4 or 6 Mavericks on TERs?

[Fjordmonkey]

Considering the stabs are made of carbon fiber, it doesn’t take much impact to damage them. If anyone remembers a few weeks ago how the stab delaminated during the viper demo. Very similar would happen on the leading edge section from an impact.

 

The stabs were one of the things we checked rather carefully back when I worked on the Vipers. A delamination of the leading edge of the stab would be a rather bad day, since it WILL result in serious impediment of control. And since the stab is directly in the airflow, any serious delamination happening will most likely rip the stab down to the spar itself.

 

Would be utterly hilarious to see how people reacted to having THAT issue happening inflight :P

[Kev2go]

:megalol: That would be awesome, I'd even suggest a 50% chance.

 

Oh no I guess to not damage the ac players will only be able to take 4 mavs at a time. what a travesty!

Edited September 23, 2019 by Kev2go

[Krippz]

Stab damage from firing the inner-most Mavericks would be appropriate and poetic.

[FoxOne007]

I dunno, they could nodel like a 30% chance of it blowing off your wing.THAT would be fun. Much salty aeroquake tears.

Yes, I 100% support this!! Need that proper damage model.

[p1t1o]

I love reading about stuff like that.

You never think about things like "the plug that sits in the end of the missile to stop crap getting in there".

[deadpool]

 

Step 1.) Get offended by missing realism of adding the possibility to put a third missile on the launcher

Step 2.) Lynchmob mentality outcry to impose just made up chances - without any real foundation -of incidents when allowed in game

 

:doh:

[deadpool]

The stabs were one of the things we checked rather carefully back when I worked on the Vipers. A delamination of the leading edge of the stab would be a rather bad day, since it WILL result in serious impediment of control. And since the stab is directly in the airflow, any serious delamination happening will most likely rip the stab down to the spar itself.

 

Would be utterly hilarious to see how people reacted to having THAT issue happening inflight :P

 

Those that you want to punish will just work around it by pressing ESC, picking Select role and get a new plane.

 

No failure analysis, no aviate, navigate, communicate, no ejection.

[Fjordmonkey]

Those that you want to punish will just work around it by pressing ESC, picking Select role and get a new plane.

 

No failure analysis, no aviate, navigate, communicate, no ejection.

 

I don't care for punishment. I do care for realism and following procedures. You might not and that's all on you.

 

Even a politician understands to not piss on the electric fence after he gets shocked a few times. Just like those that triple-load Mavs on the -88's would learn that firing the innermost Mav had a large chance of damaging the aircraft and risking uncontrollability.

[launchedsquid]

Step 1.) Get offended by missing realism of adding the possibility to put a third missile on the launcher

Step 2.) Lynchmob mentality outcry to impose just made up chances - without any real foundation -of incidents when allowed in game

 

:doh:

 

So, just so I'm clear;

Adding the ability to launch mavs from the inner most mount even though the Air Force never did that because it can damage the airplane, is good...

Adding the chance of that damage to the tail from firing those missiles from those stations, that did happen to aircraft during testing and is the reason the Air Force doesn't mount them there, is bad.

[R. Bruce]

Ummm... Loadouts are determined by mission... which is then matched up to a Units supply. If the mission requires 6 or 4 or 2 65s, they are going to carry 2 or 4 or 6 65s.. Just because what has been shown in real life in the past does not mean its not realistic to use 6 65s on an 88... the BEST way to see whats right or wrong is to read a a JP or FM that says, this is what is used... which as far as I know, I have not seen one.

 

In the past.. we also were not fighting tank divisions with F16s... as we do in DCS.

 

But, just so we are clear, I wont be using 6... but I can't support the argument of, "its not realistic to use because of realism" because that decision is made by the commander. While that decision is unpopular or even used, its not completely unrealistic either.

Edited October 1, 2019 by R. Bruce

[Fjordmonkey]

But, just so we are clear, I wont be using 6... but I can't support the argument of, "its not realistic to use because of realism" because that decision is made by the commander. While that decision is unpopular or even used, its not completely unrealistic either.

 

Using three Mavs on the LAU-88 IS unrealistic, because it's a loadout that can and often will damage a jet, which isn't something a commander willingly does. I'm pretty damn sure that you won't find a weapons-crew that will load that config, you won't find a Crewchief that'll sign the AFTO-form with that loadout and you won't find a pilot that willingly takes that onto an operational sortie.

[delevero]

I read the comments above and know the reason why they dont load 6 maverics on the f16 due to the missile in some cases can damage the plane.

 

I came up with an idea.

what if the maveric instead of instant flying forward when launched, instead would freefall for 20m before it fires its engine.

Then the missile is far away and cant damage the plane = the f16 can carry more playload.

as said its an idea, but what od you guys think could it be a solution, and can the f16 handle the extra weight ?

[razo+r]

I read the comments above and know the reason why they dont load 6 maverics on the f16 due to the missile in some cases can damage the plane.

 

I came up with an idea.

what if the maveric instead of instant flying forward when launched, instead would freefall for 20m before it fires its engine.

Then the missile is far away and cant damage the plane = the f16 can carry more playload.

as said its an idea, but what od you guys think could it be a solution, and can the f16 handle the extra weight ?

 

not realistic. The Maverick is on a rail. Only way to get off that is either slide back into the plane (But there is some sort of stopper preventing that I guess) or slide forwards, with the help of it's motor (damaging the plane too, probably).

[R. Bruce]

Using three Mavs on the LAU-88 IS unrealistic, because it's a loadout that can and often will damage a jet, which isn't something a commander willingly does. I'm pretty damn sure that you won't find a weapons-crew that will load that config, you won't find a Crewchief that'll sign the AFTO-form with that loadout and you won't find a pilot that willingly takes that onto an operational sortie.

 

Correct, "willingly" but it doesn't mean its not impossible. So I will correct my statement with unrealistic to doesn't mean its not possible. I'm just saying its possible, regardless if the decision is unpopular...

[Fjordmonkey]

Correct, "willingly" but it doesn't mean its not impossible. So I will correct my statement with unrealistic to doesn't mean its not possible. I'm just saying its possible..

 

It's also possible to pull 9G with a three-bagged Viper. It's equally as silly, as you WILL break the jet. So what's the point?

[Eldur]

Technically, there is nothing preventing this. It's more of a case that it is operationally dumb.

 

Thanks

 

Then you should consider modeling the consequences, so the people will learn why the hard way

[=Panther=]

Correct, "willingly" but it doesn't mean its not impossible. So I will correct my statement with unrealistic to doesn't mean its not possible. I'm just saying its possible, regardless if the decision is unpopular...

 

You can do what ever you want with the game, you will have LAU-88s at your disposal. Those of us with countless hours of experience on the USAF F-16 have said that the real combat capable F-16 in the USAF inventory has not, does not, and will not use the LAU-88.

 

Yes, there are pictures of the USAF viper carrying the LAU-88, but those images don't tell the story behind it. Every image that was provided here as proof that the experienced vets are liars, were from aircraft that were test beds, to try to fix the problem.

 

It was never fixed, the LAU-88 was removed from the authorized inventory, and there is no mention of it in the official documents.

 

But go fly the jet however you please, you will have LAU-88s.

[SmoglessPanic]

You can do what ever you want with the game, you will have LAU-88s at your disposal. Those of us with countless hours of experience on the USAF F-16 have said that the real combat capable F-16 in the USAF inventory has not, does not, and will not use the LAU-88.

 

Yes, there are pictures of the USAF viper carrying the LAU-88, but those images don't tell the story behind it. Every image that was provided here as proof that the experienced vets are liars, were from aircraft that were test beds, to try to fix the problem.

 

It was never fixed, the LAU-88 was removed from the authorized inventory, and there is no mention of it in the official documents.

 

But go fly the jet however you please, you will have LAU-88s.

 

Is one Mav per rail what was used then? Just wondering what the actual load out was.

[=Panther=]

Is one Mav per rail what was used then? Just wondering what the actual load out was.

 

Yes, on the LAU-117.

[Harker]

Is one Mav per rail what was used then? Just wondering what the actual load out was.

Operationally, yes. I personally haven't seen anything else than a single Mav per pylon.

[Guppy]

If given the option, which it sounds like we will, I will certainly be having fun wielding 6 mavericks into battle. Unless, of course, there is some sort of damage that occurs.

 

#Destruction

[Eviscerador]

To be honest I'm baffled about this decision. ED is a highly detailed study simulation. If the F16C block 50 doesn't have the LAU-88 available on its certified inventory, then it shouldn't come equipped with it.

 

They removed the JSOW from the available weapons because the Viper we are getting doesn't have them certified and I agree with that, but then why would you include a launcher that couldn't be certified due to damage to the airframe?

 

We are not talking about the LAU 88 on the A10C which can damage the anti corrosive pain on the inner pod after launching (which is easily repaired anyway), we are talking about flight surface delamination and potentially catastrophic failure!

 

But anyway, I've seen people loading their A10C with 12xGBU 12 and 6xMavs anyway even if they can't climb or run faster than 200 kts so I guess people will overload the Viper as well.

[razo+r]

To be honest I'm baffled about this decision. ED is a highly detailed study simulation. If the F16C block 50 doesn't have the LAU-88 available on its certified inventory, then it shouldn't come equipped with it.

 

They removed the JSOW from the available weapons because the Viper we are getting doesn't have them certified and I agree with that, but then why would you include a launcher that couldn't be certified due to damage to the airframe?

 

We are not talking about the LAU 88 on the A10C which can damage the anti corrosive pain on the inner pod after launching (which is easily repaired anyway), we are talking about flight surface delamination and potentially catastrophic failure!

 

But anyway, I've seen people loading their A10C with 12xGBU 12 and 6xMavs anyway even if they can't climb or run faster than 200 kts so I guess people will overload the Viper as well.

 

They will include the JSOW's. They are in the list.

[Eviscerador]

They will include the JSOW's. They are in the list.

Well, then I give up I guess. Give them Foxtrot Mavs as well, who cares they are Navy only right?

[Harlikwin]

Well, then I give up I guess. Give them Foxtrot Mavs as well, who cares they are Navy only right?

 

I think you might be confusing SDB's with JSOW's. Or I'm totally wrong.