Weaponry?

[Deano87]

29 minutes ago, Shot said:

So the published loadout is final? I bought the harrier and have seen the loadout shrink over the years. 

There should be no reason for the loadout to shrink, it's very well understood what the F-15E carries, both now and in the past. It's expected that the loadout will grow as we get some weapons down the line that are currently not in the sim, Like SDBs for instance.

[Slick_441]

Curious what is under the right wing on this jet? I don't recognize it.

[Nahen]

I think some like IR/laser pod.

[Njinsa]

LM's Legion pod or maybe more probably Grumann's OpenPod.

IRST

[Deano87]

Looks like a GBU-15 or AGM-130 without any fins installed to me.

[Njinsa]

That's far better bet.

This pic is more than 15 years ago when Elmendorf had Es, before they transferred jets elsewhere (389th ?).

Too early even for pod prototypes, I guess.

[Lima29]

It appears to have an acmi pod fitted so it’s likely to be a captive training gbu-15 or agm-130, they don’t have fins.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Lima29

[Coole28]

15 hours ago, Lima29 said:

It appears to have an acmi pod fitted so it’s likely to be a captive training gbu-15 or agm-130, they don’t have fins.

 

^This.  For comparison:

You can see the red cover on the seeker head in the provided photo is pointed slightly down, which matches the slight depression of the actual AGM-130 seeker head in a stowed state.  Just remove the fins, warhead and rocket booster and you got yourself a trainer.

Also you can tell it isn’t some sensor or EW pod because it has the blue stripe towards the rear, indicating it is a training munition.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Coole28

[Rainmaker]

Yes, its just a CATM.  No sense flying things that can just fall off for training. 

[hotrod525]

On 2/2/2023 at 11:09 AM, Shot said:

So the published loadout is final? I bought the harrier and have seen the loadout shrink over the years. 

It actually expended infact... they integrated LJDAM and APKWS.

IMHO i think Razbam should expend the scope of the loadout, infact, it should be done across all DCS Modules. Purist would have their thing by simply using whatever load out they see fit, more "Role Playing" for different nation / model can be done, and it dosent broke anything for anyone. Key word : expend the scope.

[Sarge55]

I think the DCS version should be as close the version they are simulating. Updates and bug fixes are easier to do and quicker. 
Those that want some super duper dream version can simply create a mod based on the DCS one. That way if it breaks its up to the modder to fix it and the rest of us can carry on with the DCS version. 
Everone is happy.

[Foogle]

12 hours ago, Sarge55 said:

I think the DCS version should be as close the version they are simulating. Updates and bug fixes are easier to do and quicker. 
Those that want some super duper dream version can simply create a mod based on the DCS one. That way if it breaks its up to the modder to fix it and the rest of us can carry on with the DCS version. 
Everone is happy.

It's not a super dream version to want to fly a Suite 1 or something close. The module should cover as much of it's service as possible so we can cover as many scenarios as possible. If a mission maker wants a specific version, they should be able to restrict it to the one they want. 

 

Asking for less is honestly not cool.

[hotrod525]

13 hours ago, Sarge55 said:

I think the DCS version should be as close the version they are simulating. Updates and bug fixes are easier to do and quicker. 
Those that want some super duper dream version can simply create a mod based on the DCS one. That way if it breaks its up to the modder to fix it and the rest of us can carry on with the DCS version. 
Everone is happy.

This is probably why we got 3 or 4 different circa for the F15E, because its "super duper dream". Same would apply to the F1 variants... Let's not even talk about Black Shark 3 Frenkeinchopper.

I agree with Foggle, asking for antique only for the sake of it, is honestly not cool and will turn away alot of potential sell. Wich Razbam does need.

Most downloaded mods have all something in common : modern era, modern things. Most selled module are also those of modern circa. Of course, "old is nice" but it dosent generate as much revenue.

[Sarge55]

So you’re OK with the base model and ease of maintaining the software as DCS updates. That’s good. 
So I don’t get why you don’t want modders providing the dream versions. 

[Shot]

Aaaand it happened again to the harrier. Only a single GBU54 is now possible when u also want to carry a sidewinder. I appreciate the realism... But cutting it down from 12 to a third of bombs is not what I had purchased back then. 

[Ramsay]

1 hour ago, Shot said:

Aaaand it happened again to the harrier. Only a single GBU54 is now possible when u also want to carry a sidewinder. I appreciate the realism... But cutting it down from 12 to a third of bombs is not what I had purchased back then. 

Nope, you just can't mount a ITER GBU-54 next to the missile (or next to the engine exhaust), there are */* and *\* options for a reason, and that allows you to carry 8x GBU-54 and 2x AIM-9M.

[Scott-S6]

On 2/2/2023 at 4:09 PM, Shot said:

So the published loadout is final? I bought the harrier and have seen the loadout shrink over the years. 

Is anything ever final? If they get information that a particular weapon config actually cannot be used for whatever reason (such as weapon A next to weapon B results in one damaging the other) then it'll be removed, as it should be.

[Temetre]

So im not too familiar with the F-15E, but curious about its weapons, especially: What weapons can replace the AGM-65 on the F-15E? Would love if someone could help me with that.

Because sure, the Maverick is amazing when it works, and one of the very few tools to hit moving targets without the complexity and risk of LGB-drops, but its also a giant PITA to use on F16 sometimes. Its such a powerful yet outdated tool it just screams for a replacement. And apparently theres stuff like Brimstones flying around, which sound pretty insane with their sensors and automatic targeting.

So just going through what I see on that list, please tell if i miss something:

1. I guess AGM-15 and AGM-130 will be able to be directly controlled, or track moving targets via IR? Will they be as complicated as Mavericks and require boresighting? Also, if especially the AGM-130 has such a huge range, how does its IR imager work? Does it select its own target in the serach area? I know the british Brimstone does this, but thats much more modern.

2. GBU-39 small diameter bomb. Apparently the /b can be targeted with laser, not just GPS? I wonder if its gonna be like a slightly standoff LGBs, considering the JSOW also has a huge range and keeps speed quite well. Idk about limited laser range tho, IIRC it was like 8 miles?

3. The IR-tracking JSOW 154-C-1 seems just a navy thing, shame, but any chance on getting the equivalent of the GBU-53/Stormbreaker? Apparently thats an IR-tracking variant of the GBU-39? 2020 introduction I think, so quite late, but doesnt hurt to ask. ^^

4. Im curious about the AGM-65 mounting. Ive seen pictures with Mavericks mounted to the CFTs, but the list just mentioned tripple-racks under wing pylons? Now Mavericks are annoying to use, but 12x Maverick would be kinda interesting nontheless.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Temetre

[Ignition]

9 hours ago, Temetre said:

So im not too familiar with the F-15E, but curious about its weapons, especially: What weapons can replace the AGM-65 on the F-15E? Would love if someone could help me with that.

Because sure, the Maverick is amazing when it works, and one of the very few tools to hit moving targets without the complexity and risk of LGB-drops, but its also a giant PITA to use on F16 sometimes. Its such a powerful yet outdated tool it just screams for a replacement. And apparently theres stuff like Brimstones flying around, which sound pretty insane with their sensors and automatic targeting.

So just going through what I see on that list, please tell if i miss something:

1. I guess AGM-15 and AGM-130 will be able to be directly controlled, or track moving targets via IR? Will they be as complicated as Mavericks and require boresighting? Also, if especially the AGM-130 has such a huge range, how does its IR imager work? Does it select its own target in the serach area? I know the british Brimstone does this, but thats much more modern.

2. GBU-39 small diameter bomb. Apparently the /b can be targeted with laser, not just GPS? I wonder if its gonna be like a slightly standoff LGBs, considering the JSOW also has a huge range and keeps speed quite well. Idk about limited laser range tho, IIRC it was like 8 miles?

3. The IR-tracking JSOW 154-C-1 seems just a navy thing, shame, but any chance on getting the equivalent of the GBU-53/Stormbreaker? Apparently thats an IR-tracking variant of the GBU-39? 2020 introduction I think, so quite late, but doesnt hurt to ask. ^^

4. Im curious about the AGM-65 mounting. Ive seen pictures with Mavericks mounted to the CFTs, but the list just mentioned tripple-racks under wing pylons? Now Mavericks are annoying to use, but 12x Maverick would be kinda interesting nontheless.

 

There are no weapons which replace the AGM-65, maybe GBU-38, GBU-39, GBU-15 and AGM-130. The AGM-65 is very unique.

As I understand the GBU-15 and AMG-130 are guided by GPS/INS (I don't know if the GBU-15 has GPS) and its guided by a camera through datalink pod AXQ-14 (in the plane) in the final phase. There are some videos on youtube of this weapon and the precision is even better than a LGB. The downside is the bomb doesn't stop so if you messed up the guidance it will explode in the wrong site. There's a video of this weapon impacting a train instead of the bridge, twice.

If we have the GBU-39 I'm sure it will be the first version. Laser guided weapons may be guided by forces in the frontline, on the ground. So you can still drop them far away drom the range of the laser.

About the AGM-65 I don't know. This weapon is launched from a rail so I'm not sure it can be mounted on the CFT.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Ignition

[Temetre]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Ignition:

There are no weapons which replace the AGM-65, maybe GBU-38, GBU-39, GBU-15 and AGM-130. The AGM-65 is very unique.

As I understand the GBU-15 and AMG-130 are guided by GPS/INS (I don't know if the GBU-15 has GPS) and its guided by a camera through datalink pod AXQ-14 (in the plane) in the final phase. There are some videos on youtube of this weapon and the precision is even better than a LGB. The downside is the bomb doesn't stop so if you messed up the guidance it will explode in the wrong site. There's a video of this weapon impacting a train instead of the bridge, twice.

If we have the GBU-39 I'm sure it will be the first version. Laser guided weapons may be guided by forces in the frontline, on the ground. So you can still drop them far away drom the range of the laser.

About the AGM-65 I don't know. This weapon is launched from a rail so I'm not sure it can be mounted on the CFT.

Thx, mustve been wrong about the CFT mounted Mavericks, probably was a different missile. Guess like were stuck with the AGM-65 and its 70s quirks.

So the 15/130 are basically like the SLAM-ER with datalink pod? I can see how that would work, and how you had fairly little reaction time to set theright target^^'

The GBU-39 being lased makes sense for longer range shots. I think itll be still way easier to use than LGBs when used vs armored vehicles and lasing yourself.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Temetre

[Dragon89]

The GBU-15 & AGM-130 are electro-optical (TV) guided weapons.

[Ignition]

9 hours ago, Temetre said:

Thx, mustve been wrong about the CFT mounted Mavericks, probably was a different missile. Guess like were stuck with the AGM-65 and its 70s quirks.

So the 15/130 are basically like the SLAM-ER with datalink pod? I can see how that would work, and how you had fairly little reaction time to set theright target^^'

The GBU-39 being lased makes sense for longer range shots. I think itll be still way easier to use than LGBs when used vs armored vehicles and lasing yourself.

 

The AGM-130 its kind a SLAM yes. I believe it has less range and it's a 2000lb bomb, I don't know about the AGM-84 probably its also a 2000lb.

The GBU-15 it's kind the more modern versions of the Walleye AGM-62.

Also the AGM-130 was used for SEAD.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Ignition

[Temetre]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Dragon89:

The GBU-15 & AGM-130 are electro-optical (TV) guided weapons.

To be clear I have no clue about that missiles, Ive just read wikipedia. Sounds like there they say weapon is modular and can have different types of seekers? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-130

Zitat

The GBU-15 is a modular weapon, and the AGM-130 continues this concept. It consists of a CCD TV or focal plane array imaging infrared seeker head

The AGM-15 page also mentions under guidance:

Zitat

Manual guidance by radio datalink with TV guidance or Infrared homing with Imaging Infra-red

IR homing I supposed would be what the AGM-65 does? No clue if the F-15E gets both sensors or so tho. 

But I definitely learned that this is a much more hefty bomb than a Maverick, less of a precision tank killer or so. Closer to a SLAM-ER or 2000lb JDAM.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Ignition:

The AGM-130 its kind a SLAM yes. I believe it has less range and it's a 2000lb bomb, I don't know about the AGM-84 probably its also a 2000lb.

The GBU-15 it's kind the more modern versions of the Walleye AGM-62.

Also the AGM-130 was used for SEAD.

According to Wikipedia the SLAM-ER only has an ~800 LB warhead. I suppose with the Splash Damage script (or ED finally improving fragmentation dynamics) the 15/130 could be pretty devastating. I can see the utility in SEAD, though ofc as everyone playing DCS knows, guided missiles (even if burned out) get shot down with 100% accuracy by SAM, while unguided bombs are literally invisible. (except the AGM-154, but hey, its the US' fault they called it an AGM)

So I supposed the GBU-15 could be a nice SEAD weapon :^)

Edited April 27, 2023 by Temetre

[Coole28]

19 hours ago, Ignition said:

If we have the GBU-39 I'm sure it will be the first version. Laser guided weapons may be guided by forces in the frontline, on the ground. So you can still drop them far away drom the range of the laser.

 

The original GBU-39 was GPS/INS only, not laser guided.  There was a whole lawsuit against the USAF for removing the moving target capability from the program requirements.

The laser guidance wasn’t added until over a decade after entering service as an interim solution to hit moving targets as the GBU-53 program was running into budget constraints.  

[Ignition]

5 hours ago, Coole28 said:

The original GBU-39 was GPS/INS only, not laser guided. 

I know, I was refering to his comment on laser guided weapons beyond laser range.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Ignition