[NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR] GBU-54 for Hornet ?

[hotrod525]

With the upcoming GBU-54 LJDAM for A10C II, will it be port to F/A18C at the same time ? :) Might be "too wishfull" but it's worth asking :p

[DeathAngel1]

No.

[Swiftwin9s]

I can think of a few other weapons that are [NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR] that we have in dcs anyway.

[Andartu]

I can think of a few other weapons that are [NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR] that we have in dcs anyway.

 

+1

 

.. btw does anybody know if the USMC Legacy Hornets that are still in service utilize the GBU-54?

 

Did not find anything after a (very) quick google search, but maybe here is someone who knows that.

Edited September 24 by Andartu

[Swiftwin9s]

+1

 

.. btw does anybody know if the USMC Legacy Hornets that are still in service utilize the GBU-54?

 

Did not find anything after a (very) quick google search, but maybe here is someone who knows that.

 

Does it matter? USN legacy hornets used it before they retired anyway.

[Andartu]

Does it matter? USN legacy hornets used it before they retired anyway.

 

 

Fair enough. So in the end we -should- get them.

[hotrod525]

Does it matter? USN legacy hornets used it before they retired anyway.

 

 

Some "hardcore simers" might tear they shirt a part, like they did with the BRU-55A (the "smart rack" for JDAM) even tough' they could just not use it and deny it on their server :)

 

IMHO i think we should have it since it was used by the planes but that still just an opinion.

[Northstar98]

I can think of a few other weapons that are [NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR] that we have in dcs anyway.

 

Which out of curiosity?

 

Because personally, if it's compatible with our current Hornet, and the weapon doesn't come after the year our Hornet is supposed to represent, I don't see the issue.

[Swiftwin9s]

Which out of curiosity?

 

Because personally, if it's compatible with our current Hornet, and the weapon doesn't come after the year our Hornet is supposed to represent, I don't see the issue.

 

We are sold a mid-2000s hornet right? Yet we have SLAM which retired in 1999, and Walleye which retired in 1990s. Not to mention the AAMs, but I will ignore those.

[randomTOTEN]

Kind of funny how users have been very vocal that "APKWS doesn't require any changes to the jet to work!" and yet in the first implementation video released they have a custom weapon name in the DSMS for the A-10.

 

 

Seems that a lot of what people think is "strap on" really isn't.

[QuiGon]

Kind of funny how users have been very vocal that "APKWS doesn't require any changes to the jet to work!" and yet in the first implementation video released they have a custom weapon name in the DSMS for the A-10.

 

 

Seems that a lot of what people think is "strap on" really isn't.

Indeed!

[Northstar98]

We are sold a mid-2000s hornet right? Yet we have SLAM which retired in 1999, and Walleye which retired in 1990s. Not to mention the AAMs, but I will ignore those.

 

Thing is, are those weapons still physically compatible with our current Hornet? If yes, then IMO they can stay. If however they aren't compatible, then fair enough.

Edited October 1 by Northstar98

[Flagrum]

Kind of funny how users have been very vocal that "APKWS doesn't require any changes to the jet to work!" and yet in the first implementation video released they have a custom weapon name in the DSMS for the A-10.

 

 

Seems that a lot of what people think is "strap on" really isn't.

Yeah, a different name is a serious requirement which would make them, without it, totally inoperable. Probably the whole aircraft would blow up.

 

Or maybe it is just to help the pilot to select the correct variant if also regular rockets were loaded? Or perhaps even to tell the SMS that auto lase is an option for this kind of weapon?

 

There is still no technical necessity to have anything of that available on the aircraft, but of course it makes life easier.

 

(btw, noticed how the RKT reticle is still the original one? The rest of the SMS and the aircraft still sees them as dumb rockets ...)

[naizarak]

Yeah, a different name is a serious requirement which would make them, without it, totally inoperable. Probably the whole aircraft would blow up.

 

Or maybe it is just to help the pilot to select the correct variant if also regular rockets were loaded? Or perhaps even to tell the SMS that auto lase is an option for this kind of weapon?

 

There is still no technical necessity to have anything of that available on the aircraft, but of course it makes life easier.

 

(btw, noticed how the RKT reticle is still the original one? The rest of the SMS and the aircraft still sees them as dumb rockets ...)

 

 

will be interesting to test this out once the module releases. load laser rockets then manually designate them as regular hydras through the dsms. if everything is simulated correctly they should still work

[Eldur]

Kind of funny how users have been very vocal that "APKWS doesn't require any changes to the jet to work!" and yet in the first implementation video released they have a custom weapon name in the DSMS for the A-10.

 

 

Seems that a lot of what people think is "strap on" really isn't.

 

BAE Systems entered the chat and have

.

 

Then the DSMS for the A-10 is clearly wrong or, which is more likely, it is possible to put a different store type to the inventory on the DTS which makes sense if you might also carry unguided rockets at the same time so the DSMS doesn't pack them together. But it's not mandatory for the system to work at all.

[Harker]

BAE Systems entered the chat and have

.

 

Then the DSMS for the A-10 is clearly wrong or, which is more likely, it is possible to put a different store type to the inventory on the DTS which makes sense if you might also carry unguided rockets at the same time so the DSMS doesn't pack them together. But it's not mandatory for the system to work at all.

Interesting video. Indeed, they seem to be completely plug-and-play. After watching that, I'm leaning towards your opinion, that a custom store name was added to the A-10C DSMS, so that the pilot can select the correct store. But as far as the aircraft is concerned, it's 100% the same store as a normal rocket pod.

[dorianR666]

BAE Systems entered the chat and have

.

maybe they just meant no physical modification to the aircraft or launcher.

[MrReynolds]

Thankfully I used the SEARCH function before posting !!! :thumbup:

 

Just one of the Interweb returns:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usmc-ready-to-deploy-apkws-on-f-a-18-hornet/

 

That looks like a marine hornet to me.

 

I'm a +1 on the "go on, let us have these toys to play with!" crowd. Other weapons and planes have dissimilar loadouts to the variant / year.

 

Go on ED - you know it'll be 1 line of code and 30 seconds work ;););)

[Fri13]

Kind of funny how users have been very vocal that "APKWS doesn't require any changes to the jet to work!" and yet in the first implementation video released they have a custom weapon name in the DSMS for the A-10.

 

 

Seems that a lot of what people think is "strap on" really isn't.

 

It doesn't. If you don't know, contact to BAE and ask about it....

[Fri13]

maybe they just meant no physical modification to the aircraft or launcher.

 

No software, no hardware modifications needed or required....

[Fri13]

I can think of a few other weapons that are [NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR] that we have in dcs anyway.

 

Exactly.

 

And yet we have a Hornets flying in missions that are from future, or are from the history, against enemies that are not anymore in service or use on year Hornet is claimed to model....

 

Solution is simple.

 

You add all the weapons to DCS. You stamp them with the fiscal year they were in service for filtering. And you add weapons to all modules that are technically capable use them.

You make default official weapons loadouts as what has been used by the country for the task.

And then if players do not use the year/country filter, they get access to all weapons and can make a custom loadouts with them.

 

Nothing unrealistic is happening more than already now, and actually be more realistic than now argument "this module models year 2005 only".

[amalahama]

Then the DSMS for the A-10 is clearly wrong or, which is more likely, it is possible to put a different store type to the inventory on the DTS which makes sense if you might also carry unguided rockets at the same time so the DSMS doesn't pack them together. But it's not mandatory for the system to work at all.

 

I think this is basically correct, although APKWS has some sort of MIL-STD connector that may be used to change laser codes on the fly, for what it would require some sort of minor SW upgrade in the a/c. I guess this operational delta has been given to the Charlies, albeit not being strictly neccesary

[Ramsay]

I think this is basically correct, although APKWS has some sort of MIL-STD connector that may be used to change laser codes on the fly, for what it would require some sort of minor SW upgrade in the a/c.

 

AFAIK the laser code is set using dials on the side of the WGU-59/B body before it is loaded into the launcher.

 

 

It may be desirable to upgrade the system software as the WGU-59/B guidance unit adds 9lb (4.1 kg) to the missile's weight i.e. the missile may have a slightly different flight profile than standard and the SMS will need the weight to calculate weight & balance, etc.

Edited September 28 by Ramsay

[Andartu]

Exactly.

 

And yet we have a Hornets flying in missions that are from future, or are from the history, against enemies that are not anymore in service or use on year Hornet is claimed to model....

 

Solution is simple.

 

You add all the weapons to DCS. You stamp them with the fiscal year they were in service for filtering. And you add weapons to all modules that are technically capable use them.

You make default official weapons loadouts as what has been used by the country for the task.

And then if players do not use the year/country filter, they get access to all weapons and can make a custom loadouts with them.

 

Nothing unrealistic is happening more than already now, and actually be more realistic than now argument "this module models year 2005 only".

 

 

so much +1 for this

[hotrod525]

Exactly.

 

And yet we have a Hornets flying in missions that are from future, or are from the history, against enemies that are not anymore in service or use on year Hornet is claimed to model....

 

Solution is simple.

 

You add all the weapons to DCS. You stamp them with the fiscal year they were in service for filtering. And you add weapons to all modules that are technically capable use them.

You make default official weapons loadouts as what has been used by the country for the task.

And then if players do not use the year/country filter, they get access to all weapons and can make a custom loadouts with them.

 

Nothing unrealistic is happening more than already now, and actually be more realistic than now argument "this module models year 2005 only".

 

 

+2