Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jamie_c

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday March 6

Personal Information

  • Location
  1. Like many parts of the HUG mods to the F/A-18A, there's no public documentation on how those dispensers are integrated into the RAAF Hornet, any implementation would be pure assumption and they'd no longer be able to call it an F/A-18C on the store page. It would be the same as asking for the AIM-132 and no one is doing that.
  2. Yes, I would hope not, which is why I said lower priority, I'd still consider that an essential part of the end state. I'm just hoping to avoid this Roadmap being the definitive list of Hornet capability and getting to the end of 2021 with ED proclaiming "We're finished!".
  3. One thing I'm not seeing on the roadmap is other HSI improvements: GRID Coord Entry GPS Coord XFER I'd consider these two bare minimum to bring it up to a similar level to the A-10C CDU, and that's in addition to any other improvements that are on the roadmap (MK points, Offsets etc). The current GRID Coord display is placeholder text, it doesn't change with LL Coord. Other than that, this is roughly how I responded to the survey: Flight Model Navigation Radar Modes/TGP Counter-Measures Boom Boom Training Munition - agree with jeffham222 here. As for running BITs, INS
  4. I would think that it should be coming given the A/C and WYPT pages in the HSI have placeholder text currently and the GRID option is shown on the UFC for WYPT data entry. The only issue that makes it complex is the 100 000 m square identifier selection uses a graphical display on the R DDI with the TDC. Also odd is the manual refers to this as UTM, UTM doesn't use a 2 letter code for the 100 000m square ID. I really hope this hasn't been forgotten.
  5. As would I in most cases, but if you're talking L-39 and Mi-8, you could just as easily have an F/A-18 in the future giving a Bullseye call for a ground target. It's up to the user to decide priority in the fight, if he thinks turning rotraries is his best use of time, best of luck to him :) Whether they can add the feature requested depends on how far they're willing to deviate from the real thing. I'm surprised the real 430 has as much utility as it does.
  6. Oh I'm never against debate, it's just easy when the 1979 document agrees with a newer reference that can't be posted. It doesn't rule out that further development could have happened of course. I doubt even a document signed off by a USAF star rank confirming the stores limitations would convince some. As for the GBU-12s, as a former ground guy, I could never say no to fast air carrying more bombs, the more precise the better!
  7. I just replied to that thread with information on how it would be done in the real GNS 430. Hopefully it's of use.
  8. For any future queries on this subject, this is all boom boom stores the F-5E3 could carry.
  9. A little late to this party, sorry. Firstly I don't yet have the DCS NS 430, what I do have is the GNS 430 training software from Garmin. How I'd manage this in the real thing (may or may not be possible in DCS) is to create a User waypoint named BULL (or anything easy) at the bullseye grid or as an offset from an existing waypoint. This way if I get a bullseye call, I create another point from that location using radial and distance. If instead I get a BRA call, I use P.POS. Both methods create a visual point on the nav map showing me where they are and if you go direct to, you've got your
  10. The USAF did order laser guided Mavericks in 2009, they were tested on A-10C but there is no unclassified information to suggest they were used.
  11. I hope some of these things get implemented. It's important to further develop the ground roles as it will add in some way to the battle going overhead. Especially considering the alternate uses for an A-10C beyond shredding armour. Even to take from what Heatblur has done with creating markers to create a target reference on the map and have an associated UI elements to select fire mission params such as bty, regt, HE/ILLUM/SMOKE, time for preplanned and so on. A UI based approach that replicates a datalinked terminal isn't an unrealistic solution and can be augmented by an enhanced ground
  12. The Hornet is a very complex aircraft, as are its weapons systems. It makes sense for ED to have multiple teams working on different aircraft, and other projects such as supporting government users, i.e. those organisations that pay the Early Access price of the Hornet thousands of times over per year. If they stopped working on weapons and just did core systems you'd miss out on JASSM, JSOW, HARM, AGM-84, SLAM-ER and possibly AIM-9X LOAL. And technically they could say the Hornet was done at that point. None of these things are simple, a regular old harpoon has a number of flight profil
  13. Usually in weapons delivery manuals for various platforms you will find there is a Circular Error Probable (CEP) for a given range which will tell you in the absence of a failure the weapon will impact within a circle of the given size based on an aiming mark compensating for things like wind. Anything larger than this could be operator error. I'd suggest either trying to load or unload the wings with slight forward or back pressure and see what effect that has on placement, and also be aware a rocket from your right wing will likely impact right of the pipper. I'm not saying I'm great with
  14. Just on the F-5E3, the non-nuclear weapons delivery manual makes zero mention of AGM-65, if they could use them in US service it would be in there.
  15. It is just an approximation based on the calculated time to go, it's a feature on a large number of military aviation platforms, at least in the west. It's like a progress bar, but you can't really assume anything once complete, it's based on the parameters at launch including relative heading, rate of closure, distance and flight profile (loft vs more direct). Any change by the target aircraft throws this estimate out.
  • Create New...