Looks like the AMRAAM secretly made it into the last patch. You can currently load up to four type B slammers on the jet, and they seem to be working fine, atleast from STT.
6 Likes
1 Like
No hidden indications so far, so you can’t see when the thing is going active. Also no missile truck loadout yet.
These guys rock, but posting complete changelogs is not their forte.
Oh man I was gonna pass on this patch but… now… 
Rule 27: Never pas on a patch
Rule 28: Keep a known good back up when patching
(Hmmm…I don’t think DCS Mods allow for back ups…in FSX its pretty much necessary…
…but this is the FA-18 forum…so does now that all AAMs have been completed, do we think we can we expect AG improvements?
The AAMs are not in any way, shape, or form near completion. Give it time.
Pointless since the DCS installer is pretty much a version control system. You can go back to any version at any point.
At the risk of being slightly OT, how are the E and F Rhinos used differently in the fleet? What is their role differentiation?
At first the F replaced the F-14 while the E was more a C model sub.
I have no idea if that stuck.
Is a bit of an apples and oranges thing…and with all transitions, the original plan never survives first contact with reality.
These posst could be as applicable to the Heatblut F-14 thread…anyway.
One must remember that the E was in development while F-14 As and Bs were in the fleet. The A’s at least ever saw bombs, sniper pod, etc. That all happened with theF-14 Ds. So early on I think the E was seen more as an A-6E replacement than a F-14 replacement; although was a replacement for both.
Using CVW-14 in 2004 as an example: 2 x FA-18 C squadron, 1 x FA-18E squadron and 1 x F-14 D squadron.
Through out this time period, it was “discovered” that the F-14 D, using LGBs and PGMs was a pretty good strike bird, because there was a guy in the back taking a lot of the work off the pilot’s hands…I believe the word is “teamwork”…the Navy seems to discover it evert few dozen years.
Back to CVW-14 in 2004: The Es and F-14D were both used for strike and AAW CAP…it just depended on the situation.
A long way to say I think that the the Fs will likely do more strike and the Es more fleet air defense, fighter sweeps, etc., but that both will do both.
The one thing that think the E cannot due is arial reece - the F can use the SHARP pod, the E cannot.
1 Like
I seem to remember that being the case from my (almost completed) EAWS qualification when I deployed in 2006 with an all-Hornet air wing (CVW-14).
A small correction, and admins feel free to bump this elsewhere if it gets off topic.
All variants of the F-14 would eventually perform the precision strike role. Generally speaking the Tomcat community was broken up in the 90s with Atlantic Fleet Squadrons getting the F-14Bs. PacFlt squadrons getting the Ds, and the TARPs equipped A squadrons leavening out the remaining air wings. All would be wired for LANTIRN in the late 90s.
Here’s a VF-154 A taking off with LANTIRN.
A VF-32 B with LANTIRN.
Ironically, due to a quirk in the Tomcat appropriations process, the F-14**B** was actually the most effective precision strike aircraft in the fleet, at least for a time. In the Mid-90s an unrelated program was funded to replace the old “Fishbowl” TIDs with the PTID, which was a larger screen that was much more akin to a modern MFD. The F-14B they pulled off the flight line during the initial LANTIRN testing happened to have one of the PTIDs, and it was discovered that the PTID also had a much greater resolution than not only the original TID, but just about every other MFD in service at that time.
This allowed them to two advantages. 1) you could zoom the LANTIRN in further which without clarity being lost 2) the greater screen real estate enabled a more effective “WSO ZOOM 0” (I.E. plastering you Mk-1 Ocular acquisition devices up close to it.
PTID was originally intended for the Bravos, but whenever a PTID equipped F-14B went to the depot for maintenance, apparently it had a nasty habit of coming back with a Fishbowl TID. By a matter of pure coincidence an F-14A that also happened to be in the depot at the same time would miraculously leave with a PTID.
In any case F-14Ds did not benefit from this illicit trade because it was figured they had an MFD that replaced the RIO’s ECMD display on the right hand side of his cockpit, which was sufficient for task. They didn’t get PTID in any numbers until the A model Tomcats were withdrawn from service in the early 2000s. After that they would slowly consume the PTIDs that became available as first A then B squadrons began transitioning to the E/Fs.
As for actual assignment of squadrons? I dunno. I trust @Hangar200 as he was there. I will say that if you look at the matter on a purely squadron based criteria, there is no direct transfer. By that I mean F-14 units were not directly exchanging their Tomcats for F model Hornets. There’s a relatively even split between squadrons that ended up with either the E or the F.
1 Like
Exactly! 
While at the same time (or a little earlier) I’m pretty sure some C squadrons became E squadrons. And some F-14 squadrons were stood down…their tombstones are along the walk into the Oceana O-Club.
With regard to doing Air-to-Air and Air-to-Mud, I think saying “The E and F can do both and will do both, depends on the mission and tactical situation” is a true statement…or could just say, “It depends” 
2 Likes
This is an old article but they claim the SHARP pod will go on Es, Cs, and Ds: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=2248
Far from an expert and the last time I was really involved in researching the 18E/F was '07, but my understanding was the super bug was a striker, while the legacy bug was used for light strike and CAS. Kinda moot now since the legacy is all but gone and the super is on everything now 'cept for AWACS and fleet supply. Keeping in mind that once the interception/fleet defense role got taken over by good missile destroyers (and when the threat of Ivan throwing Backfires at carrier groups turned into Russians with Rusting Rockets), the utility of aircraft as interceptors was greatly reduced. Hence, being able to sling ATG ordnance was pretty essential if there was going to be a future for naval aviation.
Which is why the short legs of the bugs has always been a nagging issue. But between holding aircraft together with duct tape and bailing wire while waiting for the F-35 “delivery slipped another 5 years” super-duper-magical-go-faster-further-unicorn-fairy-farts against “imperfect but good enough and not falling apart” super bugs, well… Decision becomes pretty easy. I don’t know if they’d have been happy launching and recovering A-29s from carriers just to maintain a resemblance of capability.
1 Like
I understand the decision to offload the role of fleet defense to the AEGIS bois. The thing that always stuck me as funny is while it’s a heck of a weapons system, to my knowledge we still don’t have a means to reload them while at sea.
There’s a crane that was designed which takes up three VLS tubes, but it was considered unsatisfactory because it couldn’t lift tomahawk containers, and wasn’t cleared to operate above sea state 3. Not a problem if you’re operating close to friendly ports or not in a threat environment (clearly we’ve been facing a massive air threat recently), but an interesting logistical quandary in a sustained shooting war.
Less of an issue now that we have CFT’d Superbugs and enough AIM-120Ds to make an Eagle jealous.
I suspect that having ~90+ missiles per boat was considered adequate, especially for procurement numbers. In any case, rightly or wrongly, it’s what they chose to roll with at the time. As you say, it becomes a layered defense and even though the super bug isn’t as good an interceptor as an F-14D, it’s better than relying exclusively on the AEGIS.
Regarding the DCS bug: is it just me or is the 9L superior to the 9M? Currently my hit rate is better with the 9L than the 9M. 7s still go stupid real easy and 120s are 50/50, though I don’t expect much from the latter right now.
Aerodynamically and kinematically they are the same missile. The only difference should be that the -9M is more resistant to countermeasures. Whether or not that’s reflected in DCS? 
Might just be Su-27/J-11 vs MiG-29. I was playing a fast mission where I went up against a bunch of Su-27s and I only got 2 hits out of 6 fired for the 9M, then another fast mission I picked the 9L and faced a gaggle of MiG-29s where it was 5 for 6.
