CheckGear

The L-Mav is awesome. They used them a lot in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria. Perfect for CAS missions.

Let's look at what we know so far, shall we? :) We know the F/A-18A/B Hornet and the AN/AAS-38 were introduced at the same time. We know the F/A-18C/D and the AN/AAS-38A were introduced at around the same time. I've seen no evidence suggesting the F/A-18A/B, in the timeframe I'm looking at (January '93), mounted the AN/AAS-38A. This means it still had to use the pod without the laser and had to rely on other planes or FACs for target designation. This regardless of which variant we're talking about, since the "Night Attack" F/A-18C was just entering service and the majority of Hornets involved in the war were F/A-18As and Lot 10/11 F/A-18Cs. So the question remaining is - was the F/A-18A even capable of dropping LGBs? The available evidence doesn't say 'no.' However, during the '93 strike, why were that many F/A-18As tasked for the mission but weren't armed with LGBs and supported by a laser-designating aircraft? Tactical considerations may have been in play, but consider the following passage by Michael Knights: Michael Knights is one of the best analysts in the business, which is why I trust him so much. His passage implies the F/A-18As were incapable of dropping LGBs, either due to some "hardware" or "software" limitation. It seems like there's no other way to find the answer without seeing some documents pertaining to the '93 strike, but the F/A-18As all possessed some capability baseline, did they not? I know this sounds like a trivial matter, but I'm conducting this research for an article, so I need to get this right. :)

Patience. It's going to be a long time before DCS: F/A-18C is a complete simulation. It's just the way it is.

Tony Holmes' books on the F-14 in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars are a treasure-trove of information on the topic. Here's a passage from F-14 Tomcat Units of Operation Enduring Freedom: http://a.co/d/exkH1Uj The same Aviation Ordnanceman quoted above notes that, throughout his 20+year career, he'd never seen F-14s laden with so many stores and there was a genuine concern about the ability of the Tomcats to make it off the flight deck. Returning was obviously not as major a concern, since the planes were expected to expend some, if not all, of their ordnance.

I'm sorry, are they making a U-2 module for DCS??? I, for one, would love to go to the edge of space and back!

This is good; I can roll with this. Thanks for your help. :) I most certainly read and comprehended it the first time, thank you very much. ;) The strike I keep referring to, which took place in January 1993, WAS NOT part of the "Persian Gulf war against Iraq," which took place January - February 1991. Kitty Hawk nor its embarked CVW-15 even took part in the '91 war. Typically, when someone refers to the "Persian Gulf war," they're referring to the '91 conflict, not the no-fly zone conflict that started afterwards and sustained itself until March 2003. So its rather obvious your attachment was NOT referring to the no-fly zone conflict of which the Jan. '93 strikes were a part of. That should clear up your confusion. :)

Okay, this is all making a ton of sense now. I can now confidently conclude the AN/AAS-38 and AN/AAS-38A both required the AN/ASQ-173 laser spot tracker, but the AN/AAS-38B was a self-contained unit that permitted entirely independent employment of LGBs by the Hornet. The attachments, while interesting, refer to strikes that took place in 1995 in Bosnia. Both "The Big 'A'" and "The Big Stick" had at least one squadron flying F/A-18C(N)s. The F/A-18s flying off Kitty Hawk in the January '93 strike on Iraq were the A-variant and were likely incapable of LGB employment and were said to have dropped only "dumb" bombs, despite carrying FLIR pods.

That was either a big-time misread on your part or you took it way too seriously. What I'm saying is that the Maverick and Walleye offered a different level of accuracy/precision than LGBs. I know they eventually made laser-Mavericks they made them even more accurate and precise, but again, this isn't what I was referring to, since the early Hornets didn't fire the L-Mavs.

Let me see if I follow: - AN/AAS-38/A was a FLIR, nothing more; - AN/ASQ-173 was a laser spot-tracker that could pick up laser signals, without emitting any of its own; - Together, they still required a laser from a Forward Air Controller or another aircraft (such as a TRAM-equipped A-6E) to drop laser-guided munitions; - AN/AA-38B was equipped with a laser-designator and tracker, allowing the Hornet to independently lase and attack targets without assistance from an FAC or another plane. Does that sound right? In the January 13, 1993 strike, they utilized F-15E Strike Eagles and F-117A Nighthawks, which were capable of dropping "smart" bombs. Kitty Hawk also had TRAM-equipped A-6Es, so they had plenty of assets capable of dropping PGMs. The only reason I can gather the F-16s and F/A-18s didn't drop PGMs was because they couldn't. I wish I could find out for sure, though. Of course, the F/A-18 could fire Mavericks and Walleyes independently long before it ever dropped its first LGB independently. But there's something different about hitting the broad side of a barn without missing the barn completely (using a Maverick or Walleye) versus hitting a very specific bullseye.

Report immediately to sick bay for a flight physical to re-assess your medical fitness for flying.

Arturo, you get my vote for "Man of the Day!" :D

First, I apologize for not replying sooner. I was sidetracked by other responsibilities. Second, THANKS TO ALL OF YOU for helping me out with this. As someone said, information on F/A-18 improvements and upgrades are tough to come by, despite the aircraft being as a popular as it is. I have almost all the information I need. The only lingering question is regarding the AAS-38. At what point was the AAS-38 capable of designating targets via laser independently, without needing to mount the AN/ASQ-173 as well? I'm receiving conflicting information on this on other sources. Here's what I'm trying to get at. On January 13, 1993, the U.S., U.K., and France launched strikes on Iraqi air defense installations in retaliation for their violation of the southern no-fly zone. In a book titled Cradle of Conflict, the author notes Those six F/A-18s were of the A-variant (I can prove this), yet they were, by 1992, utilizing targeting pods. However, they clearly couldn't drop laser-guided bombs, otherwise, there'd be no reason to drop "dumb" bombs if they had access to a FLIR. The same appears to be true of F-16s at the time. Where I'm going with this is that not only was precision strike not something the U.S. military had mastered until much later, but the F/A-18 wasn't that as capable of a "strike" fighter until much later in its career. It's something that I found very surprising in the course of my research. The U.S. loved to play up its precision-strike capabilities, yet, even years after Desert Storm, there were still many planes incapable of precision attack or the capabilities hadn't fully matured.

Not trying to nitpick, but there's lots of "normal" people unable to join. The military has a book full of disqualifying conditions, including for the most mundane of things.

Going by the diagram, we're getting F-14A (late) and F-14B. Which is fine by me!

But the original AAS-38 (the one before the A-model) had no laser, correct? And once the AAS-38B arrived, there was no need for the ASQ-173, correct? Thanks!

I know Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations is hardly an "authoritative" source. That said, they do show the A-variant as capable of firing Harpoons as early as 1984, when it made its first operational deployment. CMANO is lavishly researched with insane attention to detail, which is why I'm wondering if there's something more to what they say. Also, I understand the AN/AAS-38 wasn't equipped with a laser designator initially. However, I do understand it was capable of dropping laser-guided bombs by use of another pod equipped with a laser designator, the AN/ASQ-173. Is this correct? And did the AAS-38 ever eventually receive a laser designator, or did it always need to be used in conjunction with the ASQ-173?

I agree. The reality of being a fighter pilot today is such that "the show" isn't much of a show. That's the case, even though our pilots are dropping more ordnance in Iraq and Syria than they did in Afghanistan and Iraq during the 2000s after the respective invasions of each country.

No it's not. My eyesight was so bad I was rejected by every service. And I'm not even legally blind and otherwise an incredibly healthy individual.

Does anybody know where I can find a detailed listing of the changes that occurred to the Hornet with each new block upgrade and variant introduction? I'm writing up an article on the Hornet and I'm specifically trying to determine when exactly the Hornet first acquired the ability to fire HARMs and Harpoons.

Not really. Getting hired at McDonalds is a lot easier than joining the military. LOL

:lol::lol::lol: Don't worry, I know we gotta keep it rated-PG on the carriers. I'll make sure my desktop wallpaper is a picture of Linda Rondstadt. In fact, if you watch The Final Countdown, you can see a picture of her taped to the side of a cabinet as they adjourn the meeting at the Carrier Intelligence Center (CVIC) after the storm.

In all seriousness, though, I've heard people say qualifying for flying jobs in the military (whether as a pilot or otherwise) is akin to winning the lottery. So many things you have no control over have to go right.

That's good, because the Navy would never let us be NAs or NFOs in real life!:cry_2:

Well, I definitely can't be a pilot! I am, however, corrected to 20/20, which means I qualify as NFO.:pilotfly:

Especially considering the Tomcat dropped more bombs and fired more air-to-ground weaponry than it fired air-to-air missiles.