not planned or correct for version Single AIM 120 Hardpoints

[Wobbly]

Hi,

Since the Update if you put on a single 120 onto a Pylon you will get the double Rack Launcher with one Missile in it. Not like until now the single one. I suppose the double launcher has more drag. Also there is no other launcher Option available. If you mount a Aim 7 on the LAU 115 you still get the single launcher. I don't know if thats a bug or supposed to be that way, hence i am asking here.

 

 

 

Cheers

Edited April 16, 2021 by Wobbly

[Harlikwin]

AFAIK this is correct, there never was a single 120 launcher.

 

[MaxMPower]

29 минут назад, Harlikwin сказал:

AFAIK this is correct, there never was a single 120 launcher.

 

 

[FoxTwo]

4 minutes ago, MaxMPower said:

 

 

We fly US Navy F/A-18s, not swiss.

 

We don't have those mounts as we don't fly that plane.

 

US F-18s could only mount the AIM-7 on a single pylon.

[MaxMPower]

4 минуты назад, FoxTwo сказал:

 

We fly US Navy F/A-18s, not swiss.

 

We don't have those mounts as we don't fly that plane.

 

US F-18s could only mount the AIM-7 on a single pylon.

So, I suppose ED should delete F-18 from Swiss coalition.....and Canada.....and Australia.....because “we don’t fly that plane”.

P.S. I’d like to cosplay those F-18 and modern Super hornet loadout, now we have no chance to do that but we have chance  to fly with “ugly” loadout 

Edited April 16, 2021 by MaxMPower

[Harlikwin]

I mean, thats the thing about DCS. its a US NAVY hornet, Circa 2005 or whenever. Therefore thats what the core is built around. You can "pretend" its a swiss hornet, or a spanish hornet, or an aussie hornet, but its not gonna be 100% right. And I'd be willing to bet that there are other things on those hornets that are different than the 2005 one. And frankly I'm all about having 1 plane thats as close to 100% right as we can. If ED wants to do a Swiss hornet with whatever changes it has, and charge 10-20 bucks for it, I'd be all for that. 

 

 

[FoxTwo]

49 minutes ago, MaxMPower said:

So, I suppose ED should delete F-18 from Swiss coalition.....and Canada.....and Australia.....because “we don’t fly that plane”.

P.S. I’d like to cosplay those F-18 and modern Super hornet loadout, now we have no chance to do that but we have chance  to fly with “ugly” loadout 

 

 

Well like it or not, it's the developer's prerogative to target simulating a specific block and model aircraft that has certain features and avionics, not some fictional frankenplane that couldn't have possibly existed.

[Santi871]

1 hour ago, MaxMPower said:

 

 

The outer pylons in that swiss Hornet are different and have that capability.

 

Compare how that outer pylon looks to the US one that we have ingame:

[Harlikwin]

2 minutes ago, FoxTwo said:

 

Well like it or not, it's the developer's prerogative to target simulating a specific block and model aircraft that has certain features and avionics, not some fictional frankenplane that couldn't have possibly existed.

 

Yup thats the sort of sucky thing in DCS. At this point for the most part we get "one" plane thats "right" for one party at one "time".  A few devs like HB are giving us multiple versions of mostly the same plane, which is really great of them. But for everything else, we pretty much gotta cos-play. 

 

[MaxMPower]

15 минут назад, Santi871 сказал:

 

The outer pylons in that swiss Hornet are different and have that capability.

 

Compare how that outer pylon looks to the US one that we have ingame:

I know that they are different. But I told about airplane capability to carry one aim120 on single station and it can!.... If we want “real reality” no problem...ED should delete f-18 from Canada coalition for example because CF-18 is not F-18....otherwise we see “double standarts”.

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by MaxMPower

[Swift.]

41 minutes ago, MaxMPower said:

I know that they are different. But I told about airplane capability to carry one aim120 on single station and it can!.... If we want “real reality” no problem...ED should delete f-18 from Canada coalition for example because CF-18 is not F-18....otherwise we see “double standarts”.

 

 

Correct, LAU-127 is a single rail launcher.

 

However, when you open your copy of NFM-200 or NFM-210. You will observe that LAU-127 is not mentioned anywhere separate from its parent rack LAU-115.

 

There are no performance metrics given for a direct mounted LAU-127. It does not appear in the list of interference drag indices. 

[Santi871]

Yes it still uses the LAU-127 but the LAU-127 can't be mounted on the pylon directly. It has to be mounted on the sides of a LAU-115 which is then mounted on the pylon.

[Oceandar]

This is ugly looking thing lol.

[wilbur81]

Wow... seriously? That sucks.

[FoxTwo]

5 hours ago, MaxMPower said:

I know that they are different. But I told about airplane capability to carry one aim120 on single station and it can!.... If we want “real reality” no problem...ED should delete f-18 from Canada coalition for example because CF-18 is not F-18....otherwise we see “double standarts”.

 

 

 

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53335

 

Quote

It's worth noting that Swiss F-18s are cleared to 9Gs and originally were configured for Air-to-Air only so its quite possible they use different pylons. My understanding is that Swiss F-18s don't fly NATOPS but have Swiss specific operating "standards", which includes pylon configuration and limits. Several other operators, notably Canada, have their own CF-18 operations standards that is not NATOPS. Pretty sure Finland and Australia have specific standards that are not covered by the F/A-18 NATOPS. The RAAF Super Hornets do use NATOPS apparently.

 

The swiss never had a need to run the F/A-18C as a multi-role aircraft, and would never need to mount bombs on that station, hence the custom A2A missile only pylon.

Again, it makes sense based on all available information.

 

If you want to run a single missile on that station, run some AIM-7Ms, the LAU-115 can mount them directly.

 

It's not really a big deal.

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, MaxMPower said:

So, I suppose ED should delete F-18 from Swiss coalition.....and Canada.....and Australia.....because “we don’t fly that plane”.

P.S. I’d like to cosplay those F-18 and modern Super hornet loadout, now we have no chance to do that but we have chance  to fly with “ugly” loadout 

 

I agree entirely - what is the point of having skins and inclusion in a coalition? If the response to simple systems like single hard-points or the CRV-7 rocket is 'cleared for use on this variant, but not used by the USN'...

[Wizard_03]

26 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I agree entirely - what is the point of having skins and inclusion in a coalition? If the response to simple systems like single hard-points or the CRV-7 rocket is 'cleared for use on this variant, but not used by the USN'...

The problem is it's not simple. What we had before was unrealistic for any hornet as 120s physically can't be mounted to LAU-7 pylons we have in game. Which is why USN made a launcher adapter for it. And they swiss got their own. 

 

Just because a sparrow will fit doesn't mean the 120 automatically works too with the exact same hardware. 

 

The swiss use a different pylon completely, so what you should be asking for is ED to add the swiss pylon/launcher. But for that they would probably need detailed images/specifications, and possibly acceptable stores loading documentation. 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Wizard_03

[randomTOTEN]

I think this is a beautiful solution to a long standing problem, and I congratulate ED on this implementation.

I was personally of the opinion that the option should have been removed entirely. But of course that would have broken numerous missions which included it in the mission payload. They managed to find a way to keep it as an option, while fixing the only thing that was really wrong with it. The launchers.

 

Nice job ED!

[Shimmergloom667]

I think it's awesome ED did that - not only does that single missile on the LAU-115/-127 combo look super cool, I'd rather see the one version they are commited to modeling be the most accurate and all others a bit off. Like a swiss Hornet, tough luck on that front, no big deal.

 

[MaxMPower]

I just want to tell that ED could add new pylon for other countries. Why not?! It is better than decrease loadout “options”. Especially we already had those loadout with dual pylons.

Edited April 17, 2021 by MaxMPower

[...]

I am grateful to be able to fly American Hornet and Huey in the Spanish coalition, even if they do not represent a 100% real model. For me this is better than not being able to fly until a 100% Spanish module is developed.

[FoxTwo]

1 hour ago, MaxMPower said:

I just want to tell that ED could add new pylon for other countries. Why not?! It is better than decrease loadout “options”. Especially we already had those loadout with dual pylons.

 

 

How about we finish the hornet we have before we start talking about variants from other countries that may or may not have adequate documentation to replicate accurately.

 

Why is this even a big deal?

[MaxMPower]

3 минуты назад, FoxTwo сказал:

 

How about we finish the hornet we have before we start talking about variants from other countries that may or may not have adequate documentation to replicate accurately.

 

Why is this even a big deal?

It is not big deal, but I’m not expected this change in 2.7....I loved single pylon loadout. It is conversation about options which users have lost. I’m frustrated why other countries skins is “accessible” but loadout “not acceptable”. On pylon is not big deal. 

[randomTOTEN]

10 minutes ago, MaxMPower said:

but I’m not expected this change in 2.7....I loved single pylon loadout.

I'm sorry you had to see it go. They goofed by making it available in the first place, and it was reported previous to this patch. It was reported within this thread, and marked [FIXED INTERNALLY]

 

Had the initial implementation been correct, this thread probably wouldn't be here. You would be either asking for the export pylons which allow this carriage, or you would maybe have adjusted to never seeing this option in the first place. But they implemented an error which some people found they liked, and now there's resistance to the change.

In consolation, hopefully you still keep the reduced drag and weight from only a single munition on the launchers, instead of 2. But it was really out of place.

 

The community seems to accept that liveries and coalitions can be fantasy, but the actual simulation of the subject aircraft is more stringently considered.

Edited April 17, 2021 by randomTOTEN

[oldcrusty]

19 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

Wow... seriously? That sucks.

 

Now, that the Amraams work, I have no plans to have any available pylons w/o them. Give me triple racks .

Arrgh... the RW books and rules and paragraphs (j/k)