Kev2go

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

p4/5 arent rear aspect anymore. they are using all aspect seeker heads. So yes whilst you have older generation rocket motor and still have Aim9P body aerodynamics. the p4/5 have all aspect seeker heads. from what i read P4 is based on Aim9L seeker head, wheras the p5 has Aim9M seeker tech with improved flare resistance. not sure what exact color schemes the p4 or p5 should have if it varies from year to year since there seems to be variation, the only reliable way to tell is to have a close enough look at the tip of the missile to distnguish via more pointy seeker head, and maybe the color of missile head. aim9p4 Aim9P5 p4 or p5 http://thecombatworkshop.blogspot.com/2017/10/sidewinder-overview-part-iv-aim-9jnp.html

either way that is still a big upgrade over what we have EXP3 of the F/A18, where in DCS even at under 10NM an aircraft parked on the runway is just going to look like a blob again not sure what distance this SARmap is made it is but this clip from gulf war era you can indeed make out aircraft shapes on this APG70 sar map recording. jelCkVe.mp4

If we are getting a late model phantom such as dmas modded version included , I'd expect it should be capable of arming all aspect winders. Considering they served till the 90s. According to documentation all aspect aim9p4/p5 is compatible with same aero3b launchers that rear aspect aim9p( and earlier are mounted on) . And also lau105s documented for aim9l/m in F4E manuals. Sounds like it would of been quite limited in combat given that even mig21,s were getting r60m, if that was the case, although i think muntions are generally included in DCS regardless of how common or uncommon it was as long as its documented. in 2005. Hornets would no longer be using AGM62. and virtually no Hornet would have ATFLIR given thier low availability at the time and prioritization for Super Hornets. Also an image of a f4g with Aim7F Same a2a weapons capability as the f4e.

although Il happily be using Aim9P4/5 or Aim9L/M for general multiplayer servers

In theory 184 Long should be capable of jamming low band low frequency radars. So for Example a EWR like the P12 should be jammable. Though i havent tested to see if there is any noticable difference.

none of the USAF F4's ever got pulse doppler radars AFAIK. They retired with some updated version of AN/APQ 120 pulse radar. Only navy phantom F4J/S had that with the APG59/AWG10 series.

Really would it still be? i dont want to hear how the F4G is too classified when its now obsolete technology, when it been retired this long and when it was replaced by F16C block 50's, and when HTS became integrated. blk 50s became a proper SEAD platform, which of course we have as a module in DCS, and especially when today the F35's EW capability massively suprass those of the F16 , and its potential for SEAD is only limited by not having harms

SO heatblur doesn't clarify the block of by DMAS modified phantoms... but that would mean a F4E block 48 or later, since according to the Technical order 1F4E 626 ECP mod 2917 was only applied to aircraft 71-237 to 74-1653 which also means the TISEO EO sensor in the wing. So is it safe to assume the DMAS modified phantom will be F4E block 53 that Belsimtek had planned?

welp its official

so this particular aaa has been added into DCS but i havent noticed ED add a Radar director for it

After an F4E block 53? Maybe a F4J and/or F4S phantom ( besides being a naval version has a PD radar) but otherwise thats it.

yeah i think i will do that. ED needs to do some adjusting on thier end with how CCD mode currently is.

Yes i know thus they basically have super hornet avionics. they have the UFCD. and the lower AMPCD is the larger type in use, both of which are on the Super Hornets. The only legacy avionics thing that remains is the older F/A18C IFEI panel versus the Super Hornets new EFD display for its specific engines the DDI's are of the sort used on the F/A18A++ Hornets of the USMC, however they don't display symbology and alphanumeric in grey/white. Still use Green Font, even though the displays are technically full color capable like AMPCD. So if tere is any lack of ability of displaying a moving map on these newer DDI's. It is likely a software limitation not a technical limitation of a display.

i hope its the F4E. Besides a F4E block 53 was what belsimtek was working on before that project got put on pause. Better to do that ( even if you start 3d and system modelling) from scratch because of documentation research being already done, and SME they would have already been in contact with, are available.

So so for the A10C and F/A18C depending on the maps that have scaling issues. Syria: I know for example the Hornet isn't supposed to display a moving map beyond 40NM setting as per its documentation. But it doesn't do so for any of the moving maps save for at 10 and 5 nautical miles on Syria. And its supposed to because the map is just a blue screen The A10C II only displays the Moving map on 10 and 20 nautical miles on he Syria map, which also otherwise emits a blue screen. Marianas : F/A18C hornet : Map only works on 10 and 5 nautical miles A10C II : 5, 10 and 20 nautical miles Nevada NTTR Map: Fine for the A10C II, all ranges, F/A18C: Moving map displays at 40NM, 20NM, and 5 Nautical miles. for some reason 10 NM mark it is again a blue screen Persian Gulf F/A18C : display moving map at 40 - 10 NM, At 5 nm blue screen A10C II : all ranges except 5 nautical miles Caucasus map = Fine A10C moving map works 5 through to 160 Nautical miles. F/A18C : at 40NM and below