Kev2go

AFAIK thats only becuase Aim9X's haven't been integrated on A10's. Its not a fighter, its a subsonic ground attack aircraft thats been operating in uncontested airspace . So it hasn't been a priority. Wheras ANG previously had mostly block 25-32 modernized F16's even as ANG gets more block 40 and block 50' hand me downs from USAF they want to replace JHMCS with Scorpion HMD on those well. https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digital-battlespace/us-air-national-guard-adopts-scorpion-hmd-for-f-16-pilots/ Even some European operators of F16A MLUS ( which run common M series software tape that USAF block 40thru 52 do ) have been replacing Jhmcs with scorpion, and have access to AIm9X https://www.key.aero/article/aim-9x-belgian-f-16s https://www.key.aero/article/belgian-air-force-f-16s-transition-jhmcs-scorpion-hmd

so why not just adopt the Scorpion HMD at this point? that itself was superior to JHMCS gen 1 and the ANG already adopted those years ago on thier F16's and A10's. Or is Thales stealing any more of the market from Elbit a no no ?

indeed Ah1Z is not some black box, like people would think. Theres been a Ah1Z manual dated from 2008 ( preliminary pub) predating its official service of 2010, that has been floating around for years. With the information it contains its basically a equivalent of US army TM operators manual of the AH64D. About the only thing superior on the Ah1Z is its PVI ( subjective) and larger more modern displays. remember that Ah1Z didn't get any form of datalink or a longbow radar pod until recently. Arguably Date of introduction doesn't matter as much as capabilities do. In that arena the Ah64D is superior in everything with the exception of MFD displays and PVI ( latter is arguably subjective) and lacking a2a defense capability since Ah1z can shoot Aim9's. I personally thing the real issue is that Bell are "difficult" to work with with how protectionist they are with thier IP. ( Perhaps only surpassed by Dassault ), wheras Boeing is much easier to work with from what ive heard, regardless of the platform.

IF ED is calling dibs on all the sweet stuff surprised they didnt also reserve SE for themselves, that its a Razbam project.

All i can say i was initially surprised to see a Ch47 before a something from the Blackhawk family. I always thought a Medium utility was the happy middle ground between being to actually haul a meaningful amount of cargo or people without being a oversized pig of a bus whilst still have gunship options without being a total lightweight like the Uh1 Huey. Although rumor is Ch47 became a thing due to military contract, especially given what looks to be a Italian version of the CH47F that is being modelled.

sounds to me like you just described an F16A. TBH can even include F16C blocks 25 thru 32 ( pre SCU modernization) " nothing to assist pilot in target identification, and no ability to deploy precision guided munitions unaided"

pre orders started on 8th of october of 2021. whilst release was delayed it was released in march of 2022. 5 months isnt almost a year, albeit longer than usual due aforementioned delay, which otherwise would of been Jan of 2022.

If something goes on pre order sale it's generally within a few months of release at most.( even less at times) I don't recall any past module being on pre order for so long customers had to wait nearly an entire year before it being launched after paying for it. This will set a record for a first if that turns out to be the case waiting until next Xmas.

Because that not detailed enough. And because they decided to do a contradiction. If lantirn was what it was going to launch with first. That should of been shown off in some way, when all we have seen is litening 2. With that aside i can accept lantirn being first pod at launch. However litening shouldn't be limited to specific ctu via special tab in options menu when it was available and used with suite 4+ and circa 2003-2005 timeframe, even if its not going to be the first pod present at EA. Only stuff like new ufc, sniper and jhmcs are from later suites ,deserve to be part of a special tab

Myself and others were very much anticipating the Litening 2 as being the TGP in question for launch not lantirn. Not only was Razbam hinting at this based on thier prior order items , I mean some of the videos where you see the actual TGP display in function from a MPD be it from notso vids' or Steve davies ( cockpit video 2) looked like Litening 2. Not lantirn. ( lantirn is IR only. No TV mode) , and it looks different compared to the documentation i have on F15E lantirn. So If given up to this point Razbam had not shown off Lantirn pod functionality via internal cockpit MPD , only snippets of Litening 2, logic would of indicated to expect Litening 2 not Lantirn, thus it comes as unexpected and shocking turn to not only say that won't be the case. but to say Litening 2 will be part of a "later era" CTU thats ticked off via special options. Further clarification is needed.

what a comedian

so in what order to expect agm130 or jdams? since that omitted from roadmap? ( also suite 4+ features and not from "later eras" )

this is confusing. shouldn't Litening 2 also be available before 2010 CTU? thier own guy on the team Notso who flew a suite 4+ IRRC retired in 2005 said SE had Litening 2 Pod as a interim solution and so you had squadrons flying with mix of Lantirn and Litening 2 in OIF. So a circa 2005 suite 4+ jet should have access to Litening 2, with the old UFC., without needing a "special option" . Its not anachronistic at all. Sniper XR pod also didn't take until 2015 to become integrated. it was first integrated with Suite 5 which irrc was starting in 2006, although i can understand the special option given that was a post Suite 4+ feature

Theres more to radars than just their detection ranges. Even if Razbams radar detection estimates end up having worse detection ranges than a AWg9, Strike eagle pilots using that Apg70 won't have to have to deal with the limitations that tomcat crew have to with the vintage AWG9 radar system, even if they have longer reach on paper with that phoenix. ITs easier to trash a radar lock/track that only operates in HPRF in its PD mode ( no MPRF) than something in the class of the APG68/70/73. SO Apg70 can be expected to have all the nice features Hornet and Viper Drivers enjoy with thier more modern radars in a2a but without having low detection ranges as those smaller radar sets. Plus will have better SA when Link 16 gets added ( not EA feature IRRC) . SO Id expect F15E to still be serious threat in BVR to not be underestimated. as for its dogfight performance that remains to be seen as some say its not much worse than a F15C due these models having the beefier 229 engines to compensate for weight gain Its close combat capability also will depends whether it gets aim9x further in development or not. yeah the SE is a strike aircraft, but of course people will go do A2A in the SE because it can. and in part because no FF F15C.

did ED have any engineering or systems manuals for F/A18C? SCS H10 suite was introduced in 2015. A potential SH module doesn't even have to be that recent. The only exception of an aircraft module that would be representative of a post 2010 (in general timeframe) so far is A10C II with its scorpion helmet and maybe the JF17 thunder. i recall seeing some HOL references there, for when it applied to the H based software versus SCS X series. But thats the assumption ED or any 3rd party would do an Aesa based SH. Early on some block 2's lots had Apg73 before being refitted with aopg79 . BLock1 lot Lot 25 started using HOL, but still had APG73. The only reason to do A Lot 25 would be for a more modern looking cockpit visuals, . Newer color DDI displays instead of the archaic old DDI's like legacy's hornets had., at least in the context of a Single seat models. Of course they didn't. because a Legacy Hornet didn't use H series, a least not in US service.

Maybe im misunderstanding, but to me this HOL argument ( pun not intended) just seems like a fallacy. As an analogy if i wanted to simulate an Operating system within a video game, let say Windows XP. Would i need to copy paste MS windows OS code ( even if i had permission to do so) to simulate it? No you wouldn't. Do you think just because ED or any 3rd party can emulate what a pilot sees on ther Multipurpose display or HUD or whatever, they have copy pasted the exact software code using that exact programming language for us virtual pilots that the aircraft used in RL? No. they don't afaik. They just design it to visually resemble what information is presented in documentation based on stuff like dash 1's and Dash 34's, ( or any comparable documentation of the sort like NAtops etc) The only relevance I see a software suite ever has for simulation is to determining what weapons an aircraft can use, and what procedural symbols are displayed to operate a given avionics system or weapon in a given intended timeframe of simulation. So unless HOL based suites function totally differently for the end user or offer new features that result more than subtle procedural changes, i don't think getting hung up on programming language is worth it. What is instead relevant is what documentation is available, and if there is determined to be adequate simply work from there on a potential simulation

It should outrun out accelerate and outclimb an a6 intruder as well.

have only a few hours of flight in the I-16. Not having a trim option and having to always keep my hand on the stick and keeping it pointed upwards no matter the speed or have the plane just take a nosedive was a deal breaker for me, even if it is a "feature" not a bug. aside from that. I dont really fly the trainers anymore although i did put in a fair bit of time flying the L39C/ZA back in the day.

Lot 20 is a mish mash of OFP's A10C II is a mish mash of suites. F16C is not a pure M4 tape jet. F15E strike eagle will end up to be a mish mash of Suites ( since it will get post Suite 4+ features like aim9x or SNiper TGP) . Nothing strictly saying hypthoetical Super Hornet has to be a A lot 24 or earlier, just to conform to a specific software suites(s). I think a Lot 25 would be desired just for cockpit aesthetics, the new LCD DDI's and not the same ugly archaic DDI's dating back from lot 12 legacy hornets

there are also some F15E student workbooks in circulation that you can find, at least up till suite 3, because those weren't even ITAR restricted unlike say even a Dash 1 manual. Student workbooks Only started getting ITAR labels suite 4 and up.

thats only as a result of "GWOT" aka low intensity wars. the moment you look at conventional wars again, and especially IFR conditions suddenly A2G radar will find use again. and yes there are radars on aircraft in US service that can manage to attack targets smaller than an Airfield runway or Industrial park. F35 , F15E, F/A18E/F ( if its APG79) , although the F35 will be the best of the bunch due to the advertised ability to discriminate between vehicle types. also consider the US navy is still using ATFLIR in present day and that pod is aged, relative to both newer versions of Litening 2, and Sniper. It has not yet been replaced or upgraded. Since DCS doesn't simulate digital zoom degradation this results in even the Litening 2 AT being superior to ATFLIR, since it can produce the same image quality but get zoom in closer on a target.

hard to say if you dont have direct picture to compare to, but from the few included 2007 document it appears the AESA sarmap doesn't look better than what the F15E can do with APG70. Granted there are multiple improvement of APG79 at this point ( latest one is V4) irrc. https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2007/psa_apr/gaddis.pdf

hmmm but how many "smart" or "guided" munitions can the cat carry? and what sensors or attack suite does it have for utilizing those varying munitions vs the SE? Nothing to do with being an armchair by having aksed you to further elaborate. It wanted to be sure you were not conflating "modern" with "more capable" because although the implication at times is such, not always the case. With that aside It is interesting to see that F15E is a later development than Hornet was ( 1983 vs 1989 IOC, so you would think F15E avionics would be a notch above), but didnt get MSI, whereas down the road the legacy Hornet did . Perhaps that had to do with the thought that lacking MSI wasnt as big of a deal when you had a second human to manage workload? Not to say that having a proper MSI wouldn't be a nice to have in the SE.

define more modern "avionics? actual MSI maybe? besides "MSI"i dont see what the Legacy Hornet has that would really make it "more modern" , considering Aim9x and JHMCS are planned IRRC.

kind of like the Razbam F15E? Its supposed to be a suite 4+ simulation but for gameplay purposes have expressed interest to throw in features and weaponry that would only apply from later suites. So depending on what players fly the F15E can be a something of a franken jet too. If course this is going to rustle certain peoples jimmies, that Razbam isn't doing a 100% pure suite 4+ jet from an exact year. but i guess you can't make everyone happy. IF you choose to do a specific year for for an earlier era you have most documentation on people will complain its too early and limited in features and want a later version to have more gameplay diversity. IF a developer does a later version at the expense of "realism" or perception they are creating something of franken aircraft you get the side of the community that complains its breaks realism for making the plane too fantasy.