Upcoming updates for the Viper

ED agreed to add it, because it is technically completely possible to have the three Mavericks loaded.

 

But IMHO ED should then very carefully model the Falcon damages as well when it gets it, so IF you load those unused combinations, you would have proper risks and probabilities to expected damages.

 

So it would then be correctly done, and it is up to pilot itself to make the decision to use them or not....

 

This this is Win-Win situation for everyone.

 

1) ED did model realistic setup properly.

2) ED did model proper damage modeling.

3) People who wanted the unused weapons configuration can be happy that they got what they wanted.

 

I don't see any problems in that at all.

I know that people would then come to whine that mavericks destroy their aircrafts, drops from the skies etc etc. But that is what they wanted! Right?

Very well said! Kind of like "Play at your own risk"

AFAIK, LAU-88 has been "approved" for operational use on IAF only. Risk of destroying the optics of other missiles present on pylons during launch is very high. So the interest if somehow limited and risky.

 

Regards.

IAF is either using 1 Missile - or 4 SDBs

No such thing as 3 AGM-65s or sort of things...

AGM-65 is used against Tanks... Why Would Israeli F-16 use them? you need to go very low very close (circle around the targets) very slow in order to hit them... it's a better suited mission for Helicopters...

Fighter Jets Won't Mind Tanks anymore in 2020... maybe the USAF is doing it with it's Air National Guard for training purposes, but in general - Fighter jets are not taking out tanks, and when they do - it's Laser Guided Bombs from Medium-Altitude (CAS Block 12-14'000ft)

Let's model it in the same detail and fashion as we model the G-override-button in the FA-18, shall we?

LMAO

:thumbup::thumbup:

Why would you want 6 Mavericks? Mavericks are awful, they make you so vulnerable and you have to get so close.

I'm on the side of make it like the real Viper, ED won't model extra damage, you know how long that would take? It's how the plane was meant to be used, if you carry 6 Mavericks your Viper should be slow as all hell and a sitting duck to anything you want to shoot those Mavericks at.

HARMS, HARMS, HARMS, HARMS.

That's what we need to be discussing when it comes to the Viper, not Mavericks the A-10 primary weapon.

My two cents, take it for what you will.

Why would you want 6 Mavericks? Mavericks are awful, they make you so vulnerable and you have to get so close.

 

I'm on the side of make it like the real Viper, ED won't model extra damage, you know how long that would take? It's how the plane was meant to be used, if you carry 6 Mavericks your Viper should be slow as all hell and a sitting duck to anything you want to shoot those Mavericks at.

 

HARMS, HARMS, HARMS, HARMS.

 

That's what we need to be discussing when it comes to the Viper, not Mavericks the A-10 primary weapon.

 

My two cents, take it for what you will.

Anything that can be taken out with a Maverick and in the Viper can be taken out both more safely and operationally realistic with a GBU-12. Yeah, AGM-65s can be fun, but if I'm going to roll around in the mud with that many of them, I might as well take the Warthog, it's natural habitat is there.

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

Or, while apparently not as big of difference as that (but not really sure since I don't fly the Hornet much), the no reason to turn the Viper to CatIII ever in DCS.

 

As I understand people debate that in a similar fashion to the G override, but would love to hear from a RL combat Viper pilot if they honestly put the jet in CatIII at a time when there was a true air or SAM threat (Allied Force, 1991/early 2003 Iraq, etc). I get it's help to prevent over G/departures the aircraft in some other lower threat combat situations would mean a CATIII loadout would result in the switch being placed there. But if the RL pilots say the risk was too great to "cheat" and actually kept it in CatIII when appropriate even when selecting CatI could have been used for extra maneuvering against aircraft and SAMs, then there should be some punishment in DCS to not have CatIII selected when the loadout is at that level and limits are exceeded.

Well, kinda, Cat III doesn't safe your plane, or stores because it is not a limiter that limits you from pulling more than 5.5g or whatever your current loadout supports. If a SAM fires at you, and you brake to the max it's still gonna give you problems. And they will / should show up on your PFL.

I remember a recent video with a female pilot showing youtube the F-15 (the one without the b word) .. and they have a switch in there for an extra few degrees (it wasn't much!) of temperature allowance in the engine. And that witch had a lead seal, so if you used it for fun, you'd have to answer for it because it essentially means the engine needs extensive maintenance.

Same goes for when you overstress the airframe of a hornet. Same also goes for the F-16.

There are some good videos out where you can see a very nice asymmetric load F-16 doing a sideway pull max alpha and it departs from controlled flight.

They were explaining how they had anticipated that and wanted to see if it catches itself again, but they didn't anticipate the beta accelerations involved, so they had to check that to see what they did to the airframe in that instance.

• We can start a mission in mid air and end it without landing. AFAIK this has never happened IRL. :D

It sadly has:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-15_Flight_3-65-97

• We can assign any country to red force or blue force, even countries who have not historically been allies or enemies, and have dogfights between a WWII plane and an F/A-18C
  

I have seen this documentary with F-15s engaging Zeros .. so good that we can do that in DCS, too!

IAF is either using 1 Missile - or 4 SDBs

No such thing as 3 AGM-65s or sort of things...

 

AGM-65 is used against Tanks... Why Would Israeli F-16 use them? you need to go very low very close (circle around the targets) very slow in order to hit them... it's a better suited mission for Helicopters...

 

Fighter Jets Won't Mind Tanks anymore in 2020... maybe the USAF is doing it with it's Air National Guard for training purposes, but in general - Fighter jets are not taking out tanks, and when they do - it's Laser Guided Bombs from Medium-Altitude (CAS Block 12-14'000ft)

I know I am feeding a troll, but:

Sadly we won't get SDBs though they would not be good for targets with a probability to move.

Also you can get a target into your TPOD and then begin your run in at a speed you feel comfortable with, getting the AGM65s seeker on it and then go nose down a bit to get it into the keyhole. I am not aware of any restrictions that would prevent you from firing it at 15.000ft at 400kt or something.

Why would you want 6 Mavericks? Mavericks are awful, they make you so vulnerable and you have to get so close.

[...]

That's what we need to be discussing when it comes to the Viper, not Mavericks the A-10 primary weapon.

 

My two cents, take it for what you will.

Imagine you have a low cloud, and some Tunguska protected asset in a moving convoy.

(Essentially making you overflying the target at below cloud cover risky)

Valid tactics in DCS at the moment are:

- Toss bombing and lasing a GBU

- Having a buddy drop a GBU on coords from above the clouds, hoping it catches your buddy-lase and goes into target (risks a no-track GBU that might hit a school).

- Having a maverick

I know which option I'd like to have :-)

Agreed! I want what the unique role of the F-16 actually is in the USAF and that DCS needs, especially when the HTS is available.

 

Anything that can be taken out with a Maverick and in the Viper can be taken out both more safely and operationally realistic with a GBU-12. Yeah, AGM-65s can be fun, but if I'm going to roll around in the mud with that many of them, I might as well take the Warthog, it's natural habitat is there.

One of the features of the HTS I am very excited about is it's ability to cross correlate targets using L16 and other HTS equipped Vipers, producing GPS coordinates of the emitter in a short time.

Ideally you'd be not using (only) a HARM then, but also some cluster bomb or potentially something more precise to take out the other assets that make up a SAM site.

Also there are situations where you want to go towards a (moving) target, fire your weapon, and get the heck out as quickly as you can. Not wanting to stay the half minute or more to do the lasing. The AGM-65 absolutely has it's purpose!

Well, kinda, Cat III doesn't safe your plane, or stores because it is not a limiter that limits you from pulling more than 5.5g or whatever your current loadout supports. If a SAM fires at you, and you brake to the max it's still gonna give you problems. And they will / should show up on your PFL.

 

 

 

I remember a recent video with a female pilot showing youtube the F-15 (the one without the b word) .. and they have a switch in there for an extra few degrees (it wasn't much!) of temperature allowance in the engine. And that witch had a lead seal, so if you used it for fun, you'd have to answer for it because it essentially means the engine needs extensive maintenance.

 

 

 

Same goes for when you overstress the airframe of a hornet. Same also goes for the F-16.

 

There are some good videos out where you can see a very nice asymmetric load F-16 doing a sideway pull max alpha and it departs from controlled flight.

 

They were explaining how they had anticipated that and wanted to see if it catches itself again, but they didn't anticipate the beta accelerations involved, so they had to check that to see what they did to the airframe in that instance.

I know it doesn't stop you from over G, but the CatIII limiters do make it harder to do than CatI.

That's the same concept of what I'm asking about the F-15 switch that she was talking about, in combat they could break the safety wire potentially if needed. Was CatIII ignored in a higher air/SAM threat combat and pilots just would naturally try to limit their Gs and not hitting the limiters to avoid departure? If the answer is mostly yes, then I'm fine with DCS having no consequences, unlike another sim that last time I flew it was quite ruthless in the damage it would cause :D

I'll have to look for those videos, all the modern asymmetric combat loads I find pretty interesting, especially compared to 6 AGM-65s sorry couldn't resist, cheap shot I know!

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

I know it doesn't stop you from over G, but the CatIII limiters do make it harder to do than CatI.

That's the same concept of what I'm asking about the F-15 switch that she was talking about, in combat they could break the safety wire potentially if needed. Was CatIII ignored in a higher air/SAM threat combat and pilots just would naturally try to limit their Gs and not hitting the limiters to avoid departure? If the answer is mostly yes, then I'm fine with DCS having no consequences, unlike another sim that last time I flew it was quite ruthless in the damage it would cause :D

Well, you have your config caution. And there's surely a checklist for what to do there. The reasonings might also be:

If you're defending a SAM, would you want the risk to make it more complicated by ripping at your pylon and degrading your ammunition / tanks, potentially leading to weird asymmetric drag adding to that tense situation.

AND putting people at danger by coming back home with a hung store?

I'll have to look for those videos, all the modern asymmetric combat loads I find pretty interesting, especially compared to 6 AGM-65s sorry couldn't resist, cheap shot I know!

I know that there has been the trial of a TER AGM65 with the A10 and it burned the rear end of the wing/flap a bit.

I am unaware of a similar damage done to an F-16 wing or even a test of that performed.

I am quite sure of they operationally allowed that config, that it wouldn't burn your plane.

Got the video out for you:

Also no worries on the (cheap) shots. I am fairly opponionated on the forums as well ;-)

Well, you have your config caution. And there's surely a checklist for what to do there. The reasonings might also be:

If you're defending a SAM, would you want the risk to make it more complicated by ripping at your pylon and degrading your ammunition / tanks, potentially leading to weird asymmetric drag adding to that tense situation.

AND putting people at danger by coming back home with a hung store?

 

 

 

I know that there has been the trial of a TER AGM65 with the A10 and it burned the rear end of the wing/flap a bit.

I am unaware of a similar damage done to an F-16 wing or even a test of that performed.

I am quite sure of they operationally allowed that config, that it wouldn't burn your plane.

 

Got the video out for you:

 

Also no worries on the (cheap) shots. I am fairly opponionated on the forums as well ;-)

Yep, hung stores, etc. Part of the reason I started using my 3rd Space vest is that I could set one of the stages before the G limit on it so I would physically feel it right before damage would happen. So I guess then the F/A-18 G override button is similar then with no consequences. It just that there are people here that say that it's not that big of deal and the pylons can take it with the impression CatIII (loadouts and switch position) can be ignored.

Dee-Jay on post #54 has multiple people saying LAU-88 wasn't used on F-16s with Panther citing similar damage issues and a link to and thread on it. I've always found that Dee-Jay does his homework. Obviously, they were flown in the 70s and 80s with the pictures floating around but I can't find a single SME here and other boards that say it was every actually used operationally. F-16.net has multiple threads on it that I'm wading back through to confirm that my memory is correct. But, while I wouldn't use it, I'm not 100% against it, I personally just want HARMs first. It seems like ED won't ever spank us for using the Jets the wrong way

Thanks for the video link and rolling with my cheap shots!

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk