jojojung

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.

Any progress on this topic?