What are the JHMCS AG Abilities in the F-18?

So the top image is the helmet reticle, which you can then ground stabilize and then turn into a designation. The bottom is what the designation looks like. The Hafu should only show up for friendlies and whatever you have your cursors on on the SA page. You also other than looking at things cant really interact with things or drop designations with the JHMCS. (Ala you cant make helmet symbology entities SPI or designation etc like you can in the A-10C 2) As far as friendlies on the ground. Yes the Helmet into the hornet/F-16 can show those, but that starts to get into what level or type of datalink they are represented on. IE Blufor tracker may or may not be integrated into Link 16 in the versions of the jet we have in DCS.

 

In the Strike eagle it was only when you were “close enough” to be in range of their on the ground radios. You wouldn’t be seeing that stuff from across the AOR unless it was getting pumped out by a bigger station. Which gets into way more net architecture than DCS looks like its ever going to model.

 

I’d bet its going to be completely simplified one way or the other based on the existence of the EPLRS setting on the friendly units or not. IE if they decide its “realistic” they’ll make any EPLRS units show up, if they decide its not, they will just have that stuff not show up.

Thats very interesting, thanks KlarSnow. I am curious about that 'hafu only for friendlies', a quick look at the HMD reject setup page already in DCS shows there being an option for Members, Donors, and Others. Others to me implies none donors, ie radar tracks, not PPLI indications.

Others means friendly surveillance tracks, pushed out by AWACS, its not gonna show hostiles or unknowns, just other friendlies. Members and donors are other PPLI participants. AlA the AWACS itself and other fighters that are in the link pushing out their locations.

What I'm essentially trying to clarify here is that you probably arent going to be able to just look around and see every track on datalink, hostile, friendly and unknown in the jhmcs, only friendlies pushed by AWACS, Friendly PPLI's, what you are locked to, and possibly whatever your SA page cursors are on.

Isn't the HMCS in the Hornet an earlier generation than the A-10C II one?

Isn't the HMCS in the Hornet an earlier generation than the A-10C II one?

They are completely different things, hornet and viper are using JHMCS, hog uses Scorpion HMCS.

But yes, hogs HMCS is more modern than JHMCS. Doesn't mean JHMCS can't still do awesome things.

Its JHMCS (hornet/F-16) vs Scorpion/JHMCS 2 (A-10C 2) if they are calling it that now. Always just heard it called Scorpion.

Differences are primarily color, weight, form factor, and ability to display raster images (TGP overlay etc...) Older JHMCS (F-16/Hornet) cannot do colors other than green or raster images.

The jet is the primary source for a lot of the "features" that are helmet related. the helmet is just a display and a pointing/cuing device. Everything else is going to be dependent on how the jet itself and its software is mechanized to handle all of that.

Right. The Scorpion is actually just a lens in front of one eye. Is has a lot of cool features and is cheaper to implement. In the Hog the sensor to track head movement is simply glued to the canopy. So no need for integrated sensors like in the Hornet. Also you can wear NVG´s with it and it´s weight is much less than a JHMCS. Especially when pulling G´s.

https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/13/up-close-and-personal-with-the-a-10-warthogs-scorpion-helmet-mounted-cueing-system/

So it is not correctly modeled on the pilot model.

Its JHMCS (hornet/F-16) vs Scorpion/JHMCS 2 (A-10C 2) if they are calling it that now. Always just heard it called Scorpion.

 

Differences are primarily color, weight, form factor, and ability to display raster images (TGP overlay etc...) Older JHMCS (F-16/Hornet) cannot do colors other than green or raster images.

 

The jet is the primary source for a lot of the "features" that are helmet related. the helmet is just a display and a pointing/cuing device. Everything else is going to be dependent on how the jet itself and its software is mechanized to handle all of that.

scorpion users:

A-10 Thunderbolt (USAF)’

F-16 Viper (USAF)

F-18 (Spanish Air Force)

https://www.thalesdsi.com/our-services/visionix-2/hmcs/

Yes, "some" Guard units have purchased the Scorpion for their F-16s. It is not standard issue accross the entire USAF. We are talking about a (primarily) USAF/USN jets, and the jets we have in DCS. Bringing up the entire schmorgasbord of foreign operators or one off cases where the guard got something for themselves doesn't really apply to the discussion.

For DCS purposes the F-16/18 are JHMCS, the A-10C is Scorpion, unless ED decides to make it something else...

Well the plan as far as I've seen mentioned by ED is we're getting a Lot 20 F/A-18C as of ~2008, roughly the same year for the F-16C.

I'm not sure if a time frame was set regarding the A-10C II.

This makes carryover of weapons like the APKWS potentially not possible for the Hornet or Viper, since the APKWS entered service from 2012. APKWS simply wasn't available for a 2008 Hornet.

Well the plan as far as I've seen mentioned by ED is we're getting a Lot 20 F/A-18C as of ~2008, roughly the same year for the F-16C.

 

I'm not sure if a time frame was set regarding the A-10C II.

 

This makes carryover of weapons like the APKWS potentially not possible for the Hornet or Viper, since the APKWS entered service from 2012. APKWS simply wasn't available for a 2008 Hornet.

DCS:FA-18C simulate a 2005 year USN/USMC FA-18C lot20, not 2008.

The Hog needs something all it's own. Now it has it.

The Hog needs something all it's own. Now it has it.

Not for long ;)

Yeah yeah, I know hogs HMCS is better than JHMCS, dont make me cry

Well, the Hornet can land on the boat and the Hog is as slow as grandma's Buick. So, the Hornet still has the upper hand. Just to name two.

DCS:FA-18C simulate a 2005 year USN/USMC FA-18C lot20, not 2008.

ok, doesn't really change my point.