F/A18E/F Super Hornets block 1 and BLock 2 E/F ( lot 26)

Title says it all. A suggestion / wishlist for an aircraft that needs no introduction. the F/A18E & F Super Hornets. This thread however is focused on the block 1 series because it is a more data on it, and thus a feasible addition at some point in the future. Due to new information i have decided to include early Block 2 ( Lot 26) as part of this suggestion

Air-frames are similar in overall visual silloute but obviously different in construction. Noting it's Larger Air frame size and new Air intakes being the clearest and best way to visually differentiate a Super Horent from a Legacy Hornet.

However Block 1 series super Hornets have a decent to fair bit in common avionics wise, with the Late F/A18C Lot 20 were getting from ED with its 2000s era post production upgrades.

Knowledge applied to this Legacy Hornet could be applied to the F/A18E block 1. Not that ED or any 3rd party would be think to resorting to to just copy paste entirely of code ( only to avionics applicable) . Unlike when ED started the project 5 years ago, today there is now public sourced data like available. There is is a F/A18 E/F manual dated from 2008 available online.

It coveres F/A18E( single seat) Super Hornets from lot 21- 25. which are block 1 series aircraft. as well as F/A18F super hornets to lot 26 series.

F/A18E/F's Block 2 + ( starting with Lot 30 production) have AN/APG79 AESA radar plus IRST, however Block 1 and early block 2 series 's still have AN/APG73 Phase 2 radars, An/ALR 67 RWR, and the same CM system ( ALE 47) as the F/A18C lot 20. Initially they even had 90% of the same software code as Legacy Hornets. Its, the later Block 2 is what what we couldn't be able to get because of lack of information on the AESA radar an other newer systems.

However block 1 and early block 2 SUper Hornets are fully with reason, since it seems there is enough data today to develop one.

SUper Hornets BLock 1 new avionics for the most part is really just a New Fuel Display/ Management system and a touchscreen UP Front controller replacing the Keypbad based UFC on the legacy Hornet, and a Larger LCD display for the Moving map.

Block 21-24 share CRT DDI's that display pages in Monochrome green like the F/A18C lot 20, whilst Lot 25 introduced new DDI displays, and with the Lot 26 new mission computer, and new LCD based MPCD over the one included in the Lot21- lot 25

SUmmary of production Super Hornet lots

Lot 21

"One F/A-18E Aircraft was delivered in fourth quarter FY99 at NAS Lemoore and included a modified airframe, new engines, and an additional weapons station under each wing. The Lot XXI aircraft also incorporated a low drag pylon, AN/ALE-47 dispensers, AN/ALE-50 towed decoyr, AN/AYK-14/ XN-8 Mission Computer, AN/ARC- 210(V) VHF FM Radio Set, INS + GPS module, AN/ALR-67(V3) Radar Warning Receiver, and a modified FCC. F/A-18E/F Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) 1 are equipped with the AN/APX- 100(V) Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) instead of the the AN/APX-111(V) CIT."

To also quote another article so users get an idea of how comparable this SH is to the Legacy Hornet so far

"Paul Summers, Boeing's F/A-18 New

Products Development Manager, has described the baseline E/F avionics as the equivalent of the C/D lot 19 standard." (obviously pre modernization), although not fitted at production date MIDS terminal ( LINk 16) was eventually post production fitted.

Lot 22

"Lot 22 began LRIP 2 in third quarter FY00 for the F/A-18E/F, which included the AN/APX- 111(V) CIT, as well as the installation of MIDS ( Link 16)

Lot 23

Lot 23 began delivery in first quarter FY01 with the Digital Communication System (DCS), Radio Frequency Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (RF DECM), Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, and Tactical Aircraft Moving Map Capability (TAMMAC)

Lot 24 introduced AN/AVX-4 Fast Tactical Imaging Set

Lot 25

started being produced in August of 2002, and entered squadron service by end of 2004- early 2005. Introduced new Advanced mission computer as well as LCD full color based based DDI's that display general overlay in White. In addition well as made room for future upgrades that would come in a few years. ( already were planning for BLock 2 upgrades)

Legacy Software Code was also rewritten in C++ programming language for the sake of relevancy and future ease of maintanability.

to compare with Images

F/A18E block 1 ( early) pre HMD Lot21- 22. Pilots Cockpit

F/A18E/F Lot 23 - 24 would like this but with HMD KNob for JHMCS and aim9x compatibility. ( refer to earlier excerpt from The super hornet manual.)

F/A18E/F ( Lot25 ) which included a new advanced mission computer (AMC) along with new LCD colour "MDI" displays which replaced earlier tri colour DDI's from F/A18C/D vintage

F/A18F ( lot21-24) WSO cockpit

F/A18F Lot 25 WSO cockpit - largely the same as Lot 21-24, but with new LCD displays replacing the older CRT DDI's.

F/A18E/F Lot 26 - produced in 2005 ( first production batch of block 2) Which were still fitted with AN/APG73 radar ( according to new source discovered AN/APG79 didn't become available until the Lot 30 production)

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ultra-hornet-212600/

Lot 26 ( and later) has a new "MPCD" over block 1's. along with new TAMMAC Digital Video Map computer

Computer. a new Mission computer is also added allowing in F model's for Pilot and WSO to view maps independently of each other

https://fat.gfycat.com/NauticalDescriptiveBlueandgoldmackaw.webm

F/A18F Lot 26 + WSO cockpit ( New large 8x10 panel display replacing Lot 21-25 MPCD in WSO position)

IMHO if you're going to make a Super Hornet (one of my fav airframes) you should make the Block 2 or up, AESA radar man!

IMHO if you're going to make a Super Hornet (one of my fav airframes) you should make the Block 2 or up, AESA radar man!

thats the problem Its classified ( Unless ED or 3rd party are confident as to guesstimate AESA based on general knowledge) AS of now there There seems to be enough information to make a Block 1 or very early bock 2 Super Hornet ( pre AESA), and it would be easier to make due to some avionics similarities to the Late model Legacy.

Lo23 would still share enough similarities with Lot20 whilst still having comparable features that the Lot 20 has via post production upgrades like JHMCS and AIm9x. earlier lot 21-22 did not yet have Aim9x or JHMCS.

Lot25 would offer a more modern feel with its new Colour LCD based DDI's, but more challenging to create as there is a new mission computer and some software changes, but still quite a fair list of similarities , imo that it still feels like one is flying an aircraft from the Hornet family, and doesnt yet have AESA radar. It still seems its not possible to get enough data on it.

the Reason for the Super Hornet even without AESA would offer More Ordinance carry but much more importantly have better endurance aka loiter time. ( said to be 35- 40% better than the F/A18C)

Why? Super Hornets is a larger aiframe. It can store more fuel internally, and carry larger external tanks compared to the legacies. OFC as a Icing on the cake the SH air frame design offers RCS reduction of X10 against radars from the Front section.

They burn a bit more fuel as well :) And they have a lot more induced drag because of the LEX.

They burn a bit more fuel as well :) And they have a lot more induced drag because of the LEX.

they do, but even with burning more fuel thier Station time is still 35- 40 % superior to the F/A18C.

Either way Both Super Hornets and Legacies share the deck IRL since the early 2000s, so these aircraft go together nicely.

I wonder if the AoA capabilities are the same as the Legacy though. Legacy can pull a lot of AoA, of course, it bleeds a lot of energy at the same time. The problem of the Super I'd say is the induced drag, depending on your loadout, the aircraft can't even break the sound barrier at sea level. (according to some articles I found on internet, not sure if these are 100% correct)

But I don't have any doubt that the Super would be a blast. I find it more interesting than the Legacy.

So what!? ED (Wags) has stated that they went with a variant for which they had access to lots of information. The aircraft module is far beyond the early stages where they might have been able to change direction. If you don't like their choice then don't buy it but don't expect them to do something different at this stage.

I'm very happy about what we are getting, one of the latest Charlie models, with a bunch of armament options. Asking for something more wouldn't be fair.

So what!? ED (Wags) has stated that they went with a variant for which they had access to lots of information. The aircraft module is far beyond the early stages where they might have been able to change direction. If you don't like their choice then don't buy it but don't expect them to do something different at this stage.

Gosh, it's not about changing Hornet to Super Hornet, but about feasibility of making Super Hornet as another module.

With all those similarities between airframes, it would be more cost effective project for ED than for example F-16. Though F-16 may generate more sales, hard to say.

I'm very happy about what we are getting, one of the latest Charlie models, with a bunch of armament options. Asking for something more wouldn't be fair.

So what!? ED (Wags) has stated that they went with a variant for which they had access to lots of information. The aircraft module is far beyond the early stages where they might have been able to change direction. If you don't like their choice then don't buy it but don't expect them to do something different at this stage.

Im not saying i want Ed to change the Hornet to the SUper Hornet. Your taking my post the wrong way

When they started the legacy hornet project ( wihich mentioned in OP) they started it 5 years ago. So the situation with available data was different.

again SOME1 understands the point of my Wishlist post. Its only about the feasibility of a future potential SH module after the Legacy hornet. Im not saying it has to come before or after an F16 or any other module. at all, just that its it can be done. IM not saing Im not happy with the idea of a F/A18C hornet. Its still something im interested in and already had pre-ordered it like maybe a day after it was available for purchase.

Gosh, it's not about changing Hornet to Super Hornet, but about feasibility of making Super Hornet as another module.

 

With all those similarities between airframes, it would be more cost effective project for ED than for example F-16. Though F-16 may generate more sales, hard to say.

thx for understanding :thumbup:

I'd much rather see a F-16, Mig-29, or SU-27 than a Super Hornet.

I'd much rather see a F-16, Mig-29, or SU-27 than a Super Hornet.

If you aren't interested that's fine

Hoewever This isnt about what I or others would rather see or in what order planned modules should be developed . I avoided it to avoid the flamming than nromally ensures when people argue which plane is better or more important. Its about the Feasibility, and the possibility of this as a future module. (which it is a reasonable given the available information)

There are alread Russian Fixed wing and F16 Wish list threads for your desires within the DCS Wishlist forum section. :book:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=92269

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=189991

Don t worry even wags said the viper is a matter of when more than a matter of if. We will get a viper at some point in time.

Then my vote is No given your options are manipulated to favor your preference.

Then my vote is No given your options are manipulated to favor your preference.

Your prior response of why you aren't interested was fine.

But you shouldn't accuse or make dubious claims of other users that are untrue

Would rather see a F-16, or any number of other Redfor multi-role or fighters before seeing a Super Hornet to complement the Hornet we are getting.

Would it be cool to have a Rhino? Sure. But it's a ways down my list.

An article based on an interview of a pilot that had qualified in both legacy fa18c and the super hornet

https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fighter-pilot-hornet-vs-super-hornet/

However do keep in mind the main reason why the pilot considers the sh superior to the legacy is because it's compared to a block 2 with an/apg79 aesa radar.

-DFCS would need to be re-written

-Fuel and Hydraulic Systems would need to be re-written

-Propulsion Systems would need to be re-written

-Aerodynamics would need to be re-written

-Parts of the SMS would need to be re-written

Even then, there's a lot more than simply building a External and Modifying the Charlie pit and copy/pasting systems code.

-DFCS would need to be re-written

-Fuel and Hydraulic Systems would need to be re-written

-Propulsion Systems would need to be re-written

-Aerodynamics would need to be re-written

-Parts of the SMS would need to be re-written

 

 

Even then, there's a lot more than simply building a External and Modifying the Charlie pit and copy/pasting systems code.

no one said it was just a merely a simple copy paste code. There is a reason why this is suggested as a separate module within the wishlist section, and not asa request to be included as a DLC sque Addon or for free alongside the Hornet.. However the point is there is far more in common between a Legacy with an SH block 1 then jumping to an entirely different aircraft series. which means less $$ spent on R/D and time spent developing it would be shorter. You can't argue against reason.

Again id like an F16 as much as the next guy, But I think the Super Hornet block 1 deserved its own dedicated wishlist thread, is all. In part because :

A) dropping the misconception that theres not enough data for Super Hornet airframe to be possible ( at least with whats available now)

B) because a wishlist for this aiframe hasn't been done. Overlooked by the hype for the Legacy Hornet project, yet still talked about here in the forums.

So to some up in a single sentence what it will be for Legacy Drivers in a sort of Marketing fasion ; . the SUper Hornet, A familiar experience, but refreshing at the same time.

wouldn't the Super Hornet make the Hornet kinda obsolete in some ways? I think it would be cool but, unnecessary...?

we know it was already difficult for ED to acquire the license for the Hornet, and for us simmers it's already a privilege.

I would rather see different frames like the F-16C than a different/superior version of the same frame.

wouldn't the Super Hornet make the Hornet kinda obsolete in some ways? I think it would be cool but, unnecessary...?

 

we know it was already difficult for ED to acquire the license for the Hornet, and for us simmers it's already a privilege.

 

I would rather see different frames like the F-16C than a different/superior version of the same frame.

wouldnt that apply to any aircraft from a comparable era? why have an F4E, when one has a simpler F5E?

why fly a Mig21Bis if there were a Mig23MLA

But to point out the Super Hornet Block 1 wouldn't be outright superior in any hard stats, only in what i would call "soft" stats for the most part.

Only in air Time and ordinance it carries . So I suspect the people who prefer mud moving would prefer the Super Hornet ( or those techies who like fancier displays), but pilots who focus in A2A wouldn't see as much an advantage due to sharing Core Sensors such as the An/Apg73 phase 2 radar, An/APR 67 rwr, and ALE47 CM suite. But im sure even some Fighter jocks would appreciate some extra fuel time, as would the mud movers.

its Only really the block 2;s that fully outdo the capabilities of the Legacy Hornets, but i dont beleive there is enough data right now to fully simulate an AESA radar. its more than just being able to display a2a and A2G radar modes simultaneously.

Super Hornets to date have not replcaed legacy Hornets entirely. The compliment each other.

If not a module I think a SUper Hornet Ai would be fair. since it would feel at home to for Simmers to share flights with them as well as the Carrier deck, given thier comparable time frame service periods, and they regularily fly along side one another.

Similarly from the USAf a F-15E module would not negate need for an F16C or vice versa, nonetheless at least there is an F15E and F16C AI to work with.

-DFCS would need to be re-written

-Fuel and Hydraulic Systems would need to be re-written

-Propulsion Systems would need to be re-written

-Aerodynamics would need to be re-written

-Parts of the SMS would need to be re-written

 

 

Even then, there's a lot more than simply building a External and Modifying the Charlie pit and copy/pasting systems code.

wouldnt that apply to any aircraft from a comparable era? why have an F4E, when one has a simpler F5E?

 

why fly a Mig21Bis if there were a Mig23MLA

 

 

 

But to point out the Super Hornet Block 1 wouldn't be outright superior in any hard stats, only in what i would call "soft" stats for the most part.

 

Only in air Time and ordinance it carries . So I suspect the people who prefer mud moving would prefer the Super Hornet ( or those techies who like fancier displays), but pilots who focus in A2A wouldn't see as much an advantage due to sharing Core Sensors such as the An/Apg73 phase 2 radar, An/APR 67 rwr, and ALE47 CM suite. But im sure even some Fighter jocks would appreciate some extra fuel time, as would the mud movers.

 

its Only really the block 2;s that fully outdo the capabilities of the Legacy Hornets, but i dont beleive there is enough data right now to fully simulate an AESA radar. its more than just being able to display a2a and A2G radar modes simultaneously.

 

Super Hornets to date have not replcaed legacy Hornets entirely. The compliment each other.

 

 

If not a module I think a SUper Hornet Ai would be fair. since it would feel at home to for Simmers to share flights with them as well as the Carrier deck, given thier comparable time frame service periods, and they regularily fly along side one another.

 

Similarly from the USAf a F-15E module would not negate need for an F16C or vice versa, nonetheless at least there is an F15E and F16C AI to work with.

I think - as SkateZilla pointed out - a Rhino would be a wohle new module with a comparable amount of work e.g. a F-16 might require. While i see the critique by others, that the E would overlay our legacy hornet in terms of capabilities, role and so in a lot of terms as valid, i still think the Rhino has a place in the sim. I think it would be a very valuable asset if we consider the making of an F-Model rather than an E-Model. The spot of the operational capabilities and mission types of a F-Model in the mid to late 2000's era is open - even if Heatblur considers doing the F-14D we would be able to simulate the transition phase since the Tomcat was phased out in 2006. I don't know how you Kev2go would think about that solution but i think that would make sense.

Cheers

I think - as SkateZilla pointed out - a Rhino would be a wohle new module with a comparable amount of work e.g. a F-16 might require. While i see the critique by others, that the E would overlay our legacy hornet in terms of capabilities, role and so in a lot of terms as valid, i still think the Rhino has a place in the sim. I think it would be a very valuable asset if we consider the making of an F-Model rather than an E-Model. The spot of the operational capabilities and mission types of a F-Model in the mid to late 2000's era is open - even if Heatblur considers doing the F-14D we would be able to simulate the transition phase since the Tomcat was phased out in 2006. I don't know how you Kev2go would think about that solution but i think that would make sense.

 

Cheers

Yes there are lot of features needed for new development but as I pointed out in op. There are still similarities. Regarding it's underlying avionics and system software and in startup procedures. What has taken ed the longest has been the avionics and what will take them the longest post access will be the air to ground fa18. So yes development time can be cut down.

From a pilots perspective operating both theyl come to appreciate a module that they can transition from and be proficient in. See the article of legacy pilot who flew both. Or ask any virtual pilot that has flown it.

There are far more differences between an f16 and a legacy hornet alone . But again this was never intended to compare a SHto an f16. Or to said it has to be the next module immediately after the f18c . It was never addressed in what order this needs to come in or if should be done over another aircraft. Merely that this is a viable to create as a future module. In fact I've been trying to avoid that all together to avoid offending fans of the various airframes because it would lead OT.

Now even if ed doesn't doesn't want to make one what's there to stop 3rd parties from making one. At least after a/g code is available for all to use? None if that ends up being their choice.

As for the f14d I recall there being a discussionof this in the heatblur section that there was not enough data about some of its avionics to make an accurate enough sim at the present.

But again if there will be an f14d it would be likely be made by heatblur as a followup to the f14a/b rather than by ed.

I can agree with most of your arguments and i did not want to compare a Rhino to a Viper - that would lead that thread completely OT. I just think the F/A-18F definetely belongs in DCS and it capabilities vary enough from the legacy Hornet to justify it's development. An F-Module would eventually open up for an E-Module.

But it was just an idea ;-)

For me it is not different enough to excite over the classic, but the development time would still be long and complex. Maybe in 20 years when developers have run out of airframes to simulate, but personally I wouldn't bother with it.

Yes, its a feasible as a potential future module

PS I already got F/A-18