Kev2go

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.

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.