RAZBAM F-15E

Deacon211 · January 9, 2023, 8:24pm

Take a look at the Harrier cockpit and you’ll see the family resemblance there too.

It’s interesting to see how innovations in one cockpit would be found in the next. F-18A, AV-8B, F-15E, F-18C, AV-8B Night Attack, then AV-8B Plus.

chipwich · January 9, 2023, 9:43pm

Especially since the Harrier put the trim turd in the correct position

Man, in that last screen, to me it looks like Razbam has upped their weathering game. That pit looks a bit more patina’d than anything thing they’ve done before.

Torc · January 9, 2023, 9:54pm

Honestly if they put the steering bug on the SA page compass then I’d never use the third MFD in the Hornet… the Harrier cockpit really is a good design, isn’t it?

The interior shots of the Strike Eagle look amazing! I actually can’t wait to have a go in the backseat, that’s where I do want as much screen real estate as I can get.

weaponz248 · January 9, 2023, 10:41pm

All this cockpit similarity talk has me very curious as to how the JDAM will work with the 15E.

I love the PP mode the 18 and AV-8 have and was always curious as to why the 16 didn’t have that option. Now I’m starting to wonder if its a Boeing vs Lockheed thing.

The thought of 12 GBU-38s dropped on 12 different targets at once is, well awesome!

JediMaster · January 10, 2023, 4:23pm

More likely it’s a USAF vs USN/MC thing. If the USAF told Lockheed it had to have it, it would have it.
So that means it’s possible the Beagle won’t either.
Of course, given it’s heavy strike focus it’s possible the USAF decided to invest in it there but didn’t bother with the F-16 given its smaller payload.

weaponz248 · January 10, 2023, 4:38pm

Yeah im still assuming its a USAF vs USN thing.

But it could be a software thing as well.

I guess we will find out soon.

Deacon211 · January 11, 2023, 12:32pm

I’ve obviously never flown any USAF aircraft, but I tend to disagree.

The different design lineage is pretty apparent between McD and LM designs as it is between Boeing and Airbus.

It’s not that, if the Air Force finds a function desirable, it’s not going to get it. But it’s likely going to get it the LM (or Boeing) way.

The other point is that the AF needs to ask for it, specifically. One thing that the Air Force doesn’t have a lot of that the DCS community does, is people who have flown both (or more) of these aircraft.

So, most AF guys don’t have the experience to say, “Aww, I like the way the Hornet does X better”. And not everyone who does made it to a position of power in AF acquisitions.

And that’s assuming the AF guys find something objectively better. People tend to strongly prefer the familiar. Ever notice that folks here still generally call automatic bombing, “CCRP”, even in the Hornet/Harrier, where it’s pronounced, “AUTO”? So, even if one aircraft has a very useful feature, there will be some people who prefer the way that they’ve always done it.

The Strike Eagle will be interesting to me specifically because it is the Air Force’s take on the McD philosophy, so we’re going to see an interesting intersection of design priorities.

My suspicion though is that the transition will still be easier from the Hornet/Harrier to the SE, than from the Viper/Warthog.