Hulkbust44

So then why does the HARM have low-band antennas?

For what it's worth, the CEP of a CCIP dropped iron bomb for a Hornet is 1m. A well-dropped Mk82 should beat a standard JDAM.

No, the HARMs need an emitter to be at accurate. The HARM is going to a location, at an altitude where it can best see emitters within a 1 or 5nm (no source atm) radius of the reference target point. The new AARGMs (AGM-88E) have a GPS and improved INS to try to hit an emitter at its last known location.

FCS BIT switch stuck up?

Lalt+C?

The latest ED statement on this was that it is an engine limitation, until a core change this logic will remain inverted.

Zoom/FOV is the radar elevation control, and RAID/FLIR/FOV select switch long press for IR/TV swap

CBs in the Hornet don't necessarily "trip", they are used to deenergize or reset a certain electrical system.

After start/before takeoff checks call for INS knob to IFA if GPS is available. Infact you get an advisory if you don't. P/INS on the ADV- line to tell you GPS is available but is not being used. null

"Balance" being you primary concern is why this is a ridiculous notion. The Hornet is limited to 7.5G for the sake of the lifespan of the aircraft. The limiter can easily be outrun to 8G+ which would happen IRL too. (You can even see it in a few HUD videos) there would be nothing close detrimental that the aircraft would endure at such a minimal over G. Are there missing G effects? Sure. A/G stores would be damaged or ripped off at 5.5G+, targeting pod limit is somewhere around 7.8G. Now if ED dared to implement the same thing in the Viper, their would be riots. Difference is the -16 dosen't have a dynamic G limiter so in a simulation where you can't feel the G, you better be staring at the HUD or you're going to break something. While we're at it, at 8G+ simulate the pilot not being able to move their head.

STEP + EXP seems to track better, but of course limits SA.

@BIGNEWY @NineLine Any chance to change the tag or should OP repost?

On the EW side nothing would actually change so it would basically just be cosmetic

Is afterburner being engaged?

Yeah the TD box should be less precise, but as I understand it would be more precise than the HTS initially, think TWS vs STT. The HARM seeker FOV is some 4x smaller than that of the the HTS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an F-16 firing in "PB" at an HTS target that's just been detected would be terribly inaccurate compared to an F-16 using a HARM fired in HAS.You don't need triangulation to tell the HARM seeker to track a detected emitter. And in the Hornet, that emitter would've been processed by the ALR-67 and ASPJ helping the quick targeting process.

@BIGNEWY Do you just need a reference for the IR marker? NFLIR Hardware in built into the pylon it's just a question of it it would be connected and activated or not.

What functions you specifically need more info on? Some things missing are range known/unknown functions, land/sea select, PB target profiles, and HARM MSI trackfile creation and correlation, to name a few.

There is nothing wrong with the Hornet TOO. Yeah it's too precise, but so is ever ED sensor. The "tables" are categorized differently in the Hornet where you can select a class to lessen the search time. However, the Hornet also has the ALR-67 and ASPJ contributing to tell CLC what to expect. So yeah the HTS is a more precise system overall, but the Hornet CLC puts it's way above a non-HTS Viper. Hornet has the ALR-67 and ALQ-165 that contribute, making "scans" a non factor when the other systems detect something. This is also how you have TOO emitters outside the HARM FOV.

There is a delay for it, but not where you need to hold the trigger, that is a bug. @BIGNEWY Revisit this please. I'm pinging as it's the only way for someone to see a "correct as is" thread. At minimum the sidewinder being delayed can't be correct.

Yes, it appears so.

It is absolutely functional. I just trimmed myself in to a constant 4G turn to test it.

I found more relevant data, the PM will be in your inbox soon.

yes

If you just want pointing for the FLIR, use INR. If you're in SCENE or AUTO you would be in a targeting phase refining any initial designation. If a previous sensor made the designation, no action TDC slew should slew the FLIR in SCENE without designation until TDC depress. AUTO will take designation priority. No sensor should take a designation without positive TDC. action.

What about REF WP doesn't work?