F/A18E/F Super Hornets block 1 and BLock 2 E/F ( lot 26)

[SkateZilla]

No All 3 of those are FPU/11 (480GAL) Tanks

[Sonoda Umi]

On 1/25/2023 at 1:03 AM, SkateZilla said:

But not worth a $79.99 Price Tag, as it's simply the legacy, w/ 2 more limited pylons, and a different flight model, 
I'd Bundle it with the Legacy Module, just to boost sales of the legacy, if you want one or the other, you'd still get both.

For me, truthfully, I will not really care about the price, $80 for Lot 21 - 24 Block 1 Rhino Foxtrot being completely OK for me. EVEN I am WILLING to pay $100 for Foxtrot.

Should we wish a dependable "Rhino-enthusiasm" thrid-party for a better luck? 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Sonoda Umi

[Hare Ball]

On 1/14/2023 at 10:42 AM, F-2 said:

Wouldn’t mind an AI super hornet as a strike craft with the upcoming dynamic campaign.

+1 to that. Understand that a flyable Super Hornet as an official module is unlikely, but I'd love to see the option for some AI Super Hornets and Growlers in the mission editor.

[EA-18G_BlockII]

18 hours ago, Hare Ball said:

+1 to that. Understand that a flyable Super Hornet as an official module is unlikely, but I'd love to see the option for some AI Super Hornets and Growlers in the mission editor.

you can sorta do that with CJS Super Bug mod btw

[Hare Ball]

On 2/4/2023 at 11:26 AM, EA-18G_BlockII said:

you can sorta do that with CJS Super Bug mod btw

Yeah, though I’m a bit of a novice when it comes to mods. Does installing the CJS mod have an impact on your own F/A-18C module in the game? Because I want to leave that one in one piece.

[EA-18G_BlockII]

38 minutes ago, Hare Ball said:

Yeah, though I’m a bit of a novice when it comes to mods. Does installing the CJS mod have an impact on your own F/A-18C module in the game? Because I want to leave that one in one piece.

not at all, you can use the Legacy Bug just find

[SilentSparrow]

Question: If the HOL is classified (And we used the green displays in non-HOL Super Hornets) how do things like the VRS Superbug get around that classification problems with black and white displays?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

9 minutes ago, SilentSparrow said:

Question: If the HOL is classified (And we used the green displays in non-HOL Super Hornets) how do things like the VRS Superbug get around that classification problems with black and white displays?

They may not be modeled accurately.

We really should be specifying that it's more than just things being classified. ED also has standards it wants to uphold in terms of accuracy and if they can't get sufficient access? It's a no-go.

[SilentSparrow]

14 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Not it. The DDI pages are all in the standard NATOPS and pretty much like in the current Hornet. All it is, is just a hardware difference primarily. It would be the same radar, mostly same avionics. 

Oh ok thanks. Would really love someone like CJS to make an official Super Hornet module with ED.

26 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

They may not be modeled accurately.

We really should be specifying that it's more than just things being classified. ED also has standards it wants to uphold in terms of accuracy and if they can't get sufficient access? It's a no-go.

J-8PP broooooo.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 2/11/2023 at 12:01 PM, SilentSparrow said:

 

J-8PP broooooo.

And that has to do what with it? Deka has the data.
 

On 2/11/2023 at 11:46 AM, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Not it. The DDI pages are all in the standard NATOPS and pretty much like in the current Hornet. All it is, is just a hardware difference primarily. It would be the same radar, mostly same avionics. 

Sin of the double post because I dun goofed on formatting.

But, are they? I'm not familiar with the VRS Hornet, nor the MSFS scene in general. How accurate to the real deal is it? That's my question.

Edited February 14, 2023 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[SilentSparrow]

6 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

And that has to do what with it? Deka has the data.
 

Sin of the double post because I dun goofed on formatting.

But, are they? I'm not familiar with the VRS Hornet, nor the MSFS scene in general. How accurate to the real deal is it? That's my question.

 

For the DDIs it's pretty realistic.

This picture is of a maintainer checking out a Super Hornet. The MFD pages we see are in the current Hornet except in the Super they're Black and White and not Green. The MFD/DDI pages are almost entirely (If not entirely) the same in Block 1/2 Hornets.

6 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

And that has to do what with it? Deka has the data.

That means that they have standards in terms of accuracy that the J-8PP isn't so accurate to the actually used J-8.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, SilentSparrow said:

 

That means that they have standards in terms of accuracy that the J-8PP isn't so accurate to the actually used J-8.

Only, it represents two prototypes of the J-8II, ones where examples exist, and Deka has documentation. Much like how Black Shark II was created, it's being modeled with accuracy for that particular variant, production figures and deployments not withstanding.

This is has been discussed at length. There's difference between a J-8II using an old Viper radar and this, being the presence and accessibility of documentation.

Edited February 15, 2023 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[SkateZilla]

On 2/11/2023 at 12:24 PM, SilentSparrow said:

Question: If the HOL is classified (And we used the green displays in non-HOL Super Hornets) how do things like the VRS Superbug get around that classification problems with black and white displays?

VRS doesnt Model HOL Blocks,

Nor do they model every system in the Hornet, and half the systems modelled are "Baked" to look real without using any real world data.

HOL has Zilch to do with the display colors, it's the Programming Language the aircraft uses..

On 2/11/2023 at 1:01 PM, SilentSparrow said:

Oh ok thanks. Would really love someone like CJS to make an official Super Hornet module with ED.

J-8PP broooooo.

Not going to happen, their 3D Model Assets are licensed and do not belong to them.

[Kev2go]

On 2/15/2023 at 2:48 AM, SkateZilla said:

VRS doesnt Model HOL Blocks,

Nor do they model every system in the Hornet, and half the systems modelled are "Baked" to look real without using any real world data.

HOL has Zilch to do with the display colors, it's the Programming Language the aircraft uses..

Not going to happen, their 3D Model Assets are licensed and do not belong to them.

 

Maybe im misunderstanding, but to me this HOL argument ( pun not intended)  just seems like a fallacy.

 As an analogy if i wanted to simulate an Operating system within a video game, let say Windows XP.  Would i need to copy paste MS windows OS code ( even if i had permission to do so)  to simulate it? No you wouldn't.

Do you think just because ED or any 3rd party can emulate what a pilot sees on ther Multipurpose display or HUD or whatever, they have copy pasted the exact software code using that exact programming language for us virtual pilots that the aircraft used in RL? No. they don't afaik. They just design it to  visually resemble what information is presented in documentation based on stuff like dash 1's and Dash 34's, ( or any comparable documentation of the sort like NAtops etc) 

The only relevance  I  see a software suite ever has for simulation is  to determining what weapons an aircraft can use, and what procedural symbols are displayed to operate a given avionics system or weapon in a given intended timeframe of simulation. So unless HOL based suites function totally differently for the end user or  offer new features that result more than subtle procedural  changes, i don't think getting hung up on programming language is worth it.  What is instead relevant is what documentation is available, and if there is determined to be adequate simply work from there on a potential simulation

 

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Kev2go

[SkateZilla]

14 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

Maybe im misunderstanding, but to me this HOL argument ( pun not intended)  just seems like a fallacy.

 As an analogy if i wanted to simulate an Operating system within a video game, let say Windows XP.  Would i need to copy paste MS windows OS code ( even if i had permission to do so)  to simulate it? No you wouldn't.

Do you think just because ED or any 3rd party can emulate what a pilot sees on ther Multipurpose display or HUD or whatever, they have copy pasted the exact software code using that exact programming language for us virtual pilots that the aircraft used in RL? No. they don't afaik. They just design it to  visually resemble what information is presented in documentation based on stuff like dash 1's and Dash 34's, ( or any comparable documentation of the sort like NAtops etc) 

The only relevance  I  see a software suite ever has for simulation is  to determining what weapons an aircraft can use, and what procedural symbols are displayed to operate a given avionics system or weapon in a given intended timeframe of simulation. So unless HOL based suites function totally differently for the end user or  offer new features that result more than subtle procedural  changes, i don't think getting hung up on programming language is worth it.  What is instead relevant is what documentation is available, and if there is determined to be adequate simply work from there on a potential simulation

 

 

 

Well,
The HOL is a custom programming Language Boeing uses on the Super Hornets, HOL Language by itself isn't Classified, like C#, C+ Pyton, etc etc.
What is Classified is the HOL Based SCS Operating Systems in the Super Hornet Starting with SCS-H10 (and any Evaluation versions before deployment).

Since HOL-SCS is still Classified, good luck getting any Engineering or Systems manuals for any Block that uses HOL and SCS-H10+.
So you wont even be able to "Fake" the appearance, as there are no Classified Elements in the Publicly available Manuals, the public NATOPs covers LRIP BuNo 165533 thru most of Lot 24, there are some late Lot 24 Changes that aren't present in that manual, let alone anything Lot 25+, the only manual with Lot 25+ info is the Growler Natop, but even that manual only has limited information, as it's based of 166855, which was the first E/A-18 Test Aircraft after the Modified F/A-18E BuNo 165779 which was a Lot 23 Aircrat. 90% of the Growler NATOPs is copy/paste from the E/F NATOPs as it's mostly procedures etc, the only difference is procedures w/ the Jamming Equipment, none of the AESA or Classified items are in that manual. So there's nothing to even base a "Faked Out" system on.

So while you can Fake out a General Appearance of a Super Hornet's systems, you wont be able to accurately simulate the other components that are still classified. (ACS, AESA, A bunch of smaller radio and Countermeasure systems, etc etc etc).
  

On 12/15/2022 at 8:16 PM, Kev2go said:

Lot 20 is a mish mash of OFP's 

A10C II is a mish mash of suites.

F16C is not a pure M4 tape jet. 

F15E strike eagle will end up to be a mish mash of Suites  ( since it will get post Suite 4+ features like aim9x or SNiper TGP) .

Nothing strictly  saying  hypthoetical Super Hornet has to be a A lot 24 or earlier, just to conform to a specific software suites(s). I think a Lot 25 would be desired just for cockpit aesthetics, the new LCD DDI's and not the same ugly archaic DDI's dating back from lot 12 legacy hornets

 

 

While Even F/A-18C is a Mis-Match of OFPs, it conforms to being a Pre-HOL SCS-2x System..
The same configuration most of the C Hornets had 

ED did not mix SCS-2x and SCS-Hxx Features.

[phant]

https://eurasiantimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/eurasiantimes.com/boeing-closing-down-production-lines-of-f-a-18-super-hornets-to-make-way-for-f-35c-jets/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIKAGwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=Da %1%24s&aoh=16772440019137&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Feurasiantimes.com%2Fboeing-closing-down-production-lines-of-f-a-18-super-hornets-to-make-way-for-f-35c-jets%2F

 

Bye 

Phant 

 

 

[SkateZilla]

Not exactly Breaking news,

Block III's didn't sell on FMS Market like they thought they would, USN was only using them as a stop gap for F-35Cs to get Capacity, 

In 15 Years the roles will shift, F-35C will be the "Cheap Fighter" and the NGAD will be the new expensive one on the deck.

E/F Lines are shutting down, Growler Lines will remain open as they still have production orders to fill.

Staff will move to T-7A, and F_15EX Production, as well as re-locate if needed to Cecil to maintain and upgrade the current Super Hornet Fleet.

The navy isnt retiring the Superhornets until at least 2035, and those will be the Block IIs that didnt get upgraded to Block III at Cecil.

The Upgrade pipeline will remain active for a while at Cecil, as Block IIs to Block III Upgrades arent estimated to be done until 2033.

The funny part is, the F-35 Cost overruns, is what costs the SUper Hornet the EPEs (or their delay), the CFTs, the EWP, the IRST Pod etc.

the Only block III Extra feature to make the USN Cut was the NGJ, but even that barely made it through and still hasnt even finished prototyping, and has already changed names,.

Edited February 25, 2023 by SkateZilla

[bies]

Superhornet was typical product of its time - USSR collapsed, there was no threat to US air dominance anywhere in the world anymore, thus no money to develop modern new design.

Expensive specialised aircrafts like F-14 or A-6 had to be phased out without replacement. Navy wanted to replace A-6 and F-14 with advanced strike A-12 Avenger or fighter NATF-22, but no opponent, no threat - no money. F/A-18 has been replaced by relatively cheap, low rsk, easy to maintain F/A-18E, without stealth, without high kinematic performance, without any radical design changes. USAF barely defended their F-22 program being forced to drastically cut the number of ordered airframes from 700 to 190.

Cheap and easy to maintain, integrated with modern guided A/G munitions F/A-18E was perfect for low threat enviroment war on terror period. Not quite adequate for symmetrical air to air competition against China.

Edited February 25, 2023 by bies

[jojyrocks]

Somewhere down the line, the Super Hornet would be a great addition, any early possible ones, expecting an E version as F version would be just too complicated and time consuming to develop concerning the time phase. If possible, whatever is easier for ED or whichever third party takes this up.

 

 

[Kev2go]

On 2/21/2023 at 10:08 AM, SkateZilla said:

Well,
The HOL is a custom programming Language Boeing uses on the Super Hornets, HOL Language by itself isn't Classified, like C#, C+ Pyton, etc etc.
What is Classified is the HOL Based SCS Operating Systems in the Super Hornet Starting with SCS-H10 (and any Evaluation versions before deployment).

 

did ED have any engineering or systems manuals for F/A18C? 

On 2/21/2023 at 10:08 AM, SkateZilla said:

Since HOL-SCS is still Classified, good luck getting any Engineering or Systems manuals for any Block that uses HOL and SCS-H10+.

SCS H10 suite was introduced in 2015. A potential SH module doesn't even have to be that recent.  The only exception of an aircraft module  that would be representative of a  post 2010 (in general timeframe)  so far is A10C II with its scorpion helmet and maybe the JF17 thunder.

 

 

On 2/21/2023 at 10:08 AM, SkateZilla said:

So you wont even be able to "Fake" the appearance, as there are no Classified Elements in the Publicly available Manuals, the public NATOPs covers LRIP BuNo 165533 thru most of Lot 24, there are some late Lot 24 Changes that aren't present in that manual, let alone anything Lot 25+, the only manual with Lot 25+ info is the Growler Natop, but even that manual only has limited information, as it's based of 166855, which was the first E/A-18 Test Aircraft after the Modified F/A-18E BuNo 165779 which was a Lot 23 Aircrat. 90% of the Growler NATOPs is copy/paste from the E/F NATOPs as it's mostly procedures etc, the only difference is procedures w/ the Jamming Equipment, none of the AESA or Classified items are in that manual. So there's nothing to even base a "Faked Out" system on.

 

 i recall seeing some HOL references there, for when it applied to the H based software versus SCS X series. 

On 2/21/2023 at 10:08 AM, SkateZilla said:

So while you can Fake out a General Appearance of a Super Hornet's systems, you wont be able to accurately simulate the other components that are still classified. (ACS, AESA, A bunch of smaller radio and Countermeasure systems, etc etc etc).

 

But thats the assumption ED or any 3rd party would do an Aesa based SH.   Early on some block 2's lots had Apg73 before being refitted with aopg79 .  BLock1 lot Lot 25 started using HOL, but still had APG73. The only reason to do A Lot 25 would be for a more modern looking cockpit visuals, . Newer color DDI displays instead of the archaic old DDI's like legacy's hornets had., at least in the context of a Single seat models. 

 

 

On 2/21/2023 at 10:08 AM, SkateZilla said:

 

  

While Even F/A-18C is a Mis-Match of OFPs, it conforms to being a Pre-HOL SCS-2x System..
The same configuration most of the C Hornets had 

ED did not mix SCS-2x and SCS-Hxx Features.

Of course they didn't. because a Legacy Hornet didn't use H series, a least not in US service.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Kev2go

[EA-18G_BlockII]

On 2/25/2023 at 7:20 PM, SkateZilla said:

The funny part is, the F-35 Cost overruns, is what costs the SUper Hornet the EPEs (or their delay), the CFTs, the EWP, the IRST Pod etc.

 

 

wait, the IRST-tipped drop tank concept is also got canted ? also the name of NGJ (AN/ALQ-249) is also changed?

Edited February 27, 2023 by EA-18G_BlockII

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, EA-18G_BlockII said:

wait, the IRST-tipped drop tank concept is also got canted ? also the name of NGJ (AN/ALQ-249) is also changed?

 

NGJ was delivery on the SuperHornet on Sumer 2022
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/us-navy-analq249-ngjmb-pod/

Legion pod has deploy on USAF F-15 on 2020
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40980/legion-infrared-search-and-track-pods-can-now-carry-their-own-datalinks-for-more-lethal-targeting

CFTs on SuperHornet was scraped by the Navy on 2021
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42141/navy-halts-plans-to-give-its-super-hornets-conformal-fuel-tanks

 

 

[SkateZilla]

50 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

NGJ was delivery on the SuperHornet on Sumer 2022
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/us-navy-analq249-ngjmb-pod/

Legion pod has deploy on USAF F-15 on 2020
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40980/legion-infrared-search-and-track-pods-can-now-carry-their-own-datalinks-for-more-lethal-targeting

CFTs on SuperHornet was scraped by the Navy on 2021
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42141/navy-halts-plans-to-give-its-super-hornets-conformal-fuel-tanks

 

 

The Super Hornet was to get the IRST Block II is part of Super Hornet Block III, and is a Fuel tank fitter w/ electronics and a IRST Head,

not the legion pod.

[EA-18G_BlockII]

52 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

NGJ was delivery on the SuperHornet on Sumer 2022
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/us-navy-analq249-ngjmb-pod/

Legion pod has deploy on USAF F-15 on 2020
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40980/legion-infrared-search-and-track-pods-can-now-carry-their-own-datalinks-for-more-lethal-targeting

CFTs on SuperHornet was nullscraped by the Navy on 2021
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42141/navy-halts-plans-to-give-its-super-hornets-conformal-fuel-tanks

 

 

yeah im talking about this 

so it was canted as well? @SkateZilla

[SkateZilla]

13 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

did ED have any engineering or systems manuals for F/A18C? 

SCS H10 suite was introduced in 2015. A potential SH module doesn't even have to be that recent.  The only exception of an aircraft module  that would be representative of a  post 2010 (in general timeframe)  so far is A10C II with its scorpion helmet and maybe the JF17 thunder.

 

 

 i recall seeing some HOL references there, for when it applied to the H based software versus SCS X series. 

 

But thats the assumption ED or any 3rd party would do an Aesa based SH.   Early on some block 2's lots had Apg73 before being refitted with aopg79 .  BLock1 lot Lot 25 started using HOL, but still had APG73. The only reason to do A Lot 25 would be for a more modern looking cockpit visuals, . Newer color DDI displays instead of the archaic old DDI's like legacy's hornets had., at least in the context of a Single seat models. 

 

 

Of course they didn't. because a Legacy Hornet didn't use H series, a least not in US service.

 

You completely missed the entire 5 pages where people were assuming ED or 3rd Party could mix and match Early and Later blocks to have specific features,

Which is where my replies were directed.

But as Stated w/ Lot 25, it's not just AESA that is classified, core components of that lot, are still classified, so it would be Lot 24 or Earlier LRIP Lots.