Dee-Jay

Please read the thread. It was been explained already. Long story short: The meaning of "not wired" is not what you think. For ppl not accustomed to aeronautic development and upgrade process: It is not just a matter of adding two cable extensions. DCS F-16 has been announced and advertised as an USAF F-16C BLK50 from a specific era (additionally, it has also been advertised to never be a "Frankenviper").

Tell me in MP which airbase and maybe someday (?) I could visit you during one possible stopover and joint exercise. ...

Not surprising. 30Kts is very high speed for taxing. Do no turn above 10-15Kts. And I am speaking about slight tuns. For more reduce speed below 10Kts.

It is incredible guys ... after all those posts you still do not understand!? The USAF F-16C Blk50 can "carry" 4 HARM (technically, it is not the problem you can attach the missiles on pylons 4/7, it can be done for static displays for instance ... and the documentation is in accordance with this) ... but ... - USAF F-16C Blk50 are not wired to allow the use of them. (They are attached and that's it => dead weight). - USAF F-16C Blk50 are not certified to launch them (and, we are not 100% sure for now, but regular USAF F-16C Blk50 are maybe even not certified to fly with them out of flight test program requiring specific wavers and inducing specific operational and/or maintenance and/or flight limitations constrains ... etc ...). A jet fighter is not a car. You do not do what you want with it. (Sorry to say, but I have the feeling that some of you are not really aware of the general principles in aviation operation/industry).

Mirage 2000 ... In France we have C,B, -5, D and N models ... Other nations have also Mirage 2000, -9, EG, -5EBA ... etc ... Those are not the same planes. Each are VERY different. RAZBAM is simulating (rather correctly) the Mirage 2000C. F-16C/MLU looks the same, but blocks and tapes updates makes them VERY different also. They are not the same jet fighters. Question is: Is DCS F-16 going to be an USAF F-16C Blk50 simulation or not?

I bet on that one also. AFAIK, It is the only document they could refer to in order to went on their conclusion. As simple as this.

"Be careful" to such kind of shortcut Furiz. Basically you are right. But ... It is easy to know, by discussing "off line", if a member of a forum if reliable or not. Or at least in good faith. VERY easy actually. The "counter example" it also true ... sometimes : an "SME" is not always that much right as we could think. Most of the time, for good reasons. For example, let take a pilot, he do not know everything about his plane. And on many cases, a engine specialist or a crew chief ... will have more reliable info. and even sometimes a "simple" passionate because some ppl read all the books entirety and knows them by heart where most of the pilots do not. And I can tell you this because recently, I've learned something about my own plane from somebody who never flew onboard. Sometimes also ... an SME can be wrong about something simply because he didn't understood the question or because the question has been badly asked. And ... SME is like anybody else, they are human ... can make mistakes. Finally, a forum member can be an SME. The same way, an SME is not always a forum member. What is a shame is that exchanges about that is mostly unilateral. It is not a discussion ... it is a one way road.

A flight certification is not a matter of peace time vs war time. It is not allowed to fly with. Period. @RandomToten: "Display" is not necessarily for "public" (regular civilian) and can be (quite often BTW) for high rank authorities or industrial representatives. Live ordnance are not dangerous for public. Much less than an hydrazine leak. Are they actually true live missiles (?) We see an orange ring. Aren't they actually bronze color? ... I don't see what point you are trying to prove ... (?) ... you won't prove anything with only this. Not that they can be launch, nor the opposite. Again, personally I believe that ED a/c could launch AGM-88 from inner pylons for tests. But it change nothing to the fact that "regular" USAF airframe can't and finding prove that special test a/c can won't serve to advocate 4*HARM on the "regular" DCS F-16 BLK50.

Yes absolutely, it could be a live missile (but I must admit that I don't see well on your picture). I would even say that, if test conducted was about the 4/7 perfo and flight test, it shall better be a "live" missile to get the exact weight and GC than is real conditions. But as you know, it still do not tells us if they ever been launched from that station, even from test Edwards test a/c. (But I humbly think that at least those one were modified to allow the launch/jett test. Or at least jettison test, but this is only a personal guess with not a single clues).

Yep confirmed! ... That is good news, it helps a lot conditions for formation flight. Thank you Bignewy for info and correction.

Sorry ... I went a bit too fast ... It is ok with MK-20, but if your 1st post is showing CBU-87/97, then no, it is "not possible" (at least, not allowed). According to the docs, you can have CBU-87/97 on a TER pylon mounted on stat 4/6 only when carrying an AGM-88 (or nothing) on 3/7. Otherwise, if you want a full CBU-87/97, it is 8 maximum (2 + 2 + 2 + 2). On your picture , (on the F-16) the "6" and "5" should not by there.

If I am not wrong (it could depends on the munition type, to me what we see on the pic above are MK-20), the configuration shown on your 1st post is possible. However, you won't fly much more than 20min. And if you'd like a chance to react to any SAM or AA threat, either you jettison your stores, or you accept the punishment. EDIT: Limitations would be: 550KIAS / M0.95 maximum ... +4/-1Gs maximum.

It is also possible that even test airframes were not wired either and were only used for in flight aerodynamics tests (?) ... so far *we* (I) don't really know. On the picture, IIRC color code, both missiles on 4&6 have no rocket motor, and only one has a warhead (of seeker) ... Honestly I do not remember the color code (IIRC, blue is practice, brown is live), and marked sections (I think it is rocket motor, warhead, seeker). I've found this but I am no sure it applies to missiles (?) https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/4-30-13/appf.htm https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Markings/US_Ammo_Markings.htm I have my own reference book, but I think that USAF is (was?) not exactly the same than NATO codes. EDIT : https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,57249.msg632697.html#msg632697 NATO: - Blue (Deep Saxe Blue No 113) ring around a missile indicates this is a training missile and does not contain a live rocket motor. - Brown ring (Middle Brown No 411) around a missile body indicates the presence of low explosive i.e. a live rocket motor. - Orange (International Orange No 592) and black markings in the centre of the body and at the tail end of a missile indicate an evaluation version of the guided missile. - Yellow ring (Golden Yellow No 356) indicated the presence of high explosive ( i.e. a live warhead). US: - Light Blue FS35109 Training - Red-Brown FS30117 Low Explosive, denotes rocket motors on rockets and missiles. - Orange FS32246 Training/Tracking, this is the "other" Orange named International Orange, it is much "oranger" than the Redish tinted International Orange FS12197 ... - Yellow FS33538 High Explosive nose stripes on bombs, missile warheads, ... etc ...

I think that opening/closing rates are still off. (IIRC, should be roughly around 2s - 3s to open and about 6s to close (on ground). But I must admit that i didn't checked the very last update.

Don't use NWS above 50Kts ... even with cautious. For turns, limit your speed at about 5-10Kts (no need to check your INS to get a speed, do it simply visually, about the speed of a man walking or driving bicycle).

I do confirm that in the plane, time it has to be in Zulu. If not synced on Zulu time, some systems should not work properly.

Doesn't worth ... or simply not possible because of : missile/pylon separation unsafe due to local airflow interference, landing gear/door potentially conflicting in case of selective jettison like for some other pylons/racks, airframe masking the HARM sensors on those stations, issue on controllability or aerodynamic behavior issues on FLCS authority, asymmetric departures, elevators damaged/destroyed by missile flames, software incompatibilities in Mux buses ... etc ... could be tons of possible reasons.

Hi! We are speaking USAF right? Ok ... ... lets calculate (even a simple approximation) your maximum combat radius and associated Bingo and minimum fuel for such a configuration and on a SEAD task. Considering the center-line fuel tank (which has tendency to increase the risks of roll departure), you can consider a total fuel of about 9000lbs. And consider a safety fuel of about 1000lbs (for Blk50 IIRC), and a divert field located at about 50Nm away from the recovery airfield (considering good weather forecast). Roughly estimated : Safety fuel 1000lbs Divert fuel 50*20 (or 50*15+250 for one G/A) =1000lbs Joker 1000lbs Usable fuel 9000 - 3000 = 6000lbs Lets say Hi-Hi profile, 6000/15=400Nm => so about 400/8 = 50min of flight autonomy at M0.8 in best case scenario. So 25Min ingress, 25min egress. No playtime, no re-attack, no evasive, no holding plan ... Combat radius about 200Nm. For an IAF F-16I ... I could understand ... For USAF ... well ... I had an idea. And we are only speaking about the operational values of such configuration. Note also that what you are calling "two cables" ... is far from the reality. If is more weight, more software (do you an any idea how much cost one line of software code like this?), more maintenance, airframe modifications, possible power supplies modification, certifications ... etc ... it is a matter of few millions of $$$. It is far far from being simply a matter of "two cables". Of course ... (almost) anything is possible with $$$ ... we could also imagine USAF updates to carry MATRA MICA-IR, GBU-28 on stat 5 (center-line) ... etc ... But actually ... that is not the question. This is maybe something to deal with ML and USAF but is not a matter of ED's decision (if they want an accurate F-16 simulation). Regards.

Mmm ... in fact you're right. Money. This is quite sometimes THE problem indeed. This is why some ppl prefers to work for free, so that money is not an issue in producing an accurate F-16 simulation. However ... DCS aims quality also, I am sure about that. It is simply a matter of passion. It can't be only about money. And ditto Wags in his intro video of the DCS F-16 module just before its release: " ... will set the benchmark in F-16 simulation". So I hope that it will be. Still lot of work ... but I am patient and try to be confident and I think that, if some ppl bought the F-16 just because it can load 4 HARMs and not because it is an F-16, IMHO, they have simply badly chosen their horse. Regards.

Why?! ... Fixes comes every updates. (I do not remember how many times I changed/modified the DB of another sim to match the new information gained and along some RL tapes updates). For instance, the fact that the landing gear handle behavior is basically false doesn't mean that is can't and should not be fixed ... later on (in fact, as soon as possible because currently, it is "dramatically unsafe").

And ... "why" ... anyone would spend time doing this! Come on ... As MROK73 said, grab a -34 on the Web, and see by yourself.

We already had feedback from real "SMEs" (Not only here).

Hi Frederf! Check on latest (and older) version of US -34. It is written black on white that the HARM is not certified to fly on 4/6. MAYBE the he book is wrong but so far it is the only document I could trust. However, it is possible that Greece PX varients has been certified for it ... At least, documents seem to be confusing about it. So if ED are using Greek docs for their USF-16, I can understand that they might be also confused.

Correct. Also that AGM-88 are not certified on 4/6. At least not on US and Belgian MLU variants. This is clearly mentioned on US Dash-34 and on BAC MLU Tape xx upgrades publications.

I confirm it works. Thank you! Regards.