Coordinates in FLIR screen

[Swift.]

It seems more likely that the document is incomplete or outdated, than all of these videos are fake/false.

[med-taha]

It seems more likely that the document is incomplete or outdated, than all of these videos are fake/false.

 

Yup cuz it doesn't make sens , these options are primordial!

 

btw it's gonna be cool if the DCS hornet will have the mark point display option for both litening and atflir like the A10C.

the following screens are from vfa 131 with ATflir and Vmfa armed with litening. (From youtube - unclassified)

Edited March 23, 2020 by med-taha

[_mu110_]

Very interesting to see, I hope there exists some unclassified source corroborating these so that ED can potentially implement them.

[BarTzi]

I don't understand it. It's shown right here:

 

Compass and coordinates are part of the TGP's program. Is there a version of the LITENING without it? Hornets that used nitehawks had some of those displayed. It's strange that a newer pod has none of those. Those symbology elements are almost mandatory for CAS and coordination :\

Edited March 23, 2020 by BarTzi

[Swift.]

As you will notice, pretty much every single jet that has carried a FLIR since tomcat has had Coordinates on the display. It seems unlikely that the only exception to that is specifically a hornet only from the year 2007.

[FoxOne007]

yeah it seems rather weird for an aircraft not to have it. Coordinates to other aircraft or other forces are often still passed along via radio and not always via DL, so you would have to get target info somewhere from the TGP.

[Fri13]

yeah it seems rather weird for an aircraft not to have it. Coordinates to other aircraft or other forces are often still passed along via radio and not always via DL, so you would have to get target info somewhere from the TGP.

 

It would make sense on any platform that as the primary or at least primary "last method" method to work with the other troops is radio, you get the correct radio frequency by some means from third party, you make a contact and they guide you in.

 

The only real thing that you need to have is a map, and basic knowledge how to read a map or what are the main areas on the map.

 

So when someone says you over the radio "5 kilometers to south from town X, on route 16, from there a third building on the east side on riverbank", you can quickly and effectively get location in few hundred meters accuracy.

 

From there you can use easily a targeting pod to find rest as the radio is there to guide you in with landmarks etc.

 

The problem is that the USA maps in A-10C and F/A-18C are simply but unusable. They are as good as Air-to-Ground radar in the accuracy and resolution to give you any meaningful detail for combat operations. You can't even zoom close in those digital map systems to see what is the combat area.

That was the thing with the moving map, to make navigation and combat operations very effective when pilots knew where they are actually flying and where to look for targets to bomb. A single most important feature of all in modern fighter.

 

Getting a coordinates for couple hundred meter resolution via A-G radar or targeting pod is enough so you can quickly just punch them in and get your targeting pod looking at the general vicinity so you can find the target visually and then engage it.

[Swift.]

The main point of coordinates in the FLIR isn't to guide your pod onto a target but to relay a targets location to another, ie FAC. Seeing as marine hornets have been doing FAC for a long time it seems like the ability to quickly generate coordinates would be essential for any BOC brief.

[Harker]

I mean, even the LANTIRN in the F-14B has reticle coordinate display. I find it hard to believe that a legacy Hornet from 2005-2007 didn't have it. I don't doubt the validity of the documents ED has, but maybe they don't mention 100% of the features?

[Wizard_03]

It looks weird that compass and coordinates can't be shown, since it's synthetically produced in the pod and injected into Hornet's screen as TV signal, it doesn't have anything to do with Hornet MC OFP

 

 

It does if its translating those coordinates into to target points for MCs, it would have to interface with the aircraft's INS/GPS so it might be a limitation of birds without EGI. Either way though its getting those coordinates one way or another. Don't see why they can't be seen on the feed itself. Unless that really is just an oversight.

 

Our jet does not have EGI. It uses coupled GPS and INS. But they aren't embedded. Usually older lots got EGI since the functionality was more critical for them to get so the whole fleet would have precision attack capability. Ours would have already had it out the gate.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Wizard_03

[med-taha]

The functions / symbology available on the Flir page while the ATFLIR is mounted on the F/A-18

I noted:

 

-Flir operating status

-Field of view option

-Zoom factor option

-Tv / light amplification option

-Look point azimuth indication

-Reticle display option

-Different Flir Fov reticle ( designated/ undesignated ) and it should flash when Laser is fired

-Velocity vector slave option

-Altitude indication

-Airspeed and mach indication

-Declutter option

-LST option

-Horizon bar and velocity vector display option

-Black and white polarity options

-Gain+/- option

-Level +/- option

-Focus and zoom option

-Automatic level / gain option

-Look point elevation indication

-Azimuth steering cue

-Compass

-Target range

-Time to release and time to impact

-Ground stabilization indication

-Laser status indication

-Laser inhibit cue

-Coordinates MGRS display

-Mark points indication

 

Some Interesting options. I hope to see them one day On the DCS F/A-18

Edited March 24, 2020 by med-taha

[nickos86]

It looks like we've got another round of the A-10C accuracy thread... Interesting how it's gonna end.

[Weasel]

This may be a complete noob question but what is an EGI other than a coupled GPS and INS?

Hope this will help you:

 

https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/About_the_EGI

[COOPER-FP]

The documents we are working from for FLIR do not have the coordinates, compass marker, and the ring.

 

Our hornet will not be getting these additions.

 

Thanks

 

Please see 6:09 , love the hornet and i would like to see it complete one day!

As everyone said, these are essentials!

it's a bit odd that the documents you are working with don't indicate that!

Sometimes it makes me doubt if we’ll have all the options of a mid-2000 hornet.

Thanks

[BarTzi]

Please see 6:09 , love the hornet and i would like to see it complete one day!

As everyone said, these are essentials!

it's a bit odd that the documents you are working with don't indicate that!

Sometimes it makes me doubt if we’ll have all the options of a mid-2000 hornet.

Thanks

 

COOPER - that timestamp shows a video from a pod that isn't LITENING. It's ATFLIR, which we should eventually get.

 

While I'm all for having the coordinates, north arrow, scale and the distance to the target (as LITENING II should and does display), we have to bring accurate sources :P

 

An official reply from ED would be nice.

 

EDIT: please watch this video showcasing the BATS(VMFA-242) using the pod in 2004. North arrow (top left corner - hard to spot), scale, and distance to target are shown. Ccoordinates are blurred.

Edited March 29, 2020 by BarTzi

[COOPER-FP]

The documents we are working from for FLIR

 

that isn't LITENING. It's ATFLIR, which we should eventually get.

 

 

In his post BIGNEW didn’t specify what equipment he was talking about. The term FLIR is too Vague . that's why I posted such a video. And it's just to show that it really existed before 2005. nothing more!

 

Thanks

[BarTzi]

In his post BIGNEW didn’t specify what equipment he was talking about. The term FLIR is too Vague . that's why I posted such a video. And it's just to show that it really existed before 2005. nothing more!

 

Thanks

 

Got it, thanks for clarifying.

 

BIGNEW was talking about the LITENING TGP. What you showed is accurate for the ATFLIR and we should get the exact same display when it's mounted. The discussion here is if the LITENING display had those elements in that time.

[Wizard_03]

More Specifically did LITENING II have that capability, with a non-EGI bird.

 

Later versions of LITENING got lots of upgrades in fact modern versions of that pod are superior to ATFLIR in many ways. Could be a limitation of the version of LITENING we have.

Edited March 29, 2020 by Wizard_03

[Swift.]

The question then is why does our hornet not have the correct litening version, considering the provided images and videos of mid 2000s era hornets with litenings showing coords and cardinals.

[Thump]

The question then is why does our hornet not have the correct litening version, considering the provided images and videos of mid 2000s era hornets with litenings showing coords and cardinals.

 

It's ED.

[Enduro14]

didn't they already say that the documents they have say otherwise....?

[Wizard_03]

The question then is why does our hornet not have the correct litening version, considering the provided images and videos of mid 2000s era hornets with litenings showing coords and cardinals.

 

 

Because individuals begged and begged for a LPOD because apparently to those people without one the aircraft is completely useless. So ED compromised and gave us something less then ultra-realistic to please the masses. They probably only have documentation for early versions so you can't have your cake and eat it too, same story with mounting it on 4, same story with BRU-55, yadda yadda.

 

 

In any case ATFLIR should have it regardless. Best to just wait for the realistic pod.

Edited March 29, 2020 by Wizard_03

[BarTzi]

Because individuals begged and begged for a LPOD because apparently to those people without one the aircraft is completely useless. So ED compromised and gave us something less then ultra-realistic to please the masses. They probably only have documentation for early versions so you can't have your cake and eat it too, same story with mounting it on 4, same story with BRU-55, yadda yadda.

 

 

In any case ATFLIR should have it regardless. Best to just wait for the realistic pod.

 

It doesn't really make sense, don't you think? To waste all that time and resources on a pod that eventually most of us won't use.

[Swift.]

It doesn't really make sense, don't you think? To waste all that time and resources on a pod that eventually most of us won't use.

 

Unless they have silently dropped the plan for ATFLIR, which would suck

[DeathAngel1]

Because individuals begged and begged for a LPOD because apparently to those people without one the aircraft is completely useless. So ED compromised and gave us something less then ultra-realistic to please the masses. They probably only have documentation for early versions so you can't have your cake and eat it too, same story with mounting it on 4, same story with BRU-55, yadda yadda.

 

 

In any case ATFLIR should have it regardless. Best to just wait for the realistic pod.

 

Thats in red is just not true. BRU-55 has been developed from the begining for FA-18C, and Hornet can carry it.You can find a lot of information and pictures on the web which confirm this.

 

And for the mounting on "4", even on this forum you can find a real-world pictures with FA-18C and Litening pod on station 4.

 

So I cant understant why it can be "undrealistic" and why we need to "wait for more realistic pod like ATFLIR"??

 

Litening is great TGP and it is primary targeting pod of the USMC, and many non - USA countries, which uses Hornet.

 

So?

Edited March 29, 2020 by DeathAngel1