[NO] GBU-39 “Small Diameter Bomb”?

[bennyboy9800]

Looking for some clarification/ throwing out an idea to the devs if able. Is the GBU-39 planned at any point in DCS’ future, F-16 or otherwise? It entered service in 2006 so it’s not outside the realm of 2007 Vipers to carry it. Lack of information is understandable but I think it would be a nice precision strike alternative, as you can carry a larger amount of them than say a GBU-12 or Gnu-38.

[=Panther=]

GBU-39 wasn't available on the 2007 Viper.

Edited June 23, 2019 by =Panther=

[Donut]

GBU-38 wasn't available on the 2007 Viper.

 

I think you mean the "GBU-39" was not available. GBU-38 was available for the 2007 F-16.

[=Panther=]

I think you mean the "GBU-39" was not available. GBU-38 was available for the 2007 F-16.

 

Yep

[raelias]

GBU-39 First operational use was in Oct 2006 (on the Strike Eagle), I would REALLY hope we could kind of strech it here to make this awesome piece of equipment avalible on our F-16, would be a lot of fun and a unique weapon to it (same as happened to the JSOW due to public demand)

[Harlikwin]

GBU-39 First operational use was in Oct 2006 (on the Strike Eagle), I would REALLY hope we could kind of strech it here to make this awesome piece of equipment avalible on our F-16, would be a lot of fun and a unique weapon to it (same as happened to the JSOW due to public demand)

 

Quick, lets get the torch and pitchfork brigade fired up!

 

Oh wait....

 

I dont care... NVM

[Mr_Burns]

Quick, lets get the torch and pitchfork brigade fired up!

 

Oh wait....

 

I dont care... NVM

 

 

Chill out, they are only asking a question? Or have I missed something sinister?

[Tom Kazansky]

Yepp. Seeing SDBs in action, you are forced to ask when to get those in DCS.

 

 

But you won't like the answer, I'm afraid.

[Harlikwin]

Chill out, they are only asking a question? Or have I missed something sinister?

 

I am chill, but this thread entirely reminds of the whole unrealistic 3 mavs per rack fiasco. So once again, people are asking for a loadout that the NG 2007 era F16 didn't have. Presumably so they can have more bombs to throw around playing an airforce of one online, or a least with the support of that group of people.

[Tippis]

I am chill, but this thread entirely reminds of the whole unrealistic 3 mavs per rack fiasco. So once again, people are asking for a loadout that the NG 2007 era F16 didn't have.

Didn't have or couldn't have? Because one of the two is unrealistic and the other is not, and the reason why the triple-mav rack went in was because it turned out it wasn't actually as unrealistic as some people wanted it to be.

[raelias]

Dude chill if you want to be ultra-realistic about the date of the model it can be balanced server side, some people just wanna get the aircraft and have fun with their buddis with the most number of toys avalible, such preciosism

[Harlikwin]

I hate to point out that DCS does bill itself as "the most realistic flight sim". I guess for you having more fun just means having more bombs on your plane.

[Kev2go]

no probably won't be added becuase GB39 wasnt added until later software tape. I think not until V6 or something.

 

The most advanced software tape we will get for a 2007 Viper would be 4.3 , although it will probably be 4.2

[Harlikwin]

You'd also have to somehow add in all the support infrastructure for DGPS that the SDB's need to be accurate. At least if you wanted to be realistic.

[Wizard_03]

I hate to point out that DCS does bill itself as "the most realistic flight sim". I guess for you having more fun just means having more bombs on your plane.

 

I’d give you rep for this comment if we still could

[=Panther=]

and the reason why the triple-mav rack went in was because it turned out it wasn't actually as unrealistic as some people wanted it to be.

Funny considering the SMEs have stated it isn't realistic but oh well.

[Tippis]

Funny considering the SMEs have stated it isn't realistic but oh well.

The SMEs stated that it wasn't doctrine because it created highly undesirable wear and tear on the plane, but it was pretty thoroughly demonstrated that it could indeed carry that loadout.

 

See, that's the problem with the “realism” argument: so often, doctrine is confused for capability, leading to the exact opposite result of what the people making the argument actually want.

 

If a plane can carry a certain loadout, irrespective of how bad an idea it is, then a realistic implementation would let the plane carry that loadout. That's what the developers need to put into the game (preferably including the consequences that made it a bad idea to do so). On the other hand, if a plane wasn't set up a specific way, irrespective of the fact that it could, then a realistic depiction of it in action would stay away from those loadouts, but that's up to the mission designer to recreate.

 

A realistic depiction, then would require both things to happen; each party fulfilling their “verb” in the equation: developer = can/cannot; mission maker = did/did not. It makes for a vastly more enjoyable end product for everyone if the two don't get get into their head that they should worry about the other guy's verb.

 

I hate to point out that DCS does bill itself as "the most realistic flight sim". I guess for you having more fun just means having more bombs on your plane.

The great thing about that is that one does not preclude the other. There is no conflict in having more fun and trying to be the most realistic flight sim. Indeed, even the most in-depth, high-cost, highest-fidelity sim offered by the manufacturers themselves will always let you skip to the fun part, because that is, after all, the whole point of using it as a teaching tool.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Tippis

[Wizard_03]

The problem with that is; the people making up the doctrine also decide what the jet “can and cannot carry” an infantry man is physically capable of carrying a shoulder mounted rocket launcher and a sniper rife at the same time. Would he ever be sent into combat like that...nope never so it’s unrealistic out side of halo.

 

Would the F-16 ever be sent in with triple Mavericks? nope never. Would the hornet be sent in with 12 AMRAAMs? nope never. The doctrine exists for a reason, not only do those loadouts make zero sense from a tactical perspective, they also are potentially harmful for the jet. So no it’s not REAListic because you would never see that in the REAL world.

 

No one would operate the aircraft like that under any circumstances. Regardless if the weapons can physically fit on the hard points.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Wizard_03

[Harlikwin]

The SMEs stated that it wasn't doctrine because it created highly undesirable wear and tear on the plane, but it was pretty thoroughly demonstrated that it could indeed carry that loadout.

 

See, that's the problem with the “realism” argument: so often, doctrine is confused for capability, leading to the exact opposite result of what the people making the argument actually want.

 

If a plane can carry a certain loadout, irrespective of how bad an idea it is, then a realistic implementation would let the plane carry that loadout. That's what the developers need to put into the game (preferably including the consequences that made it a bad idea to do so). On the other hand, if a plane wasn't set up a specific way, irrespective of the fact that it could, then a realistic depiction of it in action would stay away from those loadouts, but that's up to the mission designer to recreate.

 

A realistic depiction, then would require both things to happen; each party fulfilling their “verb” in the equation: developer = can/cannot; mission maker = did/did not. It makes for a vastly more enjoyable end product for everyone if the two don't get get into their head that they should worry about the other guy's verb.

 

 

The great thing about that is that one does not preclude the other. There is no conflict in having more fun and trying to be the most realistic flight sim. Indeed, even the most in-depth, high-cost, highest-fidelity sim offered by the manufacturers themselves will always let you skip to the fun part, because that is, after all, the whole point of using it as a teaching tool.

 

I'm good with the triple mav loadout, just as long as it blows off whatever random bits when they are fired. That should give the aeorquake munchkin fighter bro's fits... Just because its "possible" doesn't mean its a good idea. And there a good reasons those loadouts aren't used, even in wartime unless you are desperate...

[Harlikwin]

I’d give you rep for this comment if we still could

 

He's an airforce of one. What can I say. :music_whistling:

[=Panther=]

but it was pretty thoroughly demonstrated that it could indeed carry that loadout.

 

Interesting...

[Tippis]

The problem with that is; the people making up the doctrine also decide what the jet “can and cannot carry”

No, one is decided by the producer, the other is decided by the end-user, so that's not a problem at all. Rather, the problem arises when the end-user's decisions are assumed to be the the full extent of the design limitations of the producer. While the end-user may very well have set up some minimum spec list during the procurement process, it's not exactly unheard of for planes to exceed (or, for that matter, fail to live up to) that wish list.

 

Would the F-16 ever be sent in with triple Mavericks? nope never. Would the hornet be sent in with 12 AMRAAMs? nope never.

And yet, both planes are capable of doing exactly that so it would be completely unrealistic to arbitrarily introduce a made-up restriction that said that this capability does not exist when in fact it does. Again, don't confuse “can” with “did” because that outright ignores reality and yields a “simulation” that fails to capture what the plane is capable of.

 

Just because its "possible" doesn't mean its a good idea. And there a good reasons those loadouts aren't used, even in wartime unless you are desperate...

So the way to make it realistic is not to arbitrarily invent limitations that do not exist, but rather to let the mission-designer decide whether the situation is desperate enough to warrant doing dumb things and then have the simulation make it clear why it's such a desperate move.

[nighthawk2174]

I just don't see why you should A) limit what people can do in a VIDEO GAME due to rlf doctrine...

B) I don't see why you can't smuge the lines a little and add something that may not have been used but could have if a serious war had broken out and the jet needed to carry them.

 

 

So the way to make it realistic is not to arbitrarily invent limitations that do not exist, but rather to let the mission-designer decide whether the situation is desperate enough to warrant doing dumb things and then have the simulation make it clear why it's such a desperate move.

 

Agreed 100%

[Wizard_03]

I just don't see why you should A) limit what people can do in a VIDEO GAME due to rlf doctrine...

B) I don't see why you can't smuge the lines a little and add something that may not have been used but could have if a serious war had broken out and the jet needed to carry them.

 

 

And I think that’s the real issue, DCS strives for ultra realism and some people want a video game, which is fine I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but this sim is not well suited for that. There are games featuring jets out there already that allow just that, and are much better for that kind of thing.

 

But the point of my last post here, was that even if a “serious” war broke out they would never operate the jet like that. That argument is not valid because, those loadouts would be less advantageous in combat.

[Wizard_03]

No, one is decided by the producer, the other is decided by the end-user, so that's not a problem at all. Rather, the problem arises when the end-user's decisions are assumed to be the the full extent of the design limitations of the producer. While the end-user may very well have set up some minimum spec list during the procurement process, it's not exactly unheard of for planes to exceed (or, for that matter, fail to live up to) that wish list.

 

And yet, both planes are capable of doing exactly that so it would be completely unrealistic to arbitrarily introduce a made-up restriction that said that this capability does not exist when in fact it does. Again, don't confuse “can” with “did” because that outright ignores reality and yields a “simulation” that fails to capture what the plane is capable of.

 

 

No the primary end user, in this case the USAF, was heavily involved in the F-16s development, it was not a private venture by the manufacturer, they built it on contract and under the direct supervision of the end user. They decide what they can and can’t or should and shouldn’t do in close collaboration with the manufacturer. Same thing with hornet and 99 percent of military aircraft. Doctrine and capability in this case are the same thing.

 

It’s not capable of that loadout because it’s neither recommended by the manufacturer or desired by the operators. So wether or not the jets physically able to mount the weapons in that way is irrelevant because it shouldn’t be used that way and therefore won’t be.