ChickenSim

That's good to hear, could you specify which by chance? This is the first I've heard of AGM-65Gs being used outside the USAF service-wide. All the contemporary documents I have (ca. 2000s) don't list Gs as a valid stores option, and more recent documents don't even list the F for that matter (I've been told they all went to the ASuW squadrons), but that's obviously not relevant to a mid-2000s Hornet.

I thought you meant from your original post that Wags said they were going to replace the G with the F. But either way we may be talking past each other. The functions and symbology aren't identical (the F is the one with the SHIP mode, for example, that targets the waterline of a vessel, and the G clearly has different symbology on the DDI), and I'm positive there are other differences beyond the color and markings of the weapon (Navy variants tend to have more HERO protection that isn't modeled in DCS). I understand that it was a planned weapon and is on their list, I am simply skeptical that it should have been when in the many other Hornet Armament threads here on the forum, the reason given for the exclusion of other weapons is that the Navy Lot 20 birds didn't use them. Well, I'm fairly certain they neither carried the G, and here we are.

I'm not so sure. Even the YouTube tutorial videos were titled AGM-65G and they added DDI symbology that says MAVG, so the inclusion of this variant was clearly intentional if the software build wasn't. I'm not complaining about more weapons by any means either, I am just trying to wrap my head around their selection criteria for excluding certain weapons and payloads that the Hornet is capable of carrying while including weapons it doesn't. And I've never heard of the US Navy using the G so that's why I was curious why it was even on the list.

Just wondering, what's the reason for AGM-65Gs being on the Hornet? I know they have used AGM-65E/E2s and Fs (both F and G being E warheads with D seekers; Fs having SHIP mode). I'm pretty sure the Navy never used Gs and I'm not sure whether the jet can fire them properly since they're not in any manuals I can see (no stores codes or listed DDI readouts in the 2001 TPG or in any manuals published since, only MAV and MAVF). Is there something in the 1994 version that has them? And if they're sticking around does this mean there's a chance of re-evaluating the criteria to exclude BRU-55s (for dual-racked GBU-12s), DMLGBs, GBU-54s, or LITENING pods? There's a lot more evidence of those being used by Hornets than 65Gs.

By Trev's logic, Universe Sandbox must say a lot about anyone who's ever launched an asteroid at Earth or made Sol go supernova. Paradox Interactive may as well close up shop for releasing nothing but eugenics and genocide simulators. Shame on CMANO for including a gamut of nuclear weapons of mass destruction in pixel format. Pokemon is now a moral treatise on the dangers of dog and cockfighting. Somebody please think of the children.

You're right Vitor. Hellfire wasn't even around when the original OV-10As were flying, but the Marine Corps OV-10As modified under the NOGS night observation gunship program into YOV-10Ds appeared to have been modified to carry both a 20mm XM197 turret cannon pulled off a Cobra and conducted captive-carry testing of Hellfires. Unfortunately, the NOS OV-10Ds that resulted from the modifications may not have retained all the capabilities of the NOGS YOV-10Ds. I don't think the turreted 20mm cannon or Hellfire ever saw operational service due to funding limitations, although they could still carry 20mm gunpods. I'm also not sure if the OV-10D+s flown in Desert Storm ever received the capability to fire Hellfires, but I've read reports that the OV-10G+s modified from the OV-10D+s can (as well as APKWS).

The 2° ND trim isn't to keep the nose from climbing away or it wanting to stay down. The ND trim is strictly to keep the nose RCS vents closed on the go so that FOD doesn't get inadvertently kicked up into the intakes. Once airborne the aircraft (CG dependent) requires a lot of mixing paint to keep a porper attitude and sideslip until you're in stable wingborne flight and can trim appropriately.

No, the AV-8B parking brake doesn't just block the throttle, it actuates cables that are also attached to the brake pedals that connect to the brake control valve and applies braking pressure when engaged. That said, I'm pretty sure you're correct that there's nothing in the INS logic that should prevent someone from attempting a GND alignment without the parking brake set. The parking brake is just to ensure the aircraft doesn't move from its original location as that would foul the alignment and cause INS drift/failure.

I'd like to add that a component of the 15 NM max range is the nominal/minimum 105 second battery life on the missile. At the decaying terminal velocity of the missile and a better performing battery (up to 150 seconds), you might see ranges as great as ~21 NM under perfect conditions and a near Mach 1 launch at 33,000' AGL, but this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of both electrical power and control surface authority (Mavericks are at least a bit better off than Hellfires in the latter category).

I'm not forgetting that, I wasn't even specifying that the lasers were on the same plane being launched from. We've spoken about that before and how for playability reasons you were treating them like E2s. I'm just saying that on principle both systems are currently not working as they should, from the aerodynamic performance of the missile (a 30 NM flight is about as silly as how the JDAMs currently behave and bleed speed) to how the missile guides (detecting any spot that's fired from <8 NM of the target, regardless of how far away the missile is from it). And thanks to both of you for the quick responses!

Before this gets too confusing, I just want to clarify some things. 1) The missile is kinematically capable of traveling a max of ~15 NM under the right employment conditions and still retaining enough speed and control surface authority for guidance (faster and longer for aircraft that travel faster and higher than a Harrier does). 2) The laser target designator in the Litening Pod is not capable of lasing a target from 15 NM that will also be detected by a weapon seeker at 15 NM (that's a 30 NM round trip). The reflected laser energy should operate more like a pulley system. The closer the target is being lased from the further the seeker should detect the spot, and vice versa. If the laser's max range is causing a floating spot in the air that the missile is erroneously guiding to, that's also a problem. It should just not detect anything at all if the laser is getting too attenuated to reflect off anything. Right now people are reporting on Facebook and Hoggit that they're getting 20-30 NM shots off with 250 knot terminal velocities which are indicative of problems with both the missile FMs and the DCS laser guidance system. Charts for expected laser detection ranges and kinematic performance for AGM-65E/Fs are in the available Harrier TACMANs. Right now neither of the two systems work as they should.

This also happened on the same mission I ran last night. I fired off a few M270 rockets and pressed LAlt+\ to initiate rearm near a supply truck and although I didn't see any indication that it bugged at 1s remaining, I was unable to use the MLRS for the rest of the mission because it told me I couldn't move or rotate the turret due to rearming in progress. This persisted for about 45-60+ minutes until I left the server. I'll try to produce a dedicated track file, the one I have from that mission is 200mb.

The track file is over 200mb but here is an example of CTLD-spawned mortars being completely unresponsive from a 2-hour multiplayer mission I helped run last night from the CA seat. The helos dropped them off, they sat in their little star pattern, and although I could Set Path with the LShift+LClick method they wouldn't move, and Add Target appeared not to work either (the targeting reticle wouldn't show up and the mortars never seemed to respond at all). They basically just sat there eating PC resources and I was forced to move ahead without them. If I can put together a smaller vignette of this happening for a smaller track file I'll try to this week.

I don't know if I'm missing something but if I Set Target on an existing enemy unit that appears on the F10 map, I can't reselect the Set Target icon, it just selects the enemy unit underneath instead. Makes it really hard to cancel a fire mission if I can't select the Set Target to Remove Target, and I'm not aware of any hotkeys to cycle through existing targets, select multiple entities on the F10 map at once, or anything that might help. Pored through the manual and the Adjust Controls menu.

It is left in IFA for the duration of flight (ship or shore) unless issues with the GPS present themselves.

GPS vulnerability to jamming and spoofing is typically mitigated with SAASM (Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module) which is (very basically) military encrypted GPS. IFA allows the GPS to continuously provide error corrections to the INS throughout flight by placing the INS and GPS into a "tightly coupled" mode, although it is procedure in the event of an inoperable, faulty, or detected jammed/spoofed GPS (it's not that hard to figure out sitting in the cockpit) to place the switch back to NAV so as not to inadvertently fail the INS with erroneous GPS error corrections. This procedure is covered in detail in the emergency procedures section of the NATOPS.

That Navy Fact File is misleading. The AGM-65E/F (and G) share the same 300-lb. WDU-24/B blast-fragmentation warhead. The E model isn't notably larger than the F, it's just "larger" relative to the typical USAF models. Although Marine Corps usage of the F is rare in reality, both F/A-18s and AV-8Bs have the capability to employ it, and the procedures for employment, stores codes/loading limitations, and preflight checklists for both AGM-65E and F are present in both jets' technical, operating, and reference manuals (to include employment in SEA mode against ships). So while in real life P-3s may have the monopoly on F usage, there may be a number of factors that contribute to this description of reality. It could be smart pre-positioning of stockpiles in the hands of those aircraft whose job it is to conduct anti-surface warfare, it could be dwindling stockpiles meaning nobody else gets any, it could be the fact that the Marines "get by" with the E exclusively just fine and don't submit requests for having that ordnance on hand. But if you found an F and strapped it on a Harrier, it should work just fine.

The AGM-88 can't be carried or fired for much the same reason that AGM-84Ds can't. Incompatible pylon/launchers, no software/electronics integration, no testing, and no money. AGM-88s (both HARM and AARGM) are fired from LAU-118s, which the Harrier does not carry. The Harrier II+ was, however, integrated with LAU-127s for use with AIM-120s. Adding the outrigger pylons from which to fire AIM-9 Sidewinders would be far more palatable than any of the other options. Although the Marine Corps doesn't use them, all the wiring and software is still there. The only reason the Marine Corps decided not to use them is because of the risk of popping an outrigger tire with the missile exhaust, which could inhibit FARP operations or get planes stuck in the field where a spare wasn't readily available (the Brits never FARPed). Considering the AGM-122 is already a fantasy-land "break glass in case of emergency" "we have all these spare missiles laying around" weapon and was never operationally used, I don't think outrigger pylons would be that far-fetched. The only problem though is a lack of documentation on system symbology.

I already told you in the second post in this thread that the Harrier does not carry the Harpoon. Harpoons are mounted directly onto pylons that have BRU-32 suspension (SUU-63 in the Hornet's case) and appear to use the 30-inch suspension hooks (given they occupy about a quarter of the length of the 12' long missile). The Harrier pylons contain BRU-36s and only offer 14-inch suspension hooks. That's not to say that it's impossible to perhaps create an adapter like they did with the F-16, but it also costs man-hours and money to integrate the weapon with the aircraft's electronics and avionics to allow the aircraft's computers to "see" the weapon and display the appropriate MPCD and HUD symbology, and also to conduct all the modeling and testing required to validate launch and safety envelopes, etc. It doesn't look like they did any of this with the Harrier. Anti-surface warfare is not part of the Harrier's core mission set. Their core missions are to conduct Close Air Support, Air Interdiction, Armed Reconnaissance, and Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance from expeditionary shore-based sites. If a Harrier was asked to destroy a ship, it would fall under one of these missions. The only reason Harriers eventually got the AIM-120 integrated despite having had the radar for many years prior was because it became a "core plus" mission to conduct Active Air Defense of amphibious ready groups and Sidewinders probably wouldn't cut the mustard for that. I believe they were talking about the APKWS, which is the laser-guided version of the 2.75" Hydra 70 rockets. I don't think the laser-guided Zunis ever saw fleet service with Harriers (or anyone else to my knowledge).

I don't think that's a fair comparison to make for a few reasons. 1) There are real world reasons that Harrier NAs and II+s work in tandem and I think that has an allure for people interested in immersion or realism. 2) In terms of development resources, making modifications to an existing airframe internally is less work and less risk than starting from scratch on a completely new aircraft. For example, I really doubt that another third party developer would find it a sound business decision to come along and try to make a GR.7 from the ground up knowing that an NA/II+ is already on the market, despite how many fans there are of the RAF aircraft who would love to see a GR.7 or GR.9 represented as well. Your decisions about which modules to pursue affects other developers' decisions in that manner. So, I know you've said in 2016 that there won't be an OV-10 out of Razbam "at least not in the near future", but I (and many others, as evidenced by how this poll turned out compared to your last few) will be saving my hard-earned cash for the airplane I really want to fill this niche in DCS, and won't be paying for an aircraft that could put the other one at stake. Especially as long as we (the community) think we have some say in the matter with polls like these, long before any formal announcements have been made. In case my sarcasm wasn't clear, yes, that's all the more reason we who voted "No" should be vocal about why we voted that way and what we would prefer in the comments section.

Assuming that those are problems in the first place, absolutely. But you won't know until you research those avenues. I'm not presupposing that obtaining manuals for a light attack/observation aircraft first flown in 1965 is going to be prohibitively difficult, nor that any of the systems in an aircraft like that are going to be confidential or classified, especially for an aircraft that has already been replicated for other simulators. OV-10A/D NATOPS, tactics manuals, maintenance manuals, and even line diagrams are already publicly available. There is even an OV-10 Bronco Association that could be a wealth of pilot, material, and reference resources that nobody would know about until they asked (provided they knew it existed in the first place). If I'm reading you right here, I think I have an idea. Perhaps it would be more productive then for developers in the future to only release polls like this with "Yes" options. You know, that way the community can't say "No", because you wouldn't like saying "No" to become a trend, because the only reason someone would be saying "No" is because they would prefer to purchase something different.

Explaining why your answer is "No" and helping developers by ensuring it's not just a guessing game about what airplane the community would like to see next seems perfectly productive. Especially when developers are sometimes apprehensive about making aircraft that are too similar in form and function to other existing modules out of concern that sales wouldn't be as great. So having an O-2A in DCS might be a death sentence for ever having an OV-10, and I'll take every opportunity I can to be as discerning and vocal as possible about which module I want to be the sure thing and which one I'd happily leave in question.

That's not surprising. For stores configuration manuals they usually just assume a M151 warhead (or neglect to specify warhead type at all) because the ballistics and weights are almost identical between the warheads that have planned deliveries. If the aircraft can load a LAU-61 or LAU-68, it should be assumed that it can load the full range of M151 HE Frag, M156 White Phosphorous, Mk 67 Mod 1 Red Phosphorous, and WTU-1 practice warheads. M257 Illumination and M278 IR Illumination warheads sometimes don't appear in the older delivery manuals at all because their deliveries aren't planned with charts like the other rockets are, but again, you can put whatever warhead you want on a Mk66 motor and call it a day. I've seen Hornets deliver white phosphorous for sure.

To clarify, that's not to say that the manuals would be blindly followed to the letter with the inevitable result of breaking equipment. That's where the oral tradition, written supplementary documents and checklists, and computer-based and classroom training fills in with things like techniques and supplemental procedures. Those offset the risks of that happening or expound upon very generalized procedures in the NATOPS. Those kinds of things don't get captured for posterity on the sites that host snapshots of operating manuals that only see significant updates every few years.

Hell, it's not just the Navy either. I've seen how Army Technical Manuals ("-10"s) are written too and it's not much further off. The Air Force and Army may tend to tell you everything you can do rather than the Navy style of only specifying the stuff you shouldn't do, but writing a TM from scratch is often an exercise in the blind leading the blind. Dozens of engineers with compartmented knowledge of the system advising pilot representatives (not necessarily even trained in the airframe yet) who are dictating to subcontracted writers just looking for something to pay the bills and with no vested interest in the long-term accuracy of the document after their contract expires. Systems around for 20 years whose manuals were still internally inconsistent in places because no one at the operator/pilot level bothers to submit a change request or it would cost more money to change the sentence and redistribute the document than the cost of just doing the procedure incorrectly and occasionally breaking something. It's the nature of having an organization so large and decentralized that it's cost-prohibitive to expect instantaneous changes for change's sake.