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

F and Growler have different Tooling and have several physical and system changes.

That is true to an extent. Last I read Australia had bought 12 F/A-18F+ that come pre-wired from the factory for possible conversion to EA-18G Growler configuration. So technically developing a EA-18G Growler from a F/A-18F module would not be too difficult. :smilewink:

That is true to an extent. Last I read Australia had bought 12 F/A-18F+ that come pre-wired from the factory for possible conversion to EA-18G Growler configuration. So technically developing a EA-18G Growler from a F/A-18F module would not be too difficult. :smilewink:

They Basically Bought All Growlers, So If/When they decide to Make them growlers, they add radios, pods and a few other components. done, no rebuild necassary.

So If they ever lost a Growler they can salvage the radios and simply add the Components to the "F+" Models.

The Last Few Lots of Block II's were all pre-wired to be Growlers by default, so they didn't have to run more lines than needed, Order F's, you get Growlers, Minus the Radios, Pods and other Components. Cheaper to Build them ready, than to rebuild later.

Sorta like now how all Block III Airframes are Prewired to be Growlers, and Even have all the Radios included off the line, Just need to the Pods and a few other components.

Top Gun Maverick was Pushed to December, and will be pushed again to next June (announcement pending), while they re-shoot some scenes and adjust Val Kilmer's CGI'd Face.

 

Block II/Lot 26 no longer has Cockpit Commonality w/ F/A-18C Lot 20, the Software architecture changes, the displays change, the radar change, half the sub systems for radio's change, a majority of the supporting systems in the cockpit change.

Not to mention, a majority of the new systems, are classified.

 

Block II Production Lines have transitioned to Block III.

The Last Block II was Turned Over to VFA - 34 on Apr. 17th.

USN Will have 1st 2 Block III's to test by June 30th.

10 more Block I/LRIP Airframes were transferred to USN Demonstration Squadron.

Actually Lot 26's were still fitted with APG73's. Lot26's didn't get fitted with APG79 operationally at the start of its service life. It was s post production refit that came some years later. That is why Lot 26's are included into the poll. Hell even ECP 6038R2 ( fibre channel switches and 8X10 displays for F/A18F) was a refit for LOt 26's. An early life Lot 26 is barely a block 2 aircraft. ( but then thats why you had the marketers come up with block 2+ nomenclature) It has the provisions for lots of planned features at the start of its life but isnt really much more capable than the block 1 lot 25 until they are retrofitted eventually.

Although Block 2's were planned to have APG79's from the get go, due to operational development and testing issues of the APG79 this didnt come into fruition as initially intended,

One of the first aircraft with this APG79 radar was actually F/A18F BUNO 166639, A lot 27 production aircraft. ( and mind you this is only in "operation" with a test and evaluation squadron VX9 during 2005), same year it was only being declared for IOC. Up until 2007 only 28 APG79's had been produced.

Lot 30 is when the APG79 went into full scale production. Hence why USN ordered 135 upgrade kits to have various block 2 LOt 26- lot 29 aircraft refitted with APG79 post production.

Actually Lot 26's were still fitted with APG73's. Lot26's didn't get fitted with APG79 operationally at the start of its service life. It was s post production refit that came some years later. That is why Lot 26's are included into the poll. Hell even ECP 6038R2 ( fibre channel switches and 8X10 displays for F/A18F) was a refit for LOt 26's. An early life Lot 26 is barely a block 2 aircraft. ( but then thats why you had the marketers come up with block 2+ nomenclature) It has the provisions for lots of planned features at the start of its life but isnt really much more capable than the block 1 lot 25 which was meant to serve as baseline for block 2's.

 

 

Although Block 2's were planned to have APG79's from the get go, due to operational development and testing issues of the APG79 this didnt come into fruition as initially intended,

 

 

One of the first aircraft with this APG79 radar was actually F/A18F BUNO 166639, A lot 27 production aircraft. ( and mind you this is only in "operation" with a test and evaluation squadron VX9 during 2005), same year it was only being declared for IOC. Up until 2007 only 28 APG79's had been produced.

 

 

Lot 30 is when the APG79 went into full scale production Hence why USN ordered 135 upgrade kits to have various block 2 LOt 26- lot 29 aircraft refitted post post production.

Lot 26's were fitted w/ AN/APG-79 by the end of Q2 2008.

This is 2020.

Chances of Finding a "off the line Spec Lot 26" are 0%.

It's not even about just the radar;

The supporting systems, countermeasures systems, radios, video recorders, digital map system, displays and Programming language were all changed.

Lot 26's were fitted w/ AN/APG-79 by the end of Q2 2008.

 

This is 2020.

 

Chances of Finding a "off the line Spec Lot 26" are 0%.

 

It's not even about just the radar;

The supporting systems, countermeasures systems, radios, video recorders, digital map system, displays and Programming language were all changed.

And? thats not a requirement. The chances of finding a F16C in the USAF still using the same avionics and exact same software tapes from 2007 is also pretty slim......

OR and F/A18C lot 20 as it was circa 2005.....

No one is saying the Super Hornet has to be a 2008- present day vehicle...... In fact this is exactly why the Thread is only about Block 1's and only up a early block 2 lot 26, and no further ones.

Programming launguage used RL thing is irrelevant. ED only emulates. DCS modules is not an exact replica of the aircraft. Just look how much stuff ED was able to streamline from Hornet development into Viper, and those are totally different aircaft altogether made by entirely different defence contractors.

And? thats not a requirement. The chances of finding a F16C in the USAF still using the same avionics and exact same software tapes from 2007 is also pretty slim......

 

OR and F/A18C lot 20 as it was circa 2005.....

 

 

No one is saying the Super Hornet has to be a 2008- present day vehicle...... In fact this is exactly why the Thread is only about Block 1's and only up a early block 2 lot 26, and no further ones.

 

Programming launguage used RL thing is irrelevant. ED only emulates. DCS modules is not an exact replica of the aircraft. Just look how much stuff ED was able to streamline from Hornet development into Viper, and those are totally different aircaft altogether made by entirely different defence contractors.

there's prolly no one on this forum that wants a Super Hornet more than me.

Just Saying.

One of the reasons why I would like Super Hornet (among many) is 6 x Maverick instead of 4 x on Hornet

Just having the Rhino for the purpose of A2A tanking is IMO necessary for realism with current DCS US Naval Assets. The S-3 was retired completely from the boat in 09 and was well on it's way out in the "Mid-2000s" if we're using the current hornet as a starting point.

Not to mention the fact that the Rhino by that time was getting pretty prolific in the fleet. Not having one in DCS at all in any form, breaks with reality for that time period.

F/A-18E Super Hornet Request with Idea on how to model realism.

Hello DCS World,

From watching the interview with the CEO of Eagle Dynamics on Growling Sidewinders youtube channel, I found out that DCS world does some backwards engineering when it comes to the design, modeling, and implementation of new Aircraft Modules.

My suggestion for the development of a highly desired F/A-18E Super Hornet Module from the majority of the community, I would say is it possible for Eagle Dynamics to use a former popular game title from the early days Janes F/A-18E Super Hornet?

When it came to avionics and combat systems I think Janes did a great job of simulating the weapons systems, avionics, ECM Jamming to include the TALD platform, and other features the Super Hornet possessed.

My suggestion is since ED uses some forms of reverse engineering can they use a proven title such as Janes F/A-18E as reference for Avionics and Weapons systems and to get the flight simulation data from other known reputable sources for other components and systmes of the F/A-18E Super Hornet.

If ED where able to develop a Super Hornet I would gladly pay 80.00 to 120.00 USD for this module in the new rich DCS 2.5 World Environment with the new and Improved Super Carrier Module I already own.

Do you guys think this is a good idea for the development of an F/A-18E or even an F/A-18F or 18G Module?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202373

A similar thread posted earlier.

P.S. I wanna get an F/A-18F instead of Echo.

You are leaving out one important piece of the puzzle, a license. Before ED or any other 3rd party can even consider doing a high fidelity simulation of a certain aircraft they must obtain a license.

And I hate to brake it to you but ED fairly recently said in an interview with the Grim reapers that they have no plans at the moment to do a Super Hornet. See question 51 @1:35:17

//Merged

You are leaving out one important piece of the puzzle, a license. Before ED or any other 3rd party can even consider doing a high fidelity simulation of a certain aircraft they must obtain a license.

 

 

 

And I hate to brake it to you but ED fairly recently said in an interview with the Grim reapers that they have no plans at the moment to do a Super Hornet. See question 51 @1:35:17

 

No anymore,https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203414/activision-wins-humvee-call-of-duty-trademark-infringement-lawsuit

I am glad that at that time ED opted for the Hornet and not the Super Hornet, because the Super Hornet is only operational (to my knowledge) in the United States and Australia and that allows Spanish and Canadian virtual pilots to have the possibility of operate with the aircraft that represents them.

Having Hornet, I would not be interested in a Super Hornet.

No anymore,https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203414/activision-wins-humvee-call-of-duty-trademark-infringement-lawsuit

A Simple Visual Representation is not the same as a 1:1 Recreation of the Aircraft's systems.

I am glad that at that time ED opted for the Hornet and not the Super Hornet, because the Super Hornet is only operational (to my knowledge) in the United States and Australia and that allows Spanish and Canadian virtual pilots to have the possibility of operate with the aircraft that represents them.

 

Having Hornet, I would not be interested in a Super Hornet.

Only if looking at the exterior model

Only if looking at the exterior model

An outside model is enough to break the dive. For me, he would not be a true 12th Wing fighter at the Torrejón base. In fact, the Eurofighter will be my next module, if the improved UH-1H doesn't come out first. Many people like to fly the plane that represents them and not put skin to a model by becoming fictional. I have been pretending that the Mirage 2000 was a Mirage F1, or a Eurofighter, for a long time, because until the launch of the Hornet, Spain did not have a fourth generation fighter. I am in favor of working on airplanes that are operational in most countries so that the entire community feels represented. From the utmost respect.

I am in favor of working on airplanes that are operational in most countries so that the entire community feels represented. From the utmost respect.

So, the F-4 Phantom then. We already have the F-16 and MiG-21 which are the other prolific actors in the jet export age.

Super Hornet Block III will get more countries on the Boeing Bug wagon.

An outside model is enough to break the dive. For me, he would not be a true 12th Wing fighter at the Torrejón base. In fact, the Eurofighter will be my next module, if the improved UH-1H doesn't come out first. Many people like to fly the plane that represents them and not put skin to a model by becoming fictional. I have been pretending that the Mirage 2000 was a Mirage F1, or a Eurofighter, for a long time, because until the launch of the Hornet, Spain did not have a fourth generation fighter. I am in favor of working on airplanes that are operational in most countries so that the entire community feels represented. From the utmost respect.

Fair enough, but i don't let nationalism blind me to what aircraft like or dislike , or choose to fly, or at least not be the first and foremost reason for buying an aircraft.

I look at buying modules from a pragmatic POV. What is this aircraft role, and what are its capabilities, and does it fit my play style or personal requirements of what i want to to do?. I approach almost as if i were an buying a car ( or a defense official shopping for a aircraft for that matter ;) ) . And i would like to think that there are many more like minded people given the fact that "multirole" genre fighters seem to be the best sellers.

Only 2nd place do i look at historical significance, and and only in a very near last place whether other not my country uses it or not.

Its which is why i myself am interested in the Eurofighter even though my nation does not operate it.

Hence even if Canada doesn't operate the Super Hornet, i would have been equally ( if not more happy) if Super Hornet had been done over the legacy Hornet within DCS, granted, the legacy has a broader time period going for it even if it is a "mid 2000s" variant.

I would add the EA-18G Growler to the list! though that will probably never ever happen

Fair enough, but i don't let nationalism blind me to what aircraft like or dislike , or choose to fly, or at least not be the first and foremost reason for buying an aircraft.

 

I look at buying modules from a pragmatic POV. What is this aircraft role, and what are its capabilities, and does it fit my play style or personal requirements of what i want to to do?. I approach almost as if i were an buying a car ( or a defense official shopping for a aircraft for that matter ;) ) . And i would like to think that there are many more like minded people given the fact that "multirole" genre fighters seem to be the best sellers.

 

Only 2nd place do i look at historical significance, and and only in a very near last place whether other not my country uses it or not.

 

 

Its which is why i myself am interested in the Eurofighter even though my nation does not operate it.

 

 

Hence even if Canada doesn't operate the Super Hornet, i would have been equally ( if not more happy) if Super Hornet had been done over the legacy Hornet, granted, the legacy has a broader time period going for it even if it is a "mid 2000s" variant.

It is not "nationalism" it is called illusion.

The same illusion as the child who has a firefighter dad and goes to the toy store to buy a fire engine like his dad's.

If Canada ends up with anything, I bet its the Gripen. I certainly would prefer the block III SH but liberals are liberals.

It is not "nationalism" it is called illusion.

 

The same illusion as the child who has a firefighter dad and goes to the toy store to buy a fire engine like his dad's.

If Canada ends up with anything, I bet its the Gripen. I certainly would prefer the block III SH but liberals are liberals.

what does that have to do with the price of fish?

 

 

 

 

 

 

what does that have to do with the price of fish?

I don't think it was necessary to use memes to express yourself. I think you've started to be disrespectful. The moment you said "nationalisms don't blind you" should have blocked you. If you're not going to respect opinions, don't post polls. Someone who is not excited to fly the plane of his country and calls it "nationalist blindness" does not deserve another minute of my time.