closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

[BIGNEWY]

Please keep the discussion on the thread topic.

 

thank you

[Kazansky222]

Please keep the discussion on the thread topic.

 

thank you

 

I thought the topic was technically possible payloads.

[BIGNEWY]

I thought the topic was technically possible payloads.

 

Thread title

 

4 HARMs for the Viper

 

thanks

[Kazansky222]

Wags as an ED employee talking about a fundamental change to DCS. Saying the "possible" loadouts are now a go. I think its a little bit bigger then HARMS.

[SmoglessPanic]

Yeeesss, Thanks Wags!!

[Frederf]

Thing is that A-10 and F-16 did fly LAU-88 Mavericks. F-16 might only fly LAU-117 Maverick today but there is more to history than today. A-10Cs to this very day can fly LAU-88, it's a back pocket capability, they just choose not to. The F-16 never carried 4x HARM.

 

TER-9 Triple ejector rack for bombs (Mk-82 or similar)

LAU-88 Maverick triple launcher (AGM-65)

LAU-117 Maverick single launcher (AGM-65)

LAU-118 HARM launcher (AGM-88)

 

A lot of people confuse these. Please be careful with your designations.

 

But in contrast to Maverick triple launchers, F-16 never had four HARMS. It's not a thing they used to do and then stopped. The OFP can handle it. It was never cleared in flight tests. The F-16 can be wired for four HARMs but they don't keep the wiring in the airplane because why would you if there is no logical path to utilizing it. It's just weight and maintenance for no reason. If USAF changed their mind tomorrow it might take a few days to install it. Operators other than USAF might choose to fly it if they bought the capability. They would be flying a non-flight tested load.

 

The most compelling evidence is the entry on the SCL which is there for commander planning purposes. It is theoretically possible to do I guess if there's a real huge need but they'd have to install the wiring and cross their fingers the airplane flies well enough to use. F-16 operators with internal ECM probably happier doing so because they have fewer airplanes and don't need the ALQ as much.

 

All in all I recommend against 4x HARM. All it's going to do is encourage air defense inflation which is already a problem. It hops the border on the normal-fantasy spectrum to a degree that the triple or slant racking of Mavericks doesn't quite do (although those aren't that far behind but it does help simulating other countries). If one was trying to gameplay balance they would use the LAU-88 instead of the -88A so slaving wouldn't work (bore only) but that's kinda silly.

[SmoglessPanic]

I would've taken two HARMS as long as we also reduced the number of Mavericks, seemed only right for some reason.

[Kev2go]

"manual sez" only stations 3 and 7 are wired for harms.

 

 

Granted what i have is the Hellenic air force manual for the F16C blk 50 that you can find online ( and probably the one every F16 fan and thier mother has) . But coupled with what BigNewy said on page 1 their own documentation shows for the USAF Viper harms also only used for those hardpoints.

 

 

Unlike Lau88's not being operationally used, at least manual does actually state station 3 and 7 are compatible to use lau88 racks and can mount mavericks on them.

 

So the idea of Lau88's with Mavericks on F16's station 3 and 7 is more plausible relative to AGM88 on stations 4 and 6 because its actually backed by the official documentation.

 

 

EDit:

 

Ahh ok apparently I missed it,. New documents that Wags reviewed says otherwise.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Kev2go

[-Solly-]

I would have been fine with 2 x HARMs, but I thought this deserved a mention.

 

1. ED listened to customer feedback.

2. ED looked into the issue mentioned.

3. Then ED took the time to implement the change.

 

I think that's awesome. You have this customer's appreciation.

[randomTOTEN]

Dear all,

 

Thank you all for your feedback and passion. We reviewed other documents at our disposal (not cited here), and it does appear that a 4x HARM load is "possible" for our 2007 jet. Sometime in the early 2000s, it appears this change was made.

 

While certainly not a valid operational payload, we will make it available given that it is apparently possible.

 

Kind regards,

Matt

Originally Posted by RaceFuel85

Show me a Block 50 carrying triple Mavericks operationally and I'll concede the point that you're right and I am wrong.

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.

 

Thanks

I'm just curious, to get the terminology right. Does ED/TFC consider 6x AGM-65 on an A-10C Suite 3 an "operationally valid" payload?

 

Thank you.

Edited September 18, 2020 by randomTOTEN

[Jackjack171]

True, but its not consistent. This sim is rapidly devolving into another Ace Combat/Air Quake. The unrealistic loadouts of 8 JSOWS on the Hornet (you cant go far or high enough with that weight), the LAU-88 for the Viper and now this debate.

 

I get that people want to play their way, but the premise behind this sim is being watered down.

Leave the mega loadouts for MAC.

I mentioned the watered down part on another thread some time ago. It only takes time.

 

ACE COMBAT here we come!

 

But Oh well, when there's grass on the field...I guess!

[randomTOTEN]

I mean it's kinda like the argument of 10 Aim-120s on the Hornet. The loadout of 10 Aim-120s is almost never used in RL as well, but it is allowed in DCS (and almost every Hornet pilots carry this loadout in the game).

 

What do you guys think?

There is footage from last year showing *possibly* multiple C Hornets with this exact loadout.

 

Where did you get the idea that 10xAIM120 is not used? Do people just declare loadouts they don't like as "fake" and loadouts they want as "real"?

 

My position is that 1xAIM120 is an invalid pylon loadout for the F/A-18C, and needs to be removed from DCS.

[Kev2go]

I'm just curious, to get the terminology right. Does ED/TFC consider 6x AGM-65 on an A-10C Suite 3 an "operationally valid" payload?

 

Thank you.

 

Apparently Yes

 

 

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3916377&postcount=18

Edited September 18, 2020 by Kev2go

[Schmidtfire]

There will be a lot of F-16C flying around with 6xAGM65 + 2xAGM88... While Im up for options, I think there should be an optional mission setting to only allow operational loadouts. Loadouts like that totally breaks immersion.

[Inferno]

There will be a lot of F-16C flying around with 6xAGM65 + 2xAGM88... While Im up for options, I think there should be an optional mission setting to only allow operational loadouts. Loadouts like that totally breaks immersion.

 

Seems unnecessary to police loadouts separately from what the jet can carry.

[Scrape]

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.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Scrape

[Jackjack171]

There is footage from last year showing *possibly* multiple C Hornets with this exact loadout.

 

Where did you get the idea that 10xAIM120 is not used? Do people just declare loadouts they don't like as "fake" and loadouts they want as "real"?

 

My position is that 1xAIM120 is an invalid pylon loadout for the F/A-18C, and needs to be removed from DCS.

He said "Almost never used". Translation: It's rare! Mostly done for photo's!

[Jackjack171]

There will be a lot of F-16C flying around with 6xAGM65 + 2xAGM88... While Im up for options, I think there should be an optional mission setting to only allow operational loadouts. Loadouts like that totally breaks immersion.

Unfortunately, Seeing some of the post here, I don't think players here care about real world too much. I stopped messing around on the servers. Too many children. That's kind of sad!

 

Is there a virtual squadron that takes things some what seriously? I would love to check them out one day.

[randomTOTEN]

He said "Almost never used". Translation: It's rare! Mostly done for photo's!

Translation: Operationally Valid.

[Jackjack171]

Translation: Operationally Valid.

Actually Wags said not operationally valid. Right? That says to me, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[Jackjack171]

I had the pleasure of being deployed with VMFA-323 (the squadron in the video) in 2017. Never saw this loadout used. The max AMRAAM used was maybe 6 and that was after the downing of that SU-22. When the cameras are on, it's a different story!

[randomTOTEN]

Actually Wags said not operationally valid. Right?

I don't know. Seems you're the one making that claim. I would be interested in seeing the relevant post....

When the cameras are on, it's a different story!

You're right of course, but not all cameras are the same!

This is a promotional (propaganda) shoot, not a flight test. I presume this configuration already went through a flight test before getting to this point.

There's no extra wiring required here, no software update...

I presume command ordered the missiles to be hung and it was done so. Then it flew.

The same can't be said for the F-16C LAU-88 or additional HARMS. It's not the same.

I don't fully understand why the F-16C isn't set up for the triple Mav's (or slant-load double), but the point is a group of people got paid a lot of money to make that decision during the design, trials, or testing of this Block. But it wasn't.

It sounds like we have an explanation for the lack of HARMs on 4/6.

Meanwhile I post actual flight footage of an operational unit flying the configuration in question. That's solid evidence it was cleared to flight, and we know they're all functional.

[cthulhu68]

I don't know. Seems you're the one making that claim. I would be interested in seeing the relevant post....

.

on page7

Dear all,

 

Thank you all for your feedback and passion. We reviewed other documents at our disposal (not cited here), and it does appear that a 4x HARM load is "possible" for our 2007 jet. Sometime in the early 2000s, it appears this change was made.

 

While certainly not a valid operational payload, we will make it available given that it is apparently possible.

 

Kind regards,

Matt

[Jester2138]

So if the US military was not wiring the F-16s to do that, then I would say, technically, not possible.

 

It's Digital Combat Simulator, not U.S. Military Simulator.

 

Or is ED going to give us Conformal Fuel Tanks now as well? After all. the Block was capable of it "technically"

 

That'd be awesome!

[Kayos]

Someone on Reddit posted: 4 x AGM-88 loadout is presented in T.O.1F-16CM-1-2 (15 October 2007), Figure 5-3 (Sheet 363).

 

Anyone have a copy?