paco2002 Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 I have to say, that it could make the plane more "variable", I mean, you can carry SD-10 at the same time as 4 GBU-12/MK-20/Mk-82. It could do a multirole, dropping GBUs on targets and after that giving cover with SD-10 for example. And with that loadout, you can still carry a fuel tank, so, I may need and explanation for the small bombs not to be on inner racks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuumCuique Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 2 PL-5, 2 LD-10, 2 Mk.20, and a centerline tank would be a great light SEAD/DEAD loadout without to much weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaHeen-1 Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Waste considering you can take two gb6sfw with 4 SD10 and 800 tank and wipe both armies and airforces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuumCuique Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Not everyone likes to fly with an overloaded super heavy loadout all the time. I know I can carry a lot of weapons in the JF, that does not mean you need to drop the most expensive weapons all the time on a target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paco2002 Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Not everyone likes to fly with an overloaded super heavy loadout all the time. I know I can carry a lot of weapons in the JF, that does not mean you need to drop the most expensive weapons all the time on a target. This ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger-II Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Damn it! Not being able to use the inner pylons for things is a PITA. I keep forgetting it can't carry rockets inboard anymore. Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port "When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover. The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts. "An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaHeen-1 Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Sure..... Let's save pixel money and not use stand-off weapons from outside enemy CAP NEZ that will wipe whole SAM sites. Let's use dumb bombs that we'll emergency jettison or take with us to the grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger-II Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Sure..... Let's save pixel money and not use stand-off weapons from outside enemy CAP NEZ that will wipe whole SAM sites. Let's use dumb bombs that we'll emergency jettison or take with us to the grave. :lol: This is a sim. IRL I'd just launch nukes and call it done. :lol: I've no time for tyrants or dictators. Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port "When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover. The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts. "An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuumCuique Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Sure..... Let's save pixel money and not use stand-off weapons from outside enemy CAP NEZ that will wipe whole SAM sites. Let's use dumb bombs that we'll emergency jettison or take with us to the grave. It is a simulation, not just an airquake arena. Sometimes a Mk.20 is enough to take out a vehicle, a JSOW is not always necessary. Standoff weapons are cool, no question, but they are also heavy and draggy. Especially in the case of the JF, with its quite weak engine, carrying a light loadout is often better, especially if you want to maneuver. In the end, it is an option, one that would improve gameplay quite a bit, at least for some of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger-II Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) It is a simulation, not just an airquake arena. Sometimes a Mk.20 is enough to take out a vehicle, a JSOW is not always necessary. Standoff weapons are cool, no question, but they are also heavy and draggy. Especially in the case of the JF, with its quite weak engine, carrying a light loadout is often better, especially if you want to maneuver. In the end, it is an option, one that would improve gameplay quite a bit, at least for some of us. In reality, the stand-off weapons aren't used because of cost, but even if they were dirt cheap, they'd still use dumb-bombs because an ADS would be developed to take out the stand-off weapons. This is already a problem for cruise missiles, so a glide-bomb doesn't stand a chance. If remote warfare actually worked, we'd be using it. Even UAVs get in close to the action. There are other considerations, too, such as the target not being where it was expected, or finding targets of opportunity. This comes down to intelligence and planning, but you can't replace eyes on target making real-time decisions. Edited May 13, 2020 by Tiger-II Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port "When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover. The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts. "An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AeriaGloria Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 (Me who never leaves home without KG600) You guys have centerline fuel tanks? Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger-II Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 You guys have centerline fuel tanks? Depends. Rarely. I prefer carrying an SPJ. Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port "When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover. The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts. "An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaHeen-1 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 It's a trade off I commonly use when I have to wipe a group of annoying ground forces. Cuz typically they have SAMs mixed in that catch you while youre diving in BVR. Those have to be cleaned up for peace of mind. Having that extra fuel is worth more to me than SPJ. Although I'm not gna claim I really understand how to use SPJ well. Maybe I'll learn to see other wise but SPJ doesn't do much for me other than for SEAD with LD10s. Iirc it doesn't even jam f16/18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger-II Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 (edited) Maybe I'll learn to see other wise but SPJ doesn't do much for me other than for SEAD with LD10s. Iirc it doesn't even jam f16/18. Depends. If you have air superiority/you're not likely to get shot down, then unless the SAM threat you're going up against is something serious, then yes, you can fly without it. I find internal fuel can get me a long way as it is, if I'm careful. That includes whacking lots of ground units. Words to live by: ENERGY MANAGEMENT. I also fly gliders IRL. It helps. :D You need to be careful at takeoff, but I otherwise: * Set AB switch to OFF * Set engine rating to TRAINING (after takeoff) It helps save fuel. The secret to using a jammer is to keep it switched off until you need it. If you see the enemy, don't switch it on until they start looking at you. Use it to break lock, but do not keep it switched on if a missile is in the air (even if they still have lock). If the jammer is on and they still lock you, switch it off. It quickly goes from being mosquito repellant to a huge missile magnet in a second. Breaking lock is important as it forces the missile to go active (if active seeking) and you can then play energy and angles games with it, trying to either fly outside of its radar cone or just defeating the missile kinematically. If it still has guidance from the launch aircraft, it can follow you better than if it has to figure it out for itself. Its processing is far more limited than the launch platform, so it has to just play follow-the-aircraft, which burns more energy (at least, that's how it is supposed to work). Edited May 14, 2020 by Tiger-II Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port "When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover. The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts. "An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[VFA-106] Glacier Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 Yes, AB to Off and ENG to Training. That works very well for me 90% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaHeen-1 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 I have AB bound to hotas. I literally turn it on only when the missiles start flying and shut it off asap. But having that extra 800 lbs gives you a lot of comfort. Also the only way you're climbing to 40k ft for those nasty 50nm throws is on AB after tank jettison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floydii Posted May 14, 2020 Author Share Posted May 14, 2020 This thread has really gone on a magical mystery tour without a single word from the Devs as to why smaller bombs cannot be carried on the inboard pylons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaHeen-1 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 One of three possible answers. Take your pick: 1) PAF doesn't do it 2) Deka doesn't want to 3) All of the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger-II Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 One of three possible answers. Take your pick: 1) PAF doesn't do it 2) Deka doesn't want to 3) All of the above I would hope Deka are for realism and accuracy, above "iT's MuH jEt". All the info is pointing to it being capable, so whether PAF actually do it is not the same as the aircraft not being able to do it if they just wanted to. F-18 can carry a tactical nuke, but the fact the USA doesn't fly them every day with one is no reason to prevent them being carried in DCS. I love dropping the B61 in BMS. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port "When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover. The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts. "An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J20Stronk Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 F-18 can carry a tactical nuke, but the fact the USA doesn't fly them every day with one is no reason to prevent them being carried in DCS. Something more, tame... Our DCS F-18C is supposed to be a ~2006 model operated by the US Navy and USMC. Neither of those branches use the Cheek-Mounted LITENING pod, and you'll never see one carry 10 AMRAAMs under their wings on a combat sortie. And yet, ED has given us the option to do so, since the plane is capable of doing it according to their docs and SMEs. I'd like for Deka to do the same: if AVIC says it can, then we should have the option to carry it, regardless if the PAF doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaHeen-1 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 Look at option2 above. We've had this discussion many times now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuumCuique Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 Did we ever get an answer from Deka? I think I went over the entire thread and have not seen a single concrete yes or no from Deka regarding small munitions (Mk.82, Mk.20, GBU-12) on the inner pylons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blinky.ben Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 Something more, tame... Our DCS F-18C is supposed to be a ~2006 model operated by the US Navy and USMC. Neither of those branches use the Cheek-Mounted LITENING pod, and you'll never see one carry 10 AMRAAMs under their wings on a combat sortie. And yet, ED has given us the option to do so, since the plane is capable of doing it according to their docs and SMEs. I'd like for Deka to do the same: if AVIC says it can, then we should have the option to carry it, regardless if the PAF doesn't. I think this is a fair point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_Romeo Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 +1 My skins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uboats Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 (edited) we are implementing the engine surge due to missile smoke once it's done, we will consider modification of loadout (not guaranteed changes) Edited May 18, 2020 by uboats [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] My DCS Mods, Skins, Utilities and Scripts | Windows 10 | i7-4790K | GTX 980Ti Hybrid | 32GB RAM | 3TB SSD | | TM Warthog Stick | CH Pro Throttle + Pro Pedal | TIR5 Pro | TM MFD Cougar | Gun Camera: PrtScn | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts