Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6

[TobiasA]

Gerade eben schrieb Northstar98:

Oh boy, so much hate for things being realistic on a platform that is explicitly stated as trying to be as realistic as possible...

 

Yes, but it also doesn't hurt realism simply not loading HARMs on 4/6 or simply not allowing it on a server, since the weapon behaviour is still the same when you only load on 3/7 which is realistic for the USAF, but also not for the HAF on the syria map.

And we should keep it civil, the last 10 pages were sometimes not that polite.
Long story short: It should be possible to forbid it, but also possible to allow it in some cases.

[Northstar98]

44 minutes ago, TobiasA said:

Yes, but it also doesn't hurt realism simply not loading HARMs on 4/6 or simply not allowing it on a server, since the weapon behaviour is still the same when you only load on 3/7

 

And it doesn't hurt realism if the FDM allows you to fly into space if nobody flies into space... Of course this is ridiculous but where's the line? What about other weapon combinations that aren't realistic for our specific aircraft?

 

People complaining that the F-16 module should be able to pull as much g as the real one? Well realism isn't hurt if you don't try and pull that much g.

 

The argument that a problem stops being a problem if you ignore it is nothing more than a cop-out IMO.

 

Where's the line here? Are things supposed to be authentic representations of their real life counterparts (at least as far as feasible/possible) or aren't they? There isn't a 3rd option here... 

 

Ultimately the module and the platform are supposed to be authentic to reality. Our F-16 is stated to be a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 c. 2007; so why should it be anything else?

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[shagrat]

2 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

I love how this entire thread has snowballed into a discussion about what DCS is or should be. Everyone has their own preferences, which are all equally valid. It's up to ED which direction they want to take the game and whether they want to stick to the "more realistic" approach with their FF modules. As a reference, not even Prowlers or Growlers carried/carry more than two HARM's operationally - I wonder why.  

 

 

Because they can carry two MAVs along with the two HARMs...

[shagrat]

55 minutes ago, FoxOne007 said:

If ED ends up not going for their ultra-realism and adds the option for HARMs to be carried on 4/6 then I ask ED to also disregards the ultra-realism in order to add the GBU-54 LJDAM for usage, as this began being used on the Viper in 2008 (within a year of our "2007" USAF/ANG F-16)

 

Yes, actually why not? I mean apart from "realism" what is preventing this?

Same goes for CBU-87/97 for aircraft that can drop Mk-20/CBU-99. What makes it physicaly impossible to drop them from the same station? The only reason I can come up with, is that the NAVY did not buy them and uses their old stock. Now if the MARINES would acquisition a couple CBU-97 for a specific strike mission, what would prevent them to load them onto an F/A-18C or Harrier? The Container and mechanism including electric fusing shouldn't be any different, right?

So is 4 times CBU-97 an unrealistic loadout for a F/A-18C in terms of capability?

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by shagrat

[Skysurfer]

13 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Because they can carry two MAVs along with the two HARMs...

 

A Prowler or Growler carrying Mav's now? I want whatever you are having, sir.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, FoxOne007 said:

If ED ends up not going for their ultra-realism and adds the option for HARMs to be carried on 4/6 then I ask ED to also disregards the ultra-realism in order to add the GBU-54 LJDAM for usage, as this began being used on the Viper in 2008 (within a year of our "2007" USAF/ANG F-16)

 

And remove the Wall-Eye from the Hornet that was out of inventory 10 years before our Hornet year.

And same thing goes to many many things, like our F-15C is from 1985 (mixture, but that is the most common year configuration) so it should lack the AIM-120A, B and C as it became in service in very ultra small batch in 1991. Now we would have F-15C with the AIM-7 only, more fitting to the cold war era and leave Hornet and Viper to 2005/2007, and AV-8B N/A to 2008 (because it has the Litening G4 from 2008) and of course JF-17 would gain a lot of new balance features for RedAir when F-15C is out of actives.

 

The MiG-21Bis would lose a Grom, and.... well,

 

Lots of things would change if the modules would be required to have more realistic weapons loadout for their service year and weapons year. And oh boy that blue cry when F-15C and F/A-18C would lose something with the F-16CM.

 

 

 

 

[randomTOTEN]

1 hour ago, TobiasA said:

Oh boy, so much hate over an LAU-88 and a wire on stations 4+6....

First flight simulator?

 

1 hour ago, TobiasA said:

Removing the HARM's kills HAF loadouts which would allow 4 HARM's, 6 mavericks were allowed for "wartime".

This isn't an HAF aircraft.

[Spectre1-1]

28 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

And remove the Wall-Eye from the Hornet that was out of inventory 10 years before our Hornet year.

And same thing goes to many many things, like our F-15C is from 1985 (mixture, but that is the most common year configuration) so it should lack the AIM-120A, B and C as it became in service in very ultra small batch in 1991. Now we would have F-15C with the AIM-7 only, more fitting to the cold war era and leave Hornet and Viper to 2005/2007, and AV-8B N/A to 2008 (because it has the Litening G4 from 2008) and of course JF-17 would gain a lot of new balance features for RedAir when F-15C is out of actives.

 

The MiG-21Bis would lose a Grom, and.... well,

 

Lots of things would change if the modules would be required to have more realistic weapons loadout for their service year and weapons year. And oh boy that blue cry when F-15C and F/A-18C would lose something with the F-16CM.

 

 

 

 

I fully agree that they should get removed, I don't pick what I want on a plane based on what I like

[Matti0503]

How's this for a compromise: We can still load HARMs on STA 4&6 but can't fire them, this would be the most realistic option.

 

Edit: I can already hear the people asking on the Discord why their HARMs won't fire, I retract this statement.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Matti0503

[FoxOne007]

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

Yes, actually why not? I mean apart from "realism" what is preventing this?

Same goes for CBU-87/97 for aircraft that can drop Mk-20/CBU-99. What makes it physicaly impossible to drop them from the same station? The only reason I can come up with, is that the NAVY did not buy them and uses their old stock. Now if the MARINES would acquisition a couple CBU-97 for a specific strike mission, what would prevent them to load them onto an F/A-18C or Harrier? The Container and mechanism including electric fusing shouldn't be any different, right?

So is 4 times CBU-97 an unrealistic loadout for a F/A-18C in terms of capability?

 

 

IDK, different weapons have different intergrations in airplane software. the -54 is actually carried by the Viper irl, unlike the CBU-87/97 in case of the Hornet.

 

49 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

And remove the Wall-Eye from the Hornet that was out of inventory 10 years before our Hornet year.

And same thing goes to many many things, like our F-15C is from 1985 (mixture, but that is the most common year configuration) so it should lack the AIM-120A, B and C as it became in service in very ultra small batch in 1991. Now we would have F-15C with the AIM-7 only, more fitting to the cold war era and leave Hornet and Viper to 2005/2007, and AV-8B N/A to 2008 (because it has the Litening G4 from 2008) and of course JF-17 would gain a lot of new balance features for RedAir when F-15C is out of actives.

 

The MiG-21Bis would lose a Grom, and.... well,

 

Lots of things would change if the modules would be required to have more realistic weapons loadout for their service year and weapons year. And oh boy that blue cry when F-15C and F/A-18C would lose something with the F-16CM.

 

 

 

 

That is a different case. at some point those weapons were are are carried by said/mentioned aircraft. unlike HARMs on STA 4/6 on the Viper. If a weapon like the Walleye was carried a while ago that means the jet has the capability to actually employ them

Edited February 23, 2021 by FoxOne007

[jojojung]

This is the proof, that they tested it!

 

On the website: f-16.net you find an discription of the Block 50 USAF. And Lt. Carl Krittenden can be quoted form this artikel: "Two HARM missiles are normally carried on a typical SEAD mission, however, 4-missiles loads are currently being test-flown at Eglin AFB."

In the following context of this artikel you can clearly see, that this test were done a log time before 2007. The artikel itself is a very old one. I already had contacted the website and the autor.

Ehlin AFB was not a test site like Area 51 or was a testsite for manufactors only. No it was a regular AFB and they tested it multiple times with normal block 50 USAF planes.

Thats the exact proof of concept we all are searching for.

 

LINK: https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html

[BIGNEWY]

Thank you all for your participation. 

 

Poll now closed. 

[Exorcet]

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

If they're going to promise x, they should deliver x.

 

 

 

I agree.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Where's the line here?

 

 

This is a good question to ask, but I don't think it's hard to answer. Provide the authentic aircraft as accurate as possible (deliver the x), then lump anything else into an "other" checkbox. This way we retain all the limitations necessary to mimic the target aircraft while at the same time providing a work around for situations where we can afford to deviate from absolute historical accuracy.

 

What options ED might choose to give us in the checkbox is up to them. Adding existing sim weapons with existing aircraft interfacing to existing pylons is low hanging fruit that won't take much work on their part. Adding something completely out of fantasy like, and I'm just exaggerating for the sake of making a point, rotary gattling lasers would take more work and frankly aren't in the realm of plausibility so I don't think there is any fear of ED wasting time on such a thing.

[Matti0503]

Quote

4-missiles loads are currently being test-flown at Eglin AFB.

cool that they tested it but was the average, combat use viper ever equipped with the wiring? I don't think so

Edited February 23, 2021 by Matti0503

[jojojung]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb Matti0503:

cool that they tested it but was the average, combat use viper ever equipped with the wiring? I don't think so

Then took off the walleye II because when your f18c of about 2005 was in service the Walleye was not in service for the hornet for years!

Edited February 23, 2021 by jojojung

[Matti0503]

you're completely missing my point but I agree that the Walleye and the SLAM should be removed

[jojojung]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Matti0503:

you're completely missing my point but I agree that the Walleye and the SLAM should be removed

I cant say what the result of this testing was. I dont know them but the autor says that "normaly two HARMS" indicating that there are special cases for 4 HARMS but thats my interpretation.

To resolve this I have send an E-Mail to the Website and hope to contact the autor Lt. Carl Krittenden.

But there was so much written in this topic here about, never a single time on the block 50 etc. and this is the proof that the HARMS on 4 and 6 worked. If they were put into service I can not say but I will try to find it out!

[Matti0503]

4 minutes ago, jojojung said:

I cant say what the result of this testing was. I dont know them but the autor says that "normaly two HARMS" indicating that there are special cases for 4 HARMS but thats my interpretation.

To resolve this I have send an E-Mail to the Website and hope to contact the autor Lt. Carl Krittenden.

But there was so much written in this topic here about, never a single time on the block 50 etc. and this is the proof that the HARMS on 4 and 6 worked. If they were put into service I can not say but I will try to find it out!

What type of testing exactly tho? Just carry test or actual firing. If it was firing, they probably had a special Viper with the needed Wiring just for this purpose. It not being on other/later Vipers would indicate that these tests weren't particularly successful.

[jojojung]

Gerade eben schrieb Matti0503:

What type of testing exactly tho? Just carry test or actual firing. If it was firing, they probably had a special Viper with the needed Wiring just for this purpose. It not being on other/later Vipers would indicate that these tests weren't particularly successful.

I think thats too much speculation. When many planes does testing on this it would not be done to only want to know if the viper can carry this missiles for transport use only. I think they tested the operational usage for sure. Why they didnt make it to the actuel piectime certified loadouts I dont know either. Maybe because its simply not nessecarry in piecetime. Maybe for security reasons, I dont know. I only want to show that it was done with quite some planes of the block 50. But I will let you know when I get more information, OK? Above in this topic guys said that it was 100% never done without any proof and influenced this poll, so I dicided to do some research. But now its closed allready!

[randomTOTEN]

26 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Thank you all for your participation. 

 

Poll now closed. 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to give feedback.