Litening for Hornet

[Jar_VFA-113]

Who cares what’s ‘legit’ according to ‘several Hornet pilots’?

 

Sometimes aircraft have capabilities that aren’t used regularly but that doesn’t mean it’s not something ED can add to their Hornet for us to use.

The complaining about the MavG and the Litening is what I’m referring to.

 

I really hope ED aren’t listening to every complaint about what they can and can’t add the F/A-18C. It’s a flight sim not a classic car resto.

I don’t care about timelines/ mod status blah blah - just put whatever a Hornet could carry on there and let’s have fun. If you’re a hyper realism pureist just don’t load whatever you have issues with.

[Wizard_03]

Hyper realism is the hallmark of DCS, it’s what separates it from other games and sims. If you don’t like that then maybe it isn’t for you, because polluting the sim with unrealistic features and guess work can and will turn it into a free for all, and that would make all the painstaking dedication and attention to detail that goes into these modules for nothing.

 

 

*Edit* there's a huge difference between not regularly used features in an aircraft and something the aircraft never used or couldn't use, and that's what we're trying to determine. Everything the aircraft can do should be in the game no matter how insignificant or how seldom used, and by the same logic nothing it didn't and or can't.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Wizard_03

[Jar_VFA-113]

Yes we agree.

 

I’m happy to leave it to ED to decide what goes on their Hornet. We don’t need threads of people questioning everything ED does based on something they heard somewhere. I worry ED actually listens and tries to avoid forum outrage (hence the MavG disappearing).

LITENING is an awesome stop gap and I don’t care if there’s empty space between it and the cheek, a Hornet can carry it there and I’d like the option to put it there so I can simulate realistic Hornet load outs (double ugly etc).

Carrying it on the center is less realistic for carrier based ops IMHO.

It isn’t a big deal I’ll go with whatever ED say but all these folks claiming to know better shouldn’t have any input.

 

ED has direct access to ‘legit’ folks for SME feedback, people in these forums posting what they think the Hornet was wired for is redundant and probably frustrating to ED.

Edited January 30, 2019 by JAR VFA-113 STINGERS

[Wizard_03]

Yes we agree.

 

I’m happy to leave it to ED to decide what goes on their Hornet. We don’t need threads of people questioning everything ED does based on something they heard somewhere. I worry ED actually listens and tries to avoid forum outrage

 

 

ED has direct access to ‘legit’ folks for SME feedback, people in these forums posting what they think the Hornet was wired for is redundant and probably frustrating to ED.

 

 

Yes on that we agree, I worry about the exact same things. :) ED needs to confirm everything with their SMEs first, then they can tell the users how things are. Not the other way around. Its a balancing act though IMO because you don't want them to turn into another big game developer that never listens to their community. Some individuals on these forums are pretty knowledgeable and can actively contribute to the development process.

 

Something like the hornet is so complex that no one person knows everything there is too know about it. Even people that flew it don't know everything about it, in fact pilot opinion can be very subjective. So there is a balance but for the most part I think ED does a pretty good job.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Wizard_03

[Low Blow]

Hyper realism is the hallmark of DCS, it’s what separates it from other games and sims.

 

 

Not true. DCS is a game and you are kidding yourself if you think any different. And yes I flew military hardware. There are many, many things about DCS that don't fit into the hyper-realistic category. Bring on the Litening pod.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Low Blow

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Not true. DCS is a game and you are kidding yourself if you think any different. And yes I flew military hardware. There are many, many things about DCS that don't fit into the hyper-realistic category. Bring on the Litening pod.

 

Perhaps, but realism is what DCS aims for. Any shortfalls should be due to sim limitations rather than concessions because someone wanted something that never existed.

[DeathAngel1]

Seems like we get nothing for Hornet from today's OB update...

[Banzaiib]

Seems like we get nothing for Hornet from today's OB update...

 

No litening, but maybe AIM-7 fix

[SkateZilla]

Please Keep Posts on topic.

 

Debating the AMRAAM model has nothing to do with the Litening Pod

[Donut]

Back to the LITENING...

 

Personally, I would prefer a targeting pod on the cheek station as opposed to centerline.

 

Sure, having ATFLIR on the cheek creates some FOV issues but it allows for a more diverse and expanded loadout by freeing up the centerline. The cheek station can only carry the ATFLIR or AIM-7/AIM-120 and by having a LITENING on centerline, you are losing the fuel tank or bombs that could be carried there.

 

Money, supply and government contracts aside, I wonder why the Marine Corps prefers the LITENING on centerline. Maybe it is just for the increased FOV and they don't see much of a handicap by having it on centerline.

Edited January 30, 2019 by =BJM=

[Low Blow]

Well I for one am looking forward to the litening pod on the hornet whether it's hyper-realistic or not.

[gekoiq]

A lot of us just want the most realistic sim possible, however it is IRL I will be happy with it and learn to work with it in game, if we get unrealistic options as well I'll still be happy as long as I can do it the realistic way. But contrary to some comments in this thread, the hard-line "as realistic as possible for a specific year/lot/ofp Hornet" goal has largely come from ED themselves, it's been their stance since the beginning on all features related to the Hornet, this is not a case of noisy community members whining for more realism and getting it.

[DeathAngel1]

So as I understood when final product is ready, we will have both LITENING and ATFLIR pods. First we will get LITENING, and after that ATFLIR. Right?

[ebabil]

So as I understood when final product is ready, we will have both LITENING and ATFLIR pods. First we will get LITENING, and after that ATFLIR. Right?

 

yes

[Banzaiib]

Back to the LITENING...

 

Personally, I would prefer a targeting pod on the cheek station as opposed to centerline.

 

Sure, having ATFLIR on the cheek creates some FOV issues but it allows for a more diverse and expanded loadout by freeing up the centerline. The cheek station can only carry the ATFLIR or AIM-7/AIM-120 and by having a LITENING on centerline, you are losing the fuel tank or bombs that could be carried there.

 

Money, supply and government contracts aside, I wonder why the Marine Corps prefers the LITENING on centerline. Maybe it is just for the increased FOV and they don't see much of a handicap by having it on centerline.

 

They don't prefer it on the center line. Not sure where you got that idea.

[gekoiq]

They don't prefer it on the center line. Not sure where you got that idea.

 

What basis do you have for that statement? Source?

 

Its obvious that there is an ability to mount it on any station through an adapter (see all the photos of USMC hornets with LITENING on the cheek and wing stations earlier in this thread, or the other LITENING thread), if they wanted to use it on a different station they could, yet they seemingly chose to use it on centerline. The USMC even had to add additional wiring to allow use of the LITENING pod to the centerline station, I highly doubt they would go through the effort to add that capability to use the pod on a station they didn't want to.

Edited January 31, 2019 by gekoiq

[Bones1775]

What basis do you have for that statement? Source?

 

Its obvious that there is an ability to mount it on any station through an adapter (see all the photos of USMC hornets with LITENING on the cheek and wing stations earlier in this thread, or the other LITENING thread), if they wanted to use it on a different station they could, yet they seemingly chose to use it on centerline. The USMC even had to add additional wiring to allow use of the LITENING pod to the centerline station, I highly doubt they would go through the effort to add that capability to use the pod on a station they didn't want to.

 

yes we would, if for no other reason than a stop gap. Marines overcome and adapt. we wanted a pod that had better capabilities than the nitehawk, we went with the litening. what was the quickest way to get it into opperational service. sling it to a pylon since a dedicated adpter would have to be devoloped and evaluated. much quicker to rewire an exsisting pylon than to develope an adapter.

 

Now do i know the actual proccess we took to get litenings on hornets, no. but i do have a little insight into how we do business in the Marine Corps. Semper Gumbi.

[gekoiq]

Yet the centerline station offers the best FOV and allows more symmetrical loadouts, what's not to like? I'm pumped, I don't get why people are upset, we're also getting the ATFLIR on station4, we're literally getting the best of both worlds.

 

A long time before the Hornet entered early access, there was a thread where people were kicking and screaming at ED to include the centerline LITENING pod because the USMC used it, now ED is giving us exactly that and people are kicking and screaming that they want the LITENING, but not on centerline... *confused*

[AG-51_Razor]

They probably ran out of rivets to count! :megalol:

[Banzaiib]

What basis do you have for that statement? Source?

 

Its obvious that there is an ability to mount it on any station through an adapter (see all the photos of USMC hornets with LITENING on the cheek and wing stations earlier in this thread, or the other LITENING thread), if they wanted to use it on a different station they could, yet they seemingly chose to use it on centerline. The USMC even had to add additional wiring to allow use of the LITENING pod to the centerline station, I highly doubt they would go through the effort to add that capability to use the pod on a station they didn't want to.

 

several Marine hornet pilots have stated on these forums that they carried it on the cheek station any time they carried the LITENING pod.

[gekoiq]

several Marine hornet pilots have stated on these forums that they carried it on the cheek station any time they carried the LITENING pod.

 

I pretty actively read these forums and have not seen that. Could you provide a link? Genuinely curious. I've seen several Hornet pilots here state they carry the ATFLIR only on the cheek station, but not the LITENING.

[ryanyomomma]

I pretty actively read these forums and have not seen that. Could you provide a link? Genuinely curious. I've seen several Hornet pilots here state they carry the ATFLIR only on the cheek station, but not the LITENING.

 

Does this work?

 

In my experience, whenever a Marine squadron stopped by in transit (when I was in 106), the LITENING was centerline so they could configure their drop tanks to double bubble. I had to look this cheek business up lol

[Furia]

Let me quote Wags on this subject

 

Happy new year everyone!

 

A little good-news update to pass along regarding the targeting pod for the Hornet. As many of you are aware, USMC Hornets fly with the AN/AAQ-28 Litening targeting pod when deployed from airfields. This is the same TGP used for our A-10C. As such, we now plan to first introduce the Litening pod to the Hornet prior to the AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR pod. This will allow a more complete selection of targeting pod options (can also be used for other countries like Spain of course), but also allow us to introduce a targeting pod into the project sooner than we had originally expected.

 

Spanish Hornets can carry the Litening in the centerline or in the lateral pylons.

It is realistic and accurate and this is exactly what Wags announced

 

[Jar_VFA-113]

I cannot wait for LITENING.

I am so looking forward to being able to do full 9-line CAS with a sensor and lasing like we had in A-10C. For those of you that never flew the Hawg, you are going to love having the LITENING on your jet!

[Hekktor]

Is that IRIS-T on the spanish f18???

Now THIS is what I'd like to use - go away 9x.

Ah, sure.

 

nvm.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Hekktor