty sure both jets can use most of their systems at once.

I dont need to stop at the radar, either. I believe the RWR is the same dated one from the F-15C. The F/A-18C's ALR-67(v2) is certainly more modern. Integrated with Jammer, HARM, Radar, INS.

 

Stop making this about you. Provide some bullet points as to why you believe the F-15E has more modern avionics than the F/A-18C.

Why don't you start comparing the F/A-18 E Super Hornet to the F-15SA/QA/EX?? Although maybe it's better not to... why kick a lying on the ground

[Fromthedeep]

17 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

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

I don't really see how this is a leap, the comparison was of rather limited scope, and from this it makes sense to me that even if all computers have the same processing power, the fact that the Super Hornet's systems can talk to one another and transfer data faster means it is a relevant advantage because the latter can utilize the fast hardware at its fullest extent. The fact that the Super Hornet is a more scalable platform means that the software that these components are running will also be constantly evolving at a much higher pace. 

[Rainmaker]

1 hour ago, Fromthedeep said:

I don't really see how this is a leap, the comparison was of rather limited scope, and from this it makes sense to me that even if all computers have the same processing power, the fact that the Super Hornet's systems can talk to one another and transfer data faster means it is a relevant advantage because the latter can utilize the fast hardware at its fullest extent. The fact that the Super Hornet is a more scalable platform means that the software that these components are running will also be constantly evolving at a much higher pace. 

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. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Rainmaker

[Beamscanner]

13 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

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 have yet to explain why my "data is wrong on many accounts in this post."

 

All you can do is say 'I've touched the thing and you haven't' even though you know nothing about me. All of us know you did maintenance on the thing. That doesn't invalidate our argument. 

 

The APG-73 radar has:

• a Combined Radar data and Signal processor with a throughput of 60MOPS (8.3 x that of the APG-65)
• 11-bit, 5 MHz ADC for A/A 
• 6-bit, 58-MHz ADC for A/G
• A secondary computer that handles mode control, antenna control, target tracking, and display processing has 2 MOPS and 2M-word firm memory and a 256K 16-bit working memory.

The APG-70 radar has:

• A programmable signal processor with a throughput of 34 MOPS
• A Radar data processor with a throughput of 1.4 MOPS (3x the APG-63's IBM CP-1075's 400 KOPS) with 1M of memory.

 

APG-73's 60 MOPS > APG-70's 34 MOPS

The APG-73's secondary computer (not even a radar or signal data computer) has 2x memory and 40% more processing than the Radar data processor in the F-15E. 

 

Reference below / attached. (all references are public domain / non-government)

http://www.masdf.com/eagle/anpag63.html

APG-73 Forecast.pdf

ERS130B1_APG-70 V.pdf

Edited November 24, 2022 by Beamscanner

[Rainmaker]

4 hours ago, Beamscanner said:

You have yet to explain why my "data is wrong on many accounts in this post."

 

All you can do is say 'I've touched the thing and you haven't' even though you know nothing about me. All of us know you did maintenance on the thing. That doesn't invalidate our argument. 

 

The APG-73 radar has:

• a Combined Radar data and Signal processor with a throughput of 60MOPS (8.3 x that of the APG-65)
• 11-bit, 5 MHz ADC for A/A 
• 6-bit, 58-MHz ADC for A/G
• A secondary computer that handles mode control, antenna control, target tracking, and display processing has 2 MOPS and 2M-word firm memory and a 256K 16-bit working memory.

The APG-70 radar has:

• A programmable signal processor with a throughput of 34 MOPS
• A Radar data processor with a throughput of 1.4 MOPS (3x the APG-63's IBM CP-1075's 400 KOPS) with 1M of memory.

 

APG-73's 60 MOPS > APG-70's 34 MOPS

The APG-73's secondary computer (not even a radar or signal data computer) has 2x memory and 40% more processing than the Radar data processor in the F-15E. 

 

Reference below / attached. (all references are public domain / non-government)

http://www.masdf.com/eagle/anpag63.html

APG-73 Forecast.pdf 1.5 MB · 4 downloads

ERS130B1_APG-70 V.pdf 60.28 kB · 3 downloads

 

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.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Rainmaker

[Beamscanner]

 

2 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

- Fewer TWS displayed track files seen by the pilot vs the eagle

120 degree LTWS > 60 degree TWS with more clutter on screen.

And while the APG-73 tracks less targets in total, it constantly creates trackfiles even in RWS. They're just hidden from the pilot. This is different from the APG-70, which does not do this in RWS. This allows immediate tracking when switching modes.

2 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

- Still a narrower beam width scan for actual target detection in both AA and AG.  That isn't even bringing 'range' into account here.

2 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

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.

No one here, including me, has said the Hornet outperformed the Eagle. A larger antenna ensures much higher gain. This is a strawman. 

2 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

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.

 

MSI is not a buzzword. It is capable of a lot.. That doesn't mean that the Strike Eagle doesn't do alot as well.

RWR integration in the eagle is mainly for blanking and preventing interference between Radar, Jammer and RWR. It does not integrate RWR data like the Hornet.

 

You're clearly locked in your view, probably due to your bias for the jet you turn wrenches on. You don't know much about the Hornet, and when you're proved wrong (see my previous 2 posts) you move the goal post (now its performance, BIT, and 'nothing is fully digital' again').

 

BTW.. your analogy doesn't work. we do know what's in them, we know how fast they are, we know how much memory they have, we know they were both built by the same company, and they were both expected to be best in class.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Beamscanner

[Nahen]

Hmm...

>>>>The APG-73 is a late 1980s "upgrade of the APG-65 that provides higher throughputs, greater memory capacity, improved reliability, and easier maintenance".^[1] To reduce production costs, many of the upgraded radar's modules are common with the APG-70 (F-15E Strike Eagle) radar; its software engineers chose the JOVIAL programming language so that they could borrow and adapt existing software written for the APG-70. When fitted with a motion-sensing subsystem and stretch waveform generator and special test equipment, the APG-73 can generate high resolution ground maps and make use of 'advanced' image correlation algorithms to enhance weapon designation accuracy. <<<<

And one more thing... why don't you compare the AN/APG-82 Radar to that of the Hornet? Is it "weaker?

 

The words in >>> <<< are not my words, but a quote from a study on radars >>AN/APG-63 radar family<<

Edited November 24, 2022 by Nahen

[Beirut]

On 11/20/2022 at 3:40 PM, Krez said:

The F/A-18 and F-15E are two completely different aircraft, designed for different roles, by different services. To try and compare them to say which one is better is silly.

 

 

Not silly at all, though I might have been more precise in my original post. I meant A2G.

 

The Hornet has beaucoup tech toys for A2G. I was curious if the F-15E would have the same or more. From what I've seen so far, the F-15E's radar looks like the cat's ass and much better than the Hornet's. 

[falcon_120]

 
Not silly at all, though I might have been more precise in my original post. I meant A2G.
 
The Hornet has beaucoup tech toys for A2G. I was curious if the F-15E would have the same or more. From what I've seen so far, the F-15E's radar looks like the cat's ass and much better than the Hornet's. 

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

[Nahen]

1 hour ago, falcon_120 said:

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

 

>>>>The APG-63(V)3 radar is a more modern variant of the APG-63(V)2, applying the same AESA technology utilized in Raytheon's APG-79. The (V)3 is currently being retrofitted into F-15C/D and deployed in Singapore's new F-15SG aircraft and Saudi Arabia's new F-15SA aircraft. Raytheon delivered the first prototype APG-63(V)3 system in June 2006.^[2] The company started work on an initial production order in October 2007<<<<

Not to mention the AN/APG-82...

So how is the Hornet's AESA radar better than the F-15E AESA radar?

 

The words in >>> <<< are not my words, but a quote from a study on radars >>AN/APG-63 radar family<<

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Nahen

[Rainmaker]

9 hours ago, Beamscanner said:

 

120 degree LTWS > 60 degree TWS with more clutter on screen.

And while the APG-73 tracks less targets in total, it constantly creates trackfiles even in RWS. They're just hidden from the pilot. This is different from the APG-70, which does not do this in RWS. This allows immediate tracking when switching modes.

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. 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Rainmaker

[Beirut]

3 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

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

 

I don't see any constraints being required. You can compare anything to anything, even apples to oranges; one goes better in a pie and the other goes better with vodka.

 

The Hornet and the Eagle are jets that go real fast and drop bombs and makes things go "Boom!"  You can certainly compare them.

 

 

3 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

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
 

 

Yeah, but that F-15E radar is cool! 

 

[falcon_120]

So how is the Hornet's AESA radar better than the F-15E AESA radar?
 
 

I did not say that. If we are talking about those AESA (F15E, f18e) they are comparable.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

 
Yeah, but that F-15E radar is cool! 
 

It is

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[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
 

hard to say if you dont have direct picture to compare to, but from the few included 2007 document it appears the AESA sarmap doesn't look better than what the F15E can do with APG70.

 

Granted there are multiple improvement of APG79 at this point ( latest one is V4) irrc.

 

 

 

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2007/psa_apr/gaddis.pdf

 

 

Edited November 27, 2022 by Kev2go