not planned AGM-88G AARGM-ER

[H60MTI]

Any insight ED if this bird will carry the AGM-88G? It was designed to be carried internally on the A and C models.

 

AGM-88G AARGM-ER...Picture a HARM but sleeker and twice the range. Same guidance and same warhead as the AGM-88E. Can also be carried on the F-16 as well.

[EchoOneOne]

Slight overkill  

[Weasel]

I assume it‘s higly classified to be modeled in DCS 

[NytHawk]

On 4/3/2025 at 12:51 PM, H60MTI said:

Any insight ED if this bird will carry the AGM-88G? It was designed to be carried internally on the A and C models.

AARGMs (or any ARM) have yet to be implemented on the F-35 yet, so i find it highly unlikely.

Edited April 4 by NytHawk

[antiload]

On 4/4/2025 at 5:17 AM, Weasel said:

I assume it‘s higly classified to be modeled in DCS 

Tbf, so is the actual F-35

[EchoOneOne]

56 minutes ago, antiload said:

Tbf, so is the actual F-35

Where do you expect to get any data on this missile since it is not operational, only in the test and evaluation phase? The only hope is the future addition of ARM in the DCS for the F-35A is the integration of Legacy HARM that Lockheed is currently working on.

[antiload]

3 hours ago, EchoOneOne said:

Where do you expect to get any data on this missile since it is not operational, only in the test and evaluation phase? The only hope is the future addition of ARM in the DCS for the F-35A is the integration of Legacy HARM that Lockheed is currently working on.

By guessing (based on witness statements, observation and prediction based on legacy systems), which is what they'll have to do with the systems of the F-35 itself, i would have thought. 

[Dragon1-1]

F-35 seems to have hard evidence in form of cockpit videos and such. Similar evidence for the AARGM-ER doesn't exist.

[hotrod525]

On 5/12/2025 at 6:28 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

F-35 seems to have hard evidence in form of cockpit videos and such. Similar evidence for the AARGM-ER doesn't exist.

I'm getting tired of this "no documentation" game, realy to the point we are at now, why would they deny yet another capability ?

Can we atleast have the AGM-88C ? Please dont tell me something like "It dosent fit timeframe", in the end, integrating a missile that is in service for 30+ years, is only a matter of "firmware" update and making sure it release safely from aircraft. 

An opinion is worth another but they should go for the most capability possible, otherwise it feels pointless, F-16C and F/A-18C would have more playability options. Their is a limit of what an AESA and "stealth" can do "fun wise".

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/lockheed-martin-selected-to-integrate-harm-missiles-on-global-f-35s/?cf-view

Edited May 16 by hotrod525

[NytHawk]

8 hours ago, hotrod525 said:

I'm getting tired of this "no documentation" game, realy to the point we are at now, why would they deny yet another capability ?

How is ED meant to implement a capability which doesn't exist yet, and has no practically information about it?

 

8 hours ago, hotrod525 said:

Can we atleast have the AGM-88C ? Please dont tell me something like "It dosent fit timeframe", in the end, integrating a missile that is in service for 30+ years

Shoving a HARM onto any aircraft on DCS is the easy part, actually finding a way to accurately incorporate it into the PVI is the hard part. The public simply do not have enough resources to make this happen.

ED developing a module (especially as controversial as the F35) will always be stuck in a catch-22 situation. Damned if they implement some unfeasible and unrealistic feature, damned if they don't.

 

Edited May 17 by NytHawk

[hotrod525]

3 hours ago, NytHawk said:

How is ED meant to implement a capability which doesn't exist yet, and has no practically information about it?

 

Shoving a HARM onto any aircraft on DCS is the easy part, actually finding a way to accurately incorporate it into the PVI is the hard part. The public simply do not have enough resources to make this happen.

ED developing a module (especially as controversial as the F35) will always be stuck in a catch-22 situation. Damned if they implement some unfeasible and unrealistic feature, damned if they don't.

 

They can use what they know of the F-16C and the F/A-18C... They can do an "accurate guesstimate" too. How will they model E.W. in the aircraft ? (TBF I highly doubt we will have any EW capability) They are unlikely to find any docs on that altought, base on public knowledge can be extrapoled, etc, within the self-imposed E.D. limit (as mention by Wags on a 64D video) DCS is a game, if E.D. decide the aircraft carry this or that, it'll. Just like they added "CODE" function to FA18C. And let's not talk about the Frankenhelo that KA-50 "3" is.

 

So basicly my point is : Let's take some liberty if need be, DCS is a GAME, E.D. should value the playability more than being stock in so-called "high-fedility" extremism. The Purist can block the payload on their mission / server, the other, can enjoy a more versatile multi-role 5th gen fighter. Everybody wins.

Edited May 17 by hotrod525

[NytHawk]

11 minutes ago, hotrod525 said:

They can use what they know of the F-16C and the F/A-18C...

I can assure you that future HARM/AARGM integration on the F35 will be completely different to what we have seen on the F16 and F18

 

13 minutes ago, hotrod525 said:

So basicly my point is : Let's take some liberty if need be, DCS is a GAME, E.D. should value the playability more than being stock in so-called "high-fedility" extremism. The Purist can block the payload on their mission / server, the other, can enjoy a more versatile multi-role 5th gen fighter. Everybody wins.

There are limits to this, we shouldn't add weapons and major features in which we have absolutely zero understanding of.

[hotrod525]

30 minutes ago, NytHawk said:

I can assure you that future HARM/AARGM integration on the F35 will be completely different to what we have seen on the F16 and F18

 

There are limits to this, we shouldn't add weapons and major features in which we have absolutely zero understanding of.

IRL ? Of course, different architechture altought it's probably still the standard BUS, etc, the weapon is also quite known and i'm confident that LHM will do it.

In DCS ? What can we assess of the F35 ?
- It is highly likely to have the capability to geolocate radar / emission with high precision, so a F16 HTP on steroids, 
-- This mean that it is highly likely to be able to hand-off that to a HARM missile, just like it does in F16 / F18
--- How it is likely to be displayed to the pilot ? One could say that is is likely to be shown just like the rest of the information fusioned by the aircaft, on the WAD.
---- How could E.D. decide to implement this ? Well lets put a box around the emitter geo-located on the WAD display that show everything already.

Is is realistic ? To me it's seems fair. It is how the real aircraft will do it ? IDK, does it realy matter ? We are not flying the real thing anyway.

Edited May 17 by hotrod525

[NytHawk]

21 minutes ago, hotrod525 said:

Is is realistic ? To me it's seems fair. 

Realistic in terms of capabilities...? sure?
Realistic in terms of how its integrated and employed? Incredibly unlikely.
 

[hotrod525]

Just now, NytHawk said:

Realistic in terms of capabilities...? sure?
Realistic in terms of how its integrated and employed? Incredibly unlikely.
 

And how would they be according to you ?
In the end, the plane locate the emitter, jam it with it's AESA (thing that we will not be able to, till proven otherwise), provide relevant information to the missile (i.e. position, frequency, bearing, range, etc), magnum when within WEZ and that's it. There is not so many ways of doing it and it will have the same functions as other airframe cause those are missile based, F-35 will provide a much better sensing, that's it. There is no magic involve... just logic.

For those who dont like the idea, they can choose not to operate the weapon, block it in their mission / server.

We are playing a game design for entertainment, ill stand my point for playability over hyper-fidelity.  

Anyway, we clearly have 2 opinions that wont reconciliate so lets agree to disagree. Have a good day mate.

[DSplayer]

36 minutes ago, hotrod525 said:

And how would they be according to you ?
In the end, the plane locate the emitter, jam it with it's AESA (thing that we will not be able to, till proven otherwise), provide relevant information to the missile (i.e. position, frequency, bearing, range, etc), magnum when within WEZ and that's it. There is not so many ways of doing it and it will have the same functions as other airframe cause those are missile based, F-35 will provide a much better sensing, that's it. There is no magic involve... just logic.

For those who dont like the idea, they can choose not to operate the weapon, block it in their mission / server.

We are playing a game design for entertainment, ill stand my point for playability over hyper-fidelity.  

Anyway, we clearly have 2 opinions that wont reconciliate so lets agree to disagree. Have a good day mate.

Provide a source for HARM integration into the F-35 with symbology and how it works, thanks.

[hotrod525]

9 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Provide a source for HARM integration into the F-35 with symbology and how it works, thanks.

Clearly, it involves super black magic and has absolutely nothing to do with how it's done on any other platform.
Legend has it that engineers at Lockheed are working on an OBLIVION portal so pilots can sacrifice cans of Zyns and Monster to the god SEAD, lord of anti-radiation lightning II.

Anyway, as mention above, lets agree to disagree, plane wont have it, ED will cherry pick on what they do or not, It will be a realy nice half-capable aircraft.

[Muchocracker]

Idk what is so hard to understand about this. The timeframe ED gave is end of block 2B just before 3F went IOC. AARGM-ER is not even being integrated until block 4.

It has nothing to do with "can" do something. It's if that thing was actually done. 

[EchoOneOne]

8 hours ago, Muchocracker said:

Idk what is so hard to understand about this. The timeframe ED gave is end of block 2B just before 3F went IOC. AARGM-ER is not even being integrated until block 4.

It has nothing to do with "can" do something. It's if that thing was actually done. 

Sorry for derailing the thread, but what is the point of developing pre-IOC block? 

[Muchocracker]

It's a good question lol. 2b is super limited on weapons 

[EchoOneOne]

5 minutes ago, Muchocracker said:

It's a good question lol. 2b is super limited on weapons 

Also super limited on the FCS. 

[hotrod525]

2 hours ago, Muchocracker said:

It's a good question lol. 2b is super limited on weapons 

 

And software, and capability, etc.

That's the point. 

 

[Muchocracker]

You can question the selection of timeframe and block selection. Throwing a tantrum and demanding they add/do things are not accurate because of flawed "logic" helps absolutely nobody.

[hotrod525]

DCS is game design for entertainment, you and i simply dont share the same vision of that, it's okay. They took liberties on other modules, i dont understand why they could not on this one, specialy since we will not have much of the fancy stuff. So far we are looking at a 80 USD module that will only be an flying AESA (so basicly just a uber radar that can be modded in a .lua file) not realy capable of air fighting, not realy capable of penetration and not realy capable of stand-off / air-ground deprive of most of it's EW capability.

That sounds promising no ? Totaly what people would expect from the first 5th gen fighter in DCS.

 

Anyway in the end people will vote with their money.

[NytHawk]

23 minutes ago, hotrod525 said:

So far we are looking at a 80 USD module that will only be an flying AESA (so basicly just a uber radar that can be modded in a .lua file) .

You can't just turn any DCS radar into an AESA in DCS from a .lua file. Simply speeding up the scan rate will just result in less dwell time over targets. You also won't be able to add any of the intelligent beamforming that the F35 has. 

23 minutes ago, hotrod525 said:

 not realy capable of air fighting, not realy capable of penetration and not realy capable of stand-off / air-ground deprive of most of it's EW capability.

Even if we do get a block 2B/3I, it will still be by far the most capable BVR aircraft in DCS. The AESA will allow much higher tracking quality and faster acquisition times than any MSA, the DAS can act as both a 360 degree IRST system and MAWS. This is also ignoring all the advanced datalink and sensor fusion functionality that the F35 gets.

I don't see where this not being "capable of penetration" concept comes from. Even the much earlier F117 with basically zero defensive systems had absolutely zero issues penetrating some of the densest IADS in the world. Regardless, many people would find it more enjoyable engaging at much shorter ranges.


Also, the F35 release is ages away, and its incredibly likely ED's plan and general scope of the project will change considerably. The original FAQ even mentioned a lot of SDD munitions such JSOWs and SDBs before it was edited.

Edited May 18 by NytHawk