Kev2go

yes it would my mistake i overlooked that function in the manual

a ccip viper should be capable of still having backwards compatibility with Lantirn no?

Yup and then you realize the Brits had the right idea deciding to stick in more powerful engines into their Apaches.

And i wont argue against F16 having better raw performance Hence my comment the F16 is a racehorse put into role of a warhorse. The only real advantage i feel the F16 has over the F18 is in raw performance, being able to produce better acceleration and reach a higher top speed. its a better joyride. But given the meta shift in aviation design , Avionics/ sensor supremacy has been proving more and more of higher importance than focus on raw power and how good an aircraft can do in 1 v 1 guns only. The epitome of this philosophy in present day is an aircraft like the F35. Thats the thing. When i Fly the F16 i wish i had stuff the Hornet ( including its high alpha ability) and when i fly the Hornet Im mostly content but certainly would like to have had the extra ompf of the Viper. Alas that performance impact of the F18 has to do with the nature with its carrier based needs.

the Multi sensor integration even though its more limited in its implementation on the DCS hornet relative to IRL is still better than the Viper. You can display RWR information in the SA page as well as Radar page. Plus JHMCS shows much more RWR information than the viper which only shows the most critical threat . Moving map iis also nice for SA. Hornet also more flexible in its multirole in what it can carry as long with its employment of its sensor like the TGP i find its more flexible for attacking targets of opportunity versus the Viper. All in all F18 is a proper warhorse, F16 is a racehorse trying to be a warhorse.

but thats the thing. its not reliant on Link 16. I would think its criminal not to include CAS page when even Razbam has one on thier harrier. And ED has the already done something like this before since its a A10C with the MSG page. The only legitimate reason would not to do this if ED could claim that CAS page functionality is not part of ther documentation for this particular software suite in that particular timeframe. Although even that is called into doubt. Again IF a publicly available F18 Hornet Tacman was available for verification there would be no genuine denial of such a functionality. Otherwise we are at the mercey OF Ed to say "trust us its not there"

To each his own. But I think the white font overlays better over the Moving map. maybe thats just me ( based on mod i used for font change and DDI changes) More important than font colour I certainly prefer seeing TGP and Radar Mapping in Greyscale.

ok i mixed things up. Yes the most modern Natops I can find dated 2008. ends off at MC OFP 20X. what are changes between 20X and 23X? besides what you mentioned anything else?

what additional features were added between OFP13C and OFP 23X? Just something to consider if you were to creep in a newer software suite and maintain accuracy and not do more hybridization. ( again assuming ED has the documentation?)

maybe ED excuse is it came with a newer software suite than what is represented in a circa 2005ish hornet. it certainly did become a thing at some point https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3389&context=utk_gradthes

Yea wonder if ED can confirm TA mode

we were promised to have Mk77 fire bomb for the Hornet. So i suppose maybe one day..... one day. It might come to DCS

I thought the radar scope display in the cockpit was removed from A1H's by the time of the 1960s? I have A-1H 1965 natops manual and also a USAF based one from 1971 and its not referenced in cockpit layouts by that point.

Can't say for sure, but I think it's just a color option. In DCS, you can choose your display font color in the Harrier through the EHSD page, as it carries modern MPCDs. But Legacy Hornets never had an option to change display? they had colour MPCD starting in 1989 introduced with lot 12's and then circa 2003ish MPCD's were starting to be replaced with AMPCD's. I have seen footage of some USN Legacy Hornets having white font on AMPCD . So i would assume its option it came only with a newer software suite than what we have in DCS on our legacy Hornet?

not necessarily. If the only thing preventing you from lasing is Cloud cover. then if course you can drop down to lower altitude below cloud cover to launch mavericks. Of course that puts you at greater risk if there is some form of air defeces, but its either that or fly home. but i was not being dismissive of these weapons but point out why maybe pilots arent trained on them anymore. Yes and this has been discussed to death. having to work with limitations of an older system or not being trained to employ it for its designed use the answer is not simple ' its useless" i think is not a fair description at all. If a radars air to surface modes are considered "useless" then air to surface modes wouldn't have been included to begin with. One has to consider what said systems were designed for at the time for adoption, versus what is available in present day allowing for better alternatives given a older generation of Radars limitations. and also for what role pilots train and use their aircraft combat today versus back then. if you would want to take things further we can also compare and contrast to an earlier generation of Aircraft like A6 or F111 which were designed around radar attack, and the capabilities of those systems versus what you have in generation 4 of multirole aircraft. Do those aircraft in turn become useless? There also is for example another disconnect between what certain navy pilots here have said about APG73 and what i hear/read about APG73 phase 2 on USMC F/A18D's with ATARS. Its said its uses more advanced air to surface software and its SAR modes are closer to whats found on a APG70's Strike eagle.

I mean maviercks arent the only system that doesnt have limitations modelled. we would also have to take into consideration that TGP's are also dont have thier limitations represented in DCS. The Coordinates generation from TGP to feed to JDAM launch are always perfect. and the image clarity does not degrade as you zoom in. This should especially be the case for the litening as it only has 1 level of magnification and very reliant on figitally enhanced Zoom. Litening AT is from early 2000s. using max level zoom you wouldnt be able to tell anything of detail, because any armored vehicle would be a total Blur. sO its a long way of saying you agree. the limitations of using laser guided weapons are valid in poor weather conditions or in higher risk environments , but again most of the complaints are probably due to the limitations of Maverick being dated technology in the 21sst century. But as i mentioned there are more advanced weapons filling its role for high threat environments that heave IR guidance perhaps the AGM 179 project will replace Mavericks directly. YES THESE ARE also pretty useful but when is the last time there was a conventional war? There has been no need to drop cluster munitions of any sort. Pilots have been pretty much just flying around in the last couple decades and dropping LGB's and JDAMS in uncontested environments against insurgents. what i notice this discussion about people trying to complain about mavericks not being as usefull IRL to DCS is alot liike the people with Air to Surface radar of older generations. that its "useless" and virtually never use due to limitations

the advantage of the IR mavs is that they are fire and forget. and do not have to be lased till impact, which with laser based weapons also means only 1 target can be attacked per pass. In non permissive environments its preferable to just ripple off a bunch of PGM's ( against multiple targets if feasibly possible) and be able to break off to avoid risk to getting within range of mobile tracked air defenses escorting a armored/mechanized unit. JDAMS arent true fire and forget as they have no means to self adjust against a moving target. you need to have some sort of IR seeker guidance for that. hence whatever thier limitations Mavericks fill this void as a useful armored vehicle buster . AFAIk there isnt anything comparable or with longer stand off range to IR mavs, except maybe IRL with the newer gen JSOWS that have terminal IR guidance included.

isnt this why the CCD based AGM65H/K mavericks were produced as a alternative? for use in daylight but hot humid environments where IR maverick would have some issues like you describe. Also I wonder If Agm65D's were refurbished with more modern IR seeker tech would they be more effective since D/G's are still 80s vintage IR tech?

there has been 0 news on MAC for a long while ( years now?) I just assumed this was put on backburner if not outright indefinite hold

in a sidenote Im wondering how is it some Super Hornets have Green font/ symbology. Though most have White? IS this a feature that pilots can choose? or is Green font from an older software suite that still hasn't been phased out? ( this video is from 2018 btw)

it will be interesting to see the fidelity of thier F/A18F when it comes out. Supposed to be totally reworked for the ground up and be a newer Hornet lot ( seem to be at least a block 1 lot 25 given the features) then the old venerable F/A18E which itself was supposed to get a proper remake post F/A18F. But in any case minus limitations of not having a dedicated combat sim, there are an example that a Super Hornet is viable as a study sim level module. Sigh if only in DCS

not to mention internally carried towed decoy . plus the the use of the UFCD as an additional multipurpose screen would be nice.

i also have a additional documentation manual 34-1-1-2 published 1983 and revised 1986 which is a supplement only pertaining to DMAS modified phantoms and it too says on the cover it specifically only pertains from aircraft 71-0237 to 74-1653 i do have F4G dash 34 which says select F4E blocks 42-45 that were Converted to F4G standard post conversion got DMAS upgrades but the F4G is no longer an F4E

i thought DMAS was only added to F4E block 48 ( starting from # 71-237) up to block 62? at least according to documentation? Which also means phantoms that had TISEO sensor

I also found some additional pictures of the Aim9L an F4E phantom from 110th TF / 131 TFW photographed May of 1988 https://www.airhistory.net/photo/295983/68-0338/AF68-338 Also another phantom with what looks to be an Aim9L from Texas based squadron aircraft # 68-0-389 but here is link ( though its an RF4-E) https://www.google.com/search?q=alamy+F4E+389&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiv-rWGwtr1AhW1kIkEHbkvDnQQ_AUoAXoECBUQAw&biw=2560&bih=1329&dpr=1#imgrc=oatqIO3NL2IIJM