Concern about Hornet development goals.

 

In Bosnia and desert storm, AG radars were used extensively.

 

And, oh yeah, they should be modeled because they said they would be.

Yes that's because the resolution of the TGP's back then pale into comparison to what we have today.

Yes that's because the resolution of the TGP's back then pale into comparison to what we have today.

Certainly from an Operation Deliberate Force point of view...its because Western European weather is frequently (usually) dogsh*t

Not all operations take place in Nevada syle (DCS multiplayer style) perfect visibility/No clouds situations...

Yes that's because the resolution of the TGP's back then pale into comparison to what we have today.

A TGP is not a wide area search sensor, while a decent Air to Surface radar can be.

While a A/G radar is less essential than it was in the 80's - both for searching for and finding the target and providing weapon aiming/ranging information - it's another tool in the toolbox.

Even now airforces recognize we won't always be doing urban CAS against lightly armed insurgents i.e the last 15 years.

A lot of effort is being made with current day AESA radars, that can SAR map large areas and use AI to auto ident and classify different targets. A/G radar is not dead.

Our Hornets radar isn't AESA crazy capable but 100% should be modeled as best as can be. However, maybe JDAMs, INS/NAV, and A/A should get immediate attention.

Interesting read. I'm pretty new to the community in terms of involvement, but understand some of the frustrations. From what I've seen ED are managing a business model that is based on accruing revenue from continually releasing new EA modules, then using the margin raised from the modules to "fix" or progress the early access that have been released previously.

The problem with that model is that you will always have to accrue revenue to survive by releasing incomplete modules and so the circle continues, but that is the nature of the business- there are no other sources of income (as far as I'm aware).

I do think though that it must be pretty heartbreaking for ED team members who pour their souls into these products to read some of the comments. The quality of what they have achieved is astounding, even if there are a few issues. I'd much rather have a few missing features here or there on my F18 than have to fly 737's for my aviation fix.

!Hornet and Viper team is working 50/50 on both at the same time :this is absolutely disrespectful and totally wrong ..we payed the hornet way before the viper .:(

:thumbup:

Yes that's because the resolution of the TGP's back then pale into comparison to what we have today.

What about foul weather? What about other theaters where visibility is more often worse? What about those who simulate older conflicts?

Georgia, Nevada and the Persian Gulf are all dry, mostly clear climates. Scenarios around the English Channel would be much different.

For the JF17, I no longer have to choose between the SPJ and the WMD07 if I'm running SEAD. I can carry LD10's for emitters, the SPJ center pylon, use the mapping radar to acquire the launchers for IAMs.

If I'm on an MP server and I'm tasked with strike, I can identify buildings out of a complex sooner without pre-knowledge (i.e., I can be tasked with a waypoint at the location of the complex, then different flight members target different buildings)

Again, it's a tool, a useful one, and not subject to user opinion on whether it ought to be implemented.

Also, DCS was never meant to simulate cutting-edge equipment and tactics, because there just isn't enough publicly available data to make it anywhere close to the standards DCS has for fidelity.

I bought the FA18 because it was to be the first to introduce a modern DBS/SAR capable AG radar according to ED's advertising. I expect it to be implemented as faithfully as we have documentation for, because that is what DCS is all about. That other users don't care about it doesn't concern me. I didn't enter into a buying arrangement with others users.

Not trying to be harsh but I feel people trying to pester ED into NOT finishing promised features needs to be met with the conflicting side so that they know this isn't anywhere near a universal opinion.

Disagree bro: A2G radar is vital to locating ground targets especially vehicles. In BMS I use the A2G radar ALL THE TIME in ground strike roles, especially the GMT mode.

You don't locate vehicles with the A-G radar unless talking about civilian trucks and such that are parked to middle of empty parking lot.

Militaries basic training for ground vehicles is to conceal vehicles from visual, and electronic observations. Visually you can walk and hit your head to such a armored vehicle. Thermal cameras don't see them unless running engine hot for long periods and in cold environments. Radar.... Cant see as those are covered by radar absorbing nets and they anyways are positioned so that your radar doesn't just find them.

And you flying radar on is super easy to spot from hundreds of kilometers from your target area, only limiting factor is LOS. On every important area there are vehicles specialized for electronic warfare, pin pointing threats that is emitting any signal. Why radio silence is a thing among special forces, why radio transmissions can be done one way only, and only transmit if really required to reveal your location and existence.

Important messages are delivered by messengers and more stationary locations are wired.

Your A-G radar is as useful as TAD is in A-10C or ABRIS in KA-50.

You are given area or location and you go there and place optical sensors there to search targets. Modern A-G radars are different than what we get. You are going to be good to find large bridges, big buildings, rivers, roads and airfields. But you are limited to what can you actually see. Even detecting a moving colonna doesn't help you as no stupid enemy is going to put a colonna move such distance between vehicles that you can just go and bomb whole colonna at once. Lucky if you get even a single vehicle with your bomb load as each vehicle distance can be even 1000-500 meters from each others. Only seeing them together in turns when turning vehicle stops to wait a previous vehicle behind it to come on turn position so everyone knows where colonna is moving.

And once you attack at one, every other will disappear to surroundings for air cover, you can have a over 5-10 kilometer wide self-defensive forces below you. Troops scattered, vehicles hidden, everyone searching you up in the air and you can't engage all of them and you have no time as CAP is already heading at your location.

Fighting against insurgents whos most advanced AA weaponry is RPG-7 and maybe a 12.7mm HMG somewhere in one vehicle is completely different thing than fighting against a modern military that is trained to deal with most advanced air forces and ground forces.

Once you come spotted, the enemy ground forces in the area are warned about your presence and the situation is completely different.

That is why a F-35 with stealth is valuable as you fly high, try to hide from radars, use only optical targeting pod with radar and all other emissions turned off. Find target and drop a bomb in location. You can't even use a laser guided bombs against vehicles as their laser warning systems warns about you and they can use their smokes to deny your guidance, get hidden etc.

vu4ZtP85So4[/YouTube]

Not all at all would use similar, but there is no need either as same results are achieved by other means too.

DCS doesnt include anything from those procedures for ground units. We don't even have simple nets or real terrain elements used for conceal u its. The whole EW element is missing completely. But so is in everything else, why you can do such OP things in other simulators as those don't exist there either.

ED has a change for that now... Question is when...

What if your scenario is set in the 80’s or early 90’s, how useful would the ground radar be?

About that....

I do think though that it must be pretty heartbreaking for ED team members who pour their souls into these products to read some of the comments. The quality of what they have achieved is astounding, even if there are a few issues. I'd much rather have a few missing features here or there on my F18 than have to fly 737's for my aviation fix.

Well said. Constructive criticism is one thing, but at the end of the day, they're still people and I think everyone agrees that they're doing their best, despite any delays and issues that arise. The frustration of the community is also understandable up to a point, I'm also getting impatient myself at times, but just venting doesn't help anyone. We're all in this together.

Certainly from an Operation Deliberate Force point of view...its because Western European weather is frequently (usually) dogsh*t

Not all operations take place in Nevada syle (DCS multiplayer style) perfect visibility/No clouds situations...

That's part of it.

I mean AGR is important, and SAR radar is pretty impressive if used correctly. But at the same time most modern permissive air scenarios more or less require PID before dropping, SAR can't do it, TPOD's can. Cold war waxing the tank column stuff, its fine. Different era's/scenarios make a big difference in ROE. And really DCS needs it ALL.

That being said, the current state of AGR in the JF-17 its not that useful yet (supposedly using ED's AGR API), no SAR modes, no GMTI etc. You get map, and Naval modes.

I find the current development model of half-doing a system and then not working on it and then coming back to it 6 months or a year later really kind of weird from a dev standpoint. Why not just do mostly right the first time around, perhaps in stages, it seems like a waste of time having to come back to it months later and re-remembering how it was coded. We are seeing this with a lot of systems, JDAM's, HARMs, TPOD, walleye/DL/SLAMER. The only thing I can think of is that they plan is to toss out half finished systems to the torch and pitchfork brigade so that ED can say something is being done, but I think this approach is slowing overall development overall. IDK maybe there are other reasons.

You don't locate vehicles with the A-G radar unless talking about civilian trucks and such that are parked to middle of empty parking lot.

 

Militaries basic training for ground vehicles is to conceal vehicles from visual, and electronic observations. Visually you can walk and hit your head to such a armored vehicle. Thermal cameras don't see them unless running engine hot for long periods and in cold environments. Radar.... Cant see as those are covered by radar absorbing nets and they anyways are positioned so that your radar doesn't just find them.

 

And you flying radar on is super easy to spot from hundreds of kilometers from your target area, only limiting factor is LOS. On every important area there are vehicles specialized for electronic warfare, pin pointing threats that is emitting any signal. Why radio silence is a thing among special forces, why radio transmissions can be done one way only, and only transmit if really required to reveal your location and existence.

 

Important messages are delivered by messengers and more stationary locations are wired.

 

Your A-G radar is as useful as TAD is in A-10C or ABRIS in KA-50.

You are given area or location and you go there and place optical sensors there to search targets. Modern A-G radars are different than what we get. You are going to be good to find large bridges, big buildings, rivers, roads and airfields. But you are limited to what can you actually see. Even detecting a moving colonna doesn't help you as no stupid enemy is going to put a colonna move such distance between vehicles that you can just go and bomb whole colonna at once. Lucky if you get even a single vehicle with your bomb load as each vehicle distance can be even 1000-500 meters from each others. Only seeing them together in turns when turning vehicle stops to wait a previous vehicle behind it to come on turn position so everyone knows where colonna is moving.

 

And once you attack at one, every other will disappear to surroundings for air cover, you can have a over 5-10 kilometer wide self-defensive forces below you. Troops scattered, vehicles hidden, everyone searching you up in the air and you can't engage all of them and you have no time as CAP is already heading at your location.

 

Fighting against insurgents whos most advanced AA weaponry is RPG-7 and maybe a 12.7mm HMG somewhere in one vehicle is completely different thing than fighting against a modern military that is trained to deal with most advanced air forces and ground forces.

 

Once you come spotted, the enemy ground forces in the area are warned about your presence and the situation is completely different.

 

That is why a F-35 with stealth is valuable as you fly high, try to hide from radars, use only optical targeting pod with radar and all other emissions turned off. Find target and drop a bomb in location. You can't even use a laser guided bombs against vehicles as their laser warning systems warns about you and they can use their smokes to deny your guidance, get hidden etc.

 

 

 

vu4ZtP85So4[/YouTube]

 

Not all at all would use similar, but there is no need either as same results are achieved by other means too.

 

DCS doesnt include anything from those procedures for ground units. We don't even have simple nets or real terrain elements used for conceal u its. The whole EW element is missing completely. But so is in everything else, why you can do such OP things in other simulators as those don't exist there either.

 

ED has a change for that now... Question is when...

Yup, increasingly modern ground and air combat is turning into what submarine combat has been for a looong time. You go active, everyone knows where you are and you die. That's why increasingly passive sensor systems and networked battlefield environments are "modern combat". And honestly this is 'ing hard to simulate, and DCS does a poor job at it. Which is why I think they should focus on pre 1990 era for a million and one reasons.

Yes that's because the resolution of the TGP's back then pale into comparison to what we have today.

Partly right. But you can hide from thermals fairly easily, and its not a "magic" system. Old school TPOD's could tell you "something was there" depending on the environmental conditions and range, but maybe/likely not what it was unless you had some other context for it, it also depends on the part of the IR spectrum they are working in (nearish or far IR). Same with the AGR of the era 80's/90s era. ROE had a lot to do with it. Its easy to declare anything past line X hostile and bomb it. These days you have to identify and drop a bomb on the guy in the 3rd car in the column, that's smoking the hash, and make sure there are no other casulaties. That's why we have the Katana hellfire.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-114r9x.htm

Interesting read. I'm pretty new to the community in terms of involvement, but understand some of the frustrations. From what I've seen ED are managing a business model that is based on accruing revenue from continually releasing new EA modules, then using the margin raised from the modules to "fix" or progress the early access that have been released previously.

 

The problem with that model is that you will always have to accrue revenue to survive by releasing incomplete modules and so the circle continues, but that is the nature of the business- there are no other sources of income (as far as I'm aware).

 

I do think though that it must be pretty heartbreaking for ED team members who pour their souls into these products to read some of the comments. The quality of what they have achieved is astounding, even if there are a few issues. I'd much rather have a few missing features here or there on my F18 than have to fly 737's for my aviation fix.

I really don't want it to be the case, but the current ED model really really looks like a Bernie Madoff style pyramid scheme in a lot of ways, which will go bust at some point. And I love DCS so I don't want that to be the case, so I REALLY hope they can get both the Viper and Hornet "finished" this year so they can move on.

Aktual Status of the Developerment

Hi Pilots,

I'have backed the Fa/18 Module since the beginning.... How far are the Devs away from the final Version von The Modul ?!... When cann we espect the Final release..

Are the Module usable for the first missions. I Fly the hornet a few Times on the Nevada Map, its a realy great module so far...

At the Moment iam want to wait for the release of the Module..... But should i can use the first mission or should i wait ?!?!?.

Greets

Grasnabe

You could always read this locked thread

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=264685

But ED says it will be done by the end of the year.

Go Fly! its got some stuff missing but its absolutely useable for most things!

There is a number of things that have to be added or fixed, but that doesn't mean that the module is not in a playable state, far from it. It's one of the most fun and capable modules in DCS right now. If you want to play the included campaign, for example, there's nothing stopping you.