Jump to content

Litening pod on station 4 not supported in 2005?


deadpool
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

According to the supplemental budget in FY 2007 this capability was only requested to be funded in 2007:

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/08pres/supplemental/FY07_Supplemental.pdf

page 251.

 

This would put it outside the 2005 timeframe.


Edited by deadpool
  • Like 2

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the information I will pass it to the team, however I am marking this correct as is for now. 

 

thank you

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the supplemental budget in FY 2007 this capability was only requested to be funded in 2007:
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/08pres/supplemental/FY07_Supplemental.pdf
page 251.
 
This would put it outside the 2005 timeframe.
ED has stated that our Hornet is from the 2007 timeframe. Yet had initially mentioned 2005. 165407 was also the second to last charlie model and the most modern USN F/A-18C.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk



Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

ED has stated that our Hornet is from the 2007 timeframe. Yet had initially mentioned 2005. 165407 was also the second to last charlie model and the most modern USN F/A-18C.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


 

No factor.

 

a) Financially trying to get funds for this in 2007 doesn't mean it was available on the jet in 2007. That's very optimistic. 

b) 

 
It's a 2005 hornet, not 2007. 

  • Like 1

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

What about other countries though?  US funding doesn't necessarily tell us what other operators were doing.  

Q: What version of the Hornet is included?

A: United States Navy / US Marine Corps F/A-18C in the 2005 time frame.

 

I think that kind of rules out other countries.

  • Like 2

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No factor.
 
a) Financially trying to get funds for this in 2007 doesn't mean it was available on the jet in 2007. That's very optimistic. 
b) 
 
It's a 2005 hornet, not 2007. 
On Feb 20th BIGNEWY replied to the Event mark toggles SA EXP thread saying
"The data we have specific to the 2007 hornet and HMD..."

Not the first time they have said something along the lines of "wouldn't be accurate for our 2007 Hornet" so I doubt it's a typo. Anyways, we have a bunch of stuff from different year OFPs atm.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, deadpool said:

Q: What version of the Hornet is included?

A: United States Navy / US Marine Corps F/A-18C in the 2005 time frame.

 

I think that kind of rules out other countries.

Well, except for the fact that the Lightening pod ours is modeled after in the first place is Spanish, and other examples...

 

Point is, our Hornet is a bit of a mishmash of tech from different eras and services.  It's just a matter of where data could be found. 


Edited by Stearmandriver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Well, except for the fact that the Lightening pod ours is modeled after in the first place is Spanish, and other examples...

 

Point is, our Hornet is a bit of a mishmash of tech from different eras and services.  It's just a matter of where data could be found. 

 

 

Doesn't matter.

What matters is where the umbilical is for the pod to even go. And that's not the Station 4 for 2005/2007 Hornets.

 

Fun story. The FA18C wasn't able to take advantage of digital connections for the AIM-9X on the wingtips until it received an upgrade to digitalize the wingtips. Before that it would only run in fallback analog modes. Again, the weapon didn't change, it was the pylon / connector that was at fault. Same for the Litening pod connector here.

  • Like 1

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stearmandriver said:

I believe that, and you're making my point.  We don't HAVE a 2005 US Hornet.  We don't have ANY particular Hornet.  We have A Hornet lol. 

 

What I understand is:

 

- We have the US Marine Corps / United States Navy Hornet

- We have a spanish TPod for it.

  • Like 2

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure.   With some weapons / sensors / tech from earlier blocks, and some from later blocks, and mostly US tech, and some Spanish tech lol.  That's what I'm saying... worrying about 1 pod mounting system with all the other mish-mash seems a little bit picky.  If you're simulating a Hornet that can't carry a pod on the cheek in your particular mission, isn't it easy to just not put a pod on the cheek? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's not up to me to decide whether this will be taken out of the game or not. I know that historical accuracy has been an important topic especially for the F-16CM modelled in DCS.

I simply gave realistic input on the situation in the hope of making the overall game a bit more realistic.

 

---

 

that aside: I understand that the Hornet takes a lot of liberties already in terms of availability of certain modules / upgrade kits that were not available in big numbers for the Lot XX F18C in 2005. The one we have in our game is one of the few airframes (most likely United States Navy, as the Marines upgrades always lagged behind a bit) that received almost all of the bigger upgrade kits (which seems to be a very lucky coincidence for those that fly the FA18C in DCS). (You can look through the financial budgets here for more details).

I am not also not here to question the decision to add foreign operated pods (which as I understood it was taken purely for legal matters as for documentation, etc.). That is absolutely understandably answered by NineLine in the post about the pod.


Edited by deadpool
  • Like 3

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not up to me to decide whether this will be taken out of the game or not. I know that historical accuracy has been a high topic especially for the F-16CM modelled in DCS.
I simply gave realistic input on the situation in the hope of making the overall game a bit more realistic.
 
---
 
that aside: I understand that the Hornet takes a lot of liberties already in terms of availability of certain modules / upgrade kits that were not available in big numbers for the Lot XX F18C in 2005. The one we have in our game is one of the few airframes (most likely United States Navy, as the Marines upgrades always lagged behind a bit) that received almost all of the bigger upgrade kits (which seems to be a very lucky coincidence for those that fly the FA18C in DCS). (You can look through the financial budgets here for more details).
I am not also not here to question the decision to add foreign operated pods (which as I understood it was taken purely for legal matters as for documentation, etc.).
We have F/A-18C lot 20 165407. This is the last and most modern USN Hornet. (165408 went to VMFAT-101)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

We have F/A-18C lot 20 165407. This is the last and most modern USN Hornet. (165408 went to VMFAT-101)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

 

I understand that, but it's not a factor. Even the 165407 will have been upgraded further with upgrade kits, OSIPs, etc. (as you can read from the financial reports).

This is important alone as to keep the airframe structure flying safely until the FA-18C is replaced fully from US DoD inventory.

 

The 165407 was build in 1998, right? So it wouldn't have had that capability from the get-go either. So my reported issue stands valid for all I know.

 


Edited by deadpool

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I understand that, but it's not a factor. Even the 165407 will have been upgraded further with upgrade kits, OSIPs, etc. (as you can read from the financial reports).
This is important alone as to keep the airframe structure flying safely until the FA-18C is replaced fully from US DoD inventory.
 
The 165407 was build in 1998, right? So it wouldn't have had that capability from the get-go either. So my reported issue stands valid for all I know.
 
Wait, this is contradictory to what you were previously saying. Now you are saying that we should have x because it was added later and the 2005/2007 Hornet is the "minimum"?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hulkbust44 said:

Wait, this is contradictory to what you were previously saying. Now you are saying that we should have x because it was added later and the 2005/2007 Hornet is the "minimum"?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

 

No it is not.

 

The Hornet ingame is - according to the post from ED I quoted - in a state from ca. 2005.

 

Now what can that mean?

 

165407 was build in 1998 (I think).

So assuming it had every upgrade that was available in 1998 and that earlier lot numbers got via upgrade kits it had from the get-go that still leaves the time period of 1998 to 2005 in which it would have been continously upgraded. With which kits, we don't know, but I assumed that we got really really lucky and that it got all of the big and important kits.

 

Now even if that was the case, there is no chance - except for wrong documentation to congress, failure for me to understand the documents, or violations of causality in this universe that a financial requested enhancement for the FA18C fleet that was thought up and requested in 2007 ended up happening before congress was asked for money for it in 2005. (As said by me earlier, even 2007 itself as a year seems unrealistically short duration between requesting (and not necessarily getting) the money, and then acting upon that with development, test and rollout to the fleet).

 

While I really have no problem explaining it more, it starts to reach a point where I would expect everyone who takes flying the virtual FA18C seriously and realistically would understand it.

 

@BIGNEWY might want to close the thread I assume.

  • Like 2

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stearmandriver said:

This, uh... is a video game ;).

 

So again, if you want your Hornet to not have a pod on the cheek, why can't you just not put a pod on the cheek? Why would this seem to require some response from the devs?

 

I answered it here:

39 minutes ago, deadpool said:

It's not up to me to decide whether this will be taken out of the game or not. I know that historical accuracy has been an important topic especially for the F-16CM modelled in DCS.

I simply gave realistic input on the situation in the hope of making the overall game a bit more realistic.

 

But I understand that you do not necessarily want a realistic FA18C then. Noted. I don't need to argue with you then, because we have different ideas about what this games goals are.

Most important though is what ED's goals are. As I said, my suspicious are that they wante it as realistic as can be. If I am mistaken, then I'll accept that and not bother with any further reports on realism. But I am quite sure that my perspective is more in line with ED's than yours. No offense.

  • Like 1

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, my point about it being a game is that it's not reality; therefore, it does not exist in some immutable form that is by necessity the same for everyone.  You have control over it, is what I'm saying. 

 

Honestly, if you think operating software bears much resemblance to flying an actual aircraft, you're in for a world of more disappointment than just where a pod is hanging ;).  But it is fun of course; that's why we're all here. 

 

But you're not answering the question; I'm honestly curious: if you want there to not be a pod on the cheek, why would this require dev action?  You, yourself, have 100% control over that, don't you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

No, my point about it being a game is that it's not reality; therefore, it does not exist in some immutable form that is by necessity the same for everyone.  You have control over it, is what I'm saying. 

 

Honestly, if you think operating software bears much resemblance to flying an actual aircraft, you're in for a world of more disappointment than just where a pod is hanging ;).  But it is fun of course; that's why we're all here. 

 

But you're not answering the question; I'm honestly curious: if you want there to not be a pod on the cheek, why would this require dev action?  You, yourself, have 100% control over that, don't you? 

The difference is that people can load unrealistic loadouts that are possible. Like the triple-rack mavericks on the A-10C that would never be used in real life because of wheel wear and such. I'm completely fine with that as it's a real world possibility. The difference here is that it is physically impossible for a 2005 USN/USMC F/A-18C to utilize a litening pod on the cheek stations. It's the same as putting MK-84's on your wingtip rails. It's not unrealistic but possible, it's unrealistic and impossible. That's the difference.

 

If this sort of stuff doesn't matter, why even pretend to model a specific lot or a specific timeframe of F/A-18C? Just call it F/A-18Z Death Hornet, give it a 2nd millenia timeframe and do whatever you want with it. But that's not what ED's outspoken goal is and that's not how they market DCS nor the F/A-18C module.

  • Like 3

-Col. Russ Everts opinion on surface-to-air missiles: "It makes you feel a little better if it's coming for one of your buddies. However, if it's coming for you, it doesn't make you feel too good, but it does rearrange your priorities."

 

DCS Wishlist:

MC-130E Combat Talon   |   F/A-18F Lot 26   |   HH-60G Pave Hawk   |   E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound   |   EA-6A/B Prowler   |   J-35F2/J Draken   |   RA-5C Vigilante

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, deadpool said:

What matters is where the umbilical is for the pod to even go. And that's not the Station 4 for 2005/2007 Hornets.

It's not clear if this is a wiring issue, a mounting issue, or a stores certification issue. Hornets were already carrying Nighthawk on that station, and USN Hornets were receiving ATFLIR, so wiring for some form of video and data was clearly available. Your source also insinuates that some USMC F/A-18Ds already had the capability to mount Lightening (or maybe ATFLIR? It's unclear) to station 4, further confusing the issue. 

 

The source certainly raises interesting questions, but I wouldn't call it definitive. Especially since our module is primarily a USN one, with Lightening added mostly as a gap filler before ATFLIR was developed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rlaxoxo said:

Imho I think LITENING pod should be removed because now we have ATFLIR and we only had LITENING pod because we ATFLIR wasn't ready.

 

Station 5 mounting is still entirely realistic for a shore-based USMC Hornet in our time frame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BIGNEWY locked this topic
  • 1 month later...

Please reopen 

 

 

in light of

 

 

Thanks.

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...