closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

[Tango3B]

Well since we're not flying a "Frankenviper," circa 2007 would be perfect .

 

And for sure when it comes to manuals needing to be cross checked!

 

 

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

 

 

:megalol: Hell yeah dude, that would indeed help a lot...

 

Look, I mean it is just because my copy is from 2003 and I did not find anything newer than that as it is damn hard to obtain something more recent unless you fly a Viper or have a buddy doing just that. And maybe, just maybe they bent the rules a little and have their hands on something published a little after our ca. 2007 Viper iteration and used that info as a supplement.

[FoxOne007]

Stations 4&6 are not wired for video. The only stations that can transmit video are 3&7. I'm saying this as a guy who ran those video lines the AGM-88 uses. I started on BLK 30s in 2001 and worked 16s for 13 years. Never saw a video line going to or from stations 4&6. Not sure who changed your mind, but it's worth taking a second look.

 

Edit for clarification: The station comm lines exist. Meaning jettison commands and such will go through and work. However there is no video, so the WPN page on the MFD will be blank. The 88 and LAU-118 will send the video, but there is no pin in the pylon disconnect on the wing to receive it on stations 4 & 6. Can't use a 88 without video. 65s and 88s use the same video line. Meaning that United States F-16s (can't speak for other countries) cannot support 65s or 88s on sta 4&6.

 

 

Dear ED since you guys have caved to the quakers with pitchforks once again and decided to ignore SME's like Scrape (above message). Can we now get the GBU-54 for the Viper as well? It would fit great with the rest of the frankenviper..

[LordOrion]

Real world loadouts says only two, we are going by the manual for valid loadouts.

 

 

 

So I correclty understand from the Matt's video: only 2 HARM.

 

 

Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk Pro

[Jackjack171]

While we can argue about the LAU88 and triple AGM-65s on pylons, the AGM-88 not being usable on stat 4/6 is not a matter of F-16 version.

Respect to you man. May as well let it go. I've noticed whatever info you have on these forums, people will argue you down even though you've worked with it before for all your adult life.

 

It's amazing how you can be an SME in real life and have someone who's never worked with it tell you different. It's the same song and dance every time something new comes out and it's gotten old.

 

I love all of what ED offers. I just wish ED would get a STANDARD and stick with it!

Edited September 19, 2020 by Jackjack171

[gavagai]

Respect to you man. May as well let it go. I've noticed whatever info you have on these forums, people will argue you down even though you've worked with it before for all your adult life.

 

It's amazing how you can be an SME in real life and have someone who's never worked with it tell you different. It's the same song and dance every time something new comes out and it's gotten old.

 

I love all of what ED offers. I just wish ED would get a STANDARD and stick with it!

 

Who are you talking about?

Edited September 19, 2020 by gavagai

[BIGNEWY]

So I correclty understand from the Matt's video: only 2 HARM.

 

 

Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk Pro

 

Everything is subject to change, it will now be 4 HARM's

[Emmy]

Simple Solution: Place any SAMs beyond the combat radius of Vipers with only one bag of gas...

[Vatikus]

Can we get Sparrows as well?

[Haukka81]

Can we get Sparrows as well?

 

 

+1 for this. No we have this game side open for dcs so all non operational loadouts for us. Thanks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gavagai]

+1 for this. No we have this game side open for dcs so all non operational loadouts for us. Thanks.

 

The sky is falling!!!!;)

 

The beautiful thing about DCS is that mission makers have the options/tools. We have ways to limit loadouts; we can limit the F-16 to 2xAGM-88 even if ED allows 4x. No harm has been done and everyone can be happy (unless people are somehow bothered by what someone does in singleplayer???).

 

I'm all for the Aim-7 on the F-16. This is pretty different because right now there are F-16Cs that carry the missile.

[Kev2go]

He (Dee-Jay) indeed has documentation that shows the problem of these stations and he PM'ed me an excerpt. However, I do not know how "recent" his or ED's infos are. I guess we just have to wait and see.

And indeed it is true that there are cases where NATOPS/USAF flight manuals have certain errors or do not explain certain things in full magnitude. That is why such info needs to be checked extra careful.

 

The information that ED is referencing that shows it can carry 4 harms is from the USAF TO 1F-16CM 1-2 supplemental flight manual dated October 2007.

 

Since ED is modelling a circa 2007 viper this would seem about right. Someone from Dekka posted the excerpt from that manual on hoggit showing agm88's on stations 4 and 6.

 

Seems this is one of those times when manual says one thing, but multiple SME say in reality things are different from the official documentation.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Kev2go

[LordOrion]

Everything is subject to change, it will now be 4 HARM's

 

 

 

4 is better than 2 :-)

 

 

Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk Pro

[Dee-Jay]

We are speaking about F-16 Simulation right?

 

The beautiful thing about DCS is that mission makers have the options/tools. We have ways to limit loadouts; we can limit the F-16 to 2xAGM-88 even if ED allows 4x. No harm has been done and everyone can be happy.

 

Following this logic: May we ask then for MK-8x, GBUs, AGMs, ... etc ... on center-line station 5?

So we could load more and still allows ppl to stick with reality by not loading weapons on that station. I can also imagine ALQ-131 on wingtips. :)

 

Fair! Isn't it? ;)

[Tango3B]

4 is better than 2 :-)

 

 

Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk Pro

 

 

Yup. We fought for it and we got it in the end. This community is a very vocal one and I really like how passionate some of us are.

 

 

The information that ED is referencing that shows it can carry 4 harms is from the USAF TO 1F-16CM 1-2 supplemental flight manual dated October 2007.

 

Since ED is modelling a circa 2007 viper this would seem about right. Someone from Dekka posted the excerpt from that manual on hoggit showing agm88's on stations 4 and 6.

 

Seems this is one of those times when manual says one thing, but multiple SME say in reality things are different from the official documentation.

 

 

Yeah, and I can absolutely live with that. I am actually happy ED listened to the community and re-evaluated their plans based on available documentation. This puts people in the wonderful situation that they now have the choice to use that loadout or not. This decision does not hurt DCS.

[Florence201]

Found the below PACAF doc from 2003

 

http://download.high-g.net/files/F-16_Handbooks/pacafi21-202.pdf

 

loadout 505 for the viper on page 20

[Cupra]

If they once start with 4 HARM´s, the full inventory of weapons that fits the Viper should be opened too... :D And then I also can get my WAR HUD too, and all the other nice stuff :D :D

Because, everything is possible :D :D

 

Gives nice DLC content... GBU-54 20$, 4 HARM´s, 15$, AIM-7 for 10$..

 

And I am also waiting for all of those CATM-Wepons. Blue AMRAAM, Mk82/83/84, Laser Dummies and all that stuff. But okay, they ARE used in real life :D

[Snake122]

Found the below PACAF doc from 2003...

 

...loadout 505 for the viper on page 20

 

Yep, as stated in the third post in the thread. Anybody know why the 35th FW would have wiring to those stations that no one else is supposed to have? I wish it wasn't the only Wild Weasel wing on the list. I also like how it only has a max of 2 Mavericks for all the F-16 loadouts:music_whistling:

[Pikey]

This debate is moot because the change benefits everyone.

 

For the people that wanted 2, you can still take two.

 

For the people that wanted 4, you can take four.

 

100% of people can fly the Viper exactly how they think it should be flown. The actual debate is irrelevant to the outcome.

 

Logic has to be applied gentlemen. If you take issue with what the other side of the fence has in your life, you are very much going to lead unsatisfactory existences.

 

Besides, the type of game that is played where four HARM's and no wingtanks is a type of game you can simply avoid, do not allow the metagame to dictate what YOU like about DCS.

[DAZnBLAST]

Hi all

 

We have spent days now receiving user feedback showing evidence to support x4 HARMS.

 

We also find evidence to support it.

 

We decided to enable x4 HARMS based on the evidence.

 

Now we have complaints from some users, that it breaks realism.

 

It seems we can not win either way.

 

Please keep this thread topic on the HARMS, off topic posts will be deleted. If you want to talk about other weapon systems, do it in another thread.

 

Thank you

 

Hi BN

 

I think once you have considered the feedback and determined you are going with 4x HARM. This thread has served its purpose, and can be closed. :D

 

D

[Dee-Jay]

The information that ED is referencing that shows it can carry 4 harms is from the USAF TO 1F-16CM 1-2 supplemental flight manual dated October 2007.

 

Which is perfectly correct and valid, even today.

 

Same about the PACAF publication.

 

But carrying/loading a store on a station do not mean it is usable (think conveying for instance).

 

:smilewink:

[Snake122]

Which is perfectly correct and valid, even today.

 

Same about the PACAF publication.

 

But carrying/loading a store on a station do not mean it is usable (think conveying for instance).

 

:smilewink:

I was wondering if that was a thing, carrying extra ordinance just to shuttle it from point A to B.

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

[Paganus]

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

With entrenched opinions on both sides of the question, there is no way to make everyone happy.

 

More choice is better than less.

 

If you don't think it is correct/realistic/possible/stylish, don't load more than 2.

 

:thumbup:

[Kayos]

Which is perfectly correct and valid, even today.

 

Same about the PACAF publication.

 

But carrying/loading a store on a station do not mean it is usable (think conveying for instance).

 

:smilewink:

 

It would be usable with a tiny bit of wiring though. Who's to say some planes for some countries aren't wired that way. Obviously you need 2 bags or you aren't going very far anyway.

For those that want to use 4, let them. For those that want to use 2, let them too. It's not a big deal.

[Kev2go]

I was wondering if that was a thing, carrying extra ordinance just to shuttle it from point A to B.

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

 

Doesn't seem like a very efficient way to transport munitions between point a and point b given the F16 is short legged nor can carry that much. without three EFT's. I thought thats why Air force has a fleet of various types of cargo planes.

 

 

It would be like using a honda civic as to move all your furniture from old home A to new home B instead of renting a Uhaul cargo truck or something.

 

Your going to need alot of trips.

[dundun92]

I was wondering if that was a thing, carrying extra ordinance just to shuttle it from point A to B.

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

I know theres a pic of ETs on the Flanker center station, which it obviously cant fire, and its doing exactly that