closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

I understand the loadout of 4 HARMs on stations 3/7 and stations 4/6 is almost never used in RL, but HARMs on stations 4/6 is possible as these stations are fully weapons-capable. So why can't we have HARMs on stations 4/6 as well?

 

I mean it's kinda like the argument of 10 Aim-120s on the Hornet. The loadout of 10 Aim-120s is almost never used in RL as well, but it is allowed in DCS (and almost every Hornet pilots carry this loadout in the game).

 

What do you guys think?

I understand the loadout of 4 HARMs on stations 3/7 and stations 4/6 is almost never used in RL, but HARMs on stations 4/6 is possible as these stations are fully weapons-capable. So why can't we have HARMs on stations 4/6 as well?

 

 

 

I mean it's kinda like the argument of 10 Aim-120s on the Hornet. The loadout of 10 Aim-120s is almost never used in RL as well, but it is allowed in DCS (and almost every Hornet pilots carry this loadout in the game).

 

 

 

What do you guys think?

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. I'm not familiar enough with the 10 AIM-120 loadout Hornet loadout, it maybe different than these in that in the Viper the 4 HARMs were only flight tested at Edwards apparently. There is debate if the LAU-88 is kept as an emergency stop gap loadout for a Fulda Gap scenario or if it is not used because the Mavericks can damage the aircraft and each other from launch. But for sure it was never used in combat in times where it might have been useful, like the 1991 Highway of Death. Is the Hornets 10 AIM-120 similar in that it is flight tested and they just have never needed it yet or is there a deeper debate?

 

The 4 HARMs loadout would naturally become less popular anyway when we get ECM pods to mount centerline and will need to take the two wing tanks instead of using the centerline.

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

So I think this would be much more productive if people focus on evidence either way, rather than speculation. As such I'd like to suggest some evidence that the F-16 CJ Block 50 can indeed carry 4 AGM-88C HARMs, even if this loadout is not used very often.

 

 

Evidence item one:

 

The 2003 PACAF Standard Conventional Loads (google to find it), lists for the 35th Fighter Wing the following loadout on Page 20:

 

4 AGM88C, 3 AIM-120, 1 AIM-9

 

The 35th Fighter Wing fly the F-16CM Block 50, the exact block that is modelled by our F-16 in DCS. The PACAF SCL is from 2003 which is close to the date modelled for our Viper.

 

As noted in the document itself:

 

Standard Conventional Loads (SCL).

SCLs were originally designed to provide war planners with specific acceptable loads for various aircraft.

 

Why would 4 HARMs be listed in the SCL as an acceptable load for the F-16 CM Block 50 if the fighter is unable to carry 4 HARMS?

 

Note that it is also listed as a valid operational loadout for the F-16 CJ on page 9 of the 1997 PACAF Standard Conventional Load (again use google to find), suggesting this has been true for some time and that this is not a mistake in the 2003 PACAF SCL.

 

 

 

Evidence item two:

 

The F-16 fact sheet presented by Shaw Air force base says:

 

The first Block 50/52 was delivered to the US Air Force in 1991, and reached initial operational status in 1994. The Block 50/52 F-16 is recognized for its ability to carry the AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile in the suppression of enemy air defenses, or SEAD, missions. The F-16 can carry as many as four HARMs.

 

This is the official site for the 20th Fighter Wing which fly the F-16CJ Block 50. Why would it be incorrect in stating the F-16CJ Block 50 can carry 4 HARMs? Personally I think this also indicates that 4 HARMs can be used operationally, I doubt they would say this if all you could do is ferry them.

 

 

Evidence item three:

 

There is evidence of other versions of the F-16 carrying 4 HARMs. The aircraft pictured is an F-16A rather than a C, but it is not a test aircraft (unlike this one) and it is clearly carrying 4 HARMs. Whilst this is clearly much weaker evidence than the items above that the F-16CJ Block 50 could carry 4 HARMs, it is still relevant. It shows that 4 HARMs is occasionally carried on the F-16.

 

As noted I think this discussion would benefit most from people providing evidence to support their positions.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Tomsk

Yep. From what I read on the internet, it seems the main reason that 4 HARMs is not a realistic loadout is the fuel problem. SEAD missions require ECM pods on the centerline, so if carrying 4 HARMs you cannot bring a external tank, plus the added drag and weight you will be very short on fuel. Also 4 HARMs also means you need to stay longer in the air so that's why 4 HARMs is not a realistic loadout.

 

But I still stand for the argument that 4 HARMs is possible, and unlike LAU-88 with triple Mavs which may damage the airframe, I doubt HARMs on stations 4/6 does the same. I mean if you are only 50 miles from the enemy air defense, 4 HARMs sounds like a pretty viable loadout that will enable you to take out more SAMs in one sortie.

I am not an expert but I just think that if the 4 HARM configuration is possible in Real Life, we should be able to choose that in DCS too.

That would be great if a % chanche of being damaged could be applied, but if not, we should simply deal with the fuel issue.

My 2 cents.

So I think this would be much more productive if people focus on evidence either way, rather than speculation. As such I'd like to suggest some evidence that the F-16 CJ Block 50 could indeed carry 4 AGM-88 HARMs, even if this loadout is not used very often.

 

Evidence item one:

 

The 2003 PACAF Standard Conventional Loads (google to find it), lists for the 35th Fighter Wing the following loadout on Page 20:

 

 

 

The 35th Fighter Wing fly the F-16CM Block 50, the exact block that is modelled by our F-16 in DCS. The PACAF SCL is from 2003 which is extremely close to the date modelled for our Viper.

 

As noted in the document itself:

 

 

 

Why would 4 HARMs be listed in the SCL as an acceptable load for the F-16 CM Block 50 if the fighter is unable to carry 4 HARMS?

 

Evidence item two:

 

The fact sheet presented by Shaw Air force base says:

 

 

 

This is the official site for the 20th Fighter Wing. Why would it be incorrect in stating the F-16CJ Block 50 can carry 4 HARMs?

 

Evidence item three:

 

There is evidence of other versions of the F-16 carrying 4 HARMs. The aircraft pictured is an F-16A rather than a C, but it is not a test aircraft and it is clearly carrying 4 HARMs. Whilst this is clearly much weaker evidence than the items above that the F-16CJ Block 50 could carry 4 HARMs, it is still relevant.

 

As noted I think this discussion would benefit most from people providing evidence to support their positions.

 

Maybe you, BIGNEWY or Nineline could forward your information to Wags. If your post contains any relevant information for our DCS F-16, ED will maybe reconsider the "limitation".

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4491060&postcount=16

Although there were 4x tests at Edwards years ago, we have no evidence that this was ever used operationally. Additionally, our documents for a 2007 Blk 50 clearly specifies STA 3 and 7 only.

 

If you or anyone else has contrary evidence for a 2007 Blk 50, we look forward to seeing it.

 

Kind regards,

Wags

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

 

Thanks for the reply BIGNEWY. I understand your point. But triple Mavs on LAU-88s are not realistic as well. Wags also asked if we could prove that 4 HARMs is possible in RL.

 

If we are going by the manual, then all the taxiway takeoff and crazy things players do in DCS shouldn't be allowed as well.

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

F-16D Blk 50 90-0835

 

F-16D Blk 50 90-0835

 

 

So I didn't include this image because this is a test aircraft from Edwards, as such it's not very compelling evidence IMO.

F-16D Blk 50 90-0835

 

With an ED tail codes, Edwards test squadron, not operational and you don't technically know if it tested out ok just by a picture, only that they were able to bolt 4 to the jet. That specific loadout is what Wags is saying, that it was only ever flown at Edwards according to pictures. And to somewhat back them up, there are pictures of non-ED tail codes flying LAU-88 double/triple Mavericks.

 

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

So I didn't include this image because this is a test aircraft from Edwards, as such it's not very compelling evidence IMO.

 

Fair, I just thought I would include it because it's a blk 50 bird.

it seems pretty clear from all the dated previously posted that it IS possible to take 4 harms.

If you add the damage of the rear wings at rail launched missiles on the innert stations too, why not? Then you can carry 4 HAMRMs, but will not come back in one piece :D :D

 

@DrBackJack

This airframe is a frame test aircraft only. Nothing on or at this viper has to do with normal operations loadouts. It is just for looking how something works or does not work. You will see this airframe with a lot of funny loadouts, but you will never see them later on other aircraft. 4 HARM hera can also be a no go after landing. And okay, officially called a block 50.. but I bet there is a lot of stuff inside the operational AC does not have.

 

But you are right, there are SCL axisting for the case of war. And there are also SCL around that canbe used, but then the return of the jet is not planned.....

 

There are much more points around to work on the Viper than making it a great Ace Combat style AC.....

+1 for 4 Harms if is a valid configuration, like 3xAGM-65.

If we are going by the manual, then all the taxiway takeoff and crazy things players do in DCS shouldn't be allowed as well.

And FWIW, that's the point those of us who anti-LAU-88 have been making,so in these cases it's ED's job to make the realism call so people don't game it too badly. But as everyone is pointing out here, it seems weird that they are drawing the line with this loadout.

 

 

 

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.

Tomcats of CVW-11 flew regularly with 6 Phoenixes and 2 Sidewinders on their cruise on the Enterprise in the mid 80s, as Captain Robert "Crazy Bob" Leuschner made them do that.

Edited September 18, 2020 by QuiGon

I will try to simplify my PoV:

 

 

What is the limitation avoiding 4 HARMS config in the viper? Is it purely operational, or is it indeed structural? Maybe station 4 and 8 does not allow for LAU88?

 

If the limitation is purely operational and it could be used; though luckily it has not being used up to now, in a total war scenario, then model it, and let servers limit the quantity to 2 if they wish for more realistic scenarios, allowing for SP people to create their fictional campaigns around WWIII.

 

If the limitation is structural or those pylons do not have "the wiring" required to launch AGM88, then please don't add it.

+1 for 4 harms. Most of the harms are shot down bu ADS's already. 2 of them are now enough

The only thing that should influence whether or not a weapon can be equipped is whether or not the hardpoints will accept it. The logistics/fuel juggling/feasability it the player's problem. As others observered, carrying certain loadouts like the ECM over a long endurance flight render the 4x HARM loadout IMPRACTICAL in many cases, but that is not the same as IMPOSSIBLE.

 

 

It would be really nice if ED and their devs would all get on the same page with this stuff, and be consistent even across their own aircraft and weapons. Triple mavs is ok, but not quad HARMs? That's inconsistent on the same plane, just with different weapon systems.

 

 

Common operational loadouts are the real world military juggling logistics and designing roles, etc. Ingame, we have literally COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS driving our motivations. The technical capability of a hardpoint to accept and interface with a weapon is literally the ONLY thing that matters. Why people complicate this bs unnecessarily with "real world doctrine"... THAT literally has no bearing on whether a hardpoint accepts a weapon or not. It's no different than flying with fantasy skins, skipping ATC comms, or any of the other stuff people do routinely that departs from real world doctrine. It is completely irrelevant.

Edited September 18, 2020 by zhukov032186

+1 for below!

 

I will try to simplify my PoV:

 

 

What is the limitation avoiding 4 HARMS config in the viper? Is it purely operational, or is it indeed structural? Maybe station 4 and 8 does not allow for LAU88?

 

If the limitation is purely operational and it could be used; though luckily it has not being used up to now, in a total war scenario, then model it, and let servers limit the quantity to 2 if they wish for more realistic scenarios, allowing for SP people to create their fictional campaigns around WWIII.

 

If the limitation is structural or those pylons do not have "the wiring" required to launch AGM88, then please don't add it.

I will try to simplify my PoV:

 

 

What is the limitation avoiding 4 HARMS config in the viper? Is it purely operational, or is it indeed structural? Maybe station 4 and 8 does not allow for LAU88?

 

If the limitation is purely operational and it could be used; though luckily it has not being used up to now, in a total war scenario, then model it, and let servers limit the quantity to 2 if they wish for more realistic scenarios, allowing for SP people to create their fictional campaigns around WWIII.

 

If the limitation is structural or those pylons do not have "the wiring" required to launch AGM88, then please don't add it.

 

This is also my point of view. The evidence I've presented does seem to indicate the F-16 can carry 4 AGM88, it's just rarely used. If that's correct I would suggest the correct option is to allow it to be carried.

The only thing that should influence whether or not a weapon can be equipped is whether or not the hardpoints will accept it. The logistics/fuel juggling/feasability it the player's problem. As others observered, carrying certain loadouts like the ECM over a long endurance flight render the 4x HARM loadout IMPRACTICAL in many cases, but that is not the same as IMPOSSIBLE.

 

 

It would be really nice if ED and their devs would all get on the same page with this stuff, and be consistent even across their own aircraft and weapons. Triple mavs is ok, but not quad HARMs? That's inconsistent on the same plane, just with different weapon systems.

 

 

Common operational loadouts are the real world military juggling logistics and designing roles, etc. Ingame, we have literally COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS driving our motivations. The technical capability of a hardpoint to accept and interface with a weapon is literally the ONLY thing that matters. Why people complicate this bs unnecessarily with "real world doctrine"... THAT literally has no bearing on whether a hardpoint accepts a weapon or not. It's no different than flying with fantasy skins, skipping ATC comms, or any of the other stuff people do routinely that departs from real world doctrine. It is completely irrelevant.

 

I second this point: if the F-16CM Block 50 we have modeled in DCS is capable - based on the already reported evidence and further technical considerations, such as zhukov's ones on the hardpoint accepting the weapon or not - of carrying 4 HARMS out of pure test scenarios, I think we should be allowed to carry them.

Then, doing it or not depends on how deep you want to push in applying real world doctrine to the game: there will be groups/servers that strictly conform to the point that such a loadout hasn't ever been used operationally, there will be groups that will carry 2 because of practical implications (you need fuel, you'll have an ECM pod sooner or later, and so on) and there will be groups that simply don't care about real world doctrine and want that a flight of F-16s that are tasked with SEAD can be as effective as a flight of Hornets in terms of how many HARMs you can fire at an opponent air defense.

Same point already expressed for the "LAU-88 and triple Maverick yes/no" matter: please, don't put an arbitrary limit if there's no valid reason to do so and let the power to limit himself to the degree he/she prefers in the hands of the user.

Edited September 18, 2020 by BlueRaven

+1 for 4 harms