Wizard_03

We are, ED has stated the IR coding for the entire game needs to be re-worked before we see it in the hornet thou. We're just saying that the technology was basically supplanted by NVGs in RL, in the hornet community.

Grid numbers will come in handy for nine line read backs. Sight picture also looks a lot cleaner, at least for INR, he didn't put it in a pod track mode or show what action slewing looks like yet.

Yeah I don't think it was ever used operationally, in any case. NVGs are much more ideal.

The hotspot Detector on the harrier radar/NA is tied to the dedicated FLIR window above the nose, not LITENING. ATFLIR for the hornet has FLIR built into the pylon that attaches it too station 4 but I don't think it has hotspot detector. Its just NAVFLIR AFAIK.

If they had went with that approach in the hornet, the jet would only have like 5 weapons in the game. This is a big part of the USAF F-15E's mission set, It absolutely needs some attention. At the very least, they could add an Inert version for training. Just to acknowledge the fact that tactical nuclear weapons delivery is something aircrews do indeed train on and are expected to be able to perform if required. It is a part of the F-15E experience.

The engine is very powerful. F-35As kinematics are better then F-16s in realistic situations. The engines true power has not been publicized, however pilot testimony and recorded maneuvers demonstrate that it's a lot more powerful then what people initially thought. Evidentially it's mind blowing. And the range on internal fuel is considerably better then all three of the legacy birds it's replacing?

I don't agree that the USAF is admitting the F-35 is a failure by wanting to explore more cost effective solutions in 4++ I think force projections for potential adversaries for today were exaggerated when the JSF was in it's conceptual phase and the reality is F-35s high techology is not quite needed yet, and so it's not necessary to have the entire force 5th generation YET. So therefore US government does not need to dump money on it like it's going out of style. In other words the F-35 is so successful that they can relax and look at saving even more money. If potential adversaries had indeed modernized their forces as fast as projected in the late 90s early 2000s this wouldn't be an issue because F-35 and 5th generation would be a requirement for modern air warfare. But the fact is it isn't yet and might not be until 2040. Many of these adversaries are just now looking at F-22 counters. Let alone 5th gen multirole. So is the F-35 a failure? Far from it, it's overqualified for it's job.

I love these threads, you know the rack has three stations and fighter jets are like Legos so you can snap pieces together wherever you want. Lol The should allow you to do this in the game, but make the inboard bombs explode when they contact your aircraft and or rip your tanks off. Same thing with triple mavericks, allow it but have the inboard missile damage your stabs when it fires. That way we can simulate the effects of prohibited stores loading.

That would have made much more sense, and another issue is trying to estimate costs for designs that are still in development with countries changing political situations affecting procurement figures at the same time, two situations that are often co-dependant. but that isn't an F-35 specific problem. Too me that's like trying to figure out what dinner is gonna cost before you get hungry and don't know how many people are actually going to be eating.

Definitely, the A-10 mission requirements are completely different, and at odds with the F-35s intended roles. Speaking of airframes, I also feel like the media also often forgets that the F-35 is actually replacing three separate aircraft, each of which is pretty much the back bone, of it's respective branch of service. So Its no wonder the total program cost is high. Looking at it that way IMO is deceptively simplistic. If they were to design and procure three completely clean sheet 5th generation replacements for the hornet, viper, and harrier add the cost of all of those programs up and compare that number to the F-35 Program cost, I guarantee it would be higher, a lot higher.

The media had lots of "concerns" about the F-16 program that turned out to be the result of ignorance and a general lack of understanding in the field of, then modern air warfare. Many at that time were suggesting that alternatives like the mirage F1 and viggen and what we today would say we're 3rd generation designs would be better decisions, and offer more value for money. No one today would say that either of those aircraft come close to F-16 performance or overall systems growth or effectiveness. Picking one of those other aircraft over the viper would have been like picking a sopwith camel over a spitfire. It wouldn't surprise me, if the same kind of ignorance exists now regarding the F-35 and the realities of today's air warfare situation. Time will tell if the F-35 truly is successful but all real indications to date are that it's the best multirole fighter available and essentially represents a generational leap over it's competition. Just like the viper was for it's time.

It's quite far off, the F-15C is faster and can fly much higher. And it can stay in those states for a much more reasonable amount of time, with more missiles. It's stores, also are laid out better. Put bags, six missiles, and in the future an ECM pod on and the F-16 becomes something of a minivan. I will admit The F-16 is easier to fly and can still be max performed more or less by rookies. But just like the tomcat there's a huge difference with an experienced eagle driver at the controls. Someone that knows that jet really well can put themselves in situations where it's advantages start to stack and you end up defensive, pretty much the whole way up too the merge. No other fighter has that potential in the game right now.

This right here, I get the sense that a few people are disregarding the fact, that all the raw performance the F-15C offers, has a direct correlation to how far that missile goes and how deadly it is. Even the FC3 version with its slew of low fidelity, and simplified systems model is still THE biggest threat in the game right now. It almost can’t be touched, in realistic conditions, with someone at a high experience level behind the wheel.

While I agree an 80s one would fit in with many of the current game assets better. The F-15C is not "another" AMRAAM truck it's THE AMRAAM truck. The current fighters that use the weapon in DCS can't match the F-15C in spear throwing. Not even close. Maybe the eurofighter will, but not the viper, and certainly not the bug.

Well done ED! This is has been a long time coming, the hornet is an enormous milestone for DCS and flight sim as a whole. Thank you!

Many of those "concerns" were also directly addressed by EDs FM engineer in the exact same threads, if you bother to read them.

Harli, I think its the same for historically accurate liveries on the German WW2 birds. Its fine if someone puts its in the game, as long as ED didn't put it there. Because that someone is not under Russian law, and ED is not required to restrict that content.

I can have wingmen too, but if you have to have at least 2v1 for the harrier to actually be a problem then its not really better then the hornet, is it? Even still if the odds are too far against me, then I can just plug in the burners and have a nice life. On the other hand 2v1 against the harrier is pretty much a dead harrier whether he likes it or not. But this is all assuming, of course, we're in silly world where dogfights actually happen. Otherwise 120s make this entire conversation moot.

Energy is the most important thing if we're wanting to get behind for a low aspect shot. It has high ITR sure, maybe higher then the hornets down low, but that doesn't mean much if the fight lasts longer then a single turn. Because he cant keep doing that. And he can viff all he wants, if I'm far enough behind him (like you should be if you know basic BFM) it wont make a difference. He'll be outside the jet before I overshoot. No radar also means he only has SEAM, which means he needs to get way closer too boresight for heaters then me. I can slave lock. He's gotta pull that much more just to get the missile out. I don't, so he's gonna worry about mine before I need to think about his. Also again, keeping your eyes on the bad guy, for me, falls in the same category as not falling asleep.

I'm talking about dogfighting. These principles apply to ACM. I don't need to get into a clime race with the harrier. I don't need to start in a neutral position. I can get the initiative before the first turn because I will have an energy advantage. Even I were to screw up, I can run away and come back and start over. There's no situation where the harrier is dictating to me how the fight goes. Its completely the other way around. Harrier is reacting to my decisions because I start with the advantages and it's only up to me to keep them.

Yes exactly, first and foremost I have that option, harriers don't. Second, a million harriers behind me isn't threat if they can't get into parameters. How are they going to catch me above mach 1 or at altitude, when I control the closure rate? Because this whole conversation is predicated on the harrier being a threat to the hornet. Third and most importantly, by being able to choose when 'I' want to attack I can negate their clime rate advantage or any other advantage they might possess by simply not attacking when that might be a factor for them, and conversely attacking when it is the most favorable for the hornet. I suppose I could envision a scenario where a hornet pilot might be Caught low and slow, and the harrier is the one that gets the jump on it. But again it would require the pilot to be asleep or so green he smells like grass. Neither of which are best practice planning rules for the harrier. Because by that reasoning a Mi-8 is a threat to the hornet. Or I should say, Its a threat if you let it become one, by getting yourself in a situation where it has a shot at you. The only way the harrier wins is if you let it, by playing its game and trying to fight it where its more even and it comes down to pilot greatness. There's a great many scenarios where the hornet wins by just being better at xyz.

What does it matter how many? it could be 1v10 and it wouldn't matter because they can't get weapons on me unless 'I' decide to come down and and get slow for them. Its as basic as Dicta Boelcke. I have COMPLETE control over the engagement because I'm faster and can fly higher. Don't give that up and the harrier is 100 percent at my mercy. Nvmd the turn rate, energy management, and weapon system advantages the hornet has. None of that even needs to come into play, because I decide; if, when, where, and how the fight happens. The harrier doesn't get a say in any of that.

Maybe if the hornet driver fell asleep you'd have a shot. LOL If you don't slow down and don't go low and the harrier has zero chance of threatening you because It can't get into WEZ.

Welcome to 1970s electronics

Meh, I can deal with all that, between BRA calls and ownship sensors its not that hard to figure out whats going on, sure its nice having it served to you on a fancy collated Situational display but I can make do in the MiG without that. There's absolutely zero I can do about 120s. Once someone gets in parameters with it, you loose the ability to take the initiative and are defensive until they run out of them or your dead. More SA doesn't fix that problem, Lack thereof can certainly make it worse but fundamentally its the weapon that kills me. Because of 120 the western jets can attack and defend at the same time, I can't in the MiG-29A. So they always have control over the engagement.