Kev2go

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?

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.