Single AIM-120C-5 on station without draggy weighty multi-missile mount.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=1Sp%2bzgCl&id=85994631AF1271995E58277B6EA2062AB837F311&thid=OIP.1Sp-zgClM0rhJgoH3cNCewHaE6&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.d52a7ece00a5334ae1260a07ddc3427b%3frik%3dEfM3uCoGom57Jw%26riu%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.chinalakealumni.org%2f2011%2f5437409135_0350fcd618_b.jpg%26ehk%3dDR3NrQAtUZ0M6qdDWnZx3QVGH2Z%2bdLgH3PYs%2b0bpm8E%3d%26risl%3d%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=480&expw=723&q=F%2fA-18C+armed+with+AIM-120&simid=608043790220688554&FORM=IRPRST&ck=BD499FEC4572428F6C02A699CAD64A13&selectedIndex=54&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

 

The pic is of F Super Hornet, but idea is same for C

[Dragon1-1]

IIRC, this was a change on the Superbug just so it wouldn't have to use the regular Bug's draggy, ad-hoc workaround.

[QuiGon]

We had single AMRAAM rails for our DCS Hornet for quiet some time after release, but evidence emerged, that this was wrong, so ED removed it to keep it real.

Edited January 11, 2022 by QuiGon

[Swift.]

LAU-127 can be directly mounted onto a SUU-80 pylon, as you see on superhornet and on some swiss hornets.

Legacy hornets (except the swiss one) use SUU-63, which can't directly mount LAU-127. So as they do IRL, we have to first mount the LAU-127 onto a LAU-115 and then onto the pylon.

[FlankerKiller]

On 1/11/2022 at 6:10 PM, Swiftwin9s said:

LAU-127 can be directly mounted onto a SUU-80 pylon, as you see on superhornet and on some swiss hornets.

Legacy hornets (except the swiss one) use SUU-63, which can't directly mount LAU-127. So as they do IRL, we have to first mount the LAU-127 onto a LAU-115 and then onto the pylon.

Honestly I get the realism argument. But as you stated it's possible. The Swiss Hornets do it. So I do wish ED would bring the option back. 

[Swift.]

Just now, FlankerKiller said:

Honestly I get the realism argument. But as you stated it's possible. The Swiss Hornets do it. So I do wish ED would bring the option back. 

As I stated its possible on a different airframe than the one we have. 

[FlankerKiller]

Same airframe, different Block. I'm assuming you're weapons. As you stated it's possible, and done. Just the USN uses a different mount that doesn't, and can't, mount directly to the pylon. However the single mount dose exist IRL, can be mounted to the pylon, and is mounted to the same pylon on some Hornets. The one we have has a Swiss skin. There are AIM-7F, AIM-9L, Walleye, and SLAM loadouts. Pretty sure our block never once saw any of that outside of testing. So I don't see how mounting a real lower pylon, to a real pylon, as is done on real Hornets breaks realism any more then dropping a 1970s era Walleye dose.  

Edited January 21, 2022 by FlankerKiller

[Swift.]

13 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

Same airframe, different Block. I'm assuming you're weapons. As you stated it's possible, and done. Just the USN uses a different mount that doesn't, and can't, mount directly to the pylon. However the single mount dose exist IRL, can be mounted to the pylon, and is mounted to the same pylon on some Hornets. The one we have has a Swiss skin. There are AIM-7F, AIM-9L, Walleye, and SLAM loadouts. Pretty sure our block never once saw any of that outside of testing. So I don't see how mounting a real lower pylon, to a real pylon, as is done on real Hornets breaks realism any more then dropping a 1970s era Walleye dose.  

 

There are more differences, between Swiss hornets and the supposed USN/USMC hornet we have, than just the pylons. 

The thing to remember is that ED aren't selling 'A Hornet' they are selling 'A Hornet as operated by USN/USMC circa 2005 using MC OFP 19C where possible and taking slight liberties in timeline when necessary'.

Them providing the ability to mount a completely different pylon and load a different launcher configuration on that pylon and then have the SMS recognise that weapon configuration, whilst there is the ability to provide the correct and accurate version, would be outside the scope.

If they did that, then you have to start looking at why we don't also have the UFCD and MPCDs of the swiss hornets. Why don't we have the HAT functionality that MC OFP 21X provided. etc etc

 

There are lots of egregious things still outstanding on the Hornet ED have sold us, them sacrificing 'gameplay' for the reasons of real weapon loadouts is not one of them.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

The one we have has a Swiss skin.

Which isn't exactly relevant as you can produce any livery you want for the Hornet, even for countries that don't operate it; it has no bearing on any of the systems or what the aircraft is trying to represent.

If you stick a Swiss livery on our Hornet, you haven't changed it into a Swiss Hornet, you've taken a mid 2000s USN/USMC Hornet and stuck a Swiss livery on it. In a similar breath I can give our F-16CM Block 50 a Norwegian livery, it doesn't change it into a Norwegian F-16AM Block 20 MLU.

And if it didn't have a Swiss livery, someone would just make one, and we would end up with the exact same situation of having fictional liveries.

And enforcing realistic liveries would probably mean doing to the liveries what they did to all those .luas, something I am absolutely not in favour of.

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

There are AIM-7F, AIM-9L, Walleye, and SLAM loadouts.

AFAIK, all of them are compatible with the Hornet as is, though true they aren't in the inventory for our Hornet's timeframe (only one I'm not sure about was the AIM-9L).

The Walleye II ER/DL was a pathfinder weapon for MITL weapons, and the SLAM was a pathfinder for the AGM-84H IIRC.

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

So I don't see how mounting a real lower pylon, to a real pylon, as is done on real Hornets breaks realism any more then dropping a 1970s era Walleye dose.

Because, if what I said above is accurate, our Hornet is compatible with the Walleye as-is, mounting a LAU-27 directly onto the wing stations, is not.

[FlankerKiller]

1 hour ago, Swiftwin9s said:

There are more differences, between Swiss hornets and the supposed USN/USMC hornet we have, than just the pylons. 

The thing to remember is that ED aren't selling 'A Hornet' they are selling 'A Hornet as operated by USN/USMC circa 2005 using MC OFP 19C where possible and taking slight liberties in timeline when necessary'.

Them providing the ability to mount a completely different pylon and load a different launcher configuration on that pylon and then have the SMS recognise that weapon configuration, whilst there is the ability to provide the correct and accurate version, would be outside the scope.

If they did that, then you have to start looking at why we don't also have the UFCD and MPCDs of the swiss hornets. Why don't we have the HAT functionality that MC OFP 21X provided. etc etc

 

There are lots of egregious things still outstanding on the Hornet ED have sold us, them sacrificing 'gameplay' for the reasons of real weapon loadouts is not one of them.

Cool, so the walleye and slam must go. They were both retired out of the inventory when "our F/A-18C" entered service. Sucks, I absolutely abhor anything after 1995 so that blows for me. But hey realism. There are F/A-18Cs out there that can mount the pylon and carry the single rail. I doubt any U.S. Hornet in the last twenty years has mounted twin rails for AMRAAM. The AMRAAM isn't very good at blowing up goat herders, and that is the only thing "our Hornet" ever did. So we didn't care. But the Swiss do care, so they changed it. We changed it on our Super Hornets. But as you pointed out this is a very realistic game. And even the Hornet we have isn't fully what it's supposed to be. So I don't really see the issue with reimplementing a loadout option that is currently used on a real world F/A-18C. It's no more unrealistic then the Vietnam era Walleye that we do carry and drop. 

[Hobel]

4 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Honestly I get the realism argument. But as you stated it's possible. The Swiss Hornets do it. So I do wish ED would bring the option back. 

I always don't understand this "realism" argument.

If that were the case, we wouldn't be allowed to shoot Mavericks on T90, because that has never happened.
But it is possible.

This is also true in other areas, we can simulate big wars in DCS, but we are guided by what the armament looks like in peacetime.

So if it's possible go foe it, that's what we have this simulation for.

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

It's no more unrealistic then the Vietnam era Walleye that we do carry and drop. 

Yes it is, because our Hornet can operate these weapons completely as is, with no modifications.

The same is not true for mounting a LAU-127 directly to the hardpoint.

And your whole argument is just 'well x is unrealistic, so y should be too!' because that's apparently how it works.

39 minutes ago, Hobel said:

I always don't understand this "realism" argument.

If that were the case, we wouldn't be allowed to shoot Mavericks on T90, because that has never happened.
But it is possible.

The problem with this very common but pretty specious talking point, is that it completely ignores the design philosophy and goals of DCS. Which is there for everyone to see on the main DCS website.

What is that design philosophy? To provide modules, assets and maps (the 'building blocks', if you will) intended to be as realistic to their real life counterparts as possible.

What scenarios you build out of those building blocks however, and how you use them, is completely up to you.

And while DCS isn't always that successful at following that philosophy, IMO, it is the perfect balance between realism and sandbox, and they are applied in exactly the right places.

 

Not just that, but if you wanted to enforce this, you'd have to delete the mission editor and only allow perfectly historically accurate missions, is that what you want?

[FlankerKiller]

Dude, do not lecture me about the design philosophy of DCS. I've been on this ride since Flanker2.0. Nothing in this sim is perfectly realistic. For that you would have to pick a tail number and models it exactly. Even the Black Shark was going to get a sandbox upgrade until Russia said no. Half the Jets in DCS have loadouts, and Systems that aren't exactly what the real thing has. Clearly there is an advantage to the single rail if the Super Hornet uses it. It is used on Swiss F/A-18Cs. So it's not like asking to be able to fire Phoenix missiles. It's something that can be done, and is done of the F/A-18C. As far as modifications go, have you ever modified a jet aircraft? Because I have. Often it's just pulling a new wire in and swapping a box. Sometimes it's just changing the pins in a cannon plug. Nothing you would even notice as a pilot. Also it's how the damn module was modeled. If we had done more Air to Air with the Hornet then its probably something we would have done ourselves. The drag penalty is real with the double rack. So no I don't think it breaks DCS to allow a single rail launcher on the Hornet as it's actually installed on some F/A-18C. 

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Dude, do not lecture me about the design philosophy of DCS. I've been on this ride since Flanker2.0.

Wasn't responding to you in that section of my reply.

And if you've been here for 20 years and definitely understand the design philosophy of DCS, and the goals of the module, why are you still making this argument? Because to me, it doesn't seem like you do.

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Nothing in this sim is perfectly realistic.

And when did I say that it was?

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

For that you would have to pick a tail number and models it exactly. Even the Black Shark was going to get a sandbox upgrade until Russia said no. Half the Jets in DCS have loadouts, and Systems that aren't exactly what the real thing has.

Great! Some more "x is unrealistic, so y should be too", but sure, you've definitely convinced me that you understand the design philosophy of DCS, and the goals of the module.

But it gets worse! In this case not having the ability to mount the LAU-127 directly to the hardpoint is more accurate - it's exactly in line with the design philosophy of DCS, and the stated goals of the module.

So not only do you apparently not understand the design philosophy and goals of DCS, you complain when we actually get closer to achieving them!

At which point, all I can say is, what gives?

This is honestly like me going over to Ace Combat, knowing full well it's not supposed to be realistic, and then complaining that it isn't realistic, do you not think that would be a bit silly?

Now sure, if you don't like the goals of the module or the design philosophy, that's absolutely fine and it's completely up to you, but then aren't you making a bit of a mistake?

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Clearly there is an advantage to the single rail if the Super Hornet uses it. It is used on Swiss F/A-18Cs.

How is this relevant to our module, given that it's explicitly not a Super Hornet, and not a Swiss F/A-18C?

And no, a fictional livery doesn't change the aircraft variant into something else.

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

It's something that can be done, and is done of the F/A-18C.

Just not the one ours is supposed to represent, so it's not exactly relevant.

If we had a Swiss Hornet, or a generic Hornet, I'd agree with you, but we don't.

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

As far as modifications go, have you ever modified a jet aircraft? Because I have. Often it's just pulling a new wire in and swapping a box. Sometimes it's just changing the pins in a cannon plug. Nothing you would even notice as a pilot.

I haven't modified a jet no, but I'm not really seeing why it's relevant.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Northstar98

[norman99]

+1 for single AMRAAM rails.

Regardless of the ‘it’s not correct for our block/service’ argument, just having something between x2 fuselage mounts, and the completely unrealistic SPAMRAAM load out would be nice.

Liberties on realism are taken all throughout DCS, single rail AMRAAM launchers wouldn’t even make the top 50 most significant of the Hornet alone.

Edited January 22, 2022 by norman99

[FlankerKiller]

It's relevant because what was required to mount the different uper and lower pylon. What wires were changed, what cannon plugs, what boxes? Or is it just something that wasn't done on the U.S. Hornet but the Swiss did, and later the Navy did on the Super Hornet. If mounting the pylon was plug and play and it was mounted on an F/A-18C then there is no reason not to include it. Again it was done on F/A-18Cs and in no more realistic then dropping a walleye. But wat do I care the day ether the A-7E, or A-6 goose into early access is the last day I ever use the Hornet module we have. 

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

It's relevant because what was required to mount the different uper and lower pylon. What wires were changed, what cannon plugs, what boxes? Or is it just something that wasn't done on the U.S. Hornet but the Swiss did, and later the Navy did on the Super Hornet.

But we don't have a Swiss Hornet (and there's more differences between our Hornet and a Swiss Hornet, than just a livery and the pylons) and we don't have a Super Hornet, so how are these aircraft relevant?

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

If mounting the pylon was plug and play and it was mounted on an F/A-18C then there is no reason not to include it.

Apart from that it isn't representative of our Hornet, which is pretty much the only thing that matters here.

Again, if we had a generic Hornet, or a Swiss Hornet, I would agree with you, but we don't.

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

Again it was done on F/A-18Cs and in no more realistic then dropping a walleye.

Except (unless the capability was deleted), our Hornet can employ the Walleye as-is without any modifications, the same doesn't apply to mounting the LAU-127 directly to the pylon.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Northstar98

[rob10]

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

It's relevant because what was required to mount the different uper and lower pylon. What wires were changed, what cannon plugs, what boxes? Or is it just something that wasn't done on the U.S. Hornet but the Swiss did, and later the Navy did on the Super Hornet. If mounting the pylon was plug and play and it was mounted on an F/A-18C then there is no reason not to include it. Again it was done on F/A-18Cs and in no more realistic then dropping a walleye. But wat do I care the day ether the A-7E, or A-6 goose into early access is the last day I ever use the Hornet module we have. 

IIRC from when this topic has come up before (when it was changed so that you had to use this mounting -- initially when the F-18 was released you didn't have to), there are physical differences (i.e. the wiring etc) rather than just a "we don't use those".  I don't think you could smuggle one on board a carrier and functionally attach it without some serious additional work on the plane.

[FlankerKiller]

What wires, what cannon plugs, what boxes? I'm asking as an actual military aircraft electrician. Pylons are usually wired to the aircraft. Yes new wiring would probably be nessasry for a new weapons but the AMRAMM is not a new weapon. That and just because some wires are changed IRL doesn't mean the any pilot interactions are changed. Personally I hate the Hornet we got so I'm a biased opinion. Add to that that our Hornet got completely nerfed against the totally unrealistic F-16, and I don't see the issue in one small very possible exception to loadouts realism. But again <profanity> it, Im board with this. As I said the day that ether an A-6, or A-7 drops will be the last day I fly the Hornet.   

[Swift.]

3 hours ago, norman99 said:

Regardless of the ‘it’s not correct for our block/service’ argument, just having something between x2 fuselage mounts, and the completely unrealistic SPAMRAAM load out would be nice.

There is something, you can load single amraams right now and that's how they do it IRL. 

 

3 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

It's relevant because what was required to mount the different uper and lower pylon. What wires were changed, what cannon plugs, what boxes? Or is it just something that wasn't done on the U.S. Hornet but the Swiss did, and later the Navy did on the Super Hornet. If mounting the pylon was plug and play and it was mounted on an F/A-18C then there is no reason not to include it. Again it was done on F/A-18Cs and in no more realistic then dropping a walleye. But wat do I care the day ether the A-7E, or A-6 goose into early access is the last day I ever use the Hornet module we have. 

Another thing that might be worth considering, the Swiss hornets have a completely different wing to everyone else. Notice how they don't have the wing fold either.

[FlankerKiller]

Well one fix would be for ED to do a Swiss Hornet. Yeah honestly I'm pretty unhappy with the Hornet we got, and the whole direction DCS took. So I'm not going to be a happy little consumer. And when the jet I didn't gets nurfed in the name of realism. All the while the it's only real in game opponent has a total advantage in BVR due to an unrealistic flight model. All in a game that started by simulating an amalgam of an aircraft that had something like 12 prototypes, and calling it realistic. I'm okay with some concessions that fit into real configurations that were really done with the real airplanes in the name of maxing the drag coefficient to even have a chance to be in the fight. You know maybe I won't buy the Apache after all, because I know that I'm going to hate it. Good news for me is in 3 to 5 years it looks like the cold war is going to be filled out and I will never touch this aircraft again. So ignore me not really a happy consumer. 

[Swift.]

Welcome to todays tutorial on how to make mountains out of molehills.

[Bunny Clark]

5 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

It's relevant because what was required to mount the different uper and lower pylon. What wires were changed, what cannon plugs, what boxes? Or is it just something that wasn't done on the U.S. Hornet but the Swiss did, and later the Navy did on the Super Hornet. If mounting the pylon was plug and play and it was mounted on an F/A-18C then there is no reason not to include it. 

From my understanding it's not plug-and-play, and there's a lot more involved than just wiring. The Swiss F-18Cs have a different wing structure and different Swiss designed and produced pylons. The Swiss F-18C was delivered as a pure fighter with no A/G capability and rated to 9G, and its pylons reflect that choice. The Super Hornet pylons capable of mounting single LAU-127s are not the same as the Swiss pylons but a new design built for the Super Hornet, they have considerably more A/G mounting capabilities than the Swiss pylons. 

[FlankerKiller]

1 hour ago, Swiftwin9s said:

Welcome to todays tutorial on how to make mountains out of molehills.

It's not about the pylon, I don't really care as I wouldn't be carrying amrams anyway. I don't really give a <profanity> about air combat after the fall of the Soviet Union. Although the modern ear is heating up. At first the F/A-18C was going to be an earlier block. Then it changed. I would much much prefer a C model that was used in Desert Storm. Or maybe an A module from the 80's. Or both, I would gladly pay for both. So dropping walleyes, and performing SLAM attacks with our 21st century Hornet feels about as realistic to me as mounting a Swiss pylon would to you. I've raised to issue that our jet represents The Hornet long after its hay day ended. I don't give one s*** about representing OIF in a video game. I was involved in it, and I'm not very proud of that. What I would like to represent, is a cold word on hot scenario, desert Storm, a fictional late '80s early 90s war with Iran.  But to do so I, and any other cold war lover is told to just "nurf" the Hornet we have. Which people who know the jet keeps saying isn't realistic anyway. Apparently it's nowhere near complete. Sooo, sense I already using an unrealistic Hornet in unrealistic scenarios I don't see the issue in using an unrealistic but real pylon. Sorry but DCS never really lived up to it's "design philosophy". So I see no reason to hold to that level of detail now. But it is what it is. I've seen enough of the Hornet to know I would love a late 80's and or early 90's block. But once the real cold warriors come out I'll shelve this ultra modern 21 century goat herder murder machine. If ED ever decides to give us a bird that actually ever got within a thousand miles of a bandit, at least one from this world, then I'll re-examine my position.

 

[Swift.]

1 minute ago, FlankerKiller said:

It's not about the pylon, I don't really care as I wouldn't be carrying amrams anyway. I don't really give a <profanity> about air combat after the fall of the Soviet Union. Although the modern ear is heating up. At first the F/A-18C was going to be an earlier block. Then it changed. I would much much prefer a C model that was used in Desert Storm. Or maybe an A module from the 80's. Or both, I would gladly pay for both. So dropping walleyes, and performing SLAM attacks with our 21st century Hornet feels about as realistic to me as mounting a Swiss pylon would to you. I've raised to issue that our jet represents The Hornet long after its hay day ended. I don't give one s*** about representing OIF in a video game. I was involved in it, and I'm not very proud of that. What I would like to represent, is a cold word on hot scenario, desert Storm, a fictional late '80s early 90s war with Iran.  But to do so I, and any other cold war lover is told to just "nurf" the Hornet we have. Which people who know the jet keeps saying isn't realistic anyway. Apparently it's nowhere near complete. Sooo, sense I already using an unrealistic Hornet in unrealistic scenarios I don't see the issue in using an unrealistic but real pylon. Sorry but DCS never really lived up to it's "design philosophy". So I see no reason to hold to that level of detail now. But it is what it is. I've seen enough of the Hornet to know I would love a late 80's and or early 90's block. But once the real cold warriors come out I'll shelve this ultra modern 21 century goat herder murder machine. If ED ever decides to give us a bird that actually ever got within a thousand miles of a bandit, at least one from this world, then I'll re-examine my position.

 

Wait so you started off complaining about not being able to load lau-127 directly onto the pylons and now you are saying you don't even want to use amraams at all? I'm confused, what is you angle here