SA page, can I target what I see there?

[tezak]

Is there a way to target what my DL donor is targeting or target a SAM I see there? 

[rob10]

Not directly with the F-18.  You can see where your FLIR is pointing (small box with dot in the middle) and move it around to get it over the desired target, but that's about as close as you can get.

Edited December 6, 2023 by rob10

[norman99]

Not yet.

If (big if), we get improved MSI, you should be able to designate a L&S target from a donor on the SA page. My understanding is that even with this function, to release a missile on said target, you'll still need to ensure this target is also an on-board radar trackfile first.

Releasing missiles purely from off-board datalink targets is F35 (maybe SuperHornet?) level stuff.

Edited December 6, 2023 by norman99

[Hulkbust44]

My understanding is that even with this function, to release a missile on said target, you'll still need to ensure this target is also an on-board radar trackfile first.

Nope, target just needs to be in the ballpark of the radar azimuth as the antenna is what transmits the MDL, even with the radar off. It doesn’t really matter how the trackfile was created


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[norman99]

@Hulkbust44 I didnt know the exact details, thanks for that .

[Muchocracker]

There's no actual source i have ever found to prove this. The assumption is the radar still needs to be a contributing source to that trackfile to shoot an amraam at it. But even just having anything else that we're missing from MSI would be a huge addition (mainly the trackfile ranking from other sources that onboard)

[Hulkbust44]

There's no actual source i have ever found to prove this. The assumption is the radar still needs to be a contributing source to that trackfile to shoot an amraam at it. But even just having anything else that we're missing from MSI would be a huge addition (mainly the trackfile ranking from other sources that onboard)

Lower TD box has a NO RDR cue if the L+S MSI trackfile doesn't have onboard radar contribution. Nothing states that launch would be inhibited. Also, auto quicklook (Q/L) parameters for a missile inflight wouldn't sustain a radar trackfile as I see it.

Why would you need radar contribution?

Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

[Muchocracker]

I mean it could be argued that IS the inhibit. Think about it this way, why would you need to know that the L&S did not have radar contribution if it didn't matter for an amraam shot. L16 track quality is also pretty trash with slow update rates. 

 @Harker has done more research on MSI than me, he can chime in on this.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Muchocracker

[MARLAN_]

Publicly available documentation will define MSI as combining trackfile information from multiple sources combining them all into one trackfile, e.g. radar, FLIR, data link, and HAS. That same document will then explicitly reference everything as a MSI trackfile. This to me strongly implies its all part of the same system (i.e. radar contribution isn't required to launch/support as that would be different type of trackfile than a MSI trackfile). The lack of radar contribution just means you will have a lower track quality as it is your best source.

L16 update rate is not that slow, L16 examples show F/F would have ~112 timeslots, equally spaced that is about ~100ms per update between fighters. Relying on the AIC only though would be slow as it won't update for ~10 seconds.

The F-18 being able to incorporate all sources into trackfiles is one of the defining features of the F-18, and inhibiting a launch because it doesn't have radar contribution would defeat a large part of MSI.

Imagine for a moment how valuable MSI would be in the case of a notching aircraft (putting aside how easy it is to do in DCS to begin with) -- if you had a FLIR track, or a wingman abeam who isn't being notched, suddenly that contact can't just turn into the beam and become invisible. Preventing you from supporting (or launching) a missile in this situation seems very silly to me as we would simply be limiting available information to the missile. It is quite known that notching is no longer a reliable technique in more modern engagements, this is likely one significant part of that (in addition to radar & processing improvements)

As Hulkbust said (and I concur as far as my understanding goes) you should be able to support a missile as long as it is roughly inside your radar azimuth (including side lobes) even without your ownship radar contribution. You could even in theory shoot outside of this as well, it would just be an unsupported missile off the rail (and burn a lot of energy turning that hard) flying to the only known active/intercept point.

Edited December 11, 2023 by MARLAN_

[Muchocracker]

2 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

 That same document will then explicitly reference everything as a MSI trackfile. 

i don't think that strongly implies anything. There's lot of distinction in the available manuals between MSI trackfiles and the A2A weapons operation. Would we not see a lot of the language here interlink these things? Especially the amraam.

 

2 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

(i.e. radar contribution isn't required to launch/support as that would be different type of trackfile than a MSI trackfile)

There's no references to any other "type" of trackfile tho. 

 

2 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

The F-18 being able to incorporate all sources into trackfiles is one of the defining features of the F-18, and inhibiting a launch because it doesn't have radar contribution would defeat a large part of MSI.

And again my question is why would NO RDR be a highly visible cue that's displayed in your face to tell you this if it wasn't important for post launch amraam support.
 

2 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

It is quite known that notching is no longer a reliable technique in more modern engagements, this is likely one significant part of that

i don't see that as particularly relevant. We know that the amraam stops taking into account the mothership support past a certain point in the terminal homing stage. Even then support by even slower updating offboard tracks wouldn't be helpful at all, detrimental really. Notching isn't relevant for the ownships sure, but it's still very much an issue for ARH seekers (definitely to a lesser degree than we're dealing with in DCS tho imo)

 

2 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

As Hulkbust said (and I concur as far as my understanding goes) you should be able to support a missile as long as it is roughly inside your radar azimuth (including side lobes) even without your ownship radar contribution

That's not quite what he said tho. He goes even farther to say that the radar could be silenced and still transmitting midcourse datalink. I'm not as knowledgeable on how the MDL is transmitted, whether that's done by FM encoding the information into the pulses or by some other antenna. But you'd think this would have been at least vaguely referenced somewhere in the maintenance principles of operation manual no?

Overall i don't see any meangingful or convincing references for this. And at minimum one piece of reference that would point to the contrary. 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Muchocracker

[MARLAN_]

Quote

There's no references to any other "type" of trackfile tho. 

That's my point, its all one-in-the-same. Here's a question for you, where is there evidence that it will inhibit launch? If everything is a MSI Trackfile which clearly states it includes sources in addition to the radar (most notably, FLIR and datalink), where does it say that a MSI trackfile is actually radar only?

Quote

And again my question is why would NO RDR be a highly visible cue that's displayed in your face to tell you this if it wasn't important for post launch amraam support.

It is of course important, the radar is your best data source! But where is evidence that it will inhibit your launch? Where does is evidence that only ownship radar source is used for support and not any of the clearly stated listed MSI sources as part of MSI trackfiles?

Quote

i don't see that as particularly relevant. We know that the amraam stops taking into account the mothership support past a certain point in the terminal homing stage. Even then support by even slower updating offboard tracks wouldn't be helpful at all, detrimental really. Notching isn't relevant for the ownships sure, but it's still very much an issue for ARH seekers (definitely to a lesser degree than we're dealing with in DCS tho imo)

I wasn't talking about terminal, yes we know the AMRAAM will stop accepting input from the ownship (at HPRF or MPRF active, depending on the aspect/closure of the target) because at this stage the likelihood you notch an active AMRAAM should be vanishingly rare (except for DCS) -- but prior to this point, notching is still possible, but if you had support from other your sources it becomes exceedingly unlikely to work.

Quote

That's not quite what he said tho. He goes even farther to say that the radar could be silenced and still transmitting midcourse datalink. I'm not as knowledgeable on how the MDL is transmitted, whether that's done by FM encoding the information into the pulses or by some other antenna. But you'd think this would have been at least vaguely referenced somewhere in the maintenance principles of operation manual no?

I'm not disagreeing with anything Hulkbust said. I did not say your radar needs to be actively transmitting, just that it needs to be in the azimuth like Hulkbust said. If you read the radar schematics you can learn how quick look works.

Quote

Overall i don't see any meangingful or convincing references for this. And at minimum one piece of reference that would point to the contrary.

Every time I even vaguely mention the name of a publicly available document my comments get removed and I get warned, so I won't even mention document names here, but they aren't hard to find by searching on Google.

Edited December 11, 2023 by MARLAN_

[atercygnus]

18 часов назад, MARLAN_ сказал:

Publicly available documentation will define MSI as combining trackfile information from multiple sources combining them all into one trackfile,

Can you give a link to this publicly available documentation?

[Viper33]

On 12/11/2023 at 5:53 AM, Muchocracker said:

I mean it could be argued that IS the inhibit. Think about it this way, why would you need to know that the L&S did not have radar contribution if it didn't matter for an amraam shot. L16 track quality is also pretty trash with slow update rates. 

 @Harker has done more research on MSI than me, he can chime in on this.

 

@MARLAN_ is correct here. Think about it - what does L&S stand for? Launch and Steering. Why would the missile need a radar lock if all trackfiles are treated the same within the system - the only limiting factor for launch/engagement is the FOV of the radar dish as the missile still needs the DL/M-Link channels for midcourse guidence support. Having a STT for example would only increase the quality of the track and allow to operate single-ship with no off-board support. The public manuals specifically state the requirements for an L&S. 

All you need to understand is - a trackfile is a trackfile. 

[Hulkbust44]

Can you give a link to this publicly available documentation?

Nope, ED doesn't like that

Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

[LaFleur]

This is a big topic of discussion within the DCS Hornet community. Over the years, there were many people that analyzed how this system behaves. Others above have explained it good enough in the previous posts. What Marlan and Hulk describe is the Sensor Fusion of the F-18. Many look at the F-18 with F-16 lens, but the Hornet was innovative when it came to how it processes information. 

Datalink, TGP, IFF, Radar, RWR, HARM are all CONTRIBUTORS to trackfiles. In the real thing you can target any trackfile from the SA page even with RDR off. 

The Hornet's biggest advantage of any other aircraft we have in DCS is MSI (Multi-Sensor Integration), which is not modeled AT ALL currently. We basically have a Hornet with the L16 of an F-16.

Before launch and 3 years into EA, ED silently deleted MSI implementation from the roadmap claiming "lack of evidence". After countless discussions in the forums and discord, they backtracked and alluded to the possibility that we will get some kind of MSI functionality but nothing more concrete. Many years have gone by and we still don't know anything new about this topic.

Edited December 13, 2023 by LaFleur

[norman99]

38 minutes ago, LaFleur said:

Before launch and 3 years into EA, ED silently deleted MSI implementation from the roadmap claiming "lack of evidence". After countless discussions in the forums and discord, they backtracked and alluded to the possibility that we will get some kind of MSI functionality but nothing more concrete. Many years have gone by and we still don't know anything new about this topic.

This is very telling, and honestly, a little worrying (given there's plenty of evidence available in the public domain.) Sometimes I think ED didn't quite know what they were getting themselves into in regard to the advanced features of the Hornet. Nor did they gauge how well educated and vocal the customer base would be with their expectations for this module.

Edited December 13, 2023 by norman99

[BIGNEWY]

23 minutes ago, norman99 said:

This is very telling, and honestly, a little worrying (given there's plenty of evidence available in the public domain.) Sometimes I think ED didn't quite know what they were getting themselves into in regard to the advanced features of the Hornet. Nor did they gauge how well educated and vocal the customer base would be with their expectations for this module.

 

Hi, 

finding information on a google search does not necessarily mean it is not restricted in some way, we have to be very careful about the information we use in DCS which is an entertainment product. Our teams are the best qualified to decide what we can and can not use in DCS. 
Everything we have planned for release which can be found on our store page and the roadmap will be delivered, after early access is over we will continue to refine the DCS: F/A-18C 

Thank you

--------------------------
A reminder of our rules here, and a PM is always best if you are not sure.

1.16 Posting of screenshots, images, file links, file sharing links, and copying and pasting information is prohibited if the source document has a limited distribution statement or it is classified. Limited distribution includes DoD Distribution Statement C, Distribution Statement D, Distribution Statement E, Arms Export Control Act, Export Administration Act, and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) controlled sources. When posting aircraft, sensor, or weapon information more recent than 1980, you must also include the source of the document that demonstrates that it is 100% public and verified as not from a limited distribution source as listed.

[atercygnus]

@BIGNEWY can you please uncover a little, what is this publicly avaliable, unclassified and unrestricted sources of information you are using for modeling hornet and it's sensors?

Edited December 14, 2023 by atercygnus

[Viper33]

A lot of the sources explaining and delvng into MSI are actually unclass research papers, public brochures and articles as well as the regular NATOPS containing some info as well. So there really shouldn't be an issue here considering we have the HTS pod for the Viper (among other systems in the Apache) which there is exactly 0 public info on outside of a certian other sim. So there is either an unwilingness, in terms of allocated resources and time, from ED to do this properly or inability to correct the already old codebase for such a feature. A Lot 20 C model Hornet without MSI isn't really a Hornet when it comes to its combat systems and capabilities. I'm sure this can be done in DCS but at what cost and in what timeframe is the question. There really needs to be a willingness and urgency from the develoepers to do this properly as I don't really see any other way. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Viper33

[norman99]

Exactly. The University research papers that are often mentioned, are 100% public domain, unclassified sources. To say otherwise is disingenuous. 

[LaFleur]

16 hours ago, Viper33 said:

there is either an unwilingness, in terms of allocated resources and time, from ED to do this properly or inability to correct the already old codebase for such a feature.

 

Exactly this.

When ED removed "MSI" from the Hornet's roadmap due to "no evidence", there were many threads here and elsewhere detailing the public and unclassified info. After much discussion ED said they will add some MSI symbology after EA. It's been more than 2 years after that and we still know nothing about it. 

People wouldn't be as vocal on that issue, if this feature was not promised before EA release during preorders, and during many years into EA. Many people bought the module knowing that MSI will be developed eventually. And it isn't a minor feature. It's a system that the F-18 was built around, and it is what makes the Hornet, a Hornet. An F-18 without MSI is not a Hornet. It is a draggier navy-spec F-16.

[Muchocracker]

If you have links to said papers and brochure with relevant info, post them! if they shed light on info that isnt already in the 742-100 or the 600-100 then it's all the better. Especially if this debate on no radar amraam shots can be put to bed 

[Viper33]

I mean, this issue goes back several years and is marked as "reported" - why exactly do you need new evidence? Also, even what is in the 742-100 is more than enough to come to a conclusion unless you are dead set on it not being a thing and need a word by word evidence that an L&S designation can be attacked with a missile. Why would L&S be called Launch & Steering otherwise?

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by Viper33

[atercygnus]

I agree to pay twice for the hornet, if it will include this feature

[Viper33]

On 12/19/2023 at 1:17 PM, atercygnus said:

I agree to pay twice for the hornet, if it will include this feature

Make it a Super while we're at it.