F/A-18 pocket guide

[Kelevra]

I don't know if it is authorized to share real life aircraft documentation,

but I don't think this one is really sensitive, as it is already been made public quite long ago.

Here is the link to get the F/A-18 pocket guide.

 

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/f18-pocket-guide.pdf

[Tholozor]

Make sure the rule is completely understood, just to be safe.

Quote

1.16 Posting of images, file links, file sharing links, and copying and pasting information is prohibited if the source document is from a classified or ITAR controlled source.
When posting aircraft, sensor or weapon information more recent than 1980, you must also include the source of the document showing that it is 100% public and verified as not from a classified or non-ITAR controlled source. To not do so will result in the removal of the message.

 

Edited January 7 by Tholozor

[Kelevra]

1 hour ago, Tholozor said:

Make sure the rule is completely understood, just to be safe.

 

 

Roger That :)

[Bunny Clark]

Read the first page. This document is marked as Distribution Statement C, which is a restricted category. 

 

It's not classified, and plenty of Statement C info gets shared around here, as the NATOPS-000 manual is also Statement C. But strictly speaking I think only Statement A documents are 100% safe to directly post. 

[HILOK]

10 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

Read the first page. This document is marked as Distribution Statement C, which is a restricted category. 

 

It's not classified, and plenty of Statement C info gets shared around here, as the NATOPS-000 manual is also Statement C. But strictly speaking I think only Statement A documents are 100% safe to directly post. 

 

hey bunny clark, thanks for this super useful post -have been wondering about this for the longest time.

cheers

 

[Recluse]

Interesting: Full MAV Video with AGM-65E?????  Hey Chief of Naval Operations is this a bug?? 

 

[Tholozor]

Usually they refer to the feed from the weapon sensor to the aircraft as video. Same thing with the wiring on the F-16 with Mavs and HARMs, they're referred to as "video" cables.

[Recluse]

2 minutes ago, Tholozor said:

Usually they refer to the feed from the weapon sensor to the aircraft as video. Same thing with the wiring on the F-16 with Mavs and HARMs, they're referred to as "video" cables.

OK that makes sense.. thought it was odd to put it that way.

[fitness88]

Just curious...what is it about certain tech information which is already widely available on the internet that is considered inappropriate for posting? 

[Bunny Clark]

1 hour ago, Recluse said:

OK that makes sense.. thought it was odd to put it that way.

Yah, it's weird on the face of it. It's partly an aircraft wiring thing, but also literally true. The laser Mav actually sends the seeker image you see on the display as video. From a technical standpoint, and the aircraft's point of view, it's exactly the same. The video image is just generated by software in the missile instead of from an image sensor. It's even weirder to think of the HARM display as video, but that's also exactly what it is. The Hornet abstracts this a bit more, but it's why in the Viper both Maverick seeker video and the HARM HAS display are accessed from the WPN page, they both involve directly displaying a video signal from the weapon. 

 

54 minutes ago, fitness88 said:

Just curious...what is it about certain tech information which is already widely available on the internet that is considered inappropriate for posting? 

There are a few complexities to this, which as with most things legal and involving government, can get pretty weird. Part of it is how the government restricts document distribution. The Hornet manuals are listed as Statement C, which is approved for release to government employees and contractors only. This is basically a super broad version of "need to know" that primarily stipulates that a document is not really secret, but should not be shared widely with the public. Of course, humans being humans, and the internet being the internet, something like this that's not strictly protected and distributed widely to civilians outside the government ends up being posted somewhere, and it's not secret enough for the government to bother doing anything about. The other big deal here is ITAR, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. This is a US law with international scope designed to limit weapon trafficking and restrict international arms sales. It's shockingly easy to run afoul of ITAR in the flight sim world, because it considers the manuals and technical documents for weapon systems on the same level as weapons themselves, and it was written before the internet. This means that posting a fighter aircraft manual on-line can be considered an international transfer of a restricted weapon system, which is very bad. 

[fitness88]

3 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

Yah, it's weird on the face of it. It's partly an aircraft wiring thing, but also literally true. The laser Mav actually sends the seeker image you see on the display as video. From a technical standpoint, and the aircraft's point of view, it's exactly the same. The video image is just generated by software in the missile instead of from an image sensor. It's even weirder to think of the HARM display as video, but that's also exactly what it is. The Hornet abstracts this a bit more, but it's why in the Viper both Maverick seeker video and the HARM HAS display are accessed from the WPN page, they both involve directly displaying a video signal from the weapon. 

 

There are a few complexities to this, which as with most things legal and involving government, can get pretty weird. Part of it is how the government restricts document distribution. The Hornet manuals are listed as Statement C, which is approved for release to government employees and contractors only. This is basically a super broad version of "need to know" that primarily stipulates that a document is not really secret, but should not be shared widely with the public. Of course, humans being humans, and the internet being the internet, something like this that's not strictly protected and distributed widely to civilians outside the government ends up being posted somewhere, and it's not secret enough for the government to bother doing anything about. The other big deal here is ITAR, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. This is a US law with international scope designed to limit weapon trafficking and restrict international arms sales. It's shockingly easy to run afoul of ITAR in the flight sim world, because it considers the manuals and technical documents for weapon systems on the same level as weapons themselves, and it was written before the internet. This means that posting a fighter aircraft manual on-line can be considered an international transfer of a restricted weapon system, which is very bad. 

WOW! [I don't mean weight on wheels]

Thank you for that explanation I never would have thought along those lines.  I'm sure many people innocently run afoul of these rules, both international and here...thanks again!

[Bunny Clark]

1 hour ago, fitness88 said:

WOW! [I don't mean weight on wheels]

Thank you for that explanation I never would have thought along those lines.  I'm sure many people innocently run afoul of these rules, both international and here...thanks again!

You want a fun tale do some Googling about a DCS developer running afoul of ITAR. That case was just resolved fairly recently, and it's one of the reasons the forums are fairly strict about posting documents. 

[fitness88]

On 1/8/2021 at 8:35 PM, Bunny Clark said:

You want a fun tale do some Googling about a DCS developer running afoul of ITAR. That case was just resolved fairly recently, and it's one of the reasons the forums are fairly strict about posting documents. 

Good to know...thanks!