Kev2go

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.

I personally haven't find a F15E Suite 4+ dash 1 or Dash 34 ( i think thats like circa 2002-2004) via quick google search. therefore it doesn't exist. Again its clear this is one of those instances where a developer likely has more documentation that might be privy due to license agreements. Also just because ED hasnt done something as well as it should, doesn't mean other developers cant do something better. Remember that right now Razbams a2a radar simulation is better than ED's...... And this is a developer that had a rocky start. My opinion of Razbam in 2022 is very different than what it was in 2017.

sooo what i said basically. It needs to have an entire team actually setup a radar ( 2 piece unit) on the the ground to direct an with its beam to a given target. Which in practice when placed going to require an encampment of its own to operate and protect said target or placement an outright base for use in CAS to protect major bases against sieges ( IE like Khe Sanh) and not something troops would be able carry with them do when patrolling in the sticks considering this isnt remotely light weight or compact enough of a device to be carried on backpack like a radio or a laser designator. AS i understand it this is effetely just a GCI like system but instead of A2A for A2G purposes. the F4B/N/J 1972 tacman air to ground operations section is predominantly centered around manual bombing. the only "self contained" system that doesn't require presence of an externally operated system to be guided to a target like AN/TPQ 10 is the Conlabs system which is a computed Toss bombing system like Labs but for lofting general pupose bombs instead of tactical nukes. But even looking at late 1988 publications ( although not tacmans) Air to ground avionics didnt change in the remaining F4J/S wheras Air force phantoms continued getting avionics upgrades, and additional weapons that would increase its "multirole" and strike potential, including precision or guided munitions. Compare this to varying Dash 34's of Phantoms and F4D/E's are much more air to ground capable than F4B/N/J/S. Especially the case with the later E's upgraded with DMAS and with a targeting pod and laser spot and track system. So for a service that runs ground attack the naval/usmc phantoms where less capable and less flexible for ground strike relative to Air force phantoms. But perhaps its because Navy had attack jets A4/A6/A7 and thus felt no need to made thier phantoms proper multirole, and its original role as an interceptor was effectively made redundant once F14's came around. So the TLDR is US navy phantoms ( at least F4J/S) are superior interceptors because those models have pulse doppler radars. wheras US air force phantoms lacked PD , but air force phantoms, even more so F4E were more flexible/ multirole and more effective for air to surface strike. So especially in the context of DCS even ignoring choice between land or carrier operations its clear which types of virtual pilots will prefer which version of a phantom depending on what they want to do

yes i am aware razbam has stated they have no plans anymore for the 2000-5F. that was never the point, but to demonstrate there is still strong interest from the community in a 2000-5F even if its still not multirole, including from people like myself who otherwise are very much multirole fans.

Ok i appreciate the clarification and the transparency on how FM adjustments was made.

The Mirage 2000C's air to ground capabilities aren't much to begin with. only dumb munitions or being a laser bomb truck for buddy lasing. even F16A would of been more flexible in the A/G department( mavericks aside) because you can choose your preffered method of delivery, CCIP or CCRP, or using navigation or radar based bombing. I like multirole aircraft as much as the next guy but there are some Mostly a2a ( or even entirely pure A2A) fighters that i would consider buying like the F15C . M2000-5F, and especially Eurofighter ( well at least the luftwaffe version is pure a2a) That is unless Razbam could get documentation on one of the export based Mirage 2000-5 Mk2's that are used for "multirole" purposes, but i would very much support a M2000-5F.

I mean didn't helljumper just admit they have no concrete documentation? and they formulated that "data" based on cobbling together pincemeal sources like some Dogfight videos and some SME opinion? SO i dont see why people cant question its authenticity of the new FM change when the data are based on what amount to estimates relative to say an F16 turn rates taken from actual official documentation like a HAF manual.....

wasn't the the TPQ10 an external radar device used by the USMC for CAS? one that had to be setup on on the ground near a combat zone to guide phantoms to target? This seems like kind system that was made quickly redundant since later in the same decade USAF phantoms had AN/ASQ91 weapons release computer, or Air to Surface radar modes that could be for computed delivery, without needing such a external system. Even more so when laser spot and track systems became a thing.

F4J or S would make for a better interceptor, becuase it has PD radar. BUt F4E is more relevant version as it served not just in the USAF but In multiple foreign air forces, and its a more multirole jet. There is a 1972 Tacman available for the F4B/J/N phantoms, and only onboard computer aided bomb delivery mode i noticed was conlabs. Its a like LABS for toss bombing nukes, but added secondary purpose for tossing general purpose bombs. Other than that there is also passing mention of TPQ 10 for USMC but that seems to just be an external based radar director that needed to be setup near a combat ozone ( kind of like GCI but only for air to surface targets within LOS) which to me really sounds like quite a primitive system, considering this concept dated back to late ww2, which would seem redudant the moment aircraft had onboard avionics for computed delivery of munitions. Even pre DMAS, USAF based phantoms didnt just have a Nav computer but also had had AN/ASQ91 weapons release computer set, and as well as A/G Radar for to measure slant range for CCRP esque release. It is present and properly described in the Dash 34's. Seems to me the Air force phantoms have far more computed delivery modes, and thus arent as reliant on manual bombing ( or some form of external course directors) as navy would have been. Although IRRC kirk had said that the anlog stuff was quite finicky and only worked when it was properly calibrated and maintained. that the DMAS stuff was way more reliable, and functioned like in gen 4's minus the HUD. Perhaps the navy didnt see fit to invest in any more dedicated A/G avionics in thier phantoms since they had A4/A6/A7 fleet as dedicated attack platforms.

There were supposed to be multiple F4E's in 1 package. IRRc an F4E early without slats, F4E with slats, then an F4E late of sorts with with AN/ARN 101 DMAS ( which is a digital INS/Nav attack system that offers CCIP and CCRP aided munitions delivery) which is tippy end of the 70s, and more representative of phantoms that flew into the 80s. WHich I might add I am very looking forward to. Also said DMAS phantoms are compatible to use Pav Tac Targeting pod ( what F111F's used) . that version of the phantom will have solid place in 80s scenarios. But yea even most of the 3rd gen era aircraft we have in DCS are more representative of features from 80s regardless of how primitive or not they are. ( IE like the updated F5E3 airframe only production starting in 1979) For hyper modern variants like Terminator its a matter of whether or not you could get documentation on aircraft.