inaccurate and not planned GBU-54 Laser/GPS JDAM

[PacFlyer23]

I learned DCS in the A-10 so I was very surprised when moving over to the F/A-18C that the GBU-54 Laser/GPS JDAM was not available for it. Is this due to the era in which it was deployed - mid 2000s?

[Muchocracker]

Was not an available load in the timeframe cutoff ED has set

[lee1hy]

TOOOOO SAD 

[PacFlyer23]

Yes this clarifies things.

I was a bit confused by the media release from 2008 on the first use of the GBU-54, but it was just the USAF...

"The U.S. Air Force has deployed in combat for the first time, the guided bomb unit-54, Laser Joint Directed Attack Munition – or LJDAM. 

The GBU-54 is the U.S. Air Force's newest 500-pound precision weapon, equipped with a special targeting system that uses a combination of GPS and laser guidance to accurately engage and destroy moving targets. 

On, Aug. 12, 2008, F-16s from the 77th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron deployed to Joint Base Balad, Iraq, successfully executed this "combat first" when the weapon was employed against a moving enemy vehicle in Diyala province, Iraq."

Then in October 2010 the USAF 510th Fighter Squadron employed a GBU-54 laser joint directed attack munition for the first time in the Afghan area of operations.

However, the US Navy didn't get GBU-54s until 2012 when it reached initial operational capability.
 

[Slick_441]

Didn't see a thread for this already, but it might not be a bad idea for the Hornet fans here to start looking into what a "Hornet 2" module may look like.

Off the top of my head:

-Laser JDAM
-APKWS
-Sniper Pod (Not US, I know)
-AESA
-JASSM

What else am I missing?

[Dragon1-1]

I don't think USN uses APKWS, they had their own guided rocket program that used an IR seeker. Sniper pod isn't a USN thing, either. In fact, I don't think the legacy Hornet ever had any of those things. What you seem to want is a Block 2 Superbug, but the AESA on that one is probably out. ED had expressed interest in the Super Hornet after the Hornet is finished, but probably not later blocks, but rather early ones with avionics quite a lot like our Hornet. In fact, what we have can pretty accurately be described as early Superbug avionics in a Legacy airframe, in its heyday the Hornet wasn't quite as spiffy, with monochrome MFDs, no HMD and the older Nite Hawk pod.

Myself, I'd rather have an 80s era A or early C, but the Superbug will probably be more popular. Plus, I have a certain fondness for it thanks to an ancient sim I once flew.

[Slick_441]

USMC has APWKS and Canada uses the Sniper Pod (Both have/will have AESA radar soon). I even said the Sniper Pod was not a US thing. This would be for a "Hornet 2" upgrade that could possibly bring things outside the current "Lot 20" scope and incorporate upgrades not seen on the USN versions.

Super Hornet would be fun and I'm aware of what it would bring to DCS, but that's not what I'm looking for.

[Saguanay]

Not much hope in getting the Bug to use anything other than what was set up for a F/A-18C from a certain model / year / day  / picture.

[BarTzi]

On 5/26/2025 at 1:21 AM, Slick_441 said:

Didn't see a thread for this already, but it might not be a bad idea for the Hornet fans here to start looking into what a "Hornet 2" module may look like.

Off the top of my head:

-Laser JDAM
-APKWS
-Sniper Pod (Not US, I know)
-AESA
-JASSM

What else am I missing?

Hornet 2.0 could potentially be a completely new module, a Rhino.

[Slick_441]

On 5/30/2025 at 6:08 AM, BarTzi said:

Hornet 2.0 could potentially be a completely new module, a Rhino.

I'd prefer the legacy upgrade for now. But I'm sure there's room for both.

[Silver_Dragon]

52 minutes ago, Slick_441 said:

I'd prefer the legacy upgrade for now. But I'm sure there's room for both.

A F/A-18E will be a complete new module, no a C "upgrade". Wags was clear on the February Q&A, when the F/A-18C will complete, they start to think if move a Rhino module.

[wilbur81]

3 hours ago, Slick_441 said:

I'd prefer the legacy upgrade for now. But I'm sure there's room for both.

Ditto. 

"While the USMC outlined in its 2022 Aviation Plan that it will sundown the Hornet fleet by 2030, the last major planned upgrade for its fleet is SCS-31C – 2024. This upgrade plan includes AESA radar integration, improved navigation, electronic warfare enhancements, and new networked-enabled and extended-range weaponry. Aside from JASSM, the weaponry integration includes upgraded variants of the Harpoon anti-ship missile and AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon C-1. " taken from the following:  https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/09/u-s-marines-begin-jassm-integration-into-f-a-18-hornet-fleet/

[ricnunes]

I know there was a thread about this wishlist but and since that thread is now locked and I would really like to add my 2 cents about the subject which I believe are sound and somehow backs up this wish (GBU-54 Laser/GPS fitted to DCS F/A-18C), I took the "liberty" of creating this one.
The other thread was locked because ED (backed up by a few members) believe this to be unrealistic because the F/C-18C modeled in DCS is from 2005 while the GBU-54 was introduced/integrated on the F/A-18C in 2012 (some sources indicates sooner but lets stick with 2012) but I fully disagree and here's why:

1. The weapon (GBU-54) was introduced in 2012 which is only 7 years from the service date of 2005 of the F/A-18C modeled in DCS. As such it's not far fetched that 2005 F/A-18C's could or did have been fitted with the GBU-54 seven (7) years later, this without the same F/A-18C's having received any meaningful upgrades in the meanwhile.
2. Which is far more realistic having a 2005 F/A-18 carrying GBU-54s OR having the same 2005 F/A-18C flying in a 1989 campaign (Task Force Challenger), the campaign that comes with DCS F/A-18C? 
   This is obviously a rhetorical question because the answer is clear: It's impossible for a 2005 F/A-18C to fly in 1989 (unless someone invents time travel) but again it's not impossible for a 2005 F/A-18C to be fitted with a weapon that entered in service with the US Navy Hornets circa 2012 (or 7 years later). Yet, ED accepts the scenario of a 2005 Hornet flying in 1989 but not the one that the same Hornet uses a weapon (GBU-54) that came a few years after. Puzzling, I must say!
3. Some users have backed up this ED decision because of the reason above (Hornet being from 2005 while GBU-54 from 2012) but the truth is that if the GBU-54 was integrated in DCS F/A-18C then these same users would still have the CHOICE of not using the weapon. The same applies to mission/campaign builders that have this same opinion. However, having the GBU-54 in DCS F/A-18C CATERS to everyone! Who wants to use the weapon will/could use and who don't, won't use it. Simple as that.

[razo+r]

ED has already made it's mind about that. You can see it at the tags they gave the topic:

They have to decide at some point which features to implement and which not, otherwise it could be dragged into infinity. 

1) If we would get the GBU-54, we probably would have gotten a 2012 F-18 and not a 2005 one, right?

2) Having a 2005 plane in 1989 is just as unrealistic as having a 2012 introduced weapon in 2005. This argument goes both ways.

3) While technically correct, if you don't want it don't use it, I find it a very bad argument. If you want the GBU-54, just get the A-10C2. If you want the GBU-54 on the F-18, just play a different game. You don't have to use DCS. It's just such a ridiculous argument to make in my opinion.

It's the same as with the Swiss single AIM-120 launcher. It doesn't hurt anyone having it. The F-18 can carry it but it's the wrong version of what ED is trying to simulate, just like the LJDAM is the wrong weapon/period for the simulated F-18.

[ricnunes]

6 hours ago, razo+r said:

They have to decide at some point which features to implement and which not, otherwise it could be dragged into infinity. 

1) If we would get the GBU-54, we probably would have gotten a 2012 F-18 and not a 2005 one, right?

2) Having a 2005 plane in 1989 is just as unrealistic as having a 2012 introduced weapon in 2005. This argument goes both ways.

3) While technically correct, if you don't want it don't use it, I find it a very bad argument. If you want the GBU-54, just get the A-10C2. If you want the GBU-54 on the F-18, just play a different game. You don't have to use DCS. It's just such a ridiculous argument to make in my opinion.

It's the same as with the Swiss single AIM-120 launcher. It doesn't hurt anyone having it. The F-18 can carry it but it's the wrong version of what ED is trying to simulate, just like the LJDAM is the wrong weapon/period for the simulated F-18.

First, adding a GBU-54 to the F/A-18C wouldn't be dragging into infinity since and afterall the GBU-54 and its functionalities are already modeled thanks to A-10C2.
And regarding your points:

1) Perhaps having modeled a 2012 F-18 would have been better in order to go along with for the example A-10C2 which you mentioned. But on the other hand, there's probably not much diference between a 2005 F/A-18C and a 2012 one, this apart from very small diferences such as carrying GBU-54 which is what's being requested here. 

2) I fully and totally disagree with you and I can't see the logic of that reasoning of yours. There's nothing that prevents a 2005 F/A-18 to be fitted in 2012 with a GBU-54. At the same time there's no way on Earth that a 2005 F/A-18 could go back to 1989 (unless someone invents Time Travel!)

3) This argument isn't nearly bad as the ones you gave ("If you want the GBU-54, just get the A-10C2". "If you want the GBU-54 on the F-18, just play a different game"), not even by a long shot! My argument doesn't force you to play like I would like to but your argument forces me to play like you want to. Get the diference? Besides, if I wanted to use the GBU-54 with the A-10C2, I wouldn't be here in this part of the forum (DCS F/A-18)!  

[Muchocracker]

ED has the "timeframe" standard. We can all argue about that standard for as long we want. But that's what it is. 

To that standard, the GBU-54 did not even exist within that date and wasnt introduced onto the legacy hornets till 2012. This is a pretty cut and dry discussion. I don't understand why this keeps coming up. 

[Tholozor]

56 minutes ago, ricnunes said:

There's nothing that prevents a 2005 F/A-18 to be fitted in 2012 with a GBU-54.

Fitted? Sure, the lugs should be the same, and likely the data cable and fuzing lanyards too. Actually useable? That's where it could be debatable.

The Stores Management System won't have a weapon code for it on the Weapon Insertion Panel. No code entered means no option on the STORES page wingform.

Edited 21 hours ago by Tholozor

[razo+r]

9 hours ago, ricnunes said:

First, adding a GBU-54 to the F/A-18C wouldn't be dragging into infinity since and afterall the GBU-54 and its functionalities are already modeled thanks to A-10C2.

It starts exactly with this as you can then argue, we got X, which is not accurate, for the F-18, when do we get Y, which would also be not accurate.

9 hours ago, ricnunes said:

And regarding your points:

1) Perhaps having modeled a 2012 F-18 would have been better in order to go along with for the example A-10C2 which you mentioned. But on the other hand, there's probably not much diference between a 2005 F/A-18C and a 2012 one, this apart from very small diferences such as carrying GBU-54 which is what's being requested here. 

Mounting it is one thing, employing it is the other thing. And no, you cannot just copy the avionics of the A-10C2 over.

9 hours ago, ricnunes said:

2) I fully and totally disagree with you and I can't see the logic of that reasoning of yours. There's nothing that prevents a 2005 F/A-18 to be fitted in 2012 with a GBU-54. At the same time there's no way on Earth that a 2005 F/A-18 could go back to 1989 (unless someone invents Time Travel!)

You are also requesting time travel to put a 2012 weapon into the year 2005, that's my reasoning, which is also your reasoning with the mission example.

9 hours ago, ricnunes said:

3) This argument isn't nearly bad as the ones you gave ("If you want the GBU-54, just get the A-10C2". "If you want the GBU-54 on the F-18, just play a different game"), not even by a long shot! My argument doesn't force you to play like I would like to but your argument forces me to play like you want to. Get the diference? Besides, if I wanted to use the GBU-54 with the A-10C2, I wouldn't be here in this part of the forum (DCS F/A-18)!  

It doesn't force you to play like I would. It forces you to play like you would, with a GBU-54 on an F-18.

Like I said, arguments like these can be dragged into infiinity. ED is modelling a specific timeframe. If they wouldn't, they would have to implement various updates and changes and other things. That way the amount of work gets absolutely bloated. Just live with their decision of the F-18 being a 2005 aircraft.

[Northstar98]

ED struggles enough getting the Hornet finished as-is and that's after removing or not planning for features that are perfectly accurate for the stated scope, even for the exact timeframe, variant and operator.

Hell, this even applies to modules that are missing trivial additions, where there's no research or technical hurdle, the features are perfectly accurate to the exact scope ED stated and they're features present on other ED modules and yet, despite all of that, we can't get them.

It's not only unrealistic (in a couple of senses of the word) but something really wouldn't sit right with me if unrealistic features get implemented while perfectly realistic ones (like TAMMAC maps for instance) get snubbed.

22 hours ago, ricnunes said:

Which is far more realistic having a 2005 F/A-18 carrying GBU-54s OR having the same 2005 F/A-18C flying in a 1989 campaign (Task Force Challenger), the campaign that comes with DCS F/A-18C?

And what's even more realistic still? A 2005 Hornet with 2005-era weapons.

 

And this is a false equivalency - DCS mission design is designed to be a sandbox and completely up to you - the aircraft often are not. This is by design - the idea is that the building blocks of the missions are supposed to be accurate, but the scenario you make out of them is up to you.

I'd argue that restricting away fictional or hypothetical missions and only permitting accurate, historical ones is far more limiting in terms of gameplay, than having aircraft that's supposed to be accurate. 

The other thing when it comes to missions is that DCS more often than not lacks coherent, comprehensive assets on relevant theatres to make realistic missions and campaigns - it's always the same ship of theseus thing where far more units need to have stand-ins because the correct one doesn't exist. So in that sense, it would be impossible to make accurate, historical missions in the first place.

Let's just take an example - aircraft carrier operations. Using the non tanker version of the S-3B? Well that's an aircraft variant from prior to 1998. Using CVNs 71-75 of the Supercarrier module? Well, what they're fitted with means they range from 2008 (CVN 73) to 2017 (CVN 72) at the absolute earliest and yet they're using a Sea Sparrow version from the mid 1980s. Using the E-2D? That didn't reach IOC until 2015 either, only it's defined with the wrong radar and the performance is wrong even to that radar. We've already got an incoherent mess and we've only gotten started.

And let's say we get the GBU-54, okay great, we've made the already incoherent aircraft even more so, great! Are we going to get anything else a 2012 Hornet might have? AIM-120C-7 for instance? No? I mean, we can't get it for the F-16CM either, even though it's accurate there.

22 hours ago, ricnunes said:

Yet, ED accepts the scenario of a 2005 Hornet flying in 1989 but not the one that the same Hornet uses a weapon (GBU-54) that came a few years after. Puzzling, I must say!

It isn't puzzling - it's perfectly consistent with the design of the game, as stated previously. I mean, nothing is stopping me from having a Pakistan vs Sweden scenario, set on the Falkland Islands, set before the first manned aircraft took flight. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to what weapons are available to the aircraft or what systems it has.

22 hours ago, ricnunes said:

Some users have backed up this ED decision because of the reason above (Hornet being from 2005 while GBU-54 from 2012) but the truth is that if the GBU-54 was integrated in DCS F/A-18C then these same users would still have the CHOICE of not using the weapon.

Except this is utterly dreadful logic which taken to its ends permits basically anything so long players have the choice not to be affected by it:

• Let's make the Hornet's radar see things 400 nmi away, if players don't like it, simply choose not to set your radar scale so far out.
• Let's add the PL-15 and PL-17 or hell any other weapon ever, players still have CHOICE not to use these, so what's the issue?
• Let's make the aircraft fly at mach 5, don't like it? Choose not to fly so fast.
• Found a bug with a weapon? Choose not to use it, problem solved!

Or how about, if you don't like the fact that the Hornet predates GBU-54 and doesn't have it, choose to fly something else that does have it.

Clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere and again, given ED's issues with finishing their aircraft, even to very narrow scopes I don't see any good reason to have that line any further from where it is now. If that wasn't the case and the Hornet had all the relevant features it should, maybe I'd agree with you, but it doesn't, so I don't.

Edited 6 hours ago by Northstar98