Kev2go

thanks to a vocal minority muddying the waters and the developers ultimately submitting to demands like with 4 harms/ 6 mav thing even though it has been determined to not be a thing IRL from those who work on the things. Just means not every aircraft is up to same standard, that you have a mixed fleet of various software suites or fleet with older models of aircraft doesn't mean those features don't exist at that particular time, or they all dont get supplied with the same weapons. Again this a different matter. that would be like not supplying ATFLIR's to a circa 2005ish hornet just because they were not issued in large enough quantities at that particular timeframe due to slow production rollouts and prioritized for SH fleets instead. Bu thats an issue of supply not of the capability not being integrated or present. yup this is what im talking about

Im not worried by exact aircraft serial number. Ie if we have a F16C block 50 viper within a certain time frame then we have good idea of what features were standard. It not expected to be exact representation of 1 serial number specific aircraft. Would this not be more or less the same For Eurofighter tranches? Or are they really that franken that where capabilities of Tranch 1 and Tranche 2 series blocks etc have become so overlapped over time IRL it doesn't matter?

So in other words they are going to likely do something of a franken tranche with mix mash of features? rather than doing an earlier time specific version, because they want to squeeze in as much features as possible from newer models, but dont have enough information to properly model a newer tranche specific aircraft?

but which tranche? I thought German Tranche 1's didnt have those, that it was the RAF that had implemented air to surface first in like 2008 on tranche 1 block 5's whereas at the time Luftwaffe did not? Or are we getting a later versions? Or could did the Luftwaffe Tranche 1's get A/G but simply at a later date? Or is it simply that the UK added larger variety of A/G munitions for later models compared to the Luftwaffe?

yea id hope to have the Uk variant just so we can get some form of A/G capability TGP, general purpose bombs, and laser guided bombs

i recall that Truegrit before teaming with heatblur said they would do other nations EF's at some point. a Uk tranche 1 block 5 does have some degree of A/G capability. IIRC it was general purpose bombs and laser guided. Its only the Luftwaffe version that was a2a only

Not that i am in a rush to jump from win 10 to 11. But from whati read intel 8th generation or newer CPU's have tpm that should be compatible with windows 11, even if most MOBO's don't

He has a point. the ALR 67 ECP 510 ( aka ALR 67 V2) is what he described is that the INS integration. should basically work with the RWR, change the direction of the threats as you move your aircraft, but right now sometimes you can loose RWR contacts if you happen to turn at an angle where your RWR sensor is out of the fov of a radar threat. A 2005 era hornet would be using ALR 67 V2. The AV8B has this feature. right now the Hornet ALR 67 behaves more like a pre ecp510.

the phase 2 IIRC was specifically addressed improving A/G capabilities specifically around the SAR resolution. However USN Hornets do not make full potential use of the phase 2 upgrades, as they do not use more advanced Software the USMC F/A18D's for thier recon role, when Using the ATARS pod. Thats probably where the "comparable to F15E SAR mapping " claim comes from. Wheras the navy didn't have such requirements , and thus superior A/G mapping improvements wasn't a thing for the Navy until the APG79 on Block 2 Super Hornets. Id also thrown in the date of introduction doesn't necessarily matter, but the level of technology. I mean you look at the sort of Radars Russians had for the Mig29/SU27, and are primitive compared to the generation of radars US had in the 80s. Hell they weren't even planar araay. You also look at the KJL-7 and for example its max radar range is only to 80NM, not 160.

But like you said radar uses newer software, considering that all Hornets eventually had APG65's phased out for APG73's, and all those old surplus AGP65's were what went to the av8b Plus program.. Plus ( pun not intended) its also possible that Av8B also had certain hardware components replaced through the supply chain. So eventually Av8b APG65's would basically become APG73 Phase 1's, once other 3 excess APG73 parts ( the exiter/reciever, Target signal data processing component , and power supply) would trickle down through the supply chain Which makes things not so easy to ascertain. https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-96-49.pdf to quote from page 8 " In a March 11, 1994, Acquisition Decision Memorandum, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology concurred with the Navy’s approach to accelerate the F-18 radar upgrade from APG-65 to APG-73 radars in order to provide the resulting excess APG-65 radar assets for the REMAN program. Three of the six basic components that make up the APG-65 radar system are common to the F-18’s APG-73 radar and will remain in use in the F-18 aircraft. The remaining three components (the radar receiver/exciter, target data processor, and computer power supply) will become excess assets available to the REMAN program."

the radar dish of the APG65 had to be downsized to fit into the nose of the av8B. SO whatever the RL detection numbers may be i would still bet on the APG65 equipped hornet have had a slight advantage

it should be. that Gif footage is in fact a Strike Eagle radar. From the documentary Desert Storm; the Air assault. And as from that white paper which cited that information from the the Dash 34 weapons delivery manual unlike the Hornet the Strike Eagle has at least 8 mapping sizes not 3.

An interesting white paper regarding APG70 that gives us some insight of capabilities. published in 1997. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235082355_Automatic_Target_Cueing_and_Operator_Performance_with_Enhanced_APG-70_Synthetic_Aperture_Radar_Imagery "The F-15E Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) in High Resolution Map (HRM) mode has the capability to produce patch maps at eight different coverage sizes, ranging from 80 nautical miles (nmi) to 0.67 nmi. The 0.67 nmi map corresponds to an image resolution of 8.5 ft/pixel, which is currently the highest level attainable on the F-15E (Nonnuclear Weapon Delivery Manual). In order to provide the type of higher resolution imagery needed to support the application of ATC/ATR technologies, the Theater Missile Defense (TMD) office (ASC/FBXT) sponsored the development and testing of a new high resolution capability with a "smart" sensor management system for use with the APG-70 radar. The APG-70 was modified to include a New High Resolution Mode (NHRM ) with a patch size of 0.33 nmi, which corresponds to an image resolution of 4 ft x 6 ft (hereafter referred to simply as 4 ft). The smart sensor system will use the APG-70's SAR mode to search cued locations and locate likely targets using consecutive SAR patch maps of increasing resolution."

Yea time to revive this thread given A/G radar is now a thing in DCS. Strike Eagle's has a good Surface Radar for its generation of Radars. Should have more advanced Air to surface mapping modes, and higher resolution sar compared to a USN F/A18 Hornet ( because USMC F/A18D's use a more sophiscated software, for the recon role) From another thread regarding Strike Eagles Surface Radar

mostly hyped about the A/G radar capabilities. Given that the Hornets A/g SAR map still leaves much to be desired, the more sophiscated A/G mapping modes, and higher resolution sar will be welcome

not to mention the radar antenna is larger in shape for the APG73. But also considering APg73 hardware components are newer than the APG 68 v5. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/198745-f-18-vs-f-16/?do=findComment&comment=3785121

PRF does not have the option be changed manually in the APG68 , Its automatic cycles based on radar mode. IIRC HI PRF is only able to used on VS mode, but even then it interleaves with MPRF . otherwise RWS/,TWS are M PRF only

Even MSI aside, looking at Radar alone AZ/EL and Radar Spot Mode are some nice additional radar functions in the APG73 that APG68 does not have.

the first F16's A blocks were somewhat limited as Strike aircraft. Besides Iron bombs/rockets, the only guided munition they had were AGM65 mavericks. The Hornet might of had a benefit of few longer years of development and went into operation with higher tech avionics ( namely Hornet program basically set the bar of what became known as a "glass cockpit) but Navy had vaster requirements for air to surface as well as air to sea role. Like Hornets were capable of employing datalinked Man in the loop walleyes, Had a Targeting pod, Harpooons, and SEAD weapons like Shrikes and HARMS. SO even Day 1 Hornet was more versatile overall as a strike aircraft. This also goes for in Air to Air role since it could carry Aim7 Sparrows and due to having Link4A datalink to connect with navy E2 awacs. So the Tomcat was not the only gen 4 platform in the navy capable of carrying radar guided missiles or having Datalinks, whereas for the Air force F15 had total exclusively on BVR combat until F16's got Amraams in a post cold war era, and neither had datalinks before LInk16. F16's didn't really drift into becoming proper mulitirole aircraft until the F16C's which introduced the glass cockpits, and even then specifically i would say it was Block 40/42 with Lantirn being a thing, is when the Viper could considered a definitive all weather multirole fighter.

Litening is realistic at least when carried Centerline, for USMC based loadout. The only config where its unauthentic for a US operated hornet is Station 4 mount ( cheek station), which is only used by some foreign operators like the Spanish Air force. So no i wouldn't want the litening removed, nor would i expect it to be.

cough F16CM block 50 using lau88+ triple mavs , cough, AGm88 on stations 3 and 7 ( which can carry but not shoot due to lacking the wiring) , cough now Agm154 on what was supposed to be a circa 2007 ( which at that time frame would have been software tape 4.2 or 4.3 cough ) now turns into a tape 5.1 hybrid So perhaps apkws on a longbow isn't really that fantasy in retrospect, just maybe somewhat anarchonistic, but that is assuming there arent any truely substantial additions/ changes by 2015 that a virtual pilot wouldnt notice in a 2010ish apache. I mean this isn't necessarily to say that because the F16's isnt such a purist aircraft that the Ah64D shouldnt be, but rather to point out in contrast to certain fixed wing modules.

. For the record i wasn't implying the Ah64E was using APKWS in 2012. Sorry if it came off that way. Interesting that the AH64D's got them first rather than the Ah64E's. But regarding integration i think this post nails it on the head.

we have more of a 2010 Apache. ( see the discussion regarding 2002 manual being original publication but having inserted changes to later dates) As discussed we have some features listed that would not have been added till 2008-2010ish. Also for contrast I do have seen a AH64D block 3 ( before rebranded as AH64E a year later) manual from 2012. From a purely avionics/ software point of view ( ignoring any physical changes to engines etc) an early AH64E may as well just be a Ah64D block 2 with level 4 UAV control capability, and some minor changes to comm's/signal processing, and a more smartly integrated CMWS ( no physical panel anymore) Considering AH64E succeeded the Ah64D , and tha Guardian is replacing the D's, I don't see legacy D models getting any notable upgrades, especially since all D's today are being gradually converted to E's. Also to note APKWS would never replace hellfire's, nor was it meant to APKWS doesnt have as long range as hellfires nor are they suitable for tank busting. They work great against unarmored or lightly armored targets, but playing with the A10 and Harrier they are unsuitable ( even with spam) in killing main battle tanks, or any hardened targets.

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/245510-a-10c-suite-nomenclature/?do=findComment&comment=4427063 https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/245510-a-10c-suite-nomenclature/?do=findComment&comment=4425788

I mean he did that video to just prove a point, not that that would be ideal to operate aircraft in that manner . However i dont think "higher ups" up always know what goes on the cockpit...... or ruin a pilots career over it. Or is this also officially authorized procedure? Installing videogames onto your aircraft ? Or watching a movie? Or what about carrying toilets on aircraft? or alcohol?