10x CBU Plausible?

I saw this whopping of a loadout on a MP server once. I could barely believe what I was seeing!

That's a lot of weight on those stubby little wings... I'm really impressed by such a loadout (despite the reasonableness of it).

I loaded as many CBU's as I could on my A-10C for comparison. Here's an image of both.

I can see from real photos that the outermost TER with 2x CBU's exist, but I've not seen the inner stations with 3x CBU-87/97's on them. Is that an accurate loadout for that station (i.e. documented and authorized for that station, for block 50?)

I know some gameplay concessions have/are being made, and I just want to know what's realistic or not, and why... so I can ensure maximum realism if I so desire.

Thanks all:joystick:

As an addendum: Does anybody know why we can't use TER CBU-87/97x3 on stations 3 and 9 in the A-10C?

You would not use Station 6 on an A-10C with 5 and 7 occupied...

Thanks Emmy, I've suspected as much but wasn't sure.

On your image of the viper, #5 and #6 isn't possible. No way for that station to be loaded in real life with a TER, additionally a TER isn't authorized on STA4/6 only a weapons pylon.

There is a 4/6 weapons pylon. It's mutually exclusive with the fuel tank pylon. TERs were authorized for the F-16 for 4/6 in 1997 (e.g. 12xMK-82) but not for CBUs. The maximum number of CBUs were 4 of the 1000 lb. class in "slant two" on 3/7 and 6 Rockeyes in TERs (3xTER 3/7).

So, to recap.

No 3x CBU's on any TER (unless Rockeye). Slant load is okay only on 3/7, no TER Dispensers on 4/6. Normal Mk.20 series TER okay on 3/4/6/7 (4/6 may have lost authorization at some point?).

No restrictions for single weapons (SER) on pylons.

In the A-10, 5/7 and 6 are mutually exclusive...

Does that sound about right?

unauthorized dont mean impossible so it not a reason for not allowing a loadout , we allowed to do it in games since we dont have to follow usaf regulation .

unauthorized dont mean impossible so it not a reason for not allowing a loadout , we allowed to do it in games since we dont have to follow usaf regulation .

True. A rl example might be Special Weapons Command providing an aircraft to Special Projects for weird stuff.

I bet they would strap a donkey and cart onto an F-16 with duct tape and a jump rope if they had to.

It would be cool to be able to select in the loadout editor which regulations you want to follow.

So, to recap.

 

 

No 3x CBU's on any TER (unless Rockeye). Slant load is okay only on 3/7, no TER Dispensers on 4/6. Normal Mk.20 series TER okay on 3/4/6/7 (4/6 may have lost authorization at some point?).

No restrictions for single weapons (SER) on pylons.

 

 

In the A-10, 5/7 and 6 are mutually exclusive...

 

 

Does that sound about right?

Close: no CBU TERs on 4/6 at all. Maximum Rockeye is 6 total on the outer pylons. The only TERs on 4/6 are MK-82s.

I sometimes fly with that loadout if I need to do a huge amount of ground destruction, it does not like to fly in that loadout at all. If you get jumped by an enemy you need to jettison immediately otherwise you'll just fall out of the sky as soon as you try and fight.

The amount of fuel you burn through carrying that load also means you most likely need the centre tank also, again adding to the weight.

When are we getting the donkey & cart and how are they selected?

It would be cool to be able to select in the loadout editor which regulations you want to follow.

I'd happily accept some guidance in the DCS Flight Manual instead... if they're going to allow me to load unrealistic load outs then at least tell me why that's possible, under what conditions (years, gameplay, theater etc...) and if there are any restrictions.

I'd happily make the choice myself if I could be provided the info.

Since there is tgp bug and no advanced weapons yet, cbu is the most usable ammunition with dcs viper for now. So let it be at least until we have full weapons selection

When are we getting the donkey & cart and how are they selected?

Not available in Early Access.

The F-16 modelled is based around the 2007 time frame or so correct? If this is the case, a TER loadout consisting of 8 x 1000lb class (dumb, double digit) CBUs (SUU-64 & SUU-65 canisters) in 'slant two' format, that is 2 CBUs each on stations 3, 4, 6 and 7 is certainly an authorised configuration.

3 x 1000lb class CBUs can be mounted via TERs on stations 4 & 6, but not with any SUU-64/65 type of munition mounted on stations 3 and 7.

GPS/INS guided triple digit CBUs can only be mounted on stations 3 and 7 singly (pylon mounted) or in pairs via the BRU-57(?) smart bomb rack.

10 x Mk20s can be carried in the configuration shown in the opening post, at least around the early to mid 90's time frame.

So since we're talking about Viper loadout options, the other discussions have led me to find this photo on F16.net

I don't know what model/block or even country those are, but it looks like the weapons could be CBU-99's. I wonder if those are physically smaller canisters, which can authorize this carriage (I doubt a test would involve more than 1 aircraft). Or perhaps some other restriction like deploying fins or something else I've never considered.

On 3/21/2020 at 8:35 AM, Theodore42 said:

 

True. A rl example might be Special Weapons Command providing an aircraft to Special Projects for weird stuff.

 

I bet they would strap a donkey and cart onto an F-16 with duct tape and a jump rope if they had to.

 

It would be cool to be able to select in the loadout editor which regulations you want to follow.

 

Special Weapons Command? I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that IRL! Sounds like some cowboy stuff! 

1 hour ago, randomTOTEN said:

So since we're talking about Viper loadout options, the other discussions have led me to find this photo on F16.net

 

 

I don't know what model/block or even country those are, but it looks like the weapons could be CBU-99's. I wonder if those are physically smaller canisters, which can authorize this carriage (I doubt a test would involve more than 1 aircraft). Or perhaps some other restriction like deploying fins or something else I've never considered.

If I am not wrong (it could depends on the munition type, to me what we see on the pic above are MK-20), the configuration shown on your 1st post is possible. However, you won't fly much more than 20min. And if you'd like a chance to react to any SAM or AA threat, either you jettison your stores, or you accept the punishment.

EDIT:

Limitations would be: 550KIAS / M0.95 maximum ... +4/-1Gs maximum.

Sorry ... I went a bit too fast ...

It is ok with MK-20, but if your 1st post is showing CBU-87/97, then no, it is "not possible" (at least, not allowed).

According to the docs, you can have CBU-87/97 on a TER pylon mounted on stat 4/6 only when carrying an AGM-88 (or nothing) on 3/7. Otherwise, if you want a full CBU-87/97, it is 8 maximum (2 + 2 + 2 + 2).

On  your picture , (on the F-16) the "6" and "5" should not by there.

That's a wicked loadout.  I wonder what country is that?  First thing my eyes zapped to were empty wingtips.  Weird lol.  

On 2/25/2021 at 9:52 AM, randomTOTEN said:

it looks like the weapons could be CBU-99's. I wonder if those are physically smaller canisters

Yup, those look like CBU-99s / Mk.20s. Those are both physically smaller than the CBU-87 and CBU-97 and lighter, 490lbs vs 950lbs. 

On 2/25/2021 at 10:17 AM, Jackjack171 said:

Special Weapons Command? I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that IRL! Sounds like some cowboy stuff! 

Yes I am from Texas. In fact, just today I chased a herd of sheep in a 4-wheeler.

DNA 6023F is the unclassified Defense Nuclear Agency report on Operation Buster-Jangle, a well known Atomic test project.

The report is bigger than the file size limit so I can't upload it here BUT just find it online to read all kinds of IRL stuff about special operations.

p.18 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms includes: SWC - Special Weapons Command

p.23, 24 A map of the Nevada Proving Ground Showing Ground Zeros for Operation Buster-Jangle. I used this to give myself a tour in DCS!

p.31 Test Organization/Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and III Structure Within Federal Government: POTUS -> Defense Sec -> Joint Chiefs -> Commanding General, Special Weapons Command -> SWC Special Projects Officer

p.35 Test Director's Organization chain of command shows which units were provided by SWC, including Weather Unit, Special Phenomena Unit (IRL Fox Mulder stuff obviously), Strike Plane Unit, Military Support Plane Unit.

p.104 Operation Jangle Project 7.2 "Seismic Waves from A-Bombs Detonated Over a Land Mass" included participation from the 1009th Special Weapons Squadron.

p.107 SWC Mission Support at Operation Buster-Jangle is a chart of all 7 shots and which missions SWC participated in (pretty much all of them)

p.124 SWC responsibilities for radiological safety at Indian Springs AFB and Kirtland AFB.

I was researching this because I was trying to think of how to create a campaign in DCS for something like Special Weapons Command. Maybe make it a little more like a story with an operative handling you and the challenges would be more technical instead of combat in nature.

I moved over to more of a Joint Intelligence Operations theme and came up with things like: expedited startup (You must leave very abruptly); Out of limit Crosswind / short field / IMC landings; Following vehicles / troops without triggering them noticing; following multiple targets to try to logically figure out which is the agent and which are the assets / civilians; set up a backstop for a friendly spy / test a backstop for a possible enemy spy; take a picture of the right thing / right place / right time for TECHINT;

BUT anything too creative with the loadout would require modding which I really can't do.

I got busy, but I might be able to work on it now, but if anyone wants to use any of these ideas, just let me know when I can buy the campaign

So to end on topic, ya, I'm in favor of having the option to do weird things to airplanes in DCS.

ED has set DCS up as quite the sand box. The more ED fills in the eras of the aircraft and theaters of war, the there will be one aircraft with different capabilities in 2 eras. People that want 1 era are going to want one set of regulations for their loadout and the people that want to fly the aircraft in a different era are going to want another.

Currently ED is dealing with this by allowing multiple variants of the same aircraft (ex P-51 and F-14). And the Warthog gets re-winged every 30 years so it can use new equipment and ED just released the A-10C II

But we still have many different air forces that use different rules in their loadouts.

Wouldn't being able to select loadout regulations solve the HARM problem as well? Seems like you should be able to do anything that's been done with an aircraft as long as its clear which the weird regulations are and which are the "default" regulations.

And I want to make a campaign where you are attached to Special Weapons Command and have to do weird testing at the Nevada Proving Grounds.

On the other hand, I'm annoyed when I see F-35 mods for DCS in my youtube feed. I wonder how I would feel seeing an F-16 flying with 13 CBUs...

I didn't see the MK-20 on the list of planned munitions.  Any word on these? 

I'm under the impression that our Block and era doesn't field MK-20s

That's correct.  CBU-87s and up only.