August 11 2016. Little update F/A-18C delevelop

[near_blind]

@MBot

I see where both of you are coming from in regards to limiting weapons. For a time I have been using the A-10C without TGP and guided bombs, limiting myselfe on this and that, pretending I was flying an A-10A. But it was always too aparent that I was just pretending, it simply killed my suspense of disbelief. Ultimately I stopped flying the A-10C alltogether (in it’s modern C-essence, I consider it a terribly boring aircraft, I call it a “manned drone”). Limiting air-air weapons has been slightly more succesful for me (no AIM-120) but of course you can basically forget about playing missions you didn’t craft yourselfe, as these are almost always using the latest and greatest.

So one of the things I find fascinating about the F/A-18 is that when the cockpit was designed in the late 70s, the man the put in charge of it was so forward thinking he basically designed a cockpit that would go functionally unchanged until Boeing decided to throw their arms in the air and just make it a giant LCD like the F-35.

Look at an F/A-18A from 1983, and look at a current Block F/A-18C.

I can think of only a few changes that will be glaringly apparent.

1. The engine/fuel panel will probably be a newer LCD or digital piece rather than the old analog
2. The DDIs (MFDs) will probably look different if the CRTs have been replaced with LCDs
3. There will be a knob for the JHMCS

Other than that the cockpit has essentially remained static for the past thirty years. They put enough care and thought into designing it that unlike other jets (Cough Lawn Dart Cough), it hasn’t required major surgery to update to modernity. If the Strike Eagle and Hornet have proven anything, it’s that you cannot hate on 1980s McDonnell Douglass ergonomics.

All this to say I think it’ll be fairly easy to squint and pretend you’re in an earlier model Hornet.

[AeroMechanical]

Warning: Unfounded speculation ahead.

So, the MiG-21 has the option of either carrying the RATO pods or chaff/flare, right?

What if at some point “Pilot/cockpit equipment” was also part of the loadout screen and you could select between things like the JHMCS, different types of HUDs, RWR’s, etc?

[Bogusheadbox]

Bogus looks at pic of f18, then wonders how far down @komemiute list he is…

[AeroMechanical]

@near_blind

They put enough care and thought into designing it that unlike other jets (Cough Lawn Dart Cough),

Also: Whoa there!

Gotta keep in mind the ecosystems both jets were developed in. The viper’s development track was fast, and on top of that was in an arguably hostile leadership environment. The Navy’s leadership was a lot less conflicted about development of the Bug, which moved forward at a more deliberate pace.

Also keep in mind unit cost- the F-16C in '98 dollars was $18.8 mil, which comes out to ~$23 mil in 2006 dollars versus the F/A-18C’s unit cost of $29 mil in 2006 dollars (if Wikipedia is to be believed). A ~25% increase in cost is nothing to sneeze at, and while the lion’s share of that is probably reflected in having an additional engine and beefier structural design for Naval ops, having a fancy pants cockpit is probably reflected somewhere in there too. Note that if you check out the YF-17’s cockpit (developed on a similar budget to the YF-16) it does not have the slick displays of the production Bug.

All this being said… oh yeah. 1980’s McDonnel Douglass style is pretty great, isn’t it?

Now where’s my Strike Eagle with the widescreen HUD?

[SkateZilla]

That’s assuming other systems were not coded already, He Also stated there are systems already integrated into the cockpits.

However to do a Professional Flight Model, the Electrical, Hydraulic and Gear systems need to be integrated into the cockpit first.

Systems can be coded outside of the cockpit then integrated into it one at a time.

[near_blind]

@AeroMechanical

having a fancy pants cockpit is probably reflected somewhere in there too

Hey now. My big hate train is more that while similar in function, the F/A-18C cockpit is just much better laid out. You can see that they settled on the idea that MFDs were clearly the future, and I’m just awed by the bold moves they made in pursuing that. They identified everything the pilot needed, decided how best to display that via the mfds, combining data streams when necessary, and then eliminated everything that was not absolutely necessary. Everything the pilot needs is right there. The pilot doesn’t need to look around to change stores, enter waypoints, drop tanks. It’s all right. there.

Compare that to the F-16A, which I will grant you was rushed out on a budget, but it’s a cockpit of compromise. They tried to save space with an MFD, but they were not confident enough to fully commit to the technology and opted for the LED abomination again. There is a HUD, but they again compromised and the entire right side of the dash is small analog gauges. I’d mention the placement of the radar screen but that’s just cruel. They did an admirable job integrating MFDs with the C, but if my experience with BMS is anything to go by, they still did not achieve the level of harmonious systems integration that McD did on the hornets right out of the shop.

[AeroMechanical]

@near_blind

MFDs were clearly the future

Because I can’t resist:

The Aviator ending scene , the way of the future.

@near_blind

they still did not achieve the level of harmonious systems integration that McD did on the hornets right out of the shop.

Indeed, the sad fate of many systems playing the catch-up game instead of being purpose-built right from the start.

I wonder how much of that is the span of time between the cockpit development of the 16A and 18A? Did the tech mature that much in the what, 5 years between the two to enable that? Did McD have an edge on suppliers or in-house knowledge that GD didn’t have?

[near_blind]

@AeroMechanical

I wonder how much of that is the span of time between the cockpit development of the 16A and 18A? Did the tech mature that much in the what, 5 years between the two to enable that? Did McD have an edge on suppliers or in-house knowledge that GD didn’t have?

Actually yes. If I remember the narrative correctly when it became clear McD was not going to get funding both the F-18 and A-18, they aggressively sought a way to combine the two aircraft in a way that would not melt the brain of their pilots. They sought out this engineer, whose name I will go find when I get home, but was an evangelist of the glass cockpit concept.

EDIT: Engineer’s name was Eugene Adam.

To design the Hornet cockpit, MDC brought a unique talent to bear. Engineer Eugene Adam, acknowledged to be the finest cockpit designer in the world, led the MDC cockpit design team that produced the “front office” for the F/A-18. For years, Adam had advocated a “glass” cockpit, composed only of computer screens, which could be configured in any way desired by the pilot." -Tom Clancy, Carrier a Guided Tour of an Aircraft Carrier, pg 146

[Navynuke99]

How much of the Hornet cockpit was carried over from the original Northrop Cobra design that competed with the F-16A for the LWF program? IIRC a good bit of that was Northrop from the start.

[near_blind]

This is the only somewhat reliable looking shot I can find, and hoooollly crap that is a test fighter if I’ve ever seen one. I can identify a couple of things that look they ripped them out of the Tiger, but essentially none of that is in the Hornet.

I’d be more curious to see what the aft half of the cockpit looks like.

[AeroMechanical]

For reference, compare:

YF-16:

F-16A Blk1:

EDIT: And, why not, for completion’s sake:

F/A-18A:

[near_blind]

For further comparison

Here’s an F/A-18C cockpit (a Block 48 to be exact)

F-16C cockpit

Working all the way back towards my original point to @MBot. As you can see the F/A-18 cockpit does not change very drastically over the years. The main discernible differences will be improved sensors and avionics.

[SkateZilla]

Wait till you see the new USMC F/A-18C+ Cockpits

[boomerang10]

I mean, if I had to guess…

[chipwich]

@near_blind

For further comparison

Here’s an F/A-18C cockpit (a Block 48 to be exact)

This is my most anticipated module for a number of reasons and I can’t wait to strap that on, in VR no less.

[PaulRix]

Having a VR headset has changed things completely for me. It’s also been hard on my wallet. Since getting the Rift I have added the Mig15, 21, M2000C and L39 to my hangar. Then there is Aerofly FS 2 and the Switzerland DLC as well. Thankfully I have a very understanding wife! I still want to pick up the F5E and Gazelle, but I think I will have to wait a bit on that. The Gazelle is next though.

I will definitely pick up the F18 when it is released. It’s just such a versatile aircraft, and carrier ops will be great too. What I would really like to see are some early British jets. The Meteor, Vampire, Venom, Hunter, LIGHTNING!, Sea Vixen, Bucaneer etc.

[klarsnow]

So, in response to the further up discussion about manual vs CCIP bombing vs CCRP bombing, vs JDAM vs etc. Since my primary job involves bombs and particularly things like JDAMs, as an F-15E WSO, lemme throw my 2 cents worth in.

First CCIP (or CDIP as we call it in the Strike eagle) IRL we run these exactly the same as a manual bombing pass, because it results in more accurate bombs. If you truly want to see how actual bombing passes with these work, I can get you the data for a bombing pattern, and you will see it is actually quite challenging to get good at, even with the Continuously displayed impact point in the hud. Ultimately you just put the thing on the thing and push the button, but there is a ton of technique involved in doing this.

CCRP ( or any automatic form of release) These are the bread and butter of the strike eagle and where I am most comfortable. If you think these releases are boring, then start looking more and more into why you would be using them with dumb bombs. Once you can get a nav designation in the M2000, rather than thinking of just flying to the target and pickling, start utilizing it for things like lofts, pop up attacks and various tactical things (MK82AIR) that you just cannot do with a pipper on target type mentality. CCRP is the tactical way to go in a high contested threat heavy environment because it allows you to actually fly tactically, as long as you have good target coordinates, or can at least find it. I have had the most fun flying pop or loft passes with an auto release than I do with any kind of CDIP pass.

LGB’s, if you want to see the challenge inherent in LGBs start seeing how to employ them tactically. What we do IRL is usually live on the very edges of the envelope of where the weapon is succesful, IE We pop up, loft the weapon, check away and descend down again with just enough unmasking of the pod to lase the bomb in, and it impacts with around 1 second of time left in the FOV of the pod before the aircraft masks it. This can be much much more of a planning beast than doing any kind of manual attack, and it is a hell of a lot more fun. Instead of trying to set yourself up with a very nice heart of the envelope attack where its dogballs easy to hit, start playing with the edges of the envelope. Put a threat in that you cannot pop up for very long to engage, but that you have to be super precise with your bombs.

This is mainly talking GBU-12’s/10’s, GBU 24’s (and any Paveway 3 weapon) are an entire other beast. It can take hours to plan a single drop of one of these to make it plan its desired weapons effects, because of the unique design and performance issues inherent in the weapon. It is literally too smart for its own good and you have to mission plan around what it will automatically try and do, which can result in spectacular results or horrendous misses. IE you dropped it 1/2 a mile too far from the target and it never saw the laser point, and flies 5 miles long of the target.

Finally JDAM’s. If you want JDAM’s to be fun start flying into threat environments where you have to target and get accurate bombs off really fast, and dont have time to lase something. Then the fun comes much less from the bomb release, but from the attack itself.

For Example, at Red Flag Alaska we were going out swing roll witha 5x1 A/A loadout with a rack of 4 GBU-39 SBD’s on the centerline station and 2xGBU-31’s on the Left CFT. We have preplanned targets for the GBU-31’s, and 2 of the GBU-39’s whilst we are also engaging the Red Air along the ingress for the entire package.
Whilst in the middle of several SAM Wezzes that are trying to shoot us.
There were several instances where as we are shooting an AMRAAM at something, as the WSO you holler “A/G MODE!! PICKLE!!! A/A MODE!! SHOOT!!” and we fling JDAMs at targets whilst committing on a bandit, or running cold from the bandit. Or we have fallout, or someone dies on the ingress and we have to pick up their targets on the ground, again not possible at all without JDAMs.

All this being said I too have fun running in and doing Manual passes in the F-5 or in any old plane like this, but start thinking about what you can do with the other options available to you and it is definitely not less fun, it just opens up a lot more to what you can do.

[komemiute]

And that, kids, is the difference between a real aircrew member and the rest of people who play sims on PCs.

[Aginor]

Thanks for dropping in. Exactly how I picture it.