Jump to content

HARM Loading Discussion


QuiGon
Go to solution Solved by QuiGon,

Recommended Posts

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'll take your word for it. In this case No HARMS for stations 4 and 6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the evidence... He is a weapons troop in the United States Air Force. I don't know how much more evidence you want but that's probably the most you will get.

 

 

I'm a Viper pilot.

true or false?

 

I just said it so it must be true

 

 

 

I'm not saying that he lies, but please provide evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Scrape, Thanks!

 

I was one of the people that wanted 4 HARMS, if it's not used operationally then we shouldn't have the four HARMS period. If two is all that is carried by the USAF then that's all we should have in-game, anything more than that would invalidate the F-16 as a simulation aircraft, how can it work if there is no wiring for smart weapons on those stations? It can't be justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to add,

 

I have no knowledge of the matter, but if some one just says something, like I'm the weapons whatever in the army, it doesn't mean it is true, or if its even true, it doesn't mean he is 100% correct.

 

 

I want the sim to be as accurate as it can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want the sim to be as accurate as it can be.

 

I'm not saying that he lies, but please provide evidence.

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 64GB DDR4, RTX4070 12GB, 1+2TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 4+1TB SSD, Winwing Orion 2 F-15EX Throttle + F-16EX Stick, TPR Pedals, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Thanks for sharing it from the 2W1 side. I learned after the LAU-88 argument that no matter what a SME says, it is best to stay out of the arguments with the quakers. The quakers who knows the jet better than those who have busted knuckles on her for 20+ years.

 

The issue I saw was because someone somewhere busted ITAR and uploaded a -1 and -34 that says something to contrary to what the SMEs have said. What the quakers don't see is what is under the hood, and what is also in the books that go deeper than those leaked -1 and -34. There are more books that discuss the deep details and those will never be found on the net. They also won't see us talking about it either.

 

I'll just play my version of DCS: Viper as I please :pilotfly: and let the frankenviper be developed for the quakers. With HARMs on 4/6 in our viper, 65s should be there as well. Also GBUs and JDAMs because the same invisible wiring that leads to the 88s being there, is supporting the 65s and GBUs. :doh:

Twitch Channel

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Virtual Thunderbirds, LLC | Sponsored by Thrustmaster

 

Z390 Aorus Xtreme, i9 9900k, G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB, 1080ti 11GB, Obutto R3Volution, Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog, TPR, Cougar MFDs, FSSB R3L, JetSeat, Oculus Rift S, Buddy-Fox A-10C UFC, F/A-18C UFC, Tek Creations F-16 ICP

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Weapons Troop here too scrape!

Without Weapons, it's just another airline!

If you ain't ammo, you're waitin on em!

462/2W1 for life!!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

MSI MPG X570 Gaming Plus MOBO||Ryzen 9 3900X 12 Core, 24 Thread Processor || MSI GTX 1070Ti 8GB GPU OverClocked || 32GB GSKILL DDR4 RAM @3600 || Samsung 1TB SSD || Samsung 250GB SSD || WD Caviar Black 2TB HDD || WD Caviar Black 1TB HDD || Thermaltake ToughPower GF1 850W PS || Thermaltake Tower || Windows 10 Pro 64bit || Thrustmaster Warthog and Cougar sticks, throttles and MFDs || Saitek Rudder Pedals || Trackir 5 ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Words mean nothing if they are not backed up by evidence.

 

Hi Furiz!

 

Not taking someone's words for it, is sain. But I just have two questions:

 

- Who would invent what Scrape said?

 

and mostly:

 

- Why would he lie?

 

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to add,

 

I have no knowledge of the matter, but if some one just says something, like I'm the weapons whatever in the army, it doesn't mean it is true, or if its even true, it doesn't mean he is 100% correct.

 

I want the sim to be as accurate as it can be.

 

Here's the thing, when somebody is talking you can watch the words they're using and discern whether they're bsing or making stuff up. For example, I remember one guy saying he was an engineer (diff topic) and I believe he probably was but his wording was all ''I feel this'' or ''I'm an expert that'' and blah blah. He knew enough he wasn't totally ignorant, but it was also clear he didn't know precisely what he was talking about.

 

We're not talking about something subject to interpretation, like a pilot saying a plane ''feels wrong'', they need some data because ''feeling'' is subjective, since you can easily find another pilot with a contrasting opinion.

 

This stuff we're talking about with the HARMs it's not ''subject to feeling''. It's either/or, true/false, nothing ''subjective''.

 

From Scrape's writeup, he ticks all the boxes for credibility, for me, and the info itself is, as said, is not ''subjective''. I believe him and if he says nay, I accept it. Now, I don't feel strongly about it, it's a fn video game afterall, I'm not gonna flamewar over it, but I do believe him.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how big of a deal you guys make this out to be. It's not.

 

Because it is a big deal. Once you don't stick to one aspect of realism, what stops you from breaking/bending a few more rules?

Spoiler

W10-x64 | Z390 Gigabyte Aorus Ultra | Core i7 9700K @ 4.8Ghz | Noctua NH-D15

Corsair 32Gb 3200 | MSI RTX 3080ti Gaming X

Asus Xonar AE | TM Hotas Warthog

MFG Crosswind pedals | Valve Index

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is a big deal. Once you don't stick to one aspect of realism, what stops you from breaking/bending a few more rules?

 

Good thing it's just a video game then, huh

You realise there's a lot of improvisation in these planes, how they fly, and especially the systems layout and usage, right?

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You realise there's a lot of improvisation in these planes, how they fly, and especially the systems layout and usage, right?

 

Actually I don't know because I've never flown any of these aircraft in real, nor do I know the innards of ED's code.

 

But some things are well documented and known. It's not that hard to stick to them.

Spoiler

W10-x64 | Z390 Gigabyte Aorus Ultra | Core i7 9700K @ 4.8Ghz | Noctua NH-D15

Corsair 32Gb 3200 | MSI RTX 3080ti Gaming X

Asus Xonar AE | TM Hotas Warthog

MFG Crosswind pedals | Valve Index

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing....

 

But maybe someone can help me. What was the original message from ED?

 

It was posted in the 4 HARMs for the Viper thread.

09-18-2020, 08:18 PM #69

Wags

ED Team

 

Dear all,

 

Thank you all for your feedback and passion. We reviewed other documents at our disposal (not cited here), and it does appear that a 4x HARM load is "possible" for our 2007 jet. Sometime in the early 2000s, it appears this change was made.

 

While certainly not a valid operational payload, we will make it available given that it is apparently possible.

 

Kind regards,

Matt

 

Last edited by Wags; 09-18-2020 at 08:22 PM.

 

Was the official term that they make the F-16 able to CARRY HAMRS on 4 and 6 or also to USE them?

 

"While certainly not a valid operational payload, we will make it available given that it is apparently possible."

 

If they can CARRY them, all is okay :D

 

There's no indication that, if/when ED enable HARMs on stations 4&6, they won't be operational.

 

Hopefully, as "everything is subject to change", ED will change their mind given the amount of community and SME feedback.

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 64GB DDR4, RTX4070 12GB, 1+2TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 4+1TB SSD, Winwing Orion 2 F-15EX Throttle + F-16EX Stick, TPR Pedals, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the 'experts' telling actual Naval Aviators they're wrong were bad. I bet those guys want to go back and slap their flight instructors and squadron COs for misleading them this whole time.

 

 

 

On the other hand, as far as I know (and I don't know much) the F/A-18C only carried 10 AIM-120s once for a test and photo op, and we do it every day here.

 

 

 

As an SMM (subject matter moron) I love it when the SMEs are willing (and able) to share, though. I've learned a lot about the reality of air operations here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but we're talking about the fact that the Viper is actually unable to employ the HARM form 4 & 6. The Hornet does have the wiring required to mount 10 AMRAAMs. It's not a loadout I'd use, similar to the LAU-88 on the Viper, but at least it is technically possible to mount.

 

HARMs or MAVs on 4 & 6 on the Viper are impossible to use from a technical perspective, at least according to a lot of people who appear to know more than I do.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HARMs or MAVs on 4 & 6 on the Viper are impossible to use from a technical perspective, at least according to a lot of people who appear to know more than I do.

 

 

I'm not entitled to an opinion, so I'll go with the guys who've been there and done that as well. It makes me curious what docs DCS has to the contrary.

 

 

There's no way I'm going to say anyone is wrong. Who knows, maybe someone made an alternate harness for some reason 13 years ago and it wasn't widely used? Is that a possibility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

Awesome write up! :thumbup:

 

You realise there's a lot of improvisation in these planes, how they fly, and especially the systems layout and usage, right?

 

Sure, but often that's done for a very good reason, such as lack of available documentation (like IFF), contractual obligations or consumer hardware constraints to name a few.

 

Often it's made clear somewhere what isn't implemented, sometimes in tool tips and sometimes in the manual.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...