correct as-is Excellent Viper patch ED! Can we talk about LAU-88 now?

[HalasKor]

37 minutes ago, naizarak said:

this "discussion" will never end as long as those stupid dummy harms are available.  talk about the worst possible compromise

While I agree that this discussion will likely never end, I don’t agree that this was the worst compromise. Perhaps the execution of this compromise was flawed, but I feel it’s the most “in the middle”. Granted what we know now, that people are upset that the 4/6 HARMS are not labeled as inoperable, it might seem like a bad compromise. Considering the two primary sides to this issue: smart weapons should vs. should not be operable from 4/6 I feel the intention was clear and well intended.

 

Allowing the HARM to be carried on 4/6 was part of the compromise, but as you have pointed out, it would seem to cause unique issues. In the end it would seem appropriate to remove them from those stations. Having weapons that can be carried, but not employed, would seem to be inconsistent with other modules.

Edited July 30, 2021 by HalasKor
Additional thoughts added.

[Northstar98]

17 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

Maybe you missed my point, or I wasn't clear, or we're on different pages, I dunno. Yes, that's absolutely fine with me, that's why I said I only partially agree. The USAF F-16C doesn't have the capability to fire the HARM on 4/6, so why include them as an option because someone showed them a picture of a test flight?

 

Because stations 4 and 6 IRL can carry it, but not fire it. So while the current implementation is confusing, it is the most accurate.

 

17 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

So if we're stimulating USAF or USANG block 50 I shouldn't be able to load them on 4/6 at all is my first point.

 

See above.

 

17 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

If you wanna tell me I'm simulating a block 50 that may also be a test plane then why wouldn't it be conceivable that they might install the needed things to also fire it. If I can fly test loads why can't I test 3 gbu-12 on a TER on station 3? Fins interfere with the wing tanks but what if I'm not running wing tanks.

 

I'm not.

 

17 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

My point or more so my opinion on the matter is that if we're given the option to load them on 4/6 then we're saying it's a gameplay compromise because in reality it can't any more than it can load 6 gbu-12 on stations 3/7. And in such a case I think we should be able to fire them.

 

The 4 HARMs is an approved loadout for carriage, just the aircraft isn't configured for it. With the TER tripple GBU-12s, it's the opposite way around, at least AFAIK.

 

17 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

And I'm fine with that too, I feel as if you're one of the people that prioritize gameplay then I am fine with that being an option, if you prioritize reality and revit counting then no one will force you to load and fire HARMs from stations 4/6 if you don't want to do that.

 

Like I said, the only constraint should be what the aircraft is actually integrated with, what it's capable of and what it's approved for.

 

Everything else is up to you.

[Astronaut]

So I'll get to put JSOWs on the inner pylons then by your logic?

[Northstar98]

15 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

So I'll get to put JSOWs on the inner pylons then by your logic?

 

Sure.

 

Pick a rule and stick with it.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Northstar98

[Astronaut]

10 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Sure.

 

Pick a rule and stick with it.

 

Lol good god please no. Last thing we need is another dummy weapon to fight in forums over.

 

[Northstar98]

15 hours ago, Astronaut said:

Lol good god please no. Last thing we need is another dummy weapon to fight in forums over.

 

Which wouldn't be a problem, if people could accept what they're buying, just saying...

 

ED could make it more clear in the loadout editor, for instance a filter to only show stuff that's compatible.

 

Either way, pick a rule and stick with it.

 

Want to include weapons that can carry a store, but cannot fire it? Fine. Do this across the board.

Want to only include weapons that can be fired? Fine. Do this across the board.

 

The best way I see it, if you want the absolute closest realism is option 2, if you don't like having weapons present that you cannot use, what's the line again? Just don't load them?

 

Though personally ED should include a filter that will only present you with weapons that actually useable on whatever station.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Northstar98

[Jester2138]

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Which wouldn't be a problem, if people could accept what they're buying, just saying...

I bought an F-16 that had 4 usable HARMs. I'm very accepting of what I bought. What I'm not cool with is having features I paid for taken away.
 

9 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And going down this line of reasoning, then basically any weapon ever used by any F-16 ever is on the table, which leaves us to a fictional hybrid, combining multiple F-16 variants into one aircraft - something that ED has expressly stated they have "no desire" for.

Oh yes... like the DCS Hornet... Sign me up!
 

On 7/29/2021 at 2:24 PM, Raptor9 said:

My point was that most people think a SEAD mission in the F-16 is exclusively firing HARM's at an emitter and then flying away; therefore losing the ability to carry 4x HARMs is often seen as a blanket reduction in the F-16's SEAD capabilities.

That is a SEAD mission, and halving the HARM loadout is a blanket reduction in capabilities. Ridiculous to claim otherwise. Let's call a spade a spade.
 

On 7/29/2021 at 2:24 PM, Raptor9 said:

First of all, the quote that you placed in your response was referring to early years of the Vietnam war, when Radar Warning Receivers weren't universally installed on all aircraft, and their level of sophistication for those that did have it was rather crude.  Second, the F-16 (even without the HTS) does have the means to home in on radar emitters, via its RWR... a "Wild Weasel" mission does not equate to having a specially-configured electronic homing device on board the aircraft to perform the mission.

The RWR is not what Wild Weasel refers to. And yes, Wild Weasel does refer to a specially-configured aircraft with special equipment. That's literally what it means. Read my link which explains Wild Weasel by someone who did it for a living.
 

On 7/29/2021 at 2:24 PM, Raptor9 said:

Fourth, SEAD and DEAD are not mutually exclusive doctrinal mission sets...

Never claimed it was, so this paragraph is also pretty much irrelevant.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Jester2138

[randomTOTEN]

20 minutes ago, Jester2138 said:

What I'm not cool with is having features I paid for taken away.

incorrect configurations isn't a feature.

[Steel Jaw]

Read Dan Hamptons Viper Pilot to learn about proper SEAD and why Harms are junk

[Northstar98]

14 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

I bought an F-16 that had 4 usable HARMs. I'm very accepting of what I bought. What I'm not cool with is having features I paid for taken away.

 

You bought an F-16 at a time where it coincidentally had an incorrect loadout. It's not far off from a bug.

 

When I bought the Hind, the DIAFR open switch allowed for unrestricted firing of the Shturm which is unrealistic - it's a bug that makes for a useful exploit, and in a subsequent patch it was fixed, shall I get teasy with ED for removing it? When it shouldn't have had it in the first place.

 

14 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

Oh yes... like the DCS Hornet... Sign me up!

 

???

 

The Hornet has a few stores it shouldn't have, most of those are stuff USN/USMC Hornets had historically that are now out of service, and these weapons were intended as pathfinders for weapons it should have.

 

I am of course talking about the AGM-62 and AGM-84E, the AGM-62 was a pathfinder for D/L MITL weapons that the AGM-84E further expanded on, and both culminated in the AGM-84H - that's it.

 

The only thing that isn't accuracute for the USN is the cheek station LITENING - that's it...

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Northstar98

[BIGNEWY]

Thank you all for the feedback, but this is correct as is.

[kseremak]

On 7/23/2021 at 7:08 PM, Hawkeye91 said:

What sucks was probably never an operational need to use 4 HARMs IRL because IRL you could have an entire squadron of 12 to 24 F16s doing SEAD if it was against a real SA10 level SAM threat with defenses. When we're playing SP, we're saddled with dumb AI, and you're lucky to get them to work properly. In dynamic MP servers, well good luck getting more than 1 person to join you because a lot people just want to do their own thing in the MP servers, and finally the only real option is to join a squadron which can be a large time commitment, which a lot of us don't get with our work/life schedules and need to be able to play on our own time. So as of right now, SEAD is basically dead (no pun intended) with the F16 for me if I don't have the ability to self saturate an SA10 site to try to get through the defenses. I'm not longer even excited for the HTS or jammer pod now because the lethality of only using 2 HARMs solo is basically null. This has really killed my enthusiasm for the F16.

 

I understand your argumentation (even if i wouldn't sacrifice raalism for artificial increase of capability), but the other thing is more important.

To saturate this SA-10 site (and we are talking about '80s Soviet SA-10 since this is what is modeled in DCS) 2 or 4 HARM missiles are equally helpless. Ommiting the fact this things are classified and we can only guess i would say you should aim in 10-ish times bigger number. 20-40 missiles should do the trick. But 2 or 4 lonely HARM missiles flying from the same direction fired by just one lonely aircraft would be dealt with relatively easily, probably without even turning off the seach radar.

 

It looks like other aspects like HTS, ECM and cleaner airframe energy were more important. If taking 4 HARMs would be so important USAF would ensure F-16 was able to fire 4 of them.

I thing DCS Integrated Air Defense module will change many things in this aspect and add a lot of depth, tactics, realism and common sense to SEAD missions. Lot more than dice rolling 2 additional HARMs.

Edited August 2, 2021 by kseremak