Litening for Hornet

This was needed feature. Thanks, don't care if its realistic or not.

USMC Dont use it on the Cheek Station,

But the Aircraft is Capable of doing it.

USMC Simply Doesn't because they re-use the AN/AAQ-28(V)they bought used, and are not the ones that can be mounted on the left cheek due to the vent and hatches being on the right side.

Plus they bought them used, and didnt buy the Cheek Adapters with them.

This was needed feature. Thanks, don't care if its realistic or not.

Agreed . I can make good use of the now-freed belly station . I also think that the ATFLIR is quite some ways out , and don't wish to pay the belly station penalty until then .

I like how people complain because the TPOD can't be mounted on the cheek station, then ED adds the capability, and people complain again that it shouldn't be mountable on the cheek station. ED really can't win with this community.

Its one of those things that I think goes both ways. You can simulate a USMC hornet right now by using the TPOD on the center-line. But as folks have said other airforces that use the same/similar AC also use it on the cheek station. So... Best of both worlds.

And I agree, most likely they did this because the new FLIR model/ATFLIR are not coming any time soon .

Isn't the cheek station uses by other f18 drivers like Canadian and maybe Spain?

 

I know there was comment that ED was targeting the USN/USMC specific ones, but it let's other countries use their actual loadouts and those that don't want to, don't have to I guess.

 

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Except that canadians use the sniper tgp not the litening on cheek station 4, and considering that both canadian an Spanish Hornets are orginally fa18a's with respective nomenclature, ( cf18 and ef18 ) but also both modernised to different avionics suites not only to each other ,but also to the usn/usmc fa18c.

I mean if one day ed wanted too do a dlc, to expand with additional hornet variations.... sure.

The only issue I have with the Hornet is that it only carries 1 mav per station. This is mind boggling to me considering it's size. It should be able to carry at least 2 per station.

I like how people complain because the TPOD can't be mounted on the cheek station, then ED adds the capability, and people complain again that it shouldn't be mountable on the cheek station. ED really can't win with this community.

Maybe because some those same people ( like me) were never fond for that decision to begin with. Perhaps also because there were some myths perpetuated by those with an agenda to push misinformation with regards to their preferred station which was confusing but at least was eventually rectified by some sme like lex who confirmed usmc did not even with cheek config even post 2005 whilst he was still a pilot.

Perhaps ed can consider this as a temp solution to placate the crowds who really need to use cheek station 4, and then remove this option for station 4 when the atflir becomes available?

USMC Dont use it on the Cheek Station,

But the Aircraft is Capable of doing it.

 

USMC Simply Doesn't because they re-use the AN/AAQ-28(V)they bought used, and are not the ones that can be mounted on the left cheek due to the vent and hatches being on the right side.

 

Plus they bought them used, and didnt buy the Cheek Adapters with them.

So I'm avoiding 2.5.6 for now...Can anyone answer...

Do we get the original AN/AAQ-28(V) with the vent and hatches on the right side if we mount the pod on centreline still? and maybe the new 'cheek' pod with vents on left side if mounted on station 4? Are there two versions of the pod depending where you mount?

Also, has the colour changed? It looks more grey than blue now.

Cheers.

So I'm avoiding 2.5.6 for now...Can anyone answer...

 

Do we get the original AN/AAQ-28(V) with the vent and hatches on the right side if we mount the pod on centreline still? and maybe the new 'cheek' pod with vents on left side if mounted on station 4? Are there two versions of the pod depending where you mount?

 

Also, has the colour changed? It looks more grey than blue now.

 

Cheers.

A better question is why were these design aspects changed with regards to vent placement when both models are still the litening 2 at model, and not an earlier precursors nor the more advanced successor ( like the g4)

Maybe because some those same people ( like me) were never for that decision to begin with, and because there were some myths perpetuated by those with an agenda to push misinformation which was confusing which was eventually rectified by some sme like lex who confirmed usmc never ran with cheek config

 

 

Perhaps ed can consider this as a temp solution to placate the crowds who really need to use cheek station 4, and then remove this option for station 4 when the atflir becomes available?

I know that might be blasphemy to some, but in this case i think its a perfect balance between a good simulation and the room for some additional gameplay or simulated scenarios for other nations, which is nice considering that many people here are not american.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

USMC Dont use it on the Cheek Station,

But the Aircraft is Capable of doing it.

 

USMC Simply Doesn't because they re-use the AN/AAQ-28(V)they bought used, and are not the ones that can be mounted on the left cheek due to the vent and hatches being on the right side.

 

Plus they bought them used, and didnt buy the Cheek Adapters with them.

If that's so then I wonder who owns these hornets flying over Texas doing V-22 tanker testing for USMC carrying cheek mounted litenings.

 

If that's so then I wonder who owns these hornets flying over Texas doing V-22 tanker testing for USMC carrying cheek mounted litenings.

Are those lot 20 hornets from 2005ish? LITENING on 4 for that time period is unrealistic for USMC they may do now, but they certainly didn’t do it back then, for all the reasons skate mentioned.

However ED listens so now we can pretend either way. FWIW BRU-55 is also inaccurate for our hornet but we got that too.

Are those lot 20 hornets from 2005ish? LITENING on 4 for that time period is unrealistic for USMC they may do now, but they certainly didn’t do it back then, for all the reasons skate mentioned.

 

However ED listens so now we can pretend either way. FWIW BRU-55 is also inaccurate for our hornet but we got that too.

Good thing they focused on the Lot 20, used by the U.S. Marines and Navy on July 27 2005 at 20:50:34 Zulu and not usable gameplay that the ATFLIR will eventually (read next 3-5 years) duplicate but a bit differently.

As the aircraft is capable of doing it, I don't see a reason not to allow that in DCS Hornet. It is realistic in that regard. We can choose to use it that way or not.

Same with JHMCS and NVGs, USN pilot said you can pick one or the other but not two at the same time. ED said that they are happy with the way it is in DCS. This is just another example of a game compromise.

Good. I like it.

This is just a simulation game, not real life anyway.

As the aircraft is capable of doing it, I don't see a reason not to allow that in DCS Hornet. It is realistic in that regard. We can choose to use it that way or not.

Same with JHMCS and NVGs, USN pilot said you can pick one or the other but not two at the same time. ED said that they are happy with the way it is in DCS. This is just another example of a game compromise.

Good. I like it.

This is just a simulation game, not real life anyway.

Good thing they focused on the Lot 20, used by the U.S. Marines and Navy on July 27 2005 at 20:50:34 Zulu and not usable gameplay that the ATFLIR will eventually (read next 3-5 years) duplicate but a bit differently.

They didn’t, that’s my point. Either way we got LITENING on 4. No need to bash people that don’t want to use it because it wasn’t realistic. Thanks to ED you have a choice.

ATFLIR is a lot more then a “duplicate” it’s a far superior pod and it has NAVFLIR for the hud. Most importantly the biggest operator of the hornet exclusively uses it. It was designed specifically for the jet. Because IRL LITENING can’t handle trapping. Also 3-5 years? They’ve stated the hornet will be completed this year, so according to ED we’ll have ATFLIR in less then 11 months..

They didn’t, that’s my point. Either way we got LITENING on 4. No need to bash people that don’t want to use it because it wasn’t realistic. Thanks to ED you have a choice.

 

ATFLIR is a lot more then a “duplicate” it’s a far superior pod and it has NAVFLIR for the hud. Most importantly the biggest operator of the hornet exclusively uses it. It was designed specifically for the jet. Because IRL LITENING can’t handle trapping. Also 3-5 years? They’ve stated the hornet will be completed this year, so according to ED we’ll have ATFLIR in less then 11 months..

They only capitulated after months and months of customer "feedback" just like the inclusion of the pod in the first place. And once they did finally realize that it would make their customers happy to have the option, they spoke down to us telling us "fine, but it's unrealistic to our very narrowed choice of Hornet."

As far as the "duplicate", it was more along the broad terms of what the TGP is and will generally be used for (i.e. Target ID and Lasing) not necessarily the subsystems. We needed/wanted a pod on station 4 to have a viable deep(er), self-sustained strike platform which a TGP on station 4 provides.

As far as the timeframe, it was a bit of a jab from me but not far off. They say they are going to be able to complete the Hornet and Viper by end of 2020. We will have to see if they can deliver on this. I am skeptical due to how big of a hit the Hornet took when they pushed (rushed) out the Viper (in what they believe is a sustainable way of doing business). Now they plan on being able to complete two EA jets while pushing out the Super Carrier, Hind, multiple terrains, core fixes, MAC, new A-10C, new KA-50, another unnamed aircraft, and fix what is a burning 2.5.6. I find that believing they can keep pace with the requirements to be overly optimistic and will only lead to frustration when those timetables are missed.

Also 3-5 years? They’ve stated the hornet will be completed this year, so according to ED we’ll have ATFLIR in less then 11 months..

:megalol::lol::megalol::lol::megalol::lol::megalol::lol::megalol:

:thumbup::thumbup:

Except that canadians use the sniper tgp not the litening on cheek station 4, and considering that both canadian an Spanish Hornets are orginally fa18a's with respective nomenclature, ( cf18 and ef18 ) but also both modernised to different avionics suites not only to each other ,but also to the usn/usmc fa18c.

 

I mean if one day ed wanted too do a dlc, to expand with additional hornet variations.... sure.

You forgot the RAAF Hornets, but hey, as grown ups, we can always decide NOT to put the TGP on the cheek station, right? :thumbup:

They only capitulated after months and months of customer "feedback" just like the inclusion of the pod in the first place. And once they did finally realize that it would make their customers happy to have the option, they spoke down to us telling us "fine, but it's unrealistic to our very narrowed choice of Hornet."

 

As far as the "duplicate", it was more along the broad terms of what the TGP is and will generally be used for (i.e. Target ID and Lasing) not necessarily the subsystems. We needed/wanted a pod on station 4 to have a viable deep(er), self-sustained strike platform which a TGP on station 4 provides.

 

As far as the timeframe, it was a bit of a jab from me but not far off. They say they are going to be able to complete the Hornet and Viper by end of 2020. We will have to see if they can deliver on this. I am skeptical due to how big of a hit the Hornet took when they pushed (rushed) out the Viper (in what they believe is a sustainable way of doing business). Now they plan on being able to complete two EA jets while pushing out the Super Carrier, Hind, multiple terrains, core fixes, MAC, new A-10C, new KA-50, another unnamed aircraft, and fix what is a burning 2.5.6. I find that believing they can keep pace with the requirements to be overly optimistic and will only lead to frustration when those timetables are missed.

ah yes , just as the same sort of vocal minority "customer feedback " resulted in ed caving in and revising plannedmunitions list to include lau88 for f16c blk 50 allowing triple Mavericks, because some people think the f16 a supersonic a10.

speaking down to unrealistic requests is they least they can do as it's suppossed to be a study simulation, not an arcade game.

Maybe because some those same people ( like me) were never fond for that decision to begin with. Perhaps also because there were some myths perpetuated by those with an agenda to push misinformation with regards to their preferred station which was confusing but at least was eventually rectified by some sme like lex who confirmed usmc did not even with cheek config even post 2005 whilst he was still a pilot.

 

 

Perhaps ed can consider this as a temp solution to placate the crowds who really need to use cheek station 4, and then remove this option for station 4 when the atflir becomes available?

I think people just mostly want to use the cheek station so they can use tanks/stores on the centerline. It's all about min-maxing for aeroquake IMO.

I think people just mostly want to use the cheek station so they can use tanks/stores on the centerline. It's all about min-maxing for aeroquake IMO.

Look dont get me wrong I dont always need 2 bags of gas, but with the Hornets ability to fly with asymmetric loadouts, flying a tgp centerline I can still setup the hornet to fly with just one tank.

Granted balancing stuff is easier when you can take ordinance or a bag of gas on center, but a little bit of trimming isnt a big deal on a fbw jet like the hornet. When carrying heavy irdiance on wings like agm62 or agm154s on wings that too still causes noticable imbalance regardless if you have the tgp on centerline or station 4. You still need to trim.

I think people just mostly want to use the cheek station so they can use tanks/stores on the centerline. It's all about min-maxing for aeroquake IMO.

This, I get the idea most people are less concerned with how the jet was operated IRL and more with: “What’s the most x I hang on the wings”

Swiss hornets also use ATFLIR pod on cheek station 4

This, I get the idea most people are less concerned with how the jet was operated IRL and more with: “What’s the most x I hang on the wings”

What i am concerned with is the aircraft's capabilities , i.e. it's ability to deliver ordinance . If ED is unable to deliver ATFLIR in a timely manner , i am willing to forego rivet-counting , and am all to happy to use the Litening on the cheek . Rivet-counters , (and i mean no disrespect , we need them too) feel it is unrealistic to cheek-mount a Litening on our Hornet . But how much more unrealistic is it to neuter the aircraft's range/payload ?

I , too , am getting the impression that the Atflir is yet years away . I don't know how one could conclude otherwise given the Litening , cheek mount for it , and the Jeff already using ED's new FLIR modelling . Possibly a licensing or Itar issue . I hope i'm wrong-especially if the Atflir has a Hud designation !

Finally , a tip . I like to load a Sparrow (or possibly 2) on the other cheek to balance the trim , and add some BVR defence capability while moving mud .