Appeal for calm in the DCS F-16 community

[Hentai Paisen]

I'm just curious...how many time will you have to be told F-16s did not fly operationally with triple Mavericks? How many times will you have to be told why it was not done before you accept it as fact?

 

I flew in the Air Force for 22 years as a Boom Operator. I have flown combat missions during Desert Shield, Desert Storm, operation Deny Flight, operation Allied force, Operation enduring freedom and operation Iraqi Freedom.

 

I've refueling F-16As on their way to become target drones and F-16CGs and CJs so new their tail number information wasn't in our database...I have refueled literally hundreds and hundreds of F-16s in combat zones carrying yellow banded weapons...

 

And not once in 22 years did I ever see an F-16 in a combat environment with Six Mavericks.

 

If the load out was used for decades and so wide spread...show us pictures.

 

First of all how does acting as a boom operator in any way shape or form qualify you to discuss the weapons loading of the F-16? You were not a pilot and you did not work in maintenance or as a loader. Your anecdotal evidence means nothing quite frankly.

 

Second the point of the triple AGM-65 load is to bust soviet tanks. Why do you think it was approved for wartime usage only? Because the scenario being considered is literally world war 3. Guess what DCS is actually pretty good at simulating? World War 3. There are some of us out there that prefer larger and more intense scenarios than anti-insurgency or literally stomping an outgunned and outnumbered opponent.

 

Third are we simulating an aircraft or a doctrine? Just because the USAF or ANG doesn't use a certain weapon load in combat doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable of it.

 

Finally what is the point in excluding it? To prove a point? There really isn't a good one. The weapons would work on a Block 50 F-16 and it adds another option for load outs for those who want it. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to load up triple mavericks.

Edited May 23, 2019 by Hentai Paisen

[Kazansky222]

The way I see it is, if you want the F-16 to have an unrealistic weapons load-out, fine, just make sure its SEVER SIDE option. So it can be turned on or off depending on the server. Aside from that since we're doing unrealistic things now, can we get the DL back for the Mig-29S? At least as a placeholder until one day the Lazur DL is put into the game.

[ebabil]

We are having an F-16 guys, bloody F-16. You should be partying instead arguing and complaining. We have been waiting for it for decades. This guys making a certain variant of falcon. But it doesn't mean that they never ever make any other variant of it. Just calm down and enjoy it.

[Hentai Paisen]

Because the F-16C never used it. Only the F-16A.

 

 

 

Now, if you don't think that makes a difference, you are wrong.

 

Look at the F-16A cockpit vs the F-16C cockpit. Night and day.

 

This means the F-16CM was never wired for it, the avionics not programed for it, and its modified version of the airframe never ran with tripple rack mavs. So an F-16C never ran the LAU-88 because it was removed from F-16s during the F-16A era MLU era.

 

You keep saying that only the F-16A used this loadout when there are Air Force loaders who have stated that they were loading LAU-88s (albeit with only two mavericks per)on block 50 F-16Cs as late as the mid 90s. I think you need to check your facts.

[Mad-Mex]

First of all how does acting as a boom operator in any way shape or form qualify you to discuss the weapons loading of the F-16? You were not a pilot and you did not work in maintenance or as a loader. Your anecdotal evidence means nothing quite frankly.

 

Second the point of the triple AGM-65 load is to bust soviet tanks. Why do you think it was approved for wartime usage only? Because the scenario being considered is literally world war 3. Guess what DCS is actually pretty good at simulating? World War 3. There are some of us out there that prefer larger and more intense scenarios than anti-insurgency or literally stomping an outgunned and outnumbered opponent.

 

Third are we simulating an aircraft or a doctrine? Just because the USAF or ANG doesn't use a certain weapon load in combat doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable of it.

 

Finally what is the point in excluding it? To prove a point? There really isn't a good one. The weapons would work on a Block 50 F-16 and it adds another option for load outs for those who want it. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to load up triple mavericks.

 

Allow me, I have three years experience as a maintainer (crew chief) we NEVER loaded a F-16 with three Mavericks, even during war time.

If you want TRUE simulation, seems you would utilize the system as it was used in the real world and not as an arcade game.

You never stated what your REAL WORLD F-16 experience is besides simulations and what you read.

[Hentai Paisen]

Allow me, I have three years experience as a maintainer (crew chief) we NEVER loaded a F-16 with three Mavericks, even during war time.

If you want TRUE simulation, seems you would utilize the system as it was used in the real world and not as an arcade game.

You never stated what your REAL WORLD F-16 experience is besides simulations and what you read.

 

So in the three years you were a maintainer world war 3 never happened, good to know thanks.

[Mad-Mex]

So in the three years you were a maintainer world war 3 never happened, good to know thanks.

 

I sat IN an F-16, flew IN an F-16 (backseat), ran the F-16 engine, ran F-16 system diagnostics.

 

Again, what is YOUR experience on the F-16?

[Fri13]

Allow me, I have three years experience as a maintainer (crew chief) we NEVER loaded a F-16 with three Mavericks, even during war time.

 

Sorry to dip to politics side, but what nation "war time" you are referring? If for the USA, then that country has not been in war since 1945. So rules for a "war time" doesn't apply.

 

But I don't know about these two:

 

 

Both has two Mavericks in the same pylon. And if you don't have two in same, then you get Max 6x and they are very much far apart from each others. So you can compare the third and second Mavericks position being side by side.

 

 

So someone had loaded two different F-16's with a pylons that can hold at least two Mavericks in it. And I don't know is there such pylons that accept two but not three in such configuration but you can argue about that then more in detail.

 

PS. I have never searched anything about F-16 related with Mavericks, so my search history is that way Virgin.

 

PPS.

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Fri13
First Google search result added, added second too

[mvsgas]

mad-mex

Just let it go, no point to post here anymore.

Panther worked the jet for 20 year, they wont listen to her

I worked the jet for 15 years, won't listen to me

Sierra99 the same

Why do you think so many people with real life experience stop posting?

There is not point.

 

C'est la vie

[billeinstein]

Exactly. Theres no way to enforce this with the current system. Either we remove the LAU-88 and prevent A-10s and AV-8 from using it (I think the AV-8 uses it for bombs?) which is unrealistic, or we allow the F-16 have it which is unrealistic.

 

If the server can preset the payload for every single client, and disabled ground crew's rearm ability in that airfield.

Maybe make a check box option tab in the ME can do it better, if devs consider it.

[Hentai Paisen]

I sat IN an F-16, flew IN an F-16 (backseat), ran the F-16 engine, ran F-16 system diagnostics.

 

Again, what is YOUR experience on the F-16?

 

You seem to be under the impression that your bog standard air force enlisted maintenance experience somehow makes you qualified to discuss all things F-16 related(it doesn't). So you worked near F-16s for 3 years and got an incentive ride, it really doesn't mean you're qualified to discuss USAF doctrine or the actual physical capabilities of the F-16 Block 50.

[Shimmergloom667]

Sorry to dip to politics side, but what nation "war time" you are referring? If for the USA, then that country has not been in war since 1945. So rules for a "war time" doesn't apply.

 

 

Let's not start with semantics now, shall we?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#20th-century_wars

[Hentai Paisen]

If the server can preset the payload for every single client, and disabled ground crew's rearm ability in that airfield.

Maybe make a check box option tab in the ME can do it better, if devs consider it.

 

The simplest option is just have the LAU-88 for the F-16 be considered a different weapon from the A-10 LAU-88. Not complicated.

[JumpinK]

If for the USA, then that country has not been in war since 1945.

 

You didn't really say this, did you?! :megalol:

[macrossMX]

First of all how does acting as a boom operator in any way shape or form qualify you to discuss the weapons loading of the F-16? You were not a pilot and you did not work in maintenance or as a loader. Your anecdotal evidence means nothing quite frankly.

 

Second the point of the triple AGM-65 load is to bust soviet tanks. Why do you think it was approved for wartime usage only? Because the scenario being considered is literally world war 3. Guess what DCS is actually pretty good at simulating? World War 3. There are some of us out there that prefer larger and more intense scenarios than anti-insurgency or literally stomping an outgunned and outnumbered opponent.

 

Third are we simulating an aircraft or a doctrine? Just because the USAF or ANG doesn't use a certain weapon load in combat doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable of it.

 

Finally what is the point in excluding it? To prove a point? There really isn't a good one. The weapons would work on a Block 50 F-16 and it adds another option for load outs for those who want it. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to load up triple mavericks.

 

I do agree with your take on your first point even though it is a bit harsh. Personally I would have made this comparison similar to an army soldier explaining an A-10's loadout. Both are a good baseline in understanding the possible loadouts for the plane but they leave out the tactical and operational considerations for said loadout (I have seen A-10C drivers overloading with gbu-12s to convince me that this is not how the US would ever use their A-10 for).

 

Agree with you on the second. If there is a large scale WW3 server, it would make sense for the F-16 to either go with a 3 mav or even a 2 mav (A-10 already has a 2 mav option so it should not be too hard to incorporate) to represent a compromise without risking airframe damage with a 3 mav.

 

I may need to research this, but I don't think the USAF have used the 6 mk82 load since the Gulf War or 4 LAU-19s on a regular basis. Does that mean we should remove those weapons because US doctrine no longer need to use such a loadout despite the fact the plane is still cleared for it's use.

 

And for the final point, by the end of the day DCS is still a digital flight simulator where the rules are set by the user or the server. If you want to fly the type of loadout USAF pilots fly on a typical mission you can always look for a server that has such restrictions or even impose yourself to those loadouts. The real magic in DCS is seeing other people going up with an unorthodox loadout and being effective with it. If someone goes up with an F-16 loaded with double LAU-19 rocket pods and chewing up BTRs and infantry formation, there is something to be in awe for someone to pull of a perfect rocket run.

[Mad-Mex]

mad-mex

Just let it go, no point to post here anymore.

Panther worked the jet for 20 year, they wont listen to her

I worked the jet for 15 years, won't listen to me

Sierra99 the same

Why do you think so many people with real life experience stop posting?

There is not point.

 

C'est la vie

 

You are so right it is not even funny,,, couple of years ago an “expert” told my wife and I that the F-16 has rocket fuel (hydrazine) in case of an emergency, he could flip a switch and it would be fed into the engine for extra speed.

 

Was talking to an old friend about our days on the F16 in Spain, remembered when we did the acceptance inspection we took the medallion off the PW engine due to “possible” FOD,,,, my ex “lost” mine.

[backspace340]

But I don't know about these two:

Both has two Mavericks in the same pylon. And if you don't have two in same, then you get Max 6x and they are very much far apart from each others. So you can compare the third and second Mavericks position being side by side.

 

 

PS. I have never searched anything about F-16 related with Mavericks, so my search history is that way Virgin.

 

 

None of those are the same version that's being modelled. The first one's not a block 50, middle one is a two-seater so not a 16C and the last one is a prototype for a F-16 with a delta wing!

[BIGNEWY]

OP appeal's for calm in the DCS F-16 community

 

Community brings the arguments to said thread

 

lol :)

[Lt.Seahawk]

mad-mex

Just let it go, no point to post here anymore.

Panther worked the jet for 20 year, they wont listen to her

I worked the jet for 15 years, won't listen to me

Sierra99 the same

Why do you think so many people with real life experience stop posting?

There is not point.

 

C'est la vie

 

 

100% right. Same here brother.

[StandingCow]

I just want to say thanks to those of you that worked on the F-16s in the past (I was a Crew Chief on the KC-135) and are providing valuable feedback to not only ED but to us as well. Some people just don't want to listen, it's a shame.

 

As much as I would love the have the F-16 with 3 mavs... if it didn't happen in real life I think ED should stick to their guns and keep to what was actually used. This isn't some sort of game where min/maxing is the purpose, it is a simulator where we strive to be as close to the real thing as we can. If you want to alter loadouts use mods, etc.

[Hentai Paisen]

I just want to say thanks to those of you that worked on the F-16s in the past (I was a Crew Chief on the KC-135) and are providing valuable feedback to not only ED but to us as well. Some people just don't want to listen, it's a shame.

 

As much as I would love the have the F-16 with 3 mavs... if it didn't happen in real life I think ED should stick to their guns and keep to what was actually used. This isn't some sort of game where min/maxing is the purpose, it is a simulator where we strive to be as close to the real thing as we can. If you want to alter loadouts use mods, etc.

 

If you want to use currently operational load outs just don't load the LAU-88s. Easy, everyone is happy.

[billeinstein]

mad-mex

Just let it go, no point to post here anymore.

Panther worked the jet for 20 year, they wont listen to her

I worked the jet for 15 years, won't listen to me

Sierra99 the same

Why do you think so many people with real life experience stop posting?

There is not point.

 

C'est la vie

 

I can listen to you. Your experience about real stuff is priceless here.

But I also understand why devs consider add some "unrealistic" elements in the game.

No contradiction here.

[StandingCow]

If you want to use currently operational load outs just don't load the LAU-88s. Easy, everyone is happy.

 

 

You aren't going to draw me into this argument. :music_whistling:

[norbot]

ED has announced that the F-16C block 50 is being developed. That makes me happy and that's enough for me. Once it's in EA, I'll buy it. Wags has clearly stated in which phase which systems and weapons will be implemented. There's nothing more to say about that. Once it's in EA stage or when it's completely done, you can buy it, or if you don't like it, you can leave it. No need to start crying, why this or that system or weapon will be or not be there.

[tintifaxl]

Once it's in EA stage or when it's completely done, you can buy it, or if you don't like it, you can leave it. No need to start crying, why this or that system or weapon will be or not be there.

 

 

So very true. +1.