Blaze1

I'm not sure if the Navy said 'yes' to the Hornet and even if that was the case, as far as I'm aware they're not supplying ED with technical data, other sources are.

Not that one cha5er, that's the unclassified NATOPS manual (NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1). The one in question is the Supplemental NATOPS manual NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1A.

I was pointed to this thread by another member because I thought the FOIA process was quite interesting. You mentioned that the documents in question are unclassified, specifically NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1A (1997). I received a response to an FOIA request for the same manual back in 2014. The response stated the manual was confidential and as a result being withheld completely. It's possible that during the intervening years the manual has subsequently been declassified, however I'd be surprised if that was the case, so when you say "the documents are unclassifed", I assume you mean after redaction of systems and modes pertaining to the APG-71, ALR-67, ALQ-165 ASPJ, AIM-7M, AIM-9M etc?

There're probably pills and or a change of diet that could help with that. Best to consult a doctor.

By the late 70's/early 80's, the 'D' received upgrades that significantly improved reliability. It was a complex system that required experienced Mx crews to work on it and apparently around the time they began to get good at it, they were promoted, with the less experienced crew then taking the reins.

The 'D' wasn't experimental, it was a digital variant that entered production. While the digital system was a maintenance nightmare to begin with, those troubles were eventually ironed out. The only downside of modelling a 'D' would be that it could only haul dumb a-to-g munitions (save dropping LGBs for a buddy).

The F-111F would be the obvious choice due to its PGM capability and action during Desert Storm, but I'd really also love to see an F-111D with that beautiful digital cockpit.

The KA-6D could deliver non-nuclear munitions, however these had to be delivered visually with the manual release mode.

I agree.

Not sure if it's as quick and dirty as that Spurts. I think HB need a minimum level of technical information before they're prepared to model a system. I could be wrong, but I'm of the belief that HB's minimum level can be reached before venturing into the classified domain.

I disagree with the caveat that it would depend on the level of fidelity the developers are seeking to model. ED are developing the APG-73 and APG-68 for the Hornet and Viper respectively. Both radars are still in service and feature some classified modes of operation.

Excellent thread! Newer fighters such as the Rafale and Typhoon feature auto trim on the roll and yaw axis. I think the reason it may not have been done until then perhaps down to complexity and cost as Curly mentioned.

I think I may have a copy of the -34 somewhere. If memory serves me it's TO 1F-105B-34-1-1. The classified/formerly classified manuals would be TO 1F-105G-1, I believe this was previously titled TO 1F-105G-1A. These manuals dealt with systems used to employ the AGM-45 Shrike and AGM-78 Standard ARM (STARM). There's also TO 1F-105B-34-1-3, which covered classified weapons such as the Sidewinder. I'd be very surprised if all of those manuals haven't been declassified or wouldn't be with an FOIA or MDR.

Thanks.

Out of curiosity GGT, what were those problems?

While TO 1F-15E-25-1 Nuclear Weapon Delivery Manual, containing details of nuclear weapons programming is a classified manual, there are also unclassified supporting documents that describe the nuclear armament displays and switches.

Nice video Skip. The pilot used the emergency landing gear handle, so perhaps it was a hydraulic issue preventing normal landing gear extension.

The EPAWSS upgrade will see the adoption of the F-15SA/QA/EX etc style tail boom fairings:

Great info Curly!

Are there any APG-68(V)9 customers?

"STARSCREAM". You've got to love it.

I've just discovered this part of the forum, despite being a member for many years! I've got to say there's been some excellent information posted.

That won't be a problem.

It's strange how redundant descriptions/procedures are at times left in manuals even after numerous iterations.