Jump to content

jojojung

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jojojung

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Like I said, i was researching for another topic and fall over this issue.
  2. I think thats too much speculation. When many planes does testing on this it would not be done to only want to know if the viper can carry this missiles for transport use only. I think they tested the operational usage for sure. Why they didnt make it to the actuel piectime certified loadouts I dont know either. Maybe because its simply not nessecarry in piecetime. Maybe for security reasons, I dont know. I only want to show that it was done with quite some planes of the block 50. But I will let you know when I get more information, OK? Above in this topic guys said that it was 100% never done
  3. I cant say what the result of this testing was. I dont know them but the autor says that "normaly two HARMS" indicating that there are special cases for 4 HARMS but thats my interpretation. To resolve this I have send an E-Mail to the Website and hope to contact the autor Lt. Carl Krittenden. But there was so much written in this topic here about, never a single time on the block 50 etc. and this is the proof that the HARMS on 4 and 6 worked. If they were put into service I can not say but I will try to find it out!
  4. Then took off the walleye II because when your f18c of about 2005 was in service the Walleye was not in service for the hornet for years!
  5. This is the proof, that they tested it! On the website: f-16.net you find an discription of the Block 50 USAF. And Lt. Carl Krittenden can be quoted form this artikel: "Two HARM missiles are normally carried on a typical SEAD mission, however, 4-missiles loads are currently being test-flown at Eglin AFB." In the following context of this artikel you can clearly see, that this test were done a log time before 2007. The artikel itself is a very old one. I already had contacted the website and the autor. Ehlin AFB was not a test site like Area 51 or was a testsite for manufa
  6. Yeah I know. Kind of confusing! In german wikipedia it is said that two stations can be loaded with 2x Tripple Racks = 6 and on the onther to stations a TER with two gbu-12 only = 4. Total GBU-12 = 10. Would be the same loadout type like with the CBU-97 at the moment in DCS.
  7. No i german it is said, that 3 on each TER and in total (= total payload GBU-12 incl. other stations) 10
  8. Agreed! Youre right back to this particulare topic. Probably only an impression that realism issues for the viper are immedeately discussed while realism issues for other planes are still accepted since years and nobody cares about. I fly the hornet fairly oftem am I like it very much. But its systems must be treated the same scaptical way that the viper does.
  9. Youre right and I understand that. But how to explain then the laser code change in flight with GBU-12 and the magic HARM seeker f.e. in the Hornet or the not nessecarelly boresight MAV in the A10? No community polls for this realism errors since years. Realisim is not a one way direction for only a few modules while other modules dont get fixed in therms of realism. So to follow your words you cant play the Hornet and the A10 at the moment because of many simplified sytems right? I personally find it difficult when the killer argument "realism and real simulation" is only used in a one
  10. Here are 2 track files that shows that there is no real drag difference between a single rack and a double rack AIM 120c. Can someone confirm this bug? Both tests are tested under the exact same conditions. I just set up the same standart mission in the editor on Persian Golf map. Startet at 20.000 ft with 300kn, flight duration about 3 minutes. I have 10% fuel load and unlimeted fuel acitated for the testing on both flights. Payload is: Flight 1: 4 single rack AIM120 and the rest clean; Flight 2: 4 double rack AIM 120 and the rest clean. As soon i get controll I go to fu
  11. Yeah thats the point! Thats how it works at the time. It would think that in a real wartime situation there would be a buildup to the vipers but I know thats hypothetical and difficult to proof in our situation.
  12. thats an absolut understandable point of view! No question about that! But I'm sure there are other understandable view pionts out there.
  13. ATFLIR is not a good comparision in this case. ATFLIR is total incompartible because of software, avionics etc. HARM are already implemented in the avionics and software of the viper. I understand your point but just in this case the viper can physically use them. Physical is the wrong therm to your argument. The Airframe would do it, the strukture will do it, the software etc can do it. But it can not use them because the avionical connaction is not there thats correct. As you said it (physically) is not correct.
  14. Sure there are. With the skript of available recource managent. So the ammunition on the airport where the planes get started is limited. But this is a very laborios way to get it done.
  15. So what do we all want? Above and in the Internet there is evidance that the Harms can be loaded and use (with little modifications) on station 4 and 6 but its not certified. Do we want a simulator for exact 2007 and peacetime with only limited war operations or do we want to simulate wartime. For myself its absolutely clear that in wartime and if the national guard has to do a SEAD operation within 200 nm and all depends on this sead operation, nobody will care about the one piecetime certification. In the military there are a lot of regulations on many systems in peacetime to take effort to
×
×
  • Create New...