closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

[NineLine]

Which is perfectly correct and valid, even today.

 

Same about the PACAF publication.

 

But carrying/loading a store on a station do not mean it is usable (think conveying for instance).

 

:smilewink:

 

Don't assume we are basing this on the same information you can google for. We have information that compelled us to add this as an "option", with our very powerful stores editor, it is possible to not assign the missiles to a station if you so choose.

 

The information we have found, as with a lot of information we are privy to cannot be shared, but as I stated above, the biggest inconvenience this is to someone that doesn't like the idea is that they have to skip them on the list when assigning weapons.

Edited September 19, 2020 by NineLine

[gavagai]

We are speaking about F-16 Simulation right?

 

 

 

Following this logic: May we ask then for MK-8x, GBUs, AGMs, ... etc ... on center-line station 5?

So we could load more and still allows ppl to stick with reality by not loading weapons on that station. I can also imagine ALQ-131 on wingtips. :)

 

Fair! Isn't it? ;)

 

Slippery slope fallacy.

[Dee-Jay]

I was wondering if that was a thing, carrying extra ordinance just to shuttle it from point A to B.

 

Can't really tell you. Maybe also those publications has been made before flight certification attempts (?) ... or ... describes some conveying configurations allowed under wavers just like for the LAU-88 operational use (?) Could also be for ground static displays only (!?) ... I don't know.

[Dee-Jay]

I know theres a pic of ETs on the Flanker center station, which it obviously cant fire, and its doing exactly that

 

And MOSIKT on Su27/33 also I think (to be confirmed).

 

M2000 can also carry the AASM, flight test has been conducted, but operational use could not been certified.

[Dee-Jay]

Slippery slope fallacy.

I do somehow admit it. :thumbup:

 

The information we have found, as with a lot of information we are privy to cannot be shared...

 

I know and I perfectly understand. It is the same on our side. :smilewink:

I am simply using Occam's razor to make my mind considering that (unless I am proven wrong) nobody ever captured a picture or a video of HARM launched from 4/6 station + docs I have + testimonies we have from driver and crew chiefs (including here, and there) ... etc ...

 

Your options.

 

I believe that 4 should please more ppl. So ... in any cases, it should be a good choice.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[Dee-Jay]

It would be usable with a tiny bit of wiring though. Who's to say some planes for some countries aren't wired that way.

 

You are underestimating what "wiring" could implies in terms of costs and various technical issues.

 

 

Cheers!

[Scrape]

I'm curious now, perhaps the PB equivalent mode (idk the viper names) doesn't require the video feed. Meaning HARM can only be HAS'd from 3/7, but can be fired from 4/6 using a known location or the HTS.

 

This might explain why there is a such a contradiction, with the video cables definitely not being run to 4/6, but the SCL saying that HARM can go there. I don't know enough about PB modes and HTS to say for certain though.

 

Good concerns. The misunderstanding is easy to make looking from the outside. The SCL doesn't dictate how a jet is wired. This document is taken out of context. What it is saying is that the configuration will not produce any undesirable effects on the aircraft or performance in a normal flight or combat situation. The jet will be safe to fly with X configuration. That's the only purpose of a SCL. It is not and never has been a source document for aircraft components or wiring. Another misunderstood thing about test, is that they only happen at, or aircraft assigned to Edwards. This is not the case.

 

For your other concern. If the MFD can't see the video, neither can SMS. The HARM cannot be used. The video involves a critical step. The HTS pod isn't connected to the HARM, it's connected to, eventually, the SMS. If the SMS can't see video, then the link between HTS and HARM is broken. A no video fault is not allowed on aircraft in the SEAD role and will generate a Red X (no fly) condition.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Scrape

[Scrape]

Can we get Sparrows as well?

 

Be careful what you wish for. There was an AIM-7 pylon, for sta 3 & 7 (not kidding), to allow the F-16 to carry two AIM-7s. Yes, just two. It looked like a slender version of the WWP, or the A2G pylon normally on 3 & 7. The last version of the 16 to be able to use these was the Blk 30. Why be careful? It was one of those things, that while present, wasn't really used and spent more time in crates than out of them, but they did exist. At this rate, I'd say it may not be entirely off the table.

 

 

While I'm at it. I noted some passing comments. 3 & 7 can be converted into A2A stations. 4 & 6 cannot.

 

And no...not a single one...of any operational U.S. owned F-16 can carry CFTs. The fuel connections are not present, there's nothing for the CFTs to hook up to. Any Blk 50 series that can carry CFTs belong to a country outside the United States.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Scrape

[FoxOne007]

So, if we are breaking the "USANG had X" rule TWICE now (For TER Mavericks and now 4x Harms) will ED finally give us CFTs?

 

Lets stop lying about realism at this point and just give us everything

 

Read the post above yours, never gonna happen thank god, CFT’s are hidious

[EnvyC]

So, if we are breaking the "USANG had X" rule TWICE now (For TER Mavericks and now 4x Harms) will ED finally give us CFTs?

 

Lets stop lying about realism at this point and just give us everything

 

 

Should have been obvious when the added the LIT pod to station 4 of the Hornet that people only care about min-maxing on TTI. LIT pod should now be added to the outer wing mounts since theres evidence of RAAF Hornets doing so. Oh and since its actually a Spanish Hornet, IRIST.

and

Python 5

 

 

 

Oh and while we're at it all of the international operators weapons on the F16, like Python 5 and ASRAAM

Edited September 20, 2020 by EnvyC

[EnvyC]

Also here is a Viper that was "tested" for the ASRAAM, and since thats enough for ED these days rather operational loadouts I would like to see ASRAAM added to the F16 and F/A-18, given the RAAF is also an operator of the ASRAAM

 

 

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/uk-complex-weapons/advanced-short-range-air-air-missile-asraam/

[SCPanda]

Well, ED has made their decision on this issue, and I trust their decision.

 

We will get 4 HARMs.

 

I suggest they close this thread because people are going off topic now.

[SCPanda]

Thanks for the great discussions tho. I enjoyed reading every post. :)

[randomTOTEN]

I suggest they close this thread because people are going off topic now.

Why didn't we close this thread when the maximum number of HARM was still 2? Now you get what you want and it's time to end the discussion?

 

I hope ED/TFC makes the best decision they can with the factual information they have, and I hope they can provide as much context as they feel able to.

 

I was surprised when the limit was 2, but willing to accept that for a jet which was never originally designed for this role. Now, after a small public backlash by people who seem to barely care about questions on realism, there is a sudden reversal of the decision with barely any information provided. Nearly immediately after seeing the same sequence of events with the LAU-88 question. A complete reversal with minimum info. I would like more information.

[NineLine]

So, if we are breaking the "USANG had X" rule TWICE now (For TER Mavericks and now 4x Harms) will ED finally give us CFTs?

 

Lets stop lying about realism at this point and just give us everything

 

At the end of the day, this is a game, as much as we want it to be true to the real thing, it will never be true to the real thing, but we strive to get as close as possible. That said, we considered this based on the information we obtained, and this wasn't information we had or obtained from a Google search. It wasn't 1 picture or customers begging more than it was deemed possible at some point, and it adds to the game play factor if someone decides 4 HARMs is their thing.

 

Nothing will stop you from flying the Viper with a loadout with 2 HARMs at all, so accuastions of lying are just silly at this point. Its purely an option, and options are not bad when we can back it up with proof. If you want to get us proof that our jet in the time frame used CFTs, then we will look at it, same with anything else, but if it's just to try and rain on the HARMs parade, then I think we are done here.

 

The option for 4 HARMs is coming, I am sure most crew chiefs that worked on Vipers will feel the same about this as Warthog crew chiefs did about 6 Mavs. If you accept this is a simulation, a game, then you can accept some different options isn't really going to hurt your enjoyment of the Viper, at all.

 

If you have a desire to see some other equipment, and have proof for it, feel free to enter it in the appropriate wishlist thread.

 

Thanks.

[Rubberduck85]

 
Except for when you PvP and you are literally forced to 4 Harm or otherwise your whole team will pick on you for being a purelord and how they will lose the round if you don't 4 Harm because the other side does.

Public server pvp is generally chaos on organization and dubious on realism.

So I have to ask: Why do you care about others' (complete strangers) opinion on how you enjoy your game?

I had my fair share of DCS pvp and still have sometime to keep up bvr/bfm against sentient beings and not braindead AIs.
However I do what I like, sometimes i hunt alone, sometimes in group. Sometimes I like to simply ruin people fun by going around the less obvious route, flying very low, emcon, and toss a couple mk-84 on single-runway airfield to make it unavailable for takeoff and landing.

A couple of times someone told me over SRS: "don't you see the action is here? What are you doing over there?" I just switched radio channel

Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

[SCPanda]

15 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

 

 

Except for when you PvP and you are literally forced to 4 Harm or otherwise your whole team will pick on you for being a purelord and how they will lose the round if you don't 4 Harm because the other side does. Literally my sigpic.

 

I'd really love to have realism based competitive PvP in DCS but decisions like this just kill it right away.

I have never seen people picking on other players for their weapon loadout in DCS PvP severs. Even if they do, why do you care about their opinions? If those people are your friends you play with you might want to reconsider if you really want to play with them. DCS is supposed to be a flight sim for fun. It's not a esport competition that you have to win. 

 

Like Nineline said, "At the end of the day, this is a game." Just relax and enjoy it. 

[randomTOTEN]

We were discussing Viper capabilities last night, and I had to quote several replies ITT to explain the situation. When I first mentioned the gameplay concessions, a user responded by posting a screenshot of 4 harms in the mission editor. He was under the assumption that this was an operationally valid loadout, because ED gave him the ability to select it.

He can only load Vikhrs on the outer stations of his Ka-50

He can only load Mavericks on 3 and 9 on his A-10A/C

He can only load AIM-9's on the wing tips of his F-5E-3

 

He somehow got the silly idea in his head that the pylon restrictions reflect real limitations of the aircraft he purchased... not sure how that happened.

 

...This thread is supposed to be locked by the way. I wonder if it was bumped because I quoted it extensively.

[Furiz]

Reading some peoples comments and... childish.

 

If you guys have real proof of 4 HARM not being possible on the Viper send to ED? Why are you asking for CTFs etc...

 

Who knows why the Air Force doesn't use 4 HARM, maybe cause 2 bags are more useful, to give them extra time in the air so they have more time to find radars, more afterburner time if they get shot at etc... there might be tons of other reasons.

In any case the fact that you cant find any pic or document on google search about it, or you as some ground crew guy never saw it load on the Viper  doesn't mean it is not doable or the Viper can't fire all 4, you just didn't see it happen.

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Furiz

[QuiGon]

23 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

I'd really love to have realism based competitive PvP in DCS but decisions like this just kill it right away.

 

Same, I'm still waiting for an option for server admins or mission makers to disable the use of 4 HARMs on their servers to enable realistic gameplay. Right now server admins have to manually enforce this, which is impossible to do, especially 24/7.

Edited February 19, 2021 by QuiGon

[Furiz]

33 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

No clue how you came to the conclusion that the concept of proof works that way round...

 

 

I never typed 16 AMRAAM.

 

I don't need to prove to anyone that Viper can carry 4 HARM, ED has enough proof for them to implement it on our Viper, but you are saying it can't so you need to prove that.

 

Same as saying "you can see through transparent glass" you don't need to prove that, but if you say you can't see through transparent glass then you would need to prove it.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Furiz

[Furiz]

3 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Yeah, thanks captain obvious. I assumed highlighting my changes in bold to reflect how stupid this way of arguing is was noticeable enough, but hey...

 

 

listen and believe. listen and believe. listen and believe. listen and believe. no need for any proof. no one has ever seen 4 Harm on a Viper is irrelevant. listen and believe. listen and believe.

 

 

Okay... shift the burden of proof to proving something does not exist... so clever. So i propose Mikey Mouse is god and created the world 17 seconds ago. This is true until proven wrong. :'D

 

 

Well... scientists and teachers would strongly disagree here but hey.... i'm wasting time on a troll again. Have a good one.

 

Good luck with your effort.

[=Panther=]

The 1760 cable that isn’t installed in 4/6 on a real F-16 that allows for smart weapons to communicate to the jet is also the cable that feeds the 65, 38s. So if we have 4 88s, we better have 65s, and every other smart weapon in 4/6....just saying. 

Edited February 19, 2021 by =Panther=

[Rubberduck85]

 
No clue how you came to the conclusion that the concept of proof works that way round...

There is no such thing as a DCS pvp social group.

A social group needs:
1)A common environment (DCS players are split on different servers, with different game metas)
2) a sense of belonging from their members / a sense of unity. The most you can get is redfor vs bluefor, even there you will find sub-divisions in clans/squadrons.
3) rules: Do's and Don'ts. The only "rule" in pvp is: smash your opponent, utterly.

The only rule i follow (not social rule because it is not a social group) is respect of individuals. I'm not part of any faction, i couldn't care less if the winner is red or blue, as long as I can enjoy it, alone or with my buddies, doing my/our best.

If someone picks on me because I align on the ground for 8 minutes to bomb a base to the north instead of joining the air quake carnage 30 miles to the east, who the hell is he/she to tell me? My superior officer? Based on what tactical knowledge? Who's farting in the sub now?
Again I have no obligation to obey anyone, i have the obligation to put my best effort in beating opfor, respecting other individuals.

On chaos due to the "i do what I want" attitude: true but it's 15/20% of the problem, the rest is:

Widespread lack of basic tactical concepts
Different levels of skills
shy people not on comms
mixed modules without true synergies
artificial loadout limitations

You don't address these by playing Sunday airbattle manager.

You want realism? Go closed online PVE with like-minded friends.

Regards



Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

[QuiGon]

1 hour ago, =Panther= said:

The 1760 cable that isn’t installed in 4/6 on a real F-16 that allows for smart weapons to communicate to the jet is also the cable that feeds the 65, 38s. So if we have 4 88s, we better have 65s, and every other smart weapon in 4/6....just saying. 

 

 

This! I have asked ED multiple times in this thread how it comes, that we have HARMs on the inner pylons, but not Mavericks, if they use the same video feed cables, but got no answer to this. It just doesn't make sense...

Edited February 19, 2021 by QuiGon