missing load out options maybe?

[DARKCODE]

so i noticed that the f-16 can hold the 3xmk82 on both inner and outer wing stations. but for the gbu-12 there is only 1- 2xgbu-12 rack on each outer wing station and the inner wing station can only hold 1x gbu-12 which doesnt seem right and am not sure if its just missing code in the lua or this is realistic? although how can i hold 12xmk82 but only 6xgbu-12? doesnt seem right to me. can some one please confirm this.

 

photos attached (is the same in editor) on latest OB

[Tholozor]

AFAIK it's not permitted due to ordnance clearance.

[DARKCODE]

doesnt make sense to me why can you hold 3xmk82 those clear so a gbu-12 is not much different just longer, and why cant you have 2x on the inner wing then if it was clearance then why can a smaller jet like the harrier carry a 3xgbu-12 rack

[Tholozor]

Mk82s don't have fins that pop out when they come off the rack.

 

Here's a good write-up about it:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3916975&postcount=4

Edited May 8, 2020 by Tholozor

[DARKCODE]

from my slow motion testing the fins in game dont pop out until they are well clear of the jet, and i mean they have fallen at least 4 feel from the wing and then the fins open,

[randomTOTEN]

We really need a clean-up of allowable configurations for the Viper. Yes, I know we're getting a fantasy AGM-65 TER option.. but other than that it should be limited to realistic options.

[Gunrun_KS]

What Tholozor said. The load on a TER is slant load so there would be clearance issues with the fins with a 3rd gbu. It would cause damage to the station, fuselage and fuel tanks. Unlike the A-10.

[Cupra]

Often the stations 4 and 6 are even not wired to take something else than a 370 gal fuel tank. Because you would never go to a mission without those tanks there is still no need to load bombs there.

And even in training purpose, never have seen a jet with 12 training bombs under the wings. For tests okay, but on a real sortie…

[DARKCODE]

im sure icould find footage of a f16 with no fuel tanks plus the center tank you have like 120nm range (60nm each way) and so you run no fuel tanks and run the ter with 3 there wouldnt be an issue if the inner station has a smaller ordnance liek a rocket pod or one small bomb be cause the ter would push the bomb off the rack and it would fall a foot or two then the fins would open. i guess ill have to wait until the jdams come those dont have find and can go on a ter 3x *coughs in ED bring me the strike eagle*

Edited May 8, 2020 by DARKCODE

[Stubbies2003]

Often the stations 4 and 6 are even not wired to take something else than a 370 gal fuel tank. Because you would never go to a mission without those tanks there is still no need to load bombs there.

 

 

While it is true I've never seen an 16 A-G bird without wing tanks on 4/6 it is absolutely not true that the 16 is only wired for wing tanks on 4/6.

[mvsgas]

im sure icould find footage of a f16 with no fuel tanks plus the center tank ...

 

Could you? But it has to be a USAF F-16C block 50 in 2007 in combat. Not on the ground on some demo load, not in testing. Otherwise, is not relevant.

 

The only way to tell what the DCS versions of the F-16C carried is to have a copy of the 2007 USAF Technical Order 1F-16CJ-1-2 or the 1F-16CJ-33 series of manuals and checklist. Note that I used CJ not CM since 2007 not all manual where converted to CM. By the way, they may be several versions of this specific manual, so good luck having the correct one.

 

Having a Greek manual does not help, they carry different weapons and equipment. A different year does not help, since weapons capabilities are updated and it changes by year.

 

If you have that specific manual, contact ED and ask if they want it. If you do not have that manual, there is a high chance you don't know what can or can't be carried on what station.

 

Is the load out in DCS accurate? I do not know, I do not have that specific manual.

My point, to many misconceptions about the F-16, I have being saying this for a long time

The problems would be for people to understand what they are getting if the modeled a specific F-16 from "X" country at "Y" time period.

Edited May 8, 2020 by mvsgas

[Yellow04]

We really need a clean-up of allowable configurations for the Viper. Yes, I know we're getting a fantasy AGM-65 TER option.. but other than that it should be limited to realistic options.

 

 

 

 

Do you know which we will get?

Especially the option for the AGM-65 is very interestring to me.

[mvsgas]

Do you know which we will get?

Especially the option for the AGM-65 is very interestring to me.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3920366&postcount=21

Indeed, certainly not an operationally valid loadout. However, after talking with the team yesterday, we'll probably allow it for those that want to be so inaccurate.

[Yellow04]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3920366&postcount=21

 

 

Ahh, thank you so much.

[DARKCODE]

training but this shows no fuel tanks on the wings on them so theres that proof

[=Panther=]

training but this shows no fuel tanks on the wings on them so theres that proof

 

The 64th is an Air-to-Air aggressor squadron. They don't fly any AG munitions. Also it is normal for an AA config to be with a centerline fuel tank and no wing tanks.

[Furiz]

What are those pods?

[Tholozor]

The 64th is an Air-to-Air aggressor squadron. They don't fly any AG munitions. Also it is normal for an AA config to be with a centerline fuel tank and no wing tanks.

 

Also worth to point out the 64th flies Blocks 25 and 32.

 

What are those pods?

 

AN/ALQ-188 Electronic Attack Training Pod

[=Panther=]

Also worth to point out the 64th flies Blocks 25 and 32.

Not true anymore, they still have 25/32, but they also have 42/52s.

Example: https://www.airteamimages.com/general-dynamics-f-16-falcon_89-2048_usa---us-air-force_352016_large.html

Edited May 12, 2020 by =Panther=

[Tholozor]

True on the 42s, but I can't find any evidence of 52s.

[DARKCODE]

True on the 42s, but I can't find any evidence of 52s.

IT Doesnt really matter if they are putting in the fake rack for the agm' thenwhy not throw in the triple bombs racks too

[mvsgas]

IT Doesnt really matter if they are putting in the fake rack for the agm' thenwhy not throw in the triple bombs racks too

 

If you are referring to the photo link by =Panther=, That is not a "fake rack for the AGM" that is another electronic pod for training. It is also loaded on station 7, not 6 (where the wing tanks go) and it is not the F-16C we have in DCS, 89-2048 is a block 42

[Deano87]

IT Doesnt really matter if they are putting in the fake rack for the agm' thenwhy not throw in the triple bombs racks too

 

The triple rack for the Maverick was at least tested in that configuration and is at the very least "plausible", TER for GBU on the inner pylons isn't and has never been a thing on the Viper. It's not the same comparison. Sorry Bud, it's just not going to happen. If you're looking for a GBU truck then try the Hornet. Or take GBU-10s on the inner pylons and hope splash damage takes out more targets.

[fagulha]

What Tholozor said. The load on a TER is slant load so there would be clearance issues with the fins with a 3rd gbu. It would cause damage to the station, fuselage and fuel tanks. Unlike the A-10.

 

This.