HARM Loading Discussion

...

Thanks a lot!! This clears my confusion and explains all the questions I had, which were the reason I opened this thread!

Well, except one question, which remains unanswered: Why did ED change their mind to allow us to use HARMs on stations 4&6, if it is not possible IRL? :huh:

I think the crux of the argument is this statement:

What this means is not only is it not possible to use 65s or 88s from 4&6 it would take a herculean effort to reconfigure an aircraft to do so

When ED say "possible but certainly not an operational loadout" they probably refer to that same herculean effort that Scrape is talking about - technically yes, possible, kind of, sort of, but not worth doing in practice. To some people that means "only two harms" and to others that same statement means "four harms are fine then". It honestly just comes down to semantics or not, like most "what if" arguments.

Ultimately, I think mission makers in DCS have enough control over what users do with their aircraft that I'm kind of ok with ED's stance, although I would personally not adopt it if I was developing a module. Regardless of loadouts, what we do in DCS is not realistic anyway because of a myriad of other reasons.

I think the crux of the argument is this statement:

 

When ED say "possible but certainly not an operational loadout" they probably refer to that same herculean effort that Scrape is talking about - technically yes, possible, kind of, sort of, but not worth doing in practice. To some people that means "only two harms" and to others that same statement means "four harms are fine then". It honestly just comes down to semantics or not, like most "what if" arguments.

I actually don't think that this is the reason why ED did this, but as long as we don't hear anything on ED themselves we can only specualte what lead them to this odd decision.

Ultimately, I think mission makers in DCS have enough control over what users do with their aircraft

Unfortunately, DCS does not offer enough control. It is not possible in multiplayer for mission makers and/or admins to restrict weapons to certain pylons to enforce realistic (= technical possible) loadouts on a server. :noexpression:

I don't think ED realized what the case is with sta 4&6. This isn't common knowledge for a pilot, and a pilot SME wouldn't be able to speak on the issue in depth. It's not in their area of expertise. The function of an 88, sure. How it's built, not really. I offered the example of the wire diagram because on that wire diagram, the lines are present. On paper. In reality they aren't, and for numerous good reasons. There's no spears to throw because it's the kind of misconception that someone who's reasonable and in good faith can make. Documentation alone can't provide the answers to this question. Either you have to see it with your eyes, or talk to someone who's put their hands on it. There's no documents that ED will have access to that will show what I've highlighted. That's why you can't blame them.

I was semi-confident that wiring for 4/6 video missiles was possible but I never knew the extent to the modification necessary. I guessed hours-days timescale not weeks. It sounds like changing from GE to PW to an extreme example might be faster.

Personally I don't think DCS F-16 should get these weapons on 4/6 as it's so far beyond the threshold of even super rare operational use into fantasy land. With confidence I can say that this will cause the character of use to be degraded.

I am still curious if any other F-16 user of any variant utilizes video or smart stores to 4/6, EPAF, Israel, Greece, etc.

Scrape posted a shorter version of this in the original 4 HARMS thread and got drowned out by the SCL cite that supported the more fun side so he got ignored. He addressed the SCL issue there and here and it was also pointed out by Dee-Jay at least that the SCL isn't the end all be all that the weapon can be employed, just flown. It also ironically doesn't list a more then 2 Mavericks loadout. I'm glad his excellent detail here didn't become TL,DR.

How about the Block 50's used for Wild Weasel? The F-16CJ and DJ? If any would be wired for 4 HARM's it would be those.

Edit: did a little Googling, and there it is.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

How about the Block 50's used for Wild Weasel? The F-16CJ and DJ? If any would be wired for 4 HARM's it would be those.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

Block 40 -> CG, Block 50 -> CJ, Block 40 or 50 after CCIP -> CM. The G J and M series reflect the series of manuals that are needed to cover them. Gs and Js took entirely different bookshelves to document. Similar for EPAF As and Bs became AMs and BMs post MLU.

USAF never seemed interested in 4 HARM F-16s. If you're USAF and you want more HARMs in the air you just task more airplanes. USAF has something like 800 HARM-capable F-16s, right? Two missiles per plane? Need more missiles? Send more planes! More planes for everyone!

I don't know if 4/6 capability was something that was in the original spec or something GD thought up on their own. Edwards at least flight tested it so probably it was an early idea. Probably over time they realized that tanks on 4/6 was 95% of a Viper's life and spending R&D on weaponizing the fuel stations was not a good use for resources.

I wonder if the 4 HARM carriage capability is held onto as a method for transporting missiles in a pinch. Yeah you can't shoot them but moving stores by air can be a logistical solution.

Small air forces I think would be more likely to use four missile loads, especially anything with CFTs. You don't have swarms of planes so each one might have to pull more weight. Plus the flight times could be short. Israel or Greece I could see springing for such options.

How about the Block 50's used for Wild Weasel? The F-16CJ and DJ? If any would be wired for 4 HARM's it would be those.

 

Edit: did a little Googling, and there it is.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Yes, it can carry 4 HARMs, but it can't launch 4 HARMs!

I hope you have read this (especially the bold part):

Outside of the factory and depo maintenance only one career field will wire a weapons harness for a wing on an F-16 when on station. Wing changes are completed on station. The only, not avionics, not crew chiefs, not anyone but 2W1 Weapons Troops will wire the wing of an F-16 for all weapon stations. When it comes to which wires and buses are present there is no greater SME on the flightline. Why? Because the wing harness comes as one piece and must be dissembled and then reassembled when installed on the wing with wires ran to their specific stations. I'm a Weapons Troop, and have spent 13 of my 20 years working F-16s in 4 units, 3 of which happened to be SEAD units.

 

I'm posting not to make controversy, but to set the record straight. It is not an operational limitation to not carry HARMs on sta 4&6. There is no 1553 bus for 4&6. The 1553 bus is for 3&7 and sits near to the JRIU. No 1553 bus, means no 1760 capability for 4&6. No smart weapons, no JDAM, etc. That means only conventional stores can be reliably employed there. There's no "double braid" bundle for those who might know a thing or two. There is also no video line for sta 4&6. This means no AGM-65s either. I saw it mentioned that the AGM-65 and AGM-88 use different video lines. This is false. It's the same line. No video, no 1760 capability on 4&6 for any US F-16 unit. No variations.

 

What this means is not only is it not possible to use 65s or 88s from 4&6 it would take a herculean effort to reconfigure an aircraft to do so. It's not feasible in terms of cost or man hours. It's not something that could be done in days. Each jet would take weeks of maintenance to convert, not to mention the cost of a redesigned harness.

 

How can it be so confusing? If what I'm saying is true then how is there conflicting data? This is an easy mistake looking from the outside in. If one were to look at a wiring diagram, then they might come upon a T connector at the wing disconnect. This connector has three ports. A single on one side, and two on the other. This T connector, one on each side of the F-16 at the wing disconnect is a video line junction. The single plug goes forward toward the SMS, and there is a plug for sta 3&4 on the left side and correspondingly 6&7 on the right. They are labelled in the wire diagram. The 4&6 plugs of that T connector are capped. Without intimate knowledge of the system, it would be easy to make a mistake.

 

The F-16 is approved to fly with 88s on 4&6? Yes it is. However any reference to an SCL does not tell nor should it be interpreted that the missile was fired or employed from a particular station. There is no firing of munitions during SCL testing. All the SCL can tell you, it's one and only job, is to confirm that the aircraft is aerodynamically sound in flight and can be operated in the air without undue stress to the pilot or airframe with a particular loadout.

 

Any reference to test aircraft. Don't count. There's a book worth of reasons why, but test aircraft should never be considered when asking what if, because test birds are what ifs in and of themselves. Also, a test bird doesn't have to be at Edwards to be a test bird.

 

I'm not posting to make an opinion about what ED is or is not doing with 4&6. I'm trying to shed a little light on real world F-16s because the community seems to have lots of questions in this regard with a search for the truth.

 

I'm not coming from a position of being well read. Because of how a wiring harness must be installed, you get to know every single pin, because you'll be wiring every single pin for each station. Connect every matrix and multiplex bus. It's not an easy job, and not one that everyone is chosen to qualify for. The best guys still take a couple weeks to finish one side.

 

I hope this helps shed a little understanding on where the real world jet sits on the matter, and why.

I have had multiple Voice conversations with Scrape regarding the F-16 load out and how we implement our load outs at the 55th FS. The detail he went into here on this thread is the tip of the iceberg as far as his knowledge is concern. I have seen pictures of him deployed with various SEAD units and he is 100% the real deal. If any of you still think he needs to provide "proof" to back his claim, then I do not know what to tell you.

I get ED is stuck between a rock and a hard place and actually feel bad for them on the decision they had to make. Yes, they are not going to make everyone happy. At the end of the day, we have a bad ass jet. I started flight swimming way to long ago... think Commodore 64 and a game called Jet. Here we are now in damn near 4k VR sitting in a Viper, Thanks ED for that ability..

Small air forces I think would be more likely to use four missile loads, especially anything with CFTs. You don't have swarms of planes so each one might have to pull more weight. Plus the flight times could be short. Israel or Greece I could see springing for such options.

It's almost impossible to find a pic of a CFT equipped Viper with weapons rather than fuel on stations 4 and 6. My guess is, the main job of the CFT is to extend the Viper's (limited) range and endurance, rather than to increase its weapons load by freeing up stations. At least for Greece, that makes perfect sense. A large reason for why they need CFTs is to have the range and endurance to get to Cyprus and patrol its skies from the mainland. Carrying weapons rather than fuel on stations 4 and 6 defeats that purpose. I suspect Israel is in a similar boat, wanting to have the capability to hit targets in e.g. Iran.

edit: oh, and just " a quick google search" is pointless because plenty of that is wrong.

if you don't like 4 HARM don't load 4 load 2

What if I don't like my multiplayer opponent using 4 HARMs? What do I do then?

What if I don't like my multiplayer opponent using 4 HARMs? What do I do then?

F 18? hello? ;D,

its not 10 HARM its 4.

What do you say about 10 AIM120c? or 8 JSOW?

:lol:

Shoot him down?

Haha, "shoot him down" made my day

There should be ways to enforce the loadout, although not very easy.

Option 1.: While hosting a server you can set an option that clients are not able to change their loadout at all.

The problem is, you have to place yets with all different variations of loadouts you want the clients to be able to use.

While rearming, you will get the very same loadout again.

At least that was an option some time ago, I havent used it ever, so I dont know if it still exists.

Option 2.: Some servers check the loadout for validity while taking off, e.g. Blueflag.

There should be a way to use such scripts to "kick" players using a "no no"-loadout, also considering not only the type, but the number of rounds as well.

Just a question for myself, to Scrape: So although you have never seen it and it was never used, is it technical possible to wire up all 4 (both sides) stations to those T-connectors at the same time, or could the SMS then not handle the links?

Asking because: On the bird I am working on, we need to re-wire stuff to use either fuel, or a LDP/TGP, or a GBU... Although this takes some time, we do that.

So I see this as a matter of not changing the wires.

I wouldn't be fan of having vipers flying around with 12 Mav's, but I have my guys "under control". I simply ask my people to not fly like that online and it works for me.

If I join another server, I have to get on with the people on it, or I leave.

We will never get to a solution on such debates.

Some people like to fly just that airforces very same variant and want it to be technically or operationaly (two different things) as real as possible.

Some others would like to fly other airforces birds which are close relatives to our bird...

Flying online you regulary see Harrier with 12xGBU-12, Su-25T that looks like a hedgehog -filled to the brim with Vikhrs, missiles and bombs. F-16 with a max load of CBU-97 and A-10C with loadouts that would outright damage the aircraft IRL. So I guess 4x HARMS is a minor offense in that regard...

Ideally the server (or mission) would have an option box to force operational loadouts. If this is enforced players can only select official presets in the rearm drop down menu.

How about an option for the F-16 in the mission editor? You click on the unit, click a box, and it allows HARMS and AGM-65s on the inner pylons? Same could be done for the LAU-88.

You could then implement weapon and launcher restrictions on a per-aircraft basis, and a per mission basis...

Hi all,

 

as I have said before we have had a lot of feedback from both camps on this issue, we have evidence for and against having 4 HARMS.

I really would love to know how the feedback for 4 HARMs looks like, as I've not yet seen any evidence for stations 4&6 to be able to launch HARMs.

Also the OP question of this thread remains: Why are you enabling HARMs on stations 4&6, but not Mavericks, if they depend on the same video line? :huh:

At this time we are going to enable 4 HARMS and give the users the choice, if that changes we will let you all know.

Then at least give mission makers or server admins the ability to restrict loadouts please.