Kev2go

so ultimately ED decided to add litening 2, on station 4 cheek capability even though neither US Navy nor USMC F/A18C hornets flew in such configuration..... so much for authentic loadouts. Aim120 for wingtips when?

wondering if the Hornet has similar capabilities.

What i mean is IR mavericks aren't reliant on TGP use. WE have GBu12's but cant designate targets outside of something atop a way point because slewing the tgp sensor around to targets of opportunity then moves your preset waypoints

an Unmanned aircraft module perhaps :D Not something that most people consider, but it would be a milestone as its never been done before, and also take advantage of new upcoming technologies like A/G radar, FLIR.

When the Hornet came out in EA, the Mavericks were one of the first guided munitions to come about next to AGm88 well before any TGP. I know agm88 integration is more complex due to the HTS pod, but what about IR mavericks? The general underlying tech is already there in use on the A10C and F.A18C. So its just a matter of applying the right interface/ symbology specific to how its used on the F16? So in short could this be the next weapon type we can expect for the F16 in the following update(s)?

IRL Pilots may be armed with a service pistol for self defense Or something extra? We can already use knee boards or flashlights, why not also a usable weapon as well? This would also give quite a bit off an achievement if you managed to hit your opponent from the cockpit In short i would appreciate to see this added !

Ah1q,s are obselescent by the 80s. They would really have a bad time time against tunguska or low air defences in general.. No rwr. , no countermeasure suites, no flir, Tows dont out range thier missiles coupled with the time it takes one to reach out to it. It it. There's a reason why ah1 cobras went through extensive modernization (ah1f or larger extent the usmc twin engined ah1w) and why eventually the ah64 became a thing.

In the gulf most were shot down by SA13's. And had the highest casualties of any coalition aircraft. Now imagine also throwing Tunguskas and the TOR , and IGLA manapads ( successor to the older strela) into the mix, and in a environment where air superiority is not guaranteed . 86 onwards would not be a good time to be a a Hog pilot over the fulda gap, then again 86 onwards was not a good period for the Soviets economy wise. any offensive war for them was no longer feasible by then anyways, but thats in hindsight, and i digress somewhat.

Thats a misconception about the Super Hornets. A block 1 series Super Hornets would very much be possible. A high degree of systems of commonality between late model legacy and early super bugs ( 90% of software code compatibility,Radar, same radar, among other things). the F/A18F or F/A18D can still be operated entirely by the pilot in the front seat as you would fly thier respective single seat equivalents if you didn't have a backseater present. IN these aircraft the WSO is basically just workload relief, and not crucial crewmen to running the airframe, unlike the F14 where the tomcat pilot can't so much as wipe his own ass without a RIO present ( be it human or AI).

I too am skeptical of that. IF sharing critical components were to be enough not be able for the RWR to tell two aircraft apart such as mig29 or su27, then by the same logic the RWR shouldn't be able to tell apart an F/A18 from F15E strike eagle since the APG73 and APG70 share commonality in hardware and software. However that's clearly not the case in game.

Thats False equivalency Fallacy. This is not comparable. He did it on his own accord for his own gain ( he was selling them for profit online). I was not suggesting in any way that should be the way to go for getting missing F14D documentation. IF it were impossible to get ahold ITAR stuff, then there is no way ED would have legally come into possession necessary documentation to model F/A18C or F16C ( or for any foreign 3rd parties for their modules), unless of course they just googled it which wouldn't be the proper procedure of squiring such documentation if you dont have a low profile; In this case a foreign company selling a simulation for profit. Those aircraft manuals have ITAR restrictions, merely on a lower rating of C, as opposed to the D level for the F22. However to put that into perspective A10C manual has a restriction rating of E, higher than the F22A, Yet they were permitted necessary documentation on an aircraft not in use outside of usa that was export restricted to model a simulation of the HOG not just for the ANG, but release a consumer grade version for DCS. Furthermore ED has announced they are making a DCS A10C Warthog 2.0 that will include enhanced capabilities implying a later software suite than one currently in game. So respectfully ED or 3rd parties does not "stay away from stuff like that" since "stuff like that" is what they need to make intricate study level simulations which would be impossible to do for any developer in a authentic or realistic way without them. Its simply a matters of how they are acquired them that matters. IF they can't get it, since ITAR requests can still be denied, they don't do them. Although as we know the decision to do a module is also consideration of Profit vs development time/effort ratio, since they are still a business at the end of the day. Even so getting back on track my original point was simply that Classified /=/ ITAR distribution restrictions ( even if going by more restrictive letter grades). Actual classified material requires a government issued security clearance of various levels, whereas to get a hold of an ITAR based document you do not. Further more breach of classified materials are prosecuted under espionage laws. Restricted documentation under ITAR would not be not. IF you read his affidavit none of the charges were espionage related, and simply dealt with attempting to smuggle out export restricted documents. This is exactly why ED or 3rd parties aren't lying when they don't utilize "classified" information to develop these modules, because they actually don't, and would be impossible for them to do so. So yea it is just "your opinion man" if you cannot distinguish between actual Classified documentation vs exporrt or distribution controlled documentation.

Pilot bias TBH. The f14 being super powerful is true to an extent, but without context paints it to be a much better radar than it really is. At least thats the case fo the F14A and B. AWG9 has large radar antenna but its potential is not fully realized due being limited by 1960s analog processing technology and lack of medium prf. Nor does it have a PSP, and thus lacks other modes like RAID so it cannot discriminate against very closely flying targets. Enters F14D's APG71 it 70% commonality of Strike eagles APG70 tech ( in alot of the tech that is also shared in the APG73 radar). Now that was a truly epic radar, that could have been called the most formidable for the american aircraft of Gen 4. Even SO AESA radars you have on F22, or even on some gen 4 fighter like the F15C and E's of today in turn literally make just about any Mechanical array radar look like crap, and thus can be considered more capable than even the APG71 of the Super cat. The F14 picks up everything if your flying over the ocean or at mid to high level altitudes over land. As irl in game it is worse at detecting targets flying down down very low compared to the other teen fighters, worse at detecting targets heading away from you, and if jamming was semi decently represented, non resistant to EW. Radars with medium prf are in fact overall better even in DCS. I've had a similar situation happen what the op describes in the f14's , but against a pair of flankers flying at low altitude, except they were heading away from me and not towards me. I litterally had to get in visual range and only with PAL managed to aquire, but radar would not pick them up in any of the RIO's search modes. For whatever reason radars just don't always detect stuff even for aircraft that you would otherwise full know where they are . The only aircraft where this has yet to happen to me is in the Viper, but maybe i just haven flown it enough to have similar issues. DCS radars can be weird sometimes?

Ironic when the only advantage the awg 9 should really have is absolute maximum range you can detect targets, otherwise the apg73 should be superior in virtually ever other aspect.

UM no its not debatable. After the A10C, the F/A18 was ED next flagship fixed wing module, and still is until the next big milestone is made. Even ED considered it as such. Prior to the Hornet, your options were to either fly a dedicated Air Superiority fighter like the Eagle or in case of SU27, Mig29, a fighter with limited secondary ground attack capability ( m2000 if you count a full fidelity module) , or slow subsonic dedicate attack jet like the A10. It was the first truly multi role fighter jet in DCS. Lots of advanced systems, new weapons. It included lots of new technology that is still being developed that were meant to debut with project Like new FLIR. It also resulted in ED going to develop a totally new API that will be needed to make A/G radar work , new datalinked "man in the loop weapons" ( AGM62 which will be followed by SLAMMER ER) among a slew list of other things . It also resulted in ushering in more immersive carrier operations ( DCS : super Carrier). The F16C is also important to US aviation, and will be great when finished but is essentially more of the same. Diversification if you will in this category of multi role aircraft. IF that isn't enough for the Hornet to be considered to have made any notable milestones, or to be regarded a flagship product from ED then i don't know what is.

i overlooked that newsletter. Its good to hear. Not even so much for anticipating newer features Most people talk of anticipating suite 7b with scorpion hmd, but don't realize DCS A10C warthog was always a franken jet. DCS A10C is technically supposed to be suite 3.0 but ED decided to give it an anachronistic mix mash features from suite 5.0, some of which had extremely limited functionality ( IE SADL and some TAD options), and features still present from 3.0 that were replaced by the time of suite 5.0 ( like analog AN/ARC 164 radio replaced with AN/ARC 210) https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4016039&postcount=31 Even snoopy clarified as much https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4017714&postcount=36 an actual authentic suite 3.0 wouldn't have had SADL or Missile warning system, but i guess ED made a realism compromise for added capability but couldn't do a proper Suite 5.0 at the time, and had to omit some features and limit functionality of others. Although if ED can actually model suite 7b that would be great, However it would be enough to make meamper if we finally got a authentic hog simulation of a suite 5.0 never minding a suite 7b, because that alone will give a few improvements over what our hog currently can do. Edit: and hopefully this time around we can finally have AGM65E laser mavericks?

OR at least that was was claimed/ theorized by a few, which i don't buy. Insert "press X to doubt meme" F14D' FM itself isnt classifed neither and whats lacking from open availabiliy is the non nuclear delivery manual. For aircraft documentation even for non nuclear weapons procedures to be classified for the such is still unusual as all manuals ( with exception of tactics manuals) are simply all ITAR restricted. But then again so are all forms of manuals anyways for any other gen 4 module we have in DCS. ITAR already restricts any arms or military tech related export ( even manuals) to any nation US has placed embargo on, even for used second hand surplus sales. These governing laws are sufficient enough to prosecute anyone who would no be dissuaded from doing so from trying to sell anything military related to Iran anyways, hence documentation doesn't need to be classified. Same story for the F22. I dont expect a copy to be legally granted and sent to a company located outside of the USA, but similarly the F22A Flight manual and Weapons manual technically isn't classified. They are just have DOD distribution restrictions that fall under ITAR considerations. It has D level restriction ( at least the 2015 revision), as opposed to the level C that you typically see when coming across Hornet or Viper Manuals.

IF you feel all the technical gee wiz post production features from the 21st century on Gen 4 is an I win button, then you need harder scenarios. I certainly dont consider myself feeling invincible flying a F/A18C when i don't have realistic EW jamming to protect me ( or lack thereof entirely on the EA hornet) , in an area covered by IADS, and at the same time having worry about contenting with potential intercepting enemy aircraft, Even when carrying a TGP, HARMS and standoff munitions like the JSOW. All they do is mitigate risk in such environment,s but not entirely remove it. They do not guarantee you wont ever get engaged or shot down. Otherwise the danger and attrition rate of having to get in close in in a IADS network with nothing but iron bombs is about as practical strategy as a cavalry charge in ww1 against a entrenched position with line of riflemen covered by machine guns. The only standoff munition that will truly put you out of harms way for A/G work entirely will be the SLAM-ER. That being said ED is slowly gradually but getting there in making the game feel more live, but the balance of having to actually make modules to generate a profit. They did stat that 2020 will be a year of focusing on core game play mechanics.

Although i joined this community long before any multi-role fighters were about and although i enjoy flying just about any type of combat aircraft i really finally found what encompassed of what i was looking for in an aircraft when the Hornet came out. ( even though i would have preferred a Super Hornet even more). It was also great to see more diversification of flashy multi-role aircraft with the additions of the Viper and Jeff.

No, more of a technical fascination of more cutting edge technology, and was just trying to brainstorm of what truly would be another technical milestone in development of a module, since stealth or AESA is not something yet done in DCS, and like i said probably too optimistic to think it would. Although i wont deny that the F22 would in fact be an automatic I win against anything else currently flying in DCS, that is until youd eventually get servers that mixed F22's on redforce. XD

ahh i see

Yes that is a noted capability. It will remain to be seen if ED will simulate that. Edit: From a totally different thread that this image was posted but in this image is something that resembles an Island shape on the A2A search radar, with what looks to be a 7th waypoint ( Some additional sensor fusion?) Not sure if it is indeed what it looks like though, but that look like a monochrome map, that is for some reason displayed on the A2A Radar page

Flanker may have started the series, but got gradually more popular as aircraft were expanded to include nato one. Lets be honest the first module that really set the bar for DCS study level simulation was the A10C . Though most would agree A10 being somewhat of a acquired taste due to being single role aircraft relative to more mainstream appeal of faster multi role fighter, but for that reason the next major milestone in DCS in terms of modules and new tech related specifically to them ( ignoring core game play or engine improvements) since then has been the F/A18C. Multi mission fighter coupled with the soon to be released Super Carrier addon for immersive carrier operations. If we use keyword like milestone, I dont see a full fidelity Flanker module version of the FC3 version as a milestone just as most here would agree that the F15C module ( whilst both addition would be welcome) wouldn't really be a milestone relative to what we already have.

Actually you can model a modern battlefield, just call it it a low intensity "modern" battlefield :megalol:. In all seriousness though whilst what you state is true, ED wishes is to do a "modern" time period. I know the term can be vague, and relative to a person witnessing events at a certain time frame but the game series began with Flanker and continued to with FC3, and with DCS today. Remember that the original map and oldest initial campaign for DCS that was intended to be represented was the 2008 Georgian war. The first release of DCS came around not too long afterwards. All other scenarios since ( such as NTTR and Gulf) were also centered with the 21st century, and almost certainly post 2008 in terms of map design. It also appears Syria and Mariana islands in design are also 21st century, if not outright present day (at most only a few years old in terms of intended time frame design) I dont know about you, but would you call conflicts from just a few years ago not still be considered "modern" relative to present day? Even if you want to go back more than a decade, life in 2008 was not fundamentally different as opposed to today. Although i suppose that an be relative to what part of the world you live in. Sure Flaming cliffs preceded full on study sim that was DCS , and before that Flanker series, but the aircraft represented there were probably the more modern types that could be simulated during the 90s. In the 90s, the Su27S was still Russians cream of the crop air superiority fighter, as was the F15C for the USA.

i know its called that interchangeably but people use the term AMPCD to avoid confusing with preceding MPCD which is an older color capable (CRT as opposed to LCD) display that debuted with F/A18C Lot12 Night attack. similarly if you want to play semantics... one could argue endlessly why in the super Hornet Left and right displays are still called DDI's and lower Center display is still call an MPCD, when all displays can be considered "digtal display Indicators" or especially in the case of the present day super Hornets, "multipurpose Colour Displays" as all are capable of multipurpose use and of displaying colors. AS is the air forces term multi function display is instead used, but honestly mulifunction = multipurpose. They are different words but basically convey same meaning. Besides being proffered selected terminology for a given service its all just semantics.

modern doesn't have to mean the latest and greatest technology available or even necessarily set in the absolute present day. IN the 1860s in the us civil war, breach loading weapons even some with metal catridges ammunition existed, as well repeating weapons ( level action) existed, But were not that common. The standard issue weapon during this era were muzzle loading rifled muskets. Such new weapon types didn't become common place standard issue until the following decade. In ww2 the Germans invented the first assualt rifle, yet the standard issue weapon for Germany and most other nations armies ( with exception of the USA) were still bolt action rifles. the STG was noted in skirmishes, and from a design perspective mattered for what future small arms design would head, but in the grand scheme of war, its impact was minor. With exception of russia Most western countries were slow to appreicate advantages of an interim sized catridge, and ofa selective fire "assault rifle" and still went with the "battle rifle philosophy" post ww2. As another Jets existed in ww2. Germans were the first to put Jet driven aircraft into combat use with the likes of the Me262, but the standard fighter type for air forces including Germany remained propeller driven aircraft. Jet powered aircraft would not have a chance to proliferate into mainstream use until the early 50s for the Korean conflict. AS a nother example somtimes the equipment utilized is modern ( relative of a time period) but the tactics and doctrine are dated at the start of a conflict, and only after a rude awakening are changes made by military leaders to match the current technology present. ( Crimea, Civil war, and ww1 are good examples o ths) The same can be made for more modern eras of aviation. So what if the F22 existed in 2007? so few were produced, its an expensive air frame and its a designed as dedicated air superiority . Sure it would be cool to have in DCS, but its actual use in historical conflicts has been nearly non existent. The F16 up until recently was still the US air forces (and tbh still is until more F35 squadrons come about) its primary workhorse fighter, and other gen 4 aircraft like the F15C and F15E Strike Eagle are still in active duty use and are expected to be so well into the future. Wheras the F22 raptor has farted around in circles, the F16 has seen extensive use even into the GWOT. Block 50 we have in DCS is fairly considered "modern" becuase the CCIP program essentially brought vipers to 21st century standards, even if most of the updates are incremental and not groundbreaking big like a new radar type or other. Sure Super Hornets were already around in more significant numbers by 2007, but the first block Super Hornets were really just larger Hornets with longer legs and 2 extra hardpoints for the most part. Block 2's had incremental improvements, and didnt get any major upgrades until AESA radars. Due to developmental problems with software, AESA radars only exited in low rate on a handful of Super bugs for evaluation purposes until Lot 30 of the block 2 production were the first to actually get serviceable AESA radars ( and those were Growlers) and first SH production batch to have them. It then took a number further years to back fit AESA radars for all block 2 LOt 26-29 production already in operational service. The super Hornets produced since lot 30 for the USN , have all been Growlers with the exception of lot 37 and 38 batch which in included a handful of of low rate E' and F's. the F35 is the latest and greatest multi mission stealth , but even that wont replace everything in the Air force or Navy. The F16's will continue to see use with Air National Guard, nor will the F35A replace the Strike Eagle or A10 warthog as initially intended. IN turn the Navy are going to operate Super Hornet's alongside F35C's. You have to realize that more major changes to the Viper didnt start happening until very recently. Stuff like 3 center MFD, or AESA radar are sets of upgrades that are just happening now for the USAF.just like the F15E strike eagle only a small number have AESA radars ( first batch only delivered for operation use in 2017), and are far from seeing mass proliferation among the Strike Eagle fleets. Stuff like the block 70 Viper are export market only, for nations that either cant afford a true next generation design like the F35, or for nations that USA won't sell the F35 to. Edit: would also point out, that the F18C hasn't been retired for "many years"? But only 1.5-2 years at most. And even then its only retired from active duty service, not from Blue Angels or reserve units. The Marine corps for example cant afford to retire the legacy hornet yet because they didn't opt for super hornets nor do they have enough F35B's yet in service. They instead investing money to upgrade Legacy Hornets with AESA radars, the first of which should reach operational service this year.