F/A-18C Armament Thread

Excuse me if this has already been discussed,

Will we get Mk. 77 Firebombs with the hornet? I know this isn't a super common weapon, but they were used in Desert Storm (by harriers dont know about hornets), by hornets in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Iraqi freedom in Iraq.

Maybe need to wait till 2.5 for the new explosion effects to get napalm but I figured it could be a cool niche weapon. All the old Discovery Wings documentaries that featured hornets showed them dropping 77's on ranges.

Not arguing on the specific subject(since I know nothing about it), but..

The other thing is, other than LOT what year is the ED Hornet Based on?, because the BRU-55 was not part of the Fleet until 2003/2004 for the USMC.

...neither were the AMPCD and JHMCS, so the Hornet simulated for DCS must necessarily be of a post 2004 configuration.

All lot 20 hornets were delivered in 1998. It also doesn't matter since BRU-55/A is compatible with all hornet wing stations as you can plainly see.

 

I'm not arguing about the LITENING pod on the centreline because I don't know if they made any modifications to the electrical system on that station

 

I do know that BRU-55/A racks contain standard hardware and fully support GBU-12s. I also know that the NATOPS manual for the F/A-18C (that is up to date with Lot 20) has detailed information on the weight, drag and operational requirements for GBU-12s on dual racks.

 

Your point is that Marine hornets sometimes do things that Navy hornets don't do. Alright, would it suit you to have BRU-55/As with GBU-12s only available for DCS Hornets with Marine skins?

 

I think that's a bit silly frankly.

 

There's no reason for this capability to not be simulated.

 

I also have not seen an A-10C that I can verify is the same lot as the one simulated in DCS with suite 3 carrying AGM-65Ks. Does that mean it shouldn't be simulated?

 

I contend not.

Like I Said Physically Possible, But i dont forsee it being one of the Default loadouts for aircraft role in mission editor.

Like I Said Physically Possible, But i dont forsee it being one of the Default loadouts for aircraft role in mission editor.

Default loadouts sure, I'm with you but I expect to be able to do it in the sim if I choose to

Default loadouts sure, I'm with you but I expect to be able to do it in the sim if I choose to

You'll have to wait for official word on it.

As I said, looking at previous posts, the assumption was they were basing the F/A-18C Module off the USN Version, which did not have BRU-55's as an option, and retained the older BRUs.

It would be unfortunate for ED to not include the 55's. We all want realistic but not to the point that it takes away the fun of the game. "Game" being the word to emphasize.

It would be unfortunate for ED to not include the 55's. We all want realistic but not to the point that it takes away the fun of the game. "Game" being the word to emphasize.

Which is why I said what I said, which was to wait for official word from Wags,

AFAIK, based off previous posts, it was assumed to be based off the USN Lot 20, And the USN Didnt Purchase BRU55s until this year for their Super Hornets.

To Include something just because the USMC Had it would open the door for including the Litening II Pod, the Sniper Pods, and everything else all the other Countries have on their F-18s.

To Include something just because the USMC Had it would open the door for including the Litening II Pod, the Sniper Pods, and everything else all the other Countries have on their F-18s.

I don't see how that would be a bad thing. I don't think anybody expects it all at once, I certainly don't, but to limit the ability because the USN didn't have it would certainly be an unfortunate decision.

Anyway, we get what we get. I'll buy it and I'll enjoy it.

 

AFAIK, based off previous posts, it was assumed to be based off the USN Lot 20..

Its based on an USN Lot 20(from 1998 ), but the DCS version includes several attributes that weren't standard on any legacy Lots and only came about through retrofitting from 2004 onwards.

You may be right about the BRU-55 not being in USN service, but at least the year you quoted(2003-2004) for its introduction to USMC service would not bring it beyond the scope for the DCS Hornet version.

I don't see how that would be a bad thing. I don't think anybody expects it all at once, I certainly don't, but to limit the ability because the USN didn't have it would certainly be an unfortunate decision.

 

 

Anyway, we get what we get. I'll buy it and I'll enjoy it.

I agree Il still enjoy the hornet but i still hope of the BR55A.

AS for supposed opening the door for F/A18C getting Lightening 2's, it doesn't mean it has to get it just because its USMC mod. It wouldnt be the end of the world if L2 TGP was included too,.

L2 is already within DCS on the A10C module, Its a matter of porting it over via modding, if Devs only include the ATFLIR.

the shape and general parms for the L2 are part of the DCS Core, but the display and menus are actually embedded in the A-10C Cockpit DLL, so you cant "just port it over" as you say.

Skate, with all respect I highly disagree with you. I don't think there is any reason to not make the BRU-33/55, if U.S Navy doesn't use it, that's fine. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game since the F/A-18C is fact capable of using it. Same thing with USAF, it's been what, 20 25 years since the air force stopped using TERs + 3 Mavericks on the A-10 because of drag and a few other reasons? And it's in the game...

Not removing because of new operational limits,

And Including because another Branch/Country Has it.

2 Different things.

Which is why we don't have Mavericks on the F-5E, nor the Refueling Probe.

You do like to argue, don't ya. :)

The reason we don't have mavs on the F-5 is because of lack of documentation.

The reason we don't have a refueling probe on the F-5 is because no F-5E3 has one

Neither of these are factors for the Lot 20 hornet and GBU-12s on double racks.

I think you're drawing false equivalences and I'm not even sure why you're doing it. It has not been stated that the version we're getting is US Navy only. We could take this as far as the individual BuNo for the simulated aircraft but we all know that's silly.

Sith I'm not wanting to argue but I hope I can just give the reasons I think ED should model the ability to carry dual GBU-12s.

I hope that if anyone from the hornet team sees this they would give it a consideration.

1. The Hornet in DCS will undoubtedly be the most realistic recreation ever done of the F-18.

It would be a real shame to have this little detail missing.

2. Wags said in his intro video that "We plan to include all weapons carried by US operated F/A-18Cs." While I understand everything is subject to change, it would again be a real shame if we had such a huge arsenal of weapons but this missing detail made us miss out on some very interesting/versatile loadouts that the hornet is capable of.

3. If you guys decided to leave out any USMC loadout capabilities and to only stick with USN (and therefore leave out the BRU-55 due to how recent their purchase of it is), correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this also mean we would loose the ability to mount dual JDAMs on a pylon? Don't those require a BRU-55? While I prefer the LGBs, this would seriously restrict the amount of fun "ripple drops" that one could do with JDAMs.

Not meaning to be argumentative just putting these out there, I realize there is a ton of stuff you guys are working on...

--------------------------------------------

@Skate

I'm sure you know more about the navy regulations etc. than I do, but if that double GBU-12 setup wouldn't be considered for drag/weight reasons, then I must conclude that the navy is giving their legacy hornets a "baby treatment."

I did some calculating, see the A/A loadout in this vid at 0:37?

The drag and weight per wing are...

drag index = 48.3

weight = 4,132 lbs (with full tanks)

remember that 1x maverick and 2x GBU-12 per wing load out posted earlier?

Here's that one...

drag index = 48

weight = 2,902 lbs

Ya I know the tanks will run out, but they will only match the weight after more than 1,000 lbs (2,000 from both) burn off!

And that's an A/A loadout!

I certainly hope the navy doesn't have weight/wing loading restrictions THAT strict or we'll have no fun ;)

Plus the Hornet restricts Gs based on loadouts so I'm not worried.

Dosen't 282B mean two mark 82s per pylon on BRU55? Might be a placeholder but I'd take that as a good sign.

Dosen't 282B mean two mark 82s per pylon on BRU55? Might be a placeholder but I'd take that as a good sign.

 

Not really, the BRU-55 is for smart bombs. BRU-33 should be used in this case (i think).

I think you guys should ask Olgerd, he's the dev working on avionics. (if you really want to know the answer).

BRU-33/A can Hold 2 Mk-82s.

4x Mk-82s Per Wing was a capability even the F/A-18A's had.

The BRU-33 vertical ejector rack (VER) (fig.10-20) is suspended by the BRU-32/A bomb rack. Itprovides side-by-side and canted side-by-side carriageand release of two 14-inch suspension stores, rangingfrom 10- to 16-inches in diameter and weighing up to1,000 pounds.

Mk-82's range from 510- to 575 depending on casing, and are 10 and 3/4 inches in diameter.

Correct if I'm wrong but it seems the F-18 doesn't carry any bomb with BLU-108 submunitions, and any gps guided cluster bomb. Why the US Navy decided not to procure the CBU-97/105 or the AGM-154B?

The game Command: Modern Air and Naval Operations is the best unofficial source for technical data.

In neither the Navy or Marine Corps set-ups is the Hornet carrying GBU-12s in a dual-setup.

I think something the DCS fan base needs to collectively understand is that what is theoretically possible isn't always operationally possible. It's the same reason why Tomcat almost never carried six Phoenix missiles operationally, despite it being theoretically possible for it to do so.

I think sims should adhere to the real world as much possible. If it didn't happen in real life, it probably shouldn't be in the sim.

I think sims should adhere to the real world as much possible. If it didn't happen in real life, it probably shouldn't be in the sim.

I respectfully disagree, I prefer to have as many options to me as theoretically possible.

Just as how the entire Su-25t campaign is fictional, say we come up with a fictional F-14 campaign where the Iranians found a clever way to mass-produce AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. You could defend your airspace from afar as a kind of missile-armed AWACS with your giant radar, against Tu-16's and other primitive bombers. They would fire these Phoenix in pairs to counter their crude (mock Iranian) unreliability, and thus want to strap as many to the F-14s as possible.

In mission building, you work with the tools you have, I say let us have as many as possible.

In neither the Navy or Marine Corps set-ups is the Hornet carrying GBU-12s in a dual-setup.

Check the photo here for two Marine F/A-18C Hornets getting ready for takeoff with dual GBU-12s on a BRU-55. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3266262&postcount=68

I think sims should adhere to the real world as much possible. If it didn't happen in real life, it probably shouldn't be in the sim.

I think the purpose of the simulator should be to simulate the capabilities of the aircraft as realistically as possible. If the real F/A-18C Lot 20 can carry the BRU-55, but the US Navy decided not to take advantage of that capability, then it should be up to the mission designers to exclude the BRU-55 from missions.