Sidewinders/Magics on outer wing pylons discussion centralization thread

[PetRock]

Hello,

So it sounds like in at least EdA service, sidewinders (or Magics) weren't carried operationally on the outer wing pylons. The Greek Air Force notably flew with this configuration with similar F1 models. With so many screen shots from earlier in this module's development showing the x4 IR missile configuration, I am not going to lie in that I am a bit disappointed that this sounds like it won't be available initially (x4 missiles while still keeping the stronger inner pylons available and a belly tank (while very heavy) was going to be my preferred load out on Flashpoint Levant and Enigma's CW servers).

Aerges: what can you communicate on what documentation you found to reverse the earlier builds showing the x4 IR missiles? Is this something that we can handle like with the F-16 x4 HARMs in the mission editor? Even outside the F1, a lot of small capability enhancement like these were tested in other countries on a variety of aircraft throughout history, and the aircraft were perfectly capable of doing so, and plenty of documentation exist on how it would/did work, but were never implemented purely because of cost. The decision to adhere to strictly 100% historical load outs I think would be better left to the mission designer/community to enforce themselves, now that ED has provided better tools in the ME.

Any information you could share would be greatly appreciated.

PetRock

[Bremspropeller]

+100

Especially since the 4x heater loadout would still fit into the game (greek F1CGs) and would not be too far a stretch. Especially when it could either be country-tied (core-game feature?) or generally locked away by the mission-designer.

[WinterH]

31 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

+100

Especially since the 4x heater loadout would still fit into the game (greek F1CGs) and would not be too far a stretch. Especially when it could either be country-tied (core-game feature?) or generally locked away by the mission-designer.

Loadouts being tied to country selection is not a thing right now, would be core feature, and frankly I believe that wouldn't be a good core feature and it should rather be handled through variants.

Right now, the way to handle this would be through payload restriction in mission editor, which is ok. But do we know if CG had a different armament panel, if not how did the missile prioritization work etc?

I don't really see this as essential TBH, majority of the F1s, including the actually depicted versions used wingtip only IRL apparently after all. More missiles needed? Well that's a nice excuse to make those air to air torpedoes work then, they have IR versions too after all

I wouldn't mind either way in the end, whether 4 heaters being allowed or not, but I really don't see this to be that much of a necessity.

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

I don't really see this as essential TBH, majority of the F1s, including the actually depicted versions used wingtip only IRL apparently after all. More missiles needed? Well that's a nice excuse to make those air to air torpedoes work then, they have IR versions too after all

Hold your horses.

Now, granted, this might be a pic from flight-test, but it shows we'd not be straying too far off into the wild.

[WinterH]

3 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Hold your horses.

Now, granted, this might be a pic from flight-test, but it shows we'd not be straying too far off into the wild.

I am well aware of this photo. It IS from a test though, as far as Aerges said, and we all know photos of something under an aircraft doesn't nearly mean it was a possible option operationally. Otherwise there are even pics of F-14s with AMRAAMs and HARMs, or Su-33 with a Kh-41 slung under it, none of which mean they should have it or having them wouldn't be straying too far off

[killkenny1]

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

I am well aware of this photo. It IS from a test though, as far as Aerges said, and we all know photos of something under an aircraft doesn't nearly mean it was a possible option operationally. Otherwise there are even pics of F-14s with AMRAAMs and HARMs, or Su-33 with a Kh-41 slung under it, none of which mean they should have it or having them wouldn't be straying too far off

Yup, and looking at control panel, I wonder how would you operate them if there are no controls

Unless you modify them.

Edited July 20, 2022 by killkenny1

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, WinterH said:

Otherwise there are even pics of F-14s with AMRAAMs and HARMs, or Su-33 with a Kh-41 slung under it, none of which mean they should have it or having them wouldn't be straying too far off

Yeah, right. And we have pictures of F1CGs with that exact loadout in ops. Apples and oranges. And I'm quite sure you know that.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[WinterH]

1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

And we have pictures of F1CGs with that exact loadout in ops.

Which aren't F1CEs, apples and oranges, and I'm sure you know that?

[Bremspropeller]

18 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Which aren't F1CEs, apples and oranges, and I'm sure you know that?

Since the CE also never carried the S530F, and yet they're going to be modelled, I figure we're not going to tear the space-time continuum here.

And I'm sure you know that

[WinterH]

Yeah, and I don't even know if the radar on it is supposed to support Super 530F. I'm not so sure on that one tbh, but for now I'll thrust in Aerges on it, it'd be odd for them to choose including it if it wasn't viable, and leaving out 4 heaters. Obvs, the right thing would have been leaving them all out in that case :P.

Afaik EE and EDA had mostly the same radar, and majority of all F1s in Spanish service had that radar version fitted to them even CEs, so I feel like fitting of S530F really isn't far fetched if that was indeed the case. It'd just be a case of "it could, but we didn't buy the thing", and there's even a switch on the armament panel that you're supposed to throw down for 530 and up for S530.

[gnomechild]

59 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Yeah, and I don't even know if the radar on it is supposed to support Super 530F. I'm not so sure on that one tbh, but for now I'll thrust in Aerges on it, it'd be odd for them to choose including it if it wasn't viable, and leaving out 4 heaters. Obvs, the right thing would have been leaving them all out in that case :P.

Afaik EE and EDA had mostly the same radar, and majority of all F1s in Spanish service had that radar version fitted to them even CEs, so I feel like fitting of S530F really isn't far fetched if that was indeed the case. It'd just be a case of "it could, but we didn't buy the thing", and there's even a switch on the armament panel that you're supposed to throw down for 530 and up for S530.

Yep! According to Aerges who know people, all the F1s in service (all got Cyrano IVMs by the mid 80s) were capable of firing the Super 530

Edited July 20, 2022 by gnomechild

[PetRock]

So bringing this back to the crux of this conversation, Aerges, what information can you share about what brought about this apparent decision to limit sidewinders/magics on the outer pylons?

Compared to some other "what if" load outs tested on other aircraft, wiring the sidewinders or magics on the outer wing pylons was likely just installing an additional wire bundle/ connector, and pylon adapter. I even suspect that there was little to no modification on the fire control side, and they likely just interfaced it as another Magic type missile. What documents or SME information can be shared about how this was tested, but then ultimately not used? Would this kind of installation remove the ability to carry missiles on inner pylons? Any information that can be shared would be appreciated.

Edited July 20, 2022 by PetRock
words

[turkeydriver]

Most likely because it’s EA and the missile rail isn’t modeled for underwing use yet

Edited July 20, 2022 by turkeydriver

[gnomechild]

23 minutes ago, PetRock said:

So bringing this back to the crux of this conversation, Aerges, what information can you share about what brought about this apparent decision to limit sidewinders/magics on the outer pylons?

Compared to some other "what if" load outs tested on other aircraft, wiring the sidewinders or magics on the outer wing pylons was likely just installing an additional wire bundle/ connector, and pylon adapter. I even suspect that there was little to no modification on the fire control side, and they likely just interfaced it as another Magic type missile. What documents or SME information can be shared about how this was tested, but then ultimately not used? Would this kind of installation remove the ability to carry missiles on inner pylons? Any information that can be shared would be appreciated.

 

I disagree. I think it was probably a bit complicated as at the very least you'd have to update the circuitry for the logic of which missile to fire, and also have a way to indicate that those were locked on. Obviously this is not insurmountable as the the Greek F1s carried four sidewinders using the outer wing stations. But if it was never actually done beyond one test aircraft I think it makes more sense for Aerges to just stick to modelling the weapons system that they have access to and that fits the variant we're getting 

[PetRock]

5 hours ago, gnomechild said:

I disagree. I think it was probably a bit complicated as at the very least you'd have to update the circuitry for the logic of which missile to fire, and also have a way to indicate that those were locked on. Obviously this is not insurmountable as the the Greek F1s carried four sidewinders using the outer wing stations. But if it was never actually done beyond one test aircraft I think it makes more sense for Aerges to just stick to modelling the weapons system that they have access to and that fits the variant we're getting 

Oh for sure, with Aerges being a smaller team, start with what is accessible now and build from there, but what I am asking is what info reversed this earlier build, and asking about what will be happening in the future. Is there missing documentation that the community can help source? etc. (obviously through ITAR or legal methods).

[gnomechild]

1 hour ago, PetRock said:

Oh for sure, with Aerges being a smaller team, start with what is accessible now and build from there, but what I am asking is what info reversed this earlier build, and asking about what will be happening in the future. Is there missing documentation that the community can help source? etc. (obviously through ITAR or legal methods).

Ah I gotcha. Yeah personally I'd like to see an F1CG thrown in. Trade the 530s for 4 sidewinders. Would be fun. Love Greek jets 

[skywalker22]

21 hours ago, killkenny1 said:

Yup, and looking at control panel, I wonder how would you operate them if there are no controls

Unless you modify them.

 

Hmm, not sure about our version, but Greek`s  have a bit different buttons ... labels, and also are a bit convex shape (concaved).

Edited July 21, 2022 by skywalker22

[killkenny1]

27 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

Hmm, not sure about our version, but Greek`s  have a bit different buttons ... labels, and also are a bit convex shape (concaved).

 

That screenshot was taken from Aerges Mirage F1 manual, so it is safe to say it will be in our version of F1 like that.