Kev2go

yea of course within context of DCS we were taking about the Mech radar of the current version of the Jeff , not the AESA radar of the newer block. Then again F16's are set to be gradually being refitted with APG83, A few ANG Vipers already are flying with them.

an unrealistic hybrid between tape 4.3 and tape 5.1 it seems., because enough people wished for AGM154 since otherwise the Viper would have no precision guided standoff weapons, and ED caved in to the vocal mob like they did for LAU88 racks. Even so software tape is not indicative what what Radar version an aircraft operates. Take European F16A MLU's which also have the same commonality software tapes but use an upgraded APG66 radar rather than the APG68 series of radars. AS for APG68V9 although at some point planned for USAF F16's., it appears it was only ended up being adopted by foreign operators of block 50/52. I have not see any definitive to suggest the USAF uses it. Whereas in comparison in open sources papers/ news that we know that all APG65's were replaced with APG73 in Hornets.

remember that ED documentation was for a circa 2007ish aircraft ( which would have been tape 4.3) Some people brought up that 2004 documentations from PACific Command that showed F16C's had AGm154, although the F16 crew chiefs on the forums said it was incorrect which according to most was not officially put into operation until tape 5.1 So sure thanks to enough whining from the virtual from the community for AGM154, ED creeps that munition in like the lau88's for agm65. AN/ARC210 ED has documentation probably from the A10C II which gets it.So what you end up a hybrid v4.3 and Tape 5.1 aircraft, rather than a proper Tape 5.1 accurate representation. Remember There were more features from tape 5.1 ( according to F16 net) we dont get all them. software tapes are merely common between the F16 CCIP modernized and the European F16A MLU jets. F16A MLU's use upgraded APG66 ( APG66 V2/V2A) radar. However there is nothing that says that USAF upgraded to APG 68v9 with tape 5.1. After all the APG68v9 radar already existed and being used by foreign operators earlier than that. But furthermore keep in mind only foreign operators use the APG68 v9. USAF to my knowledge never upgraded the from the APG68v5 to the APG 68v9., due to some budgetary reasons. IN present date they are gradually upgraded from APG68V5 to APG83 AESA radar

I think "tech" wise its questionable if the Chinese/Pakistanis better than the APG68 in terms of processing power ( at least on such a small radar), as remember the all the truely "gold standard" hardware/ computer processing firms are American. Granted the APG68 v5 is like late 80s tech, and were not talking 2000s v9 here, so i would hope it would be better. I mean overall i don't think the Chinese have as good tech as American tech. Also look at the Jeff's targeting pod. IIRC its like a 2010+ TGP its inferior to a Litening 2 AT from 2003 even within DCS realm. I dont know what the processing power..... Its hard to say exactly. Itss not published. I mean to be honest the JF17 is bigger mystery overall. unlike with many Teen fighters, there isnt even a basic flight manual comparable to basic Dash 1, or Natops publicly available for it, let alone anything comparable to NATIP or dash 34's. Even from a purely annecdotal accounts of radar performance. I havent read any JF17 pilots examples. Dont even think any exist that can compare and contrast to other teen series. I could very well be wrong But I wouldn't count on the Jeff to having comparable ranges to APG68. ID think it may be inferior. I mean even though one might argue having a max radar range of 160 nautical miles is pointless on such a small weak radar, if most of the fighter sized targets you detect are going to be less than 40 Nautical miles, but Jeff is only limited to 80 nautical miles in max radar detection range? why is that? Lower power supply? weaker exiter receiver? Also im not familiar with its A/G modes. like the old apg68 V5 radar is it only limited to Doppler beam sharping? Or was it supposed to have EXP3/ SAR or something? because if its the latter , that would put it a notch above APG68v5 in air to surface capability. Honestly I think that question is too speculative regarding Jeff. I don't know enough about the Jeff for a meaninfull answer.

I know the APG71 would be better but thats not the point. Was to appreciate " The advantages in the digital signal processing and programmable ECCM, radar software , and automation of radars certainly does have a very notable impact when comparing to radars of an older generation." that raw detection range isn't everything, and that tech has been a sort of equalizer in capabilities, and that in practice when you don't have the ideal circumstances You have to deal with flying over land, EW jamming. In the same way that most AESA radars in practical real world scenarios are better than most mechanical array radars ( even if comparing to those that on paper would have longer detection ranges) , but to even a larger extent than was comparing the likes of the late model APG63 or APG70 to an AWG9. But sure the APG71 with all the advantages APG70 tech, was the most powerfull mechanical array radar of its generation on a fighter. Like you said not really surpassed in capability in a2a until APG77 on the F22.

It only "served" into the 21st century because navy didnt have the budget to upgrade the entire fleet to F14D's which had the APG71. Post cold war the job of tomcats was to become bombcats, and not fleet defence. So the AWG9 was no longer relevant in bombtrucking during the GWOT. The Lantirn and guided muntions on the other hand were. The AWG9 as a analog platform could not so easily, or affordably be upgraded. Wheras with digital radars you can just upgrade via software ( PSP) or if software becomes limited by hardware, merely swap out the LRU's pertaining to digital signal processing, or more memory for to increase radar capability. also it should be noted early APG63 wasn't fully developed. One would argue it took at least until the APG63 PSP of the F15C for the APG63 to come fully fleshed out into its own. However by that point the APG63 certainly set a new standard in terms of its new digital tech and LRU simplifications, as all the case studies of the APG65/66/70 look back upon to the APG63 as the new standard of radar development, of that particular generation.

I don't think ED would be able to simulate the nuances of the advantages that V9 over the V5 outside of any slight boosts in detection ranges for A2A modes. V9 however would be a nice upgrade over the V5 in Air to Surface capability as the older APG68's were limited to 2 levels Doppler beam sharping ( what amounts to EXP2, though called DBS2 in the viper) wheras the V9 is now capable of SAR processing and additional EXP modes. being newer tech a screenshot i saw, I think it does come across to have better SAR map than the APG73, so i think in a DCS environment this is where virtual pilots would see the biggest difference. The advantages in the digital signal processing and programmable ECCM, radarsoftware , and automation of radars certainly does have a bigger impact when comparing to radars of an older generation. Take theAWG9. ON paper still more powerfull, and larger antenna then the F15's radar, however in practice even though not having as good detection ranges in the most ideal circumstances, most would argue in practice the APG63 V1 or APG70 are overall better radars than the AWG9 due to not having the limitations of old analog pulse dopplers, where the benefits of the "new" digital tech arguably outweigh the extra raw power or larger antenna

Even the APG83 AESA, that the F16's are getting, as much of a substantial upgrade in radar technology over the APG68, and in spite of its radar detection boost it too isn't an "eye of sauron" https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2019/53/matecconf_easn2019_04001.pdf More to the point " when comparing radars of a comparable generation" was its the comparison of the SABR APG83 to the older APG80 in use on F16 block 60. APG80 may be a bit older AESA "tech" but since it can operate at a higher power due to not having the cooling restrictions of the APG83 ( at least when in a F16) thus even with the same antenna size its estimated to have substantially better detection ranges. But then again the APG83 was designed in mind a as a retrofit option for F16C fleets to work within the structural and power limitations to allow for an easy apg68 replacements without any significant modifications to the aircraft. But yea overall even the APG68 v9 ( and we only have V5) is not a very impressive radar in terms of detection ranges

then perhaps you should have clarfied that you were talking within the context of DCS software. But in all is said and done. They are representing a Litening G4, and not an older model, which they did at an earlier point. TBH before you respond with " But Hur durr its a 2005 and 2007 hornet not a 2008 or later aircraft" do keep in mind given the A10C II features, its respresented at timeframe when the Listening 2 G4 would have been available. Again to realistically upgrade the software within DCS to attempt to emulate the real thing you still have to know how it works. I dont know what documentation Razbam came upon that they modelled the G4 wheras ED still sticking to the older AT model for all of thier modules, because if they did they could have just as easily done a later Litening derivative, at least for the A10C II

It was but i can understand people wanting it for gulf war/90s era feel. And a Nitehawk wasn't yet fully retired in the timeframe of our DCS Hornet. In fact during the early years of the ATFLIR adoption they were still in short supply an unable to meet the demand for the Super Hornets ( which they were prioritized for) let alone adequately supplied to the Legacy Hornets. So ATFLIR's were far and few between, within those particular year(s). Its one of the reasons why the USMC decided to buy Litenings . Aside from the price, they were available to be delivered at a faster pace in larger quantities. So a Nitehawk pod wouldn't totally out of place circa 2005.

A software update wont suddenly upgrade the Pods sensor/hardware capabilties.... Externally there is almost no real way to discern a Litening 2 AT from a G4. its stuff on the inside that has changed. I mean some Litening pods have different exterior shading, but things can get confusing when you considering that a totally new pod doesn't have to be bought. Older pods can and have gotten get the hardware and sensors replaced and refitted to newer pod standards AS an Analogy A Finish or Swiss F/A18C Hornet you can say looks the same a a USN Legacy Hornet on the outside , but internally the cockpit avionics and systems are much more upgraded.

I think its merely a matter of what they have documentation on. TBH even the A10C II module which is a much more modern suite that earlier one ( scorpion HMD was not a thing until suite 7b, which was circa 2013) still has the Litening 2 AT, and not the G4.

What that other users stating wasn't conjecture. Purely talking about the pods capabilties not limitations when used from an aircraft with a older generation perhpherals . So 1024x1024 CCD, and x640x512 FLIR. WE alsso see it does have 0-9 Levels of Zoom. This means it would not be earlier than an Litening 2 ER. ED might not be able to do all the data linking capabilities included, right, but slewing to a flights TGP target mark over LInk 16 or SADL afaik is something that would have been possible with the AT version. So what we do have is supposed to be a Litening 2 AT on the F/A18. This is also the same pod On the A10C and F16C. Now whilst resolution itself isn't a indicator of which pod we have due to how pod rendering is currently done the G4 besides having a 1024x1024 FLIR you can differentiate because it has additional modes along with 16 levels of zoom. ( IE see Razbam Harrier) So this is how we know for sure that we dont have the Litening 2 G4 on ED's modules.

Naaa within DCS the litening 2 AT is superior. Below some comparisons Though the best pod in DCS is the litening 2 derivative on Razbam's Harrier since they replaced the AT with the G4 model, and that has even more zoom. Until ED does more realistic pod simulation, since there is no image degradation with digitally enhanced zoom the Litening can be considered hands down better.

ED doesnt go by whats merely " possible" but what is authorized ( some exceptions) and what is documented in the manuals. IF ED didnt have the documentation implementation of the rear aspect aim9P would require some guesswork. However this isn't an issue with the block 50 viper. because if you actually look at the dash 34, the HUD symbology is a bit different for the Aim9P given its limitations compared to the all aspect missiles, along with the wpn stores menu. ( No slave/boresight option) But again this is documented in the dash 34 manual so its operation can be accurately modelled. IF it wasn't then ED would have more than enough reason to shoot this proposition down. You also have to remember that for digital aircraft there is more to it than that. Digital stores system has to be programmed to actually recognize the onboard weapons. There is a reason why ED wont merely stick stuff, even on weapons or sensors regarded as "plug N play" Like APKWS on every module, even though it would be "easy" to do. So i don't see why you are trying to make an argument, when im not in disagreement between it getting Aim9P's.. IF anything I am rectifying that this is documented. So you dont have to operate from assumptions based purely on what can be stuck on what launcher.

we dont have the APG 65 in the Hornet we have the APG73. and by all accounts between the two the APG73 has been regarded as better radar. Also keep in minds USAF vipers continued to retain APG68 V5, and not the further refined V9 many that foreign operators did upgrade to so if anything the Hornet should a modest advantage in detection ranges

My point was that regardless of assuming that just because the interface between launcher and missile being the same, that the aircraft can use use any aim9 missile in existence, that can be loaded on that launcher. That the Aim9P's were at some point an approved loadout documented, and its operation use desrcribed in the weapons delivery manual, That's what matters.

welp it has become a thing with dcs 2.7

yea good point Ive seen the dash 34. does say the F16C blk 50 could use AIm9p/p5's.

the one that would have still been in operational use in 2005. Easiest of Course would be to just got for the AN/AAS38B since that would not require a second LST pod like the A model. ( because at that point ATFLIR was around in relatively small quantities)

im confused. I thought the AGm65C barely existed. it was a experimental thing that resulted in maybe a very low rate production, and eventually just got scrapped and the project morphed into the AGM65E. https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-65.html "The AGM-65C was to be a semi-active laser guided version for the U.S. Marine Corps. It was intended for close air support, and was equipped with a heavier 113 kg (250 lb) MK 19 blast-fragmentation warhead. Full-scale development began in 1978, but only a few AGM-65C missiles were built and the program was eventually cancelled because of high costs. The USMC's laser-guided Maverick requirement was later satisfied with the AGM-65E, q.v." Im wondering which platforms in desert storm actually fired the AGM65C considering ive never seen USN/USMC aircraft documentation that specifically listed the AGM65C as an authorised store. So it genuinely comes as a surprise that any AGM65C's were fired.

Besides having a more improved resolutions ? 1024x1024 CCD, and 640P x 512 FLIR resolution rather than a worse 760P CCD , and the 320P flir resolution of the Original Litening 2? Yea there are more differences. because we have 2 FOV magnification and 9 levels of digital zoom, as well as the multi sensor capability. ( litening 2 ER features). ( Actually the resolution its only truly overperforming on digital zoom levels, as it should more gradually degrade to look worse the higher the digital zoom levels one goes) and because it has data linking capabilities Such as transmit designate via Link 16. ( litening 2 AT). So yes these are clear indications that what we have on the Hornet is supposed to be a Litening 2 AT. We would not have such functionality if it was supposed to be nothing more than the original litening 2 pod. Plain and simple. Edit: also to note even if the TGP integration is different among different aircraft this is the same version of the pod we are supposed to have on the A10C and F16C which are the AT version Ok sure... but thats a different argument totally, if you merely want to dispute personal TGP preferences. From what we saw in Matt Wagners preview it does not really appear to be superior, just works differently. Its a side grade i think. Different pod for different service. The only outright better feature over the litening i can think of right now, is the NAVFLIR functionality that ATFLIR has. That will be nice for displaying FLIR imagery in the HUD for nighttime low level flying, like you do in the harrier.

then clearly the Litening 2's integration in DCS hornet would not reflect a Litening 2 from 1999. Considering in 1999 the Litening 2 AT didnt exist, neither even the litening 2 ER which succeeded original litening 2, but preceded the Litening 2 AT. in 1999 only the very original Litening 2 was in operation. Not only did it lack the Sensor integration we currently have in the DCS hornet, it had even worse resolution and less magnification. . SO even though ED used Spanish documentation to some extent for understanding Litening 2 operation, clearly they also relied on other open source information, to construct a later Litening 2 version with greater functionality, than was available at a later point in time, then the Spanish document

im confused. IIRC our DCS hornet was supposed oa mish mash of various OFP's ( namely OFP 13C with OFP 15 features, and maybe some other ones) rather than being 100% a single software OFP from an exact year, in spite of the "circa 2005ish" date ? So wouldn't the OFP argument be moot? Litening 2 At went into operation circa 2003. SO an OFP from 2003 wouldn't have MSI for the Litening Targeting pod, but ATFLIR which was also operational at a comparable time frame suddenly did? Perhaps you can explain to me because how is there no Multi sensor integration with the Hornet's litening 2 in DCS , if For example I slew, A/G radar to a give point, the TGP will point in that area ( or Vice versa i start moving the TGP, and the radar point moves, and refreshes the new area in EXP modes) . Or for example having the A2A radar lock slew the TGP to an air target? WE also now have some form of data linking capability working for the Litening. IE transmit designate functionality. Are these not examples of some form of MSI that involve the TGP?

yea? Don't think a newer OFP would make much difference. Its the litening 2 AT model at the end of the day. I dont see why you would expect that Hornet we have in question ( circa 2005-2007) would get a newer generation Litening 2 since for example the Litening 2 G4 only was being produced since 2008. which is Later that the time frame of our DCS Hornet.Granted given the extra Zoom and FOV modes, and the higher resolution FLIR imaging ( IRL its 1024x1024 vs 640x512P of the earlier AT model) of the Litening 2 G4 we see on the razbam harrier it would be nice to have, as at that model would considered superior to the ATFLIR, rather than sister TGP that simply functions differently, a sidegrade at best vs being outright superior. ATFLIR was already reached operation capacity before 2005 and hence it too would be in use on older OFP's. however still remains the USN TGP in operation to date since nothing newer has replaced it yet. It just wasn't around in enough numbers at that particular time, and prioritized to Super Hornet squadrons hence why the old Nitehawk wasn't retired entirely until 2008ish i think. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a498288.pdf