Setting realistic expectations for the Hornet

vLSO is the only application that has successfully added the "burble" into a flight simulation environment (FSX and P3D), not to mention all of the LSO functionality (verbal calls and grading).

 

https://vlso.blogspot.com/

 

In addition to the burble, I am really hoping for a crisp IFLOLS ("meatball) for VR users, set at correct angle, that also works for pitching deck (corrects for pitch and roll of ship). Also accurate night lighting (very low lighting) to include sequenced center line lights (rabbit) for night traps.

 

Looking at the video, looks like it was a T-45 HUD.

 

I think many of use here are excited for the future of simulated naval aviation ops with the addition of the Hornet, Tomcat, and new carriers. I think overtime all these things will become available in DCS, or at least I can hope.

Thank your for pointing this LSO app out for me. Can't wait to check it out asap. Yeah looks like boeing got around to upgrading the T45. Back in my day with the T45A, they were only rumblings that the useless hud would get an upgrade. I assumed it was a hornet hud in the video because it does resemble it.

I assume the T45C got an upgraded engine as well, the spool up times of the RR engine was scary in the T45A.

I have been perusing some of the threads here with regards to hopes and desires for the f18 performance model. Having flown a decent amount with the f-86, f5 and mig-15 products, I am convinced that DCS and it's partner will nail it with the hornet performance model.

Their attention to detail so far has been impeccable in my eyes.

 

Those that think the FA18C is some uber fast jet are in for a shock.

Since the Hornet was designed for the dual role of Fighter/Attack the designers never planned to have it be an interceptor, so the aerodynamics of the jet are not conducive to fast supersonic flight.

 

The F15 and F16 are examples of aircraft made for speed and of course the F14 interceptor with those massive engines was just made for the speed of heat.

But throw some bombs on those birds and watch the speeds plummet.

 

In fact once a C Hornet is fully configured with a bomb payload, it's really dirty and struggles to go supersonic at wings level.

 

Sure a slick hornet is pretty fast but not realistic for combat.

 

The one thing the hornet does well is maneuver at slow speed. It will do circles around the F16 and the F15 just runs away when the fight is in close and slow, it knows when it's outmatched :). One just needs to study the publicly available turn performance numbers for all these birds to figure that out.

 

The tomcat could hold it's own with the Hornet in a slow and close fight thanks to that massive wing spread but my biased opinion based on real-life encounters says all things being equal (pilot skill wise) the hornet had the edge thanks to being lighter and more nimble.

 

By the way I have BFMd against the F16,15 and 14 so I speak from experience.

 

Those that want a realistic representation at how the FA18C performs in a flight sim should look for the FA-18D_FSXBA2015 15.6 Training simobject assuming you have FSX or P3d. I have been using it in p3d and I am amazed at how realistic it performs. The drag is about right and the speed is definitely in the ball park.

 

To recap, don't expect to beating airspeed races against the F15 when the Hornet comes out but do expect to be amazed at how great a dogfighter it is.:joystick:

 

Oh and don't think you can slap on 8 missiles on the killer bee and expect to be running down anything supersonic. Like I said, loaded down it's a dirty bird. Most jets are in real life.

 

-Retired F18C pilot (lots 10-20) back in it's heyday before the E/F came on the scene.

Appreciate your insight, especially with the real life experience. I was a Navy Hornet mech. Worked on H-53's in the beginning, but transitioned to Hornets. Served in VFA-94, VFA-146 and the jet shop. Excited to see the hornet from a pilot's perspective.

vLSO is the only application that has successfully added the "burble" into a flight simulation environment (FSX and P3D), not to mention all of the LSO functionality (verbal calls and grading).

 

https://vlso.blogspot.com/

 

In addition to the burble, I am really hoping for a crisp IFLOLS ("meatball) for VR users, set at correct angle, that also works for pitching deck (corrects for pitch and roll of ship). Also accurate night lighting (very low lighting) to include sequenced center line lights (rabbit) for night traps.

 

Looking at the video, looks like it was a T-45 HUD.

 

I think many of use here are excited for the future of simulated naval aviation ops with the addition of the Hornet, Tomcat, and new carriers. I think overtime all these things will become available in DCS, or at least I can hope.

well, I tried to get vlso to work with p3d v4 but nojoy, it's buggy as hell and I can't get the carriers to even work. That aicarrier program just pukes at me when I try to install it. Real shame too cause the videos of it in action look exciting. So much for 8 yr old homebrew programs I guess.

Looking at the VLSO's program's manual details it seems to be a very nice little program. I really hope ED can look into something like this as a possible add-on for the F18C. It would be very immersive and worthy of purchase.

To all, thanks for the polite responses. I appreciate the kind feedback on my posts.

To all, thanks for the polite responses. I appreciate the kind feedback on my posts.

And, Thanks to you for posting this info.

+1000

didnt get a overal feel from the commnity that people are expecting the F/A18C to be a racer against the F15.

as for dogfight, with this F18C model we wont need to get straight on somones Six. this mode will come upgraded to include the HMCS and the aim9x for off boresight kills. Should be far more deadly in WVR than the Mig29/su27 with thier R73 given the 9x is more modern missile that is immune to flares.

Thanks for all the great info neofightr, very interesting.

Very much looking forward to carrier ops in the F-14 (not a hornet fan, sry). I have also read that the 'standard' stick for AOA and power for rate doesn't work for the Tomcat and you have to use a combination of the two for any results, which makes for an interesting juggling act in FSX at least http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9599/a-tomcat-pilots-early-struggles-to-tame-the-mighty-f-14 OT I know - sry.

Regarding the island 'burble' on the carrier, I wouldn't hold your breath for any turb modelling as currently you can literally fly up the exhaust pipes of a F-15 etc with no turb effects whatsoever! But hey fingers crossed right.

didnt get a overal feel from the commnity that people are expecting the F/A18C to be a racer against the F15.

 

as for dogfight, with this F18C model we wont need to get straight on somones Six. this mode will come upgraded to include the HMCS and the aim9x for off boresight kills. Should be far more deadly in WVR than the Mig29/su27 with thier R73 given the 9x is more modern missile that is immune to flares.

People assume since Jane's has the F18 at a max speed of M 1.8 that it will indeed be a racer.

No need to get on someone's six eh?

Did you know the first version of the Phantom when it was the cutting edge of fighters back in the day didn't have a gun? Yeah back then the smart people thought there was no need to worry about lining up on someone's six for a gun shot since the cutting edge sidewinder and BVR missiles is all you would need. Well we know how that turned out didn't we.

Point is even with the new head mounted displays and off boresight tech all it will take is that one time when the HMD, or missile system decides to fail just as you start your intercept run on an incoming bandit. Or you fire off your 9x's only to find out they were spoofed or you fired them off at too high an angle out of excitement.

Then what are you going to do? Wave hi as you zoom past that SU-27 bandit at full burner hoping to run away from that bad boy. :music_whistling: That is not going to happen.

I don't know about you but I plan to setup many an engagement with guns only because A: it's a realistic but undesirable position to be in B: it's hella fun trying to win the luffbury circle and and going into a scissor fight and C: shooting missiles at range can be boring and it's always interesting to see the differences amongst the different platforms in close dogfights. And as I mentioned before the Hornet is one of the best dog fighters out there if not the best.

And ironically enough the smart people are back and designing next gen aircraft with no guns again oh and to add insult to injury they plan on single engines for blue water ops. Imagine that.

Dollars to donuts there will be a revision slapping on a gun some point down the road.

By the way, the argument that interceptor designs shouldn't have guns because they are BVR fighters only is valid only when the design of the jet has it being a poor performer at slow speeds. Planes like the Mig-25 never bothered with a gun because it was not expected to be in a dogfight and would lose badly if it was. But a fast mover like the Mig-29 or Su-27 with great turn-rates definitely had guns at the ready.

This is the current argument being made for the phantom not having guns initially back in the sixties. The question then is asked then why did the air force slap on a gun for the revision, answer is simple really, it turned out to have a decent turn-rate against the competition and warranted guns for a last ditch effort when things went subsonic and missiles were spent.

All of this is academic in due time when drones replace manned jet craft and they will in due time.

Did you know the first version of the Phantom when it was the cutting edge of fighters back in the day didn't have a gun? Yeah back then the smart people thought there was no need to worry about lining up on someone's six for a gun shot since the cutting edge sidewinder and BVR missiles is all you would need. Well we know how that turned out didn't we.

You have some inaccuracies in your assumptions. The removal of the gun in the Navy F-4 had no effect on the Kill/Death ratio. In fact the USAF F-4 had an internal gun... What changed the Kill/Death ratio for Navy F-4s was the creation of a Fighter Weapons School (Top Gun) in which tactics were improved upon and instilled in Naval Aviators.

Or you fire off your 9x's only to find out they were spoofed or you fired them off at too high an angle out of excitement.

And ironically enough the smart people are back and designing next gen aircraft with no guns again oh and to add insult to injury they plan on single engines for blue water ops. Imagine that.

Dollars to donuts there will be a revision slapping on a gun some point down the road.

I don't know about you but I plan to setup many an engagement with guns only because A: it's a realistic but undesirable position to be in B: it's hella fun trying to win the luffbury circle and and going into a scissor fight and C: shooting missiles at range can be boring and it's always interesting to see the differences amongst the different platforms in close dogfights. And as I mentioned before the Hornet is one of the best dog fighters out there if not the best

THIS is why my passion is WW II aircraft.

Nothing like getting up close and PERSONAL in your dog fight!

No shoot and forget.

This really brings home the message of.......

"You better have practiced and know your skills,

It is the only way to rack up kills!" :music_whistling:

Thanks for all the great info neofightr, very interesting.

 

Very much looking forward to carrier ops in the F-14 (not a hornet fan, sry). I have also read that the 'standard' stick for AOA and power for rate doesn't work for the Tomcat and you have to use a combination of the two for any results, which makes for an interesting juggling act in FSX at least http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9599/a-tomcat-pilots-early-struggles-to-tame-the-mighty-f-14 OT I know - sry.

 

Regarding the island 'burble' on the carrier, I wouldn't hold your breath for any turb modelling as currently you can literally fly up the exhaust pipes of a F-15 etc with no turb effects whatsoever! But hey fingers crossed right.

The tomcat was considered harder to land on the carrier because it was an older design and the only other jet that was harder than that was the A-6/E/A6 an even older design.

For the tomcat it's engines had a longer spool up time making it much harder to control the glideslope with the throttle but let me make it clear, using the stick to nudge a descent or climb is not using the stick to control glideslope. There is no such thing as juggling the stick and thottle to remain on glideslope, doing so would lead to hook slaps and bolters almost every time. There was no exception for the tomcat, especially the tomcat with it's long tail and low clearance.

In the hornet I typically nudged the stick forward to start my descent once I started my turn from the abeam point (at the 180). But that was it after that it was all throttle and the stick was never considered for glideslope.

To do otherwise was to start a bad habit that would get you washed out of the program eventually. It was as notorious as spotting the deck. Seasoned LSOs could tell when pilots were spotting the deck (using the hud to aim the plane to the point of landing) and once they saw enough of it from a given pilot, that pilot was on a COD back to the FRS for remedial training and one more chance at keeping his job.

It was even easier to see when pilots were using the stick to control glideslope, not only could an experience LSO see the nose movement but they would see the AOA repeater in the nosewheel confirming the behavior. This too was another way pilots eventually washed out.

If you are using the stick and throttle to maintain glideslope you are doing it wrong, period regardless of platform. The stick is used for alignment to centerline and maintaining a constant AOA. That is what the pilots are doing in the videos when moving the stick, they are trying to keep that green donut lit and rock steady on the AOA indicator while using the throttle to maintain glideslope by keeping the meatball lined up with the datum lights. That's how it works, period.

im sure what you'd be doing is neither running away nor going for guns but rather dragging him into a good position for your wingman's shot.

other things revelation has already covered well enough.

...

All of this is academic in due time when drones replace manned jet craft and they will in due time.

Nice insight and perspectives!

But when due time comes, the question will be ... will those drones carry guns or missiles? Or lasers?

 

If you are using the stick and throttle to maintain glideslope you are doing it wrong, period regardless of platform. The stick is used for alignment to centerline and maintaining a constant AOA. That is what the pilots are doing in the videos when moving the stick, they are trying to keep that green donut lit and rock steady on the AOA indicator while using the throttle to maintain glideslope by keeping the meatball lined up with the datum lights. That's how it works, period.

I guess you didn't visit my link - so I will parapharse for ya..

By this time I was beginning to realize that the techniques and motor skills that had worked so well for me in the TA-4J were not working so well in the F-14. The Tomcat was definitely a different jet to land. It had a lot of lift when fully configured to land, especially with no missiles, rails, or external fuel tanks. The old adage of "attitude controls airspeed and power controlled rate of descent” didn’t work the same way in the F-14. If you wanted to change the rate of descent, it needed a power correction, but you also had to nudge the nose up or down some to get a quicker response to the power change. To help with this, it had a system called Direct Lift Control, or DLC.

I guess the actual Tomcat pilot was 'doing it wrong' then...period :music_whistling:

Not trying to yank your chain or anything ( a career spent sitting in between 2 pilots has taught me that lol). But the F-14 is just different to the F-18...or anything else it seems.

The DLC does help a little, but they don't fly approaches rolling the DLC up and down - it is for coarse adjustments only.

Also I believe the reason you allude to that the Phantom did so poorly without a gun was also related to the fact that Phantom pilots were literally not trained to dogfight either, as advised by actual Phantom pilot in some great vids I have watched on F4 vs MiGs over Vietnam.

You have some inaccuracies in your assumptions. The removal of the gun in the Navy F-4 had no effect on the Kill/Death ratio. In fact the USAF F-4 had an internal gun... What changed the Kill/Death ratio for Navy F-4s was the creation of a Fighter Weapons School (Top Gun) in which tactics were improved upon and instilled in Naval Aviators.

 

 

Well then that is just poor tactics.

 

 

Only the F-35B is missing an internal gun. That was due to not having enough room to have one. As far as single engine goes, you mean like the AV-8B, A-7, F-8, A-4, and the list goes on.

 

That is already an option for the "B" model, that is designed for A/G attack or CAS missions in low-threat environments.

Nope my assumption is not inaccurate, poor missile reliability and training on both sides was the factor for the ratios. The air force wanted a gun installed to improve their chances as a back-up for the hit or miss missiles of the time and the Navy went the training route (in other words funding priorities).

There is a reason why Top Gun's logo is a gunsight and not a missile lock-on or did you miss that. By the way, I was stationed at Fallon and worked closely with Top Gun staff and of course I went through the standard strike training curriculum they provided to all the hornet pilots.

My department head in my squadron help authored the text book on what was then current tactics used by Top Gun students.

The gun is the last tool in the toolbox for a fighter pilot, it has a high reliability factor due to it's less complex design compared to a missile system and comes standard with any jet that has a chance in a dogfight. Bottom line having a gun improves the potential kill ratio that much more than just missiles and training alone.

Basic Fighter Maneuvers: it is in the bread and butter training of all hornet pilots and has been that way since the start of Top Gun and guess what? It starts after the last missile is fired and assumed to miss and ends when time, gas or a simulated gun kill is reached. The Tomcat the last navy interceptor had from it's inception a gun designed into it because of the lessons learned from the gunless Navy Phantom it was replacing.

"you mean like the AV-8B, A-7, F-8, A-4, and the list goes on"

Looks like you didn't pick up on the pattern there did you? All those planes had a terrible safety record and all had 0 survivabilty rate when the engine suffered a mishap( bird strike, flameout etc). Each and every one of those aircraft guaranteed the pilot was going to have to eject.

So what did the navy do? Insisted on designing two-engine aircraft (tomcat, hornet, original F35 navy design) of course.

In my flying career I saw three declared Hornet emergencies involving an engine where the engine was forced to shutdown and of course the plane and pilot came back in one piece to fly another day.

Of all the services which service do you think screamed bloody murder when it was announced that the unified F35 would no longer feature dual engines? Air force? Navy? no try the Marines and why is that. One word: Harrier, one of the most notoriously dangerous planes due to those huge intakes which were magnets for bird strike mishaps. So of course the Marines were looking forward to a two engine bird.

The only reason why the Air Force went with the single-engine F16 was cost, it was great bang for the buck for what the Air Force needed. There's a reason why the Air Force didn't pursue a super-falcon and chose the F22 and I am sure you can guess what that is by now.

Just poor tactics? you make it sound too simple my friend :lol:

There an established understanding among pilots and especially mil pilots, once you are in the air and in the thick of it, your brain shrinks down to the size of a pea.

I guess you didn't visit my link - so I will parapharse for ya..

 

By this time I was beginning to realize that the techniques and motor skills that had worked so well for me in the TA-4J were not working so well in the F-14. The Tomcat was definitely a different jet to land. It had a lot of lift when fully configured to land, especially with no missiles, rails, or external fuel tanks. The old adage of "attitude controls airspeed and power controlled rate of descent” didn’t work the same way in the F-14. If you wanted to change the rate of descent, it needed a power correction, but you also had to nudge the nose up or down some to get a quicker response to the power change. To help with this, it had a system called Direct Lift Control, or DLC.

 

I guess the actual Tomcat pilot was 'doing it wrong' then...period :music_whistling:

 

Not trying to yank your chain or anything ( a career spent sitting in between 2 pilots has taught me that lol). But the F-14 is just different to the F-18...or anything else it seems.

 

The DLC does help a little, but they don't fly approaches rolling the DLC up and down - it is for coarse adjustments only.

 

Also I believe the reason you allude to that the Phantom did so poorly without a gun was also related to the fact that Phantom pilots were literally not trained to dogfight either, as advised by actual Phantom pilot in some great vids I have watched on F4 vs MiGs over Vietnam.

I did read the article before my responding and evidently you didn't read the following paragraphs of the article

"When it came to my turn, the LSO informed me that he was giving me an UNSAT (unsatisfactory) grade for my landings, otherwise known as a “down." I was surprised, but accepted it from someone who had a lot of experience with carrier landings. I had made it all the way through the training command and gotten my wings without any UNSATs, so needless to say this was difficult to swallow. But realistically I knew that I was struggling to land the F-14 well."

He was surprised he got the down but I was not based on what he said he did and the irony was he wasn't even at the boat, he did this on a runway. I have never heard of any pilot getting a down at the airfield after the training command, at the boat yes all the time, but airfield no. So yeah, he wasn't doing it right ...period.

In my career I personally knew of 2 tomcat pilots that washed out and heard of at least 5 others due to poor landing skills. The tomcat was a beast to land on the carrier no doubt about it.

We can agree to disagree but please don't imply I don't know what I am talking about. I know exactly how different the f18 is compared to the tomcat because I had extensive conversations with my fellow pilots talking about the nuances between the birds that only we knew about and could communicate when we hung around in the ready rooms and ward rooms.

Yes I am very familiar with the F4 history as my other posts state.

Guys lest we fall into the "people on the internet debating an actual fighter pilot" cliche, I think it is important to note that I don't think neofightr is claiming that BVR is a myth or that today's missiles are just as unreliable as the sparrows on the F-4. He is simply saying that missiles can fail and so good training with a gun is a must.

Just look at what happend to the 9x fired over Syria recently, what would the pilot have done if his 120 had missed too?

Im sry but am i correct in assuming that OP claims to be an ex-navy pilot?

i don't think any credentials are explicitly given but descriptions imply former navy.

Not to get to far off topic here but........

 

 

THIS is why my passion is WW II aircraft.

 

Nothing like getting up close and PERSONAL in your dog fight!

 

No shoot and forget.

 

This really brings home the message of.......

 

"You better have practiced and know your skills,

 

It is the only way to rack up kills!" :music_whistling:

Ironically for me I love WW1 planes the most, there is just something about the simplicity of the planes that I find alluring and yes the combat was up close and personal, and WW2 is definitely my next favorite time period.

I guess having done the real thing with Hornets, I don't care for the combat other than watching cool explosions I guess. Now flying around and practicing landings in the different aircraft is always fun and I really like the F86 and mig15 modules, there is just something cool about flying the icons of the golden age of jets.

Im sry but am i correct in assuming that OP claims to be an ex-navy pilot?

Yes I claim to be a retired F18C pilot mostly flying on the east coast and with an air medal from my time in operation southern watch in the late 90s.

I flew the T45, T2 and T34C for my training.

My dad has carrier landings in a bunch of different types and he has always said doughnut and centerline with the stick and meatball with the throttle.

Yea he wasn't doing it right...because he was trying to control rate of descent with power alone as he was used to (as you suggest is the 'only way'), instead of adding control stick input as well.

But don't worry, If 20yrs in the military has taught me anything, it's that a pilot is always right...even when he is wrong :smilewink:. Period.

Back on topic.

Guys lest we fall into the "people on the internet debating an actual fighter pilot" cliche, I think it is important to note that I don't think neofightr is claiming that BVR is a myth or that today's missiles are just as unreliable as the sparrows on the F-4. He is simply saying that missiles can fail and so good training with a gun is a must.

 

Just look at what happend to the 9x fired over Syria recently, what would the pilot have done if his 120 had missed too?

I didn't know about the details of the Syria event, need to look that up. I remember reading the headline about a hornet making a kill but didn't bother with the details.

:thumbup:

Yes I claim to be a retired F18C pilot mostly flying on the east coast and with an air medal from my time in operation southern watch in the late 90s.

I flew the T45, T2 and T34C for my training.

Ok sry i was confused. Where were you stationed? What aircraft carrier did you typically operate from? Who was your CAG?