closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

The most numerous fighter aircraft in the world with the most variants...but in DCS it must have one-to-one correspondence with one particular F-16. Right.

 

+1 for 4 AGM-88.

+1 for 4 harms

 

 

I second this. If we can find definitive proof that stations 4 & 6 are wired for HARMs we should have this capability in DCS, too. Like someone said before the Hornet's "SPAMRAAM" configuration is possible but is not used operationally due to fuel considerations. The same goes for the Tomcat in the "Flying SAM Battery" configuration with 6xAIM-54. You will hardly find any pilot who ever flew with this loadout. But again, if it is possible to load it in a real life scenario we should have it in DCS, too.

The evidence seems compelling to me. The jet is capable, it just wouldn't be done for practical reasons (hunting SAMs without ECM/external fuel). The decision should be up to the mission commander (or the pilot in DCS's case).

Take off - spam stand off weapons - land - repeat

+1 for 4 HARMs

Can carry four , BUT not wired for launch from those pylos in real life.

 

So Nope , you wont get four harms , sorry.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can carry four , BUT not wired for launch from those pylos in real life.

 

So Nope , you wont get four harms , sorry.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You could be right .. but I can't see in that case why it would be listed in the PACAF standard conventional loads as an operational load to be used for war planning. I'd also find it surprising for it to be mentioned on the page for the 20th FW as being able to carry four HARMs if that doesn't include being able to use them. Do you have any evidence that they can't be launched from those pylons?

Edited September 18, 2020 by Tomsk

I will just leave this image here...

 

 

and no 4 x R-27 is not a valid loadout... but 6 Mavs let the cat out of the bag.....

Edited September 18, 2020 by FoxAlfa

Can carry four , BUT not wired for launch from those pylos in real life.

 

So Nope , you wont get four harms , sorry.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

This is why I was very cautious saying we need definitive proof that stations 4 & 6 are indeed WIRED for HARMs. By the way, Haukka: what is your actual source for your claim these stations have no wiring for those HARMs? Mind sharing the info?

 

 

You could be right .. but I can't see in that case why it would be listed in the PACAF standard conventional loads as an operational load to be used for war planning. I'd also find it surprising for it to be mentioned on the page for the 20th FW as being able to carry four HARMs if that doesn't include being able to use them. Do you have any evidence that they can't be launched from those pylons?

 

 

If it is indeed stated as an official standard conventional loadout by PACAF and the 20th FW it is strong evidence. And these documents seem valid to me. But we have some guys with actual F-16 experience around here. Let's see what these guys have to say if they want to contribute to this topic.

Guys it can only carry 2 HARM's operationally.

Guys it can only carry 2 HARM's operationally.

And only two Mavericks...

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

Also, same for 6 Phoenix on the F-14. It is an unrealistic loadout but it is in the game.

 

Hard to define this statement and thankfully it was never required.

 

Rest assured though im pretty confident if going through Defcon 1 with an imminent soviet bomber hoard coming over the polar circle would the tomcats have launched with 6, absolutely.

 

The load out wasn't used as it was during times of peace, thus returning to the boat and being overweight. However the military test things for a reason and still do, to know what is possible when the time is needed.

 

As for the loadout on the Viper i'm rather suspecting its because people will want to take 2 harms and 6 mavericks lol - let's just hope the associated drag model (esp high altitude) has some resemblance to real life as those 16 wings are small with not much lift capability lol.

And only two Mavericks...

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

 

Yeah I guess my point is that there needs to be a foot being placed down so things are consistent so Pandora's box isn't opened. What's happening now is people find random pictures without any context at all and say "See it can carry XYZ let me carry XYZ".

F-16D Blk 50 90-0835

 

 

This F-16 is attached to the 416th flight test squadron attached to Edwards AirForce base. Key word Flight Test Squadron.

Can carry four , BUT not wired for launch from those pylos in real life.

 

So Nope , you wont get four harms , sorry.

 

 

I don't think that there would be even a mention of four harm on a single f16 written on a official Airforce Base page if it is not capable of launching them from those pylons.

 

 

I'm not an army person or someone of great knowledge but I see some evidence there,

 

in your post you just say there is no wires and that we wont get 4 harms,

 

 

who are you?

how do you know that?

what evidence do you have?

Yeah I guess my point is that there needs to be a foot being placed down so things are consistent so Pandora's box isn't opened. What's happening now is people find random pictures without any context at all and say "See it can carry XYZ let me carry XYZ".

Unfortunately (IMO), that box is already opened. If ED sticks to their guns on this, I think they should walk back the LAU-88s. I see what people are saying on the 10 Hornet AIM-120s and 6 F-14 Phoenixs I need to do more research into thos. But LAU-88s weren't operational according to most experts due to aircraft/missile damage and possibly these 4 HARMs due to wiring.

 

If it is physically possible, I get the worse case scenario that we fortunately haven't been in to see it combat loaded in real life argument. That is probably the 6 Phoenix scenario since it was loaded for awhile operationally, just not commonly apparently. If enough experts say the wiring is there for 4 HARMs, ok, allow it. I get the problem for more of us hardcore realism guys is that most of the time DCS doesn't have that many limitations that would be imposed on a real life extreme mission in range and supplies to make it be a truly rare, last ditch loadout that it would really be and people are going to spam those loadouts in MP and makes a gameplay issue in some ways (which is part of the reason I don't public MP).

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

Unfortunately (IMO), that box is already opened. If ED sticks to their guns on this, I think they should walk back the LAU-88s. I see what people are saying on the 10 Hornet AIM-120s and 6 F-14 Phoenixs I need to do more research into thos. But LAU-88s weren't operational according to most experts due to aircraft/missile damage and possibly these 4 HARMs due to wiring.

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

 

I could see the inner Harms having the same issue as the inner Maverick, possible elevator damage as well.

I am awaiting guys wanting aim120 on inner pylon as well... :D

(there is a reason why we do not see operationally any rocket rail launched wpn on the inner pylon)

+1 for 4 Harms. The door was open with A-10C 6xAGM-65 on LAU-88.

To make this aegument moot...couldn't ED just disable 8/10 AMRAAM, 6 AIM54 and triple maverick loadouts on the F/A18, F14 and A10 and wveryone will be happy!

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

The problem with that argument is that those loadouts were not common for very different reasons. The triple Mavericks on the Viper is a safety hazard because you risk damaging the tail. The 6 AIM54 was not used simply because it's not a good idea to jettison expensive missiles before landing.

The reason cited by BIGNEWY is:

 

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

 

So the obvious questions are:

 

Does the F-16 manual say the LAU-88s are a valid loadout?

Does the A-10C manual say the LAU-88s are valid for the A-10C (are mavs on triple racks not also in danger of damaging the aircraft?)

 

And so on for all these edge cases.

 

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 have no idea the definitive answer to that question with all the conflicting info out there.

I worked with the 35th Fighter Wing in Misawa for 3 years and it was always the standard loadout of 2 HARM. I am glad that ED is sticking to the Operational loadout and not some dream fairytale loadout. Funny how a community that loves realism is always asking for other than!

 

ED please stay consistent.

Yeah I guess my point is that there needs to be a foot being placed down so things are consistent so Pandora's box isn't opened. What's happening now is people find random pictures without any context at all and say "See it can carry XYZ let me carry XYZ".

+1