see msi on roadmap Is MSI implemented on the F-18?

[fortheiy12]

Could I take a track file from an E-2, and launch on it, and then have the E-2 support the launch? 

[Hobel]

Am 16.9.2024 um 16:38 schrieb fortheiy12:

Could I take a track file from an E-2, and launch on it, and then have the E-2 support the launch? 

Currently not yet possible 

[falcon_120]

As the title says, ED have in some occasions referred to revisiting the MSI implementation based on latest public information, IIRC Wags himself mentioned this in the latest February QA. 

Well... is there any capacity for it this Year? Is it something for maybe 2026?

Regards,

[BIGNEWY]

34 minutes ago, falcon_120 said:

As the title says, ED have in some occasions referred to revisiting the MSI implementation based on latest public information, IIRC Wags himself mentioned this in the latest February QA. 

Well... is there any capacity for it this Year? Is it something for maybe 2026?

Regards,

Hi, 

The Hornet MSI effort is currently focused on being able to set an MSI track as an L&S and DT2. This is undergoing internal testing as we work out the bugs. I don't have a specific release window for it, as it will depend on test results.

thank you 

[falcon_120]

21 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, 

The Hornet MSI effort is currently focused on being able to set an MSI track as an L&S and DT2. This is undergoing internal testing as we work out the bugs. I don't have a specific release window for it, as it will depend on test results.

thank you 

Thanks @BIGNEWY, those are very good news, it means to me work is already underway and on testing so I'm a happy man, whatever long it will take based on the testing.

Regards,

[Hobel]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb falcon_120:

Thanks @BIGNEWY, those are very good news, it means to me work is already underway and on testing so I'm a happy man, whatever long it will take based on the testing.

Regards,

 I'm not that familiar with the F18.

But does the wording in the context mean that I can shoot at MSI tracks without the host radar seeing the target?

[Tholozor]

AFAIK yes.

Quote

Also, designating a non-radar L&S should display NO RDR on the Attack format (bottom left region). With an AMRAAM selected, "NO RDR" is also drawn on the HUD under the TD box. (Picture attached.) (AMRAAM could technically be launched without radar but then you run into probably missile guidance issues since the radar is used to send it datalink commands even though the fact the radar is looking at its target is technically irrelevant).

 

[Muchocracker]

 

7 hours ago, Tholozor said:

 

(AMRAAM could technically be launched without radar but then you run into probably missile guidance issues since the radar is used to send it datalink commands even though the fact the radar is looking at its target is technically irrelevant).

It could work in theory but i don't think this has ever been proven. It would be dependent on whether the mission computer is sophisticated enough to command the radar to send uplink transmissions independent of the radar trackfiles. 

[Tholozor]

Even if we wouldn't be able to support 120 midcourse off an offboard L&S, it would certainly speed up radar acquisition by being able to command STT on an offboard track via Fast Acquisition.

[Muchocracker]

9 minutes ago, Tholozor said:

Even if we wouldn't be able to support 120 midcourse off an offboard L&S, it would certainly speed up radar acquisition by being able to command STT on an offboard track via Fast Acquisition.

100%. Pre-L&Sing targets out of the radar FoV during out's and recommits would be very helpful

[Hobel]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb Muchocracker:

 

It could work in theory but i don't think this has ever been proven. It would be dependent on whether the mission computer is sophisticated enough to command the radar to send uplink transmissions independent of the radar trackfiles. 

What exactly was the problem? When the host aircraft is fed with information via the network, it simply passes it on to the Aim120 without the host radar seeing the actual target. only M-link needs to be provided. But this works in a fairly large area as long as you don't go completely cold.

I remember a discussion about Russian M-link aspect limits for the 27ER on manual lofts and that you can't exceed them, I think on  STT it was ~50° which is still quite generous.

Now of course I don't know exactly how it is with western airplanes, but looking at the currently known modes of operation these margins should be quite generous.

When it comes to the pure M-link issue, which is already big if you are lofting and the TGT is below you.

[Muchocracker]

2 hours ago, Hobel said:

What exactly was the problem? When the host aircraft is fed with information via the network, it simply passes it on to the Aim120 without the host radar seeing the actual target. only M-link needs to be provided. But this works in a fairly large area as long as you don't go completely cold.

I remember a discussion about Russian M-link aspect limits for the 27ER on manual lofts and that you can't exceed them, I think on  STT it was ~50° which is still quite generous.

Now of course I don't know exactly how it is with western airplanes, but looking at the currently known modes of operation these margins should be quite generous.

When it comes to the pure M-link issue, which is already big if you are lofting and the TGT is below you.

It's not about any of that. It's just whether they programmed the MC and radar data processor to be able to transmit uplinks independently of the trackfiles created by the radar or when there are none at all. 

[N8AHbl4]

Sounds like it would be actually more complicated to add a mechanism that prevents the radar from the missile support, if it is launched at non-radar track. 

Speaking of MSI stuff, i wonder  if the offboard tracks IFF info should contribute to the EW page threat classification. Because right now, the threat becomes hostile only if correlated with onboard hostile track.

Also altho i know that most of the MSI logic applies only to the A-A modes, would it be possible to designate the offboard A-G track by any chance?
 

[Muchocracker]

On 3/26/2025 at 12:37 PM, N8AHbl4 said:

Sounds like it would be actually more complicated to add a mechanism that prevents the radar from the missile support, if it is launched at non-radar track. 

Speaking of MSI stuff, i wonder  if the offboard tracks IFF info should contribute to the EW page threat classification. Because right now, the threat becomes hostile only if correlated with onboard hostile track.

Also altho i know that most of the MSI logic applies only to the A-A modes, would it be possible to designate the offboard A-G track by any chance?
 

Not really. In reality they're both handled independently by 2 different systems. The radar does its own trackfile processing(contributing to MSI) as well as the 120 d/l functions. The mission computer handles the MSI and all the other avionics related systems. The whole thing's architecture would need to suppport this kind of cross "commanding" of actions for lack of better term. 

[Ogata_Rina]

It's been a month, any update? Honestly MSI is a core functionality of our hornet lot 20 so I hope it’s a priority.

[Muchocracker]

This kind of project isnt going to be done in a month.