Kev2go

heres a video on APR25/26. edited OP to inlude it. along with collection of documentation.

we only have Real beam mapping. This mode only gives a broad picture. It is not even giving high fidelity of terrain let alone expecting this mode to spot ground vehicles, becuase it is essentially a raw radar return with little processing resulting out edges of a generated map to be extra blurry relative to portion of the map inwards. with EXP modes ( particularly EXP3) youl have considerably better fidelity of terrain features, and be able to make out that certain blobs are ground vehicles, however you will really need ground moving target indicator for the radar to generate synthetic rectangles against moving targets that are ground vehicles for easier spotting.

age doesnt matter. capabilities do. So assuming that just because something is newer doesn't mean its nessarily better especially since in this case its coming from developing country with a fraction of US defense budget and lacking experience in domestic aviation building. Theres alot of technology on the jeff that isn't jaw dropping considering its a 2010+ aircraft. look at the jeffs radar. Its 2000s mech array radar but less powerful than the APG73 of 90s vintage ( which really wasn't a new radar design but an upgrade of the APG65) . Its datalink is inferior to Link 16. Its targeting pod is inferior to Litening 2 AT from 2003, never minding to newer ones from a comparable time frame where the discrepancy would have been even greater. It lacks any off boresight ir missiles, and any helmet sight. All the Jeff has going for it in terms of being more capable is fancier larger screens, and IR missile warning system. IF it werent for those two things, the Jeff would feel more like a 90s Gen 4. It really more analogous to being a 21st century F-5. A inexpensive, tactical fighter utilizing modest technology. SO even if it dates back to the 90s, if the AWW13 was really such subpar pod it wouldn't still be in use today, and would have already been replaced. Its clear whatever limitations there are are mostly to do with missile and not the pod. When SLAM ER eventually gets added in that will be a considerable upgrade over the SLAM. That was regarded as quite an effective and accurate standoff weapon for quite some time, but remains unique since it still hs man in the loop capabilities, if even longer standoff weapons like AGM158 are now in operation.

The AWW13 datalink didnt begin going into serivce for the F/A18C/D until around 1994. Its post gulf war. the older preceding AWW9 was the aged cold war datalink pod that was in use in the gulf war and the one that proved unreliable. AWW13 was the follow on next generation improvement to address those shortcomings as well as provide new capabilities. https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/aww-13.htm Although AWW13 can be used with walleye ERDL it was really used with the SLAM series including the newer SLAM ER given when it went into use. There are also far more interesting other uses for it like being able to get recon imagery from U2 mid flight or even have UAV video relayed real time. This is the same datalink pod was in production well into the 21st century and is still the primary DL pod today. http://investor.raytheon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/raytheon-awarded-57-million-advanced-data-link-pods https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/turkey-orders-50-slamer-missiles-for-land-attack-02221/ https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1100&ct=2

And il pretend you are being genuine

Heatblur themselves would have wanted to the F14D as a seperate follow on module, they considered it. The real reason is simply because there is not enough information on the weapons employment procedures and thier related avionics to accurately model it. ITs theorized by some to still be classified in fear that somehow IRan would learn how to "digitize" thier Tomcats purely from a instructional manual. But its certainly not because there isn't any demand or popularity for it. Hell there are quite a few who would have at least wanted a more defintive F14B ( IE one with Digital flight control, and PTID for lantirn) to differentiate it even more from the F14A, particularily since most lantirn equipped F14B's had PTID and the "fishbowl" was only a temporary interim solution of displaying Lantirn employed for short period of time. I recall at some point someone from HB commented that they did not feel they had enough info on PTID to model all of the sub pages.

NO one said any particular developer had to do this ( like HB) . Besides there are less differences between the two F100D's than there are between the F14A and F14B. The most effort between the A and B are the engines which will use up the most time because besides adjusting the FM for having lesser power, the TF30's are more temperamental engines. However its the right step for HB to take because although F14B is the more capable version, the F14A is just too historically iconic to ignore, especially as it was most numerous version. HB is making alot more people happy by including the F14A, but also not disappointing others by not omitting the B for those who value capabilities over historical relevance. ID rather have a couple iterations of a same F100D rather than get 1 franken jet. Especially as the F100 doesnt have anywhere near the levels of avionics complexity as the F14, let alone digitally oriented aircraft like F18 or F16. Remember that F100D late looses out on external fuel tank gauges indicator in the upper left corner of the panel where the RWR control panel and scope are placed . also due to some left hand side panel changes pertaining to armament in changers late in life which happens to get AGm12 bullpup panel removed. So to satisfy different time periods and still offer various capabilities its best to have a couple versions. This is the ideal road to take. You might not care for multiple sub versions but some of us do wish for them in idealy, and both ED and other 3rd parties do so for some modules. And rightfully so.

US army Uh60's will have considerably better transport and lift capabilities compared to any huey no doubt about it, but unless its UH60M, UH1N will be have more up to date avionics. UH60L's within 2000s still have dated M130 countermeasures suite that has to be manually deployed. UH1N has , AN/AAR47 V2 ( combined IR Missile warning and laser system) with AN/ALE47 Counter measure suite ( which UH60A and L lack) which can be utilized in automatic mode. System will select the appropriate Countermeasure program and auto deploy them if such setting is chosen. Further more it can still use mount rocket pods, and the door guners hueys can be positioned forward and operated by pilot/copilot. UH1N still retains ALQ 144 IR jammer. Also some are FLIR system for night navigation, although non Flir models have lesser weight for more utility. Now whilst Uh60M's very modern protective suites and glass cockpits, with exception of manually operated door guns, Uh60's are only utilized as slick helicopters within the us army. The only exception MH60 blackhawks that the 160th SOAR operates that are truly multipurpose with custom avionics and use of precision munitions. However i wouldn't hold my breath for ED or any 3rd party to do a version of a helicopter in use with Special operations since even something like Mh6 little bird was deemed too sensitive for polychop. SO if we want a Blackhawk that is more than just a taxicab, we would need HH60 pavehawk, SH/MH60 seahawks.

cherry picking a very singular part of an entire post and even ignoring entirely different responses? I listed various things, and sound is at the very end for good reason. CH146 is only in use with Canada, and only since 1995. UH1N has been in use longer, is retired with USMC/USN since 2014, this still relevant for GHOT within 21st century, and has vast user base and more combat use, whilst being modern enough and extremely usable even in a contested enviornment relative to the UH1H and by lesser margin the Black hawks preceding the Uh60M.

Im interested how good A/G radar will be. especially compared to Hornet. WHen F15E's started going into operation APG70 at the time was cited as able to use SAR mode to zoom into up to 1.3x1.3 NM area and have 17 foot resolution from a distance of 30 miles and do a 8.5 foot grade resolution with same box at 20 nautical miles. Eventually in the mid 90s that was further improved with a higher resolution modes allowing 4 foot resolution with 0.33NMx0.33NM patches.

IRRC i think it rainmaker said that in 2003 period Strike eagles got Litening 2 as a temporary interim solution until Sniper could be fielded, because the Lantirn was pretty obsolete by the 2000's. So although Razbam did promised a Sniper, all im trying to say is that even if its limited to suite 4 it would imply that the still can fall back on the Litening, which is still a quantum leap over the Lantirn.

and the APG70 is really just an improved APG63 PSP. although there are some component,s but the way they are integrated and the way the software works and installed it still has fare more in common APG65 than APG70. TBH the APG71 is far closer to being a mirror of the APG70 than the APG73 is. Initially even the APG79 AESA was known as the APG73 Phase 3. Again marketing. Just like a T90 tank is really just a rebranded T72BU take for example APG63 series. APG63 V2 is an AESA radar. It really aught to have had a totally different nomenclature since its literally is a new radar relative to the APG63 PSP or even to the APG70. APG63V1 with new components. relative to the APG63 PSP. or apg70. Although APG63 v2 had a new antenna it kept lots of V1 tech . APG63 V2 APG63 V3 are Both are AESA. however some components changed. the Antenna is a totally new one, with technology derived from APG79 AESA. Yet APG63 V3 didn't get a APG7X designation. even though all APV63 V1 and later are superior to APG70 and APG63 V3 utilized some APG79 tech. The in turn kept the APG63 designation purely to give congress the illusion that this was a minor modification than significant change to encourage funding for the program. Same for Super Hornet program keeping F/A18 in the nomenclature. even though its a totally new airframe. In Defence industry has a history of changing designation for modest changes when it suites them for marketing, and not changing them for more significant changes in others instances when they feel it will help encourage funding by implying a mere improvement or sub variation of the same radar family, when one looks at the finer print you realize its not the case.

yea JHMCs certainly wasn't around with suite 4. JHMCS is fairly late addition. circa 2010ish when it became operational for strike eagles? https://www.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/142892/airmen-enhance-f-15e-capabilities-with-helmet-mounted-cueing-system/ Aim9X is only being issued since 2018 for mudhens. I think suite 8 or something. So even if razbam can pull a newer than suite 4 im not holding my breath for a too modern of a strike eagle.

provide a higher fidelity of detail. basic map mode only uses Real beam mapping method. Its very low fidelity, and is particularly extra blurry at the outer edges of the map page ( regardless of distance) EXP 1 uses Doppler beam Sharpening techniques and zooms into a "sector" IN this mode besides the zoom, the fidelity of map is improved by a ratio of 19:1 with a angular width of 45 degrees EXP 2 still used DBS but zooms in and maps a smaller era "patch" This mode improved map fidelity from a ratio of 67:1 with and angular width of 12.6 degrees https://www.radartutorial.eu/20.airborne/ab05.en.html EXP3 ( medium grade SAR) will zoom in a very portion but utilize a different but also more sophisticated synthetic aperture processing techniques . This will provide the highest fidelity of detail although for this specific radar, for the hornet certain objects like tanks are still going to be small enough that they will still be puny blobs. Instead of covering a fixed angular width like EXP1 and EXP2 , in EXP 3 The area covered is fixed range perimeter area of a 1.2NM x 1.2NM square, and can only be utilized at a maximum distance of 30 NM. unlike DBS SAR method retains constant area resolution regardless of range.. the actual resolution within that 1.2 x 1.2 NM box will depend whether we have APG73 PHase 1 or Phase 2. https://www.radartutorial.eu/20.airborne/ab07.en.html

its good to hear wags confirm additional features discussed here namely coordinates are going to make it in!

given your associations with the RCAF lol of course i am not surprised by the response. I can understand why you would want to see this specific variant. But overall given consideration for avionics capabilities, widespread users, time frame of service, and accessibility to research documentation i think its safe to say that overall 212/UH1N would end up having broader appeal. Besides the quad rotored Huey don't have the classic whomp whomp sounds.

wow nice one guys someone needs to forward these files to ED lol.

F100D "late" isn't really a new production, but a culmination of post production refits that occurred around past a certain time frame. Its nice to get different versions although late model i would think is the best option because who doesn't want a hun with an RWR? I also take consideration for capabilities that will make it more appealing. BUt ideally it since to get multiple version of the F-100D because not much is changing apart from come internal avionics like addition RWR, coupled with some rearrangement and replacement of a fewpanels pertaining to armament and such. Nothing that will impact flight model. Its not just 3rd parties like HB that are making multiple versions of a an aircraft family. Even ED has don so. I mean look at the L39. We got two version C and ZA and those were more significantly different, and for the P47 ED is making 3 versions of it. D30 Early, D30 late ( what we have now in EA) and D40.

so relative to the 1993 manual that Razbam had refereced as a source years ago, ( and the one i happen to have copy of) What did suite 4 introduce in 2002-2003 period? GPS aided navigation plus JDAM? link 16? newer targeting pod like litening 2? ( was referenced as an interim solution for a brief period until Sniper could be fielded)

i find it interesting that according to ED rockets are exclusive only to D40s when there are reports of HVARS being officially issued for use as early as July 1944 by 9th air force P47's during the battle of St LO. And even prior to that they were using M10 Bazooka rocket packs with earlier razorbacks

many? ONly in 2011 was low rate intitial production approved and at that time it was still going through evaluation. . By 2014 only 6 APG82's had been delivered. By 2016 a production batch of 28 radars was approved. l 2017 that was the first year AESA strike eagles took part in thier first red flag exercise. The final deliveries of those 28 radars didnt complete until 2019. SO the majority of Strike eagles were and are are still using APG70, since according to the USAF official website their total Fleet of F15E's are 219. SO a a new UFC doesn't mean AESA. http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2170 https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-15es-apg-82-aesa-radars-deploy-red-flag-alaska-first-time/ https://www.militaryaerospace.com/computers/article/16714836/boeing-wins-halfbilliondollar-order-to-upgrade-radar-on-air-force-f15cd-and-f15e-combat-jets

That is true, but youd be surprised how similar they are in operation ( IF i showed Av8b plus excerpts of MFD Radar page/modes and claimed it as APG73 illustration from the Hornet i bet id be able to fool a fair bit of people) . Utilizing an API doesn't mean 100% exact copy paste. TBH i can't help but think think the APG73 designations was more marketing. ITs honestly more like an APG65 V2.0. Its not a new radar design. Its basically the same antenna but upgraded digital components like more processing power and memory storage etc. LIke genuinely if you compare photos of APG65 radar and APG73 radar, There are probably only very subtle differences. I mean same way he F16c's went through upgraded iteration of the same radar family IE APG68 V1-V9

whatever it is certainly not worse than the APG73 radar

Honestly itl be mostly aesthetics. The UFC on the F15E is not fancy like the UFC on the Super Hornet where it can also act as another MFD display for various MFD pages. From what i have seen it basically fills same function and similar overlay as the physical UFC, but on a screen. IF razbam has the nessary documentation to model it or want to put in the extra effort good for them. But seems to me the physical UFC is a safer choice especially as they already have completed 3d model of it.

IS this in game However according to research including using UH1H flight manuals as references this sight picture is fictional. M60 reflext sight should look like this Ironically even ED inadvertently admit from their very own dcs huey manual the prototype designation of preceding XM60/XM60E1 are supposed to look like this Sourced from pg 103 of the DCS Uh1H manual