DCS F/A-18C

[taubkin]

So, I’m not sure this is the right place to share this, since we’re all talking about new features and releases for the hornet… But I just wanted to add that I ran that first mission from the mini-campaign, took off, set my ACM the best I cloud, shot down some bandits (my wingman shot down a lot more), navigated back to the base and pulled off a case I from the books. This mission is FAST, you scramble and have little time to set everything up. I was away from the sim for a while so it took some minor retraining before I was up to par, but what a rush, feeling totally badass (Not the level of situational awareness I managed to have with the F15 at the end of my first campaign, but alive, nonetheless).

I guess all of this to add, for those of us who still are not comfortable enough to fly multiplayer, it’s going to be incredible to fly those single player campaigns. I’m especially excited since it’s my first study level plane… So, are there any well informed predictions to when some of that killer content is coming for the bug? I mean, from previous releases from ED, is it like a month away or a year away? Or is this mini campaign existing so soon already unusual enough I should just be satisfied with it and shut up?

[Franze]

Well, we’re supposed to get JHMCS soon, which will integrate with AIM-9X for HOBS in the interim. Supposedly HARM is due around the same time, so you’ll be able to start rockin’ the DEAD and SEAD. LGBs are on the table as well, but you’ll have to have someone else lase for you as the TGPs are still a ways off.

FWIW multiplayer isn’t that bad with the Bug and there’s a lot of servers out there that are simple PvE training missions. You won’t always encounter people but sometimes you will and they can be helpful. The Bug is pretty popular so you can always browse around for user missions if you don’t want to make your own.

[HomeFries]

When he’s not complaining that women exist within 1,000NM of his precious squadron and its warrior spirit, threatening both with their feminine wiles, the author spends like five pages building a glorious straw man against the Harrier.

I don’t recall that as much, but if I’m thinking of the same book he was not a fan of the D model Hornet and the crew concept. I have it on my shelf and I’ll be sure to look for it.

[near_blind]

@HomeFries

I don’t recall that as much, but if I’m thinking of the same book he was not a fan of the D model Hornet and the crew concept. I have it on my shelf and I’ll be sure to look for it.

He wrote two. I remember Hammer From Above, which he wrote about Operation Iraqi Freedom dealt more with the Delta model Hornet and VMFA(AW) squadrons in the AFAC role. The three things I remember from Hornets Above Kuwait were

1. A solid rain of Mk-83s
2. The author being abhorred that men and women have sex, even during war.
3. Harriers cannot hover with bombs → Harriers must operate from a full stocked, rear area air base (because FARPs and LHA/Ds aren’t a thing) → there is literally no reason not to buy Hornets instead.

I liked the first part. The other two… eh.

[JediMaster]

That doesn’t surprise me at all. Just because you know something about something doesn’t mean you know something about everything.

The vast majority of people have uninformed opinions on everything that’s not their day-to-day lives, which means they will likely disagree with the people who do. It’s only a problem when the uninformed have power over them.

That’s why I’m a firm believer in the adage that opinions are like a-holes because everyone has one and they all stink.

[Franze]

Anyone know why bags are sometimes put on the centerline and then one of the inboard stations with ordnance on the opposite station, as opposed to ordnance on the centerline with bags on the inboard? I don’t see the centerline used much for ordnance but it seems odd to have an odd mix like that.

Further, does anyone have any data on when the AIM-9M really started supplanting the AIM-9L in US service? I find a lot of references in ODS relating to the 9L, not the 9M.

[rjbrantly15]

I always figured they set it up “double ugly” to accommodate a cheek mounted TGP. Since having the other bag on the wing would limit the tgp field of view. Could be way off though

[near_blind]

@Franze

Anyone know why bags are sometimes put on the centerline and then one of the inboard stations with ordnance on the opposite station, as opposed to ordnance on the centerline with bags on the inboard? I don’t see the centerline used much for ordnance but it seems odd to have an odd mix like that.

I’d defer to @Hangar200 or @Navynuke99, but to my knowledge the center line mount is never, or only extremely rarely used to hang ordinance in the Navy. If I had to guess it’d have to do with not wanting to have 20K+ lbs of fuselage smushing an explosive egg into the deck in event of landing gear failure, but that’s purely speculation on my part.

Using the “double ugly” or “goofy gas” grants you the double benefit of freeing up an ordinance pylon at no fuel cost, while also greatly reducing the masking limitations of the TGP. My understanding is it was used pretty sparingly early on, but really started to see wide adoption during and after the invasion of Iraq. Hornets often found themselves providing NISR, and the expanded FOV made the job slightly easier.

It’s also of minor note that the fuel logic for our Hornet isn’t currently correct. In reality the fuel system drains wing mounted externals before the center line external, so the asymetric weight isn’t so bad as you would expect.

@Franze

Further, does anyone have any data on when the AIM-9M really started supplanting the AIM-9L in US service? I find a lot of references in ODS relating to the 9L, not the 9M.

Which references? I referenced three sites quickly (not definitive or guaranteed accurate), but one doesn’t reference specific model of missile used in kills, and the other two reference AIM-9Ms.

http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aakill/

Only things I can think of are

1. The AIM-9M and -9L are superficially nearly identical, it’s easy to mistake one for the other.
2. The AIM-9M was, at least initially, forbidden from export. During the initial stages of the conflict I can see there being insufficient, or non existant stocks of the weapon in the Middle East, necessitating the use of less capable but ostensibly present Limas
3. My half assed reseach is wrong.

[Franze]

@near_blind

Which references?

Mostly anecdotal, I saw it mentioned a lot and it didn’t seem right since the 9M should have been in full swing by ODS.

[sobek]

The more i fly the Hornet, the more i realize how desperately TWS is missing.

[Franze]

Not DCS Bug per se, but thought I’d share this:

[NineLine]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3661070&postcount=80

Update time!

As mentioned in a recent newsletter, we are pushing hard for JHMCS with AIM-9X support, Maverick, FPAS page, and corrected A/A antenna logic after undesignated button lock release. All is looking good, but the AGM-65F and G versions will unfortunately not be ready until next month.

We, for the most part, have four guys working on Hornet systems and here is what they are working on:
1- JHMCS. Afterward he moves on to the HARM.
2- AGM-65E. Once done, then AGM-65F and G.
3- A/A radar antenna. When complete, then LTWS.
4- FPAS page. Then after that, then probably “soft lock” IFF or Data Link / SA page.

The Hornet systems team is working full time on the Hornet, but some of the items are complex and take time. No one is slacking off.

Once the Maverick and HARM are fully functional, we’ll start work on the second Hornet mini-campaign.

We have ten new training missions in work that include:
IFR Airfield Approach
Carrier Taxi and Takeoff
Carrier CASE I Recovery
A/A Gun
AIM-9L/M
AIM-120
A/G Gun
Rockets
CCIP Bombs
CCRP Bombs

You may be saying to yourself, “but Wags, you forgot CASE II,III and AIM-7!” Negative Ghostrider, we need those items to be completed before we can make the training mission for them (full comm for CASE II,III and HOJ mode for the Sparrow).

Supporting tech like the A/G radar (we lost our original engineer on this) and an improved FLIR rendering system are in work and are fundamental to A/G radar implementation and the ATFLIR.

So things are moving forward at a good clip, but this is a very complex product and it will take time.

Thank you for your patience!

Matt

[sobek]

@NineLine

then LTWS

Interesting though that LTWS comes before TWS. As i understand it, TWS always runs in the background even when RWS is selected and supplies the track file for LTWS.

[near_blind]

@sobek

As i understand it, TWS always runs in the background even when RWS is selected and supplies the track file for LTWS.

That subroutine is LTWS, it can be disabled by the pilot if they so choose. TWS has a some subtle differences that I couldn’t remember without reading through some stuff again. I agree it’s odd they’re doing the blended RWS page first tho.

[sobek]

@near_blind

That subroutine is LTWS

Exactly, the point being that you sort of need the info TWS calculates in the background to do LTWS on the RWS display.

[AndyE]

@NineLine

We, for the most part, have four guys working on Hornet systems and here is what they are working on:

Kinda eye opening to read this. For me at leasts it helps put the dev times for third parties doing aircraft of similar complexity, with smaller teams, into perspective.

Also, on the topic of improved FLIR rendering and ATFLIR, has ED ever officially said if NAVFILR will be a thing for the Hornet? Or was it obsolete and no longer used by the mid 2000’s?

[near_blind]

FLIR is integrated into the ATFLIR cheek station adapter, doesn’t make sense to do the pod and omit that

[AndyE]

Ah, wasn’t aware of that. Guess I need to do some reading on ATFLIR.

[near_blind]

You can see the sensor just to the right of the ratchet on left.

[Kinger]

For those of us who are not in the know, can you tell me what those acronyms mean?

So should we assume that even though Mav’s could become available by the end of the month, they will only be utilized via a JTAC?