Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6

[Dee-Jay]

3 hours ago, shagrat said:

I would really like to know what's the reason behind the USAFs decision to not rig the two cables and enhance the mission capability? I mean a loadout with 2*HARM and 2*MAV would be pretty useful for SEAD/DEAD, I guess.

 

 

Hi!

 

We are speaking USAF right? Ok ...

 

... lets calculate (even a simple approximation) your maximum combat radius and associated Bingo and minimum fuel for such a configuration and on a SEAD task.

Considering the center-line fuel tank (which has tendency to increase the risks of roll departure), you can consider a total fuel of about 9000lbs. And consider a safety fuel of about 1000lbs (for Blk50 IIRC), and a divert field located at about 50Nm away from the recovery airfield (considering good weather forecast).

 

Roughly estimated :

 

Safety fuel 1000lbs

Divert fuel 50*20 (or 50*15+250 for one G/A) =1000lbs

Joker 1000lbs

Usable fuel 9000 - 3000 = 6000lbs

 

Lets say Hi-Hi profile, 6000/15=400Nm => so about 400/8 = 50min of flight autonomy at M0.8 in best case scenario.

So 25Min ingress, 25min egress. No playtime, no re-attack, no evasive, no holding plan ... Combat radius about 200Nm.

 

For an IAF F-16I ... I could understand ...

For USAF ... well ... I had an idea.

 

And we are only speaking about the operational values of such configuration.

 

Note also that what you are calling "two cables" ... is far from the reality. If is more weight, more software (do you an any idea how much cost one line of software code like this?), more maintenance, airframe modifications, possible power supplies modification, certifications ... etc ... it is a matter of few millions of $$$. It is far far from being simply a matter of "two cables".

 

Of course ... (almost) anything is possible with $$$ ... we could also imagine USAF updates to carry MATRA MICA-IR, GBU-28 on stat 5 (center-line) ... etc ...

 

But actually ... that is not the question. This is maybe something to deal with ML and USAF but is not a matter of ED's decision (if they want an accurate F-16 simulation).

 

Regards.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Dee-Jay

[jojojung]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb randomTOTEN:

this bad argument keeps coming up

the Hornet pylons are all wired to support launching all 10 weapons, the aircraft is approved to fly even in peace time with all 10 mounted, and there is evidence of operational aircraft flying this configuration for various reasons. There is absolutely nothing "unrealistic" about it other than choices for mission planning. In ED's terms, it is "Operationally Valid"

 

this is a terrible comparison and it needs to stop being used. they are completely different.

I think you dont get the point of me. Nothing wrong to my statement. I know, In the Hornet all the options are possible because there was no real alternative when it was on service in the NAVY. Do you think the USAF doesnt have the capability to make the cable work for 4 and 6? But it was never introduced because there was no real use in peacetime because of alternatives.

Yes your absolutly right the Hornet can get 10 AIM120. Is this a usefull payload? I think with the engine of the hornet we do not discuss this here. Maybe there are some special cases or emergency conditions for the 10 AIM 120 Hornet - you never know - and exact therefor it was tried and it was put to a valid payload. Now think what the airforce would say if they need a 10 AIM 120 machine? Guess what, they pic the F15E. There is no guy who says, "remember the Viper can do this job too we only need to put some cables on" because there was a better airplane with more powerful engines to get this special job done. Would you agree sofar?

 

Thats why I said, the Hornet guys are in a more luckly situation, because the NAVY tried everything on the hornet that was thinkable, it was their only oppertunity. The Viper has a bigger brother and the need to maximize the skills of the Viper was not that necessary.  

 

Was the hornet ever used with 8 JSOWs? I think not, but as you said, its possible.

Edited February 23, 2021 by jojojung

[Hentai Paisen]

5 hours ago, AlexCaboose said:

Or, just hear us out, we play MP and want to see people taking realistic loadouts.
 

Who would read the NATOPs for the F-16? More like the -1, -34, CAF, etc. Regardless, the point stands - someone who is buying the F-16 SOLEY because it can carry 4x HARMs should be doing more research. There are plenty of reasons to buy, fly, and love the Viper. 4x HARMs isn't one of them. A quick google search of F-16s will how you that it just doesn't happen.

If you are playing DCS multiplayer on servers where people can and are taking unrealistic loadouts you aren't playing DCS realistically anyways.

[Jackjack171]

23 minutes ago, Hentai Paisen said:

Honestly I really wish ED would focus more on ADDING new features to the F-16 instead of REMOVING what little capability we have right now. How about you worry about this issue in two years after we have more than a third of the DED pages working and JDAMs/JSOWs/HTS etc. Anyone that wants to fly as realistically as possible should be doing so on private servers hosting their own missions with their own group of like-minded players. 

 

Here's how the last year of F-16 development has gone:

[10 paragraphs of F-18 updates and additions]

F-16: Rearming during INS alignment now breaks INS alighment.

Engine noise adjusted.

 

Personally even if carrying extra HARMs or Mavs isn't standard USAF procedure it makes a decent stop gap until the F-16 actually gets some of the capability it deserves.

Weather they remove/add them now or later, people will still complain. Better to be done with it either way!  It is still in beta so they can add or take away whatever.

3 minutes ago, Viper X3 said:

Maybe that's what ED wants us to focus on: arguing over 4 HARMS vs 2 HARMS. Hahaha

 

Apparently this is the most important topic about the F-16. 

 

The bigger picture is not with the HARM and Maverick itself. This is about those that want realism and those that want to arcade it up!

[randomTOTEN]

4 minutes ago, Jackjack171 said:

This is about those that want realism and those that want to arcade it up!

100% this.

There are probably 3 general sides to this controversy.

 

Those that think the extra HARM's are realistic, or it's an easy mod to support them.

Those that think the extra HARM are not realistic.

Those that care about how many HARM they can hang on their DCS:F-16C Blk 50.

[Biggus]

I can't vote for either option without more information, and I understand the reasons why there's no further information forthcoming to enable me to make my choice.

 

If there's substantiated evidence that even a handful of our block and year of Viper were wired for four 88s, then I'd like to see the option to use that loadout.  If the evidence is not conclusive, then I'd be inclined to leave it with the pair of 88s.

[Ignition]

2 hours ago, Jackjack171 said:

Weather they remove/add them now or later, people will still complain. Better to be done with it either way!  It is still in beta so they can add or take away whatever.

The bigger picture is not with the HARM and Maverick itself. This is about those that want realism and those that want to arcade it up!

 

DCS will never be a realistic scenario. People think because they can start fly and shoot in a simulator they can do it in real life. There are hundreds of variables that doesn't count in DCS but they do IRL.

It is the best simulator yes, but it will never be realistic. And its far from an arcade, so don't worry about that.

[AlexCaboose]

3 hours ago, Hentai Paisen said:

If you are playing DCS multiplayer on servers where people can and are taking unrealistic loadouts you aren't playing DCS realistically anyways.

Completely wrong. There's nothing that stops you from taking it, other than an agreement that it won't be done on a private server. Regardless, it is not accurate for the specific aircraft being modeled and should not exist.

[Fri13]

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

Definitely not, just that the document is judged not by itself to be "legit", but by who provides it and

how many accept it as legit.

Exactly. We need to know a lot about the documentation before its evidence value gets higher.

 

But regardless all evidence is evidence, that we need to categorize and evaluate. And finally make decision what is most trustworthy.

 

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

The problem is the official documents e.g. Squadron SOP, mission planning documentation with specific loadouts, especially if we talk unusual loadouts in "unusual missions" won't be mass distributed on the internet, what makes the fact, that you find documents in several places more credible? Basically because you trust the website, the distributer, the guy posting, etc.

That's what I meant. We take documentation and information as legit, because we (as individuals) trust the source.

 

We might want to trust the source. This is problematic example in history that we want to trust people "who were there" far more than documentation from that same event, and even more than a laws of nature (that people gladly forget when emotional opinions start to generate) and finally when the logic would be required, it is easily put aside as nothing else is felt as trustworthy than "I was there, you weren't" evidence. Regardless how bad human memory is and "telephone game" with rest cause twists.

 

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

If a majority trusts the same source we assume it's credible.

That doesn't necessary mean that it is 100% accurate. I've seen a lot of newspapers, but also well researched military books mix up things from aircrafts types to weapons, smaller details wrong or major f... ups.

 

These days it is much more challenging to find the original source when everyone starts to quote the few that quoted original and then everyone is quoting those few. You find only quotes to those few but not the original, and if the original is hidden away, you might never really find the truth among all the quotes.

 

This is the historical research problem that whole genre can be in hands of dozen historian that all base their work to one source, that is in conflict with itself. But when the ratio of produced evidence (history books) saturate the market, the error (no matter how stupid and large) will spread like wildfire and everyone believes based that as "it is common knowledge".

 

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

What puzzles me is the notion that "others need to bring evidence and proof to me that there statement is correct" while I myself of course make statements "that are correct and credible, unless you proof me I am  wrong".

(I assume "there" meant "theirs"?)

I take the path that Science is suppose to be free and open, where everyone are suppose to be challenging the information. That together it can be solved what is more usable. Anyone can make a hypothesis based to evidence, and everyone are responsible to research that hypothesis to be either false or true, and if it even becomes false - it might become valuable later.

 

This means as well that if example ED says that they only use a declassified documentation and does not accept a highly classified material, then they can not suddenly jump behind unanimous sources that no one can verify, use or challenge, and say "as intended".

 

Every researcher needs to take a stance against their own work, question that is it logical, is there evidence to point otherwise. Just recheck and process again by comparing information to other information.

 

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

The real question with the HARMs is: if we assume the F-16C (this particular model) hadn't been enabled/upgraded to use them, is it just the wiring and Software changes that won't change anything other than our imagination, or would it require different switches, MFD stores page etc. If it's just our imagination, there is a simple solution: note the true to life loadouts in the manual and whoever wants timeline correct realism can set the loadouts accordingly and people who fly this specific version of the F-16C on Caucasus, over Iraq or Normandy/the Channel can adapt a mission specific loadout. No harm done...

 

In a DCS modules I primarily want to take a hard technical limitation. And it really means that there is no way electronically or digitally to use something. Like there is no required wires or required panel etc.

 

As I would leave the politics outside. It means the politics in US Navy case the congress decisions to funding weapons manufacturing and delivery to battlegroup.

The battlegroup politics that what weapons they have in operational service and what are stored to warehouse in the unknown location.

The squadron politics that what strategies and tactics they use to fill their mission.

 

As in political situation one writes the manuals and the loadouts etc to match theirs work, regardless technical capabilities that what is there in the airframe.

 

And when in DCS the module is limited to not just the airframe, to general model, but as well to specific country, specific squadron, to very specific unit.... It becomes more problematic than benefit as politics influence everything and not the technical capabilities.

 

And there are different politics in the engineering party. Like in the Fighter Pilot Podcast episode about electronic warfare it was pointed out in F/A-18C super hornet that every single super hornet was wired for the special electronic jamming equipment. Even if the squadron doesn't use them, they are there. As this made it easier to calculate landing weights and all as airframes were as capable. And if was required to get the EW capability, you only needed to load the actual pods.

 

So such information supports that there are two kind situations:

 

1) that there are modifications that has different technical capabilities.

 

2) that there are technical compatibilities that are not just used.

 

And yet it doesn't lead to conclusion because Super Hornet is not same as Viper.

[naizarak]

it either can or it can't.  all indicators point to can't.  what is there to "discuss"

[Furiz]

1 minute ago, naizarak said:

it either can or it can't.  all indicators point to can't.  what is there to "discuss"

 

what indicators?

Only some people saying it can't,

 

you can google the documents that say:

 

The High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) (AGM-88) (Figure 4-11) is a program-mable, frequency adjustable, air-to-ground, anti-radiation missile that may be loaded on weapon stations 3, 4, 6 and 7, however, it is only flight certified on stations 3 and 7.

 

So what does flight certified mean?

Since it can be loaded I assume they wouldn't just ferry it, it would seem that it is possible to launch it from 4 and 6, but it is not certified for a reason no one can explain here.

 

So what indicators are pointing that it can't?

[Fri13]

8 minutes ago, Furiz said:

So what does flight certified mean?

 

Doesn't its specification already tell what it means? It is not flight certified, so it is only ground certified....

 

 

[QuiGon]

11 hours ago, LC214 said:

Uh probably because some people might have bought the F-16 on the fact that it can use 4 HARMs in DCS? And that taking away such capability after the fact would make them regret their purchase? This is a very different issue than a landing gear handle not behaving properly.

And guess what: I have bought the F-16 on the fact that it could only carry 2 HARMs as it has been the case initially, untill people started crying for 4...

 

  

10 hours ago, LC214 said:

This argument pops up literally every single time. How about this, keep what ED has already given to the plane, and stop there? Just because people are saying it is ridiculous for them to remove capability that they already added does NOT mean people are asking for things like double racked AMRAAMs.

You seem to forget (or just don't know), that we have already been at this point last year, when it was only possible to take 2 HARMs on the F-16. Then some people started crying for moar missiles and ED increased it to 4 without thinking. It's strange how this change didn't bother you, even though it too was a change for an aircraft already given to us...

Edited February 23, 2021 by QuiGon

[QuiGon]

10 hours ago, shagrat said:

If it can't physically launch them (because of a cable missing) don't load them on that stations. What's the point?

The point is that it can't physically launch them on those stations, just like an AIM-54 for example, which I also don't want to see there, neither on my F-16 nor on any other F-16 I encounter in SP or MP missions!

 

 

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

That's why it has the arcade options, where you get the 360° radar, enemy markers etc. and a simplified control. Didn't you read the product description, before buying?

It is explicitly advertised to be adjustable to your personal style of game play from arcade to ultra realism.

Then keep the 4 HARMs to the arcade mode, which can be disabled by server hosters, who currently have no option to disable HARMs on the inner pylons...

 

  

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

That's the problem, because DCS should provide the Sandbox and leave the "special cases" to the Mission builders and campaign producers.

Then ED should provide the mission builders, campaign producers and server hosters with such options, as there is currently no damn option to disable HARMs on stations 4 & 6!

Edited February 23, 2021 by QuiGon

[Gruman]

I voted no. Don't need the 4 HARMs and plenty of SME did state that no wiring is available for those two extra stations. Enough for me. Same is valid for the Maverick

A reason more to have a friendly Hornet or A-10C in the mission .

 

[Edit] But beeing able to ferry them would be nice for specific logistic operations, but guess this would confuse a lot of virtual pilots.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Gruman

[shagrat]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

Exactly. We need to know a lot about the documentation before its evidence value gets higher.

 

But regardless all evidence is evidence, that we need to categorize and evaluate. And finally make decision what is most trustworthy.

 

 

We might want to trust the source. This is problematic example in history that we want to trust people "who were there" far more than documentation from that same event, and even more than a laws of nature (that people gladly forget when emotional opinions start to generate) and finally when the logic would be required, it is easily put aside as nothing else is felt as trustworthy than "I was there, you weren't" evidence. Regardless how bad human memory is and "telephone game" with rest cause twists.

 

 

These days it is much more challenging to find the original source when everyone starts to quote the few that quoted original and then everyone is quoting those few. You find only quotes to those few but not the original, and if the original is hidden away, you might never really find the truth among all the quotes.

 

This is the historical research problem that whole genre can be in hands of dozen historian that all base their work to one source, that is in conflict with itself. But when the ratio of produced evidence (history books) saturate the market, the error (no matter how stupid and large) will spread like wildfire and everyone believes based that as "it is common knowledge".

 

(I assume "there" meant "theirs"?)

I take the path that Science is suppose to be free and open, where everyone are suppose to be challenging the information. That together it can be solved what is more usable. Anyone can make a hypothesis based to evidence, and everyone are responsible to research that hypothesis to be either false or true, and if it even becomes false - it might become valuable later.

 

This means as well that if example ED says that they only use a declassified documentation and does not accept a highly classified material, then they can not suddenly jump behind unanimous sources that no one can verify, use or challenge, and say "as intended".

 

Every researcher needs to take a stance against their own work, question that is it logical, is there evidence to point otherwise. Just recheck and process again by comparing information to other information.

 

 

In a DCS modules I primarily want to take a hard technical limitation. And it really means that there is no way electronically or digitally to use something. Like there is no required wires or required panel etc.

 

As I would leave the politics outside. It means the politics in US Navy case the congress decisions to funding weapons manufacturing and delivery to battlegroup.

The battlegroup politics that what weapons they have in operational service and what are stored to warehouse in the unknown location.

The squadron politics that what strategies and tactics they use to fill their mission.

 

As in political situation one writes the manuals and the loadouts etc to match theirs work, regardless technical capabilities that what is there in the airframe.

 

And when in DCS the module is limited to not just the airframe, to general model, but as well to specific country, specific squadron, to very specific unit.... It becomes more problematic than benefit as politics influence everything and not the technical capabilities.

 

And there are different politics in the engineering party. Like in the Fighter Pilot Podcast episode about electronic warfare it was pointed out in F/A-18C super hornet that every single super hornet was wired for the special electronic jamming equipment. Even if the squadron doesn't use them, they are there. As this made it easier to calculate landing weights and all as airframes were as capable. And if was required to get the EW capability, you only needed to load the actual pods.

 

So such information supports that there are two kind situations:

 

1) that there are modifications that has different technical capabilities.

 

2) that there are technical compatibilities that are not just used.

 

And yet it doesn't lead to conclusion because Super Hornet is not same as Viper.

Thank you for your thoughts. Yep, autocorrect likely, that should read "theirs".

Though I do not agree with certain details on what is acceptable to be "most realistic" I agree with most of what you said.

Personally I am not that fond of the "never used  IRL" or "we model a specific aircraft BuNo" approaches.

Never used (no photo proof) is difficult as there often is a lot more going on that's simply classified and not documented and ultimately the mission planning dictates loadouts and in certain limitations we see a bit of leeway (e.g. field mods and even putting operational needs over strict doctrine or even safety concerns).

A specific BuNo would basically mean just this one specific aircraft. As we all fly in multiple "clones" of the same machine.

As long as we talk about a cable not rigged from the pylon to the MC interface or preventing the use of dumb bomb variants from pylons because they were tested, but not cleared, I would like the option to do scenarios more based on mission requirements.

When it comes to historical missions or re-enactment of real life conflicts, I can "restrict" the loadout to realisic ones by myself.

As for the balancing of competitive Multiplayer I couldn't care less. There never was or will be a balanced conflict on this planet where both parties put up restrictions on weapons or agreed on a specific amount of "points" to balance anything.

Anyway I am of the opinion, that while you can load a ton of weapons on your airframe the reason in real life and DCS to not load as much as possible are the same. Weight, drag, agility vs. what is needed to do the job. The less you load, the higher your survivability, the more you load the more bombs on target. As we rarely see strike packages of 16 aircraft plus in DCS there is a certain need to match loadouts to the more realistic environments. We can either try adding AI SEAD flights and pray, or reduce the threats to accommodate for the missing players. I would rather put a creative loadout with 2 HARM and 2 MAV than putting an AI flight in with HARM to suppress  a SA-11 site and pray I can get close enough and take it out with a MAV...

 

1 hour ago, Gruman said:

I voted no. Don't need the 4 HARMs and plenty of SME did state that no wiring is available for those two extra stations. Enough for me. Same is valid for the Maverick

A reason more to have a friendly Hornet or A-10C in the mission .

 

[Edit] But beeing able to ferry them would be nice for specific logistic operations, but guess this would confuse a lot of virtual pilots.

 

Agree on the HARMs but that will disable the MAVs as well. And that's a pretty interesting option for DEAD.

See above.

Edited February 23, 2021 by shagrat

[shagrat]

1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

The point is that it can't physically launch them on those stations, just like an AIM-54 for example, which I also don't want to see there, neither on my F-16 nor on any other F-16 I encounter in SP or MP missions!

 

 

Then keep the 4 HARMs to the arcade mode, which can be disabled by server hosters, who currently have no option to disable HARMs on the inner pylons...

 

  

Then ED should provide the mission builders, campaign producers and server hosters with such options, as there is currently no damn option to disable HARMs on stations 4 & 6!

 

Well, you can easily "disable" them for yourself, by not loading them.

As  for public competitive MP that has been pointed out, usually does not care a lot about realistic loadouts anyway so an A/B-52-10C Warthog strategic bomber isn't unheard of, yet not exactly "realistic".

I don't like the enforcement of "perceived balance" onto the whole Singleplayer and PvE community to cater for a minority of competitive groups, that usually fly on closed Servers anyway, up to establishing own complex rules for their gameplay. What's next? Enforcement of SATAL rulesets, based on MP missions with red and blue slots?

 

The point with the  "cable not wired" is about the fact that the aircraft could easily support another set of HARM/MAV on that pylons, but someone decided to not rig a video cable... That is a totally different thing than an AIM-54 or any other weapon not in the MC/SMS. It is not that HARM or MAV are not available for the F-16C,we talk about rigging a cable for some $50 each, right?

[QuiGon]

7 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Well, you can easily "disable" them for yourself, by not loading them.

As  for public competitive MP that has been pointed out, usually does not care a lot about realistic loadouts anyway so an A/B-52-10C Warthog strategic bomber isn't unheard of, yet not exactly "realistic".

 

I'm not talking about competitive/balanced MP, I'm talking about realistic missions in either SP/MP.

[Ignition]

1 hour ago, Gruman said:

I voted no. Don't need the 4 HARMs and plenty of SME did state that no wiring is available for those two extra stations. Enough for me. Same is valid for the Maverick

A reason more to have a friendly Hornet or A-10C in the mission .

 

[Edit] But beeing able to ferry them would be nice for specific logistic operations, but guess this would confuse a lot of virtual pilots.

 

 

Yeah, the same which loads 6 mavericks in DCS but it burns the wheels IRL, and it can only fly when there're no enemy CAP.
DCS is not reality, stop believing this.
And stop reading the internet, a guy on the internet said "this isn't true" and then all repeat the same thing.

6 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

I'm not talking about competitive/balanced MP, I'm talking about realistic missions in either SP/MP.

Then don't load the AGM88 on station 4/6, its not difficult.

[Fleur79]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb QuiGon:

 

I'm not talking about competitive/balanced MP, I'm talking about realistic missions in either SP/MP.

the very competitive multiplayers can/want to also pull 9g+ all the time ;). the very best thing of DCS is caring for realism! i do not own the f16 yet, but i´m sure she´s quite a capable little fighter. if the chosen model cannot fire 4 HARMs, why even make a poll for it? my viggen cannot fire single unguided rockets but only all at one time. and it´s good that way, because it´s just correct. and that makes the appeal of a realistic simulation. live with the "limitations" and do your best. best wishes, fleur

[shagrat]

39 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

I'm not talking about competitive/balanced MP, I'm talking about realistic missions in either SP/MP.

But what is the problem in SP/MP if the participants want to "fly realistic" simply select a realistic loadout. If you want to simulate the missing wiring for pylons 4 & 6 and don't load HARM and MAV on these stations.

Leaves campaign and mission designers with more options and flexibility and players can still pick timeframe realistic weapon loadouts, even restrict themselves to loadouts based on historcal missions. Why take these options away to restrict everyone? I don't see the point...

[QuiGon]

26 minutes ago, shagrat said:

But what is the problem in SP/MP if the participants want to "fly realistic" simply select a realistic loadout. If you want to simulate the missing wiring for pylons 4 & 6 and don't load HARM and MAV on these stations.

 

I want to host realistic MP sessions, so I need an option to disable the use of HARMs on pylons 4 & 6 for all clients. I can't do that right now as DCS does not provide any such option. Simple.

[Linx]

Just leave it as is and focus on more important DCS: F-16C related tasks.
Let mission builders decide what is allowed and what is not.

[QuiGon]

19 minutes ago, Linx said:

Let mission builders decide what is allowed and what is not.

 

They are currently missing the option to do so!

[jojojung]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Furiz:

 

what indicators?

Only some people saying it can't,

 

you can google the documents that say:

 

The High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) (AGM-88) (Figure 4-11) is a program-mable, frequency adjustable, air-to-ground, anti-radiation missile that may be loaded on weapon stations 3, 4, 6 and 7, however, it is only flight certified on stations 3 and 7.

 

So what does flight certified mean?

Since it can be loaded I assume they wouldn't just ferry it, it would seem that it is possible to launch it from 4 and 6, but it is not certified for a reason no one can explain here.

 

So what indicators are pointing that it can't?

 

So what do we all want? Above and in the Internet there is evidance that the Harms can be loaded and use (with little modifications) on station 4 and 6 but its not certified. Do we want a simulator for exact 2007 and peacetime with only limited war operations or do we want to simulate wartime. For myself its absolutely clear that in wartime and if the national guard has to do a SEAD operation within 200 nm and all depends on this sead operation, nobody will care about the one piecetime certification. In the military there are a lot of regulations on many systems in peacetime to take effort to security reasons and to reduce the chance of accidents.

 

Of course there must be a red line to dont get frankensteins planes but if its possible from the manufactor side of view and only a country decide not to use it in peacetime thats a different case.

Edited February 23, 2021 by jojojung