HARM Loading Discussion

[QuiGon]

Just curious: AFAIK the HARM accesses the same video bus as the Maverick to feed its data to the MFD in the cockpit. Apparently this video bus is present on all 4 A/G stations of our Viper, as we will get the ability to use the HARM on all those stations. That makes me wonder: Why is the same not possible for the Maverick?

Edited September 25, 2020 by QuiGon

[Schmidtfire]

Might be wrong here, but I think they found that HARM actually uses a different cable from the AGM-65. Not the video cable.

[Hairysteed]

Am I missing something? Aren't both HARMs and Mavericks limited to stations 3/7 in DCS?

[QuiGon]

Might be wrong here, but I think they found that HARM actually uses a different cable from the AGM-65. Not the video cable.

That would explain it then if it's true. Can someone else confirm this?

 

Asking because of this:

Stations 4&6 are not wired for video. The only stations that can transmit video are 3&7. I'm saying this as a guy who ran those video lines the AGM-88 uses. I started on BLK 30s in 2001 and worked 16s for 13 years. Never saw a video line going to or from stations 4&6. Not sure who changed your mind, but it's worth taking a second look.

 

Edit for clarification: The station comm lines exist. Meaning jettison commands and such will go through and work. However there is no video, so the WPN page on the MFD will be blank. The 88 and LAU-118 will send the video, but there is no pin in the pylon disconnect on the wing to receive it on stations 4 & 6. Can't use a 88 without video. 65s and 88s use the same video line. Meaning that United States F-16s (can't speak for other countries) cannot support 65s or 88s on sta 4&6.

Edited September 25, 2020 by QuiGon

[QuiGon]

Am I missing something? Aren't both HARMs and Mavericks limited to stations 3/7 in DCS?

Yes, currently, because that was the original plan. After some forum discussion ED came to the conclusion that the HARMs apparently would work on 4/6 as well. The change to 4 HARMs didn't made it into the update though and will come next week.

[Dee-Jay]

HARM are not certified on Stat 4/6 ... It is clearly written black and white on real Blk50/52 Dash34.

[Pjay22]

AFAIK on the real airframe it was more beneficial to have the HARMs on 2 stations together with fuel tanks on stations 4/6. Having four HARMs meant loitering longer with less fuel...

Edited September 25, 2020 by Pjay22

[QuiGon]

I didn't really intend to make this thread another 4 HARM discussion thread. ED has clearly stated in the 4 HARM discussion thread, that they have documentation that shows that 4 HARMs is a possible operational loadout. What I want to know is why Mavericks are restricted to only 2 stations then, as they are supposed to require the same wiring as the HARMs:

Stations 4&6 are not wired for video. The only stations that can transmit video are 3&7. I'm saying this as a guy who ran those video lines the AGM-88 uses. I started on BLK 30s in 2001 and worked 16s for 13 years. Never saw a video line going to or from stations 4&6. Not sure who changed your mind, but it's worth taking a second look.

 

Edit for clarification: The station comm lines exist. Meaning jettison commands and such will go through and work. However there is no video, so the WPN page on the MFD will be blank. The 88 and LAU-118 will send the video, but there is no pin in the pylon disconnect on the wing to receive it on stations 4 & 6. Can't use a 88 without video. 65s and 88s use the same video line. Meaning that United States F-16s (can't speak for other countries) cannot support 65s or 88s on sta 4&6.

[Swift.]

Because they don't use the same wiring, I thought had come to the conclusion that HARM uses 1553 which runs to all four, but mavs need 1760 which doesn't run to 4/6

[Dee-Jay]

AFAIK on the real airframe it was more beneficial to have the HARMs on 2 stations together with fuel tanks on stations 4/6. Having four HARMs meant loitering longer with less fuel...

 

You have a part of the answer.

 

- Originally, stat 4/6 was "supposed" to carry the HARM, so technically, they can be mounted on stat 4/6 (this is why the configuration code is present in PACAF configuration list) and this is why can find some (rare) pictures of Edwards flight test center tests a/c with 4 HAMS ... but ...

 

- Like for some other loads, stat 4/6 couldn't be certified for HARM (certainly because of missile flame potentially damaging the stab, and can damage/collide with main gear and main gear doors in case of Jett.

 

- Since they could not be certified, stat 4 & 6 has not been wired which saves weight and cost.

 

- SEAD tasks requires a fair amount of combat fuel to face the threat with a minimum of combat radius. Except in IAF, any A/G operational configuration includes 330Gal fuel tanks.

 

So ... they can be loaded, yes, but can not be used/fired from stat 4 & 6. You will find so pictures no videos showing an AGM-88 fired from stat 4/6. That does not exist.

 

Previous thread has been closed before being able to be explained.

 

 

Regards.

[Frederf]

LAU-117 can be fitted on stations 3 4 6 and 7. In some variant of F-16 it is possible to use Maverick from four stations. Is this not the case with DCS variant?

[Swift.]

LAU-117 can be fitted on stations 3 4 6 and 7. In some variant of F-16 it is possible to use Maverick from four stations. Is this not the case with DCS variant?

 

Never seen a viper with inboard mavs other than F16XL, which are you talking about?

[Furiz]

LAU-117 can be fitted on stations 3 4 6 and 7. In some variant of F-16 it is possible to use Maverick from four stations. Is this not the case with DCS variant?

 

 

Would be useful if that's true, we could combine weapons even more.

[Swift.]

Would be useful if that's true, we could combine weapons even more.

 

It wouldnt be true in DCS. Most every maintainer has maintained ;) that viper doesnt have the 1760 wiring necessary to carry mavs/jdam/jsow on the inners.

 

Maybe, some new block 70 thing or something idk

[Cupra]

XL has no stab that can be burn during flight ;)

[Frederf]

F-16 Loadout

 

The LAU-88 triplet launchers can only be fitted to nr. 3 and 7 station, whereas the LAU-117/A can be fitted to nr. 3,4,6 and 7 station.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article4.html

 

Perhaps more convincing is

b. Video Lines - A video line is available at the store interface of stations 3, 4, 6, and 7 (Maverick certified stations). For the air-to-air stations (1, 2, 3A, 7A, 8 and 9), video is available at the wing/launcher (adapter) interface. Given that 3 and 3A are mutually exclusive(same for 7 and 7A), the video lines at the "A" stations could be utilized as a second line to stations 3 and 7. The video line for station 5 now terminates in the aircraft near that store station.

MIL-STD-1760 APPLICATION GUIDELINES 6.2.3 b.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a255714.pdf

 

Maybe it's a similar situation to HARM, possible if they run the wiring (i.e. OFP can handle it). I too have never seen a Maverick on 4/6.

[Swift.]

Thats interesting as we've been told many times that 1760 doesnt run to 4/6

[DrBackJack]

What I'm getting from the couple threads on this is that while they may or may not be currently wired to support HARM/Mav on 4/6, it is technically possible for those stations to be wired for HARM/Mav.

 

Therefore I think that ED should allow the use of HARM/Mav for the people that want to on stations 4/6. We need to remember that, while a very realistically modeled simulator, DCS is still a game. The people that want to fly a more modern COIN loadout where loiter time is useful can choose to put fuel tanks on 4/6. The people that want to sling HARM/Mav on 4/6 can choose to, with the added bonus of getting to manage your fuel.

 

My rambling:

 

The more hardcore simmers can complain about the people not using fuel tanks on 4/6 but remember that those people are the ones that help grow DCS and eventually some move on to the more hardcore squadrons. Believe me, I poke fun at Hornets with 8x JSOW's too. And a lot of those new players will eventually join the more hardcore squadrons that fly with more restricted loadouts, thus growing the hardcore side as well. I used to be one of them. I'm now the type of person that enjoys a 20 minute Case III pattern and getting that commit time down to within 10 seconds. Now I am in a squadron that flies missions bi-weekly with a game master and restricted loadouts. This works because you're flying as a organized squadron with a set objective.

 

 

However, by far the most of my game time is flying quick sorties on "casual" servers when I have some free time during the day. I bet most DCS multiplayer players are the same. I say this because of my experience on a popular DCS server. The server used to be one of the more popular DCS servers. They recently implemented loadout restrictions and the server population has plummeted. As I'm typing this the server only has 9 people in it, on a US Friday evening. It would almost always be full at this time on a US Friday evening before the loadout restrictions.

 

Finally, I have some pictures for people that think anything but fuel tanks on 4/6 are unrealistic, even during a shooting war.

https://imgur.com/a/IRs277c

[Eldur]

as we will get the ability to use the HARM on all those stations.

 

Wait, what?

 

Am I missing something? Aren't both HARMs and Mavericks limited to stations 3/7 in DCS?

 

Literally wondering the same. Does he know more than we do?

[Kayos]

We are getting 4 Harm's. Not sure about Mav's.

[randomTOTEN]

From your posted document.

MIL-STD-1760 APPLICATION GUIDELINES 6.3.1.3. (pg. 85)

 

6.3.1.3 Modification #3: Provide a Second Video Line to the ASIs at Stations 4, 5, and 6 - To satisfy the requirements of a MIL-STD-1760A Class I interface, two 75-ohm, 20 MHz (HB3, HB4) lines must be provided at an Air-to-Ground ASI. The currently planned F-16 C/D 1760 configuration provides these two lines at stations 3 and 7, but only a single line at stations 4, 5 and 6. This modification carriers existing provisions to the ASI and adds additional lines to stations 4, 5, and 6.

This is all quite over my head, but it does seem like there is some difference between the outboard and inboard wing pylons. All I can really conclude is that the F-16 is an incredibly complicated design :lol: Good luck sorting out fact from fiction.

[QuiGon]

What I'm getting from the couple threads on this is that while they may or may not be currently wired to support HARM/Mav on 4/6, it is technically possible for those stations to be wired for HARM/Mav.

Sorry, but that opens the devils door. With this argument you can make literally anything happen. From AMRAAM equipped Tomcats to APKWS equipped Spitfires...

DCS should stick to simulate what is/was and not what could be.

 

 

Wait, what?

Literally wondering the same. Does he know more than we do?

Seems like you missed the following :)

Hi all

 

We have spent days now receiving user feedback showing evidence to support x4 HARMS.

 

We also find evidence to support it.

 

We decided to enable x4 HARMS based on the evidence.

 

Now we have complaints from some users, that it breaks realism.

 

It seems we can not win either way.

 

Please keep this thread topic on the HARMS, off topic posts will be deleted. If you want to talk about other weapon systems, do it in another thread.

 

Thank you

[mia389]

I say add them and let the player decide. Do I want fuel or do I want more harms.

 

Its not a far stretch or aftermarket mod. We are not putting a PT-6 in mustang here. The cons list is pretty small. If you want to talk about releastic lets talk about these missiles flying through mountains.

[Jackjack171]

Sorry, but that opens the devils door. With this argument you can make literally anything happen. From AMRAAM equipped Tomcats to APKWS equipped Spitfires...

DCS should stick to simulate what is/was and not what could be.

 

 

 

Seems like you missed the following :)

I agree. There should be ONE STANDARD. I can dig what was/is. Anything else leads to all these "but what if" loadouts which sounds a lot like that arcade game we all know.

[SparxOne]

All i'm hoping for is ED to stick to what is real and what was used in real life, this is what they've always done and i hope they stick to that.

 

This whole thing about cables sounds stupid to me, find me one picture of an F-16 loaded with 4 HARMS or even 4 stations full of Mavericks while in operation and i might reconsider my answer to this debate.

 

This whole debate makes me think of the people i see flying around in F-18s carrying 8 AMRAAMs, as much as that was indeed possible in real, i can't think of one time i've seen a picture or video of it happening. Yet ingame so many people use that loadout because "They NEED to rack up kills !", sad...

 

I'd almost want to say, have fun in SP with unlimited ammunition and fuel turned ON, you could carry just one of each but feel like a rambo of the sky...