WobblyFlops

While off topic, they aren't. Like most platforms in the Navy, the Hornet also has a classified NATIP and an unclassified NATIP. Plus, there's the Graybook, the Legacy Hornet avionics manual from Boeing, which also details combat avionics and symbology. The unclassified NATIP for the Hornet is the same thing legally as the unclassified -34 for the Viper. An unclassified, export controlled, CUI manual, which, while isn't classified (and wouldn't cause serious damage to national security was it leaked), it's still not meant for public dissemination or export. Yes, this workaround definitely works. The other procedure is that you can boresight on the ground as well and the issues associated with that aren't simulated either. The very simple, magical instant boresight will likely get fixed one day, but I'd suspect that boresighting on the ground will never become a problem in any way.

Fair, and I don't disagree with this.

This is more like a DCSism. SME input indicates that if all things work out and the conditions are suitable, launching a single Maverick against a tank reliably is already a high workload task. While it was definitely possible during training to try, in actual combat conditions, a multi target pass likely wouldn't have worked out too well. (If it was reliable and an expected way to employ, people wouldn't get beer and admiration if they were to successfully pull it off. In training, mind you.) Lock on range would be limited by the seeker and today a 54 would most likely be a much more reliable choice if you need to operate inside any kind of threat heavy environment, or the LMAV. Traditional PW 2s would be limited by their guidance logic but lofting those would probably still be a better idea in a non permissive environment than D-G Mavs. PW 3s were designed for low level/lofting attacks and they have a much more complex guidance logic and different modes but they are notoriously difficult to self laze but that's also probably a better option. Lazing can also increase the workload (especially with more advanced low level lofts or other type of attacks) but don't forget, you don't have to fly into the target area when employing LGBs, you can also delay laze after doing a SEM. And if there are enough dispersed air defenses near those tanks, the Maverick likely wouldn't offer any stand off to begin with. It was mainly intended to be a precision guided anti tank munition and the design goals grew after that. In an all out war, 97s/105s are also an option and I'd bet those are the best ones, but I've never talked to or even seen any SME who really trained for those let alone used them in real combat. To quote some SMEs, Notso's previously quoted comment had this footnote: Note that due to the fact that the Strike Eagle is a two seater, more advanced LGB attack profiles are possible with less risk than what would be feasible with a single pilot. The second quote is Tailhook, a Super Hornet pilot from Reddit. IR-EO Mavs were pretty good in DS when self lazing wasn't available to all platforms. Today, with 54s, LMAVs, 53s or as you said, JSOWs, you have more than enough precision to not rely on older Mavericks.

I speculate (and emphasize this word) that the issue with the Hornet is that it was full of new tech that required ED to make completely new API for certain functions that were never supported before. And due to that, they must have blown through the budget allocated for the Hornet. Plus, when initially doing certain systems, they probably didn't have the full picture (or had imprecise SMEs or documentation) which lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of what MSI is in the Hornet alongside many smaller things. Having an upgraded version would probably allow them to have enough resources to properly finish at least some of the pressing issues.

Not that I'm aware of. The upgraded seekers were the CCD seekers in the H/K. Like all the other Mavericks, these also rely on sufficient contrast to establish a centroid track (force correlation isn't necessarily something that the seeker is capable of but rather the guidance logic of the missile, because when employing against buildings, the centroid of a building may not necessarily be your DPI) and like with IR, they also depend on permissive environmental factors. Losing lock because the target drives in front of an area that messes up the contrast, or having low sun angle (and therefore longer shadows) and locking up the centroid of a tank and its shadow (and hitting in between them) or not locking camouflaged targets are potential pitfalls. Force correlate is another possibility but based on an A-10 pilot's AMA response, it's something you'd use as a last resort type of deal. And if we think about it, what advantages would Mavs bring when employing against buildings compared to JDAMs or LGBs? Pilots generally agree that if you're using Mavs against vehicles and tanks, using LMAVs is probably your best bet. On the flipside, as TobiasA said, the TGP FLIR would likely be end up getting even more potent in most conditions where it's currently not that useful, so even without LMAVs that will increase capabilities of the Viper when using LGBs. As long as LGB/laser limitations aren't getting implemented as well, at least. (At the risk of sounding like a broken record, those are also far from being perfect weapons and again, rely heavily on atmospheric conditions being kind and the inherent laser limitation factors not being present.) Ultimately, what we will circle back when talking about these types of weapons is that they heavily rely on proper weather modelling and until the new weather engine is implemented, these factors would be very difficult to properly modelled I'd imagine.

As Dragon 1-1 explained, I said that IR Mavericks were bad weapons in humid environments. My point was that these weapons come with heavy limitations and when employing them accurately, you have to account for time of day, atmoshperics, emissivity of the target and the background and many other, fairly arcane factors. They are better than the B or God forbid, the A, that's for sure, but there's a reason why they are not exactly considered to be as universal in real life as they are in DCS. I've never talked to a Hornet pilot that trained or actually employed IRMAVs (GB didn't even know how to use them when he tried it during a stream), the Harrier guys all gave theirs away (sure, that's an F Mav, which isn't in the Air Force but still), Strike Eagle guys had it as an integrated weapon in the 90s but as far as I'm aware, barely anyone trained to use them and it was very quickly phased out. Notso, a Strike Eagle WSO had this to say about the old IR Maverick seekers. He never used 65s but he did use GBU-15s. The GBU-15(V2)/B used the same WGU-10/B seekerhead as the early IR Mavericks, and compared to the A-B, it must have felt like a generational leap and surely enough it proved fairly useful in Desert Storm, especially for platforms that lacked a dedicated FLIR, like the A-10A. But Notso's point makes sense. This of course doesn't mean that D-G Mavs should be completely useless but there are significant limitations when it comes to their employment and currently they are much better in DCS than how they should behave. But it's important to see these weapons in their proper historical context. Compared to using mil reticle bombing in an F-4, the PK of even the AGM-65A against soviet tanks in the Fulda Gap would have been a substantial upgrade. The D-G were definitely similar leaps in capability when compared to the A. (Which needed less than 7000 feet slant range against a typical MBT.) If you now have a weapon that has twice the range, a much better seeker and can be used at night or as a stand in FLIR for platforms that lack one, you've substantially increased your capabilities, but we're still talking about weapons that were outperformed by first generation FLIRs+GBU-12s when it comes to engaging tanks. And even if you need stand off, an LGB loft is seemed to be a much more reliable way of engaging the target than fiddling with the IR MAVs, especially in a single seat fast mover. A-10s get a bit of extra advantage here because their typical profile allows them to do low and slow attacks in permissive environments. Pointy nosed jets don't really get used like that.

Then if possible they can just add in the things that are publically known. The 54 can be approximated, the rest of the stuff I mentioned is pretty easy to change and we'd have an upgrade just from those items. The A-10 is also only getting a small fraction of the real capabilities and many, many things can't be implemented to our version. As for the second part of your answer, I gotta admit, I don't quite understand why any of that means that it wouldn't be possible for DCS.

It's even more than that, 2 versions of the F-4E plus the naval Phantom and then the other platforms. If the Strike Eagle turns out well, Razbam may attempt it one day but even they are neck deep in different projects. TBH, I'd rather see a paid update to our Charlie Hornet, A-10 style. Having a newer C+ USMC jet with GBU 54, better HOTAS functions and smaller improvements (double altitude readout, AOA readout when trimming), colored DDIs and so on. In fact, having a paid update may incentivize ED to revisit the current deficiencies in certain systems of the Hornet, like the INS-navigation suite or the radar workflow or the lack of MSI.

For sure, once you start peeling the FLIR onion, you can go incredibly deep. What I believe is important isn't necessarily a comprehensive, scientifically accurate rendition of all these interactions (which is possible based on public data but incredibly cost ineffective) but a realistic rendition of the limitations that are inherent to the tactical employment of these sensors. Even basic stuff like if there's not enough delta T, the IR MAV won't lock or to have the effect of the black hot/white hot polarity (for Mavs) properly simulated when it comes to establishing lock and so on. I'm not entirely sure how apparent this will be in game, after all it's possible that it will be a visual, rendering difference and won't really affect employment or sensor capabilities.

In practice, this will likely be the end of perfect sensors, the Maverick is a pretty horrendous offender in this category. Real IR Mavs are pretty terrible weapons in any humid environment and certain atmoshperic factors can mess with them quite badly. (Things like uneven heating on vehicles combined with the presence of contrast reversal) Therefore, utilizing proper planning would be mandatory if you're trying to employ IR weapons because during certain hours of the day it would be a pretty significant degradation and you may not be able to lock up that tank or APC even inside the minimum range.

The red. Formal definition of impact angle is an angle between 0-90 degrees relative to the local horizontal plane at which the weapon attempts to impact.

This is my last post in this thread, and I'm just pointing one thing out for you. Just because something is available in the unclassified manual that doesn't necessarily mean that it can be implemented. And just because something is publically known it doesn't necessarily mean it can be implemented. The guy in the thread you were referring to was an SME. He said that IFF is too close to sensitive areas even without getting into how the actual crypto works. Similar thing was implied by the A-10 pilot in an AMA on Hoggit. When dealing with these systems (and IFF is a compartmented system, which means that even pilots don't necessarily have full access to all the information pertaining to the crypto as much of this stuff is controlled by the NSA) showing a healthy amount of respect towards (as the dude said), perceived sensitivity of these issues is also very important. Some things may be so sensitive (or perceived as so sensitive) that even guessing at them or implementing them in a simplified manner would cause concerns. And ED have government contracts and have to abide by many regulations. The Air Force has already pulled down a module on a civilian sim platform (the 'old sim) that was available for commercial use due to ITAR and that was an unclassified trainer. There's also another study level offering for the same trainer by developers who make stuff for different platform (name rhymes with that paranormal FBI TV show) and that traininer is still not possible to be released publically. And none of that information is classified. ED surely has very knowledgable people who work out these issues and if they say that IFF can't be implemented for Western platforms even at the level of the JF-17 then it can't be. End of story.

Several things go into consideration when adding more fidelity to certain features, that much is pretty well known. Cost-benefit analysis, technical feasability and legal implications. The IFF is technically feasible, but it has potential legal pitfalls and it only matters to hardcore milsim players. There are quite a few entertainment products for the civilian side that allow real pilots to study system logic, procedures in a realistic manner and fully implemented avionics to prepare for a type rating. Transponder, sure, but if you're talking about IFF as a whole, it's significantly more complex than radios and when you start to fully implement interrogators that's when you potentially meet these legal hurdles. And without realistic interrogators, why would they spend resources on transponders? There is no evidence. My personal anecdotes are plenty good enough because in real life, the vast majority of decisions that you take in day to day life aren't the result of a carefully constructed study and empirical data but personal anecdotes, assumptions and guesses. If there is no hard data (and the vague statements by ED were pre pandemic as far as I'm aware), we can go on based on personal anecdotes pretty well. And if you actually spend time on the ED Discord, you'll very quickly see how casual the vast majority of the playerbase really is. But then again, I'm not obligated to prove anything, I'm just spending my time trying to explain why realistic IFF will not be a thing in the near future or likely ever. I also never stated the the majority of people say not to buy the Mirage. I've seen that maybe twice, once on a Discord, once on Hoggit. The vast majority of casual people do hang out on the ED Discord though and you'll see that fairly easily if you actually spend time there without looking for specific search terms. I really do not care. I was feeling nice and explaining to you what reasons contribute to the fact that IFF will remain as is but if you don't believe me, you're free to do whatever you want. We can easily return to this question in a few years and we'll see how realistic the IFF is by then. If you actually cared about the truth, the very thread you linked has many people explain why IFF is both a sensitive issue and why the vast majority of the community wouldn't care about it, only milsim squadrons. And if you truly think that IFF as a whole is as simple as using the radios then this conversation really has no point. It's drastically more complex than that.

To some degree. But if you compare the details to actual study sims (which exist for civilian airframes), you'll see how simplified DCS really is. This type of balance is not really explicitly pointed out to not alienate the hardcore simmers but generally, study sim means that you can use the sim itself to prepare for a real life checkride/B course/ground school, whatever. The only DCS module that meets these standards is maybe the C-101 and even that's a stretch. As I've said, it's not that simple. Many people state that doing even as much as the other sim can easily land you in hot water if you do it as an actual company with military contracts. What you essentially don't understand is that DCS has a stated goal that you constantly cite; being as realistic as possible. But as many SMEs pointed it out, if it was indeed as realistic as possible, you'd have several hundred pages long documents for a single weapon. DCS exists between study level sim and arcade sims. The way the majority of people use it, falls closer to the arcade side of things. And the Discord that I've referenced about the Mirage is neither the ED Discord nor the Razbam Discord but you're not on that, so you won't find that anyway. And I'm not obligated to prove anything. If you actually interact with people who are starting out, you'll see that my statements are pretty reasonable. The Razbam Discord is probably the best place on the entire internet if you want to learn about a tiny bit of the stuff that never makes it into DCS by actual SMEs.

The people who post on the forums are a tiny minority of a very small minority. Most new people that I interact with through the Discord don't even own anything aside from an Xbox controller and know literally nothing aside from 'fighter jets are cool'. Moreover, the last time there was a poll on Hoggit, people overwhelmingly agreed that they only want some degree of realism inside the missions but the find full on milsim cringy. On the Razbam Discord, SMEs also agree that making many of the inaccurate areas of the game more realistic would be incredibly cost prohibitive, would discourage most people from ever joining and it may not be legally and technically feasible at all. The devs are obviously carefully choosing how realistic they want to go, case in point, the Truegrit interview where they said that implementing accurate and realistic ECM (even if we disregard sensitivity issues) is a questionable thing in the first place because only highly educated users would be able to use it. Many people who play DCS today don't have any time to dedicate to learning manuals and don't have any interest in learning actual realistic procedures. Many are very young or old with limited time, budget, patience or lack of technical knowledge and skill. But since DCS isn't a hardcore milsim and it's isn't as high fidelity as civilian simulators, all kinds of people can enter and have fun. Since the devs don't solely cater to this audience, it's a net win for everybody because they still bring in money that helps DCS in the end. A lot of people still play DCS and don't want to or can't learn in such a manner for whatever reason. The vast majority of the core game supports this type of gameplay better compared to actual milsim by the way. IFF is a system that a big sizeable chunk of the playerbase (and no, I don't have any statistics but neither do you, the ones you're referring to are old) simply dislike these additions to auxiliary systems or procedures that as they put it, take away from the experience or make it more fiddly. Sure. But people I'm talking about don't know how to properly start the aircraft anyway. They know a simple, quick procedure to get them in the air without understanding the meaning behind those steps. Adding in these systems just further increases the barrier of entry and in my experience the casual players are constantly growing in numbers. Just look through Hoggit or any kind of training Discord and you'll very quickly see that people generally think that realism is fine until it gets in the way of fun. And most SMEs that I've interacted with who are actually involved in the DCS community or play the game, agree with this. We should get a lot of things but this is going to be a static page. It can be used for CIT stuff and other flight management functions. (Wingmen fuel and loadout, etc.) I can only go off of personal experience and how the new people I interact view the game. But I obviously don't have any hard numbers or actual evidence and neither do you. Only what ED told, but that's also not corroborated by any hard data nor is it up to date. DCS has been growing in popularity mainly through GS, the Reapers and Drewsky. And you can imagine that those audiences don't want the same thing as hardcore milsim squadrons or even old school players. There are many aspects of the game that are not exactly high fidelity anyway. This is mainly due to not enough available resources and OPSEC/ITAR considerations but it's true. The only people I've seen being surprised by VRS as it exists in the game are Mover and Casmo. Actual helicopter pilots. That alone should tell you about how realistic it's represented. In most modules the radar limitations are also not simulated accurately anyway. I'd bring up the same thing if people were asking for true, realistic radar simulation on par with the Mirage. Sure. And they tell each other not to buy the Mirage because it's too difficult to learn. DCS has grown (or decayed, matter of perspective) beyond that black and white thinking since the start of the pandemic. Sure, but knowing how something works doesn't mean they can legally implement that. And the last time this was brought up on Hoggit, BN subtly implied that IFF is off limits. And most people in the know agreed that even though it's public knowledge how they work, it's a pretty scary line to toe regardless. Sure, you do you. But that doesn't apply to everybody. This isn't my experience, in fact the vast majority of new people I interacted with want to have some kind of League of Legends/R6 Siege type of gameplay with jets. Competitive, balanced PVP with drastic simplifications and gamifications. Sure. But there really isn't much else out there aside from the 'predatory game' if you know what I mean. DCS has a fair monetization scheme and that attracts people who don't necessarily want realistic gameplay but are simply interested in jets.

The other sim is a notoriously hard to learn, hardcore game specifically for milsim type of gameplay. The casual, chill, airquake DCS gameplay is incredibly far from that. Sure, but most people who get into DCS (and therefore who make up the bulk of the current playerbase) only saw a video from the Reapers or GS or Operator Drewski and want to shoot some jets in a very fun and casual setting. They won't know how to accurately set up their IFF or God forbit interrogate others properly. Sure and that further increases the barrier of entry. Now you introduce extra variables that can fail; the interrogatee may not know how to set up the transponder properly or don't know what the codes mean or how to do it and that's only half of the issue. The interrogator is even more difficult because you'll have the ability to look for specific modes, codes, interpret what you see and so on. Exactly, you'd have people accidentally zeroizing their crypto or not even knowing how to set it up properly. And Razbam's Discord is full of people asking question because they don't know how to use it. The Mirage is the perfect example of too high fidelity for the average player. Also, don't forget how sensitive the whole topic is (just because you know how it works doesn't mean ED are legally allowed to implement these features and the other sim doesn't follow the same ethical and legal standards) and if we start peeling the whole thing layer by layer and you want the whole ID/ROE stuff done properly things will very quickly go out of control. You'd need to have ATC asking you to use M3, you could have them checking out your M4 and if you want an infrastructure behind it, you'd need associated pages implemented for modern modules, like the TGT DATA page in the Hornet. Realistic IFF is just a small slice in the big pie, to have a realistic battlespace management, you'd need to have support for different IDcrits and ROE matrices, package management, proper ATC-C2 support, (including new assets like Red Crown) and this would all only work with a proper mission planner and DTC. So to actually make this realistic, you'd need several auxiliary systems many of which are incredibly complex, sensitive and would only cater to the very small milsim crowd. The vast majority of the playerbase just goes online to GAW or GS to blow some steam off after work and they don't want realistic procedures being enforced to this level of fidelity. And the small milsim crowd can kind of work around the issue and use lotATC for this.

Not exactly an arcane concept. Realistic IFF would require you to not only set up your transponder modes accordingly but also set it to the proper code. And it would also require people with an interrogator to know which modes and codes to interrogate and interpret the results properly. And if we go deeper, there's stuff like simulated failures of the interrogator/transponder/M4 crypto, the azimuth/elevation limits of the interrogator (which isn't necessarily the same as the limits of the radar), angular resolution of the interrogating process (two aircraft close to each other can show up as friendlies even without both of them having the correct crypto) and so on. Currently, the transponder panel does nothing, codes aren't simulated and it's magical, coalition based in every jet except for the JF-17, and the result of the interrogation is also highly simplified in jets that are equipped with such hardware.

And the big issue with realistic IFF is that it would completely break the public multiplayer servers and they would be unplayable due to enormous friendly fire issues. Even with the current implementation, friendly fire is a real issue, with a realistic IFF it would be even more so a huge problem.

If the situation on the A-6 discord is any indication, the Intruder will be very difficult to make in DCS. All manuals are still export controlled and extremely difficult to get.

Everyone aside from one dude is talking about the only somewhat plausible Rhino, an early version from the mid 2000s without the 79. The avionics as they pertain to DCS (symbology, procedure, displays) are almost the same, the FCS is completely irrelevant since DCS doesn't simulate an actual FCS that's crunching the numbers anyway so it's not that big of a difference. The big change is the AoA limiting logic that's specific to the Rhino and obviously the new engines, updated flight model which may or may not be possible. DCS also doesn't simulate component level interactions so it doesn't matter if the internals of the signal data converter (as explained above) are different because these background compenents are obfuscated and the game only displays the result, which is exactly the same. Failures, system logic and other similar complex features are also almost completely missing. So the fact that the real Rhino has different components to the Charlie is completely irrelevant.

And you know, the same exact avionics (as it pertains to DCS).

I know that it's not unlimited but I don't know how they load it exactly or how big the limit is. I'd imagine that since the jet itself has its own DTSAS and the relevant region is loaded for the mission, the database can be downloaded during the alignment. Since all JDAMs have to talk to the aircraft (to use the aircrafts INS to align its own INS, get mission data, GPS cryptos and almanac, ZTOD, etc.) it makes sense to simply utilize this connection and have the database downloaded for the selected region, but I'm just spitballing here.

This is what I've been told so I'm telling this as an interesting anecdote, I don't have any docs. The 54 is a pretty interesting weapon, with many additional advantages over both a traditional JDAM and a traditional LGB. The advantages of a JDAM are pretty well given; off axis attacks, preprogrammable imapct parameters, pretty diverse fuzing options, all weather guidance and autonomous point targeting. The advantages of a traditional LGB is the ability to change its trajectory dynamically. The 54 combines both of these into a single weapon with many additional advantages over the 12. The 12 is limited by the bang bang guidance and the fact that if the laser energy is disrupted by equipment failure, improper geometry or atmoshperic effects it will simply fall ballistically. This can be mitigated by the basic tactic that the wingman should also track the target, be set up with their own laser and in case the bomb loses the laser, he can also take over and laze it in but this is an inherent limitation regardless. The 54 employs a much smarter guidance scheme which obviously results in better kinematics for the bomb (and you don't really need that good laser marksmanship to hit a mover anymore) while also respecting the terminal parameters. Depending on the target and the mission, even regular LGBs may require specific impact parameters (velocity, angle) to be met for the desired effects, this is precalculated and manually controlled by the pilot with carefully following the proper release point, altitude, airspeed and the exact laze delay timing. For a 54, you just need to have enough energy and be in the LAR for the specific parameters and the bomb will do all of this on its own. The way it can achieve both updated, continuous guidance and adherence to terminal parameters is the way laser guidance is integrated into the weapon. It's a proper JDAM with INS/GPS guidance and it doesn't simply follow the laser energy like a PW2 or even 3 but rather it has an encoded terrain mesh and it will use the depression angle and azimuth of the laser spot corroborrated with its own position and the terrain mesh to update the coordinates. So you shouldn't think about it like an traditional PW 2 at all, but rather a more advanced JDAM that can use a lased spot in addition to GPS signals for guidance. Once the coordinated is update, the missile autopilot will take care of hitting the DPI while following the release parameters. This is all unclassified info. Anything deeper than this is probably going to run into more issues, like knowing what (if any) limitations it has for updating the coordinate source (like how quickly it can use the laser spot to do the math) how it prioritizes the different impact parameters if there's not enough energy to meet everything and so on.

Why what?

It's undeniably true however this is what he said on Hoggit "HUD symbology could be a new feature, but we haven't cleared what we can and can't do yet". This indicates that lack of available resources or priority issues may be holding back the ARC-210 but the additional symbology may never come, it all depends on what the Air Force allows them.