Image credit: RCAF
Posted on 09/18/2014 11:43:59 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Although they are two different airframes, the F-15 and the F-18 have similar avionics, as you can read in the following interesting story released by an experienced Eagle driver. Disclaimer: the story is based on an interview to an F-15, published on a magazine profiling the F/A-18 Hornet.
Developed as a multirole naval fighter, the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F/A-18 Hornet has become the backbone of the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps and several air arms around the world.
Among them there is also the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), formerly known as Canadian Forces Air Command, that began receiving a slightly modified version of the standard legacy Hornet, designated CF-18 (Canadian military designation is CF-188), in 1982.
Two years later, the first CF-18 fighter planes were also delivered to the Canadian units permanently based in Germany to replace their aging CF-104 Starfighter.
Some U.S. Air Force pilots stationed in Europe had a chance to learn more about the CF-18 capabilities. One of them was an F-15C pilot, Robert I “Scout” Winebrenner, who flew with Canadian Hornets while he was assigned to 32 Tactical Fighter Squadron in Soesterberg, the Netherlands.
In fact, during his tour of duty in Europe, Winebrenner became a Tactical Leadership Program (TLP) instructor and, as such, he had the opportunity to experience several observation flights aboard the two seat variants of the aircraft belonging to the units that took part to the exercise.
As Winebrenner recalls in Issue 23 “McDonnell Douglas F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet” of Aviation Classics magazine, most of these flights were in the F-16s used by several European air forces, and in the Canadian CF-188B Hornets.
Dealing with the F-16, “Scout” explains that he never felt really comfortable in the Viper (as the Fighting Falcon is nicknamed by the fighter pilots community) cockpit even though the plane’s HOTAS (Hands On Throttle And Stick) feature provided the ability to perform myriad tasks without moving the hands away from the stick and throttles.
In particular, the radar scope located between the legs in the early “A” blocks felt like a “foreign object” in the first few flights on the F-16.
On the contrary his perspective from the CF-18 cockpit was completely different, as everything was where it was supposed to be.
The switches, knobs and gauges had a familiar look. Not surprising, since both the Eagle and the Hornet were McDonnel Douglas products and came from the same St. Louis plant.
Still, according to Scout, there were other reasons.
First of all, he felt extremely comfortable in the Hornet cockpit, to such an extent, after his very first flight on the plane, he said to the Canadian pilot who was flying in the front seat the following words: “You know, this could be completely over-the-top misplaced confidence on my part, but after that flight, I have the feeling that I could walk out there fire one up, and go out and fly the airplane, run the systems and even employ it tactically…just like that.”
During his several sorties on board Canadian Hornets, Winebrenner discovered that several functions of the CF-18 cockpit were even better than those owned by the Eagle one, such as the displays arrangement: whilst most Hornet fighter jocks put their radar display on the right MFD, the system was flexible and let the pilot chose the preferred arrangement.
He put his on the left (where the radar display is located in the F-15 cockpit), and “felt right at home.”
Moreover he liked the slightly larger HUD (Head Up Display), which gave to the cockpit a more modern appearance. The 70° gimbal limit was great. The stick grip was also well designed with the extra control knob (the ‘castle’ switch), and the same stick grip was fitted in the F-15C with the Multi-Staged Improvement Programme (MSIP) modification to run the Multi-Function Colour Display (MFCD) that worked also as Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) terminal.
But Winebrenner also found few things that he didn’t like about Hornet avionics, the first of those was the radar.
“Not that the Hughes APG-65 was a bad radar – far from it. But the narrower beam width and brute force of the F-15’s APG-63 was superior for most air-to-air situations. Moreover, the APG-65 was optimized for over-water operation, and incorporated some rather severe side-lobe suppression techniques which drastically reduced detection range if the Hornet was at lower altitude over land. The Eagle’s radar did similar things, but not anywhere near to the same extent.”
Thanks to its brute force and power, the APG-63 was better at dealing with Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) than the APG-65.
Another thing that Winebrenner liked more in the F-15C than in the CF-18, was the visibility in the cockpit, especially in the rear cockpit; however, in this case, we can’t but notice that the Eagle pilot was not impressed by the large single-piece bubble canopy with no forward bow frame that makes the Lockheed Martin F-16, at least the single seat, by far the fighter jet with the best 360° visibility of any combat plane in the world.
But, as a disclaimer, we told you at the beginning of this article that the interview was published on an issue dedicated to the F/A-18 Hornet….
Image credit: RCAF
Ping.
thanks, for the post.
Interesting article. I’ve been an Army Aviation officer for 19 years, most of my flight time in UH-60 Blackhawks. So I can’t speak that intelligently about the “fast-mover” aviation community as we call it. However, I can say that many things in aviation are unnecessarily complicated. Through the years I always became nervous when “upgrades” came about.
The big problem is defense contractors need to keep their jobs. They over-engineer stuff so they have to be relied upon. We have almost eliminated the typical Joe Snuffy from working on aircraft. It’s a shame. We have to rely on outside contractors for much of our maintenance. Not sure if it’s as bad in the Air Force and Navy, but I suspect it is.
“They over-engineer stuff so they have to be relied upon. We have almost eliminated the typical Joe Snuffy from working on aircraft. It’s a shame. We have to rely on outside contractors for much of our maintenance. Not sure if it’s as bad in the Air Force and Navy, but I suspect it is.”
Heck that’s what engineers do. They think all the gee whiz look at me bell and whistles are great. They do the same thing with cars.
As an example. And Germans are the worst. When cars first came out with cupholders. The German engineers hated them. So did American engineers. Why? Took up space and they wondered “why would anyone drink anything while driving”.
Look at early 90’s cupholders in Mercedes. They cupholders they designed had approx. 30 pieces. For a damn cupholder.
No kidding!
But hardware doesn't have a monopoly on changes for the sake of keeping someone employed. Software, and in particular with "Security" patches, is drowning in updates... many of them mandatory depending on the employer.
His take on the Super Hornet would have been nice, but not fair, being a later evolution.
Some years ago in Alaska I spoke with an F-15A pilot who was denigrating the capabilities of “that pig C model” thusly:
“See that windsock (at the midpoint of the Deadhorse runway)? I’d be at 10,000 feet climbing vertically in afterburner and that pig C model would still be on the runway.”
Apparently he did not see the utility of the extra weight in avionics carried by the F-15C model. Apparently.
I remember in 1978 when the Eagle was new and they were developing tactics at Nellis. We took lowly Phantoms from George up there for DACT and beat them on the Red Flag range until they learned how to use the aircraft. It is all about how you employ the airplane and taking advantage of your opponents vulnerabilities.
Canada Ping!
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.