…and how many reloads do you think we have? I don’t know the answer (and if I did I couldn’t post it). Given my experience with budgets and te procurement process, I would wager the answer is “Less that one might think.”
I’d certainly hope we have more SM-2/6s than a single load per-ship 
Thanks for the correction. I’m pretty sure that I heard the Fs were getting SHARP. I do know that it was not deployed with Cs. This might be a situation where the F squadrons will get the pod and the E squadrons, even though they are technically capable, will not get it.
Back in the day, when we had two F-14 squadrons per airwing, one squadron was the TARPS squadron (jets & aircrew that could employ the TARPS pod) and the other was the banner squadron–capable of towing the air-to-air gunnery target banner.
Makes sense if a two crew jet employs the pod–aerial reece is not as simple as it may seem so splitting the work load makes sense.
Getting back onto the subject, as a former Navy intel officer, I’d love to see them add a SHARP capability to the C model (subject of this forum) I know it will probably be very low on the priority list, but as I mentioned, planning and flying a reece mission is somewhat difficult, but a lot of fun when you do it right!
1 Like
wp-1478893924988.png
If we want, the guy who sits about five cubes down from me worked for BAE on the SHARP program until January. I can go ask him Monday.
I can’t find the AIM-9L in the infamous missiles.lua, but the AIM-9M has a “ccm_k0” of “0.5” which apparently translates to countermeasure resistance about twice as good as average in DCS World values.
Part of that’s the missile, but a lot of that is the fact that the Hornet radar drops contacts the second angular rate increases.
Sure! I understand that from a realty perspective this would be a bit off since I don’t think they ever used SHARP on C’s in the fleet (because they always had F-14 TARPS…as CSG-7 N2, I had the dubious honor of overseeing the last F-14 TARPS mission in 2004) …but if the C can carry it, then heck yes! Again, understand low on the priority list. However, I think some of the code is already there with the MI-8 gun camera.
Reconnoissance missions are difficult (read fun) to plan and can be dangerous (read not fun) to fly. The little devil is something called “spot-size”. In simplest terms, spot-size is the distance between two objects where you can discern on the imagery/photo that they are in fact two objects. Spot-size is a function of the focal length of the sensor, and the slant range to the target.
If the mission s to simply count armor in a garrison the spot-size is likely a foot or two. If the mission is to determine which variant of aircraft is at an airfield, the spot-size can sometimes be measured in 2-3 inches.
So, with the spot size determined and the focal length of the sensor a given, you start working with altitude and flight path to achieve the needed spot-size…easy! Except you also need to think of air defenses and how that effects the flight path. All the time realizing that the recce aircraft cannot be jinking around in the target areas (areas plural - one of the few missions where you normally have more than one target)
In F-14 days, they would go in as a 2-plane-theTARPS bird and the wingman…“Clicking Ass and Taking Frames” as it were. Both aircraft armed, but the TARPS pod was non-ejectable…and pretty darn heavy. So if they had to mix it up with other fighters, it was probably going to be couple of Sparrow / Winder shots in the face, then select Zone 5 AB to get out of Dodge.
With those type of missions in mind…just think of the multi-player fun.
If they can work in a SHARP pod on this Hornet, it will be awesome…I think they should move it up the priority list! 
2 Likes
This past week we introduced the AIM-120 for the Hornet. Implementation is still very preliminary. However, for the 15 August update, we plan for it to be complete with the following:
1- Guidance times (HUD and RADAR) for ACT and TTG.
2- Correct visual mode with cage/uncage function, SL time, and correct off the rail guidance.On a related matter, our missile engineer is currently focused on the AIM-7, but following that, he will re-visit AIM-120 guidance laws and flight dynamics.
Also on 15 August, we plan to implement the AIM-9X Block I, minus the JHMCS (coming afterwards).
Thanks!
posted in the hornet mini-updates section
3 Likes
Cool!
8 Likes
Really?
not:
I mean, sure DCS missile implementation isn’t perfect. Pretty far from it, but is something isn’t it?
4 Likes
The USN has shown a surprising lack of urgency in getting the 35C operational. Given it will be their first stealthy carrier plane and that its range should be no worse than the 4th gen planes, you’d think they’d want them more.
Instead, they’ve been happy to let the USMC and USAF get theirs up and running and first, perhaps in the hope that when they get them most of the kinks will be worked out.
Maybe the USN learned the lesson that MS instilled in all IT workers long ago…you never want version 1.0 of anything.
1 Like
There are a lot of logistical issues behind the scenes the Navy is dealing with when it comes to the F-35C - supply chain and maintenance for the engines and skin, additional security requirements, and some other things ship-side. It might be a little while.
I knew Navy guys were all about Skin care creams and such… but delaying the F-35 for those guys suntan?
Exhibit A:
J/K of course…
2 Likes
Yeah… I meant the RAM-coated skin on the F-35… Apparently it doesn’t mix well with salt water or otherwise corrosive environments, and the service is just now learning how to take care of it (and putting lotion on it doesn’t do anything). Buddy of mine is a composites engineer working on the problem at Cherry Point.
2 Likes
To be fair, half those issues are issues that occur with any new plane entering service, only a few are unique to the 35.
Also, it’s not like the USMC is experiencing anything different. Same seawater, same security issues, almost same engine, etc. The only difference is the USMC is getting it done with STOVL while the USN is going to have folding wings and CATOBAR gear.
Now it’s possible the USMC just doesn’t care as much about the stealth thing so they’re going full bore before those issues have been fully addressed, I don’t know, but if the USN really wanted to they could’ve done just as good a job unless they’re holding themselves to some higher standard.
1 Like
The USMC has also mortgaged the entire aviation portion of their service on the F-35B. If it isn’t the F-35 or the Harrier, money has evaporated for the better part of the decade. Their F/A-18s have been literally falling out of the sky. Aircraft availability is abysmal for their Hornets, as well as pilot flight time, due to spare parts and aircraft fatigue. There is an overwhelming operational imperative for them to get the JSF up and out as quickly as possible.
The Navy isn’t in as tight a bind, they’ve effectively hedged bets by going full Super Hornet in the interim. That buys them time to sort everything out with their logistics and make needed changes to carrier infrastructure.
2 Likes
An interesting conversation and applicable to the FA-18 model we are currently looking at (and some of you are flying).
In some respects, bringing the F-35 into the fleet runs against the Navy’s logistics simplification program…3 aircraft - FA-18s and their off spring (EF-18) do all the strike, A2A and tanking stuff. Upgraded E-2 for AEW and H-60s of various versions for all the helo work.
…and now the F-35 monkey wrench gets thrown in…so if we are gong to have a 4th maintenance line, why didn’t we just reengineer the S-3s for tanking–forget ASW - introduce an ES-3 (an awesome bird for us spook types) for tanking and SIGINT.
But I digress. It would be interesting to see if ED could put out an F-35, FA-18E and EF-18 in FC3 format (easy radars, current FC3 missiles and CCIP or GBUs only) added on to the study sim FA-18 of this thread…then get us good folks at Mudspike to essentially BETA test the future conceptual airwing for the USN through series of Blue Flag-like on going evolutions.
I need to see if I still know anybody at NRL…
1 Like
I imagined, still thank you for the details. 
Already some good points made by @Navynuke99 regarding that, but I’ll also add that the Navy doesn’t badly need a jet that sits pretty and does nothing right now. Even the super bug is just slinging a few bombs here and there; don’t need an expensive, complex, difficult to maintain stealth jet to drop a bomb on a tent. Plus, the Navy is investing heavily in UAVs like the MQ-8 and MQ-25, which is where the smart money is for the future.