closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

[3WA]

16 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

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

EXACTLY!  Why does it have to be USAF?  There are OTHER COUNTRIES  in this sim!  America exports F16's to other countries.  How hard is it to rewire something?  It's just wiring.

Same as I argue for helicopters.  Just because the USA doesn't put stingers or sidewinders on their heli's wingtips, doesn't mean other countries haven't.  And they have.

 

My only problem is when there are known issues with certain configurations.  Like you can't carry six Mavericks on the pylon on the A-10C.  Because the 5th and 6ths Mavericks will scorch the landing tires when they are launched.  I still do it though, in my own game, because the plane has distinct disadvantages compared to a fighter, and it's one advantage is that it can carry a heavy missile load.  So, I don't want to lose any of that weapon advantage.  That, and I figure that they should have fixed such a simple problem by now.  Just a simple metal deflector to the side of the wheel nook should do it.

Edited March 12, 2021 by 3WA

[Machalot]

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.

Previously in this thread it was clearly stated the aircraft is capable of flying safely with 4 in terms of mass, inertia, and aerodynamics, but is only wired to power and communicate with/ control HARMs on 2 of the pylons.

11 minutes ago, VampireNZ said:

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

I always thought K was for Kombat.

[3WA]

2 minutes ago, Machalot said:

Previously in this thread it was clearly stated the aircraft is capable of flying safely with 4 in terms of mass, inertia, and aerodynamics, but is only wired to power and communicate with/ control HARMs on 2 of the pylons.

Well, that settles it for me.  Then it's only a wiring issue, and some other country will undoubtedly wire some of theirs for 4 as a SEAD platform.

[Ignition]

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

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.

 

 

Well, we can agree the F117 is unique, old, and retired...
I'm not sure about the F-4G but the prowler, growler and Tornado use jammer pods, so 2 AGM88 have sense.

I don't understand. I think its more because of US doctrine, something we will never have in DCS since its impossible to replicate it in a game.

[TLTeo]

The Viper also carries a jammer pod on the centerline station, that has nothing to do with the number of HARMs carried (plus, the Tornado ECR outer pylons can't carry HARMs anyway, so that argument doesn't work). "US doctrine" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with the simple concept that in the real world, unlike in DCS, you don't gain anything and lose lots by loading ALL the weapons and no fuel.

 

And whether a jet is retired or not has nothing to do with your point about "only two bombs". The F-117 is a younger design than the Viper, and about the same age as the C model anyway...

Edited March 12, 2021 by TLTeo

[Ignition]

40 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

The Viper also carries a jammer pod on the centerline station, that has nothing to do with the number of HARMs carried (plus, the Tornado ECR outer pylons can't carry HARMs anyway, so that argument doesn't work). "US doctrine" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with the simple concept that in the real world, unlike in DCS, you don't gain anything and lose lots by loading ALL the weapons and no fuel.

 

And whether a jet is retired or not has nothing to do with your point about "only two bombs". The F-117 is a younger design than the Viper, and about the same age as the C model anyway...

 

 

You win.
I guess you don't know either why it can carry 2, we need someone who knows.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Ignition

[Sinclair_76]

4 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.

For SEAD you need reach, possibly low level as well. For that you need external fuel tanks. Centerline won't do because of the ALQ that would have to be brought along. 

 

Caveat lector, conjecture.

 

I think there were plans for a 4x HARM viper. But that it was never realized due to amount of (structural?) modifications that it would require. Further up in this thread a SME discussed how that the existing frame hardly has enough room for -1553 cabling to station 3,7 let alone for an extra set to 4,6. Too much effort for what's possibly a niche requirement. So they dropped it in the end. 

[Sinclair_76]

1 hour ago, Ignition said:

 

Well, we can agree the F117 is unique, old, and retired...
I'm not sure about the F-4G but the prowler, growler and Tornado use jammer pods, so 2 AGM88 have sense.

I don't understand. I think its more because of US doctrine, something we will never have in DCS since its impossible to replicate it in a game.

The F-117 retired you say?

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38914/f-117s-cleared-to-refuel-from-all-kc-135s-as-retired-stealth-jets-expand-operations

[Dee-Jay]

3 hours ago, 3WA said:

Well, that settles it for me.  Then it's only a wiring issue,

Please read the thread. It was been explained already.

Long story short: The meaning of "not wired" is not what you think. For ppl not accustomed to aeronautic development and upgrade process: It is not just a matter of adding two cable extensions.

 

DCS F-16 has been announced and advertised as an USAF F-16C BLK50 from a specific era (additionally, it has also been advertised to never be a "Frankenviper").

 

 

[QuiGon]

5 hours ago, 3WA said:

EXACTLY!  Why does it have to be USAF?

 

Because that's what ED has the documentation for and mixing variants results in some odd frankenplanes, that don't resemble any real aircraft.

Frankenplanes result in all kind of issues. For example: On the USAF F-16C we have the LIST button on the UFC panel to get the list page on the DED. On the Israeli F-16C this function has been moved to the SEQ switch below the numpad. How is ED supposed to model those differences in a single aircraft? It just results in an ugly frankenmonsters of an aircraft that doesn't exist like that IRL.

It's much better to recreate and simulate a certain airframe as it exists in real life and then create variants of it if necessary, like Heatblur does with the Tomcat.

 

Anyways, I'm going off topic here, as there is no evidence that other countries use HARMs on the inner pylons either.

Edited March 12, 2021 by QuiGon

[Falconeer]

8 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 in combat sorties, the Viper flies with 2 bags of fuel on sta 4 and 6

Edited March 12, 2021 by Falconeer

[Northstar98]

11 hours ago, Ignition said:

So much hate for an optional loadout...

 

So much hate for DCS actually being what it's explicitly stating as trying to be.

 

How many times does it need to be said? DCS is trying to offer us something that's as authentic as it can possibly be. The F-16C we have is supposed to be an authentic representation of a specific variant, as operated by a specific operator at a specific point in time. This is explicitly stated on the planned systems and payloads thread.

 

If the IRL F-16 can't employ 4 HARMs then it can't employ 4 HARMs! Simple as. Are we trying to have an authentic representation of the real aircraft or aren't we?

 

Quote

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.

 

Remind me how many bombs the F-117 can carry again?

 

And the F-117 is a strike platform, and it has only ever been a strike platform and that's the only mission it can carry out, and it's only armament is bombs (EDIT: apparently not, but even if, its primary mission is a strike aircraft, and in that role it can only carry 2 bombs).

 

Turns out you can make a bomber that can only drop 2 bombs...

Edited March 12, 2021 by Northstar98

[Falconeer]

6 hours ago, CBenson89 said:

The F117 is a fighter. It has an F designation. 
 

It's a Strike aircraft, designed to attack ground targets. Unlike the F111 Aardvark, which was designed to be a fleet defender

 

About the F designation: "USAF fighter pilots required to fly the new aircraft were more easily attracted to an aircraft with an "F" designation for fighter, as opposed to a bomber ("B") or attack ("A") designation" 

[QuiGon]

1 minute ago, Falconeer said:

It's a Strike aircraft, designed to attack ground targets. Unlike the F111 Aardvark, which was designed to be a fleet defender

 

About the F designation: "USAF fighter pilots required to fly the new aircraft were more easily attracted to an aircraft with an "F" designation for fighter, as opposed to a bomber ("B") or attack ("A") designation" 

 

CBenson89 was joking there

[Blinky.ben]

15 hours ago, Frederf said:

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

I’m not sure about that, the modifications would be so great I think it would cease to be called the F-16 and more like F-16000.

[Blinky.ben]

39 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

So much hate for DCS actually being what it's explicitly stating as trying to be.

 

How many times does it need to be said? DCS is trying to offer us something that's as authentic as it can possibly be, the F-16C we have is supposed to be an authentic representation of a specific variant, as operated by a specific operator at a specific point in time. This is explicitly stated on the planned systems and payload

 

 

Remind me how many bombs the F-117 can carry again?

 

And the F-117 is a strike platform, and it has only ever been a strike platform and that's the only mission it can carry out, and it's only armament is bombs.

 

Turns out you can make a bomber that can only drop 2 bombs...

I also thought this but you should listen to the fighter pilot pod cast where they interview a F-117 pilot. They did in fact carry A/A missiles and they had to constantly train for air to air combat. Been awhile sense I’ve listened to it but it is an amazing interview. I won’t spoil what he talks about what he did in IRAQ but it will blow your mind

[Northstar98]

32 minutes ago, Blinky.ben said:

I also thought this but you should listen to the fighter pilot pod cast where they interview a F-117 pilot. They did in fact carry A/A missiles and they had to constantly train for air to air combat. Been awhile sense I’ve listened to it but it is an amazing interview. I won’t spoil what he talks about what he did in IRAQ but it will blow your mind

 

Cool! I didn't know that!

 

Though even so, it still doesn't really detract from my point though - the primary mission of the F-117A is still a strike aircraft, and in that role it can only carry 2 bombs.

[QuiGon]

1 hour ago, Blinky.ben said:

I also thought this but you should listen to the fighter pilot pod cast where they interview a F-117 pilot. They did in fact carry A/A missiles and they had to constantly train for air to air combat.

 

I don't want to disappoint you, but this was merely a concept and far from actually being done for real: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34169/no-the-f-117-never-had-air-to-air-capability-but-one-did-get-a-radar

 

/OT

Edited March 12, 2021 by QuiGon

[Blinky.ben]

14 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

I don't want to disappoint you, but this was merely a concept and far from actually being done for real: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34169/no-the-f-117-never-had-air-to-air-capability-but-one-did-get-a-radar

 

/OT

 

23:50mins talks about the missiles they could carry

 

30:40 says the secondary role of the F-117 is to kill AWAC’s

 

https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/072-f-117-nighthawk/

[QuiGon]

8 minutes ago, Blinky.ben said:

23:50mins talks about the missiles they could carry

 

30:40 says the secondary role of the F-117 is to kill AWAC’s

 

https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/072-f-117-nighthawk/

 

I know, I'm a close listener of the fighterpilotpodcast and the article I have shown you is a direct reaction to that podcast, where the author investigated this presumed F-117 capability further and has contacted the F-117 gues of the podcast for a more detailed explanation

Edited March 12, 2021 by QuiGon

[Blinky.ben]

10 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

I know, I'm a close listener of the fighterpilotpodcast and the article I have shown you is a direct reaction to that podcast, where the author investigated this presumed F-117 capability further and has contacted the F-117 gues of the podcast for a more detailed explanation

 

Yeah I just read your link. He doesn’t sell it as if it was a concept in the podcast that’s for sure. But he squashes the idea that it ever happened in the article.

[CBenson89]

It's a Strike aircraft, designed to attack ground targets. Unlike the F111 Aardvark, which was designed to be a fleet defender
 
About the F designation: "USAF fighter pilots required to fly the new aircraft were more easily attracted to an aircraft with an "F" designation for fighter, as opposed to a bomber ("B") or attack ("A") designation" 

I was being sarcastic lol I know it’s a bomber


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northstar98]

18 hours ago, 3WA said:

EXACTLY!  Why does it have to be USAF?  There are OTHER COUNTRIES  in this sim!  America exports F16's to other countries.  How hard is it to rewire something?  It's just wiring.

Same as I argue for helicopters.  Just because the USA doesn't put stingers or sidewinders on their heli's wingtips, doesn't mean other countries haven't.  And they have.

 

Because it's supposed to represent a USAF jet.

 

ED are promising an USAF aircraft, that is of a particular variant, as it was at a particular point in time. Why should they go out of their way to not deliver exactly that?

 

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 no, I didn't get the variant I wanted either. But I'd rather have something that's explicitly stated to be x actually end up being x, than make a hodge podge so it ends up not being x.

 

I'd rather ask for the variants I personally would like rather than try and turn our aircraft into something it's not.

 

18 hours ago, 3WA said:

My only problem is when there are known issues with certain configurations.  Like you can't carry six Mavericks on the pylon on the A-10C.  Because the 5th and 6ths Mavericks will scorch the landing tires when they are launched.  I still do it though, in my own game, because the plane has distinct disadvantages compared to a fighter, and it's one advantage is that it can carry a heavy missile load.  So, I don't want to lose any of that weapon advantage.

 

Personally, I'm fine with sticking to stuff what an aircraft can do as it is, so you can keep your 6 mavericks, but add in the respective damage effects and penalties for doing so.

 

And if you're worried about not being able to carry enough weapons, why not have another aircraft with you?

[TLTeo]

57 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And if you're worried about not being able to carry enough weapons, why not have another aircraft with you?

I'm sure you're asking a rhetorical question but yeah, the DCS community is obsessed with "one jet against the world" scenarios, particularly on airquake/MP servers.

Edited March 12, 2021 by TLTeo

[Wu70]

Why this thread is alive again and some people are repeating the same story over and over again?

 

Yes, it was advertised as BLK50 from a specific era but this specific loadout option was changed due to PLAYERS REQUEST.

Some players can fly with 4 HARMS while others can still use BLK50 from a specific era with 2 HARMS.

 

Why is it so painful for some people? Just dont use that option and enjoy your game rather than trying to ruin game for others.