Fromthedeep

I would assume that the whitepaper is going to contain sources and explanations that could somehow (in theory) support their position. To ensure intellectual proffesionalism, we definitely should wait until the whitepaper is out, they can describe the points and support it with evidence and debunk it if it's factually incorrect.

Klarsnow said it on the Razbam Discord.

So the E will also rely on mil bombing?

For PW2s it works like this: you must delay lase when: 1.) dropping in a low energy state 2.) low level lofting you must continuously lase when: 1.) dropping on movers 2.) buddy lazing 3.) compensating against high winds In any other situation, it has less to do with accuracy and more with terminal velocity against fixed targets.

Continuous lasing is a very valid technique depending on the specifics of the situation and delay lazing is only mandatory when the bomb would be in an energy deficient state or during a low level loft.

When it comes to the GBU-24 I completely understand their sentiment. Even the publically document features are incredibly complex, require an indescribeable amount of work (in complexity it would be on par with the modern air to air missiles) and generally they rely on a level of weaponeering and preplanning that doesn't exist in DCS and not even the tools exist for it. As a developer, they constantly have to ensure that the level of resources required for a feature are not to excessive for the benefit. In case of a realistic GBU-24 this limitation is very likely a strong consideration.

I will link it as soon as I can, but currently DTIC is undergoing some kind of maintanence or it has technical issues. I don't think it will be fixed until Wednesday or so.

USAF bombs at least use mode 1-4.. Mode 1 is described in publically available literature on DTIC, it's a fully public release document so much so that I could be linked even on the forum. The other modes need the BLU-109 bomb body and depending on the release altitude trajectory shape against certain type of targets. The big problem however is that the actual modes incorporate entirely different kind of guidance schemes depending on certain scenarios and the trajectory shaping is designed to achieve specific impact parameters depending on the target and the capability is designed mainly for penetration. DCS doesn't model penetration so I find it really unlikely that it will ever be modelled.

The issue is that the real GBU-24 has 2 different behaviour depending on a specific altitude for each mode. And the guidance scheme it follows also depends on not just the altitude but the attitude at which the bomb was released. Mode 1 is detailed in a 1988 publication that's completely open source and it should be the first thing anyone finds who's researching the weapon, however, all the guidance scheme is incredibly complex and resource intensive to simulate. It's a different weapon, I mean it's not the same bomb body, not the same parameters and performance and not even the same modes can be used, because certain modes can only be associated with the 109 bomb body, not a Mk 84.

Why was this deleted? If they delete the file, post it to Hoggit.

Great stuff, but sadly not relevant for the EdA/USN Hornet that we have.

Well then prove me wrong. The pilots do actually, there are some IPs who are trained to land from the backseat. Read and try to comprehend the entire paragraph and pay attention to the context. We're talking about professional pilots in the context of military aviation. If you had read the second sentence, you would have seen why that's a false equivalency. If you are flying as a recreational pilot with a PPL, you are still formally trained and legally certified to be a pilot in an aircraft within certain constraints. If you have your wife/husband flying with you and they have no formal training or certifications, they can still be flying the aircraft but that won't make them pilots. Even if you informally and unofficially teach them all they need to know to safely operate the aircraft. They would be passengers who are flying an aircraft. No, they don't. WSOs are not trained to fly the aircraft and they aren't trained to be pilots. Pilots are trained to be pilots, CSOs learn different skillsets that allow them to meaningfully contribute to whatever platform they end up in, flying isn't one of this. They can get some sticktime depending on what platform they are flying (and they get to solo in IFS) but that still doesn't make them pilots. Pilots are much more skilled in operating the aircraft, they have formal training that allows them to do it consistently in all kinds of situations and they are legally certified to do so. What even is "the mudura?" They don't have the same skills as pilots and their training doesn't revolve around actually flying the aircraft. They can do that in certain situations but that will be very limited compared to the time pilots spend on honing their flying skills. WSOs have to focus on learning how to do their actual job and not flying the aircraft. All of this is confirmed by the WSO that you quoted from. No, a driver is someoneone who has completed the necessary training and obtained a driving license. If you go shopping without a license, the authorities will reward you with a hefty fine.

The badge in this instance showcases that the pilot graduated UPT and have the official qualifications, training and skill to pilot an aircraft, to operate it safely and effectively in operational environments and handle emergencies as well. In case of a Strike Eagle, the pilot will have the ability to fly it tactically in combat, fly close formation, refuel, fly low level routes and deal with a plethora of different emergencies. They can do it consistently, safely and in an effective manner, even in challenging conditions. I'm not sure what you're talking about but it's also irrelevant to the debate. WSOs don't have the same flight training syllabus that pilots do. WSOs don't train to land from the backseat, they don't train to actually fly the aircraft in tactical scenarios and any kind of situation. WSOs are trained to be active part of the crew even when it comes to admin and tacadmin flying, they have the required aeronatical knowledge to help the pilot effectively aviate but they aren't trained to do it themselves. They can take part in the navigation, help the pilot with fuel management, complying with ATC/legal regulations during the flight (paying attention the altitude, airspeed, airspace and any other constraints they may have), they can give directions during BFM/AAR and so on. In emergencies, they can take control, if the pilot gets fixated on the target, busts the MSA on a strafe, doesn't get back to TF limits on a low level, gets a severe medical problem, becomes disoriented in any way, they can even take control away from the pilot. But that's an emergency, not part of normal operations and that doesn't make them a pilot. A pilot is someone who has the skill, knowledge and qualifications to operate an aircraft. If the WSO is flying then the pilot relegates flying duties to the WSO but that doesn't mean the WSO will become the pilot. He will be the WSO, who's flying the aircraft. Flying an aircraft doesn't mean that you're a pilot. The WSO can also act as the pilot in emergencies (if the pilot becomes incapacitated or dies) but that's obviously not part of normal operations. A pilot isn't someone who knows how to fly a plane, it's someone whose job is to fly one. That assumes they have the required skill, experience, training and qualifications to do so. In the case of the USAF, it's someone who's graduated UPT and is a winged pilot. The WSO can fly but that won't make him the pilot. Of course there is. Debunking misinformation and educating people is a noble goal.

It's a possibility that they know what options are there and how the page looks like and its layout but they don't have data that actually explains the functions.

The other really big difference is going to be the lack of integration in air to air roles. HAFUs are not a thing, the radar is its own separate sensor without specific symbology integrating all the SA data like in the Hornet and IFF interrogation results are also not integrated like in the Hornet.

Because everyone thinks that the C model is glorious and much more preferable in a video game setting than the Beagle.

ACLS is a much more accurate tool to conduct an approach with than ICLS, with lower minimums, the ability to show accurate information in pitching and rolling deck conditions and it's based on a 2 way datalink communication.

You can't just add infinite energy you know, they have a maximum release speed below the mach. As for altitude, there's no such thing as a free lunch. The higher you are, the more likely it is to have significant wind deviation that can influence the bomb during its TOF and every correction it makes for the wind bleeds the energy budget. Not to mention that it further increases the chance that some kind of weather limitation will also play a major role. PW2s wouldn't like even the puffy little Bob Ross clouds we have. And the bigger the slant range, the less likely it is that you hit anywhere near the target. Even if we disregard seeker and laser limitations, if you lase for an excessive amount of time and try to impart a sort of long range glide trajectory on the bomb sagging will mean that it should very likely drop short of the target. It will bleed itself of energy and you'd never hit anything at those ridiculous ranges. When I said that at medium level deliveries it would have more than enough energy, I was talking about releasing at BRP, not at 15 miles. Realistically speaking of course, we simply can't ignore laser and seeker limitations and it simply wouldn't work, too large spot size at shallow grazing angles means disaster for the expected accuracy and it would be well beyond the limit of the range at which the seeker can pick up the spot. There's a reason why PW2s are supposed to be dropped inside the laser basket and the LAR is either at the ballistic drop point or closer to the target. DCS is a video game and the core interactions are way too simplified compared to real life, and if this works in the game absolutely make sure to use it. But understand that this would never work in real life, the weapon is not designed to do it, the TTPs are all designed around maximizing effectiveness and using some kind of wonky manual forced release mode as some kind of stand off release option in real life would be a great way to hit the dirt instead of the target. It's a backup mode in case something fails in the computed calculation but it's not a magical way to utilize the weapon in a manner that means it would be absolutely wasted and achieve no results. The GBU-24 is the perfect weapon for what you're trying to achieve with its much more sophisticated guidance scheme, energy efficient flight profile and significantly increased range.

This behaviour seems highly unrealistic. From the seekers side: 1.) At a high enough slant range, the spot size increases considerably, its shape becomes oval and it will greatly reduce accuracy. 2.) The seeker itself has a nominal acquisition range assuming that its FOV isn't obsctructed. There are obviously upgraded seekers for more modern PW2s but it's still a limiting factor. Expecting it to pick up continuous laser energy at 15 nautical mile is not very realistic. As for the guidance, obviously PW2s in theory are limited by lag, sag and energy loss and the 10 can be even more energy deficient, especially against movers. So this capability doesn't seem remotely realistic to me at all. As for delay vs continuous lase, while it can be very complicated very quickly, in general common situations work like this: Delay lase when: -doing medium altitude deliveries -low level loft Continuous lase when: -there are significant winds you're compensating for -employing against movers -buddy lazing Medium altitude deliveries allow the bomb to have sufficient energy so lase timing has negligible impact on accuracy but it still affects terminal parameters. If the target has very stringent terminal parameter requirments, a PW3 with its programmable trajectory shaping and much better kinematic performance will make it a lot more likely to achieve DWE. Depending on the platform and the aircrew, delay lase in general was preferred unless the situation made it less optimal to employ. In the 90s, low level LGB lofts were the bread and butter of the F-16, F-15E and F-111 communities, and low level lofts absolutely, 100% require delay lase without exception. So to ensure better muscle memory and building proper habit patterns, aircrew often delay lased whenever it didn't have a negative impact on accuracy. BRP and ORP was touched on, this was a pretty big point of contention in the Strike Eagle and F-111 communities. Simply put, BRP (ballistic release point) releases the PW2 at the computed ballistic trajectory, assuming a good enough release solution, the bomb should in theory hit the target even without lasing if all conditions are perfect. However, due to a quirk in the PW2 guidance, you could do an ORP (optimal release point), which is essentially an along track modifier that makes the aircraft release the bomb a tiny bit later, and this takes into account the peculiarities of the PW2 guidance scheme and the guidance scheme slightly changes the energy profile of the bomb and the ORP makes it have a little bit more energy. The issue with this is that 1.) it's mission planning intensive, 2.) it's really only useful for low altitude lofts with PW2s. It makes sense if the bomb is released in a low altitude/low terminal velocity situation but at medium altitudes, the bomb has more than enough energy, and the additional energy bucket provided by the ORP may even means that by the time the seeker FOV is pitched over and would pick up the laser spot, it will have flown too close to the target and the spot drifts outside its field of regard. And old PW2 seekers have pretty poor rearward FOVs. This theory was pretty big in the 90s in the Strike Eagle and F-111 communities and caused a lot of contention, but today PW2 lofts from low level aren't really done anymore for tactically relevant scenarios even if we assume a near peer conflict, let alone mud hut bombing. PW2s retained a niche in medium altitude bombing and in that situation, current TTP is to never drop a bomb without any inertial guidance outside the calculated ballistic release point. BRP vs ORP does very little above a certain height over target anyway, so it would give no benefit in the slightest.

It's impossible to know what ED want to implement and what they don't want to. Unless they explictly state that something is eventually going to be implemented we cannot assume that it will be.

I mean, ITAR isn't exactly black and white. It's a set of rules and regulation around the export of specific material but that doesn't mean said material is impossible to be exported or used in a commercial product, it just has to be done through the proper channels abiding by the regulations regarding the handling of export controlled material. If ITAR really was so strict that they can't even use the NFM-000 then we wouldn't have a Hornet at all. They must have some kind of access to at least some material through legal means. It may not be the exact maintenance docs that we have access to but all in all, the documentation they have must be quite extensive because it covers a lot more stuff than what we have access to publically. It just makes very little sense to me that most of the missing features are "more" export controlled than the ones we have in the game. The only way this makes any sort of sense is that specific features of the aircraft were deemed to be off limits. The issue is that most of the missing features are not any more sensitive in any way than the ones we already have. What makes terrain avoidance more sensitive than the mapping modes? Why is velocity search more sensitive than RWS/TWS? If anything, these should be less sensitive, considering they are rarely used and have fairly limited tactical implications.

Not to mention that these systems aren't more sensitive or more difficult to model than what's already included. We have jamming, NCTR and new countermeasures, all of which are actually classified and sensitive. I fail to see how they were allowed to model those but for example terrain avoidance radar or a fully feature complete INS would be off limits. In any case, once the ACLS is done and they want to move the Hornet out of EA, they need to review the documentation and clearly state which of these features are possible and which are limited due to ITAR.

Speaking of the JF-17 itself, shouldn't we have a performance page (like the FPAS in the Hornet) that display total range, endurance and other similar information? I also recall some INS update options being unfinished.

I understand that it's not permitted on the forums, but I assume that through the license agreement with Boeing, at least some level of official documentation was also given to ED, otherwise there really is not any way to have a Hornet module of any kind. The truly open source data includes cruise videos (which can help with a very limited number of the symbology and DDI pages), the GAO report (very limited data on the FM) and the University of Tennessee whitepapers (one of which details the CAS page which was never even mentioned by ED once). If all the other requested features fall under the ITAR umbrella, how did ED manage to get the features that are already implemented? Something other than those extremely limited resources must have been used (in a legal way I assume) to model most of the systems. Are there at least some of these requested features that don't fall under ITAR and we can expect them? I just don't understand why it would be okay to have all the current radar modes for example, but adding the missing ones like velocity search and terrain avoidance would be problematic.

This is a pretty good point. At this stage, I feel that every developer should up their game and try and deliver a radar that's on par with what Razbam achieved with the Mirage. The bare minimum I feel that should be delivered is a pD based radar modelling that handles a dynamic RCS that changes with loadout and aspect, PRF ambiguities, proper RAID processing and all the missing radar functions of course. Okay, I'll list all the features that are described in the generic NFM-000 document and aren't tactical or combat related. I don't know what ED considers ITAR controlled but I think we can safely assume that at the very least the basic NATOPS manual is a resource that can be used, otherwise systems like fuel, hydraulics, engine, FCS and flight controls, electrical systems and many more would also be missing. Even if all the rest of the issues were limited by ITAR or run afoul of some kind of OPSEC constraints, these features below are very benign in nature, have nothing to do with combat systems or tactical employment and are detailed in the NFM-000. If ED also can't use the NFM-000 I don't know how we can have any kind of Hornet at all. -UFC BU page -mission card-MUMI page -GPS waypoints/waypoint transfer and GPS page -HSI MAP slew and winds data -Proper HSI layout that reflects our TAMMAC bird -CHRT/DTED/CIB cycle (as done in the Apache) -CV INS alignment and all the missing INS features (realistic drift rate, fully simulated update functions, preferably simulated degraded modes of operation) -Failures and damage modelling -HQ and SINCGARS -The ability to colonize CPHR on the radio -Simulated BITs -M4 OK advisory and Betty call out -DEL and MECH -Missing cautions and advisories -MDATA supbage