Jump to content

Kev2go

Members
  • Content Count

    3533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

1 Follower

About Kev2go

  • Rank
    Veteran

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, P3D, Il2 BOS.
  • Location
    Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. the one that would have still been in operational use in 2005. Easiest of Course would be to just got for the AN/AAS38B since that would not require a second LST pod like the A model. ( because at that point ATFLIR was around in relatively small quantities)
  2. im confused. I thought the AGm65C barely existed. it was a experimental thing that resulted in maybe a very low rate production, and eventually just got scrapped and the project morphed into the AGM65E. https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-65.html "The AGM-65C was to be a semi-active laser guided version for the U.S. Marine Corps. It was intended for close air support, and was equipped with a heavier 113 kg (250 lb) MK 19 blast-fragmentation warhead. Full-scale development began in 1978, but only a few AGM-65C missiles were built and the program was eventually ca
  3. Besides having a more improved resolutions ? 1024x1024 CCD, and 640P x 512 FLIR resolution rather than a worse 760P CCD , and the 320P flir resolution of the Original Litening 2? Yea there are more differences. because we have 2 FOV magnification and 9 levels of digital zoom, as well as the multi sensor capability. ( litening 2 ER features). ( Actually the resolution its only truly overperforming on digital zoom levels, as it should more gradually degrade to look worse the higher the digital zoom levels one goes) and because it has data linking capabilities
  4. then clearly the Litening 2's integration in DCS hornet would not reflect a Litening 2 from 1999. Considering in 1999 the Litening 2 AT didnt exist, neither even the litening 2 ER which succeeded original litening 2, but preceded the Litening 2 AT. in 1999 only the very original Litening 2 was in operation. Not only did it lack the Sensor integration we currently have in the DCS hornet, it had even worse resolution and less magnification. . SO even though ED used Spanish documentation to some extent for understanding Litening 2 operation, clearly they also relied on other open sou
  5. im confused. IIRC our DCS hornet was supposed oa mish mash of various OFP's ( namely OFP 13C with OFP 15 features, and maybe some other ones) rather than being 100% a single software OFP from an exact year, in spite of the "circa 2005ish" date ? So wouldn't the OFP argument be moot? Litening 2 At went into operation circa 2003. SO an OFP from 2003 wouldn't have MSI for the Litening Targeting pod, but ATFLIR which was also operational at a comparable time frame suddenly did? Perhaps you can explain to me because how is there no Multi sensor integration with the
  6. yea? Don't think a newer OFP would make much difference. Its the litening 2 AT model at the end of the day. I dont see why you would expect that Hornet we have in question ( circa 2005-2007) would get a newer generation Litening 2 since for example the Litening 2 G4 only was being produced since 2008. which is Later that the time frame of our DCS Hornet.Granted given the extra Zoom and FOV modes, and the higher resolution FLIR imaging ( IRL its 1024x1024 vs 640x512P of the earlier AT model) of the Litening 2 G4 we see on the razbam harrier it would be nice to have, as at that model would c
  7. ah well maybe modders can do it. Its been done in other sims before. yeah that what kinda kills the fun of the MIg21bis nukes. the lack of actual nuclear bomb effects, and thus the novelty wears off fast.
  8. I would also add that with the Harrier Boeing also must have forwarded some newer publications not available online, because since end of 2020 Razbam has had decided to also model employment of GBU54, APKWS as well as replacement of the original Litening 2 AT pod with the newer Litening 2 G4 TGP. Such recent additions weren't part of the originally planned features.
  9. The cas page looks like it functions just like what you have on the harrier. There is open source paper on how it was being integrated for the legacy Hornet. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3389&context=utk_gradthes But yeah considering its a later OFP and post 2005 and they want to keep things consistent theyl only stick to things applicable to OFP13C and OFP15.
  10. IF the sniper TGP can't be done what about the litening 2 TGP? I've seen some B52's carrying that, and from some articles i found was being tested as early as 2003 on that particular aircraft.. one of the aircrew weapons delivery manual dated from 2005 ( revised 2006) references TO N.O 1B-52H-851 which describes " installation of Targeting Pod on B52H Aircraft" and also references symbol [TP] for B52H aircraft that have it.
  11. I think it would be necessary to do an EWO station ( at least as much modelling as you can do from non classified sources) because the station contains the RWR, Countermeasures dispensing the EW jamming of which a live crewmember controls. I would think these are very necessary defensive systems in modern aviation even if the latter bit is really undercooked in DCS. the Manual that pertain to EWO: the T.O. 1B-52H-1-13 is not classified ( most up to date publication i found was 1996 but with revised changes from 2006) , and can be be found through public sources only the supplement
  12. ok thanks for reclarifying your position. And whilst i dont really have any disagreement the practical reasons for why a B52 hasn't been done since i myself have considered them, however i do not know if i can also reach your conclusion on the permissions regarding defense contractor/ military not wanting to give permission or cooperate with ED, based on the fact the B52 is in still service or can can employ nukes. Maybe Wing here can comment if hes thinks the USAF would refuse ED or a 3rd party from doing the B52 purely on that basis alone, which i don't think he believes that i
  13. self projecting are we? Of course bring it wrong because you seem to have been uniformed slew of information thats publicly available and whats not and have not bothered to do your own research before making assertations. That wasn't a question if it that alone was enough. So now you change the goalpost to focusing on saying its not enough. When i never said otherwise: How often have people like you been proven wrong with your pseudo intellectualistic overly verbose essays on why you incorrectly perceive aircraft XYZ cannot
  14. I can Its because I have done my Homework. Just because you haven't done your due diligence of research beforehand and thus have a ill-adequately formed opinion is not my fault. But its never too late to correct oneself and change an opinion. Assuming the above clarification still wasn't clear enough, for record i have gone out and found all virtually all the non classified documentation for the B52H model over the course of a weekend, back when this topic was started which why i can confidently say what i have said prior. On the opposite end
  15. Bump again would to see this feature, and see if ed would confirm if it's coming , Especially since the harrier already has this function.
×
×
  • Create New...