AV-8b or F-16C

[Kev2go]

And neither is possible to be done against a trained military like since 60's.

You can do that against civilians, but even they will learn in time to avoid stupid things.

 

A-G radar is almost as good as your map on kneeboard. It true potential is all weather capability when you can't use targeting pod to make surveillance. And that only against quick unprepared moments.

 

In DCS it will work great if AI doesn't get any intelligence but acts like a 4 years old.

 

 

 

YFR. Lol Not possible since the 60's. Go tell that to the tourists. Radar technology in turn also has drastically evolved since the 60s as well as other forms of ISR. There are plenty of situation where it will be applicable, no matter if you believe otherwise that having an A/G radar will not be a extra valuable tool in the tool box. If all enemy did was sit camouflaged or hidden in a forest just to avoid any form of surveillance, would not allow an adversary to win due to an inability to adust swiftly enough counter move. This will be even more true for DCS.

 

 

 

 

 

Dont know why you think a TGP is the lord Jesus Christ and savior of sensors when by your logic when its essentially looking through a drinking straw, and enemies IRL have adapt tactics hide from that to. Same can be applied to Aerial Search radars in the advent of stealth aircraft and electronic warfare.

 

But oh well anything that isn't an all seeing eye immune to any countermeasures is useless in your eyes.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Kev2go

[VDV]

Noone. F-18 is the best.

[JUICE-AWG]

Check your local CL.com or equivalent resale website for a good set of used MFG Crosswind Pedals...you never know when a deal will present itself!

 

Noone. F-18 is the best.

Agreed!

[Harlikwin]

My .02 is to consider the JF-17 or F-18 instead.

 

JF-17 is done, and aside from a few bugs and missing features its complete and works. Currently its the best multirole fighter in DCS.

F-18 for ground attack is in a much better state than the F-16 is currently.

 

Both are vastly more stable and complete than the harrier. Which does get updates, but is still missing a bunch of things, and other bugs have been around for years, and no I don't think it will be "complete" by most normal humans definition "this year". I'm sure Raz will declare victory so they can move on to their next modules though.

 

The STOL capability that the harrier offers is unfortunately under-usable in DCS currently, not really Raz's fault on that but we need better FARP functionality for fixed wings.

[draconus]

The guy said he worked around Vipers. You can't beat that with any other module imho.

[Fri13]

YFR. Lol Not possible since the 60's. Go tell that to the tourists. Radar technology in turn also has drastically evolved since the 60s as well as other forms of ISR. There are plenty of situation where it will be applicable, no matter if you believe otherwise that having an A/G radar will not be a extra valuable tool in the tool box. If all enemy did was sit camouflaged or hidden in a forest just to avoid any form of surveillance, would not allow an adversary to win due to an inability to adust swiftly enough counter move. This will be even more true for DCS. [/Quote]

 

Since the time the A-G radar had been taken in use, and before that when air recon has been done, ground forces has been trained and equipped with means to avoid air recon and that has never stopped.

 

You can deny as much you want that modern combat is mobility and adaptation, not anymore WW1 trench war... But still never has the units stealth been removed since then. This is not a French va Britain at open glory field, where mens die because they wait while enemy aims and shoot at them.

 

Radar is just one digital map more.

The real combat is done on the ground, not up in the air. You can fly as much you want above enemy terrain, but you win nothing until you get boots on the ground.

 

Those boots on the ground will tell you where enemy is, and where to shoot if you just have them looking around.

If your recon is only some from the air, you die as quickly as you get shot down. That was the main mistake that Saddam Hussein did in gulf war, lost the air recon and lost information and lost the war. No ground troopers seeing what happens or reports what is going on.

 

Dont know why you think a TGP is the lord Jesus Christ and savior of sensors when by your logic when its essentially looking through a drinking straw, and enemies IRL have adapt tactics hide from that to. Same can be applied to Aerial Search radars in the advent of stealth aircraft and electronic warfare. [/Quote]

 

Because you still need to get eyes on the ground. And we are not taking about latest tech, but old tech in hornet and viper.

You have ground troops designating targets for you, telling what is happening etc.

 

But oh well anything that isn't an all seeing eye immune to any countermeasures is useless in your eyes.

 

Funny thing is that I haven't said anything that. But you think that A-G radar is all seeing and most important sensor from them all to source any information from battlefield. That you just turn it on and you know everything. Far from what it was...

[Midair]

I love to fly the AV-8B and I really hope they will do the Harrier II + version. For the moment I enjoy it more than the F-16. I like it's flight model and it's very challenging to land on the Tarawa. I flew the A-10C when he came out years ago but since the Harrier, F/A 18 and F-16 came out I never use it, he can do a lot but he is to slow and less "user friendly" for me.

If you like ground attack take the Harrier, you will love it!

[Kev2go]

Since the time the A-G radar had been taken in use, and before that when air recon has been done, ground forces has been trained and equipped with means to avoid air recon and that has never stopped.

 

You can deny as much you want that modern combat is mobility and adaptation, not anymore WW1 trench war... But still never has the units stealth been removed since then. This is not a French va Britain at open glory field, where mens die because they wait while enemy aims and shoot at them.

 

Radar is just one digital map more.

The real combat is done on the ground, not up in the air. You can fly as much you want above enemy terrain, but you win nothing until you get boots on the ground.

 

Those boots on the ground will tell you where enemy is, and where to shoot if you just have them looking around.

If your recon is only some from the air, you die as quickly as you get shot down. That was the main mistake that Saddam Hussein did in gulf war, lost the air recon and lost information and lost the war. No ground troopers seeing what happens or reports what is going on.

 

 

 

Because you still need to get eyes on the ground. And we are not taking about latest tech, but old tech in hornet and viper.

You have ground troops designating targets for you, telling what is happening etc.

 

 

 

Funny thing is that I haven't said anything that. But you think that A-G radar is all seeing and most important sensor from them all to source any information from battlefield. That you just turn it on and you know everything. Far from what it was...

 

Nope I am not overestimating the radar, or implying its an all seeing eye, or the only relevant piece of technology on aircraft . Just appreciating it for the sensor it is, the exta tool in the toolbox, which you cannot seem want to do. Again same logic applies to anything. Tactics have been developed to counteract many things.

 

Please stop talking down to others assuming what you think we visualize warfare like just because you have an ill appreciation for technology. Your childish rant truly is pointless and futile and entirely deriving off topic. An indication of your inability to see otherwise. But that is precisely why such surveillance options matter even than ever before more because warfare is no longer static. Boots on the ground reconnaissance alone can only do so much and go so far behind enemy lines, and the fact you need boots on the ground wars to win a typical conventional was never denied, but not all wars need boots on the ground. There are plenty of pure air campaigns from history that have managed to achieve both military and political objectives. SO you are wrong in assuming Ground army intervention is needed in every single case.

 

You can continue to believe otherwise, but those in history who dont keep up with the pace of technological changes are the ones who will have a rude awakening ( IE static defenses and the Machine made cavalry charges, and Mass infantry march charges redundant) , just as in your ww1 example which yo seem to be so obsessed about.

 

But hey maybe if your so obsessed with boots on the ground and too closed minded to realize other aspects of warfare and their technological strides than perhaps you should be playing purely infantry combat simulation , not a modern aviation combat simulator.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Kev2go

[Hammer1-1]

One of the better benefits of A2G radar is the GMT mode. Im not too well versed in how it works, other than it can track moving vehicles in rough terrain and can create a moving map of sorts. From that you can slave all sorts of weapons to the A2G radar without the need of a laser designator; everything is updated in real time as it would be with the designator pod. Those ground radars have really good resolution you can actually draw buildings and trees in great detail.

 

Looking at a radar screen compared to looking at a LANTIRN pod is like looking out a glass window for miles vs looking through a soda straw. Only difference is that you cant slave LGBs or LMAVs, or any kinetic weapon that requires a laser designator. The targeting pod gives you the ability to identify your targets visually. Thats the tradeoff you get with one or the other.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Hammer1-1

[Kev2go]

One of the better benefits of A2G radar is the GMT mode. Im not too well versed in how it works, other than it can track moving vehicles in rough terrain and can create a moving map of sorts. From that you can slave all sorts of weapons to the A2G radar without the need of a laser designator; everything is updated in real time as it would be with the designator pod. Those ground radars have really good resolution you can actually draw buildings and trees in great detail.

 

Looking at a radar screen compared to looking at a LANTIRN pod is like looking out a glass window for miles vs looking through a soda straw. Only difference is that you cant slave LGBs or LMAVs, or any kinetic weapon that requires a laser designator OR unless you really need to identify your targets visually. Thats the tradeoff you get with one or the other.

 

Ultimately using both together will be of great benefit. It doesn't have to be one over the other. In fact in such a presented example when you do see something in GMT mode thats exactly why you would then slew a TGP to a potential radar GMT contact to verify what you are indeed looking at is military vehicle, and if so a visual verification if it is friend or foe. That is unless adverse weather conditions obscuring a given TGP.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Kev2go

[Hammer1-1]

Using both together will be of great benefit. It doesn't have to be one over the other.

 

They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and in a pinch one can work as a backup for the other in the time of need. You can designate GPS coordinates for JDAMs; you can use CCRP accurately by designating targets on radar from any aspect; its just not the go-to device if certain targets require certain weapons. They both paint the same picture, they just do it differently for different purposes.

[David OC]

I know the JF-17 is based on ED's radar api so it seems quite good.

 

It's good fun in pvp if you think they have launched a ground strike on one of the bases.

 

I was flying around checking the roads tree line and a big brick shows up when moving, lock and the TGP snaps to it if slaved.

Fire off a few laser rockets.

 

EDIT

It does/will change the dynamic of the pvp servers, as the Tac commander needs to be on the ball and more joined effort is needed to accomplish any mission goals with all these modern weapons and systems now in DCS.

Edited March 3, 2020 by David OC

[Fri13]

One of the better benefits of A2G radar is the GMT mode. Im not too well versed in how it works, other than it can track moving vehicles in rough terrain and can create a moving map of sorts. From that you can slave all sorts of weapons to the A2G radar without the need of a laser designator; everything is updated in real time as it would be with the designator pod. Those ground radars have really good resolution you can actually draw buildings and trees in great detail.

 

The radar that hornet and falcon has is not good for target assignment. You are Limited on resolution to basically on anything else than dropping a bomb on 747 size aircraft on runway or a frigate in harbour dock.

 

You need a TGP to create a accurate designation for bombing.

 

In reality the GMT is not trustworthy than track some civilian vehicles on the road that goes through desert. Mainly for large ships at peaceful Sea.

 

In reality you don't spot military vehicles on the move, you don't find colonnas nor assaulting armored brigade assaulting your base.

 

In reality you are as accurate as someone tells you over radio that look at the hornet moving map, find there that and that road, and bomb 300 meters from that crossroad to East. And you need to do that blindly when flying over the overcast clouds at 15000ft.

 

Now, if we would be talking about JSF radar, latest there is. Now that one is now good enough to find targets in given area and designate target.

 

People has this fantasy idea that they can just turn radar on, and they find automatically all the units on the map, and can then just expand view to high resolution image and detect is it a T-90 or M1A1, and then designate target for GPS bomb.

 

LkrJuYCGDk0

 

 

That is highest resolution, so called medium resolution, you get with viper or hornet when you are at about 20 nmi from the target.

 

And that is easy area to observe, a completely flat airfield with large cargo aircrafts. You don't even need radar to attack at those targets, as you know where airport is and even the coordinates for those locations.

 

Now really wanted to perform a area search in wider view?

 

 

You can find hangars, see the strips, but everything else becomes just mushy, and you really need other intelligence to tell you where to look.

 

GMT for target detection? Yes, if talking about idiots on the ground who doesn't know how to conceal vehicles from radars, thermals and other means of observations.

 

Here are civilian traffic.

 

 

Now, a trained ground units are already concealed themselves in the gray period before the war. You will not spot them on the roads, you don't see colonnas moving, you don't see them in thermals. They become ghosts on the ground.

 

They are not going to park their vehicles on the open field, drive 5 meters apart and heat up everything as much they can.

 

Not all countries can do that, especially all you have is desert.

 

Since the thermal vision systems became a thing, those are used to check defensively own units. Own recon units tests own units locations etc to confirm that they are not easily detected by enemy.

 

That is the electronic warfare, that DCS is seriously lacking in. And mission designers when building missions.

DCS doesn't even have a basic logic for ground units to move safely.

 

It is like WW1 warfare with modern aircrafts.

 

People just think too much that A-G radar is like what JSF has... And that has great features.

 

 

Years ago ED presented their progress of A-G radar for hornet.

Today it is likely much better, but this is about what to expect:

 

 

Is that so easy to find targets? If someone doesn't tell you what exact location to go search for and observe, you are not going to find much. You are going to be looking things through TGP more when ever you can, than staring a small monitor with green pixels changing all the time.

 

This is reason why digital moving map is so great, that you know where you are, what you are looking at, and you get targets from datalink.

Radar adds just one small tool to update the digital map with another kind view. But it is not replacing targeting pod capabilities and usefulness.

 

DveRIIh6-_o

 

 

Now do that correctly, you combine it with surrounding real foliage elements, and you get same thermal picture as surroundings. You don't park in the open, but deep inside the forest. You use terrain as your cover.

 

 

The old school method works great. It is more work to do. But you get visually better results.

 

And there are countries that has the hornet we have in DCS, used in training to detect camouflaged tanks, defense positions, etc. And they can't do it, because well trained troops know how to hide from sensors very effectively.

 

It becomes cat and mouse game, that somehow someone spots someone. And typically that is recon teams behind enemy lines doing it visually and audibly. Not by pilot flying at high altitude and long range.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Fri13
Added YouTube video of F-16 A-G radar modes.

[Feuerfalke]

The F16 opens up the way to A2A, which none of the other modules at choice do.

I'd also generalize to say, dogfighting is probably the most complete feature of the module so far.

And yes, compared to almost any other module it is very much fly by wire.

 

Your other choices are more or less limited to groundattack.

For this role I still love to fly the A-10C and probably the most complete from avionics to physics and appearance with the new pit.

 

The AV8B probably offers you the better overall challenge, though.

It is a decent ground-pounder and really a handful to fly and land.

The AV8B feels so much more nimble and fun to fly and it also gives you a wider mission-spectrum on the long run.

You can even land on FARPs and do some SEAD.

[Hammer1-1]

 

In reality you are as accurate as someone tells you over radio that look at the hornet moving map, find there that and that road, and bomb 300 meters from that crossroad to East. And you need to do that blindly when flying over the overcast clouds at 15000ft.

 

In reality, you arent going to have boots on the ground everywhere your strike package goes. The F-18 doesnt have a radar comparible to JSTARS, but suggesting its practically worthless is stupid. You can use the GMT and MAP modes to target certain munitions by designating spots on the radar without the need to fiddle around with the TGP. Its not perfect, no. What the radar CAN do for the TGP is work together with each other to make target acquisition a little bit easier. That TGP isnt going to detect moving targets under foliage while the radar can. Again it has its uses. From my understanding, the Rhino has a better equipped radar for GMT and MAP mode with a higher resolution.

 

Also, the hornet doesnt use GMT over water; SEA mode is used for that. You use that mode AFAIK to acquire and designate smart weapons for antishipping from a standoff range. Im not sure about the F-16 and how its radar works; but I can assume that it performs essentially the same functions as the Hornet - albeit no naval capabilities. Dont take my word for it though, Im usually wrong.

[Kev2go]

Even prior to JSF there were already really good A/G radars.

 

 

 

DeHavilland DH-6 Twin-Otter ( used as test platform in 1999)

 

 

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a529750.pdf

 

 

 

 

Lynx radar was since implemented and employed on MQ9 reaper

Edited March 8, 2020 by Kev2go

[Fri13]

In reality, you arent going to have boots on the ground everywhere your strike package goes. The F-18 doesnt have a radar comparible to JSTARS, but suggesting its practically worthless is stupid.[/Quote]

 

There are far more effective radars on the sky, those are satellites. But those requires too much processing power and only used for various other tasks. Like long time surveillance and real-time special missions.

 

And I didn't say they are useless, but that people have way too high expectations from the generation that our fighters are about.

You get them work if you put them on DCS scenarios where there is few balls in billiard table and all are well known enemies. The real pilots has commented that A-G radar is more useful for sea operations than for finding ground targets.

 

In DCS you don't need a A-G radar when you already have a waypoint on the target.

In DCS ground units has never known how to hide.

Typical missions has units sitting ducks when "big 1000 meter tall red smoke comes from their location" -kind tasking.

 

Not so many is ready to fly night ops etc, without any information about enemy units or their positions etc. And it is always easier when you can respawn as you don't have one life only.

 

You can use the GMT and MAP modes to target certain munitions by designating spots on the radar without the need to fiddle around with the TGP. Its not perfect, no. What the radar CAN do for the TGP is work together with each other to make target acquisition a little bit easier. That TGP isnt going to detect moving targets under foliage while the radar can.[/Quote]

 

Now that GMT feature is for larger radars that actually can have capability penetrate foliage, but not our generation fighters. You can't even detect a common transition of the terrain so easily.

 

And you do want to get EO sensor there to confirm targets and get high accuracy position for bombing. Now if mission briefing says you have units X km from specific location, you have waypoint already there. You can just slave EO on the waypoint and that is it. If someone tells you area, you can slave EO there by using your moving map. Like if you need to bomb a bridge, you see that's location already on the map.

 

Where the A-G radar benefits come is the low visibility weather, so overcast with full cloud coverage at low altitude. But that means high winds typically and so on everything on the ground is moving at high speed. Your capability to detect a easy target moving becomes near zero.

 

If your troops gets attacked, you are not there playing with GPS bombs. You get JTAC designate targets below cloud cover, and you drop bombs above cloud cover. Accuracy is required as bomb has only time to spot laser spot once clears the cloud cover, but with training you work together. For Mavericks, you need to go low.

 

Are there benefits to drop GPS guided bombs on target acquired via A-G radar? Yes, but it start to be cumbersome in fast situations. That is what you want eyes on the ground and be able react quickly.

 

Again it has its uses. From my understanding, the Rhino has a better equipped radar for GMT and MAP mode with a higher resolution. [/Quote]

 

Again, far more advanced aircraft. Our APG-68(v5) is already old.

 

Also, the hornet doesnt use GMT over water; SEA mode is used for that.[/Quote]

 

Yes?

 

You use that mode AFAIK to acquire and designate smart weapons for antishipping from a standoff range.[/Quote]

 

Different thing as you are launching Harpoon and such active seeker weapons. Your task is to designate target and weapon will go there to find it.

And there ain't such thing as "stand-off" ranges. There is always someone with longer range.

 

 

Im not sure about the F-16 and how its radar works; but I can assume that it performs essentially the same functions as the Hornet - albeit no naval capabilities. Dont take my word for it though, Im usually wrong.

 

Those are from hornet, that you see from ED implementation.

 

When you get close enough with radar like 4-6 nmi you start to get a high resolution image with DBS2 (DBS3 becomes lower resolution at closer ranges).

 

AFAIK our hornet doesn't receive SAR capability, just that DBS2.

Both will have SEA mode. It doesn't get limited for Navy.

[Nimo]

Buy all three! All very cool Moduls!

[Kev2go]

The Hornet that is being simulated ( Circa 2005) already had AN/APG73 phase 2 radar by that point. IT has medium resolution SAR with up to EXP 3. This was also the same radar fitted to F/A18E/F super Hornets within Block 1 series production ( lots 21-25) and even until early block 2 production lots, before APG79 AESA radar was ready for operational use.

 

APG73 phase 2 > APG68 V5 ( both a2a and a2g).

 

It will be the Viper not the Hornet with its older radar that will be limited with A/G mapping to DBS2 for EXP2. Apparently only export users have had Vipers APG68 upgraded to V9 standards, which is the radar that would be considered comparable to the APG73 phase 2.

 

Marine operated F/A18D's with ATARS pod work in conjunction with APG73 to improvements to offer even further improved High resolution grade SAR with additional levels of EXP

Edited March 9, 2020 by Kev2go

[pszuch]

Nothing wrong with going the Track IR (or similar) route, but if you TRULY want to immerse yourself and feel like you are IN the aircraft, I highly recommend a VR headset. Once I started flying with the Oculus Rift S, I could never go back to looking at a 2D screen. VR does require a decent HOTAS setup though, as you cant see your keyboard. But believe me, it is the difference between looking at a cockpit on a screen vs actually sitting "in" the cockpit.

[Kev2go]

Nothing wrong with going the Track IR (or similar) route, but if you TRULY want to immerse yourself and feel like you are IN the aircraft, I highly recommend a VR headset. Once I started flying with the Oculus Rift S, I could never go back to looking at a 2D screen. VR does require a decent HOTAS setup though, as you cant see your keyboard. But believe me, it is the difference between looking at a cockpit on a screen vs actually sitting "in" the cockpit.

 

Not to mention you need even better hardware. I heard people with 2080s complain the still need to lower some settings to get better fps.

[Baco]

Well regarding the A-10, I would wait till the New Warthog comes out, so you don´t have to buy it twice.

 

the Harrier, yes more bugs maybe and even tho it is more feature complete as today, and it´s a more interesting bird in my opinion, will surely be on sale on the next season, while the Falcon will not. So if you are committed to buy a new module full price, today, go with the Viper. Its aplane you will want eventually, has lots of growing potential,and lots of systems to learn and enjoy in the end run, and its a cool jet ;).

 

I still don´t have it because of a mater of principles, but its a bird I will eventually buy from ED when they come through with a few things.

[kotor633]

As of now: Neither of them. Save the money. From my own experience: If that were the case, I would recommend the A-10C, F-14 or JF-17. Your money is better spent here.

[BigHairyGobbler]

How similar are the systems on the A-10C and the F-16C? If I learn on the A-10C can I transfer that knowledge pretty easily to the F-16C or do I have to relearn the F-16C systems?

[Hammer1-1]

Very different. Software for the F-16 is proprietary to Lockheed, therefore all the menus will differ greatly. The only thing physically that they have in common is the joystick, and even then half of those functions are different. On top of that, a lot of the A2G stuff is already said and done in the A-10 while theres a lot to be desired in the -16. But when it all comes down to it, I think the Lightning pod functions similarly in both aircraft. I dont think the A-10C ATM has Link16 (but the next module A-10 will?).

 

All in all, I think you'll manage.