Kev2go

IKR just image if we had the F14D, then we would need F22 to have any chance :D Kidding aside the idea isn't that the community needs the EF to counter the F14, but the fact they will invariably meet in multiplayer scenarios.

it seems the aircraft from this list that happens to second most votes will eventually become a reality in DCS :smartass:

To imply legacy hornets ever had the same level the maintenance troubles of the F14 had is quite disingenuous Legacy Hornets ( even the USN F/A18C hand me downs to the USMC) don't require on average 50 hours of maintenance per hour of flight like the F14 did in its last waning years of service. Then again thats why service life extension program was underway for USMC, to keep em flying beyond their initial maximum air-frame lifetime The point was even in its youth the Tomcat never could achieve the high readiness rates, and low downtime needed for maintenance that the hornet could.ITs a more complex aircraft simple as that. The nature sweep wings always meant the the F14 was not only more intensive on maintenance than the F18 but even to the Air forces F15 eagle, which is considered hangar queen relative to the Viper.

semantics?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=267626 All of the EF manuals are "restricted" with the exception of the EF flight manual confidential supplement ( tactics , EW and exact weapons envelopes i suspect) which is classified confidential the only one that a civilian development are probably not be allowed to get thier hands on. IF this as considered a true classification level rather than an mere ITAR type restriction as seen on US manuals, then the development team wouldn't have access to anything classified, an thus not be able to have the necessary information to model the EF in any shape or form.

so they have to protect warfighters flying legacy hornets, but not those flying vipers? interesting. I dont know but considering the performance charts are " restricted" but not classified, then it seems that if anyone wanted to know how to defeat the Hornet they would have the already gotten their hands on EM diagrams and model in a simulation if they really wanted to anyways.

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

On topic however its unlikely F14D will happen for the forseeable future. A heatblur dev said there is but missing documentation for weapons related systems. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3986159&postcount=4 They are still apparently classified, and it seems the leading theory of why they still are is due to " Persian man bad" paranoia. I know its unfortunate. I myself would have preferred an F-14D for the 21st century DCS environment ( when looking at the other teen contemporaries) as well rather than just having the ancient A/B model. In Lieu of a D model cat the next best thing would have been a later model F14B circa late 90s- early 2000s's refitted with DFCS, PTID and EGI. IRRC F14A's did also got DFCS around that time frame minus the other stuff.

Im sure one day they will happen. Apache would be a blockbuster hit for those into rotary aviation. Tornado also pretty relevant for cold war aviation ( Gr1 version)

Oh dear, people need to get over themselves. Dick Cheney alone killed the tomcat ? Heh whatever helps you sleep at night. The only people that were stubborn for more modern tomcats was the tomcat community. The greater navy brass realized the Super Hornet was the more practical and costly efficient platform in a post cold war future where tomcats #1 justification of its existence for the role of fleet defense against Russian bombers disappeared. Not to mention on top of that the AEGIS missile defense system became a thing. The Hornet had already built a good reputation on ease of maintenance, high readiness rates, and being a more affordable rugged workhorse ( even after more than a decade of service) . Super Hornet improved on payload, range and further improved avionics on its predecessor. So the navy was satisfied. The Tomcat was just too expensive to justify keeping when it was a hangar queen from day 1, and by late life a full on maintenance nightmare. People seem to forget that the navy budget need to be able procure and maintain various surface and submarine vessels. Not all of it can go funding a second air force. The Super Hornet was the practical 1 size fits all interim solution for a post cold war era until the next generation of aircraft. The Rising rising costs of "war on terror" coincided with the retirement of the tomcat, the final nail in the coffin.

Was just trying to present a scenario in a humorous way. But Really? get within 15 nautical miles ( since any longer distance aim120 shot is not gonna hit unless your flying high altitudes) before being spotted on radar.? Thats quite optimistic. Due to lack of any complex RCS modelling in DCS and being skeptical of such implications, i guess we will have to see.

Not just good for RAAF and USN fans ;), since the Luftwaffe is deciding to acquire Super Hornets and operate them alongside the Eurofighters. https://theaviationist.com/2020/03/26/germany-set-to-replace-tornado-jets-with-mixed-eurofighter-and-super-hornet-fleet/ Granted these are going to be Block 3 Advanced Super Hornets and not Block 1.

a different dev had also made a EF for that other sim. I don't think it ever really was an unrealistic expectation to have a Block 1 Super Hornet. hence why i started this thread. IF anything i always though the Super Hornets was more feasible to see in DCS than the EF, because so many shared systems with late life legacy hornet.

yea basically this. the F16 and Viper are close matches in a dissimilar way. TBH when flying the Hornet i wish had the T/W ratio and speed of the Viper, When flying the viper id love it even more if it has the high alpha ability of the hornet, whilst retaining viper streghts . IF such an aircraft existed it would dominate both 1 circle and two circle fights. I prefer the Hornet mostly due to "soft" stats. Aspects that arent going to directly impact combat performance, such as having a more advanced navigation suite ( moving map) and additional Multipurpose display to work with, and having overall a more digitally integrated cockpit ( less physical panels , and instead MFD pages.) IE having RWR contacts being able to be displayed via MFD's , the SA page page, or via HUD. Although i do wish the Hornet had a F16 or A10C type Hotas, to keep hands on HOTAS more often. Truth be told i would say say there is no perfect plane, at least not in DCS . At least not until the Eurofighter comes along and starts spanking them both ;)

With the EF eventually coming in, yet another reason to want a Super Hornet. Not that i think that pre AESA model Super Hornet will offer any competitive edge or let alone parity against the Euro fighter would in A2A arena relative to the current DCS Legacy Hornet apart from having bit more advanced EW protective suite due to carrying AN/ALE50 towed decoy internally.

Fair point. But I am wondering if the exact costs are published for the public to actually crunch the numbers to verify once and for all what would have been more cost effective. Typically looking at past examples to this point it has been cheaper to integrate new weapons features ( even more so in the digital era, where all you need is software upgrade for a weapon mode, if the weapon is already compatible with pylon wiring for a data bus of the same mil standard) into an existing air frame than buy a new platform, and the additional costs associated with such a endeavor. I mean look at foreign F16 operators. For users with additional requirements of for missions not in use with the USAF Vipers such as maritime attack capability , they just decided to invest some $$ to integrate the Harpoon instead of buying Hornets to use that same weapon. ( just as an example)

Yet they still manage to be knocking out M1A2 tanks. Then again Arab armies never did have a reputation for military competence.

Their F35 isn't an RAF replacement for Tornados. It is going to fill the role of now retired Harriers. The F35B is the only real option due to VTOL/STOL needed for operating off the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers. That said regardless of variant, the F35 is a totally next generation aircraft with vastly better sensor suite and low observable technology than either the SH or EF, offering a game changing advantage, whereas the Super hornet is a sidegrade to the EF. Besides UK was partner nation to the JSF program. They were already looking for such a capability long ago. It would be a wasted investment if they didn't especially considering the better pricing for partner nations.

whatever it is what it is. IF they want to waste taxpayer money to have capability now ( production and deliveries also take time so it won't be ASAP anyways) and spend additional money for totally new air-frame vs integrating additional weapons if needed into already existing aircraft platform its their business. operating EF and SH side by side makes about as much sense if the USAF had F16 and Legacy Hornet. Also thats not the best comparison. in the 70s those days it was quite different, where "multirole" capabilities and any capabilities expansions were much more limited by the analog nature of older aircraft generations. Times have changed. Luckily even British MOD has finally realized this.

THe EF is sead capable. the Brits had SEAD capability having the Alarm missile integrated, and considering its retirement, it would have made more sense to just integrate Agm88's in turn in lieu ofAlarm for the EF. Really they should have just done the sensible thing what the brits did with their tornado replacement. More EF's, with the exception of Growlers only as an ECR interim solution/ nuke capability due to thier unique requirement. Its not just the cost of an air frame, but the cost of having different pilot training , ground crew, and logistics for spare parts for 3 different air frames now. ( although two of them are similar) for a job that 1 multi-role aircraft should be able to do.

So because its such a recent addition its probably not feasible to expect the meteor for the typhoon in DCS.

Maybe because they have the team split between the Hornet and others?

sure i get it but that's fixing making fixes, and finishing navigational aspects not dependent on making IR mavericks work. Its pretty likely that the programmer working on weapons may be a different person working on navigation or non combat related avionics.

seems like the Super Hornet isnt even capable of using the B61. ( it was a legacy hornet feature) https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/10/04/boeings-f-18-may-have-a-leg-up-in-germany-over-eurofighter/ https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32768/nukes-drive-germanys-plan-to-replace-tornados-with-typhoons-super-hornets-and-growlers So outside of the EA18G as an interim until ECR, the F/A18E/F otherwise really looks like a waste of money to operate alongside EF Fleet.

Common be realistic here. In the most optimistic scenario if we a see a gripen iit would probably be A/C version at best not the E which only 5 production level aircraft have taken flight thus far. We still don't know the official statement from devs of what EF version we are getting, but id bet money it certainly isn't latest and greatest EF model. Judging by 3d model ( even if WIP) , is almost certainly a Tranche 1, which for all intents and purposes was not out of the realm of possibility to begin with, at least not since VEAO said they could do one.