4 or 6 Mavericks on TERs?

To be honest I'm baffled about this decision. ED is a highly detailed study simulation. If the F16C block 50 doesn't have the LAU-88 available on its certified inventory, then it shouldn't come equipped with it.

 

They removed the JSOW from the available weapons because the Viper we are getting doesn't have them certified and I agree with that, but then why would you include a launcher that couldn't be certified due to damage to the airframe?

 

We are not talking about the LAU 88 on the A10C which can damage the anti corrosive pain on the inner pod after launching (which is easily repaired anyway), we are talking about flight surface delamination and potentially catastrophic failure!

 

But anyway, I've seen people loading their A10C with 12xGBU 12 and 6xMavs anyway even if they can't climb or run faster than 200 kts so I guess people will overload the Viper as well.

That’s my issue, there’s no tactical advantage to having that many missiles on one jet. In fact it’s the other way around, loading the jet that much negates the point of using a strike fighter, and it’s foolish since if that aircraft is shot down, or has to jettison it’s load, which is very likely since it’s a truck at this point with no speed or agility, you’ve wasted 6 missiles instead of 2.

It’s much better to have 4 F-16s with 2 each then 1 with 6 from a tactical perspective. All that aside from the fact that it’s a prohibited configuration to begin with, and the launcher is no longer certified, as aforementioned.

According to lore/fiction/facts..take you pick ;)

It can carry 3 on the rack but firing is another matter. Ferry mission is fine nothing else. Sorry :)

In the sim world all is easy and controlled, real world (which we will never get near) is a lot more complex.

Not mentioning other games/sims..this question to me is 20 years old and have been debated to death :)

I wish we could (including the silent dev) switch focus and have a max thing within the sim , to let me know if i'm at max at least or if I need to explore further.

My point is that real aviator will never confirm if we are close to the real thing, so it is all speculation.

I love the conversation but hate the back and forth on a subject that will be revealed.

Grim reapers is an example of a group taking the sim to the max in funny/scary ways, that is good for the sim and fun but they don't flame, as they know full well what they are working with.

some points . Would you as a simmer be able to....

1. start the jet - yes

2. take off - no ...you have no idea how it behaves in real life.

3. drop bombs - yes but maneuver the jet to the right place ..doubtful.

4. land - never unless you are a real pilot. This sim is not at that level of aero ...yet.

We train for 6 hours ..real jet jocks are creme de la creme and only 5% make it...(if we train at all ;) )

What we get in the sim is a really good taste and good fun but I would think some real pilots would have your backside for some of your comments :)and they can't due to real life numbers being secret.

So dcs is opening pandora's box without compromising real life.

One thing which for years was a big NO was iff modeling, we got that, and being a old flyer of flight sims, that is a gods send.

What must be cool, is for real aviator, to see the different tactics pushed.

Racing world have embraced the simmer, aviation will follow but not combat aviation, yet ;)

The combat pilot IMO will be on the ground within the next ten years, nothing speaks against it :)

If dcs inspires just 10 young kids to become pilots great :)

I never made the pilot but got inspired big time since year 1998..

The envelope being pushed today ...wish I was a kid again :)

Real no but closer than ever before...

Sorry to combine many topics :)

Well, then I give up I guess. Give them Foxtrot Mavs as well, who cares they are Navy only right?

They were put back on the list because it was found that our version of the viper definitely did have the ability to use JSOWs in the period in question.

That’s my issue, there’s no tactical advantage to having that many missiles on one jet.

There’s good evidence that 4 Mavericks was used operationally in Desert Storm so if you are simulating that historical engagement (and many of us enjoy that kind of thing) the use of that loadout in that scenario may well be reasonable.

With all due respect, this debate seems a bit absurd about what the viper may or may not carry in armament. As far as I know you can load the viper with realistic or certified configurations.

So where is the problem? :smilewink:

As I said before you or who edits the missions configure the type of weaponry that the viper can use. :poster_ban:

Exhaust plug may damage stab? How about you just take out the exhaust plug before you take off? It's not like we care about the cost of missiles in this game. If you want to play logistics, you can, but I wouldnt go crying foul when there are seemingly reasonable alternatives that would make a questionable decision possible.

DCS is all about creating an environment of what is possible. YOU as the user need to decide what level of realism you want to achieve.

If it was ever certified for carry, it should be included. The mission designer can choose to exclude it in a particular scenario.

This is NOT advocating adding weapons or systems that were not certified for carry by a particular platform. This is merely saying that the dev's should not limit the developed assets by "operational doctrine."

This really is getting a bit over the top. It should be simple. If you are set on realistic only then load your aircraft that way and press on and enjoy your sim. If someone wants to load six mavs and the sim lets them and they consider that to be fun then why all the focus on urinating in their cheerios?

Let people fly it how they wish to in what the sim allows and stop trying to push.

This really is getting a bit over the top. It should be simple. If you are set on realistic only then load your aircraft that way and press on and enjoy your sim. If someone wants to load six mavs and the sim lets them and they consider that to be fun then why all the focus on urinating in their cheerios?

 

Let people fly it how they wish to in what the sim allows and stop trying to push.

+1

very simple..

Who wants to fly ultra realistic, uses LAU117, who wants to enjoy, use LAU 88.

Everyone has the right to choose.

Well, then I give up I guess. Give them Foxtrot Mavs as well, who cares they are Navy only right?

Didn't the Hornet have AirForce MAVs until the F was developed in DCS?

The horror!

Just don't stick it on the plane then.

Also .. yelling for realism and for enforcing aircraft damage upon using that loadout but how many are honestly flying with random system failures (which certainly do occur IRL. Just see Movers low level flight video where he gets FCS errors).

If you want to limit something in your community, do so. You have the options. But enforcing hypothetical damage for all. That's taking it too far. That hybris.

Didn't the Hornet have AirForce MAVs until the F was developed in DCS?

The horror!

 

Just don't stick it on the plane then.

 

 

Also .. yelling for realism and for enforcing aircraft damage upon using that loadout but how many are honestly flying with random system failures (which certainly do occur IRL. Just see Movers low level flight video where he gets FCS errors).

A workaround or a placeholder I can understand. But the LAU 88 is not a workaround or a placeholder.

It is a straightforward feature.

A workaround or a placeholder I can understand. But the LAU 88 is not a workaround or a placeholder.

 

It is a straightforward feature.

And you would need that feature to fly with 2 MAVs on a station, right? Which was done - according to people - in Iraq.

To be honest I'm baffled about this decision. ED is a highly detailed study simulation. If the F16C block 50 doesn't have the LAU-88 available on its certified inventory, then it shouldn't come equipped with it.

DCS being a simulator lets us simulate a wide variety of situations. I think it's good that we can go beyond the certified F-16 loadout, although I think what can or can't be carried should be clearly labeled.

If someone wants to "pretend" the F-16 is a slightly different version of the plane, that's fine. That doesn't prevent people who only want to strictly simulate a US blk 50 from doing just that. Even in the case of a strict US blk 50 aircraft the triple rack loadout can be usable. I was already thinking of a NTTR mission with premise of the player flying a special testbed F-16 for the purpose of determining the feasibility of the LAU-88.

They were put back on the list because it was found that our version of the viper definitely did have the ability to use JSOWs in the period in question.

 

 

 

There’s good evidence that 4 Mavericks was used operationally in Desert Storm so if you are simulating that historical engagement (and many of us enjoy that kind of thing) the use of that loadout in that scenario may well be reasonable.

Yes they used 4 not 6 and in the 90s not 07 and I’ll bet you anything it’s because they didn’t have A-10s available, and we’re forced to use vipers. But see that proves the point that even in real war situations they still follow proper stores loading. The doctrine does NOT go out the door just because there is some special need.

Yes they used 4 not 6 and in the 90s not 07 and I’ll bet you anything it’s because they didn’t have A-10s available, and we’re forced to use vipers. But see that proves the point that even in real war situations they still follow proper stores loading. The doctrine does NOT go out the door just because there is some special need.

Fly in accordance with doctrine if you want, but the point is to have a sandbox.

If someone wants to taxiway takeoff, they can. If someone wants to low level buzz Las Vegas at Mach 1.5, they can. That's one important capability of simulation, to do things that are physically possible, but would never be allowed due to hazard or other criteria.

The line should be drawn at: did the aircraft ever carry it? If yes, then its allowed.

Individual servers can add restrictions if they wish to mandate some kind of doctrinal adherence.

Dont overly restrict just because it fits your idea of what should be done. The basic game should be simply restricted by what can be simulated to some verifiable standard of accuracy.

Fly in accordance with doctrine if you want, but the point is to have a sandbox.

 

 

If someone wants to taxiway takeoff, they can. If someone wants to low level buzz Las Vegas at Mach 1.5, they can. That's one important capability of simulation, to do things that are physically possible, but would never be allowed due to hazard or other criteria.

 

 

The line should be drawn at: did the aircraft ever carry it? If yes, then its allowed.

Individual servers can add restrictions if they wish to mandate some kind of doctrinal adherence.

 

 

Dont overly restrict just because it fits your idea of what should be done. The basic game should be simply restricted by what can be simulated to some verifiable standard of accuracy.

The point is the jet didn't carry 6 operationally so it should not have been allowed. Testing 6 and not being cleared to carry carry 6 operationally makes it pretty clear.

The line should be drawn at: did the aircraft ever carry it? If yes, then its allowed.

Individual servers can add restrictions if they wish to mandate some kind of doctrinal adherence.

The USAF/ANG Block 50 F-16C post CCIP upgrade from 2007, did not carry 3 Agm-65s on or with the LAU-88 launcher, nor did it carry the LAU-88 at all at that time. So the answer is no then, the aircraft DCS is modeling never carried the weapon in that configuration.

The USAF/ANG Block 50 F-16C post CCIP upgrade from 2007, did not carry 3 Agm-65s on or with the LAU-88 launcher, nor did it carry the LAU-88 at all at that time. So the answer is no then, the aircraft DCS is modeling never carried the weapon in that configuration.

In real life it can ferry it but not launch :) or it can but a a major risk. Had the weapon been a drop and motor fire ...maybe but it is motor fire to release ..sim wise we all want to carry as much as we can but there are limits :)

Do yourself a favour, if you want to deep dive into f-16 stuff and go to http://www.f-16.net/

And yes found a Danish display jet/scrapped from a picture I took of the "factory plate" :)

As a Dane I was fortunate that a sim modelled that jet in sim, so to me, this is a dream coming through sine I saw the ka-50 fidelity from dcs :)

I say, if someone wants to carry just 2 Mavericks it's totally fine. If someone wants to carry 4 or 6 (this last one totally irrealistic) is fine too. The first group of people will be served by the corresponding loadout option, ignoring the irrealistic one. If they are "shocked" by the mere presence of the loadout option for 4 or 6 Mavs and the lau-88, then the issue goes beyond Dcs, it's more OCD like. I do also believe that the hornet lot 20 is allowed to carry Bru-55 smart rack (not carried in the 2005ish version we have) and the tomcat is allowed bomb loads that were only tested and never carried operationally. What do we do? Do we trash those modules?

Tomorrow this beauty gets released in EA after 1 year of work. 1 year vs 5 years of a10 development, I'll take this as big accomplishment. Bashing it for such superficial reasons is nuts.

Sent from my Xiaomi MI8

You' re right, Sir :thumbup:

How is this any different the a-10 varying 3? Almost always is just 2 irl. Or, for that matter, I've flown Campain missions in the a-10 that have it at max gross with less than full fuel, loaded up with TERs of mavs or gbus, double 3x mk82 on inside pylons and CBUs, and/or multiple draggy 3x rocket. Every a-10 I've seen operate is far more conservative, like 10k less ordinance conservative Rives. Couple jdams, pod, rockets, etc. (Not might have something to do with complaints about thrust and aoa warning)

The falcon can use the 88, the 88 can load 3 mavs. So long as missions are designed correctly, I will choose realism and load 2. If realism is the goal actually, we should be able to load 3 but have a chance the rocket exhaust will flame out the big mouth.

Honestly I'm more concerned with what we are not getting than what we are. I was Disappointed they were simming an ANG CJ with a v5, why not v9 if already developing SAR for Hornet? Only other differences are better range and lighter weight, a welcome but negLigible difference in the nose heavy 16? I know lots were disappointed by JASSM, personally having some knowledge in our current litening II and sniper XR, I was bummed to learn we would not be getting it. Range and r solution allowing 30k orbits, ident infantry weapons or read a license plate beyond jet noise. Fun to play with AA radar slave functions, multiple target track, auto target tracking, datalink, 3rd Gen FLIR, better aeros and deployed to 50CJs 5 years before our Build? But whatever, I'll get over it, the reason I love the 16 isn't from its ability to drop

I figure half this stuff at least comes down to documentation or compromise with DDTC, not like ED just doesn't want to build cooler shot.

The point is the jet didn't carry 6 operationally so it should not have been allowed. Testing 6 and not being cleared to carry carry 6 operationally makes it pretty clear.

They are still allowed to FERRY 6 of them, hence why DCS should allow us to load 6 MAVs :smilewink:

They are still allowed to FERRY 6 of them, hence why DCS should allow us to load 6 MAVs :smilewink:

Agreed - you can use and abuse however you like. If die roll damage to the stab is realistic, then by all means put it in, but don't put any kind of restriction based on "historical operational use." Just because the tactics say to not fly 5 feet off the deck doesn't mean the sim should not allow for such a possibility.