Kev2go

and? that still means INS is updated by the GPS. i dont see your point in why anything other than that would be used unless malfunction or loss of GPS signal? I think were are going in circles now. We all realize Hornet is in EA, so you can't expect entire navigation suite to work as its supposed to. It doesnt make sense for ED to force INS drift now at this current point in time for an EA product as that would make already added GPS weapons redundant, without proper integration of the GPS aspect, or current lack of AINS mode.

take out the Lantin, you loose the lantirn control panel and you basically have a late 80s early 90s F14B Furthermore HB is going to make a mid 80s era F14A. So A7E will actually fit in with the tomcats

yeah, although never used in combat pilots who flew F/A18 hornets in the 80s and even into early 90s trained with AGM62. I mean even the Super Hornet SAC still cites out of service weapons like the AGm45 being compatible so SO the capability to use weapons no longer inventory still exists. But then again so is AIM9L and AIM7F obsolete and no longer in use.

to quote : " In AINS mode INS and GPS are mutually aiding each other to provide an optimal navigation solution" "in AINS the horizontal position is updated every 40 seconds, and velocities every 5 seconds" So yes GPS is able to correct/update the INS within intervals, the only noted difference in performance is that for hornets with EGI are able to update the INS much more frequently every 4 seconds for horizontal and vertical positions.

actually JF17 would be a better recomendation for someone who would make A/G a priority ( not that they should get obssessed about it but thats another matter entirely) the A4E' is a horrible suggestion for that. ground mapping on the A4E can barely be called ground mapping ( its basic mode is called search not mapping, and fitting name given what it presents) because its not really that. IF all the green squiggly things do is represent elevation and shape relative to flat ground .IT cant even tell apart land from sea if it is level. The viggen is already a better suggestions for A/G radar than the A4E, as that already is far more useful for A/G mapping because it actually produces something that resembles an A/G map. Even if that quality is still very poor relative to gen 4 standards, it can at least detect a line of vehicles, or ships. Really the A4E's radar only good for providing some A/G ranging and terrain avoidance aid. IT is virtually useless for "mapping" and wont spot any vehicles or ships. or any objects like airfields or bridges.

Its true, drift isn't currently modeled nor IFA, but eventually once navigation is complete , any drifts probably wont be noticeable. In NAv mode currently you have INS and GPS modes, which can be seen in respective options via HSI, IE POS/INS, POS/GPS ( GPS will eventually its own dedicated page outside of HSI) . However even though its not an EGI, the INS+GPS system are still linked, and as long as GPS works or has signal to the satellite it should correct any INS drifts, making the INS remain accurate as long as there is no GPS signal interruption or jamming. Latter case is not simulated. There should eventually also be an AINS mode (POS/AINS) which essentially is something equivalent of a "blended" solution terminology used in aircraft with EGI. At least once ED fully finishes the navigation concept of the F/A18.

Not really as the UH1H version in question is a post Vietnam iteration. IT has counter measure suite, NVG compatible cockpit , and not to mention composite rotorblades, which are 80s era features. The only thing missing from this time period is a RWR system. ( by 3d model you can see it does have points where RWR antennas should be mounted) Its also somewhat of a franken huey as it seemingly has an Aussie bush ranger weapons config available

not necessarily. A7E depending on time frame simulated can fit into 80s circa 1986 operation el dorado canyon or even up to the 91 gulf war. Vietnam was really a small portion of this aircraft service life.

It wont be just the taillhook though. What really has Navy version top off the USAF variation is that it gets larger diversity in guided munitions. AGm45, Agm88 , AGm62 walleye, ( basic and ERDL) and Mavericks

yeah, although in the legacy Hornets case, there is not the sort of disparity in progress between a 2005 model and a 2015 model. Its mostly incremental stuff pertaining to software updates newer blocks of certain weapons etc. The navy just stopped updated thier legacies due to the Super Hornets being a solid interim replacement, and due to adopting the JSF. Where the navy retired the last of the Hornets in 2018, the Viper is expected to operate up until the 2040's, ( at least for ANG). The USAF's Vipers have seen more notable upgrades, but such upgrades are even more apparent for the F16's for ANG like introducing for the CPD for Block 30/32's in 2013 and currently in the process of upgrading to APG83 AESA radars.

Pretty nice. Although to top that off If they do a late enough model a7e should have an option to mount a lana targeting pod. Deliveries started in 79.

So they can then move onto mig23mla, f15e, and mirage 3, and Falklands. Not a huge workload but should be just enough for them to keep them busy if their list of potential aircraft has the a7 removed? :D

Considering that Dekka is using ED A/G radar mechanics for the JF. Than i would expect that At least the basic Real Beam mapping mode to becoming available in the foreseeable future. Granted this mode alone isn't anything special as you have no "Zoom" and somewhat underwhelming resolution quality judging by JF's radar RBM mode ,although obviously the Hornet is using a different radar, but both will ultimately capable of SAR grade imaging ( up to EXP 3 mode). With more advanced modes and those extra zoom, the radar will be quite nice to generate extra situational awareness ( its cited its accurate enough to generate launch coordinates for JDAM and JSOW) , because at times even in the TGP's max magnification objects like vehicles at long distances render in only when im close enough to be engaged by sam sites, which undermines modern TGP like the Litening 2's true potential.

oh no! thats another aircraft poor razbam wont be able to do :megalol:

If this other "sim" i played was researched properly, than highly likely Legacy Hornet wont get HUD symbology to see where the ATFLIR is slewing. In the Super Hornet the ATFLIR had the same HUD limitation with the way the L2 pod currently does in DCS Hornet.

another example of crowd pleasing, and a much more controversial one, is the decision to add IGLAS for the paid Ka50 upgrade, in spite it never ever getting such capability.

If its documented and is authorized option in a manual that pertains to the services represented ( in NATOPS manuals in this case for the Navy and USMC ) then i would consider it fair enough game for inclusion. Ironically enough even in the Super Hornet weapons that are no longer in use like AGM45 are still listed as authorized stores. The controversy with LAU88's and triple mavericks on the F16C was because its not authorized for the F16C blk 50. ANd some of the community members here that were maintenance technicians within the USAF for also explained that the 3rd maverick rocket motor would damage the aircraft or something. SO if a given load out can potentially cause critical failure of an aircraft, then no it certainly shouldn't be allowed. That is unless ED wants to troll the community and actually represent some form of structural damage for those who do fire with such loadouts. That would be hilarious.

was it though? I myself took part in the discussions and even i myself was able to find some images of US operated F16C block 50 utilizing the Litening 2 AT, even though especially in active duty units Sniper XR is the more common pod, especially in present time frame. IRL Litening 2's were purchased as an interim solution and delivered earlier timeframe than the first operational Snipers, at faster pace.

Because this is the only TGP the US Navy currently uses, and the pod that the marines switch over to when operating from a carrier deck when not on land. AS wizard also clarified earlier ( Rework of new IR imaging AP mechanics aside) the ATFLIR isn't just going to be a copy paste of the Litening 2 AT. ATFLIR is the better pod. NAvy had more stringent requirements due to higher on average operating altitudes . ATFLIR has better magnification, and a more powerful laser designator, allowing for even longer stand off range. in distance and or altitudes than the already pretty impressive performance you get with the L2. The ATflir is also smaller ( 72 inches in length as opposed to 87) and 35 lbs lighter than the L2. So thier genuinely wont be an advantage to using the L2 over the ATFLIR on station 4 anyways, unless for those who really wish to roleplay thier nation's config like the EF18A EDit: Although later generation Litening pods which we don't have in DCS( Like the G4 and later ) are in turn better due to higher image resolution. There is in fact no a requiremnt from the navy to finally have an updated ATFLIR ( or a succesor) because due to lack of follow up its it genuinely is dated relative to the completion in present day.

You seem to confuse the difference between having a Litening 2, and it being offered on a different station. I was never arguing against adding the Litening 2 since the US operated Hornets do actually use said pod. 2 totally different things. The Litening 2 was quick way to add a targeting pod which didnt in any way infringe on the USN navy / USMC Hornets authenticity aas the USMC actually has F/A18C's in same configurations as the navy in terms of weapons and avionics. and that they actually run with the L2 on the Centerline pod, when operating from land, They too use ATFLIR when sharing the deck with USN Hornets.

Look dont get me wrong I dont always need 2 bags of gas, but with the Hornets ability to fly with asymmetric loadouts, flying a tgp centerline I can still setup the hornet to fly with just one tank. Granted balancing stuff is easier when you can take ordinance or a bag of gas on center, but a little bit of trimming isnt a big deal on a fbw jet like the hornet. When carrying heavy irdiance on wings like agm62 or agm154s on wings that too still causes noticable imbalance regardless if you have the tgp on centerline or station 4. You still need to trim.

ah yes , just as the same sort of vocal minority "customer feedback " resulted in ed caving in and revising plannedmunitions list to include lau88 for f16c blk 50 allowing triple Mavericks, because some people think the f16 a supersonic a10. speaking down to unrealistic requests is they least they can do as it's suppossed to be a study simulation, not an arcade game.

A better question is why were these design aspects changed with regards to vent placement when both models are still the litening 2 at model, and not an earlier precursors nor the more advanced successor ( like the g4)

Maybe because some those same people ( like me) were never fond for that decision to begin with. Perhaps also because there were some myths perpetuated by those with an agenda to push misinformation with regards to their preferred station which was confusing but at least was eventually rectified by some sme like lex who confirmed usmc did not even with cheek config even post 2005 whilst he was still a pilot. Perhaps ed can consider this as a temp solution to placate the crowds who really need to use cheek station 4, and then remove this option for station 4 when the atflir becomes available?

Except that canadians use the sniper tgp not the litening on cheek station 4, and considering that both canadian an Spanish Hornets are orginally fa18a's with respective nomenclature, ( cf18 and ef18 ) but also both modernised to different avionics suites not only to each other ,but also to the usn/usmc fa18c. I mean if one day ed wanted too do a dlc, to expand with additional hornet variations.... sure.