AvroLanc

It should be yes. I presume that the search altitude is only a few hundred feet, and it’s programmed to descend to this altitude, to be there no later than the start of the search range. It makes absolutely no sense for the missile to be theoretically at 15000ft (med profile, 30000ft high profile!), at target acquisition, which may be only 15-20 miles or less from the target.

This has been an issue since Harpoon was introduced.... The issue is the flight profile before seeker activation. It should be flying much lower during it's search phase....irrespective of the flight profile (HIGH/MID/LOW) that you select. Also, SKIM / POP nothing to do with main issue, that only applies during very last terminal phase. If only ED would look into it's search behaviour.... they did increase the radar seeker range by 50% or so, as a band aid, but that wasn't the true solution.

Thanks Victory for clarifying how Collision Steering should work. However, it still doesn't work in the sim. Sorry but it's almost 2 years on.... Currently when you select Collision in the RIO's pit, all it does is light up the button, and change the steering rotary to CLSN.... The steering command to the pilot in the HUD and VDI is non-nonsensical. All you get is a steering T that clamps itself to the centre position and 'wobbles' a bit when you maneuver before returning to centre. It provides no steering command AT ALL. Sorry, but it's been 2 years, and no comment on this by a HB dev member?

In the mission editor, see one of the A/C option tabs to set the APKWS laser code.

BIT - You've got an unresolved BIT Item on the BIT page. It will be flashing, press STOP to stop flash. Or better yet, verify that system is on / operative. FPAS - Probably because the FPAS system can't calculate fuel flow when in afterburner. Go to mil power or less.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. And have done over the last two and half years of Hornet rollercoaster. However, ED don’t, and that’s what we’re fighting against. Half of it is legal, half is an unwillingness to delve deep dev time into a system when they have an excuse not to. I don’t know the answer.

ED will not implement something based on hearsay, rumours or anything not found in publicly available documentation. Rightly or wrongly they want to cover their own backsides. If you’ve got a hard and detailed documented source on 90’s era (Link 4?) DL capability please share it.

Yeah it's a curiosity to be sure. However, giving the benefit of doubt it - it seems the Hornet is somewhat limited compared to other aircraft here..... There's no ability to select and transmit a standard markpoint or waypoint in F-18, however it very much is a basic feature of the F-16 and A-10C (IRL). In the case of the F-16, even before Link 16. Maybe the legacy Hornet really is lacking with this, or least it was in 2005 ish. No doubt the latest Super Hornets can now do this, but remember that in 2005 MIDS/L16 was a pretty new capability and it may just have not matured enough.

hmmm...we were led to believe this might be coming. The question should be - why wouldn't it be there? Most importantly, does the documentation specifically rule it out? Does the AZ/EL documentation pre-date / is concurrent / post-date documentation for MIDS / Link16? Because if there's a mix of documentation being used instead of a single harmonised reference I can see that being an issue....

This seems to be how it’s implemented at the moment, but it’s surely wrong or WIP. If it isn’t a single integrated picture across all 3 formats ( which it should be), then surely the AZ/EL being a radar page, would show NCTR and SA showing LINK 16. Reading some docs I have, NCTR info should show primarily on the AZ/EL. Possibly to be merged / supplemented with LINK data when available. The data block we see down in the bottom left is simplified at the moment.

Ok, thanks for that. Not tested it myself yet. I've no idea if that's correct, but it doesn't seem unreasonable...... There's a bug (or is it?) where friendlies SURV tracks without MIDS/L16 never receive an ID from Awacs. Anyone have any idea whether this is correct or not? I do know that AWACS can indirectly publish a PPLI in this case, and hence should contain ID data, but my reference is some F-16 docs.

Personally I agree with Joni’s post, I’m seeing the same issues and it’s more apparent now that the AZ/EL page has been implemented. Hostile tracks on the as/el data block always seem to have the correct type ID, presumably a result of some kind of AWACS NCTR. However it’s never been documented how this might work....range criteria / aspect etc? I’m guessing that real world AWACS capability is going to be greater than the 25nm fighter type we see in game. IRL AWACS would have other intelligence and ECM data to help form IDs so I appreciate it gets complex to model. Added to this, the SA page ID never matches the AZ/EL (for hostiles). However it might be worth considering it’s all WIP since MSI data still isn’t properly implemented on the AZ/EL.

+1 Yeah, this is noted my end too. Why would the AWACS Type ID not be available in the SA page? But is on AZ/EL? They should surely sync and provide integrated information? I’ve noticed that the Type ID is always available on the AZ/EL , even in situations where there’s no FF data. Perhaps the AZ/EL is ‘cheating’ because it’s WIP? This has been marked as correct but it’s difficult to understand why. As a side note, I’m finding awacs never prints the type ID of a non-PPLI contact on the SA page. Even non-link 16 friendlies don’t have an ID. Surely AWACS would know and can publish? And for others, doesn’t he have a NCTR system that allows ID? What range does this work? Is that the issue? When Link 16 was first introduced SURV only contacts used to sometimes have ID , now never....... Curious to know the mechanics of how this is implemented vs real world.

DCS ATC has nothing to do with real life anyway. Unless you're using Supercarrier, best to ignore it unfortunately. Trying to use it breaks immersion more than it's worth. Looks like it might be improved in the feature so fingers crossed.

No, the F-16 does have the ability to send and receive SEAD THREATs over DL. The documentation is sparse but the sending of SEAD threats is probably tied into the HTS system (So USAF Block 50's and later) but all F-16C /MLU types can receive them. There are unique HSD SEAD symbols / DED pages and HOTAS functions available. Note this is independent of the threat waypoints created in pre-planning / DTC. For us in DCS, we don't know yet.

Well....aware....as in ‘working as intended’.....for the time being at least.

+1 I see the same. +/- 10 seconds is pretty usual. I'm sure it should be more accurate, but it's probably a result of the JDAM flight model and autopilot development being in a state of flux and not being entirely predictable. It may change as things are finalized? In the mean time, I've learnt to expect it. This also applies to unguided and LGBs. LGB impacts are always a few seconds after the TTI timer expires.

The only two with any hope are Mk77 Napalm and the ADM-141 TALD. ED said in the newsletter they're working on effects for 'Fuel explosions' - this might tie in with the effects needed for Mk77. They're also still on cards whenever this question pops up. Likewise for TALD's - they're never ruled out when asked, and indeed are already included (sort of, not very effectively) with the F-14. Wave goodbye to Walleye I and Shrike. Not enough interest and questionable applicability to the period our Hornet exists in. Personally I'd like to see sea mines make an appearance latter down the road. Prob much latter, and only if wider mining mechanics are included with core DCS. They would provide a unique gameplay addition to Hornet missions.

XP is Transponder - the modes your IFF will squawk to others. You can set codes for modes 1,2,3( and 3A), and either A or B mode 4. AI is Airborne Interrogator - the modes you interrogate when 'IFFing' a contact. These codes can be set independently from the XP. The contacts XP modes will need to match your AI codes to provide a positive (friendly in our case) response. I'm sure the radar and AZ/EL pages should show separate symbols for IFF returns along with the normal radar returns. Presumably ED plans to add some kind of system with IFF codes. It has been mentioned before. The addition of the UFC options is likely a small step along the way.

Bump. Maybe JDAMs will get attention in the final push. Hornet awesome is so many ways, but little things need polish.

Not specifically mentioned on the roadmap or in the latest Hornet info in the newsletter is Pullback mode for Harm. Should be there as well as pre - briefed. Still planned correct?

What if you're committed to a bomb run using the Air to Surface radar?

Ok, thanks. Looking forward to testing it out with an open mind. Cheers.

Yeah, I felt yesterday's intro video for ECM stuff was a little underwhelming and eyebrow raising - which is unusual for Wag's updates.

I'm curious as to whether or not the fact the radar becomes unusable is correct or not. It contradicts every reference we've got over the last 20 years or so - sim or real world docs..... The limited real documentation available on the Hornet's ECM systems make no reference to INOP radar during XMIT use. (They do in fact make reference to a unique AUDIO warning cues available in REC mode - doesn't look like we're getting that.) As a Self Protection Jammer I wouldn't expect it's use to completely negate most of your offensive capability. Seems odd for a fighters jammer, probably correct though for a dedicated ECM aircraft like EF-111 or EA-6B.