closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

[Mars Exulte]

The problem with that argument is that those loadouts were not common for very different reasons. The triple Mavericks on the Viper is a safety hazard because you risk damaging the tail. The 6 AIM54 was not used simply because it's not a good idea to jettison expensive missiles before landing.

 

Which is indeed the issue. Blocking the TERs on the F-16 is perfectly reasonable to me. Wartime or not, they probably wouldn't do that if there's a real risk of damaging their own aircraft. The x6 Phoenix restriction is a practicality of peacetime, if you're planning on using all six, then there's no problem the pylons accept and can fire them, so there is no reason to restrict it. If you land overweight, same thing will happen to you regardless of what you're weighed down with.

 

''Doctrine'' is utterly, 100% completely irrelevant because there are many factors that go into shaping that. Pylon capability to accept and fire is the ONLY thing that should be considered, and not just for the F-16 (which I don't fly) but for all aircraft. They need to be consistent across the board with this stuff.

 

If they're going to restrict weapons arbitrarily based on ''doctrine'', then they should forcibly prevent aircraft from going over 20mph on taxiways because ''doctrine'', and have SAMs open fire on identified aircraft approaching military installations without communicating with ATC cause ''doctrine''.

 

We're not talking about a ''pandora's box of unrealism'' as some keep suggesting. It's common sense combined with consistency. If you're gonna go hardcore nerd and force doctrinal restrictions, then do it across the board, otherwise stick to ''technical capabilities'', leave ''doctrine'' out of it, and let the players be as nerdy as they do (or don't) want to be.

 

I'm 100% for full realism of the aircraft. It blows my mind that the same people who wheeze ''Digital Combat SHIMULATOR'' are the same ones that turn around and want doctrinal limitations placed on aircraft that are wholly on the user-end, NOT on the aircraft itself.

Edited September 19, 2020 by zhukov032186

[Majik]

If a reasonably effective representation of the AN/ALQ-184 can be made, then this conversation will become moot.

[BIGNEWY]

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

[BlueRaven]

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

 

I simply can't believe it... you guys only deserve big thanks and applauses for listening at the healthy part of the community which supports its requests with evidence, and instead get whining in return?

I suggest to simply ignore them, evidence is there and a choice has been made, keep it firm.

[WHOGX5]

If you can mount it there in real life, you should be able to mount it there in DCS. If people want "realism", do what they do in real life and don't mount it there. I don't see what the issue is.

[Dee-Jay]

I understand the loadout of 4 HARMs on stations 3/7 and stations 4/6 is almost never used in RL, but HARMs on stations 4/6 is possible as these stations are fully weapons-capable. So why can't we have HARMs on stations 4/6 as well?

...

What do you guys think?

 

 

If you can mount it there in real life, you should be able to mount it there in DCS. If people want "realism", do what they do in real life and don't mount it there. I don't see what the issue is.

 

 

No F-16 in the world (*) has been wired to operate AGM-88 on inner pylons.

You can attach AGM-88 on inner pylon ... but they won't be linked to any electrical system except the SEL/EMER Jettison. In other words ... you can do nothing with them.

 

(*) except maybe some test a/c to experiment the aerodynamic configuration and/or separation and launch.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[Dee-Jay]

If it is indeed stated as an official standard conventional loadout by PACAF and the 20th FW it is strong evidence.

 

It is listed in PACAF docs because F-16 can fly with HARMS loaded on inner pylon (just like for BLU-109 without guidance devices and 3*AGM-65 ...)

But flying with loads (conveying for instance) do not mean you can employ them for technical/software reasons ... or that employment has been certified.

 

 

F-16s can certainly fly with SBU-38 SBU-54 or SBU-64 attached ... but won't be able to use them as weapon without proper software updates (at least).

Edited September 19, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[QuiGon]

Why is almost everyone here ignoring this post??

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.

[Geraki]

i agree with Dee-Jay if the CCIP 2007 F-16 model in RL does not have the ability for 4 HARMS

 

if this is ok then apply the TFR mode with Sniper pod and the MAP in MFD too.

[Tango3B]

Why is almost everyone here ignoring this post??

 

 

Because he presented no real evidence. He only made a claim. You have so many guys here saying they know exactly this config is not possible and that wiring for the relevant stations does not exist without presenting a single piece of reliable information.This is why it is ignored.

And ED did find evidence that says it is wired and can be used. I have no reason not to trust them.

[QuiGon]

I have no reason not to trust them.

You mean "not anymore", since they changed their stance ;)

[Northstar98]

Isn't it nice that you can decide to use a technically possible loadouts even if is historically unrealistic?

 

Depends what you mean by 'technically possible'

 

The question is this one:

 

Is our specific F-16C wired up for 4 HARMs, as in, is 4 HARMs a loadout that is actually physically compatible (not just be able to carry, be able to employ) without modification? I.e is the physical aircraft that our one is modelled after wired up to use them?

 

If yes, go for it, the real aircraft can it's just that it doesn't for whatever reason.

 

If it isn't, then no, because the aircraft physically can't. Stick to loadouts that are actually compatible with the real aircraft, regardless of whether or not they're used or not for whatever reason.

 

As far as I go, I'm more concerned with what an aircraft physically can and can't do as opposed to what it did and did not do for whatever reason.

 

Which is indeed the issue. Blocking the TERs on the F-16 is perfectly reasonable to me. Wartime or not, they probably wouldn't do that if there's a real risk of damaging their own aircraft. The x6 Phoenix restriction is a practicality of peacetime, if you're planning on using all six, then there's no problem the pylons accept and can fire them, so there is no reason to restrict it. If you land overweight, same thing will happen to you regardless of what you're weighed down with.

 

''Doctrine'' is utterly, 100% completely irrelevant because there are many factors that go into shaping that. Pylon capability to accept and fire is the ONLY thing that should be considered, and not just for the F-16 (which I don't fly) but for all aircraft. They need to be consistent across the board with this stuff.

 

If they're going to restrict weapons arbitrarily based on ''doctrine'', then they should forcibly prevent aircraft from going over 20mph on taxiways because ''doctrine'', and have SAMs open fire on identified aircraft approaching military installations without communicating with ATC cause ''doctrine''.

 

We're not talking about a ''pandora's box of unrealism'' as some keep suggesting. It's common sense combined with consistency. If you're gonna go hardcore nerd and force doctrinal restrictions, then do it across the board, otherwise stick to ''technical capabilities'', leave ''doctrine'' out of it, and let the players be as nerdy as they do (or don't) want to be.

 

Absolutely all of this.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Northstar98

[Snappy]

Because he presented no real evidence. He only made a claim. You have so many guys here saying they know exactly this config is not possible and that wiring for the relevant stations does not exist without presenting a single piece of reliable information.This is why it is ignored.

And ED did find evidence that says it is wired and can be used. I have no reason not to trust them.

 

No , they didn’t say anything about evidence of it actually being wired.They said evidence for 4x Harms, which it can carry.Whether it can actually be used / fired is another matter.

 

So when do u get the conformal tanks? Hypothetically technically possible.

 

 

Regards

 

Snappy

Edited September 19, 2020 by Snappy

[ViFF]

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

 

 

Thank you for making the right decision and modelling the available loadouts based on what is technically possible rather than policy & procedures which are different between operators of the jet and can change overnight based on operational requirements.

 

Salute!

[Dee-Jay]

Hi!

 

Thank you for making the right decision and modelling the available loadouts based on what is technically possible rather than policy & procedures which are different between operators of the jet and can change overnight based on operational requirements.

 

It is not policy nor procedure. You are confusing with LAU88 and AGM-65.

 

Because he presented no real evidence. He only made a claim. You have so many guys here saying they know exactly this config is not possible and that wiring for the relevant stations does not exist without presenting a single piece of reliable information.This is why it is ignored.

And ED did find evidence that says it is wired and can be used. I have no reason not to trust them.

 

 

Ed found no evidence since they do not exists. Ed has only considered that, since AGM-88 can be loaded on station 4/6, then it should be possible to use them. This is the first point.

 

Next ... QuiGon can hardly prove that AGM-88 can't be used on station 4/6 since they can be loaded on those pylons and then, he can't show you any video were an AGM-88 mounted on station 4/6 is not fire while pilot would like to fire them! But on your side, you can try to find any picture or video (on non Edwards test jets) proving that AGM-88 can be fired from station 4/6.

 

We gave (well knows for years) explanations why HARMs can't be use in 4/6 ... up to you now to prove those arguments to be false.

 

;)

 

(my guess is that many ppl here do not want to know the truth and prefer to disregard clues elements because whatever the truth, they would prefer more "ammo" on their wings for game/fun/scores purpose)

 

 

Regards.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[Dee-Jay]

Hi Bignewy!

 

We also find evidence to support it.

 

Curious to know what they are!

 

May we ask to tell us what are they?

[ViFF]

Ed found no evidence since they do not exists. Ed has only considered that, since AGM-88 can be loaded on station 4/6, then it should be possible to use them. This is the first point.

 

I hope this is not the case. I have always seen that ED investigate technical capabilities very thoroughly and making great efforts to get a hold of engineering documents supporting whatever is under scrutiny.

 

Relying only on SMEs , pilots and maintainers experience is not enough as their experience and knowledge tainted and limited by the policy & procedures they have in place in their environment with no real authority for going outside of what they have been told that they are allowed to do by their superiors.

 

Cheers!

Edited September 19, 2020 by ViFF

[jasonbirder]

 

If they're going to restrict weapons arbitrarily based on ''doctrine'', then they should forcibly prevent aircraft from going over 20mph on taxiways because ''doctrine''

If you're gonna go hardcore nerd and force doctrinal restrictions, then do it across the board

 

 

 

Yes please :)

[Dee-Jay]

I hope this is not the case. I have always seen that ED investigate technical capabilities very thoroughly and making great efforts to get a hold of engineering documents supporting whatever is under scrutiny.

 

ED makes video games. At some point they have to trust ppl. Their SMEs has been proven wrong several times. (which can always happens even with engineers and pilots ... nobody knows everything ... nobody is perfect).

 

I also have my own SMEs about F-16 (I do also consider myself as SME in military aviation matters) ... and it is known for about two decades that F-16 can't operate the HARM from station 4 and 6. This is not something new.

 

ED has simply to read what is written in avionics documentation saying that HARM is loaded onto a LAU-118 launcher and communicates with the F-16 avionic system through the Aircraft Launcher Interface Computer (ALIC). If the ALIC at a station is not operating properly, the missile at that station is inaccessible. The ALIC is specially designed for F-16 use.

ALIC interface is not compatible with station 4 and 6.

 

Also HARM weapons can be loaded into inventory via the DTE or the MFDS. A HARM must be loaded on a LAU-118 launcher, which is available in the rack menu for stations 3, 4, 6, and 7. Note that stations 4 and 6 have not been certified to allow the carriage of HARM.

 

...

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[Vatikus]

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.

bump

[gavagai]

Thank you for making the right decision and modelling the available loadouts based on what is technically possible rather than policy & procedures which are different between operators of the jet and can change overnight based on operational requirements.

 

Salute!

:thumbup:

[Texac]

If they found a reliable source to back up the technical possibility of loading and employing HARM's on stations 4 & 6 for the exact F-16C simulated in DCS World then nothing points against it's implementation.

 

There are many different opinions in this community on what can be considered a reliable, trustworthy, reasonable or believable source. It's up to ED to decide how valuable their sources are.

[Snake122]

I hope this is not the case. I have always seen that ED investigate technical capabilities very thoroughly and making great efforts to get a hold of engineering documents supporting whatever is under scrutiny.

 

Relying only on SMEs , pilots and maintainers experience is not enough as their experience and knowledge tainted and limited by the policy & procedures they have in place in their environment with no real authority for going outside of what they have been told that they are allowed to do by their superiors.

 

Cheers!

Which exactly why Dee-Jay is an amazing source. He is a SME that has been researching the Viper through both people and documentation and has been for a long time. He isn't a Viper pilot, but I trust his knowledge more than a Viper pilot because he confirms everything through as many sources as possible. He has more SME and data sources on the Viper than ED and has been doing it longer.

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

Edited September 19, 2020 by Snake122

[Tango3B]

Hi!

 

 

 

It is not policy nor procedure. You are confusing with LAU88 and AGM-65.

 

 

 

 

Ed found no evidence since they do not exists. Ed has only considered that, since AGM-88 can be loaded on station 4/6, then it should be possible to use them. This is the first point.

 

Next ... QuiGon can hardly prove that AGM-88 can't be used on station 4/6 since they can be loaded on those pylons and then, he can't show you any video were an AGM-88 mounted on station 4/6 is not fire while pilot would like to fire them! But on your side, you can try to find any picture or video (on non Edwards test jets) proving that AGM-88 can be fired from station 4/6.

 

We gave (well knows for years) explanations why HARMs can't be use in 4/6 ... up to you now to prove those arguments to be false.

 

;)

 

(my guess is that many ppl here do not want to know the truth and prefer to disregard clues elements because whatever the truth, they would prefer more "ammo" on their wings for game/fun/scores purpose)

 

 

Regards.

 

 

All based on assumptions. You seem to assume ED went the "easy road" and did not really check the facts?! Pretty bold statement. How do you know that? Are you in their team of testers or SMEs?

 

 

Next, I was not referring to QuiGon but to another guy's post saying he knows because he claims to be a former Viper technician. QuiGon does not have to prove me anything.

 

 

Speaking of truth. Indeed you gave explanations why you think it does not work. But this is unfounded as long as you won't come up with a document of some sort that proves your claim. And to this point you didn't.

 

And no need for deflection here. I never made a claim that it actually does work so neither do I have to prove anything. I was just referring to guys who actually did present info on the previous pages of this thread.

[Cupra]

Nice discussions. Let`s se what ED is making.. the F-16 as they told or again a so called "Frankenstein" Viper :D :D :D