Hog_No32

And since you are asking about missions (combat, I suppose), yes, Marine Hornet squadrons have also deployed to airfields during actual conflicts like in the Gulf Wars for example.

Agree 100%. And since now we are not only talking about the use of the control surfaces called rudder but essentially about when to use the pedals, keep in mind you always use them for taxiing and braking as well. It‘s funny that I did not even think about crosswinds. Probably because since the Hornet is out I am not flying any other jet and basically always land on the boat where crosswinds are no issue (Thanks Captain for always turning into the wind :smilewink:)

In addition to what Harker already said, some use rudders for very minor course adjustments during air-to-air refuelling. The advantage of using rudders (yaw) instead of the stick (roll) in that scenario is that you don‘t change the vertical lift component when you only induce a bit of yaw. If you use roll instead not only the course changes (desired) but also the vertical lift component changes (not desired) which forces you to compensate with another control input. But yeah, mainly they are used in ACM and especially at low speeds.

All 4? Did I miss an edition? I thought the Raven series spans only 3 books (Raven One, Declared Hostile, Fight Fight)...:huh:

Yeah, good one to start from, knowing this from my early days in the Hog.:music_whistling: Having said that, it does not have all the SAMs and radars that were added in the past couple years (like SA-2, Rapier) plus it doesn‘t show any blue systems (like Patriot, Roland, Aegis).

Fully agree!

Thanks =4c=Nikola and Ga-Bika. I already thought about the conversion from DDDMM.MM but had hoped there was a more easy way to look up the high precision DDDMMSS.SS somewhere within the ME. But ok, it‘s easy math (...must be if I can do it:music_whistling: ). Thanks again.

Can‘t wait to try this mod out, sounds great. Question though: I noticed that many reported that it already is possible to enter the decimal seconds after the first press on ENTER for much higher precision (...of course). But where do you get that precise coordinates from a target in the ME? I‘m using the Lat Long format option and that only gives me DDDMMSS but not the .SS in the top left of the ME screen. So I guess there must be another way to get them.

Agree. Especially since we‘re having a whole lot more features in our Hornet now compared to the early days of early access. Definitely not near feature-complete yet but it can already perform many different missions very well. Personally, for me the only big feature that is missing and limiting me in my mission design is the ATFLIR. I am more a mud-mover than a dogfighter, hence my preference :smilewink:

Thank you G B. Well, I‘d say the fact that the button is just part of the UFC makes it very prominent. Compare that to an airliner cockpit where it is located completely outside of the forward field of view and down in the center console where the transponder panel is usually mounted.

Thanks Jak, pretty interesting. I know the IDENT functionality from the civil transponders which - at least over here in central Europe - is used very very rarly in day-to-day line operations. But I was completely unaware that the military uses a similar system. Question: Is the fact that the designers placed the I/P button so prominently on the UFC an indication that this is frequently used in fighter jets (or at least more frequent than in the civil world)?

Very true. And I just realized how much of a perishable skill it is. I considered myself somewhat proficient in AAR and once I mastered it in the Hornet I usually plugged in at the first or second „stab“ and stayed on the basket as long as needed (at least on the KC-130 and KC-135MPRS...the S-3 was a bit harder in the beginning due to its shorter hose). Now I didn‘t had time to fly a lot for about the last two or three weeks and just hopped in the Hornet last night. I realized I found it much more difficult to do AAR after a couple of weeks without being exposed to it. So even if you have mastered AAR once - keep practicing, practicing, practicing. :smilewink:

I don‘t think so. This is just as it is on the real plane which has been confirmed in multiple posts recently. This is also the major reason why you want to have certain pages such as the radar only on the right DDI.

I think that would be kinda unrealistic since AWACS as I know them don‘t care about ground targets. They don‘t have any sensors to detect and locate ground targets simply because that is not their mission. That is what JSTARS was developed for. It more likely will be other (attack) aircraft that will share ground targets with you one day. I am thinking of the A-10C, maybe the Harrrier too and hopefully other 4th gen AI jets F-15Es , F-16Cs...and of course another F/A-18C as well.

I would think exactly because they are independent you don‘t slew them alltogether but only each individual missile‘s seeker. Hence, the missile seeker of the other missiles don‘t know where the first one was looking at.

Again, I appreciate your efforts to respond, Rainmaker. I apologize for not being able to explain what I meant in a way that would allow you to understand what I meant. Anyway, let‘s keep it at that.

Thanks Gunner for your input. I understand and agree to it all. Again, I am not arguing dumb bombs are better or more effective in general than guided and/or standoff munition. That‘s a no-brainer, the advantages of precision-guided and standoff weapons are clear (even to a virtual pilot like me who has been shot down at least a hundred times in A-10C CCIP‘ing...). My whole point is there might still be, as limited and small as they might be - scenarios in the future where you could just bomb a target in CCIP with a Mk83. At least as long as there is a reasonable difference in the total mission cost of employing a dumb Mk83 compared to a GBU-16 or -32.

Well, I think it was clear why I posed those questions to you after you sort of disputed my response to Dawgie79‘s question whether there still is a case for dumb bombs when PGM is available. If not, pls read again iand put it onto the context of the discussion. And no, I don‘t mean usage of the „body“ of an Mk83 to turn it into a GBU-16 but I mean a Mk83 dropped as a Mk83...„dumb but deadly“ as I‘d say when employed correctly and under suitable conditions.

Appreciate the discussion, Rainmaker. When I talked about dumb bombs being still in the inventory I did refer to Mk82 (in all its variants), Mk83 and Mk84. I was not talking about the inert training BDUs and I think I know when and why these are used in training instead of the multitude of live bombs they are supposed to simulate. I have no doubt that in all campaigns of this century mostly PGMs were dropped by allied forces and probably only a very limited number of unguided bombs.The reasons I think can be found in areas of availability, collateral damage control and possibly simply the prevailing types of missions (CAS) and the general order of battle in the big picture. The conflict I had in mind was a sovereign nation vs a sovereign nation, somewhat like the 1991 Gulf War. In the 2000s, we‘ve basically seeing counter-insurgency warfare exclusively. Nevertheless, obviously some folks in charge believe that Mk80 series bombs might still be used today or tomorrow. And so do I. Otherwise, and I ask that question again since I haven‘t read an answer to it, why on earth would you maintain a stockpile of these guys? Why would you waste ammo storage for them (which has to be owned, maintained, secured, checked), even on aircraft carriers where space is a luxury? Why would you train airmen and pilots how to build, maintain, arm and employ these weapons if there clearly is no use case for them anymore? Again, I appreciate the discussion.

IIRC any AI FA-18C Lot 20 will have the covers on after they land and park. So it is not limited to static or uncontrolled planes.

...emphasis on "currently". There simply has been no campaign of a scale that the same issue as in 2003 would resurface. It was the case in 1991 as well, even though, admittedly, LGBs were just integrated into some fleets at that time. I'd argue that they are since otherwise why do the armed forces still purchase and maintain and train Mk80 series bombs when money is not an issue?

In a permissive environment (i.e. no or very limited air and ground threats), CCIPing dumb ammo can still be effective. With a tight system you could get reasonable accuracy during visual deliveries. The taxpayers like to see good use of their money and when a good ole Mk82 can do the job, you save them a lot compared to using a GBU-12 or -38.

From the images and info Wags provided recently it looks like they are first implementing airborne assets only in the initial iterations of the SA page. So I wouldn‘t expect to see any ground or sea threats there. At a later stage, for sure. It probably also ties in with the MUMI (aka data cartridge) development.

I am sure I‘ve read somewhere that is is not. Or at least that, in order for the Luftwaffe to use the Rhino in the nuclear role, it had to undergo basically the same sort of certificiation and approval from the MoD that a Eurofighter woukd have to (...admittedly, a US-built design might mean the process would get a bit more love and support from the authorities compared to a foreign design). That in turn sounds like a valid argument since the ECR Tornados would also need a replacement. Nevertheless I believe the F-35 with all its bells and whistles and a mature software block will prove to be an even better asset in the SEAD role and electronic warfare as a whole one day. All previous aircraft model that served in this role since Wild Weasels were born in the Vietnam days were derivates from existing fighters and attack planes. As are the Tornado and the Growler. Another argument pro F-35 might be commonality with other European air forces who operate the same model. Leaving out France, of course, most important European air forces have decided for the F-35. That can provide benefits with spare part pooling and shared training. On the other side, no other European nation has decided for Super Hornets yet, there are a few opportunities though (Finland, Spain, Poland, Switzerland). And, by the time when Germany will finally declare IOC of either jet, the Growler will be a 20+ year old derivate of an 30+ year old design.

Given their posture „to favor a European solution“, one really wonders what criteria caused the F-35 to be out of scope while the Super Hornet remains in the race. They‘ve been pretty clear on this so I doubt Airbus really has to fear any competition - and accordingly Germany has few arguments at hand to push Airbus for a competitive offer... really weird stuff.