Kev2go

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

ah well maybe modders can do it. Its been done in other sims before. yeah that what kinda kills the fun of the MIg21bis nukes. the lack of actual nuclear bomb effects, and thus the novelty wears off fast.

I would also add that with the Harrier Boeing also must have forwarded some newer publications not available online, because since end of 2020 Razbam has had decided to also model employment of GBU54, APKWS as well as replacement of the original Litening 2 AT pod with the newer Litening 2 G4 TGP. Such recent additions weren't part of the originally planned features.

The cas page looks like it functions just like what you have on the harrier. There is open source paper on how it was being integrated for the legacy Hornet. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3389&context=utk_gradthes But yeah considering its a later OFP and post 2005 and they want to keep things consistent theyl only stick to things applicable to OFP13C and OFP15.

IF the sniper TGP can't be done what about the litening 2 TGP? I've seen some B52's carrying that, and from some articles i found was being tested as early as 2003 on that particular aircraft.. one of the aircrew weapons delivery manual dated from 2005 ( revised 2006) references TO N.O 1B-52H-851 which describes " installation of Targeting Pod on B52H Aircraft" and also references symbol [TP] for B52H aircraft that have it.

I think it would be necessary to do an EWO station ( at least as much modelling as you can do from non classified sources) because the station contains the RWR, Countermeasures dispensing the EW jamming of which a live crewmember controls. I would think these are very necessary defensive systems in modern aviation even if the latter bit is really undercooked in DCS. the Manual that pertain to EWO: the T.O. 1B-52H-1-13 is not classified ( most up to date publication i found was 1996 but with revised changes from 2006) , and can be be found through public sources only the supplemental manual for EWO " the T.O. 1B-52H-1-13-1 is classified. But purely from non classified open source information, EWO station isn't a black box behind an iron curtain that it would have to be left out from the module in my opinion, unless someone actually comes out and says it a absolute no no.

ok thanks for reclarifying your position. And whilst i dont really have any disagreement the practical reasons for why a B52 hasn't been done since i myself have considered them, however i do not know if i can also reach your conclusion on the permissions regarding defense contractor/ military not wanting to give permission or cooperate with ED, based on the fact the B52 is in still service or can can employ nukes. Maybe Wing here can comment if hes thinks the USAF would refuse ED or a 3rd party from doing the B52 purely on that basis alone, which i don't think he believes that is likely given his posts from the thread he linked.

self projecting are we? Of course bring it wrong because you seem to have been uniformed slew of information thats publicly available and whats not and have not bothered to do your own research before making assertations. That wasn't a question if it that alone was enough. So now you change the goalpost to focusing on saying its not enough. When i never said otherwise: How often have people like you been proven wrong with your pseudo intellectualistic overly verbose essays on why you incorrectly perceive aircraft XYZ cannot be done, only to it eventually become a thing. Apparently not enough times either. Sure you can spin as such but that doesn't make it so. See my prior response: a potential B52 would not be another M2000C scenario as i already explained harriers been slow to move out of EA, but its come together fine imo. I think there comes a point where only RL pilots could notice the difference, and that civilian sim flies probably wouldn't know or care to know. I think ED/ Heatblur could have done a more efficient job with the harrier, but i think its just the development team skill and quality control at that point not lack of information. going in circles now this was already noted in prior response. BUt again as a company they have resources that a aviation enthusiast does not. So on top of basic research yes of course they could reach out to SME, do the modelling etc. I never said that was enough alone...... This was just to demonstrate what a a individual can find with their own discipline and due diligence research. The manuals are a baseline for information needed, and even WAGS as much said for past modules, the Manuals give them the overwhelmingly vast majority of information they need ( hornet even specifically said 80% information of what they need is in the basic natops alone, the rest is the additional supplemental manuals and weapons related stuff) not being paid to develop a module. Its not like I am being employed by ED here, and suddenly It is on me to hand them everything on a silver platter just so they can think on developing a module? Hence based on the information you can find. This means on documentation alone there is enough. and with such foundation it is possible to go ahead for full fidelity module But as a baseline all the key documents needed are available was the point being made. If i can find it so Can a company with much larger resources So please stop changing the goal post, and trying to pick apart an argument for the sake of winning. Sometimes its better to just say you don;t know or admit you might be wrong. So why not just come to agreement on this that trying to argue over whats classified or hwats not and what information is avialble or not. Jusgt admit you were wrong rather then moving your goalpost from OH its too classified and not enough public data to " Oh wait YOU NEED more than that"

I can Its because I have done my Homework. Just because you haven't done your due diligence of research beforehand and thus have a ill-adequately formed opinion is not my fault. But its never too late to correct oneself and change an opinion. Assuming the above clarification still wasn't clear enough, for record i have gone out and found all virtually all the non classified documentation for the B52H model over the course of a weekend, back when this topic was started which why i can confidently say what i have said prior. On the opposite end of the specturm it has also been demonstrated enough times before that people have been wrong on their personal assertion why XYZ can't be possible ( this not to be confused with a unreasonable wishlist say the likes of 5th gen F35) Sometimes even us realists are pleasantly surprised. IE the Eurofighter. Not necessarily Get a permission ( aka buy a license for the IP from the manufacturer for the aircraft in question) And you can probably do it. Cooperation from Defense contractor and military is merely a bonus to get stuff handed on a silver platter or some additional stuff ( like say actual audio for Hornet betty recordings) , access to say military grade simulators to get a better feel for an aircraft, or access to additional SME, or military that isn't classified but cannot find publicly. Otherwise its still not impossible to do a module. take Razbam with their M2000C which couldn't even be called a Mirage 2000C because even with the license bought it was an issue to use its full proper RL designation, nor did they have aid of the french air force or Dassault , But it was done anyways. That Of course changed after the fact with the French Air force was interested in buying their modules for pilot training and thus cooperated with Razbam and were able to develop not only a more detailed model, but even more modern derivative representative of the M2000C in the 2000s. Not much changed since the late 80s but that's besides the point. Either way to clarify this isn't always the case that some modules are lower quality because of that. Some aircraft have much more publicly available documentation that one would be able to do a solid job even without the Aid of the defense contractor. IE most of the modules 3rd parties and ED has done, and the B52 is also one of those. In short the total dependence of manufacturer/contractor cooperation only becomes and absolute visible necessity where there is inadequate publicly available information. IE the Eurofighter Typhoon. Again this is speculation on your behalf of a hypothetical situation. But ok il bite I think they would realize that even a "modern" variant of a bomber originally built in early 60s , but representative of say even a circa 2006 is not longer really representative of the remaining B52H fleet in 2021. IE see Conect upgrades circa 2014, or the upgrades like the SABR AESA that its going through present day. You dont need to discuss whats classified and whats not. You can ( and should) already know that by doing your homework beforehand. The manual lists all the associated supplements and straight out lists whats classified what isnt. And i have already told you what is based on the research i have done what is. Supplemental EW manual ( like for any aircraft), and the nuclear related operation and procedures. Not a deal breaker as nuclear warfare isnt a thing in DCS anyways ( Mig21bis pretend nuke excluded) . Like IRL the B52 can be and has been used exclusively for conventional bombing missions. Irrelevant if the nuclear aspects aren't simulated. ( again you can't even if you wanted to since that specific documentation is classified) and if you don't know the tactics used with said aircraft. This is no different than any aircraft that has classified supplements. even for no strategic sources Tactical manuals ( unless its a really old aircraft no longer in operation) are classified. This has not prevented module development before. Its not burning a bridge to merely ask for permission. or show interest for a particular aircraft. If they were to get shot down from getting a License for a B52 module, ok fine, then they can say with truth and honesty they tried, and then move on with life. Burning a Bridge would be going ahead of of module development without the necessary "blessings" in summation most of your response i based on hypothetical, speculative theories, verbose essay, of why you think xayz cant be done. ANd its nothing more than that. Unless you are privy to behind the senses stuff, i dont think you can go out and definitively proclaim the above as fact( especially for the b52 specifically) the reasons of what you think it cannot be done. I have given far more plausible explanations of why the B52 probably wont be done than speculative theories you have dropped., and i have asserted that we can exclude lack of documentation would not be a driving factor, So to recap in short the prime reasons would be" A) lots of effort and development for a niche class of aircraft, that requires such a large crew to man. b) not enough sales success relative to teen series fighters to justify resources spent on something as complex like the B52.

Bump again would to see this feature, and see if ed would confirm if it's coming , Especially since the harrier already has this function.

Most of the USMC harriers remaining in use today are AV8B+ version. The ARBS can be considered redundant after the Litening 2 TGP was integrated. Plus the Radar offers greater flexibility and compliments the TGP nicely for surface/sea strike

From the research i have done, I would say its not anymore unrealistic expectation to do a full fidelity B52 than the more modern stuff still in operational use like the F/A18 Hornet or F16 viper which also have classified supplements pertaining to EW stuff, or exact missile parameters, and the Nuclear delivery related documentation. And compared to avionics in such fighters even a 2000s B52 is still quite archaic. All the fancy upgrades, like the glass cockpit/CONECT are post 2014 and onwards, and additional modernization today like AESA radar. The main reason the b52 is a challenge is purely due to all the effort needed to model carious crew stations, and to model all engines for the flight model, and because it would be something of a niche within a niche. Most sim pilots are fighter jocks. There isn't as much attraction to an a B52 ( thus less profit margin verses huge amount of effort to make a large multi crewed aircraft) versus a Teen series multirole fighter. But for DCS purposes a post Y2K B52H would be most fitting, given the time frame most other blueforce fighters/attackers are reprsented in and in fact there is plenty documentation that you can find can published up to 2005-2006.

You could still use a Av8B + as a poorman's fleet defense fighter as it has AGP65 radar, and can use Aim120's ( If i remember back in the day razbam promised they would do that variant after Av8b NA but had to wait for ED do finish thier A/G code) In fact some of the export users do in fact use at such, since Spain and Italy have amraams on thier Av8B+ harriers before the usmc did. Overall th whole Av8B plus program was born out of a requirement for such foreign operators to have some fleet defence capability, a joint program with the US. Although the USMC dont havesuch a requirement and don't need to use it for such a role they themselves eventually followed suit and integrated Aim120's on thier Av8B+ in 2011. Honestly I think most only want the FA2 harrier for nostalgia reasons, AS overall the Av8B+ would have more modern avionics suite and more flexible. Besides it is more cost effective for Razbam to do this variant first as they promised at one point since they can essentially reuse many of the avionics/software and the 3d cockpit model of the av8b NA for the av8b+ versus developing an entirely new harrier from scratch.

Different datalinks Today its a different story, they probably can now since the Ah64E's now have Link 16.

i would actually prefer to fly with my older saitek X55 or hell even a Logitech 3d pro. Hotas warthog is just too stiff for helo flying. I cant stand it.

absent an F/A18F, the next best thing would be a USMC F/A18D, and only becuase they have more sophisticated software for APG73 A/G employment allowing higher resolution SAR mapping, a "stripmap" mode and customizable levels of magnification more akin to what you have on the strike eagle, and the marine USMC F/A18D's are used for combat operations capable of otherwise employing all the weapon types the F/A18C can.

Ok so you think their sources can be subject to scrutiny because theve been skewed for Idealistic/best case scenario performance. Ok, Great. Unless you have more reliable and verifiable information on the aim54's that you can forward to hearblur so they could make further refinements to AIm54 for more realistic performance as opposed to just your own personal guesstimates of what you think degradation of PK's should be, i wouldn't be such a smartass. As an aside I doubt ED can find more documentation on researching more modern missiles that are still in operational use. .

indeed cant wait till we get requests for F15 with AIm54!