correct as-is Should the ATFLIR have IR MARK?

[Fri13]

5 minutes ago, Swiftwin9s said:

Forgive me for thinking that we were getting a USMC/USN hornet from 2005, after having been told that so many times by ED.

 

Nothing to forgive, as I don't even know what we really have received.... As what we have doesn't really match anything specific in 2005 or USMC or USN.

But if USMC didn't have LITENING AT for other than D models, then C models should be without LITENING and utilize something else, so again:

 

"Currently, Marine F/A-18 Hornets are not authorized to employ laser-guided bombs (LGBs) when illuminating a target with its NITEHAWK targeting pod, due to the pod’s low fidelity and increased chances of target misidentification. As a remedy, the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as F/A-18 air forces around the world, are in the process of selecting and integrating a new targeting pod.

 

Where it means, USMC and USN F/A-18C Lot 20 Hornets should be using AN/AAS-38 Nitehawk, as only USMC F/A-18D Hornets had the LITENING and carrier based A+ and C were with USN using NITEHAWK as well while waiting to get ATFLIR. 

 

So none of the F/A-18C Lot 20 from USMC or USN should be really carrying either one of the new pods.

[Bankler]

Thanks for all the input. Very interesting read! I learned a lot reading this thread.

 

I understand that it makes things easy to pick one date and use that as a guide for what should be available. I understand that stepping away from this might risk opening a can of worms ("Since we got this, why can't we get that?" Sort of like I'm doing now I guess....). However, and this is just my opinion and nothing else, since we already have taken a few sidesteps from what was available at that point, I see no harm in taking a few more sidesteps if they check the following boxes:

 

* Easy to implement (technology already there), otherwise obviously not reasonable

* Plausible, if not 2005, then for a later date

* Gives players more options, instead of fewer (I believe some players play missions simulating other dates than 2005)

* Provides interesting gameplay possibilities (IR marker is great fun for co-op FAC(A) stuff)

 

I mean, it's not that strict as it is now anyway. Just like they did with the LITENING and how it's possible to mount it on the cheek station. It is apparently possible, but I have only seen one (1) picture in my life. And as much as it hurts seeing Vipers carrying triple rack with Mavs, ED lets the players choose. We don't have NITE HAWK despite the fact that it was the one most used at the time (tm). Maybe a wise decision, if if would take months of dev time yet very few would use it? Furthermore your package can carry more than the 4 ATFLIRs even if you set the time in the ME to 2005. Or 2004 for that matter... Our Hornet even carries the AGM-65F even though the US NAVY only use them on P-3 Orion aircraft. And in my opinion... that's fine! I just choose not to use them. Simple as that! Let the players (or even better, server owners) decide the level of realism and date, if there's no or a very low cost involved.

 

For above reasons, I only see advantages in giving our ATFLIR the IR MARK feature. Again, just my opinion. Nothing else. 

 

Cheers!

Edited April 19, 2021 by Bankler

[Fri13]

17 minutes ago, Bankler said:

I mean, it's not that strict as it is now anyway.

 

I hold opinion that things should be there only if it is technically possible. So if someone wants to go for very specific software version or specific what ever, it should then be all locked to that one and that is it. No mixing up various different year versions and only limit every possible action and mission to that one unique year. So if Hornet is for 2005, then it only is capable fly in missions dated to 2005. As otherwise realism is required to be accepted, and that is that specific version of the aircraft is operational as is in many other years than just one. It means that our Hornet is not just from 2005, but it is operational as is from 2005 forward. 

 

And this opens up the possibilities to get realistic technical limitations for missions and mix different aircraft to fly together. 

 

Quote

Just like they did with the LITENING and how it's possible to mount it on the cheek station. It is apparently possible, but I have have only seen one (1) picture in my life.

 

I believe it is confirmed that it was possible to mount it so by confirmed by SME. Don't know, just a believe. 

 

Quote

And as much as it hurts seeing Vipers carrying triple rack with Mavs, ED lets the players choose. We don't have NITE HAWK despite the fact that it was the one most used at the time (tm). Maybe a wise decision, if if would take months of dev time yet very few would use it?

 

Again, consider what would happen in missions where you have in a whole airbase a 36 NITEHAWK pods, 1 ATFLIR and 5 LITENING AT?

In multiplayer you would see that someone will rush to be first to equip the ATFLIR.... And what happens if they go and crash on the ground in first mission?

The Hornet pilots would be angry when the AV-8B Harrier pilots carry the LITENING AT while they are restricted to NITEHAWK.... 

Or that Harrier pilots get to fly without TPOD as the DMT is better than NITEHAWK is, and don't require to spend station for targeting pod.

 

Quote

 Furthermore you can carry more than the 4 ATFLIRs even if you set the time in the ME to 2005. Or 2004 for that matter...

 

Yes, it is not restricted than by the mission designer will. Just adjust the loadout possibilities in the base/carrier and you get to make fancy realistic missions or just fantasy ones. 

 

Quote

Our Hornet even carries the AGM-65F even though the US NAVY only use them on P-3 Orion aircraft.

 

Interesting thing... Is that certain? 

 

Quote

And in my opinion... that's fine! I just choose not to use them. Simple as that!

 

Exactly! Let us to choose that what to do with realistic setups (with the technical compatibilities, so no AIM-54 for Hornet or AIM-120C to F-14 and so on).

 

Quote

 Let the players (or even better, server owners) decide the level of realism and date, if there's no or a very low cost involved.

 

I still would hold on the technical compatibility level. 

So like here, if the ATFLIR doesn't have the IR Marker, then it doesn't have. Unless ED wants to make two versions from it. 

And I would totally accept that.

 

Like it is not nice that A-10C uses LITENING AT as Hornet, but AV-8B received the LITENING G4 (2009 variant) that is better than ATFLIR. It had previously LITENING AT. 

It would have been nice to have option to carry either one, so you can decide in missions that which one is available to you. If you make mission as 2003 when LITENING AT was available, then you can disable the time filter and still allow equipping the G4 variant. 

 

Same way we could get ATFLIR with or without IR Marker capability and improved video quality. 

 

Like the Litening G4 in Harrier has the dual IR marker and laser designator mode. So you can designate target same time as you are marking it visually for friend with IR laser. It is real win-win situation how you can very effectively show where to look and point the LST mode, and they can deliver the weapon on it or get own laser on the spot. 

 

I don't know would a ATFLIR have a such dual-mode at all or not... 

 

Quote

For above reasons, I only see advantages in giving our ATFLIR the IR MARK feature. Again, just my opinion. Nothing else. 

 

I see benefits as long it is one option more in the loadouts.

As what was pointed out, the IR Marker was added to eight ATFLIR pods as prototype earlier, and then later (after our Hornet) it got added with enhanced image processing.

So win win for everyone. 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Fri13

[Bankler]

Fri13>> Agreed, having an IR marker capable ATFLIR as a separate item in the loadout menu would be a nice solution. I was thinking "well, just don't press the button damnit?"  but your suggestion is better.

 

Off topic side track:

As for the US Navy not using AGM-65F and if I'm certain about it. I tend to be careful using the word "certain". I am not in a position where I can claim to be 100% sure of it.  But Navy pilots I talked to have claimed that there is "no such thing" for the Hornet. It surprised me, since the F (at least according to Wikipedia) was ordered by the US Navy. There is actually open documentation (can't remember which one) listing AGM-65F as a valid weapon for the Hornet. But from what I understand, apart from maybe testing it at some point, the Navy never used it operationally at any point, on the Hornet that is. It was a P-3 weapon. Pretty bad ass if you ask me.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Bankler said:

Fri13>> Agreed, having an IR marker capable ATFLIR as a separate item in the loadout menu would be a nice solution. I was thinking "well, just don't press the button damnit?"  but your suggestion is better.

 

IMHO if the ATFLIR that has a IR Marker is technically compatible with the Hornet, meaning it is the pod internal updates itself that only communicates with the OSB's functions to offer (pod runs everything the DDI shows the video from the pod and sends back the OSB pressing that then triggers all functions inside the pod itself and presents them again as video to Hornet) so that it can be taken in use later on when it got in service. So if someone has information about would it work that way in 2006+ years, then there could be hope to get a ATFLIR version that supports that IR marker. 

 

[Bunny Clark]

11 hours ago, Fri13 said:

"as mentioned, the USS John F. Kennedy Strike Group has thirty four F/A-18C (i.e. legacy, not Super) Hornets embarked. Of the fifty-one pods deployed in February 2005, forty-nine of those pods were allocated for Super Hornets, and 2 for legacy Hornets.

Well hey, since the Super Hornet doesn't exist in any way in our DCS universe, I guess it just means our Hornets snagged all the ATFLIRs instead 

[Fri13]

6 minutes ago, Bunny Clark said:

Well hey, since the Super Hornet doesn't exist in any way in our DCS universe, I guess it just means our Hornets snagged all the ATFLIRs instead 

 

Got to say that I did not even think about that logic. Not joking. 

As that is really a valid reasoning in the DCS Universe.

 

But now my brain hurts.

 

[Dragon1-1]

I for one, would like to have the Nite Hawk, since it was quite widely used by the USN, and for quite a long time, too. It would add a lot of challenge due to its low-res sensor and less zoom than either of the pods we have.

[3WA]

But what if we're in The Matrix, and in Reality, this is actually the year 2121?

[Fri13]

32 minutes ago, 3WA said:

But what if we're in The Matrix, and in Reality, this is actually the year 2121?

 

Then I say that simulation of the DCS hardware requirements are unnecessary...