Kev2go

ED was developing the Hornet years before it was retired from the USN and there are also remaining export users of the legacy. So the the theory thats it was only added to DCS because its "retired" doesn't hold up. WE also have A10C and F16C which are still in active duty service, latter of which still has hoards of export operators. Granted all "legacy" aircraft, and not the latest and greatest toys.

jhmcs doesn't lock automatically in Hornet either unless you are using radar close combat modes and they slew seekerhead onto target, and in that case you can do the same with the viper. Still need to cage/uncage seekers either way . Utilizing f16 jhmcs is not painfully slow, works fine.

people are talking big picture not just guns only. I can cont the number of times i had a bfm merge in multiplayer that turned guns only i would be able count them if had only 1 hand, with fingers to spare.

Its not just meant as an agressor for DACT. the IDea came aftewords. the F5 was meant for front line combat as a very inexpensive lightweight export fighter. This aircraft did a a good job for what it was meant to be. There are many nations that utilized the F5E in a vanilla configuration. export users domestic upgrades of F5's generally came later in life, typical of any aircrat when it begins to become obselete. Ethiopians utilized F5's very successfully against somali piloted Mig21's. In the Iran iraq war, Iranian workhorse fleet of F5's saw combat against iraqi flown migs. most light fighters of the time typically did not have a large missile armament, nor a particularly powerfull radar. The F5E is a great adversary to a Mig21BIs. And as the older generation of aviation get expanded with more assets the F5E will feel more at home there than on modern era servers for frontline combat since those are the era of aircraft it should be compared to.

ever since 2.5 hit, the Radar scopes been busted. you can't see the radar grid lines, just dots where the lines intersected. Yea even outside of any HD cockpit or 3d model retexture, this module still needs support to fix the broken stuff from the various things users have mentioned here.

I went from a 23 inch 1080P monitor to a 27 inch 1440p monitor a few years ago not that long after i upgraded from an AMD 280X to the Nvidia GT 1080, because at the time i realized the GFX seemed overkill for 1080P. I currently use x2 AA with 1440p. Looks good definitely better than the 1080p, and with the larger size i don't need to zoom in or tilt my head as much to see stuff. . Its definitely more than good enough sharp resolution that I don't feel the visuals are jagged. Thus I personally feel no need to upgrade to 4k yet. Even if i did i suspect DCS would murder my frame rates on the current graphic card.

i never said otherwise that ED choice to model it was because it was out of service... but the same is the case for the F16C. Still in active duty. far more viper users around the world than Hornet operators, and still going to remain in ANG service for years to come even if USAF is gradually phasing them out for F35A's. Even so ED can only manage to get dated information, hence why we have decades old derivatives of these airfames. Circa 2005 Hornet or a 2007 era Viper etc. As opposed to a present day versions of them.

The USN had been gradually retiring Hornets for years. UMSC needing parts/airframe was just final nail in the coffin, not the start. Considering they stopped investing money in modernism C's there really was no point to keep around aged and obsolete C's in active duty service when nearing the hornets last few years the USN already have large fleet of more capable super hornets ( hell even remaining block 1's are being considered removed from active duty) especially now with F35C's entering service, not to mention additional orders for block 3 super Hornets. IF they didn't that would have mean supporting 3 airframes.

Block 1's already had new DDI displays with the very last production lot ( Lot 25) as to create a baseline for block 2. The main difference is that the Lot 26 air frame has a redesigned nose to house APG79 with its larger antenna ( for when they became available to replace APG73) . Although relative to lot 25 the lot 26 F model will have the larger 8x10 display for the WSO. i too would rather have a Block 2 Lot 26 with APG73, just for the reason that down the line if enough information becomes available there could be potential for an "AESA" radar DLC.

sharing this article that was published yesterday. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets Given the nature of his firm, these aircraft are not going to be stripped of thier combat systems.

Yes if a MP servers allows F14B + Aim54, that is a reason for any pilots to wary of high altitude flying. :D IL have to test the OB build. I haven't done any serious online MP flying in OB as of yet due to performance issues that everyone is constantly complaining about ( stuck to stable for online flying) , so i am totally ignorant of noticing any amraam changes. going from being able to wishfully hope for a max 15 nm to a 40 nautical miles with an Aim120 shot at low altitude sounds too good to be true!

under what conditions? Even with the supposedly inferior FC modelling i can typically discover F/A18's or Vipers within 60 - 70 nautical miles, and thats at 1000-2000m. At such low altitudes its generally impossible for amraams to want to go further than 15 nautical miles. They have the SA advantage purely because of Link 16, not because the radar is so good that they can close the gap to under 20 NM without ever being seen. ONly at high altitudes can you expect to lob them and at high altiudes without any terrain in the way it should be even higher detection probability. So there should be no way even with dumbed down systems that F15C will not see Hornets or Vipers, under 20 nautical miles to allow them first detection capability. IF thats the case then its a pilot issue not a aircraft system issue.

Not to mention both the Hornet and F16C still lacks semi automatic and automatic modes for the AN/AlE47 suite.

good question! Seems like it aught to, and probably will eventually as it moves through early access.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/465001r1p.pdf Excerpt from Battlespace Technologies: Network-enabled Information Dominance By Richard S. Deakin - 2010 Don't know what other nuances there are the would permit Link 16 to update at a faster interval when looking at the above. But multiple public open source info seems to point to transmission update only every frame ( in other words 12 seconds). Hence probably why ED decided to simulate like it is in DCS.

looking further into it It seems to come from the general description of JTIDS ( which fall under Link 16 umbrella) " It produces a spread spectrum signal using Frequency-shift keying (FSK) and Phase-shift keying (PSK) to spread the radiated power over a wider spectrum (range of frequencies) than normal radio transmissions. This reduces susceptibility to noise, jamming, and interception. In JTIDS Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) (similar to cell phone technology), each time interval (e.g., 1 second) is divided into time slots (e.g. 128 per second). Together, all 1536 time slots in a 12-second interval are called a "frame". Each time slot is "bursted" (transmitted) at several different carrier frequencies sequentially. Within each slot, the phase angle of the transmission burst is varied to provide PSK. Each type of data to be transmitted is assigned a slot or block of slots (channel) to manage information exchanges among user participation groups. In traditional TDMA, the slot frequencies remain fixed from second to second (frame to frame)." It would seem that "12 seconds" then is perhaps not necessarily entirely a speed limitation but because of specific transmission processes.

But by current standards link 16 is slow. That why they are now looking at a replacements. IF your using lOS VHF/UHF frequencies that your only looking at either 2.4k or 16k speeds. Dial up has a max theoretical capability of 56K. IF using more modern Link 16 transmission techniques such as network hosted via TCP/IP protocols then only then are you looking at faster then dial up speeds to 115 Kilobits per second.

Exactly this is also something to take into consideration software has a deelopment cycle end. ED didn't set out to make APKWS, because when they started the project not only were they aiming for a certain time frame of aircraft, APKWS simply didnt even exist on Hornets until 2018. The reason they choose a specific timeframe and the weapons associated is because thy choose what they can get data on. IF you recaall early WIP screenshots from around 2013 -2015 of the Hornets showed an earlier lot with 1990s avionics ( no HMD and older MPCD display), and that it was only expected to get old Nitehawk TGP. When the project was approached closer to release they revealed a much more updated Lot 20 Hornet, with "mid 2000's" or circa 2005 features that we are now familiar with. However even due to lacking some information the screenshots and some of WAG's early hornet videps still had a Hornet with the older AN/ALE39 countermeasure suite, and at the last second prior to release they remodeled the Hornet yet again to have AN/ALE47 CM system ( which was the correct system for lot 20 production) because they found enough necessary information to model it. This was explained in wag's hornet mini updates. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3350852&postcount=26 AS another example many people were disappointed that F16C would not get JASSM for example, and BIGnewy constantly reminded everyone that it was omitted because they only had enough documentation to model a 2007 viper and not any more modern features. IF ED could , they would have made even more recent iterations of the Viper and Hornet, as we have seen they had in the past revised some features mid development AS such relating to APKWS They have no motivation to add it, unless, they are a upcoming module that uses such weapons system and maybe then they might have a reason to "port it over" to earlier modules But i basically said as much. The only module i see ED looking at APKWS is the upcoming Warthog 2.0, as the promised improved capabilities ( implying a later software suite) and from a more modern time frame may decide to include APKWS for the HOg. WHen ED makes thier own APKWS, maybe then we can actually have a serious conversation about having it included for the hornet.

The navy still uses legacies with reserve and aggressor units. The USMC is not phasing out F/A18C's they are going to operate C models ( the ones that can fly) along with the D models until 2030. Then there's a matter of export users. F/A18C's are still in operation by Finland, Switzerland, and various foreign F/A18A models have been upgraded to comparable USMC F/A18A++ standards such as the CF18 hornets, Aussie Hornets. They use all the stuff that current era F/A18C has but with the exception of retaining OLD analog engine/fuel indicators but in turn sport newer displaye due to having replaced the old school DDI's with LCD color displays, and a more ergonomic MPCD thats tilted at an angle upwards for easier viewing. Otherwise same weapons and software specs. Even Wag's said said they they were still asked to make small modification the Flight model just enough so it would not 100% reflect the performance charts. Yea we should have B61 ( i would be happy to have nukes just for the novelty of messing around in single player even if they would be banned from most MP servers like R24/R28 ), but ED have their reasons for not doing nuclear weapons outside of " oh nuke effect suck atm". IT is what it is. Those arent going to happen for any ED made product.

Its just about not whether or not a system can't be simulated but having the necessary documentation to realistically as possible emulate the real thing from a given time period. I mean just because you know on a general manner how a certain systems work on aircraft X doesnt mean they will function exactly the same in aircaftt Y even if thier purpose is the same. Take example heatblur. they denied not only F-14D as a future module after considering it ( no declassified data on weapons systems) . They had also have said that even a bit more modern F-14B with newer PTID display would be problematic, because they have missing some information, and would rather not guesstimate MFD pages and subpages for it even if they or anyone else have an idea of what their purpose is. Or perhaps is how ED decided to remove from planned weapons list the SNiper Targeting pod for the Viper and instead opted for the lightening 2. not so much foe ease of porting it, but because they themselves admitted did not have enough information as of right now to feel confident modeling it, although didn't outright deny it ever making a reappearance, so there still might be a chance that they do get what they need. Further example i can offer is F16C EGGS aspect of HUD gunsight. The way it was simulated in another sim is different than our DCS Viper is because its pretty obvious they are using a older documentation and from a foreign air force viper operator in spite of aiming to model a USAF based CCIP upgraded viper. i think in comparison you can see which one is more true to real life F16CM block 50. IN other instances they could theoretically model systems or a weapon but part of thier contractual agreement prohibited them from doing so. Like the Air force did not want ED to Model AGm65E laser maverick for the A10C thus it was ommited from that module. In turn apparently US navy and Boeing had no qualms and thus could model that same weapon type on the Hornet, or Razbam's Harrier.

wishful thinking..... its one thing to guesstimate missile performance of a munition type. , its totally another to create an entire aircraft to a study level simulation without getting access to enough necessary documentation or authorization. Kamov KA50 represented here is a prototype model and its no longer relevant or even in service. 11:44 https://alert5podcast.podbean.com/e/scramble-04-matt-wags-wagner/ IF you want to be in denial what wags and countless other ED officials have said be my guest but not i wouldn't hold my breath that a mere year later after the question was re-asked still denied in that podcast that ED is now going to do a 180 turnaround and announce a Modern Flanker derivative. IF anything its more likely to expect a 3rd party to attempt to do a eastern bloc aircraft.

by the redforce community. Considering ED repeated statements that they would be unable to work on a modern Russian aircraft for the foreseeable future as long they are headquartered in Russia, i doubt its going to be that. IM not a "rotorhead" but seems AH64D longbow would be highly anticipated from ED. From fixed wing the next request i also hear of people reminding ED to revisit the F4E phantom project that was put on hold to finish the F16C.

Wrong again. The Kiowa warrior never had colour LCD displays until more recent years. The original displays are Monochrome green CRT monitors. Yes i know what AAR47 control panel looks like. Thats why i called you out on your prior incorrect claim of the kiowa being a 1997 model. If i didn't know what AAR47 looked liked then i wouldn't have been able to call you out. Just because AN/AAR47 may have been available in 2003 for some other helicopter platforms but OH58D's still didn't get them at that time. There are improved version of the AAR47 in circulation since. This is a research paper from 2008. You can see images At this point OH58D still has NO AAR47 and still sporting old monochrome displays. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1524&context=utk_gradthes Also this a presentation from 2008 regarding AAR47 integration. Does not list OH58D as a platform that using this system. https://manualzz.com/doc/36209088/an-aar-47-v-1-2-sensor-upgrade-program You also will see any deployment videos with pilot cockpit footage from this time frame. Kiowas don't have updated avionics you see in the polychop simulation until about 2012 which coincides with the completion of WRA program. The era of simulations based on these updated avionics is very much circa 2012 or later Oh58D. It doesn't matter if you assume it can theoretically be used with older systems. These OLDER systems are no longer around in their respective branches, let alone tested to verify compatibility! So yos it would be anachronistic to have APKWS for AH64A or A10A, or for that matter if we hypothetically had pre 2012 OH58D ( which I demonstrated we obviously don't). Certainly not a Uh1B. since it a totally analog platform and has no means to self designate targets. Therefore it is still an assumption made on your behalf that it can work with the "oldest systems".

Last time i checked you can't find a 2007 USAF F16C blk 50 flight manual, similarly dated dash 34, or its CCIP program supplemental manual via google. Nor Luftwaffe Euro-fighter manuals for that matter. Guess what? Just because you can't find something online via google search doesn't mean a software company that has signed a license agreement with a defense contractor to make a simulation of their aircraft won't be provided documentation that are non classified but still restricted in distribution have not yet been leaked to the internet.......