closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

I do think that either way this goes, it'll probably stay as is. Just as despite all the salt thrown around for the triple racks around here didn't change that they're including it, I don't think we'll see 4 HARMs for this edge case included. I'm sure it's more complicated than just adding two missiles. They'd have additional coding for how the system works. All for a edge case/never operationally used feature.

ED made its decision, and I think they'll stick with it. I just hope moving forward there would be consistency in how this is applied, because it seems confusing to me on first glance.

My vote goes to ED moderators closing threads like these that request things based on a single test jet image that doesn’t indicate real world Operations

So that's not why this is being suggested, there is other (much better) evidence available.

Or like the LAU-88s and triple Mavericks. While I'm not a big fan of non-operational loadouts like that and the 4 HARMs, I feel like they opened the door for this stuff.

Isn't it nice that you are free to fly infinite amount missions as you please, instead restricted to historically accurate (and few) missions?

As well isn't it nice that you get to fly against a other aircrafts if you so want in you decided date, instead restrict to fly only one module alone, ever seeing any other modules in game?

Isn't it nice that you can decide to use a technically possible loadouts even if is historically unrealistic?

I am hopeful that ED will handle this like the handle the LAU-88, just say they will do it and never actually implemented, touch it or bother with it.

This way this "and hill" conversation will go away and like many other before this one and many upcoming ones. People that post here because " they need this" wont even remember they post this until the next time someone "pokes at it with a stick"and like an ant hill, they will all of a sudden remember they need this.

I do caution, this will never end for ED. If they allow this or other configurations, the internet will always use that for their next wishlist. You allow LAU-88, and 4 HARM, why can't I get:

- CFT, drag shoot, PIDS, PIDS +, MWS, PW engines, APG-XYZ, AN/AAQ-13, AIM-7/132/2000, Python, Harpoons, Penguins, SDIJ, GBU-15/32/39/49/54/, KH-22, etc

Personally, I am a fan of the LAU-88 decision they made. I have the option. And I hope there will be options for mission givers to disable it. I'd be a fan of the 4 HARMs option as well IF the two stations we're talking about is capable/wired to fire them effectively. If the stations don't support them except to hang them off the jet, then that's game over. I think that'd be consistent with what ED has done in the past.

I want that DCS tries to be technically correct, and not politically or historically correct.

There is huge difference in that. And proper loadouts are politics and history, not about technical possibilities.

So if a airframe is technically made possible carry 4x LAU-88, then so be it, regardless what a politics or history says.

It is then up to mission designer to make historically or politically accurate missions, or allow player to have a technically correct possibilities to simulate "what if" scenarios.

This same technical capabilities include that if the political reason to restrict LAU-88 to have just two Mavericks as the third one damages the airframe, then simulate that possibility in technical manner, not by politics by denying player from carrying it.

So if someone wants to do so, let them and let them as well take a risk to damage airframe and have a cost of it by other means like blow a tire or something, wear a airframe in dynamic campaign, longer repair times and all etc.

IMHO the modules needs some flexibility in technically possible things, in an educated guess manners. As like with F-16C Blk.50 there can be 15 fighters as such, and all be different, some even capable carry weapons others don't and some not have some features. So why it would be bad not to restrict the module to one and only airframe, instead have a little flexibility and allow more that is not in conflict with all others so it is more than restricted?

Some flexibility needs to be there, as politics and history shouldn't be restrictions but only the missions designer own rules.

As point of simulator is as well to simulate "what if" scenarios, not just have a game where you fly only in way how ED decided, otherwise we need "Turn back to combat area, or be killed" feature that will get activated on moment player flies unwanted position etc.

Real world loadouts says only two, we are going by the manual for valid loadouts.

But you didnt follow the manual for the LAU-88. You're allowing it to be triple loaded despite several SMEs telling you it was unrealistic and would damage the aircraft, in RW.

But you didnt follow the manual for the LAU-88. You're allowing it to be triple loaded despite several SMEs telling you it was unrealistic and would damage the aircraft, in RW.

Well, at least they're putting the foot down now. Had to end sometime!

I want that DCS tries to be technically correct, and not politically or historically correct.

 

There is huge difference in that. And proper loadouts are politics and history, not about technical possibilities.

 

So if a airframe is technically made possible carry 4x LAU-88, then so be it, regardless what a politics or history says.

 

It is then up to mission designer to make historically or politically accurate missions, or allow player to have a technically correct possibilities to simulate "what if" scenarios.

 

This same technical capabilities include that if the political reason to restrict LAU-88 to have just two Mavericks as the third one damages the airframe, then simulate that possibility in technical manner, not by politics by denying player from carrying it.

 

So if someone wants to do so, let them and let them as well take a risk to damage airframe and have a cost of it by other means like blow a tire or something, wear a airframe in dynamic campaign, longer repair times and all etc.

 

IMHO the modules needs some flexibility in technically possible things, in an educated guess manners. As like with F-16C Blk.50 there can be 15 fighters as such, and all be different, some even capable carry weapons others don't and some not have some features. So why it would be bad not to restrict the module to one and only airframe, instead have a little flexibility and allow more that is not in conflict with all others so it is more than restricted?

 

Some flexibility needs to be there, as politics and history shouldn't be restrictions but only the missions designer own rules.

 

As point of simulator is as well to simulate "what if" scenarios, not just have a game where you fly only in way how ED decided, otherwise we need "Turn back to combat area, or be killed" feature that will get activated on moment player flies unwanted position etc.

I think we in large part agree here. The only caveat is where I draw the line, I suppose, and I imagine everyone draws their line a bit differently (including ED). We saw the picture of the 4 HARMs on a test jet. But that only proves you can fly with 4 HARMs strapped on. No idea if you can actually fire them off the jet.

So my personal line in the sand would be if you could just stick 2 HARMs on the jet and go to war with minimal/no modification required, then I'm onboard. If the plumbing/software isn't there to support it, then no. You know, in this purely academic discussion.

I do caution, this will never end for ED. If they allow this or other configurations, the internet will always use that for their next wishlist. You allow LAU-88, and 4 HARM, why can't I get:

- CFT, drag shoot, PIDS, PIDS +, MWS, PW engines, APG-XYZ, AN/AAQ-13, AIM-7/132/2000, Python, Harpoons, Penguins, SDIJ, GBU-15/32/39/49/54/, KH-22, etc

Well, at least they're putting the foot down now. Had to end sometime!

Does the F-16C blk50 we have (that one, Unique airframe) allow mounting LAU-88 in other pylons than just two?

Technical question, not about political that what someone has decided only to be carried.

It is simple Yes or No answer, can the adapter be attached and is it functional?

Is hornet really operating with 8 jsows?

So my personal line in the sand would be if you could just stick 2 HARMs on the jet and go to war with minimal/no modification required, then I'm onboard. If the plumbing/software isn't there to support it, then no. You know, in this purely academic discussion.

If it is technically possible, then Yes.

If it is not, then no.

APKWS II rockets are 100% backward compatible with all launchers done in the history to launch 2.75" rockets. That is technical fact. But not all launchers are same as some are digital to allow pilot/gunner select the rocket with a different warhead, and some are normal sequential launchers that fire all rockets or just single as software sends single or multiple pulses to fire.

All western aircrafts should technically be capable carry and launch APKWS II rockets, but only few can guide them without second party. And the rocket came officially in operational use in 2012 in our Hornets.

It should be only about mission designer to allow loadout or accept it in mission date. But not have a artificial political reason "we can't as our module is from 1988" as then it would never fly in 2020 mission against a 2005 Hornet.... And suddenly political reasons whole DCS is nothing more than impossibility.

Can a MiG-29S have those APKWS II? No, as it has never carried any 2.75" rockets....

Just like F/A-18C can't carry R-27ER....

Very clear and simple technical line IMHO.

If F-16C Blk 50 has shown 4 HARMS, then so be it... More likely they are possible be launched than not, as you don't go flying if you can't ever launch them. It is 1-0 for evidence to support it.

Unless someone has evidence that specifically explains that it was tested but found not possible because.... And that would be defining evidence it is not possible so 1-100.

Is hornet really operating with 8 jsows?

No, just with two. And most wings doesn't even train or operate with it, so it is unrealistic that whole JSOW is in Hornet.... By same political reasoning.

So if 8 huge jsow are accepted by the community, why are all against additional 2 harms?

So if 8 huge jsow are accepted by the community, why are all against additional 2 harms?

Because diversity....

Some people are extremists for "political correctness", and some would allow technically possible, and some talk about fantasies.

So if 8 huge jsow are accepted by the community, why are all against additional 2 harms?

Because those 2 extra HARMs are not technically able to be carried on the specific variant of F-16 that ED is modelling.

All other fairytale loadouts that we have for modules is technically possible, but not 4 HARMs on the Viper.

Sorry. :joystick:

Well, at least they're putting the foot down now. Had to end sometime!

True, but its not consistent. This sim is rapidly devolving into another Ace Combat/Air Quake. The unrealistic loadouts of 8 JSOWS on the Hornet (you cant go far or high enough with that weight), the LAU-88 for the Viper and now this debate.

I get that people want to play their way, but the premise behind this sim is being watered down.

Leave the mega loadouts for MAC.

Folks, this thread is slowly derailing. The point here is not to bring any fantasy payloads into DCS. Lots of people here have made it very clear that they want to see concrete evidence first before such a payload is allowed and implemented.

Because those 2 extra HARMs are not technically able to be carried on the specific variant of F-16 that ED is modelling.

 

All other fairytale loadouts that we have for modules is technically possible, but not 4 HARMs on the Viper.

 

Sorry. :joystick:

Again, what is your actual source for that claim? Mind sharing it? If you know more than we do enlighten us, please.

Fantastic, thanks Wags!

Dear all,

 

Thank you all for your feedback and passion. We reviewed other documents at our disposal (not cited here), and it does appear that a 4x HARM load is "possible" for our 2007 jet. Sometime in the early 2000s, it appears this change was made.

 

While certainly not a valid operational payload, we will make it available given that it apparently possible.

 

Kind regards,

Matt

Man, I am so thankful you answered this. You made my day. This should end the conspiracy theories now. And it should remind some of the guys here that baseless assumptions are never a good thing...

Niiiceee, tnx.

Dear all,

 

Thank you all for your feedback and passion. We reviewed other documents at our disposal (not cited here), and it does appear that a 4x HARM load is "possible" for our 2007 jet. Sometime in the early 2000s, it appears this change was made.

 

While certainly not a valid operational payload, we will make it available given that it is apparently possible.

 

Kind regards,

Matt

Color me wrong about the action. Thanks Wags. I know it won't be popular, but I appreciate you looking into it and revisiting it.

I personally won't be using a 4 HARM loadout, but I'm glad the decision was made to add them purely based on technicality.

Dear all,

 

Thank you all for your feedback and passion. We reviewed other documents at our disposal (not cited here), and it does appear that a 4x HARM load is "possible" for our 2007 jet. Sometime in the early 2000s, it appears this change was made.

 

While certainly not a valid operational payload, we will make it available given that it is apparently possible.

 

Kind regards,

Matt

Ok then.

:pilotfly: