closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

[CBenson89]

I mean honestly who cares fighter pilots also don’t fly in boxers and t shirts. If the planes can do it then let us do it. I’m not trying to put AIM-54s on an F5 but if the viper is wired to potentially carry four HARMs then let’s do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexCaboose]

3 hours ago, CBenson89 said:

I mean honestly who cares fighter pilots also don’t fly in boxers and t shirts. If the planes can do it then let us do it. I’m not trying to put AIM-54s on an F5 but if the viper is wired to potentially carry four HARMs then let’s do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But all the people here who work on the jet say it's not wired for 4x HARMs. So the planes can't do it.

[CBenson89]

According to the shaw AFB web page the f16 can carry up to four harms for what its worth. I’m sure ED did it’s due diligence and consulted people before just allowing those items.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Furiz]

1 hour ago, AlexCaboose said:

But all the people here who work on the jet say it's not wired for 4x HARMs. So the planes can't do it.

 

But the documents say it can carry 4, the people who work on it may not know everything.

[Frederf]

Carry, yes. So can C-130, lots of them in the back.

[Northstar98]

4 hours ago, CBenson89 said:

I mean honestly who cares fighter pilots also don’t fly in boxers and t shirts. If the planes can do it then let us do it. I’m not trying to put AIM-54s on an F5 but if the viper is wired to potentially carry four HARMs then let’s do it.

 

Because our F-16 is supposed to be modelled on a specific variant, operated by a specific operator, it's all there to see in the planned systems and payloads thread:

 

Quote

We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

 

For this project, we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods.

 

And by all accounts, including quite detailed ones; the wiring for the HARM isn't there on station 4/6 and would be a significant amount of work to modify the wiring to allow stations 4 and 6 to use it.

[Dee-Jay]

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

But the documents say it can carry 4, the people who work on it may not know everything.

  

2 hours ago, CBenson89 said:

According to the shaw AFB web page the f16 can carry up to four harms for what its worth. I’m sure ED did it’s due diligence and consulted people before just allowing those items.

 

It is incredible guys ... after all those posts you still do not understand!?

 

The USAF F-16C Blk50 can "carry" 4 HARM (technically, it is not the problem you can attach the missiles on pylons 4/7, it can be done for static displays for instance ... and the documentation is in accordance with this) ... but ...

- USAF F-16C Blk50 are not wired to allow the use of them. (They are attached and that's it => dead weight).

- USAF F-16C Blk50 are not certified to launch them (and, we are not 100% sure for now, but regular USAF F-16C Blk50 are maybe even not certified to fly with them out of flight test program requiring specific wavers and inducing specific operational and/or maintenance and/or flight limitations constrains ... etc ...).

 

A jet fighter is not a car. You do not do what you want with it. (Sorry to say, but I have the feeling that some of you are not really aware of the general principles in aviation operation/industry).

Edited March 7, 2021 by Dee-Jay

[=Panther=]

16 hours ago, Dee-Jay said:

  

 

It is incredible guys ... after all those posts you still do not understand!?

 

The USAF F-16C Blk50 can "carry" 4 HARM (technically, it is not the problem you can attach the missiles on pylons 4/7, it can be done for static displays for instance ... and the documentation is in accordance with this) ... but ...

- USAF F-16C Blk50 are not wired to allow the use of them. (They are attached and that's it => dead weight).

- USAF F-16C Blk50 are not certified to launch them (and, we are not 100% sure for now, but regular USAF F-16C Blk50 are maybe even not certified to fly with them out of flight test program requiring specific wavers and inducing specific operational and/or maintenance and/or flight limitations constrains ... etc ...).

 

A jet fighter is not a car. You do not do what you want with it. (Sorry to say, but I have the feeling that some of you are not really aware of the general principles in aviation operation/industry).

 

I wish I could legally bring every naysayer on to the base and show them first hand the lack of wiring capability. Even with Scape's detail post, weapons are the ones who have to gut the wing's weapons wiring prior to removal. I think he has more than enough credit, I've tried explaining it in less detail as I don't know the specifics and one misspoken word causes so much drama. 

[Dee-Jay]

14 hours ago, =Panther= said:

I wish I could legally bring every naysayer on to the base and show them first hand the lack of wiring capability. Even with Scape's detail post, weapons are the ones who have to gut the wing's weapons wiring prior to removal. I think he has more than enough credit, I've tried explaining it in less detail as I don't know the specifics and one misspoken word causes so much drama. 

Tell me in MP which airbase and maybe someday (?) I could visit you during one possible stopover and joint exercise. ...

[Scrape]

The F-16 is approved to fly with 88s on 4&6? Yes it is. However any reference to an SCL does not tell nor should it be interpreted that the missile was fired or employed from a particular station. There is no firing of munitions during SCL testing. All the SCL can tell you, it's one and only job, is to confirm that the aircraft is aerodynamically sound in flight and can be operated in the air without undue stress to the pilot or airframe with a particular loadout.

[Sinclair_76]

11 hours ago, Scrape said:

The F-16 is approved to fly with 88s on 4&6? Yes it is. However any reference to an SCL does not tell nor should it be interpreted that the missile was fired or employed from a particular station. There is no firing of munitions during SCL testing. All the SCL can tell you, it's one and only job, is to confirm that the aircraft is aerodynamically sound in flight and can be operated in the air without undue stress to the pilot or airframe with a particular loadout.

Way too easy. I quote the PACAF:

1.2. Wing SCLs . PACAF Wings will submit a Standard Conventional Load for each MDS to HQ
PACAF/DOTW for approval. The SCL should be based on OPLAN tasking, Designed Operational
Capability (DOC) statement, and Unit Committed Munitions List (UCML). SCLs should be reviewed
yearly and updated as required. Send updates to HQ PACAF/DOTW.

Furthermore:

 

2. Standard Conventional Loads (SCL). SCLs were originally designed to provide war planners with
specific acceptable loads for various aircraft. Operators and maintainers used SCLs as a guide for training.
The diversity of new weapons and missions quickly rendered the publication outdated. By using codes to
represent the munitions, we allow for rapid deployment of new weapon types and designations with little
or no change to this publication. This minimizes the impact on units as the new items are fielded.

Mentioning OPLAN, war planners using SCL, which are held to DOC statements, to streamline aircraft configuration for operational use, inherently suggests that SCL are used for more than static or aerial showboating. 
 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Sinclair_76

[Bananabrai]

For me the question is:

 

Can it be wired to fire the second pair of HARMs?

 

On the Tornado, we also need to rewire the centerline pylons in order to carry fuel or a TGP or GBU-54...

Same with Kormoran. The German Navys IDS Tornados were rewired for the use of Kormoran.

A GAF IDS Tornado could not carry Kormoran by default, but could be wired to carry it. They were the same aicraft.

 

Offtopic to the Hornet with 8 JSOWs: if that does some aerodynamic issues, I think they should model that ingame.

At least I would hope for instability issues or random crashes/malfunction of the missile an damage of the pylon or something.

But if the SMS is able to recognize the wepons, why not carry it.

 

Even if a USAF F-16 ... is modeled, I really can understand people who not always want to fly a USAF F-16.

I know that the developer needs a reference and is modelling stuff to that reference.

But there would be so many ways to add other nations capabilitys and still get the guys who want to fly it as real as possible happy.

Mayber they should put effort into that. I do recreate other nations missions and I have my guys 'under control', we limit or expand stuff to our appeal.

I would love a Franken-Viper, if I there is still the option to fly a non Franken-Viper. That should be possible in a game.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Bananabrai said:

For me the question is:

 

Can it be wired to fire the second pair of HARMs?

 

I think it can, but it's a significant amount of work and modification. I think it better if we just stick to how the aircraft is actually configured IRL, as that is what the F-16 module is supposed to authentically represent where feasibly possible to do so.

 

1 hour ago, Bananabrai said:

Offtopic to the Hornet with 8 JSOWs: if that does some aerodynamic issues, I think they should model that ingame.

At least I would hope for instability issues or random crashes/malfunction of the missile an damage of the pylon or something.

 

Yes, they should model the effects. The Hornet can and is wired up for the 8 (at least AFAIK), but if it causes issues, those issues should ideally be modelled.

[QuiGon]

7 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

Can it be wired to fire the second pair of HARMs?

 

Sure, a lot can be done if necessary, but I always thought DCS is supposed to simulate aircraft as they are (or were in case of historic aircraft), but not as they could be if they would be modified. I'm sure the USAF could also integrate Meteor into their F-16s if necessary (probably even without rewiring, just with a software update), but they haven't done that (yet). So could we please stick with what is instead of all those what ifs.

Edited March 11, 2021 by QuiGon

[FoxOne007]

I don't get why this stupid argument is still going on.... The only correct answer is no, the Viper CAN'T use HARMs on STA 4/6. Can we move on now.....

[Frederf]

8 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

For me the question is: Can it be wired to fire the second pair of HARMs?

With sufficient modifications the F-16 can land on the surface of the Moon. What is your point?

[Ignition]

So much hate for an optional loadout...

For me the question is, why it can only fire 2 agm88 if it can fly with 4? The block 50 was supposed to be a SEAD platform, you don't make a bomber which can only drop 2 mk82.

[dundun92]

Aight imma go start the meteor for F-16 thread...

[TLTeo]

2 hours ago, Ignition said:

So much hate for an optional loadout...

For me the question is, why it can only fire 2 agm88 if it can fly with 4? The block 50 was supposed to be a SEAD platform, you don't make a bomber which can only drop 2 mk82.

Because the number of HARMs a jet can carry is not even remotely close to being the only factor deciding whether it's a good SEAD jet or not. Case in point: the Growler, Prowler, Tornado ECR, and F-4G are much more specialized than the F-16C, all routinely carried two HARMs, not four, and all have performed that mission very effectively in the past ~40 years in a variety of theaters and operations.

 

And on a note about "you don't make a bomber that can only carry two bombs..." let me introduce you to the F-117 Nighthawk, which routinely carried two GBU-12s.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of frankenloadouts like 4 HARMs, but it's not the end of the world either as long as it's not completely ridicolous like carrying the Meteor. If you're flying airquake whatever you do is glorified War Thunder anyway. If you fly with a squadron doing realistic ops you won't have unrealistic loadouts. If you fly SP only like me, you can adjust loadouts.

Edited March 12, 2021 by TLTeo

[CBenson89]

Because the number of HARMs a jet can carry is not even remotely close to being the only factor deciding whether it's a good SEAD jet or not. Case in point: the Growler, Prowler, Tornado ECR, and F-4G are much more specialized than the F-16C, all routinely carried two HARMs, not four, and all have performed that mission very effectively in the past ~40 years in a variety of theaters and operations.
 
And on a note about "you don't make a bomber that can only carry two bombs..." let me introduce you to the F-117 Nighthawk, which routinely carried two GBU-12s.

The F117 is a fighter. It has an F designation. Fighters only being able to carry two bombs isn’t shocking. Just like a KC135 is a kangaroo carrier and not a tanker. If it was a tanker it would be a T135.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TLTeo]

edit: I"m an idiot, my bad

Edited March 12, 2021 by TLTeo

[CBenson89]

I’m just being silly lol obviously it’s a bomber.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TLTeo]

Yeah sorry, I'm used to people claiming too much outlandish stuff on here I still have scars from the time I got in an argument with someone claiming the F-111 was also a fighter with excellent air to air performance...

Edited March 12, 2021 by TLTeo

[CBenson89]

Oh I’m sure I’ve said plenty of dumb stuff on here too lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VampireNZ]

6 minutes ago, CBenson89 said:

Oh I’m sure I’ve said plenty of dumb stuff on here too lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 No doubt.... 

 

10 minutes ago, CBenson89 said:

The F117 is a fighter. It has an F designation. Fighters only being able to carry two bombs isn’t shocking. Just like a KC135 is a kangaroo carrier and not a tanker. If it was a tanker it would be a T135.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's a KC-135 cause Kerosene starts with a K, if it was a T135 it would be a trainer  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system