Dee-Jay

What type of planes? I also rolled 135° in a TB-30 two minutes behind a C-160. At 1500ft AGL, it is indeed unpleasant. A TB-30 is about 1500Kg, a C-160 is twenty times more. I went a fair amount of times on Alpha Jet in the wake turbulence (and jet wash) of another Alpha Jet, and/or M2000 behind M2000, and/or Mirage F-1 ... I only recall about AoA variations and fair vibrations. IIRC, on that one I take the wake of the lead at ... not catastrophic. I just loose some energy and can't stick the lead anymore after, so I have to ease the stick and go below him to let my jet "breathe". Far from what I see in game in term of force and amplitude.

You have a part of the answer. - Originally, stat 4/6 was "supposed" to carry the HARM, so technically, they can be mounted on stat 4/6 (this is why the configuration code is present in PACAF configuration list) and this is why can find some (rare) pictures of Edwards flight test center tests a/c with 4 HAMS ... but ... - Like for some other loads, stat 4/6 couldn't be certified for HARM (certainly because of missile flame potentially damaging the stab, and can damage/collide with main gear and main gear doors in case of Jett. - Since they could not be certified, stat 4 & 6 has not been wired which saves weight and cost. - SEAD tasks requires a fair amount of combat fuel to face the threat with a minimum of combat radius. Except in IAF, any A/G operational configuration includes 330Gal fuel tanks. So ... they can be loaded, yes, but can not be used/fired from stat 4 & 6. You will find so pictures no videos showing an AGM-88 fired from stat 4/6. That does not exist. Previous thread has been closed before being able to be explained. Regards.

HARM are not certified on Stat 4/6 ... It is clearly written black and white on real Blk50/52 Dash34.

No idea. I am also not 100% objective because I am basing my comment on personal experience (5500+ flight hours on various military aircraft), not on factual physical figures. I admit it. I can just tell you that, if F-16 wake in DCS is realistic, I would never dare to flight in close formation, or trail, or change wing ... etc ... with that a/c in real ... even if it was (still is) one of my dreams, I would refuse to fly in backseat even if I were invited by the Thunderbirds. Again, based on my personal jet-plane and turboprop experience, I would rather imagine a kind of turbulence/vibrations. Never something able to roll you upside down. This: No way.

F-16 behind F-16 is clearly way way overdone. If it was like this, formation flight in close would be forbidden. Wing change also. What you see in game is rather equivalent to an F-16 behind a C-5.

Not a bit exaggerated ... A LOT exaggerated. (Better doing without at this stage).

You are underestimating what "wiring" could implies in terms of costs and various technical issues. Cheers!

I do somehow admit it. :thumbup: I know and I perfectly understand. It is the same on our side. :smilewink: I am simply using Occam's razor to make my mind considering that (unless I am proven wrong) nobody ever captured a picture or a video of HARM launched from 4/6 station + docs I have + testimonies we have from driver and crew chiefs (including here, and there) ... etc ... Your options. I believe that 4 should please more ppl. So ... in any cases, it should be a good choice.

And MOSIKT on Su27/33 also I think (to be confirmed). M2000 can also carry the AASM, flight test has been conducted, but operational use could not been certified.

Can't really tell you. Maybe also those publications has been made before flight certification attempts (?) ... or ... describes some conveying configurations allowed under wavers just like for the LAU-88 operational use (?) Could also be for ground static displays only (!?) ... I don't know.

Which is perfectly correct and valid, even today. Same about the PACAF publication. But carrying/loading a store on a station do not mean it is usable (think conveying for instance). :smilewink:

We are speaking about F-16 Simulation right? Following this logic: May we ask then for MK-8x, GBUs, AGMs, ... etc ... on center-line station 5? So we could load more and still allows ppl to stick with reality by not loading weapons on that station. I can also imagine ALQ-131 on wingtips. :) Fair! Isn't it? ;)

While we can argue about the LAU88 and triple AGM-65s on pylons, the AGM-88 not being usable on stat 4/6 is not a matter of F-16 version.

I would just balance a little bit: Information present in documentation are usually reliable (fortunately) ... but ... not always 100% correct. But in that case, I would bet a good and expensive restaurant, no prob. ;)

Normal. This is not allowed by forum's rules (1.16). Make you opinion with what you have. You are free to believe what you like or prefer. Kind regards.

Nope. Just the wrong road. They obviously didn't. (or willfully ignored it?) I am indeed a kind of SMEs. Not for ED though. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4492530&postcount=118 Which is, so far, more than you (and/or ED) provided. ;) Regards.

ED makes video games. At some point they have to trust ppl. Their SMEs has been proven wrong several times. (which can always happens even with engineers and pilots ... nobody knows everything ... nobody is perfect). I also have my own SMEs about F-16 (I do also consider myself as SME in military aviation matters) ... and it is known for about two decades that F-16 can't operate the HARM from station 4 and 6. This is not something new. ED has simply to read what is written in avionics documentation saying that HARM is loaded onto a LAU-118 launcher and communicates with the F-16 avionic system through the Aircraft Launcher Interface Computer (ALIC). If the ALIC at a station is not operating properly, the missile at that station is inaccessible. The ALIC is specially designed for F-16 use. ALIC interface is not compatible with station 4 and 6. Also HARM weapons can be loaded into inventory via the DTE or the MFDS. A HARM must be loaded on a LAU-118 launcher, which is available in the rack menu for stations 3, 4, 6, and 7. Note that stations 4 and 6 have not been certified to allow the carriage of HARM. ...

Hi Bignewy! Curious to know what they are! May we ask to tell us what are they?

Hi! It is not policy nor procedure. You are confusing with LAU88 and AGM-65. Ed found no evidence since they do not exists. Ed has only considered that, since AGM-88 can be loaded on station 4/6, then it should be possible to use them. This is the first point. Next ... QuiGon can hardly prove that AGM-88 can't be used on station 4/6 since they can be loaded on those pylons and then, he can't show you any video were an AGM-88 mounted on station 4/6 is not fire while pilot would like to fire them! But on your side, you can try to find any picture or video (on non Edwards test jets) proving that AGM-88 can be fired from station 4/6. We gave (well knows for years) explanations why HARMs can't be use in 4/6 ... up to you now to prove those arguments to be false. ;) (my guess is that many ppl here do not want to know the truth and prefer to disregard clues elements because whatever the truth, they would prefer more "ammo" on their wings for game/fun/scores purpose) Regards.

It is listed in PACAF docs because F-16 can fly with HARMS loaded on inner pylon (just like for BLU-109 without guidance devices and 3*AGM-65 ...) But flying with loads (conveying for instance) do not mean you can employ them for technical/software reasons ... or that employment has been certified. F-16s can certainly fly with SBU-38 SBU-54 or SBU-64 attached ... but won't be able to use them as weapon without proper software updates (at least).

No F-16 in the world (*) has been wired to operate AGM-88 on inner pylons. You can attach AGM-88 on inner pylon ... but they won't be linked to any electrical system except the SEL/EMER Jettison. In other words ... you can do nothing with them. (*) except maybe some test a/c to experiment the aerodynamic configuration and/or separation and launch.

Agree.

Hi! Post#17 The 800KIAS/M1.2 (<30,000ft) / M2.05 (>30,000ft) limitation is from -1 F-16 FLIGHT MANUAL in ENGINE OPERATIONAL ENVELOPE diagrams (figure 5-3). And probably because F-16 don't have a variable geometry inlet. Airframe structural dynamic pressure limitation is certainly way above that (I hope for F-16 pilots) but it is written nowhere in the book. Cheers.

-1 SYSTEM AIRSPEED LIMITATIONS Refer to Figure 5-3, Figure 5-5, and Figure 5-6. MAXIMUM AIRSPEED OPERATING LIMITATIONS Refer to Figure 5-3. Maximum operating airspeed is 800 knots from sea level to 30,000 feet MSL. Above 30,000 feet MSL, the aircraft is limited to 2.05 mach. Refer to Figure 5-6 and TO 1F-16CM-1-2. Maximum operating airspeed/mach may be reduced as a result of system restrictions or stores limitations. So, lets jump to Figure 5-3, Figure 5-5, and Figure 5-6 ... we see: Figure 5-3 is ENGINE - OPERATION ENVELOPE (and you will found there the 800KIAS/M1.2 until 30,000ft limitation then M2.05 above 30,000ft on the diagram for the four engines types GE100 GE129 and PW220 PW229) Figure 5-5 is Cable/Net Arrestment Limits Figure 5-6 is Airspeed Limitations (Systems) => see below Canopy Open or in Transit: 70KIAS LG Extended or in Transit: 300KIAS/M0.65 (whichever is less) AR Door Opening/Closing: 400KIAS/M0.85 (whichever is less) AR Door Open: 400KIAS/M0.95 (whichever is less) Flight in Severe Turbulence (+/-3g) 500KIAS ... nothing here about canopy in-flight limits nor airframe airspeed limits. -2 SUPPLEMENTAL FLIGHT MANUAL is curves & diagrams and refer back to -1's limitations chapter and stores limitations (see above). ... I am not a engineer. But as a pilot POV regarding the Dash-1, and, unless somebody prove it wrong, I understand that the max upper airspeed limits of the F-16C (800KIAS) ... is ... an engine limitation. Regards.

I am flying with a binocular NVG and it "perfectly" looks like in DCS (with the "circle"). EDIT: ... additionally, as said above, flying with a "full NGV" view prevents to read MFDs and instrument which we are reading by looking under. So a "full NVG" IRL would be somehow unusable if not all information are not available on HUD (which is also may be sometimes hard to read).