F/A-18D...why don't we have it yet?

[ChuckJäger]

An F/A-18F would be a completely new design... the legacy and superbug have very little in common to include it's dimensions.  The Superbug is bigger.  So It wouldn't be just a matter of a quick overhaul.  

I do think a D would be cool though... I'd love to multi crew with people for training missions and such.

[WobblyFlops]

31 minutes ago, ChuckJäger said:

the legacy and superbug have very little in common to include it's dimensions

And you know, the same exact avionics (as it pertains to DCS).

[FlankerKiller]

On 2/2/2022 at 11:03 PM, 352nd_Hoss said:

Why not just ask for an Advanced Super Hornet, conformal tanks, 3,500lbs of extra fuel, reduced drag, increased range, speed, maneuverability. Enhanced Engines, next generation cockpit, advanced AESA RADAR, internal IRST, and enclosed weapons pod.  Of course it comes in E or F configuration.  Or ask for an EA-18G for ECM/SEAD business............

Go big, or go home

Hoss

 

4 hours ago, 352nd_Hoss said:

Get your facts straight, I did not ask for it. I held a SECRET clearance for 44 years, I repaired DECM, and COMSEC equipment in the Navy. At the ARF I worked APG-65/73 RADARS. Being lectured on guarding classified information is a non starter. I'm amazed at threads on both systems I read in these forums, I know how it works and DCS doesn't come close to getting it right because they can't. DCS module developers are working from released public documents, and common theory of operation of like systems. And input from SME's. Oh, I was never a "Seamen", and its Seaman, aviation rates are Airman......our rates have wings..... The C/D and E/F Blk II is just as classified as the BLK III. Your argument is moot.

Cheers

Hoss

So Hoss, you were in fact trolling. Sad thing is I actually agree with you about the Hornet and the Viper, probably the Jeff too. I'm not even going to waist my time on the Erofighter. I think that Eagle Dynamics doing anything more recent the Desert Storm is actually bull <profanity> for the exact reasons you listed. That being said you come on a wish list and imply/ask about a jet that if you weren't a stolen valor prick you would know wasn't in any way possible to model. That is the very definition of being a Toll. And al a dick. 

F-2 pointed out that there was as much, maybe more info on a early Super Hornet then the Hornet that they did model. So if the data is there, or enough of it then ED could do it and it probably would sell. Your <profanity> post was basically a slap in the face. 

Also stolen valor isn't ok. I have friends who's lives are fucked up, who's body are ruined, and who's families are estranged. Friends who are haunted by seeing colleagues maimed or killed. Ether by enemy action or by accidents.  People who do serve in the military do often pay a very high price for there service. Even if they don't see combat. It's not the kind of thing you brandish about while <profanity> posting on a flight sim forum, just so you sound cool. Now with all disrespect <profanity> off, if you don't have anything meaningful to add to the conversation why don't you just keep your fucking pie hole shut. 

Respond however you want I'm done with this whole conversation. 

Edited February 5, 2022 by FlankerKiller
Needed it to be more offinsive

[FlankerKiller]

4 hours ago, ChuckJäger said:

An F/A-18F would be a completely new design... the legacy and superbug have very little in common to include it's dimensions.  The Superbug is bigger.  So It wouldn't be just a matter of a quick overhaul.  

I do think a D would be cool though... I'd love to multi crew with people for training missions and such.

My understanding is they share alot of systems. It would probably be more accurate to say as far as it pertains to DCS they share a lot of systems. Also thay are similar aerodynamically, again as it pertains to DCS. It would be alot of work for sure. But ED could cannibalize the current Hornet for alot of it. So not like starting at zero. Plus more people would probably be willing to buy a super the another legacy. That being said if I was going forward into the forth gen thing I would buy anything that got me component Jester like AI. That being said the Apache is the last modern aircraft module I buy. Unless they make and F/A-18A or a Desert storm C, or an F-16A, or an F-15A or Desert Storm C. Or an A-10A, or a Mig-29A. As mentioned by the troll above there is just too much guess work on anything after the early 90s. 

Edited February 5, 2022 by FlankerKiller

[SkateZilla]

On 2/3/2022 at 10:34 PM, 352nd_Hoss said:

No, F/A-18E-F's going into overhaul are being updated to Advanced Super Hornets, or Block II to Block III, not all but a good majority. And some are being built from scratch.  I'm retired Navy, and retired Boeing, so I've known about this for awhile, Did you know some of the Super Hornets sent to Australia are wired to become Growlers if the RAAF should decide to convert them? Oh yeah, the first Block III has been delivered to the US Navy already..................     Nope, no Troll, Ogre maybe, but no Troll.

So if you are going to ask for something, ask for the latest iteration of the Hornet. 

 

From the Boeing web page on the Block III Hornet.....  https://www.boeing.com/defense/fa-18-super-hornet/

 

Cheers

Hoss the Ogre

 

The Lot the RAAF Purchased was prewired to be upgradable to growlers, every Block II -F the USN received in that lot and after was also pre-wired to be a growler, it was part of the Lot Features.

As stated, the individual cockpit systems in the Later Block II and III Super Hornets are all classified, you will not get enough data to accurately simulate them.

Kuwait's Super Hornets are also Block III, and the 8 -Fs are also pre-wired for Growler conversion.

 

Edited February 5, 2022 by SkateZilla

[Northstar98]

On 2/2/2022 at 4:51 PM, Cab said:

People say that but then there's the Typhoon that's in development. 

Yeah, but the stars really aligned for it:

• They're officially licensed by the manufacturer.
• They're in communications with the management agency.
• Truegrit have Typhoon SMEs on their team.
• Truegrit are building a cockpit trainer for the Luftwaffe (or are at least partnered with a company who is).

It's not as simple as 'its too modern' or not. Fortunately early Super Hornets aren't much different to our legacy Hornet, but ED still has a ways to go with it yet, and seem to not have systems planned that it actually should have.

The main problem as I see it with a Super Hornet, is that it makes the legacy Hornet somewhat obsolete (though there might be some advantages to the C).

 

As for the OP, I'd be onboard with a D, and can see the use for one. But the problem is the current C still has a way to go.

[SkateZilla]

Unless Boeing says, Here ED, heres all the manuals, build us a Super Hornet Training Simulator, and then you can strip these features and sell it to consumers.

 

Super Hornet wont happen,

 

as for D, it would have to be a USMC -D,

 

as I said, USN Ds had dual cockpits that were pretty much identical sans a few changes like no hud etc.

Literally trading fuel for a extra seat.

 

Then you have to look at development time to modify the external C model, build the rear cockpit 3d model, animate it, code all the separate systems, sync them. and likely re code most of the original systems to allow for Multicrew as the C being a a single seater, the Multicrew components would not be in the cockpit functions etc.

 

Edited February 5, 2022 by SkateZilla

[SkateZilla]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Yeah, but the stars really aligned for it:

• They're officially licensed by the manufacturer.
• They're in communications with the management agency.
• Truegrit have Typhoon SMEs on their team.
• Truegrit are building a cockpit trainer for the Luftwaffe (or are at least partnered with a company who is).

It's not as simple as 'its too modern' or not. Fortunately early Super Hornets aren't much different to our legacy Hornet, but ED still has a ways to go with it yet, and seem to not have systems planned that it actually should have.

The main problem as I see it with a Super Hornet, is that it makes the legacy Hornet somewhat obsolete (though there might be some advantages to the C).

 

As for the OP, I'd be onboard with a D, and can see the use for one. But the problem is the current C still has a way to go.

It also depends on the Block Eurofighter,

EF really isnt too modern, its first flight was Before The SuperHornets, and Entered Service around the same time 2004ish.

Early EFs were much like Early SHs, they used currenr systems in the airframe to reduce initial cost and development time. then replaced and upgraded systems in later lots/blocks/tranches

[wilbur81]

The Super Hornet is a completely different airplane... designed to, in the words of Nick Pirnia (civilian Naval Aviation guru), "look like a Hornet" in order to get it past Congress. 

It is also slower, more draggy, less maneuverable in some areas such as roll rate, and uglier. 

It does have way more gas, a better radar, and more sophisticated FCS...

But for DCS, give me the most advanced Legacy's over Super almost any day. 

[_Hoss]

15 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

My understanding is they share alot of systems. It would probably be more accurate to say as far as it pertains to DCS they share a lot of systems. Also thay are similar aerodynamically, again as it pertains to DCS. It would be alot of work for sure. But ED could cannibalize the current Hornet for alot of it. So not like starting at zero. Plus more people would probably be willing to buy a super the another legacy. That being said if I was going forward into the forth gen thing I would buy anything that got me component Jester like AI. That being said the Apache is the last modern aircraft module I buy. Unless they make and F/A-18A or a Desert storm C, or an F-16A, or an F-15A or Desert Storm C. Or an A-10A, or a Mig-29A. As mentioned by the troll above there is just too much guess work on anything after the early 90s. 

 

The  common Avionics differences between the C/D and E/F are slight. The SDC (Signal Data Converter) which supplies the information displayed on the IFEI, are physically the same size, same number of SRA's inside. Its just newer, with newer components. Which is very critical, because a lot of the IC's and discrete components are rapidly becoming obsolete and un-obtainable. This goes for all the other Avionics systems in the C/D as well. The only thing that needs to be modeled between the C/D and E/F are the avionics systems not in the legacy birds. Lot numbers are not really that important either. A "lot 10" bird when it goes through SLEP will get updated to the current lot capabilities, hardware, software updates or OFP's . SDC's went from -8 models to -10's old -8's were modified to -11's. The -10, -11's are electronically the same... inputs/outputs..... physically the same size but the SRA's if you know what you are looking at you see the differences, especially the MOD wires. And both SDC work exactly the same in the plane. There are three dash numbers to the UFC, looking at it from the cockpit you would never know the difference, some are modified Non-Night Attack versions. Most of the control boxes, displays you see in the C/D I have repaired/modified, and the WRA's (Weapons Replaceable Assemblies) they control. The Marines are the only ones still flying the C/D in the US. Spain, Finland, and Malaysia would send gear they couldn't fix to us for repair. It will be around for awhile until said services retire and replace them. You have to remember the Navy only has so much space on the ship, Avionics work centers have fixed floor space for repair benches, fixed number of personel. Supply can only store a certain amount of RFI (Ready For Installation) or "A" condition spare WRA's, SRA's, and repair parts, for all the aircraft on board. That also goes for Structures, power plants, GSE, Ordnance. Navy techs, no matter the discipline are trained on a very wide range of systems within their rate, NEC families. 

Cheers

The Ogre

Hoss

[WobblyFlops]

2 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

It does have way more gas, a better radar, and more sophisticated FCS...

 

Everyone aside from one dude is talking about the only somewhat plausible Rhino, an early version from the mid 2000s without the 79. The avionics as they pertain to DCS (symbology, procedure, displays) are almost the same, the FCS is completely irrelevant since DCS doesn't simulate an actual FCS that's crunching the numbers anyway so it's not that big of a difference.  The big change is the AoA limiting logic that's specific to the Rhino and obviously the new engines, updated flight model which may or may not be possible. DCS also doesn't simulate component level interactions so it doesn't matter if the internals of the signal data converter (as explained above) are different because these background compenents are obfuscated and the game only displays the result, which is exactly the same. Failures, system logic and other similar complex features are also almost completely missing. So the fact that the real Rhino has different components to the Charlie is completely irrelevant.

[SkateZilla]

4 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

The Super Hornet is a completely different airplane... designed to, in the words of Nick Pirnia (civilian Naval Aviation guru), "look like a Hornet" in order to get it past Congress. 

It is also slower, more draggy, less maneuverable in some areas such as roll rate, and uglier. 

It does have way more gas, a better radar, and more sophisticated FCS...

But for DCS, give me the most advanced Legacy's over Super almost any day. 

Well,

Block 1 Lots 21 And 22 retained a majority of the legacy hornet cockpit systems to keep costs down.

Lot 21 was split between the last C, last group of Ds, and LRIP E and F

Lot 22 Was all E and Fs

Lot 23 started the avionics upgrades and LRIP growlers.

Lot 24 is the start of the AESA Nose reshaping and supporting systems.

 

And thats not even taking into account the programming language change to HoL-OFP, wish the Legacy hornet does not have (the USMC C++ Does)(But USN C/Ds didnt, and they now belong to USMC or MB'd),

We've discussed The Legacy to Super differences in the large Super Hornet wishlist thread

As for D Hornets, read comments above.

Edited February 5, 2022 by SkateZilla

[wilbur81]

34 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Well,

Block 1 Lots 21 And 22 retained a majority of the legacy hornet cockpit systems to keep costs down.

Lot 21 was split between the last C, last group of Ds, and LRIP E and F

Lot 22 Was all E and Fs

Lot 23 started the avionics upgrades and LRIP growlers.

Lot 24 is the start of the AESA Nose reshaping and supporting systems.

 

And thats not even taking into account the programming language change to HoL-OFP, wish the Legacy hornet does not have (the USMC C++ Does)(But USN C/Ds didnt, and they now belong to USMC or MB'd),

We've discussed The Legacy to Super differences in the large Super Hornet wishlist thread

As for D Hornets, read comments above.

 

Good info.  I still stand by my original comment, though: I'll take the most advanced Legacy Hornet in DCS over the Super almost any day. 

[F-2]

3 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

Good info.  I still stand by my original comment, though: I'll take the most advanced Legacy Hornet in DCS over the Super almost any day. 

Well we have, it’s not going anyplace, this was just my suggestion if they do a two seater. The USN version just has a back seat, but is otherwise the same as we have. More range and payload are desirable for a two seat strike aircraft, just like how good thrust to weight and less drag are great for our single seater. Granted though I do think the USMC D has desirable radar upgrades, I don’t know how applicable that is to other hornets.

[wilbur81]

23 minutes ago, F-2 said:

 More range and payload are desirable for a two seat strike aircraft...

indeed. 

[Harker]

I'd definitely go for an E or an F. If it's an early block, then one of the main differences would be the ARL-67(V)3 RWR, which would be nice to have. I wouldn't really go for a D, as it's the same as the C, with less gas.

[Kev2go]

14 hours ago, Harker said:

I'd definitely go for an E or an F. If it's an early block, then one of the main differences would be the ARL-67(V)3 RWR, which would be nice to have. I wouldn't really go for a D, as it's the same as the C, with less gas.

 

not to mention internally carried towed decoy . plus the the use of the UFCD as an additional multipurpose screen would be nice. 

[frostycab]

"F/A-18D...why don't we have it yet?"

You forgot to say the magic word 

[shagrat]

Am 1.2.2022 um 19:52 schrieb F-2:

Their has been a full fidelity super hornet in fs2004 since black shark came out and I have the super hornet manual open in another tab.

Just because you can download it on the internet, doesn't mean you have clearance to use for a commercial product... Just saying.

[SkateZilla]

On 2/1/2022 at 1:52 PM, F-2 said:

Their has been a full fidelity super hornet in fs2004 since black shark came out and I have the super hornet manual open in another tab.

I'm sorry, but if your referring to VRS SB, in 2004, it was far from full fidelity, had a lot of patch/guesswork in systems, it wasnt until about 2009 w/ Tacpack that it came out on top of all the other 3rd party aircraft, as much as users claim VRS SB was their breakout product, I believe VRS TP was their breakout product, as it allowed their SB to become a complete experience, as well as other aircraft. Even then, there's still a lot that's not 100% accurate both avionics and flight model wise.

Edited February 12, 2022 by SkateZilla

[Kev2go]

12 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

I'm sorry, but if your referring to VRS SB, in 2004, it was far from full fidelity, had a lot of patch/guesswork in systems, it wasnt until about 2009 w/ Tacpack that it came out on top of all the other 3rd party aircraft, as much as users claim VRS SB was their breakout product, I believe VRS TP was their breakout product, as it allowed their SB to become a complete experience, as well as other aircraft. Even then, there's still a lot that's not 100% accurate both avionics and flight model wise.

 

 

it will be interesting to see the fidelity of thier F/A18F when it comes out. Supposed to be totally reworked for the ground up and be a newer Hornet lot ( seem to be at least a  block 1 lot 25 given the features)  then the old venerable F/A18E which itself was supposed to get a proper remake post F/A18F.

But in any case minus limitations of not having a dedicated combat sim, there are an example that a Super Hornet is viable as a study sim level module. 

Sigh if only in DCS

Edited February 12, 2022 by Kev2go