closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

[Max1mus]

1 hour ago, Rubberduck85 said:

Widespread lack of basic tactical concepts
Different levels of skills
shy people not on comms
mixed modules without true synergies
artificial loadout limitations

No offense, but nearly all PVE groups have absolutely zero clue how to employ even basic tactical concepts. Youre going to find more of that in competent and disciplined PvP groups, which while in the minority, at least exist.

Different levels of skills are normal and realistic. Watch the interviews with real pilots, there is an F-15 one who explains exactly how experienced guys and people will less than 100 flying hours were put together in the operation.

Didnt you say a few posts ago that you just leave comms when youre ordered to do something in a dynamic campaign?

Youre right about mixed aircraft, though it rarely happened IRL too with MiG-29A being used in mixed flights with NATO aircraft.

Loadout limitations to a specific era is realistic. Most PVE groups (Hoggit, Grim Reapers just to name a few) infact just clap 70s MiGs with 2000s AIM-120Cs which does not have much to do with realism.


To stay on topic, ive seen 3 posts here get deleted, so i dont recommend to continue this thread since EDs position on this issue is very clear. Dont vote on the forums, vote with your money. ED has excellent internal statistics for these kinds of things that go as far as showing peoples average sortie time. So if youre unhappy with what you consider a double standard, then dont pay and dont play.

[Rubberduck85]

No offense, but nearly all PVE groups have absolutely zero clue how to employ even basic tactical concepts. Youre going to find more of that in competent and disciplined PvP groups, which while in the minority, at least exist.

Different levels of skills are normal and realistic. Watch the interviews with real pilots, there is an F-15 one who explains exactly how experienced guys and people will less than 100 flying hours were put together in the operation.

Didnt you say a few posts ago that you just leave comms when youre ordered to do something in a dynamic campaign?

Youre right about mixed aircraft, though it rarely happened IRL too with MiG-29A being used in mixed flights with NATO aircraft.

Loadout limitations to a specific era is realistic. Most PVE groups (Hoggit, Grim Reapers just to name a few) infact just clap 70s MiGs with 2000s AIM-120Cs which does not have much to do with realism.


To stay on topic, ive seen 3 posts here get deleted, so i dont recommend to continue this thread since EDs position on this issue is very clear. Dont vote on the forums, vote with your money. ED has excellent internal statistics for these kinds of things that go as far as showing peoples average sortie time. So if youre unhappy with what you consider a double standard, then dont pay and dont play.

A dynamic campaign? Surely you jest, it is capture the base/flag with planes.

Again, there is no realism whatsoever because it would translate in curbstomping the red side every time.

Yeah let's stay on topic. In the end as you correctly say, we have the power to signal what we like.

Regards

Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

[Dee-Jay]

13 hours ago, =Panther= said:

The 1760 cable that isn’t installed in 4/6 on a real F-16 that allows for smart weapons to communicate to the jet is also the cable that feeds the 65, 38s. So if we have 4 88s, we better have 65s, and every other smart weapon in 4/6....just saying. 

 

Correct.

 

Also that AGM-88 are not certified on 4/6. At least not on US and Belgian MLU variants. This is clearly mentioned on US Dash-34 and on BAC MLU Tape xx upgrades publications.

[Frederf]

I think it's well established that the F-16  can carry four HARMs. It just can't fire them. If you want to transport four missiles that can be done.

[Dee-Jay]

5 hours ago, Frederf said:

I think it's well established that the F-16  can carry four HARMs. It just can't fire them. If you want to transport four missiles that can be done.

Hi Frederf!

Check on latest (and older) version of US -34. It is written black on white that the HARM is not certified to fly on 4/6. MAYBE the he book is wrong but so far it is the only document I could trust.

However, it is possible that Greece PX varients has been certified for it ... At least, documents seem to be confusing about it. So if ED are using Greek docs for their USF-16, I can understand that they might be also confused.

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Dee-Jay

[Blaze1]

 

10 hours ago, Dee-Jay said:

Correct.

 

Also that AGM-88 are not certified on 4/6. At least not on US and Belgian MLU variants. This is clearly mentioned on US Dash-34 and on BAC MLU Tape xx upgrades publications.

It's also mentioned in the older Greek -34 manual.

[twistking]

i don't really get the discussion. stations 4/6 appear not to be wired to carry harms. why then include the option in the game?

there are so many other options for things to carry on 4/6 that would compliment a 2 harm loadout. i don't like the option to have 6 mavs, but at least i can see why other people like to have the option; it gives them more firepower and it's probably fun to ripple fire all 6 in one go. also it appears as this would be technicaly possible, only not cleared for use.

with the harms it appears to me that it's technically impossible and would not have such a big impact on how people play the game anyway, because they could easily compliment their sead loadout with other weapons on 4/6...

 

another possible solution could be to have a checkbox for mission creators to allow unusual, debated or experimental loadouts. this way we could also have the wingstation MERs on the f-5e and other "crazy options" without worrying too much about watering down the realism.

[randomTOTEN]

28 minutes ago, twistking said:

another possible solution could be to have a checkbox for mission creators to allow unusual, debated or experimental loadouts. this way we could also have the wingstation MERs on the f-5e and other "crazy options" without worrying too much about watering down the realism

but this is all currently available via .lua edits on the client end. I believe also that if you don't enforce a pure client on your server people can fly multiplayer with whatever experimental and fantasy loadouts they wish to try.

[twistking]

1 hour ago, randomTOTEN said:

but this is all currently available via .lua edits on the client end. I believe also that if you don't enforce a pure client on your server people can fly multiplayer with whatever experimental and fantasy loadouts they wish to try.

i'm not interested in public mp/pvp at all, but i guess allowing unpure clients in public mp would not be a good idea, because of cheating etc.

[Ignition]

I love my 10 AMRAAM and 8 JSOW F-18!

[Blaze1]

ED are currently going with the 4 HARM loadout because it's stated in the -1-2 manual, which is also relevant in terms of its date, so their reasoning is completely understandable.  I'm of the opinion that HARMs are only authorized (for launch) on stations 3 & 7, but this is only based of comments from individuals here, that appear have worked around the jets and or have done solid research on the matter, as well as information from an old foreign -34 that may not even be applicable here.  I'm sure in time, even if material evidence isn't available, if there are enough SMEs to confirm HARMs on 3 & 7 exclusively, I'm sure ED would reverse their decision (just my opinion of course).

Edited February 21, 2021 by Blaze1

[randomTOTEN]

1 hour ago, twistking said:

i'm not interested in public mp/pvp at all,

I'm pretty sure .lua edit works just as well in single player. I even think if a nonstandard loudout get saved with the mission it will work for anybody that runs the mission without modifications.

[Dee-Jay]

On 2/20/2021 at 7:10 PM, Blaze1 said:

... if there are enough SMEs to confirm HARMs on 3 & 7 exclusively, I'm sure ED would reverse their decision (just my opinion of course).

 

 

We already had feedback from real "SMEs"  (Not only here).

Edited February 21, 2021 by Dee-Jay

[Furiz]

On 2/20/2021 at 4:02 PM, twistking said:

i don't really get the discussion. stations 4/6 appear not to be wired to carry harms. why then include the option in the game?

 

Where did you read not wired?

The available docs say that HARM is not certified on 4 and 6, it doesn't say it is not wired, those are two completely different things.

Only 1 person that I know of on the forums that says he worked on F-16 claiming its not wired.

 

the question is was is it not certified?

[Enduro14]

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=57666  Some on the ground user feedback 

[AlexCaboose]

36 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

Where did you read not wired?

The available docs say that HARM is not certified on 4 and 6, it doesn't say it is not wired, those are two completely different things.

Only 1 person that I know of on the forums that says he worked on F-16 claiming its not wired.

 

the question is was is it not certified?

It doesn't matter why. It isn't. And it isn't wired, which you've been hearing from people who work(ed) on the jet. 

[Furiz]

10 minutes ago, AlexCaboose said:

It doesn't matter why. It isn't. And it isn't wired, which you've been hearing from people who work(ed) on the jet. 

 

It very much matters why. Maybe they are not certified for launch except for wartime use, which would mean it is wired... that's why it matters why they say its not certified.

 

And I'm 100% sure its wired, otherwise there would not be any talk whatsoever about HARM on stations 4 and 6 in the docs. They just wouldn't put HARM and station 4 and 6 in the same sentence cause it wouldn't be of any use to even mention that.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Furiz

[Frederf]

Efforts into documenting carriage and employment of weapon are different people, different times, different goals.

 

Builder of airplane is working with a government that doesn't really know what is possible or a good idea. Is this airplane going to hold 6 bombs or 2? Well we'll leave open the potential in our design that it can do either. Oh now they are smart bombs? Hmm, we'd have to completely redesign the wiring harness to accommodate that so we'll leave it potentially possible but until customer says for sure they want it let's not develop it or add weight/complexity/time into the actual jets. Flight test team says it's no problem to flight test 2 and 6 bombs, even smart bomb shape, because the wiring isn't needed to see if it'll fly/jettison/etc. safely. Flight test comes back and says yeah it'll fly but it's not great. Document team writes in carriage document that it can be done; they don't care if it ever will. Government hears this and says according to their doctrine research, cost, training, etc. they figure two bombs is best so won't be needing six.

 

Then two decades later someone says "hey, why is this DCS airplane not able to carry six bombs? I found flight test photo, carriage document, and provisional design document to support it electronically?" You see how it goes.

[Furiz]

Why are you making stuff up? It never says in the Documents that it was a flight test.

 

Everyone is ignoring the fact that you guys are so damn attached to a writing of some people that claim they are ground crew and they claim its not wired, and that is it what you have, some1 saying stuff,

and you call people that want 4HARM unrealistic,

 

while those people that want 4 HARM have a doc that says it can load on 3,4,6 and 7 but not certified,

we only need to find out why is it not certified.

Was it only in peace time or was it cause of some other reason, we have no idea, maybe it is some techical reason we are not aware of.

 

But please stop making stuff up.

 

 

[Spurts]

17 hours ago, Enduro14 said:

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=57666  Some on the ground user feedback 

Not much said there about HARM.  I made that post to find out more about what actually has been flown by operation Vipers on 4/6 so I can compliment the HARMs on 3/7.

[Enduro14]

1 hour ago, Spurts said:

Not much said there about HARM.  I made that post to find out more about what actually has been flown by operation Vipers on 4/6 so I can compliment the HARMs on 3/7.

Seems the point is obvious, on test bird they had them, otherwise as per some no operational bird had them wired.

[Dee-Jay]

2 hours ago, Enduro14 said:

Seems the point is obvious, on test bird they had them, otherwise as per some no operational bird had them wired.

It is also possible that even test airframes were not wired either and were only used for in flight aerodynamics tests (?) ... so far *we* (I) don't really know.

 

On the picture, IIRC color code, both missiles on 4&6 have no rocket motor, and only one has a warhead (of seeker) ... Honestly I do not remember the color code (IIRC, blue is practice, brown is live), and marked sections (I think it is rocket motor, warhead, seeker).

 

I've found this but I am no sure it applies to missiles (?)

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/4-30-13/appf.htm

https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Markings/US_Ammo_Markings.htm

I have my own reference book, but I think that USAF is (was?) not exactly the same than NATO codes.

 

EDIT : https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,57249.msg632697.html#msg632697

 

NATO:

- Blue (Deep Saxe Blue No 113) ring around a missile indicates this is a training missile and does not contain a live rocket motor.
- Brown ring (Middle Brown No 411) around a missile body indicates the presence of low explosive i.e. a live rocket motor.
- Orange (International Orange No 592) and black markings in the centre of the body and at the tail end of a missile indicate an evaluation version of the guided missile.

- Yellow ring (Golden Yellow No 356) indicated the presence of high explosive ( i.e. a live warhead).

 

US:

- Light Blue FS35109 Training

- Red-Brown FS30117 Low Explosive, denotes rocket motors on rockets and missiles.
- Orange FS32246 Training/Tracking, this is the "other" Orange named International Orange, it is much "oranger" than the Redish tinted International Orange FS12197 ...

- Yellow FS33538 High Explosive nose stripes on bombs, missile warheads, ... etc ...

Edited February 25, 2021 by Dee-Jay

[Furiz]

So in this pic:

 

The inner pylon HARM has Orange - Yellow - (cant see the color there just behind the first stabilizers) - Brown

 

Orange - Tracking, seeker?

Yellow - high explosive - warhead

Brown - rocket motor

 

Isn't that a live missile?

 

The outer one had blue and yellow then it looks like a blue in at the end of it. That looks like a training one

[Skysurfer]

Nice theory-crafting going on here.

[Furiz]

Have I read the colors wrong?