jojojung

I think you will get enough data to implement it in DCS. We have the avionics and you get a rough view of the capabilities from Open source available sheets and videos. Maybe its not 100% accurate because of classified data but is the burning time and range of the aim120 100% accurate in DCS? I think its not because of classified information. But of course the aim120 is modeled in the game. DCS itself an any simulated system can not be 100% accurate, thats part of the deal. It is always a compromise. So in my point of view try it as close as you can and go for it. With this mindsetting you will get enough data for the Sniper pod, I think.

Yes indeed, always the same thing with the viper systems! Pronounced something to come like the sniper pod. And then cancel it because less available data...!!! Sorry that I have to say that: ED, thats a shame in my opinion. And a punch in the viper community face again! There are more or less the same data available like for the atflir pod for the hornet. This was done like always for the hornet! There is another sim out there which modeled the Sniper Pod quite well, with real F-16 pilots in there dev-team! So ED has only to look at this and the capabilities of the sniper pod and more or less copy paste it. But ED said there are not enough data available, sorry but thats bullshit! I think i worked out like this: ED: "Wait, another pod for the viper? But we have to do the Apache and the hind. I have an idea: So we say we dont have the information, the viper community will understand that as always!" As it can be read out, I'm a little bit angry about yet another canceled system!

I think thats only possible with creating a steerpoint at the target

Yes, please make a seperate thread about that TWS feature to get the right attention and get it fixed by the ED Viper Team!

Same here

I think there is a drag bug in the F18 FCS at the moment. Maybe related to my reportings in this thread: But ED is investigating this since feb. with no answer yet

Like I said, i was researching for another topic and fall over this issue.

I think thats too much speculation. When many planes does testing on this it would not be done to only want to know if the viper can carry this missiles for transport use only. I think they tested the operational usage for sure. Why they didnt make it to the actuel piectime certified loadouts I dont know either. Maybe because its simply not nessecarry in piecetime. Maybe for security reasons, I dont know. I only want to show that it was done with quite some planes of the block 50. But I will let you know when I get more information, OK? Above in this topic guys said that it was 100% never done without any proof and influenced this poll, so I dicided to do some research. But now its closed allready!

I cant say what the result of this testing was. I dont know them but the autor says that "normaly two HARMS" indicating that there are special cases for 4 HARMS but thats my interpretation. To resolve this I have send an E-Mail to the Website and hope to contact the autor Lt. Carl Krittenden. But there was so much written in this topic here about, never a single time on the block 50 etc. and this is the proof that the HARMS on 4 and 6 worked. If they were put into service I can not say but I will try to find it out!

Then took off the walleye II because when your f18c of about 2005 was in service the Walleye was not in service for the hornet for years!

This is the proof, that they tested it! On the website: f-16.net you find an discription of the Block 50 USAF. And Lt. Carl Krittenden can be quoted form this artikel: "Two HARM missiles are normally carried on a typical SEAD mission, however, 4-missiles loads are currently being test-flown at Eglin AFB." In the following context of this artikel you can clearly see, that this test were done a log time before 2007. The artikel itself is a very old one. I already had contacted the website and the autor. Ehlin AFB was not a test site like Area 51 or was a testsite for manufactors only. No it was a regular AFB and they tested it multiple times with normal block 50 USAF planes. Thats the exact proof of concept we all are searching for. LINK: https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html

Yeah I know. Kind of confusing! In german wikipedia it is said that two stations can be loaded with 2x Tripple Racks = 6 and on the onther to stations a TER with two gbu-12 only = 4. Total GBU-12 = 10. Would be the same loadout type like with the CBU-97 at the moment in DCS.

No i german it is said, that 3 on each TER and in total (= total payload GBU-12 incl. other stations) 10

Agreed! Youre right back to this particulare topic. Probably only an impression that realism issues for the viper are immedeately discussed while realism issues for other planes are still accepted since years and nobody cares about. I fly the hornet fairly oftem am I like it very much. But its systems must be treated the same scaptical way that the viper does.

Youre right and I understand that. But how to explain then the laser code change in flight with GBU-12 and the magic HARM seeker f.e. in the Hornet or the not nessecarelly boresight MAV in the A10? No community polls for this realism errors since years. Realisim is not a one way direction for only a few modules while other modules dont get fixed in therms of realism. So to follow your words you cant play the Hornet and the A10 at the moment because of many simplified sytems right? I personally find it difficult when the killer argument "realism and real simulation" is only used in a one way direction. Either this is a principal for all modules or for none.

Here are 2 track files that shows that there is no real drag difference between a single rack and a double rack AIM 120c. Can someone confirm this bug? Both tests are tested under the exact same conditions. I just set up the same standart mission in the editor on Persian Golf map. Startet at 20.000 ft with 300kn, flight duration about 3 minutes. I have 10% fuel load and unlimeted fuel acitated for the testing on both flights. Payload is: Flight 1: 4 single rack AIM120 and the rest clean; Flight 2: 4 double rack AIM 120 and the rest clean. As soon i get controll I go to full burner and put on the Autopilot (BALT and ATTH). There are maybe some small difference because the press of the AP doesnt get exactly the same millisecond. With time stamps i get the following outcomes: Singe Rack: 1 min = 462 kn, 1:30 min = 472kn, 2 min = 476kn, 3 min = 480kn Double Rack: 1 min = 459 kn, 1:30 min = 470kn, 2 min = 475kn, 3 min = 479kn Top Speed and acceleration does not really change because of single or double racks. This is really unrealistic, isnt it? Or did I miss something? F18 RACK Speed Test 20000 FOUR DOUBLE Racks.trk F18 RACK Speed Test 20000 FOUR SINGLE Racks.trk

Yeah thats the point! Thats how it works at the time. It would think that in a real wartime situation there would be a buildup to the vipers but I know thats hypothetical and difficult to proof in our situation.

thats an absolut understandable point of view! No question about that! But I'm sure there are other understandable view pionts out there.

ATFLIR is not a good comparision in this case. ATFLIR is total incompartible because of software, avionics etc. HARM are already implemented in the avionics and software of the viper. I understand your point but just in this case the viper can physically use them. Physical is the wrong therm to your argument. The Airframe would do it, the strukture will do it, the software etc can do it. But it can not use them because the avionical connaction is not there thats correct. As you said it (physically) is not correct.

Sure there are. With the skript of available recource managent. So the ammunition on the airport where the planes get started is limited. But this is a very laborios way to get it done.

So what do we all want? Above and in the Internet there is evidance that the Harms can be loaded and use (with little modifications) on station 4 and 6 but its not certified. Do we want a simulator for exact 2007 and peacetime with only limited war operations or do we want to simulate wartime. For myself its absolutely clear that in wartime and if the national guard has to do a SEAD operation within 200 nm and all depends on this sead operation, nobody will care about the one piecetime certification. In the military there are a lot of regulations on many systems in peacetime to take effort to security reasons and to reduce the chance of accidents. Of course there must be a red line to dont get frankensteins planes but if its possible from the manufactor side of view and only a country decide not to use it in peacetime thats a different case.

Just seen while researching another topic: In the german wikipedia there is a 10 GBU 12 in total listed as regular payload for the viper but with the BRU-42 TER. Quote: "2 × BRU-42 TER (Triple Ejection Rack) mit je drei (total zehn) Raytheon GBU-12 „Paveway IV“ (lasergelenkte Gleitbombe 227 kg/500 lb)" english: 2 × BRU-42 TER (Triple Ejection Rack) with 3 each (in total ten) Raytheon GBU-12 „Paveway IV“ (laserguided Glidebomb 227 kg/500 lb) Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16

I think you dont get the point of me. Nothing wrong to my statement. I know, In the Hornet all the options are possible because there was no real alternative when it was on service in the NAVY. Do you think the USAF doesnt have the capability to make the cable work for 4 and 6? But it was never introduced because there was no real use in peacetime because of alternatives. Yes your absolutly right the Hornet can get 10 AIM120. Is this a usefull payload? I think with the engine of the hornet we do not discuss this here. Maybe there are some special cases or emergency conditions for the 10 AIM 120 Hornet - you never know - and exact therefor it was tried and it was put to a valid payload. Now think what the airforce would say if they need a 10 AIM 120 machine? Guess what, they pic the F15E. There is no guy who says, "remember the Viper can do this job too we only need to put some cables on" because there was a better airplane with more powerful engines to get this special job done. Would you agree sofar? Thats why I said, the Hornet guys are in a more luckly situation, because the NAVY tried everything on the hornet that was thinkable, it was their only oppertunity. The Viper has a bigger brother and the need to maximize the skills of the Viper was not that necessary. Was the hornet ever used with 8 JSOWs? I think not, but as you said, its possible.

Thanks a lot!

The problem is that the hornet was the only multirole aircraft for the navy, so they make everthing possible in case of loadout etc. because there was no alternative. In the USAF many possible thinks, like put some wires to some pylons and it would all be working fine, was not implemented in peacetime because there was no big preasure to do this. Ecspecially in the Air National Guard. In the USAF in 2007 was a F15 E which had a lot of more payload options, so there was no need to do the cable with pylon 4 and 6. In case of a real war, were the 2007 F16 of the USANG would really go to combat, this cable fixes would be done quickly for sure. So for the hornet guys its easy to say: "unrealistic". I think a hornet with 10 AIM 120 is more unrealistic in case of a real war, but it was tried on the hornet, because there was no F15E or anything else for the NAVY. I think ED must find the balance for themselves but its importand to see the things from different viewpoints. Maybe the "unrealistic" killer argument is not the only and the best way to handle this well.