Can the avionics on the F/A-18C give it an advantage in air to air engagements?

[LastRifleRound]

I'm seeing alot of conflating what may or may not be true in real life that I don't think is relevant to OP.

 

As it exists now in DCS, the Hornet avionics give it a distinct disadvantage, largely due the current radar function. It is currently the only fighter that has it's range reduced and can actually be confused by missiles in the air. For any large scale BVR engagement, the pilot will struggle with what the radar is actually tracking. Contacts are lost with much more regularity, and the pilot is presented with a choice of brick clutter or having their entire track history wiped every 4 seconds. STT will jump from an aircraft to a missile, sometimes your own, with no warning. I have an issue with HACQ that the first thing it locks is ME. I have to undesignate and reacuire at least once in 1v1 now.

 

None of the other aircraft in DCS has these hurdles. Some may be fixed, some may be added to other aircraft, but it isn't clear just how much and to what extent.

 

TL ; DR: As currently implemented as compared to other aircraft as they are in DCS, the Hornet's avionics put it at a disadvantage in air to air combat against the F15, F16, Mig29, and Su27 series. LOMAC aircraft are simplified and so don't have these bugs that result from trying to simulate realism, and the Viper radar is far more reliable. This could change, but it's not gauranteed. 

Edited May 31, 2021 by LastRifleRound

[Bunny Clark]

1 hour ago, LastRifleRound said:

the Viper radar is far more reliable. This could change, but it's not gauranteed. 

The Viper's radar absolutely will change. It's not even close to being finished yet. I would certainly not recommend anyone buy the Viper based on the current performance of its Radar.

[oldcrusty]

2 hours ago, LastRifleRound said:

I'm seeing alot of conflating what may or may not be true in real life that I don't think is relevant to OP.

 

As it exists now in DCS, the Hornet avionics give it a distinct disadvantage, largely due the current radar function. It is currently the only fighter that has it's range reduced and can actually be confused by missiles in the air. For any large scale BVR engagement, the pilot will struggle with what the radar is actually tracking. Contacts are lost with much more regularity, and the pilot is presented with a choice of brick clutter or having their entire track history wiped every 4 seconds. STT will jump from an aircraft to a missile, sometimes your own, with no warning. I have an issue with HACQ that the first thing it locks is ME. I have to undesignate and reacuire at least once in 1v1 now.

 

None of the other aircraft in DCS has these hurdles. Some may be fixed, some may be added to other aircraft, but it isn't clear just how much and to what extent.

 

TL ; DR: As currently implemented as compared to other aircraft as they are in DCS, the Hornet's avionics put it at a disadvantage in air to air combat against the F15, F16, Mig29, and Su27 series. LOMAC aircraft are simplified and so don't have these bugs that result from trying to simulate realism, and the Viper radar is far more reliable. This could change, but it's not gauranteed. 

 

 

I've seen the HACQ behavior you described, except I couldn't see what the heck was the radar locking as the mode was entered. The second attempt would acquire the correct target.

[wilbur81]

3 hours ago, Gripes323 said:

 

I've seen the HACQ behavior you described, except I couldn't see what the heck was the radar locking as the mode was entered. The second attempt would acquire the correct target.

For me, it isn't even always the 2nd attempt. Sometimes 3 or more attempts are required to get the HACQ to lock the real target out in front of you and not the ghost that is 99.9 nm away.

[Harlikwin]

4 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

The Viper's radar absolutely will change. It's not even close to being finished yet. I would certainly not recommend anyone buy the Viper based on the current performance of its Radar.

 

Yeah, sadly ED changed "one thing" and broke "all the other things" in this regard. At this point in the whole DCS development cycle they really need some sort of "Did I break DCS Czar" position that considers these changes. Its clear that having like 3 planes that over perform in terms of radar (f18, F16, JF17) and all of a sudden changing 1 (F18) will break various things when it comes to MP (cuz of course the F18/16/17 are on various sides in MP since ED can't deliver an actual modern "red" module).

 

And while Chiz may think its "realistic" for radars to show missile with some absurly low RCS (relative to planes) its not, sure a radar might pick up a 120C, but it will likely be filtered out, and certainly if you try to shoot it down you will miss for a dozen reasons. HEY ED "SHOW ME THE REAL WORLD TRACK WITH A AIM120C GETTING SHOT DOWN)

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Harlikwin

[GGTharos]

... why would it be filtered out?  Valid track within valid closure ranges and at some point enough of a reflection to be out of the noise floor.

[LastRifleRound]

6 hours ago, Gripes323 said:

 

I've seen the HACQ behavior you described, except I couldn't see what the heck was the radar locking as the mode was entered. The second attempt would acquire the correct target.

Yeah I was confused, too. I realized it was me after having flown 360 degrees around twice and the radial position never changed a foot that the only logical conclusion was that the game logic had it tracking me. I didn't get a lock warning, but geometrically it had to be myself. Clearly a bug I hope gets fixed soon!

[Harker]

... why would it be filtered out?  Valid track within valid closure ranges and at some point enough of a reflection to be out of the noise floor.

Seeing a missile on the scope is one thing, but currently, an STT lock can change from a bandit that's going 0.9 Mach, hot, 15 NM away, to your launched missile that's 2.5 Mach, cold, 2 NM away. Zero range and velocity gating is currently implemented, it's kind of a mess.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, I have no objection to that.

[Krippz]

1 hour ago, Harker said:

14 hours ago, GGTharos said:

... why would it be filtered out?  Valid track within valid closure ranges and at some point enough of a reflection to be out of the noise floor.

Seeing a missile on the scope is one thing, but currently, an STT lock can change from a bandit that's going 0.9 Mach, hot, 15 NM away, to your launched missile that's 2.5 Mach, cold, 2 NM away. Zero range and velocity gating is currently implemented, it's kind of a mess.

Agree.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Harker said:

14 hours ago, GGTharos said:

... why would it be filtered out?  Valid track within valid closure ranges and at some point enough of a reflection to be out of the noise floor.

Seeing a missile on the scope is one thing, but currently, an STT lock can change from a bandit that's going 0.9 Mach, hot, 15 NM away, to your launched missile that's 2.5 Mach, cold, 2 NM away. Zero range and velocity gating is currently implemented, it's kind of a mess.

 

Yup...

 

I mean seeing a missile on the radar is one thing, targeting it and succesfully shooting it down, especially if its incoming is whole other kettle of fish. 

 

And one of the "bugs/features" people have brought up is if you launch a missile your radar switches from the bandit to your missile... So I'm pretty sure thats not an IRL behaviour. 

[LastRifleRound]

13 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yup...

 

I mean seeing a missile on the radar is one thing, targeting it and succesfully shooting it down, especially if its incoming is whole other kettle of fish. 

 

And one of the "bugs/features" people have brought up is if you launch a missile your radar switches from the bandit to your missile... So I'm pretty sure thats not an IRL behaviour. 

The recursion of having the radar track your own AIM7 at launch is hilarious but disappointing.

[Harlikwin]

7 hours ago, LastRifleRound said:

The recursion of having the radar track your own AIM7 at launch is hilarious but disappointing.

 

Its one of those things that you think to yourself. No one caught THIS in testing?

[wilbur81]

On 6/2/2021 at 10:59 AM, Harlikwin said:

 

Its one of those things that you think to yourself. No one caught THIS in testing?

I'm more inclined to wonder how no one caught the Auto Acquisitioning of ghost bandits at 99.9 nm when locking a guy 2000 ft in front.

[raus]

6 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

I'm more inclined to wonder how no one caught the Auto Acquisitioning of ghost bandits at 99.9 nm when locking a guy 2000 ft in front.

Is that really happening in a „buggy“ way? I mean, it has happened to me once or twice, but always assumed the bandit was turning jammer on, and therefore the 99.9 reading… 

[Harker]

Is that really happening in a „buggy“ way? I mean, it has happened to me once or twice, but always assumed the bandit was turning jammer on, and therefore the 99.9 reading… 

Nope, I had it happen at around 12 NM in MP yesterday. Bandit as L&S on TWS, going for STT with SCS Right and the radar "locks" something beyond the scope, with a range reading of 99.9 NM and a dashed TD box on the HUD.

Going to STT with TDC Depress on the L&S worked OK, as well as automatically going to STT from TWS, on an AIM-7 shot.

[oldcrusty]

5 hours ago, raus said:

Is that really happening in a „buggy“ way? I mean, it has happened to me once or twice, but always assumed the bandit was turning jammer on, and therefore the 99.9 reading… 

 

It even happens when I can see the jammer pods on the bandit and pointing my radar bore directly on him. No time to play around with director mode. Funnel on and... a head shot.  ED's AI looses again

[wilbur81]

6 hours ago, raus said:

Is that really happening in a „buggy“ way? I mean, it has happened to me once or twice, but always assumed the bandit was turning jammer on, and therefore the 99.9 reading… 

No, ED has acknowledged it as a bug already. And if I play a 1v1 guns only mission (which I do incessantly ) against an opponent that has no jammer, it still does it... and 8 out of 10 times.

[Gwalker99]

On 5/22/2021 at 1:28 PM, Hulkbust44 said:

Once the Viper's radar gets fixed the Hornet will be the king of the skies in DCS hands down.

It's not the fastest, but the combination of good speed, godly SA, AIM-120, AIM-9X, and a fantastic radar make it a phenomenal A/A platform.

The Tomcats AWG-9. I love this radar, I love being in the backseat of the 14, but it's big disadvantage is it's large ZDF making it easy to notch. If you know what you're doing the range of the AIM-54 means nothing. It's a massive heavy missile with poor terminal guidance. Unless you are fighting against people that don't know what they're doing, or bombers, the Tomcat is a Sparrow aircraft.

Even with it's speed, the Viper still doesn't make up for it's poor radar. The Hornet while
.2 mach slower will always be able to out- range the 16. Hornet also has the advantage of fuel capacity (clean Hornet has the fuel if a 2 bag Viper) and weapon capacity. Since you have more AMRAAMs and can fire from further out you can always force the 16 defensive.

In a realistic merge (where you have FOX 2s) the Hornet should be unbeatable. The great nose authority with the AIM-9X is terrifying.

Sadly we only have the low fidelity Eagle in DCS. If we had a proper modern Eagle it would have the best radar, range, speed, and probably SA. Pluse JHMCS and the 9X. One can dream.

For a guns only fight:
Tomcat beats Viper and Hornet
Hornet and Viper are equal
Tomcat beats Hornet
Eagle beats Hornet and potentially Viper
Eagle and Tomcat I think I would call equal

(To be clear, the Eagle beats all in BVR once it and the Viper's radars get fixed. However it will still suffer from lack of SA.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

what's wrong with the 16's radar?  over powered? 

[Hulkbust44]

what's wrong with the 16's radar?  over powered? 

Yes, way too over modeled. By a very generous calculation it should have a maximum range of 35 miles, right now it's 77...

Mobius708

[Hobel]

A lot has been said here about the F16vsF18 and all its features.

But what I think has not been taken into account is.

RWR and how it is currently in the F16 is many times better than in the F18, because in the F16 you can read the distance of the aircraft and especially the missiles.

How far away is the 120? ah 3km now 2km ah now 3km again it's moving away.

This is a very powerful tool to know what state the enemy missiles are in.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Hobel

[Harlikwin]

10 minutes ago, Hobel said:

A lot has been said here about the F16vsF18 and all its features.

But what I think has not been taken into account is.

RWR and how it is currently in the F16 is many times better than in the F18, because in the F16 you can read the distance of the aircraft and especially the missiles.

How far away is the 120? ah 3km now 2km ah now 3km again it's moving away.

This is a very powerful tool to know what state the enemy missiles are in.

 

 

Yeah ED needs to "fix" RWR modeling. Its funny cuz the F14/F18/Harrier all use the same one, and they all work differently in DCS. Pretty sure its not the case IRL...

 

Basically anything having to do with sensors is what ED needs to get better at, be it radar, FLIR/IR, RWR, UV/MAWS etc. All of those systems have drawbacks none of which are in DCS. And before they can "pretend" to be a "modern" combat sim, they need to figure out why stuff like L16 basically redefined warfare as we know it (and no, thankfully that's currently not "in" DCS)

 

7 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Yes, way too over modeled. By a very generous calculation it should have a maximum range of 35 miles, right now it's 77...

Mobius708
 

 

Not quite that simple or that bad, but it does overperform right now with the modes it does have.

 

 

The current problem DCS has is that it doesn't actually model "modern" combat. Which is ALL about sensors, EW, deception etc. It models kinematics, which is great if you are fighting in vietnam or the 70's. By the 80's sensor dominance was a thing. 

 

The REAL reason the F18 is better than the WIPer is "sensors/MSI/ecm" but the Viper is better at kinematics. DCS models Kinematics ok (so the WIPer will win even when its fixed), but DCS does an abysmal job at modeling sensors even at a basic "textbook" level of fidelity. 

 

And the issue is that the average "user" isn't really up to understanding why the "sensor" part is so badly modeled. So they don't complain, and ED doesn't care, and spends their efforts in other areas.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by Harlikwin

[dorianR666]

26 minutes ago, Hobel said:

A lot has been said here about the F16vsF18 and all its features.

But what I think has not been taken into account is.

RWR and how it is currently in the F16 is many times better than in the F18, because in the F16 you can read the distance of the aircraft and especially the missiles.

How far away is the 120? ah 3km now 2km ah now 3km again it's moving away.

This is a very powerful tool to know what state the enemy missiles are in.

 

This was reported repeatedly in the past even with video evidence of HUD (length of lines representing the threat level / distance IIRC).

I dont think ED has any plans to fix it
 

 

 

Another issue with RWRs in F-16 and FA-18 is that threat symbols dont rotate around when you turn, based on data from INS. They snap to new positions only when the RWR performs an update.

 

Interestingly this works in F-14 and AVB8.

Edited June 12, 2021 by dorianR666

[Hobel]

24 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah ED needs to "fix" RWR modeling. Its funny cuz the F14/F18/Harrier all use the same one, and they all work differently in DCS. Pretty sure its not the case IRL...

just a guess, even if they all work the same, is the presentation also the same?

 

 

  

3 minutes ago, dorianR666 said:

this was reported repeatedly in the past even with video evidence of HUD

do you have links to this topic or even the video?

Edited June 12, 2021 by Hobel

[Harlikwin]

3 minutes ago, Hobel said:

just a guess, even if they all work the same, is the presentation also the same?

 

 

I mean an ALR-67v(1,2,3) is an ALR-67v(1,2,3) They are gonna "work the same", maybe in some cases integration with displays "might be different". But thats beyond my paygrade. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Hobel said:

  

do you have links to this topic or even the video?

 

Thats interesting.

7 minutes ago, dorianR666 said:

this was reported repeatedly in the past even with video evidence of HUD (length of lines representing the threat level / distance IIRC).

i dont think ED has any plans to fix it

 

Link to vid?