Jump to content

[Planned] LAU-88 and triple AGM-65s?


Hentai Paisen

Recommended Posts

Sounds like they are going to allow this now: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3920366&postcount=21

 

I mean I am happy that we get heavier weapon loads (more boom, hooray) but I am also a bit... I guess the word would be bothered (even that is too strong a word) that ED caved to a loadout that was never actually used. This isn't some sort of min/max type game, loadouts and capabilities should be as close as possible to the real thing, that's what ED strives for isn't it?I dunno, I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but ED should give us what was actually used or what they feel is best.

5900X - 32 GB 3600 RAM - 1080TI

My Twitch Channel

~Moo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/thread

i7-4770k | EVGA GTX 980 SC | 16GB DDR3 | TrackIR 5, TM Warthog HOTAS, Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals

 

DCS: F-16C, F/A-18C, F-14A/B, AV-8B, FC3, A-10C, Black Shark II, UH-1H, F-86F, MiG-21bis, Mirage 2000C, AJS-37, F-5E :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I find hilarious in this whole argument is that some kept throwing around the PACAF SCL with the JSOW in 2003. Clearly they have no military service, otherwise they would know what a SCL is, and why it is developed. Here's the thing, they said the JSOW is on the list and demanded the JSOW. Guess what isn't on the list and no one hasn't said anything.... 6x65s (6A65) with LAU-88. Guess what else isn't on there....4x65s (4A65). :pilotfly:

 

Second armchair quarterbacks find images of aircraft configured with 6x65s and throw that around. What they don't know is the story of that image. Aircraft all have a story, those of us who have been around the jets long enough know a test bird when we see it. Every single image that shows 6x65s or 4x65s is a test jet. TEST where flight testing is performed and determined whether or not something should be operationally tested. Edwards is the home to that flight testing, and their tail flashers are ED or blank. Every image has a ED or blank tailcode.Operational testing is done by Eglin test and they have tailcodes ET, OT.

Twitch Channel

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Virtual Thunderbirds, LLC | Sponsored by Thrustmaster

 

Z390 Aorus Xtreme, i9 9900k, G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB, 1080ti 11GB, Obutto R3Volution, Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog, TPR, Cougar MFDs, FSSB R3L, JetSeat, Oculus Rift S, Buddy-Fox A-10C UFC, F/A-18C UFC, Tek Creations F-16 ICP

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I find hilarious in this whole argument is that some kept throwing around the PACAF SCL with the JSOW in 2003. Clearly they have no military service, otherwise they would know what a SCL is, and why it is developed. Here's the thing, they said the JSOW is on the list and demanded the JSOW. Guess what isn't on the list and no one hasn't said anything.... 6x65s (6A65) with LAU-88. Guess what else isn't on there....4x65s (4A65). :pilotfly:

 

Second armchair quarterbacks find images of aircraft configured with 6x65s and throw that around. What they don't know is the story of that image. Aircraft all have a story, those of us who have been around the jets long enough know a test bird when we see it. Every single image that shows 6x65s or 4x65s is a test jet. TEST where flight testing is performed and determined whether or not something should be operationally tested. Edwards is the home to that flight testing, and their tail flashers are ED or blank. Every image has a ED or blank tailcode.Operational testing is done by Eglin test and they have tailcodes ET, OT.

 

Wow many of the pictures show testing jets. Guess what the result of those tests was: the loadout was approved and triple mav launches authorized during wartime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow many of the pictures show testing jets. Guess what the result of those tests was: the loadout was approved and triple mav launches authorized during wartime.

 

 

I really think you need to do some much better research before you start typing again...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow many of the pictures show testing jets. Guess what the result of those tests was: the loadout was approved and triple mav launches authorized during wartime.

 

Was it used during wartime though, because you'd think the US would've utilized that capability on the F-16 during the Kosovo War, Gulf War and the Iraqi Invasion since all of those were against regular armies with organized units of armored vehicles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it used during wartime though, because you'd think the US would've utilized that capability on the F-16 during the Kosovo War, Gulf War and the Iraqi Invasion since all of those were against regular armies with organized units of armored vehicles?

 

It's never been used in war time, ever.

 

The only TER's that F-16's have used are for the Mk82 family of unguided bombs and *maybe* a CBU but I can't confirm that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is ignoring information. I made comments on other posts of his and he ignores it. So I try to repeat it.

 

F-16A MLU was the only F-16 that triple racked mavericks. The F-16A MLU has a different cockpit, set of senors, software suite, engines, and internal guts/wiring changes.

 

The F-16C series never ever ran LAU-88, does not have the software for running tripple rack mavs, and it was never deployed.

 

If people want tripple rack mavs, they should ask for an F-16A MLU.

 

You are completely incorrect. Believe what you want though, it doesn’t matter because we’re getting the LAU-88 anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...DCS is a tough ecosystem in which no matter what you do there will always be people complaining...

 

Well said, never ending truth in this statement.

160th Virtual Fighter Squadron "Dixie Vipers"



Alabama Virtual Air National Guard

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had 2 confirmed F-16 crew members flat out say it doesn't exist. ED flat out said they are giving it to players even though its unrealistic... So far only people who have never worked on the aircraft and have no experience outside of BMS think its realistic because they saw it in 2 different pictures from test aircraft.

 

Make it three, only time I saw it was on static display once during an open house. What I find incredible is how some people will argue and argue, even if they have never touched an F-16 they will tell things you can only shake your head at.

I was told by an “expert” ( did not know I was an F-16 crew chief ) that it carried rocket fuel ( hydrazine ) to give a boost of power when it need it, but they were restricted to only use it during time of war.

712E0424-4FFA-430D-A1D9-E2E9C7100244.jpeg.a0472f85c5f991166d5413e8abea3114.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make it three, only time I saw it was on static display once during an open house. What I find incredible is how some people will argue and argue, even if they have never touched an F-16 they will tell things you can only shake your head at.

 

I was told by an “expert” ( did not know I was an F-16 crew chief ) that it carried rocket fuel ( hydrazine ) to give a boost of power when it need it, but they were restricted to only use it during time of war.

I think you missed the point from some of us or at least my main point. We dont argue that it was used, rather that is very reasonable concession to gameplay without being totally unrealistic, concessions that we are already doing in DCS constantly.

 

The argunent becomes then: where is the limit? What is too unrealistic? Abd what is permissible to increase playability and rich scenarios?

 

For me this is a case of a healthy playability addition that should not harm anyone feelings.

 

It was tested, they airframe is capable, and some countries used it. The USAF never used it, that's clear, and a strong argument for sure, maybe because it did not have the operational need for it or for other myriad of reasons, but is rather an doctrine/operative decission rather than a HW/airframe limitation.

 

So, i will Put it in another way. While always trying to get the most realistic experience possible, we are already and always doing concessions to reality, for example when simulating the F16 ED had to take a decission of which exact version to simulate, but in pos of a richer diversity ED already did a delibarete decission of being not too specific, "blk 50 circa 2007..." is what we get, but if we were too be totally truthful to reality we would need to be even more clear to which version, cause even for the blk 50 there are equipment and weapons differences., you get what i mean?

 

 

When trying to allow for a loadout like this, you are only alllowing a big portion of the player base to simulate scenarios in which the version of the F16 could be the one actually used in his/her nation. We know this is not realistic but aren't the pros bigger than the cons?

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The A-10C did in fact carry triple 65s in combat.

Thank you Panther, I didn’t want to say anything!:doh:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

MSI MPG X570 Gaming Plus MOBO||Ryzen 9 3900X 12 Core, 24 Thread Processor || MSI GTX 1070Ti 8GB GPU OverClocked || 32GB GSKILL DDR4 RAM @3600 || Samsung 1TB SSD || Samsung 250GB SSD || WD Caviar Black 2TB HDD || WD Caviar Black 1TB HDD || Thermaltake ToughPower GF1 850W PS || Thermaltake Tower || Windows 10 Pro 64bit || Thrustmaster Warthog and Cougar sticks, throttles and MFDs || Saitek Rudder Pedals || Trackir 5 ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you missed the point from some of us or at least my main point. We dont argue that it was used, rather that is very reasonable concession to gameplay without being totally unrealistic, concessions that we are already doing in DCS constantly.

 

The argunent becomes then: where is the limit? What is too unrealistic? Abd what is permissible to increase playability and rich scenarios?

 

For me this is a case of a healthy playability addition that should not harm anyone feelings.

 

It was tested, they airframe is capable, and some countries used it. The USAF never used it, that's clear, and a strong argument for sure, maybe because it did not have the operational need for it or for other myriad of reasons, but is rather an doctrine/operative decission rather than a HW/airframe limitation.

 

So, i will Put it in another way. While always trying to get the most realistic experience possible, we are already and always doing concessions to reality, for example when simulating the F16 ED had to take a decission of which exact version to simulate, but in pos of a richer diversity ED already did a delibarete decission of being not too specific, "blk 50 circa 2007..." is what we get, but if we were too be totally truthful to reality we would need to be even more clear to which version, cause even for the blk 50 there are equipment and weapons differences., you get what i mean?

 

 

When trying to allow for a loadout like this, you are only alllowing a big portion of the player base to simulate scenarios in which the version of the F16 could be the one actually used in his/her nation. We know this is not realistic but aren't the pros bigger than the cons?

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

 

Look, forget the F-16, can you send me some tortilla with some jamon serrano, calamares en su tinta and some pinchos morunos and finish off with a pella valenciana :(:(:(

 

Stationed as a crew chief at Torrejon AB Madrid, 612 TFS for three years, went TDY couple of times for a week to Zaragoza for aerial gunnery support.

 

THE BEST assignment in my 20 year USAF career,,,,,,,,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they don't know is the story of that image.

 

Thanks for sharing with us and for your service, samesies to all the other folks in the same category.

 

I'm trying to make sense of the argument that's being had here. On one hand we have information about what the jet is capable of and on the other we have the hard won info on what the jet is "practically" capable of (I'm thankful that you and others take the time to share this perspective, for the record!). Is that right? ...or am I missing something?

 

Practical may go out the window if things get hairy enough, I think we can all agree on that. What happens if the Canadians run out of maple syrup and bacon? They may very well plan a full scale invasion of the US, what would you hang from the wings in that case? DCS isn't simulating a USAF "practical, big picture, asset longevity, etc. etc." oriented simulation that would fit comfortably with the RL experience from you folks of the past 30 years. They are simulating an F-16. (emphasis on the period) Why not allow even the extreme possibilities of the platform in and leave it to us simmers to enjoy the game in whatever way we want?

 

Joking aside, it's a genuine question. Is the jet capable? Even if it's completely unpractical?

System specifications: Computer, joystick, DCS world, Beer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK the F-18C is also capable of carrying the LAU-88, but it was never utilized by the USN (or anyone else I know of). I don't know the reason, could be just because, but the result remains the same, an F-18C with the LAU-88 is something that never happened.

Thus, we don't have it in the sim and I'm OK with it.

I've never heard of an F-16 carrying the LAU-88 in combat, due to decreased roll stability and the fact that the innermost missile's exhaust can damage the elevator, so I don't expect to have it and that's OK.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring the joking nature of this picture, you can see what happens if you have 2 pylons of LAU-88 on an F18C. The mavericks are clipping into eachother.

 

Its been stated a few times that double racking mavs doesn't work on an F-18 because of how close together the pylons are.

 

Screen_190525_103130.png

Oh no ! Those poor wingtips as well!

I think the idea was to carry it only on stations 3 and 7. And if you wanted the above to work, you could carry 2 on stations 2 and 8, one on the bottom and one on the outer pylon.

But omg the picture looks disturbing..

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring the joking nature of this picture, you can see what happens if you have 2 pylons of LAU-88 on an F18C. The mavericks are clipping into eachother.

 

Its been stated a few times that double racking mavs doesn't work on an F-18 because of how close together the pylons are.

 

Screen_190525_103130.png

 

pull off 3rd maverick from the on that LAU rack ( leaving only bottom and one on the outer) and no more collision problem :thumbup:

 

 

 

 

https://forums.x-plane.org/uploads/monthly_2017_11/5a0a037c98359_LAU-88(AGM-65)TripleRailLauncher.jpg.e376aa90dc15232eccc4a9dfa9e3d743.jpg

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I find hilarious in this whole argument is that some kept throwing around the PACAF SCL with the JSOW in 2003. Clearly they have no military service, otherwise they would know what a SCL is, and why it is developed. Here's the thing, they said the JSOW is on the list and demanded the JSOW.

 

I guess I would be that 'some'

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3919151&postcount=30

 

So firstly you're quite right, I don't have any military service and I have a tremendous respect for the knowledge of experts such as yourself and mvgas. I don't claim to be an expert in such matters at all. However, the PACAF document itself does say what an SCL is on Page 3, and in my mind it raised a question: why would this be listed if it simply wasn't physically possible? If the answer had been "because that can happen under these circumstances" with a good explanation I would have accepted that, but it seemed like a good question. I wasn't demanding to have JSOW, I was just curious. Particularly when combined with a photo dated 2000 showing an F-16CJ Block 50 carrying JSOWs, it seemed to suggest it perhaps was possible they were carried. You're right a photo has a history, but when it's the right version of the aircraft and does not seem to be listed as a test aircraft, it does raise a question at least. As much as anything I do this because I'm interested in the history, and want to know what was actually the case.

 

It also seems it might have been a good question, because as I understand it, ED have decided based on other sources that the F-16C Block 50 did indeed carry JSOW by 2007. In the end, it can be hard to know for sure what really happened historically and it's easy for anyone to misinterpret the data. My hope is that together as a community we can build a better understanding, and I can improve my own knowledge in the process.


Edited by Tomsk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Look, forget the F-16, can you send me some tortilla with some jamon serrano, calamares en su tinta and some pinchos morunos and finish off with a pella valenciana :(:(:(

 

Stationed as a crew chief at Torrejon AB Madrid, 612 TFS for three years, went TDY couple of times for a week to Zaragoza for aerial gunnery support.

 

THE BEST assignment in my 20 year USAF career,,,,,,,,,,

 

:megalol::megalol::megalol: best post ever :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

And sorry by the OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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