HARM Loading Discussion

[Kayos]

find me one picture of an F-16 loaded with 4 HARMS or even 4 stations full of Mavericks while in operation and i might reconsider my answer to this debate..

It's not hard to find pics:

[FoxOne007]

It's not hard to find pics:

 

That’s a test bird..................not an operational jet (It’s also a pretty old pic and might not even be a Block 50)

[Zergburger]

dude, they closed the last thread on this because it just ended with a bunch of toxicity.

The decision has been made

Stop crying

Just stop.

 

If you don't want more than 2 harms on your aircraft, don't take them.

[randomTOTEN]

This whole debate makes me think of the people i see flying around in F-18s carrying 8 AMRAAMs,... i can't think of one time i've seen a picture or video of it happening.

 

 

Now you can say you've seen at least 1 video. No, it's not a test aircraft, and it's not a test configuration. It's during a military exercise, and obviously in this case was a promotional decision, not necessarily a tactical one.

[SparxOne]

Now you can say you've seen at least 1 video. No, it's not a test aircraft, and it's not a test configuration. It's during a military exercise, and obviously in this case was a promotional decision, not necessarily a tactical one.

Hahaha, well gotta say thanks to you ! You've allowed me to widen my knowledge of something i'd never seen ;)

 

But i'm gonna have to use what you've said yourself, this was "was a promotional decision, not necessarily a tactical one."

 

So kind of sets us back to what i was saying about an operational jet used in a conflict :)

[randomTOTEN]

So kind of sets us back to what i was saying about an operational jet used in a conflict :)

I don't know why people keep bringing up this objection to the evidence. By virtue of us seeing it fly on an operational (not test) aircraft, we know it's an airworthy configuration.

As far as I know, all 10 missiles can interface with the systems of that Hornet, simultaneously. There's no missing fantasy wiring needed, no gameplay avionics updates required, right? You mount 10 AMRAAM's on the Hornet, the Hornet sees all 10 AMRAAM's, and can fire all 10.. right?

If they were live rounds, he could shoot all of them in that same flight, right?

 

So how is this not a "valid" loadout?

 

Going back to the OP. Can an operational Block 50 Viper mount Mavericks on 4 different weapon stations?, does it have the wiring and avionics to do so? Is that an airworthy configuration? Can a Viper fire all 8 missiles in the same flight?

 

I don't think the standards are the same here.

Edited September 26, 2020 by randomTOTEN

[Frederf]

So how is this not a "valid" loadout.

 

It depends if you're simulating being a pilot in a particular air force or not.

[SparxOne]

I don't know why people keep bringing up this objection to the evidence. By virtue of us seeing it fly on an operational (not test) aircraft, we know it's an airworthy configuration.

As far as I know, all 10 missiles can interface with the systems of that Hornet, simultaneously. There's no missing fantasy wiring needed, no gameplay avionics updates required, right? You mount 10 AMRAAM's on the Hornet, the Hornet sees all 10 AMRAAM's, and can fire all 10.. right?

If they were live rounds, he could shoot all of them in that same flight, right?

 

So how is this not a "valid" loadout?

 

Going back to the OP. Can an operational Block 50 Viper mount Mavericks on 4 different weapon stations?, does it have the wiring and avionics to do so? Is that an airworthy configuration? Can a Viper fire all 8 missiles in the same flight?

 

I don't think the standards are the same here.

 

As much as it is a valid loadout that would work IRL doesn't mean it's a realistic loadout an airforce would use in a conflict or may i say has been used in a conflict.

 

I play this game as a simulator, i try and simulate what i've got knowledge of and reproduce that into my gameplay.

 

Your point of view feels like "If the game allows me to carry nukes because the plane is able to carry that many IRL than i shall carry as much as i can on every flight and use them on my ennemy because it is possible." As you figured by now, i'm not part of that mentality.

 

I'd rather feel closer to how it is done IRL than being part of the people taking off with 10 fox 3s and the sole purpose of racking up as many kills as possible to feel like they are ace pilots.

[randomTOTEN]

Your point of view feels like "If the game allows me to carry nukes because the plane is able to carry that many IRL than i shall carry as much as i can on every flight and use them on my ennemy because it is possible."

My point of view is, "why do people repeatedly bring up a technically valid configuration to try and justify the existence of a (possibly) technically invalid configuration? When I bring up it's technical validity, it gets repeatedly dismissed on the basis of tactical use.. but apparently that objection only applies to specific modules..."

Edited September 27, 2020 by randomTOTEN
already answered my question

[Jackjack171]

All i'm hoping for is ED to stick to what is real and what was used in real life, this is what they've always done and i hope they stick to that.

 

This whole thing about cables sounds stupid to me, find me one picture of an F-16 loaded with 4 HARMS or even 4 stations full of Mavericks while in operation and i might reconsider my answer to this debate.

 

This whole debate makes me think of the people i see flying around in F-18s carrying 8 AMRAAMs, as much as that was indeed possible in real, i can't think of one time i've seen a picture or video of it happening. Yet ingame so many people use that loadout because "They NEED to rack up kills !", sad...

 

I'd almost want to say, have fun in SP with unlimited ammunition and fuel turned ON, you could carry just one of each but feel like a rambo of the sky...

+1

[Jackjack171]

As much as it is a valid loadout that would work IRL doesn't mean it's a realistic loadout an airforce would use in a conflict or may i say has been used in a conflict.

 

I play this game as a simulator, i try and simulate what i've got knowledge of and reproduce that into my gameplay.

 

Your point of view feels like "If the game allows me to carry nukes because the plane is able to carry that many IRL than i shall carry as much as i can on every flight and use them on my ennemy because it is possible." As you figured by now, i'm not part of that mentality.

 

I'd rather feel closer to how it is done IRL than being part of the people taking off with 10 fox 3s and the sole purpose of racking up as many kills as possible to feel like they are ace pilots.

You are wasting your time brother. For a sim community that ask for immersion and realism in the form of all the bells and whistles, you'll find that most here do not care about real world operations. Even though you've probably worked with it day in/day out, someone will argue to the teeth about what they saw on a test aircraft in a book or magazine. That's why you see 8 AIM-120's and 4 HARMS. Just let them do what they do. All they want is to rack up kills as you said!

[Dee-Jay]

Hi!

 

That's why you see 8 AIM-120's

8 AIM-120 ?!? ... on F-16?

 

Regrads.

[stormrider]

It depends if you're simulating being a pilot in a particular air force or not.

+1

[QuiGon]

Can we please stop talking about AMRAAMs on Hornets and come back to the actual topic. I'm still looking for a definitive answer why 4 HARM stations are possible on the Viper, but not 4 Maverick stations, if both missiles need the same video wiring?

[Cupra]

Don´t know how accurate, but Maverick is rail launched.. so the burn goes out on place the weapon is mounted. It does not drop or anythign else. If I look the little space between the end of the Maverick and the position of the rear fins.... With the TER and AGM-65 the same...

 

I do not know how stable they are and if they might get damaged. But when ED makes it then it should not be any problem. Other wise players can shoot down themself now :lol:

If a HARM on 4/6 work, there is not proble why Maverick should not. And also TER with AGM-65 should fit :D The box is now open to all options. The argument "we make it as real" will not work anymore now :D :D

[Jackjack171]

Hi!

 

 

8 AIM-120 ?!? ... on F-16?

 

Regrads.

I was making a point to his comment is all. I agree with you and him on a lot of this.

[Scrape]

Outside of the factory and depo maintenance only one career field will wire a weapons harness for a wing on an F-16 when on station. Wing changes are completed on station. The only, not avionics, not crew chiefs, not anyone but 2W1 Weapons Troops will wire the wing of an F-16 for all weapon stations. When it comes to which wires and buses are present there is no greater SME on the flightline. Why? Because the wing harness comes as one piece and must be dissembled and then reassembled when installed on the wing with wires ran to their specific stations. I'm a Weapons Troop, and have spent 13 of my 20 years working F-16s in 4 units, 3 of which happened to be SEAD units.

 

I'm posting not to make controversy, but to set the record straight. It is not an operational limitation to not carry HARMs on sta 4&6. There is no 1553 bus for 4&6. The 1553 bus is for 3&7 and sits near to the JRIU. No 1553 bus, means no 1760 capability for 4&6. No smart weapons, no JDAM, etc. That means only conventional stores can be reliably employed there. There's no "double braid" bundle for those who might know a thing or two. There is also no video line for sta 4&6. This means no AGM-65s either. I saw it mentioned that the AGM-65 and AGM-88 use different video lines. This is false. It's the same line. No video, no 1760 capability on 4&6 for any US F-16 unit. No variations.

 

What this means is not only is it not possible to use 65s or 88s from 4&6 it would take a herculean effort to reconfigure an aircraft to do so. It's not feasible in terms of cost or man hours. It's not something that could be done in days. Each jet would take weeks of maintenance to convert, not to mention the cost of a redesigned harness.

 

How can it be so confusing? If what I'm saying is true then how is there conflicting data? This is an easy mistake looking from the outside in. If one were to look at a wiring diagram, then they might come upon a T connector at the wing disconnect. This connector has three ports. A single on one side, and two on the other. This T connector, one on each side of the F-16 at the wing disconnect is a video line junction. The single plug goes forward toward the SMS, and there is a plug for sta 3&4 on the left side and correspondingly 6&7 on the right. They are labelled in the wire diagram. The 4&6 plugs of that T connector are capped. Without intimate knowledge of the system, it would be easy to make a mistake.

 

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.

 

Any reference to test aircraft. Don't count. There's a book worth of reasons why, but test aircraft should never be considered when asking what if, because test birds are what ifs in and of themselves. Also, a test bird doesn't have to be at Edwards to be a test bird.

 

I'm not posting to make an opinion about what ED is or is not doing with 4&6. I'm trying to shed a little light on real world F-16s because the community seems to have lots of questions in this regard with a search for the truth.

 

I'm not coming from a position of being well read. Because of how a wiring harness must be installed, you get to know every single pin, because you'll be wiring every single pin for each station. Connect every matrix and multiplex bus. It's not an easy job, and not one that everyone is chosen to qualify for. The best guys still take a couple weeks to finish one side.

 

I hope this helps shed a little understanding on where the real world jet sits on the matter, and why.

[Scrape]

Just a follow up to the sidebar question. US F-16s have a maximum of 6 A2A weapons stations. Stations 1-9, 2-8, 3A-7A. That's it. No variations. Sta 4&6 do not have the required wiring to support A2A weapons, and there is no receptacle in the wing for the underwing adapter which is used on sta 2,8,3A,7A.

[Mars Exulte]

@scrape

Really interesting read, thanks

[falcon_120]

Thanks Scrape.

 

That was an interesting read that clarifies where US F16 sits at.

 

Do you know of any F16 in other air forces that has made the necessary changes to support smart weapons on stations 4&6? Maybe the IAF ones?

 

I just want to know this because if the answer is no, then there is no point in place for those like myself who thinks that if a certain Air force use that config, it should be permitted as a wink to those people who want to simulate a custom air force configuration (given that we only have one model simulated in DCS)

[Dee-Jay]

Outside of the factory and depo maintenance only one career field will wire a weapons harness for a wing on an F-16 when on station. Wing changes are completed on station. The only, not avionics, not crew chiefs, not anyone but 2W1 Weapons Troops will wire the wing of an F-16 for all weapon stations. When it comes to which wires and buses are present there is no greater SME on the flightline. Why? Because the wing harness comes as one piece and must be dissembled and then reassembled when installed on the wing with wires ran to their specific stations. I'm a Weapons Troop, and have spent 13 of my 20 years working F-16s in 4 units, 3 of which happened to be SEAD units.

 

I'm posting not to make controversy, but to set the record straight. It is not an operational limitation to not carry HARMs on sta 4&6. There is no 1553 bus for 4&6. The 1553 bus is for 3&7 and sits near to the JRIU. No 1553 bus, means no 1760 capability for 4&6. No smart weapons, no JDAM, etc. That means only conventional stores can be reliably employed there. There's no "double braid" bundle for those who might know a thing or two. There is also no video line for sta 4&6. This means no AGM-65s either. I saw it mentioned that the AGM-65 and AGM-88 use different video lines. This is false. It's the same line. No video, no 1760 capability on 4&6 for any US F-16 unit. No variations.

 

What this means is not only is it not possible to use 65s or 88s from 4&6 it would take a herculean effort to reconfigure an aircraft to do so. It's not feasible in terms of cost or man hours. It's not something that could be done in days. Each jet would take weeks of maintenance to convert, not to mention the cost of a redesigned harness.

 

How can it be so confusing? If what I'm saying is true then how is there conflicting data? This is an easy mistake looking from the outside in. If one were to look at a wiring diagram, then they might come upon a T connector at the wing disconnect. This connector has three ports. A single on one side, and two on the other. This T connector, one on each side of the F-16 at the wing disconnect is a video line junction. The single plug goes forward toward the SMS, and there is a plug for sta 3&4 on the left side and correspondingly 6&7 on the right. They are labelled in the wire diagram. The 4&6 plugs of that T connector are capped. Without intimate knowledge of the system, it would be easy to make a mistake.

 

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.

 

Any reference to test aircraft. Don't count. There's a book worth of reasons why, but test aircraft should never be considered when asking what if, because test birds are what ifs in and of themselves. Also, a test bird doesn't have to be at Edwards to be a test bird.

 

I'm not posting to make an opinion about what ED is or is not doing with 4&6. I'm trying to shed a little light on real world F-16s because the community seems to have lots of questions in this regard with a search for the truth.

 

I'm not coming from a position of being well read. Because of how a wiring harness must be installed, you get to know every single pin, because you'll be wiring every single pin for each station. Connect every matrix and multiplex bus. It's not an easy job, and not one that everyone is chosen to qualify for. The best guys still take a couple weeks to finish one side.

 

I hope this helps shed a little understanding on where the real world jet sits on the matter, and why.

 

 

Thank you for this sir!

 

 

So you confirm: AGM-65 Maverick (all variants) can not be employed on Stat 4/6 ... Correct?

[sparkchaser2010]

It's not hard to find pics:

 

That looks like 90-835 which is a Block 50

 

http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/airframe-profile/3207/

[Dee-Jay]

That looks like 90-835 which is a Block 50

 

http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/airframe-profile/3207/

 

 

Look at tail markings.

[sparkchaser2010]

Outside of the factory and depo maintenance only one career field will wire a weapons harness for a wing on an F-16 when on station. Wing changes are completed on station. The only, not avionics, not crew chiefs, not anyone but 2W1 Weapons Troops will wire the wing of an F-16 for all weapon stations. When it comes to which wires and buses are present there is no greater SME on the flightline. Why? Because the wing harness comes as one piece and must be dissembled and then reassembled when installed on the wing with wires ran to their specific stations. I'm a Weapons Troop, and have spent 13 of my 20 years working F-16s in 4 units, 3 of which happened to be SEAD units.

 

I'm posting not to make controversy, but to set the record straight. It is not an operational limitation to not carry HARMs on sta 4&6. There is no 1553 bus for 4&6. The 1553 bus is for 3&7 and sits near to the JRIU. No 1553 bus, means no 1760 capability for 4&6. No smart weapons, no JDAM, etc. That means only conventional stores can be reliably employed there. There's no "double braid" bundle for those who might know a thing or two. There is also no video line for sta 4&6. This means no AGM-65s either. I saw it mentioned that the AGM-65 and AGM-88 use different video lines. This is false. It's the same line. No video, no 1760 capability on 4&6 for any US F-16 unit. No variations.

 

What this means is not only is it not possible to use 65s or 88s from 4&6 it would take a herculean effort to reconfigure an aircraft to do so. It's not feasible in terms of cost or man hours. It's not something that could be done in days. Each jet would take weeks of maintenance to convert, not to mention the cost of a redesigned harness.

 

How can it be so confusing? If what I'm saying is true then how is there conflicting data? This is an easy mistake looking from the outside in. If one were to look at a wiring diagram, then they might come upon a T connector at the wing disconnect. This connector has three ports. A single on one side, and two on the other. This T connector, one on each side of the F-16 at the wing disconnect is a video line junction. The single plug goes forward toward the SMS, and there is a plug for sta 3&4 on the left side and correspondingly 6&7 on the right. They are labelled in the wire diagram. The 4&6 plugs of that T connector are capped. Without intimate knowledge of the system, it would be easy to make a mistake.

 

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.

 

Any reference to test aircraft. Don't count. There's a book worth of reasons why, but test aircraft should never be considered when asking what if, because test birds are what ifs in and of themselves. Also, a test bird doesn't have to be at Edwards to be a test bird.

 

I'm not posting to make an opinion about what ED is or is not doing with 4&6. I'm trying to shed a little light on real world F-16s because the community seems to have lots of questions in this regard with a search for the truth.

 

I'm not coming from a position of being well read. Because of how a wiring harness must be installed, you get to know every single pin, because you'll be wiring every single pin for each station. Connect every matrix and multiplex bus. It's not an easy job, and not one that everyone is chosen to qualify for. The best guys still take a couple weeks to finish one side.

 

I hope this helps shed a little understanding on where the real world jet sits on the matter, and why.

 

From one 2W1 to another, :thumbup:

[sparkchaser2010]

Look at tail markings.

 

Did I miss something?

 

Same as below, which is a heavily modified test bird.

 

http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album38/album66/90-0835