Kev2go

IF F35 ever comes to DCS they certainly won't be the first to make a combat capable study level simulation of the F35 on the consumer market. #India Foxtrot Echo.

I did come across this TV film

bu bu but its not immortalized by an overrated film like the kitty kat is ((((

its not necessary i think they know that its just one of the many other reasons why F/A18F block 3 cant seriously compete with the F35, despite their marketing teams best efforts in the past :megalol:

The Hornet that is being simulated ( Circa 2005) already had AN/APG73 phase 2 radar by that point. IT has medium resolution SAR with up to EXP 3. This was also the same radar fitted to F/A18E/F super Hornets within Block 1 series production ( lots 21-25) and even until early block 2 production lots, before APG79 AESA radar was ready for operational use. APG73 phase 2 > APG68 V5 ( both a2a and a2g). It will be the Viper not the Hornet with its older radar that will be limited with A/G mapping to DBS2 for EXP2. Apparently only export users have had Vipers APG68 upgraded to V9 standards, which is the radar that would be considered comparable to the APG73 phase 2. Marine operated F/A18D's with ATARS pod work in conjunction with APG73 to improvements to offer even further improved High resolution grade SAR with additional levels of EXP

Even prior to JSF there were already really good A/G radars. DeHavilland DH-6 Twin-Otter ( used as test platform in 1999) https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a529750.pdf Lynx radar was since implemented and employed on MQ9 reaper

It has nothing do do with preferences. No it's just an honest analogy. The tomcats belongs ( and is) in a museum. Therefore if it's going compared to a woman ( which was initiated by another user) . It certainly cant be like the image above because, that would not be a human analogy of a museum piece. Saying mature is simply a more polite way of saying old. Something you want to do to not offend q person. In this case I didnt want to be to hard on fans of the tomcat which mind you specific groups can at times be even more sensitive in any criticisim of thier favourite waifu aircraft than women are about thier age. :smilewink:

Sorry but no. if the tomcat were a woman it would be " very mature" at best. Not a younger busty one.

heres another missing "legend"

Most brilliant proposed crossover in history amirite?

agreed! indeed "The fly a legend" slogan is seriously meme worthy at this point

Since F15 Aim9P/5 options it would be nice if the F14A got an older IR missile. I know the F14A that HB plan is going to be a mid 80s' model, but when the F14A first went into operational use it would have started out using Aim9H in first few years. This is at least something that was used within the tomcats service life so it would be viable enough of an option. it would make for interesting scenarios and give mission designers extra optional variety for a2a missiles, for extra challenge,

Ultimately using both together will be of great benefit. It doesn't have to be one over the other. In fact in such a presented example when you do see something in GMT mode thats exactly why you would then slew a TGP to a potential radar GMT contact to verify what you are indeed looking at is military vehicle, and if so a visual verification if it is friend or foe. That is unless adverse weather conditions obscuring a given TGP.

Nope I am not overestimating the radar, or implying its an all seeing eye, or the only relevant piece of technology on aircraft . Just appreciating it for the sensor it is, the exta tool in the toolbox, which you cannot seem want to do. Again same logic applies to anything. Tactics have been developed to counteract many things. Please stop talking down to others assuming what you think we visualize warfare like just because you have an ill appreciation for technology. Your childish rant truly is pointless and futile and entirely deriving off topic. An indication of your inability to see otherwise. But that is precisely why such surveillance options matter even than ever before more because warfare is no longer static. Boots on the ground reconnaissance alone can only do so much and go so far behind enemy lines, and the fact you need boots on the ground wars to win a typical conventional was never denied, but not all wars need boots on the ground. There are plenty of pure air campaigns from history that have managed to achieve both military and political objectives. SO you are wrong in assuming Ground army intervention is needed in every single case. You can continue to believe otherwise, but those in history who dont keep up with the pace of technological changes are the ones who will have a rude awakening ( IE static defenses and the Machine made cavalry charges, and Mass infantry march charges redundant) , just as in your ww1 example which yo seem to be so obsessed about. But hey maybe if your so obsessed with boots on the ground and too closed minded to realize other aspects of warfare and their technological strides than perhaps you should be playing purely infantry combat simulation , not a modern aviation combat simulator.

It wasn't just the Aussies. Actually some USAF F111F's got MFD's ( since it was general dynamics, same ones as in F16C) as part of "Pacer Strike" upgrade post gulf war, which also included a new INS, as well as eventually a GPS module. Pacer strike was a close mirror of the avionics upgrades seen on EF111A's. Also interesting to note prior to pacer strike the F-111F's also got an refitted with a digital flight control system. So yea this kind of late model F111 would be neat.

YFR. Lol Not possible since the 60's. Go tell that to the tourists. Radar technology in turn also has drastically evolved since the 60s as well as other forms of ISR. There are plenty of situation where it will be applicable, no matter if you believe otherwise that having an A/G radar will not be a extra valuable tool in the tool box. If all enemy did was sit camouflaged or hidden in a forest just to avoid any form of surveillance, would not allow an adversary to win due to an inability to adust swiftly enough counter move. This will be even more true for DCS. Dont know why you think a TGP is the lord Jesus Christ and savior of sensors when by your logic when its essentially looking through a drinking straw, and enemies IRL have adapt tactics hide from that to. Same can be applied to Aerial Search radars in the advent of stealth aircraft and electronic warfare. But oh well anything that isn't an all seeing eye immune to any countermeasures is useless in your eyes.

Yes your google is broken. unless you mean all the above listed aircraft together in 1 sim.

You don't say? TRIG /=/ autolase. Even wag's said as much in his tutorial videos for the time being the option you have for the hornet is to manually lase target via trigger pull and holding it down. Auto lasing has yet to be implemented. This has been discussed before on the forums https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4007115&postcount=7 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4007115#post4007115 Even so that still wouldn't make the LMAV an outright superior option to IR mavs, based on the prior responses for reasons already discussed.

I disagree. Although not an absolute necessity people don't appreciate enough the A/G radar uses, especially in the Hornets APG 73 phase 2 which has SAR for super resolution quality and EXP 3 mode to the vipers APG68 v5. which only gets Doppler beam sharpening and EXP2 at best, which means inferior A/G imaging quality and not as good zoom. Without having to to cheat with using tacview, the A/G radar will allow you to map out an area, to build a better picture of a wider area of your surroundings before you get close enough to spot and target anything with a TGP which will be pretty important in an IADS network. The radar is accurate enough on its own to generate coordinates for JDAMS or JSOW, or SLAM ER. SO if carrying a tgp youl just lock a point with a radar and then slew tgp onto what youve locked your radar on, if you say discover a convoy of vehicles, or notices a sam network pattern by an airfield

The IR mav is a fire and forget weapon. you can fire them off in succession against various seperate targets, and break off. The missile guides itself. In turn the Lmav requires you to keep TGP on a target and continually lase it until impact. since there is no auto lasing yet this means extra effort on the pilot keeping the finger on the trigger, accidentlally slip up whilst maneuvering or for some reason or another and thats a wasted maverick Thus the Lmav isn't superior, but a side grade a different method of employment. Both IR and Lmav have thier uses depending on needs and situation.

Heh than enjoy throwing rocks. Otherwise you might have actually gained some appreciation for this bird if you gave it a chance.

Even if its not on your original purchase list ID still suggest the Hornet over the F16C just because its in a more complete state. Alot of things people also under appreciate are navigation aspect of aircraft. its easier to orient yourself where you are due to hornet having a moving map overalay option , whereas the F16 does not. ID also point out just because its a naval plane doesn't mean you can operate it from land ;) Marines also operate from land , and well as all other foreign operators of the Hornet. ITs a shame you also ruled out the tomcat, buecuase that is the only gen 4 aircraft that has a "feel" to flying it due to lack of fly by wire whilst also not being under powered or subsonic. Of course the Viper is probably one of the best joyrides due to its insane T/W ratio.

my overly basic understanding is the EGI systems are just 1 closely directly integrated module ( all INS/GPS all on one box) as opposed to two separate systems. A INS and separate add on GPS module linked to each other when at the end of the day both aim to accomplish the same goal. My theory is the reason why you initially had aircraft with INS+GPS it was deemed a faster and cheaper solution to just add on a GPS system to an already present INS system in a legacy platform as long as there was available space to place said avionics and wire them together as opposed to developing a new but integrated all one navigation module that takes up less space. Although judging from natops EGI is in fact superior in performance as well, since in the manual its claimed both vertical and horizontal position can be updated in intervals of 4 seconds as opposed to 40 seconds for horizontal position, and 5 seconds for vertical for INS+ GPS system. IM guessing being integrated EGI is less prone to error, and also updates position in near real time, but INS+GPS system seems just good enough, as there probably wouldn't be any noticeable INS drift in 36 seconds longer it takes for a update. Although i imagine for absolute precision of GPS guided munitions, the more accurate the system the better. I theorize the reasoning why older hornets got priority to get EGI as opposed to newer lots, i think it was because they had an even older INS system. Initially Hornets had AN/ASN130A wheras newer lots ( even prior to GPS) got AN/ASN139 system which was a laser ring Gyro based INS system as opposed to a purely mechanical one. There are public sources that describes the various integrations of navigation systems. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a581020.pdf

ah ok then fair enough. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

and? im confused by your response. I knew that already, as i was already citing natops. All i pointed out was the GPS does update the INS, not sidestepping the discussion into which mode it needs to be operated in to do so, when considering the only reason we dont get INS drift in NAV when operating purely on INS system alone is because its not simulated with an incomplete navigation system. Switching to IFA right now changes nothing. The IFA on the navigation panel still exists in EGI equipped hornets, and isn't just for the INS+GPS loosely coupled system for the type of hornet we have in DCS. Furthermore I know your original question is asking if its planned, But it think its self explanatory question. IF it had such a feature, and functions in such a way then its a feature that should be expected to be added. I would like to think its only a matter of when as opposed to a matter of if. But i suppose what you are looking for is a clarification and/or reassurance from someone from ED if it will be implemented yes?