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

While AESA is on the discussion-table, I'd take a simulation of these few USMC Legacy Hornet's that are being upgraded to the APG-79(V)4 AESA over the "Super" Hornet any day. As "Wombat" Marston and other Hornet drivers have said, "there's nothing 'super' about the super Hornet." 

6 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

While AESA is on the discussion-table, I'd take a simulation of these few USMC Legacy Hornet's that are being upgraded to the APG-79(V)4 AESA over the "Super" Hornet any day. As "Wombat" Marston and other Hornet drivers have said, "there's nothing 'super' about the super Hornet." 

 

Classified, I found documents that explicitly state quite a lot about APG-79 is secret and another saying APG-63(v)3 which is very similar is secret. As far as I can tell every US AESA with the possible but very unlikely exception of APG-63(v)2 and APG-80, which I suspect are I just haven’t found any confirmation yet.

42 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

While AESA is on the discussion-table, I'd take a simulation of these few USMC Legacy Hornet's that are being upgraded to the APG-79(V)4 AESA over the "Super" Hornet any day. As "Wombat" Marston and other Hornet drivers have said, "there's nothing 'super' about the super Hornet." 

 

The Drag Index in combat load is Super, and it's not even about the Canted pylons, the airframe is larger, heavier and more surfaces, DRAG, even a E/F w/ Pylons removed has more drag, it's because of the size more than anything.

The USMC F/A-18C+'s will be less than a dozen and short lived.

1 hour ago, F-2 said:

Classified, I found documents that explicitly state quite a lot about APG-79 is secret and another saying APG-63(v)3 which is very similar is secret. As far as I can tell every US AESA with the possible but very unlikely exception of APG-63(v)2 and APG-80, which I suspect are I just haven’t found any confirmation yet.

Indeed... we won't be seeing AESA in DCS in my lifetime.  One can only dream...

57 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

The Drag Index in combat load is Super, and it's not even about the Canted pylons, the airframe is larger, heavier and more surfaces, DRAG, even a E/F w/ Pylons removed has more drag, it's because of the size more than anything.

The USMC F/A-18C+'s will be less than a dozen and short lived.

 

Very true. 

2 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

Indeed... we won't be seeing AESA in DCS in my lifetime.  One can only dream...

APG-79 in particular but I wouldn’t say AESA in general

the J/APG-1 Engineering model has some fairly extensive test data in existence that apparently not classified and was used in some papers. Apparently J/APG-1 was primarily a commercial effort.

the F-22 3-3 manual is currently FOUO but not classified and apparently has a lot of information on APG-77. Maybe in 10-15 years.

their is some talk of small commercial AESA being talked about for aircraft like a fighter variant of the T-7. It’s possible one of those systems, provided they aren’t related to any of the big boy radars might become available.

7 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

I mean, one of said individuals literally staright up denied the Apache was ED's secret module shortly before it was revealed. So there is that.

 

Fair, but until we see concrete evidence and not just seeing if the rabbit's entrails are favorable, there's really no reason to believe we're getting a Superbug.

13 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

Indeed... we won't be seeing AESA in DCS in my lifetime.  One can only dream...

We already have it tho not on a plane, AN/FPS-117

2 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

I dont think anyone is thinking that. It's just that a lot of people want one, and it would be a smart business decision from ED.

What would be smart for ED is to make Rafale, Gripen, SU-27, 30, MiG 29, J-11 etc etc, tons of people want those planes, why not those planes then? ppl want them.

even then you think making even modern Hornet (and we have legacy one, which is great) that is not on pair with any plane in DCS is a good idea...

but that's an opinion, like yours is too.

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

We already have it tho not on a plane, AN/FPS-117

It's modelled no differently than any other AI radar in DCS, the only difference between it and say, the P-19 (a much older, 2D radar), the only difference is detection distance, scan zone, radial velocity limit and update rate - that's it. If you want to check for yourself here's the .lua for the -117 and here's the .lua for the P-19.

In general AI radars are incredibly simplified; the radars don't differentiate between say, pulse, pulse doppler and CW; whether they're 2D or 3D capable let alone things like a conventional radar vs a phased array.

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

What would be smart for ED is to make Rafale, Gripen, SU-27, 30, MiG 29, J-11 etc etc, tons of people want those planes, why not those planes then? ppl want them.

Because unfortunately, people wanting them isn't the only factor here. And don't get me wrong, a fair amount on that list are aircraft I'd love to see too.

However, Rafale is still in service and very little documentation exists - unless the AdA/Aeronavale get involved (which for the former, is how the Mirage 2000C ended up with its successive major overhauls, that made it into the fantastic module it is today), I don't really see it happening. As for the Gripen, IIRC, a few years ago Heatblur looked to be interested in giving an early one a crack, but it shared components with the JA 37D (i.e the predecessor), which was classified.

For the Su-27, Su-30 and MiG-29, well, we had a 9-12 MiG-29 planned (i.e the first production version), but it seems that Russian politics has gotten in the way and its future seems bleak at best and is cancelled at worse - it's difficult to imagine a Su-27, 30 or J-11 for that matter being any different.

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

even then you think making even modern Hornet (and we have legacy one, which is great) that is not on pair with any plane in DCS is a good idea...

but that's an opinion, like yours is too.

While I'd definitely go for a Super Hornet (preferably an F, don't really care what Lot), we're having a hard time as is getting the current legacy complete and that's even after axing or otherwise not planning features that are well within scope of the aircraft being modelled.

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

\ MiG 29, \

 

there WAS going to be a Mig-29 9-12...

On 11/27/2022 at 11:51 AM, SkateZilla said:

Lot 25 introduced HOL Programming and several small system's changes, 
Lot 24 would be the highest you can go before running into conflicts, Lot 24 was Handicapped by the AL Programming, unguided A2G Stores were removed, until the HOL transition or the unguided store was replaced w/ a new guided store.

As stated LRIP 1-3 and Blk I were pretty much just transitional jets, the E/F's could'nt stand on their own until late Block II lot 27, and that's when the rapid retirement program for the legacy airframes started (plus the fact that the USMC couldn't meet operational readiness requirements due to parts).

Lot 26 and Most of Lot 27 did not roll off the line with APG-79, as there were production and political delays in procuring the units, they arrived late and were installed into block II  lot 26/27 airframes in waves.

 

F-5E, F-86F, MIG-15, L-39C/ZA, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2 are I.P. of Eagle Dynamics, Belsimtek was a E.D. Detachment that was re-absorbed back into E.D. years ago.

 

9 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Problem with the aforementioned jets are politics and documentation. An early Super would be pretty similar to the Lot 20 legacy we have now - same radar, mostly same avionics etc. Also the potential sale of bundled with the Super Carrier. Not to mention the whole Top Gun crowd.

Problem is, we're getting a Lot 25 or Lot 29 Hornet. 

If we get a 25, there's still a ton of changes to avionics and flight model. If we get a 29 (The first Lot 29 rolled off the line with APG-73) then there's an absolutely crazy amount of changes. There's also the programming convention of not usually copying and pasting code, so the Lot 25 would probably be started from scratch, and the Lot 29 is an almost certainty to be started from scratch.

In short, I'm saying that it'll be a ton of work to make a Super Hornet module, so you might not be seeing it very soon.

7 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

there WAS going to be a Mig-29 9-12...

I think world events may have put the brakes on it, but the MiG-29A is so unclassified that ED might actually be working on it anyway.

yeah that mig needs to happen. so does an F-18A, F-16A and possibly an F-15A as well to go up against it. Not in my lifetime though...

Dont forget the Export Lots

Would be lovely, I'm not that big a fan of the legacy boomer hornet,  I would be all over a Super Bug even if it had the same radar.

Probably a pipe dream and I'll have to settle for the cold war relic in game.

On the Bright side the Strike Eagle is coming but again not the Korean one that I wanted

The MiG-29 9-12 needs to happen. The Super Hornet also needs to happen because it gives us a great simulation of post-2006 carrier ops. Especially because in 2018 we only had Super Hornets on carriers (Not including the Marine F/A-18A++/C+ Lot 20 Hornets)

On 11/28/2022 at 7:23 PM, SilentSparrow said:

I think world events may have put the brakes on it, but the MiG-29A is so unclassified that ED might actually be working on it anyway.

 

All work on it has ceased, as far as we know. And, just because we have a great deal of access to something doesn't mean it's unclassified in the eyes of the government bodies involved. The reason for the cessation of work is probably because many members of ED's team would be vulnerable to prosecution by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

Yes, we have quite a bit of access to the MiG-29's in's and out's. In our view, it may as well be unclassified, but the Russian MoD could very well disagree. Whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant to the lawmakers and enforcement involved.

But, according to ED, this may not apply to third party developers that aren't subject to the RuMoD.

For the time being it seems the Mig-29 would have to be a third party item.

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

All work on it has ceased, as far as we know. And, just because we have a great deal of access to something doesn't mean it's unclassified in the eyes of the government bodies involved. The reason for the cessation of work is probably because many members of ED's team would be vulnerable to prosecution by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

Yes, we have quite a bit of access to the MiG-29's in's and out's. In our view, it may as well be unclassified, but the Russian MoD could very well disagree. Whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant to the lawmakers and enforcement involved.

But, according to ED, this may not apply to third party developers that aren't subject to the RuMoD.

I know that. At the same time, if they make the MiG-29 9-12 and come under fire by the Russians, it wouldn't be the first time they've come under fire from a government (See: ED employee gets some F-16A/B manuals and ends up being considered as one of the most dangerous criminals in the world. No, I'm not joking.)

7 hours ago, SilentSparrow said:

The MiG-29 9-12 needs to happen. The Super Hornet also needs to happen because it gives us a great simulation of post-2006 carrier ops. Especially because in 2018 we only had Super Hornets on carriers (Not including the Marine F/A-18A++/C+ Lot 20 Hornets)

2018 we still had USN Legacy Sqns deploying,

USMC C+ Airframes were never deployed (Full Time).

As for the MIG-29, there are other operators, so the Ministry wouldnt have a leg to stand on, however many might see it as poor taste to put out a fighter involved in a current conflict.

7 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

USMC C+ Airframes were never deployed (Full Time).
 

 

Were they just deploying with regular C models?

26 minutes ago, Cab said:

Were they just deploying with regular C models?

The USN Cut the order from 80 to a handful C+'s, and Cecil was converting mothballed Cs to C+ Standard,
They completed 13, and 1 has since crashed.

They never deployed the C+s because they didn't have enough, 
USMC had issues keeping them in the air, which was why the navy decided on rapid retirement of their Legacy's, and send everything to either AMARC, USMC or Cecil.

So what was once 80 Units, was cut to 30 units, was cut to 15 units, and 1 has already crashed.

The SLEP to 10,000 hours didnt really do much, and the final number of C+s rolled out of Cecil isnt concete, as of 2020 they had completed 13 conversions to C+, 
Minus the 1 that crashed, 

Leaving the USMC with at least 12 units, after 2020, all news regarding the C+ stopped, there was an article saying the conversion program was terminated and the money went to procuring F-35Cs.

Even then regards to F/a-18Ds, the USN D's were different from the USMC Ds, and the LRIP/Block I F's were different from the block II F's.

10 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

They never deployed the C+s because they didn't have enough, They stopped deploying their C's before the navy due to Sqn Readiness.

Last Marine Hornet deployment was in 2020, right?

17 minutes ago, Cab said:

Last Marine Hornet deployment was in 2020, right?

Feb 2021 IIRC. VFMA-323 (-> F-35)
April 2018 IIRC for VFA-34 (-> Super Hornet)

5 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Feb 2021 IIRC. VFMA-323 (-> F-35)
April 2018 IIRC for VFA-34 (-> Super Hornet)

 

Yes, June to Feb according to the Google Machine.

Exciting times.