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

[Tank50us]

3 minutes ago, KIllshot0597 said:

what do you mean by this?

 

That instead of making MAC a separate game (which has been hinted at), they make it just another module for DCS akin to FC3, IE, a pack of planes you can buy that are more complex than FC3 aircraft, but less complex than a full fidelity plane (think like how Grinelli setup the F-22 mod, or how Anubis set up the C-130 mod.) The planes require a proper start procedure for example, but it's a 3-6 step process compared to some FF planes where there's about a couple dozen steps to go from cold and dark to ready to taxi. ( just one example)

[Killshot0597]

33 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

That instead of making MAC a separate game (which has been hinted at), they make it just another module for DCS akin to FC3, IE, a pack of planes you can buy that are more complex than FC3 aircraft, but less complex than a full fidelity plane (think like how Grinelli setup the F-22 mod, or how Anubis set up the C-130 mod.) The planes require a proper start procedure for example, but it's a 3-6 step process compared to some FF planes where there's about a couple dozen steps to go from cold and dark to ready to taxi. ( just one example)

Absolutely not, DCS and MAC should be separate from each other as their principles are almost opposites of each other. What you are describing is essentially Game Flight mode and Game Avionics mode being turned on. Look at how many servers have those options enabled. I still doubt we will see anything classified on MAC, I really believe it is ED interest to turn it into training wheels to help new player potentially transition over to DCS. As we all know how steep of a learning curve it is. So it wouldn't surprise me if owning a module in DCS would also give you a module in MAC. People might feel daunted to start with DCS so they start with MAC, then transition over to DCS once curiosity settles in. Or they might not. Either way, ED gets to sell more modules and that potentially means more aircraft for us to play with.

[bies]

My opinion about the Superhornet in DCS is as follows, only very early Block would be available in the future (if anything), from around 2005 just like our legacy Hornet. Avionics of such early Block is close to identical to legacy Hornet. The only significant difference would be the longer legs and added pylons (added drag) at the cost of highter speed bleed rate in the turn due to increased drag, not worth. And I like the more proportional legacy Hornet look more, plus it's more zipper airframe, nimble, faster to respond.

 

My opinion about the Superhornet as a real aircraft is, such medicore upgrade over the legacy Hornet two decades later (instead of fielding new cutting edge airframe A-12) has been accepted only because the Soviet Union collapsed and the US Navy budget shrinked and performance ceased to matter nearly as much as when US had the real opponent. In many ways it was a downgrade of an F-14 the Superburg was meant to replace. Compared to the leap USAF did from the F-15 to the F-22 at the same time is an eye opener.

 

Superhornet did well guiding precision munition bombing helpless or nearly helpless opposition, but it wouldn't be an optimal solution for some serious air combat against an advanced and competent opponent.

Too slow, too draggy, too low thrust to weight, to high speed bleed rate in the turn, too slow acceleration, to low ceiling etc.

And even then it's biggest advantages - by far - would lay in it's modern advanced electronic warfare capabilities, which would be omitted being totally classified and impossible to model in any public simulator.

Edited August 10, 2021 by bies

[Northstar98]

One thing I will say is that the Superhornet would probably be a better fit for our current Supercarrier (which represent mid-to-late 2000s ships from roughly 2006 - 2010), a 2008 F/A-18E/F would be more appropriate than the legacy Hornet.

 

Avionics stay mostly the same (AN/APG-73, AN/ALR-67(V)3, AN/ALQ-165 (though our Hornet should use the -162, not the -165 AFAIK), as do weapons (though some are missing).

 

I'm not sure if DCS natively supports buddy stores as a loadout option, the reason being is that we have dedicated aircraft fitted with buddystores that can only be tankers, for example - the S-3B and S-3B tanker - both aircraft are identical, just the latter has a buddystore and external fuel tank - these should just be a loadout option for the S-3B, not a dedicated aircraft. Though this also applies to the A-6E and Mirage F1EE too.

 

Though right now I'm much more interested in Cold War stuff from the mid 70s to late 80s, so I'd prefer an earlier F/A-18C or even an F/A-18A.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Northstar98

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, bies said:

My opinion about the Superhornet in DCS is as follows, only very early Block would be available in the future (if anything), from around 2005 just like our legacy Hornet. Avionics of such early Block is close to identical to legacy Hornet. The only significant difference would be the longer legs and added pylons (added drag) at the cost of highter speed bleed rate in the turn due to increased drag, not worth. And I like the more proportional legacy Hornet look more, plus it's more zipper airframe, nimble, faster to respond.

 

My opinion about the Superhornet as a real aircraft is, such medicore upgrade over the legacy Hornet two decades later (instead of fielding new cutting edge airframe A-12) has been accepted only because the Soviet Union collapsed and the US Navy budget shrinked and performance ceased to matter nearly as much as when US had the real opponent. In many ways it was a downgrade of an F-14 the Superburg was meant to replace. Compared to the leap USAF did from the F-15 to the F-22 at the same time is an eye opener.

 

Superhornet did well guiding precision munition bombing helpless or nearly helpless opposition, but it wouldn't be an optimal solution for some serious air combat against an advanced and competent opponent.

Too slow, too draggy, too low thrust to weight, to high speed bleed rate in the turn, too slow acceleration, to low ceiling etc.

And even then it's biggest advantages - by far - would lay in it's modern advanced electronic warfare capabilities, which would be omitted being totally classified and impossible to model in any public simulator.

 

 

And likely only pushed to the forefront because of political shenanigans. It is cheaper and easier to maintain than a Tomcat or Intruder, but at the same time, it's also not as capable of delivering the kind of punch either aircraft can in their respective roles. I think McDonald Douglas/Boeing only really intended the aircraft to be a straight upgrade to the legacy Hornet, but given the hate-boner that... chem... certain individuals had for Grumman, the Super Hornet is pressed into the roles of both of Grummans star products.

 

That's not to say it's a bad fighter mind you, I think we can all agree that it is still an aircraft deserving of respect, but it really isn't a real replacement for the Tomcat or Intruder, and Grumman should've been allowed to build their Next Generation versions of both aircraft unimpeded.

[Dudikoff]

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

 

That's not to say it's a bad fighter mind you, I think we can all agree that it is still an aircraft deserving of respect, but it really isn't a real replacement for the Tomcat or Intruder, and Grumman should've been allowed to build their Next Generation versions of both aircraft unimpeded.

 

I don't think there was any hope for all three types budget-wise, especially in the light of the primary threat disappearing and the money sunk into the A-12.

 

One gets the impression that Grumman was kind of caught napping expecting both F-14D and A-6F programs to continue as planned instead of seriously working on an attack 'Super' Tomcat alternative to both the Super Hornet and the A-6F as a backup.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Dudikoff

[bies]

Realistically after the USSR collapsed and symmetrical opponent disappeared nobody was going to pay for the new high performance aircraft. Even an F-22 has been barely saved, drastically reducing the orders and chosing only the cheapest options, resigning many capabilities etc.

It's changing now with the new symmetrical opponent rises, this time it's China and we will see some new high performance aircrafts in the next decades.

 

But overall the period  from 1991 fall of the USSR/the end of the Desert Storm  untill ~2017/18 definite rise of China - is the most boring and stagnated 25-30 years period in history of military aviation since WW1.

Zero even semi-symmetrical advanced technology conflicts, just a mud hut bombing of helpless opposition, old 1970s/1980s airframes upgrades until they are simply badly outdated, no symmetrical opponents just the US dominance, all advanced programs either severely delayed and trimmed down or completely cancelled.

Edited August 11, 2021 by bies

[Lurker]

Oh look another Super-Hornet wishlist thread. People sure love their Prius station-wagons

Edited August 10, 2021 by Lurker

[Tank50us]

4 minutes ago, Dudikoff said:

 

I don't think there was any hope for all three types budget-wise, especially in the light of the primary threat disappearing and the money sunk into the A-12.

 

One gets the impression that Grumman was kind of caught napping expecting both F-14D and A-6F programs to continue as planned instead of working on a Super Tomcat alternative to the Super Hornet.

 

 

That's just it though, they were. But because of the threat gap between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of Communist China (about 20 years or so), the US Congress in its usual inability to see past the next day just assumed that the threats to the carrier was gone, and that nothing could touch it as no one had the budget to operate the kind of long-range aircraft, surface ships, and submarines necessary to take on a single Carrier Battle Group. They completely ignored that just because the USSR was gone, that Russia, and all the equipment built for them still existed, and could be bought up by anyone, and China did exactly that. They bought a solid supply of Russian made equipment, and reverse engineered it. Now, the PLAN is bringing online multiple Carriers that they can actually afford (unlike the USSR), they're bringing long-range bombers online with the capacity to launch long range cruise missiles at the carriers, and worse yet for us, they have developed anti-ship ballistic missiles which will for all intents and purposes make going anywhere near their coast in a shooting war a very dangerous prospect.

 

Having the Tomcat and Intruder and their range in the fleet was one of the things that kept the carrier safe. The further a ship is away from the coast, the less likely it is to be located and attacked in such a conflict. And before anyone brings up Satellites, remember that in such a war there's a good chance that most, if not all of them will be destroyed in the opening salvos in such a war simply because of how important they are.

 

This is where the A-12, ST-21, and A-6F projects came in. A brand new attacker, and two evolution's of two existing aircraft (so much so that they'd be entirely new builds!) would've meant that when this threat to the fleet emerged, we'd have been in a position to actually counter it, and force the Chinese planners to start looking for other means of attacking the ships. The Super Hornet, in this scenario, would likely still exist as the Hornet had some issues that would only be solved with the Super Bugs introduction, but if it had come in along side the F-14E and A-6F, the American CVBG would've been a far more capable fighting force then it is now.

[Dudikoff]

Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree that the decision to rely on Super Hornet exclusively was quite short-sighted, but slashing military budgets was the order of the day after the collapse of the USSR. In that context, having basically one type of a combat airplane (because Hornet and Super Hornet were oh so similar or that's how the story went) which can do a bit of everything is quite appealing.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that Grumman should have sensed the changing winds, get off their high horse and develop an AST-21 prototype or whatever (with modern sub-systems, wiring, etc. to improve on operating costs) that could realistically compete with the Super Hornet's appeal.

 

The signs were there for them. E.g. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/BRE.htm

 

 

[kseremak]

I share this sentiment, "War on Terror" era was boring, old planes modernised endlessly, practically zero interesting warfare or air combat with aircraft of both sides being shoot down.

 

I can't wait for my dream Forrestal carrier deck with F-14A fighters, A-6E Intruder Bombers and A-7E Corsair attackers, it's coming.

Or slightly earlier with F-8 Crusaders and F-4 Phantoms instead of Tomcats. Late Vietnam.

Maybe also slightly later with F/A-18A instead of A-7E.

 

Not the Toyota Prius Station Vagon like someone said.

[Killshot0597]

Regardless of what was retired and what wasn't and for whatever reason. It'd still be nice to see a Super Hornet in DCS even as an AI only unit for now. That way our Carrier Decks are populated realistically with legacies and super hornets post 2006. I've said this before, I still think it is too early to ask for a Super Hornet, let ED finish the Legacy and Viper and maybe even the A-10C2 first.

[Exorcet]

The Super Hornet would be nice even as an AI only plane to give more carrier variety. Part of the EW overhaul that DCS needs should included jammer aircraft like the G Hornet anyway.

 

I'd like to see at least the E be flyable as well. The Hornet is more of a strike plane in my opinion so getting the bigger version with more range and weapons would be nice. It would fit in pretty well with the EF-2000 time wise.

[mkellytx]

First thought here, "Dear God why isn't this in an FAQ pinned to the forum, why must we continue to suffer more Super Bug Threads..."

 

Second thought, "Super Bug sucks, why didn't big bad Haliburton guy, who shot his friend in the face make the right decision and not kill the best naval fighter ever considered..."

 

Third thought, the last 30 years gives us an good case study of the dangers of the pursuit of best/better versus good enough.  Really, what's the average fleet age in USAF and USN today? Of course the verdict is still out, who knows what the right answer is with 6 G and peer competition... Hindsight is of course 20/20. 

 

All I know is that I was on the team that shot for best/better while watching the other service retire its tired iron..

[upyr1]

29 minutes ago, mkellytx said:

First thought here, "Dear God why isn't this in an FAQ pinned to the forum, why must we continue to suffer more Super Bug Threads..."

 

agreed

[JustKilian]

So after so many responses to my topic (which btw I did not expect) I think I want to add something.

 

I tried reading through all the messages so bear with me.

 

As much as I want to refuel my buddies myself in no way I want an incomplete module. I thought about what I really want with the Super Hornet and realized that the only thing that really hypes me up about it is its aesthetics and the ability to refuel others. Aesthetics aside the ability to refuel others is not limited to the Super Hornet. As you guys said there are a few planes that have the ability to refuel others or even are made to do it which are already in the game for the AI to use. I for one would probably chose a dedicated refueling plane over the Super Hornet. I would even go so far to say that it does not even have to have a Jet engine. There are so many cool Turboprops that I would probably prefer.

 

So all in all I have to say this. If only to satisfy the communities need for the Super Hornet ED decides to implement an incomplete module I probably would advise against that. DCS lives through its realism and right now I think that the Super Hornet has to many systems that are classified to become a great module in DCS. Adding it for the AI would be a different story cause you would not need to simulate everything to spec. Make the thing fly and behave normal aerodynamically and give it realistic weaponry and I think it would satisfy a lot of DCS players just to have a Super Hornet in DCS even if its not playable.

 

And thanks for the insane response to my rather incomplete topic.

Edited August 13, 2021 by JustKilian
Grammar

[Evoman]

If all you were mostly looking for was a decent enough tanker to refuel you buddies then the A-6 intruder will defectively fill that role nicely. Not only could it be equipped with a refueling-pod but there was even a dedicated tanker variant. It may not have the sharp aesthetics of the super bug but trust me that the A-6's great flying all weather capabilities will win you over.

 

I recently read this interesting interview with a former A-6 pilot where he tells of his experience in flying tanker hops.

The full interview can be found here: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27604/confessions-of-an-a-6-intruder-pilot

 

 

 

"Most of my career was spent operating in the Persian Gulf where we had ample Air Force tanker support, but I flew a handful of tanker hops where we would strap four 2,000-pound drop-tanks and a centerline mounted D-704 refueling-pod, which aside from containing the retracting hose and basket, held another 2,000-pounds of gas. 

The most fun tanker hops were the daytime yo-yo missions where you would launch before the fighters and strikers, meet them a couple hundred miles from the carrier along their strike route, give them almost all of your gas (18,000-20,000 pounds of give!) and then race back to the carrier for a solo shit-hot break. 

The most rewarding tanker hops were when you were assigned as a recovery tanker for the last event of the night. Your job was to orbit overhead and be prepared to offer emergency gas to the planes that were coming down to land in the event they boltered (missed all the wires) or were waved off.  

During Blue-Water ops, when we operated beyond the range of possibility to divert to a land-based runway, it was particularly challenging and a massive responsibility. Carrier-based jets are fuel-critical from the moment we start our engines. When we fly far enough out to sea where calling ‘uncle’ and landing on a runway isn’t possible, every ounce of gas becomes precious.

Once the night missions are complete and it's time to land, the jets have enough gas for maybe two attempts to catch a wire. Throw in some weather, a pitching deck, a dark night and the knowledge that you either are landing safely on the ship, or ejecting into the frigid ocean, a pilot can get so tense that they practically suck the seat cushion up their butt. 

Everyone I know has had a ‘night-in-the-barrel,' a night where they had difficulty beyond normal catching a wire. And after every miss, the tension became more intense. You knew that five-thousand people were watching your every failed attempt, including your peers, your CO, the Skipper of the ship, and most likely the Strike-Group Admiral. 

As the recovery tanker you were the last line of hope for a strung-out pilot who had already failed to land a few times. His, or her, nerves were surely shattered and confidence was in their boots. On the last pass before the troubled plane would need to refuel, the recovery tanker would drop down to shadow, or ‘hawk,’ the jet. 

You would have to maneuver yourself to time it perfectly so that if the jet failed to land once again you would be just in front of them at 2,000 feet. Then that shaky, panicky pilot could spot you immediately as they cleaned up and climbed to your altitude right behind you. Then they would have to perform an activity just slightly less challenging than landing on a carrier at night, they would have to plug their refueling probe into a basket dangling into the slipstream fifty feet behind the tanker at night, maybe in bad weather, at 2,000 feet. Or, they were going swimming. And the reward for a successful plug and refuel was another look at the boat.  

Yay.  

I know a guy who had to go around so many times he plugged the hawking tanker three times.  After he finally landed, he was so wrung out he had to be helped from the cockpit.  

And after all the drama was complete for the night, the recovery tanker had to come in and land. And there was no one hawking you with extra gas if you couldn’t make it aboard. 

I didn’t love flying tanker missions and thankfully I didn’t have to fly many, but the yo-yo, and especially the recovery tanker missions were always gratifying. "

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by Evoman

[Kev2go]

in a sidenote Im wondering how is it some Super Hornets have Green font/ symbology. Though most have White?

 

IS this a feature that pilots can choose? or is Green font from an older software suite that still hasn't been phased out? ( this video is from 2018 btw)

 

 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Kev2go

[Harker]

in a sidenote Im wondering how is it some Super Hornets have Green font/ symbology. Though most have White?
 
IS this a feature that pilots can choose? or is Green font from an older software suite that still hasn't been phased out? ( this video is from 2018 btw)
 
 

Can't say for sure, but I think it's just a color option. In DCS, you can choose your display font color in the Harrier through the EHSD page, as it carries modern MPCDs.

[SkateZilla]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

in a sidenote Im wondering how is it some Super Hornets have Green font/ symbology. Though most have White?

 

IS this a feature that pilots can choose? or is Green font from an older software suite that still hasn't been phased out? ( this video is from 2018 btw)

 

 

 

VFA-211 only operates Lot 27 and Lot 28 -Fs now, they should all have the full color AMPCD, they were all lot 25 and up.

All Block I SH's are now in Reserve SQNs and/or mothballed for USN Flight Demonstration use.

This Video while dated 2018, is likely older, outside of the Fact that CVN-65 was decommissioned over a year before this video was uploaded, there are small things in the video that point more towards early 2010s-2014

Edited February 12, 2022 by SkateZilla

[Sonoda Umi]

I'm not sure that any 3rd party(like Heatblur) has interest and capability to build a Full-Fidelity F/A-18F (Block 1 is ok).

Theoretically, the Heatblur is able to port AI WSO technique into Rhino Foxtrot, so they should be one of the best candidnates to approach that.

[SkateZilla]

13 hours ago, Sonoda Umi said:

I'm not sure that any 3rd party(like Heatblur) has interest and capability to build a Full-Fidelity F/A-18F (Block 1 is ok).

Theoretically, the Heatblur is able to port AI WSO technique into Rhino Foxtrot, so they should be one of the best candidnates to approach that.

Heatblur has a full plate w/ EF2000, F-4E, A-6E and they are still doing the Iranian F-14A

[WobblyFlops]

11 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Heatblur has a full plate w/ EF2000, F-4E, A-6E and they are still doing the Iranian F-14A

It's even more than that, 2 versions of the F-4E plus the naval Phantom and then the other platforms. If the Strike Eagle turns out well, Razbam may attempt it one day but even they are neck deep in different projects. TBH, I'd rather see a paid update to our Charlie Hornet, A-10 style. Having a newer C+ USMC jet with GBU 54, better HOTAS functions and smaller improvements (double altitude readout, AOA readout when trimming), colored DDIs and so on. In fact, having a paid update may incentivize ED to revisit the current deficiencies in certain systems of the Hornet, like the INS-navigation suite or the radar workflow or the lack of MSI.

[SkateZilla]

4 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

It's even more than that, 2 versions of the F-4E plus the naval Phantom and then the other platforms. If the Strike Eagle turns out well, Razbam may attempt it one day but even they are neck deep in different projects. TBH, I'd rather see a paid update to our Charlie Hornet, A-10 style. Having a newer C+ USMC jet with GBU 54, better HOTAS functions and smaller improvements (double altitude readout, AOA readout when trimming), colored DDIs and so on. In fact, having a paid update may incentivize ED to revisit the current deficiencies in certain systems of the Hornet, like the INS-navigation suite or the radar workflow or the lack of MSI.

C+ Hornets are likely Classified in terms of the upgraded avionics, outside of the known items, there are many new items that are still classified

Also the order is about to be reduced to 15 fighters from 19, which was dropped to 19 from 25 and to 25 from 30,

USMC may have to face facts, as far as US Navy and funding is concerned, the Legacy Hornet is dead. why dump money into it and upgrade it only to retire it in 8 years, by time the last C+ comes back to the USMC it will fly for 4 years. One of them has already crashed and isnt recoverable, so that will make 14 total C+ Hornets, if anything, they can use them as a buffer aircraft between the hornet and the F-35, because the C+s will never go on another navy deployment, so there's little point to even having them.

Edited February 13, 2022 by SkateZilla

[WobblyFlops]

1 hour ago, SkateZilla said:

C+ Hornets are likely Classified in terms of the upgraded avionics, outside of the known items, there are many new items that are still classified

Then if possible they can just add in the things that are publically known. The 54 can be approximated, the rest of the stuff I mentioned is pretty easy to change and we'd have an upgrade just from those items. The A-10 is also only getting a small fraction of the real capabilities and many, many things can't be implemented to our version.

 

As for the second part of your answer, I gotta admit, I don't quite understand why any of that means that it wouldn't be possible for DCS.