Jump to content

HARM Loading Discussion


QuiGon
 Share

Go to solution Solved by QuiGon,

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

Hello. 

You are apparently the B-52H Dedicated Crew Chief, which is really nice. I have found a thread on the similar (if not the same) topic where a person claims to have 8 years experience loading up HARMS on F-16C Viper and says that all stations are fully weapon ready but stations 4&6 were typically not loaded as it would mean longer mission (finding emitters to attack) with less fuel. 

Long story short, it was not practical but possible - and why would you load just to carry in a combat mission ?

Do you by any chance accept the fact that you could be wrong here, and just live with the fact that ED decided to implement a solution that ultimately closes this topic?

 

 

Hello, I am trying to not instigate this further - but I will simply say, all I was seeking... is a Tech Order title/citation showing this is a legal loadout for the USAF blk50 F16C that ED is focused in on specifically simulating. (A T.O. title reference can be posted, not the doc itself). Was looking for ED to confirm that they have an official USAF Tech Order as proof. Because ultimately a TO is the only document that legally backs a loadout such as this in the USAF. (Yes I very well could be wrong, and I will continue to await a TO to be cited to prove me as such).
 

If it isn’t a tech order, I would question it’s real world credibility. 

 

That is all. I will not reply to anymore comments in this thread out of respect for ED and to not continue "poking the beehive". Thanks!


Edited by Wing
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Wing “In order not to instigate this any further, I will declare myself the winner until someone can prove otherwise,,,” 

Seriously??????? 

  • Like 6

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wing said:

 

Hello, I am trying to not instigate this further - but I will simply say, all I was seeking... is a Tech Order showing this is a legal loadout for the USAF blk50 F16C that ED is focused in on specifically simulating. Was looking for ED to confirm that they have an official USAF Tech Order as proof. Because ultimately a TO is the only document that legally backs a loadout such as this in the USAF. (Yes I very well could be wrong, and I will continue to await a TO to be cited to prove me as such).
 

If it isn’t a tech order, I would question it’s real world credibility. 

 

That is all. I will not reply to anymore comments in this thread out of respect for ED and to not continue "poking the beehive". Thanks!

No offence to ED but they are a bit overly-paranoid about posting any documents on the forums.

 

Rule 1.16 says

Quote

1.16 Posting of images, file links, file sharing links, and copying and pasting information is prohibited if the source document is from a classified or ITAR controlled source.
When posting aircraft, sensor or weapon information more recent than 1980, you must also include the source of the document showing that it is 100% public and verified as not from a classified or non-ITAR controlled source. To not do so will result in the removal of the message.

but they'll still delete any threads or comments with public information, regardless.

 

In other words, I doubt you'll see any Tech Order.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wing said:

There is no 1553 bus for stations 4&6 USAF blk 50. 

 

Wing, I know you said you won't reply but wanted to check, does Pave/ LGB not use 1553 bus?

  • Like 1
Intel Core i7-10700K - ROG Strix Z490-H Gaming - 64GB Vengance LPX - RTX 3080 Eagle OC - non-VR - single player - open beta

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

Wing, I know you said you won't reply but wanted to check, does Pave/ LGB not use 1553 bus?

 

For what? For the aircraft they're just dumb bombs and don't recieve any target information or so.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, QuiGon said:

 

For what? For the aircraft they're just dumb bombs and don't recieve any target information or so.

I don't know, just reading stuff https://www.milstd1553.com/applications/ I thought of asking Crew Chief.

  • Like 1
Intel Core i7-10700K - ROG Strix Z490-H Gaming - 64GB Vengance LPX - RTX 3080 Eagle OC - non-VR - single player - open beta

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

I don't know, just reading stuff https://www.milstd1553.com/applications/ I thought of asking Crew Chief.

 

I'm a layman here so take this with a grain of salt, but I think a laser guided bomb doesn't need targeting info, it's just a dumb bomb as QuiGon said, but then it has a laser seeker on the front controlling fins on the back.

 

LJDAMs aka dual mode laser guided bombs do have GPS guidance and so would need targeting info (possibly over the 1553 bus?) just like a JDAM would. I have seen some LJDAMs referred to as Paveways, for example the "Paveway IV" is a dual mode LGB and that explains why "paveway" is listed in your link.


Edited by Xavven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Roman_Actual said:

Does this mean we are getting the LAU-131?

 

As an aside, can we also get APKWS or do we need to wait for the DCS Viper II?

 

APKWS won't be added. See https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/253106-not-going-to-happen-not-accurate-for-year-apkws-on-viper/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-4487253

 

ED's reasoning is that it's not accurate for a 2007 viper. I have my own feeling about this but let's not derail the thread, especially since ED has already made their decision.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wing said:

 

Hello, I am trying to not instigate this further - but I will simply say, all I was seeking... is a Tech Order title/citation showing this is a legal loadout for the USAF blk50 F16C that ED is focused in on specifically simulating. (A T.O. title reference can be posted, not the doc itself). Was looking for ED to confirm that they have an official USAF Tech Order as proof. Because ultimately a TO is the only document that legally backs a loadout such as this in the USAF. (Yes I very well could be wrong, and I will continue to await a TO to be cited to prove me as such).
 

If it isn’t a tech order, I would question it’s real world credibility. 

 

That is all. I will not reply to anymore comments in this thread out of respect for ED and to not continue "poking the beehive". Thanks!

 

Let it go now please, you have been given your answer. We are not here to share information on these aircraft via real world documents. It's fine if you cannot accept we have what we say we do, I am ok with that, what I am not ok with is you repeatedly demanding something we said we are not giving. If you continue to ask the same question over and over, I will be forced to start removing your posts, I dont want to do this, but at this point, its become redundant. Thanks.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

SigDCSNew.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

Wing, I know you said you won't reply but wanted to check, does Pave/ LGB not use 1553 bus?

No, they don't use an electrical connection to the jet. LGB's are armed like normal bombs using lanyard wires and will look for laser signal which is set on the seeker head on the bomb. Once the signal is found, it will steer itself to that point.

 

Those bombs don't need any input from the jet as the fuses and laser codes are set on the ground and can't be changed in the air

 

Exception is the GBU49 which has a 1760 receptical (laser and INS/GPS guided)


Edited by Falconeer
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

F/A18C, F-16C, Mirage 2000C, JF-14, F-14B Tomcat, Flaming Cliffs 3, Black Shark 2, SU27, AJS37 Viggen, Persian Gulf, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Xavven said:

I guess we get to wear that badge now. Not with pride, though.

 

Wait a second, no no no. I refuse to wear that. Do not generalize. Only because a handful of people in this thread showed themselves to be devoid of common sense and like to argue as a competitive sport, does not mean everyone in the community is to be painted with the same paint.

 

Seriously, grow the hell up. I don't care if you are civilian or in the military, if you act immature I call you immature, plain and simple. Even when I was 18yrs old I was not as bad as some of the people in this thread...

 

5 hours ago, twistking said:

I'd argue that good UI can make things less complicated.

 

 

And the UI they did is completely sufficient. That is not the LOADOUT, that is the ALLOWED LOADOUTS. Which means even if there is a green checkmark there, you would have to actually use a loadout that have the weapon there, or load the weapon there by yourself. So I do not see any confusion as you seem to be implying.


On top of that, the feature allows people in missions to simulate era-specific allowed loadouts. So when you say "restricting a 120 is not the same as a HARM", for who? To add the specifics of each weapon for each era and its impact on allowing / restricting, THAT would overcomplicate the UI. You already have that info outside the sim.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SFJackBauer said:

 

Wait a second, no no no. I refuse to wear that. Do not generalize. Only because a handful of people in this thread showed themselves to be devoid of common sense and like to argue as a competitive sport, does not mean everyone in the community is to be painted with the same paint.

 

Seriously, grow the hell up. I don't care if you are civilian or in the military, if you act immature I call you immature, plain and simple. Even when I was 18yrs old I was not as bad as some of the people in this thread...

michael_jackson_popcorn.jpg?itok=l7zSipz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Xavven said:

 

It's not too late to add your 2 cents, especially given your background and experience!

 

 

Thank you for the vote of confidence, and picking the ball where it lands currently puts me at odds with ED's stance.  

 

On the subject of documentation.  There is none.  For those of you wondering, the weapon system wiring in the wing of an F-16 does not have a T.O.  Because of small variations and clearance/chaffing issues in the leading edge a standardized wire and wire bundle routing isn't possible.  That's why there's no T.O.  These two jets may be the same, but these next five are all different, for example.   I've addressed this to some degree in previous post on the matter.  Which wires are present and how they are exactly routed is not written anywhere.  Just saying someone is a weapons (ordie for the sister branches) troop is not enough.  It's not a required skill to know how to wire the wing.  It's not ubiquitous to the career, like say GBU-12 wiring.  Most weapons troops have never accomplished a wing change.  Air Force weapons is a very versatile career field with many duties across a wide spectrum, so a guy can be an ace and still never touch a wing change.  No other career field wire the weapons harness (not counting factory and depo), so you can't really put too much stock in anyone else.  It takes a team of four to six people two to three weeks working around the clock 12 hour shifts to wire one side.  It's not the kind of job that one will pickup just for being a weapons troop, even if assigned to a unit with Vipers.  It's a specialist task and doesn't happen often enough for everyone in the shop to be trained.  

The show stopper for the conversation is the T-connector.  Show a picture of it and that would end the conversation without requiring any other detail.  If I was still working Viper units, I would have done so.  Wish I could at this point really, because so many aircraft aficionados and mil jet nerds would like to know the truth.  The picture would show an area that serves as a junction for connectors and wires.  The T-connector will answer any and all questions about the 88 and 65 on the inboard stations.  Any SME on the subject would NEVER be confused about which T-connector I'm talking about.  If they are confused, that's a dead giveaway they aren't knowledgeable on the subject.  Any SME on the subject would also know exactly why it would be a conversation ender to show it.  That would be the only documentation that could definitively end the argument for good.  Under that panel, where the T-connector sits, nothing important is there that can't be photographed or shared.  

 

Any other documentation may describe general function but none of these documents, such as the SCL for example, are authorities to how a jet must be wired to be considered full mission capable.  Bottom line is, there is no documentation that can't be shown that speaks to the heart of the matter.  Any documentation that can't be shared isn't a governing document that will show the condition of the aircraft or how it must be wired to meet mission requirements.  

 

Disclaimer: I speak in reference to US Vipers only.  Other countries have other requirements and I cannot speak on them at all.  They could be the same or different, but I have no idea how the Viper world looks to that level of detail outside the United States.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 9

"It's amazing, even at the Formula 1 level how many drivers still think the brakes are for slowing the car down."

 

VF-2 Bounty Hunters



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Virtual Carrier Strike Group 1 | Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Scrape said:

 

 

Thank you for the vote of confidence, and picking the ball where it lands currently puts me at odds with ED's stance.  

 

On the subject of documentation.  There is none.  For those of you wondering, the weapon system wiring in the wing of an F-16 does not have a T.O.  Because of small variations and clearance/chaffing issues in the leading edge a standardized wire and wire bundle routing isn't possible.  That's why there's no T.O.  These two jets may be the same, but these next five are all different, for example.   I've addressed this to some degree in previous post on the matter.  Which wires are present and how they are exactly routed is not written anywhere.  Just saying someone is a weapons (ordie for the sister branches) troop is not enough.  It's not a required skill to know how to wire the wing.  It's not ubiquitous to the career, like say GBU-12 wiring.  Most weapons troops have never accomplished a wing change.  Air Force weapons is a very versatile career field with many duties across a wide spectrum, so a guy can be an ace and still never touch a wing change.  No other career field wire the weapons harness (not counting factory and depo), so you can't really put too much stock in anyone else.  It takes a team of four to six people two to three weeks working around the clock 12 hour shifts to wire one side.  It's not the kind of job that one will pickup just for being a weapons troop, even if assigned to a unit with Vipers.  It's a specialist task and doesn't happen often enough for everyone in the shop to be trained.  

The show stopper for the conversation is the T-connector.  Show a picture of it and that would end the conversation without requiring any other detail.  If I was still working Viper units, I would have done so.  Wish I could at this point really, because so many aircraft aficionados and mil jet nerds would like to know the truth.  The picture would show an area that serves as a junction for connectors and wires.  The T-connector will answer any and all questions about the 88 and 65 on the inboard stations.  Any SME on the subject would NEVER be confused about which T-connector I'm talking about.  If they are confused, that's a dead giveaway they aren't knowledgeable on the subject.  Any SME on the subject would also know exactly why it would be a conversation ender to show it.  That would be the only documentation that could definitively end the argument for good.  Under that panel, where the T-connector sits, nothing important is there that can't be photographed or shared.  

 

Any other documentation may describe general function but none of these documents, such as the SCL for example, are authorities to how a jet must be wired to be considered full mission capable.  Bottom line is, there is no documentation that can't be shown that speaks to the heart of the matter.  Any documentation that can't be shared isn't a governing document that will show the condition of the aircraft or how it must be wired to meet mission requirements.  

 

Disclaimer: I speak in reference to US Vipers only.  Other countries have other requirements and I cannot speak on them at all.  They could be the same or different, but I have no idea how the Viper world looks to that level of detail outside the United States.

Jimmy Fallon Jimbo GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scrape said:

 

 

Thank you for the vote of confidence, and picking the ball where it lands currently puts me at odds with ED's stance.  

 

On the subject of documentation.  There is none.  For those of you wondering, the weapon system wiring in the wing of an F-16 does not have a T.O.  Because of small variations and clearance/chaffing issues in the leading edge a standardized wire and wire bundle routing isn't possible.  That's why there's no T.O.  These two jets may be the same, but these next five are all different, for example.   I've addressed this to some degree in previous post on the matter.  Which wires are present and how they are exactly routed is not written anywhere.  Just saying someone is a weapons (ordie for the sister branches) troop is not enough.  It's not a required skill to know how to wire the wing.  It's not ubiquitous to the career, like say GBU-12 wiring.  Most weapons troops have never accomplished a wing change.  Air Force weapons is a very versatile career field with many duties across a wide spectrum, so a guy can be an ace and still never touch a wing change.  No other career field wire the weapons harness (not counting factory and depo), so you can't really put too much stock in anyone else.  It takes a team of four to six people two to three weeks working around the clock 12 hour shifts to wire one side.  It's not the kind of job that one will pickup just for being a weapons troop, even if assigned to a unit with Vipers.  It's a specialist task and doesn't happen often enough for everyone in the shop to be trained.  

The show stopper for the conversation is the T-connector.  Show a picture of it and that would end the conversation without requiring any other detail.  If I was still working Viper units, I would have done so.  Wish I could at this point really, because so many aircraft aficionados and mil jet nerds would like to know the truth.  The picture would show an area that serves as a junction for connectors and wires.  The T-connector will answer any and all questions about the 88 and 65 on the inboard stations.  Any SME on the subject would NEVER be confused about which T-connector I'm talking about.  If they are confused, that's a dead giveaway they aren't knowledgeable on the subject.  Any SME on the subject would also know exactly why it would be a conversation ender to show it.  That would be the only documentation that could definitively end the argument for good.  Under that panel, where the T-connector sits, nothing important is there that can't be photographed or shared.  

 

Any other documentation may describe general function but none of these documents, such as the SCL for example, are authorities to how a jet must be wired to be considered full mission capable.  Bottom line is, there is no documentation that can't be shown that speaks to the heart of the matter.  Any documentation that can't be shared isn't a governing document that will show the condition of the aircraft or how it must be wired to meet mission requirements.  

 

Disclaimer: I speak in reference to US Vipers only.  Other countries have other requirements and I cannot speak on them at all.  They could be the same or different, but I have no idea how the Viper world looks to that level of detail outside the United States.

 

Appreciate the insight. Hope others do too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Scrape I had to slowly and carefully re-read your post a couple times along with another certain one from 9/28/2020 where you talk about the video line being capped for the inboard stations on that T-connector. Is that what you're referring to when you say it's the show stopper?

 

In other words, you are certain that no US vipers have a 1553 bus or video line to 4 & 6, and that is at odds therefore with whatever proof ED has and cannot share with us? If so, this would mean ED's proof is erroneous. Am I interpreting that correctly?

 

Well, that, or ED's allowing us to decide to allow HARMs on 4 & 6 to simulate a non-USA F-16, which is a whole other can of worms because of the whole "this is an ANG circa 2007" thing. Or maybe it's to end HARMgate because it's a tiresome hill to die on. Haha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Xavven said:

@Scrape I had to slowly and carefully re-read your post a couple times along with another certain one from 9/28/2020 where you talk about the video line being capped for the inboard stations on that T-connector. Is that what you're referring to when you say it's the show stopper?

 

In other words, you are certain that no US vipers have a 1553 bus or video line to 4 & 6, and that is at odds therefore with whatever proof ED has and cannot share with us? If so, this would mean ED's proof is erroneous. Am I interpreting that correctly?

 

Well, that, or ED's allowing us to decide to allow HARMs on 4 & 6 to simulate a non-USA F-16, which is a whole other can of worms because of the whole "this is an ANG circa 2007" thing. Or maybe it's to end HARMgate because it's a tiresome hill to die on. Haha!

 

 

Good questions, but I'll refrain from explaining further.  Please pardon my vagueness, but it's intentional should anyone behind the scenes take note.  I'd ask that anyone else, I know there are a couple guys lurking around the forums who probably know the answer, but I ask those who have experience in this matter not explain what I've set on the table.  At a later date I can clarify, but in the now I think there's more value by not explaining if you get my meaning.  

"It's amazing, even at the Formula 1 level how many drivers still think the brakes are for slowing the car down."

 

VF-2 Bounty Hunters



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Virtual Carrier Strike Group 1 | Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png

 

No worries. We'll have to live with what we've got. Thanks!

 

I think in the end it helps me decide personally whether I will put HARMs on 4 & 6, since in the next patch we will have the option to restrict or allow such a loadout. I don't care how others play DCS. But it's a treat when we get what info we can from SMEs on the ED forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wags changed the title to HARM Loading Discussion
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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