not accurate for usa [NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, NOT ACCURATE FOR YEAR] APKWS on viper

[Schmidtfire]

There are websites that list realistic weapon loadouts for Hornet, Viper, Warthog etc in various squadrons, operations, fleets etc. And it is amazing that so many loadouts in the DCS are unrealistic.

But does it matter? No, because technical facts are only things that matter; Is the weapon possible be used by the airframe or not? Not politics, not commands, not some officer wishes or anything else than hard technical facts.

 

I think It matters. Because those loadouts you would never see IRL becomes the DCS norm. If there is a war, would you risk your valuable air assetts and pilots just so you can shoot another two AGM-65 Mavericks per flight? Don't think so.

There should be an optional mission editor setting that enforce realistic and operational loadouts.

 

What I don't understand is the need for 4 HARMS. The need for 6 Mavericks. The need to put JDAM's or APKWS on everything.

I like to have options, but lately there seems to be an obsession of min-maxing every jet. "ED plz put this thing on my aeroplane so I can be more competitive on GAW server" stretching the

believability of the sim just because some users like to fly like Rambo and take out an entire airbase by themselves in one go.

FYI: Payload management, Landing and Rearming is also part of the DCS experience.

 

 

[Fri13]

it does seem to me that a bit of a software change would be need for the guided rockets since they are dependent on something marking it. one would have to tell the rocket what code to use.

 

There is zero communication between the APKWS II guidance module and the pod or computers. Nothing special. The rocket is just like any other unguided rocket.

The APKWS II was from the start designed to be fully backwards compatible with any platform that can launch the standard unguided rockets. It is nothing more than a standalone guidance module inserted between the standard warhead and standard rocket motor, extending the rocket length little bit.

 

It is all well explained in the manufacturer own video:

 

The pilot or JTAC needs to know that what the laser code rockets are set, and then program their laser designators use matching laser code. Then it is only up to the pilot to know in what direction it needs to launch the rocket, by firing them like any unguided rocket, but they just know that after launch each rocket will activate guidance module and seek toward the laser designated target.

 

It is not complex system at all.

[BuzzU]

It's more complex in a sim than in real life. A small example is the JTAC isn't human.

[Fri13]

 

I think It matters. Because those loadouts you would never see IRL becomes the DCS norm. If there is a war, would you risk your valuable air assetts and pilots just so you can shoot another two AGM-65 Mavericks per flight? Don't think so.

 

That is political decision making in the peace time, as well in the war time it is strategical decision making.

In the war time you are not sending 110% loaded aircraft to mission, you send two aircrafts with 80% load. If that is not enough, then you send three, or four etc. You perform multiple sorties than try to take it all at once.

 

But there comes missions where you can not send more than one or two. And that is when you need to do it at minimum number of aircrafts get the mission successfully completed. And that can be scenario where you need those 6 mavericks instead 2 or 4.

 

That is the problem in DCS that people put everything they get to their aircrafts and then they are wondering why A-10 barely gets 160 knots and stays up in the air or something.

 

There should be an optional mission editor setting that enforce realistic and operational loadouts.

 

How about that the official ones that comes are the realistic ones with the name that what squadron, what year etc the loadout is instead its loadout (2*AGM-65D,2*GBU-12....). And then let it be as now, where players can set own loadouts as is and save them. There is already function that the server owner/mission designer can restrict the loadouts for specific ones. So you can't go change any single weapon there is loaded but need to fly with that you got.

 

What I don't understand is the need for 4 HARMS. The need for 6 Mavericks. The need to put JDAM's or APKWS on everything.

 

There are reasons like someone might like to simulate possible scenarios "what if...."? Often that is just based ignorance and just lack of time. Like someone spending more than 30 minutes for a mission away from family time can be limiting factor so they take 6 Mavericks instead 4 so they don't need to fly two sorties and they can keep the hobby time in 40 minutes instead 70 minutes.

 

I like to have options, but lately there seems to be an obsession of min-maxing every jet. "ED plz put this thing on my aeroplane so I can be more competitive on GAW server" stretching the believability of the sim just because some users like to fly like Rambo and take out an entire airbase by themselves in one go.

 

Sure, but that is one limiting factor in the DCS that the ground units do not pose the real threat that there is. The SAM systems are like 5-10% of the real danger they are in reality. The ground units are 10 fold easier to be spotted than in reality. The AI is simply idiotic about anything that comes to them.

All that is just leading to situation that players who should be flying in GAME MODE are thinking that should be possible in SIM MODE.

 

FYI: Payload management, Landing and Rearming is also part of the DCS experience.

 

I wish that itself DCS would include more useful features to calculate the sorties and have more insightful information about loadouts, stations and WHY something is done one way or how it could be done otherway, as using third party tools just for fuel calculations etc is not nice thing to require.

 

I enjoy challenges, where fuel consumption is calculated carefully, where you might have just that one change with short window of opportunity to be successful in the mission etc. But it is not always. Sometimes it is nice to go for training the procedure itself with just "dumb targets" but that is when I enable gladly the "unlimited weapons" and just hang one of its types than take full loadout. Or go to fly at total blindness (in the clouds, at night in snow blizzard) where you need to not just fly but as well navigate through a long route and manage to eventually land with little fuel reserve at all. Just 60-90 minutes of flying "blind" by instruments only, using watch etc. It is high pleasure when you can follow the calculations properly and reach the airport where you get visual only few hundred meters from landing lights. Or that you take "one-way-trip" with helicopter to fly in thick mist on the ocean, to land on the moving ship there. If you miss the time or you are off-position, you will never find the ship and you die there after 60 minutes flight. Similar thing is for intercept missions with MiG-21Bis, where you need to wait for proper take-off time and then follow strictly the commands as otherwise you will miss the opportunity of attack and the enemy gets past you and you can't reach them anymore.

 

That is as well about this: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...modes?t=262356

 

People don't like idea of optional difficulty setting possible to be enabled for server that really puts every pilot life and airframe conditions to matter. Every missile would have its cost etc.

The dynamic campaign is getting more of the warehouse management so that you get supplied by ammunition you need and you need to cover your troops as they might need to be transported from other places, making things weaker etc.

[Fri13]

It's more complex in a sim than in real life. A small example is the JTAC isn't human.

 

Playing with other people is rewarding experience as you get so much easier there when everyone knows their tasks better. That is the achilles heel in the DCS that the AI is just so simple that you need to babysit it in everything as they don't do anything even obvious things. Scripting doesn't help as it is too complex to script the basic sense and training for the AI.

And that is the problem as if you can't communicate well and come together for a plan in multiplayer, it doesn't help much.

Why it is nicer to fly with common friends when you can match the times and you know what to do etc.

 

[Snake122]

While I'm eating the popcorn reading this thread, there is something I'm curious about really the 70mm hydra warheads, but becomes extra interesting with APKWS. Hopefully one of you rocket experts can chime in. How effective are the HEAT M247 rockets? I assume it's not nearly as good with armor penetration as a Hellfire, but are we talking BMP-1/T-55 level here, higher/lower?

EDIT: just looked up top armor on both and forgot how thin it is on a BMP-1, do that should be no problem, but can actually take out any MBTs?

[Northstar98]

While I'm eating the popcorn reading this thread, there is something I'm curious about really the 70mm hydra warheads, but becomes extra interesting with APKWS. Hopefully one of you rocket experts can chime in. How effective are the HEAT M247 rockets? I assume it's not nearly as good with armor penetration as a Hellfire, but are we talking BMP-1/T-55 level here, higher/lower?

 

By no means an expert, but here's my take; Hellfire (at least the -114L variant we have currently) has something within the region of 1000mm+ RHAe penetration, using a tandem HEAT warhead. It's going through near enough anything that isn't a modern MBT with fancy armour arrays.

 

M247 I'm going to imagine it's around the region of a few hundred, something like 200/300mm RHAe (don't hold me to that), but in any case it's going to be fairly significantly weaker vs the -114L Hellfire. And for the T-55/BMP-1 both should do the trick basically anywhere.

 

The BMP-1 is only really lightly protected (it's made light as to be amphibious), it's not standing up anything much more than LMGs/HMGs. If wiki is to be trusted, the armour is around 30mm at most. And even when uparmoured on the BMP-1D, the applique package only adds 5mm.

 

For the T-55, you will probably be able to penetrate anywhere with M247, there's maybe going to be some areas around the turret at certain angles where the LOS is greater than 300mm RHAe (somebody who knows better correct me). Hellfire is going to go through it absolutely anywhere (at least for the Hellfires we have in DCS).

 

Bear in mind though that we're at the mercy of the DCS damage model for ground vehicles.

[BuzzU]

 

Playing with other people is rewarding experience as you get so much easier there when everyone knows their tasks better. That is the achilles heel in the DCS that the AI is just so simple that you need to babysit it in everything as they don't do anything even obvious things. Scripting doesn't help as it is too complex to script the basic sense and training for the AI.

And that is the problem as if you can't communicate well and come together for a plan in multiplayer, it doesn't help much.

Why it is nicer to fly with common friends when you can match the times and you know what to do etc.

 

You use a human for JTAC online?

[Northstar98]

 

You use a human for JTAC online?

 

With a human player directly controlling a vehicle and using the binocular view you can, a good plus side is that you can change the designating laser code. AFAIK the AI JTAC doesn't let you do that - one of the AI flaws tying into what Fri13 is saying about the AI, which I absolutely agree with.

[Xavven]

 

What I don't understand is the need for 4 HARMS. The need for 6 Mavericks. The need to put JDAM's or APKWS on everything.

I like to have options, but lately there seems to be an obsession of min-maxing every jet. "ED plz put this thing on my aeroplane so I can be more competitive on GAW server" stretching the

believability of the sim just because some users like to fly like Rambo and take out an entire airbase by themselves in one go.

FYI: Payload management, Landing and Rearming is also part of the DCS experience.

 

 

I think it's mainly because IRL, if the Air Force needs more ordinance to ensure the objectives are met, they might bring more aircraft and keep each aircraft's loadout light. In DCS, you might not have that many players on that night, or the server has its limits without lag becoming a major problem. So for the sake of the sim not becoming overly tedious, players would prefer to add more JDAMs to their loadout than make extra trips.

[BuzzU]

 

With a human player directly controlling a vehicle and using the binocular view you can, a good plus side is that you can change the designating laser code. AFAIK the AI JTAC doesn't let you do that - one of the AI flaws tying into what Fri13 is saying about the AI, which I absolutely agree with.

 

I understand that. I'm just curious if someone wanted to be the JTAC and how they would go about it in DCS? If not my post #56 makes more sense.

[Xavven]

 

I understand that. I'm just curious if someone wanted to be the JTAC and how they would go about it in DCS? If not my post #56 makes more sense.

 

You need Combined Arms in order to control ground units to become a JTAC.

I made a map where a human JTAC coordinating with 1 or 2 Warthogs was the principle point of the mission. I played as the JTAC and it was quite thrilling, actually!

 

[BuzzU]

 

You need Combined Arms in order to control ground units to become a JTAC.

I made a map where a human JTAC coordinating with 1 or 2 Warthogs was the principle point of the mission. I played as the JTAC and it was quite thrilling, actually!

 

Ok, I stand corrected. However, for ED to make the weapon working he'd have to program the AI.

 

At any rate. It always comes down to ED making the decision to add it or not. We'll have to wait and see.

[Fri13]

While I'm eating the popcorn reading this thread, there is something I'm curious about really the 70mm hydra warheads, but becomes extra interesting with APKWS. Hopefully one of you rocket experts can chime in. How effective are the HEAT M247 rockets? I assume it's not nearly as good with armor penetration as a Hellfire, but are we talking BMP-1/T-55 level here, higher/lower?

 

Lower.

 

The T-55 armor is too thick unless you get the rocket hit the roof from 30-45 degree or higher angle. It was very well protected for long period. But it is not enough for top-attacks.

The best warheads against armors are around 350 mm RHA penetration, so we are talking about same capability as M72 LAW is for the infantry.

As the DCS world lacks the damage modeling for ground units and it has very simple one, we are not going to be very effective with the small caliber rockets or basically anything against better armored vehicles with anything.

 

The Hellfire, Vikhr, S-25, Mavericks etc are totally different caliber with destruction capabilities. They are expensive and very specialized ones (except Vikhr that is normal ATGM with 1000 mm RHA penetration after reactive armor, it is basically best there is) that are just overkill for the most common vehicles that enemy can have, and those are APC's, Trucks, Jeeps, IFV etc etc. The MBT is fairly special target to be go against and it is better safe those for those or something that are "hard to reach". While the rockets are great for anything lighter like APC, Trucks, Jeeps and such. It can be effective against IFV but even a BMP-1 has about 40-300 mm armor against HEAT so not from the front but from the sides you get to be effective, as well from the roof.

But considering that you are not ripple firing those rockets anymore to have an change to have good hit, you are single firing them with guidance with sub-meter CEP you should be very effective with them, if not with one but then at least with two.

 

If in the future we get more detailed damage modeling to ground vehicles (we are), then you do not need to K-kill (catasrophic kill) vehicles to make them incapable continue mission and so on easily stop the whole platoon performance as you only need to inflict 33-50% damage to render unit incapable to perform its tasks. So firing a normal 2.75" rocket on tracked vehicle and destroying track for M-kill is effective way to halt them for an hour or so. Damaging/Destroying engine is out for long time. Damaging turret, optics, gun etc will render them as well out of action. Destroying optics makes them likely incapable continue fight or then be very severely lowered their performance.

 

But simply getting lots of "noise" around them will make vehicle crews think twice about their lives and will get own moral/performance penalties.

That is very effective with a 30 mm cannon that you make lots of noise, while you are not going to penetrate armors, but destroying gun, optics, radios, maybe getting through engine if armor plates has been left open as air attack was not expected, and you will give great panic for the crew that anyways can't really see you.

 

So in combat you are better leave the MBT's for actual AT weapons and use these rockets for anything else than MBT and some IFV. And considering that if you can destroy 14-21 enemy transport, support etc vehicles, you are doing lots of damage for their next days combat performances.

 

When we get the new damage model, then AGR-20A should turn to be more effective even when you are not going to get K-kill, but possibility have weapon kill, mobility kill or any kind mission kill.

And that is when it can really turn to be preferred weapon.

 

[Xavven]

Keep in mind that an aircraft can self-designate an APKWS rocket without a JTAC, if said aircraft has a targeting pod with a laser.

[Fri13]

I understand that. I'm just curious if someone wanted to be the JTAC and how they would go about it in DCS? If not my post #56 makes more sense.

 

Many important features in DCS are missing or very simple. Like we do not have anykind intelligence gathering and tasking. There are wishes that recon pods and aircrafts would be implemented where you can do recon flights capturing photographs of units and their locations, have the ELINT missions like with Viggen to find radio transmissions and then have them later (with delay) presented some vague manner on the large map if the pilot survived back to base alive with aircraft intact (otherwise the data import is cancelled).

 

This would allow to generate missions based the intelligence and reports, so that in multiplayer we could have a map and board of automatically generated missions to be tasked. And if the human doesn't do it, then AI will try to fly the mission.

 

That is missing, what results to situation that it is mission designer to try to brief the situation and send the human JTAC to search the targets etc. While in good scenario you would have a generic idea where to expect enemies when you are scouting and then trying to get position for having good laser designation possibility. Why so many doesn't want to do that in multiplayer.

 

One challenge is as well we are lacking the special forces to do recon on foot for deeper areas and have them as well gather intelligence for larger scale war.

In current form the DCS is pretty much oriented to simulate cockpit operations. So you learn how to use targeting pod/radar/X, how to perform the specific attack run with weapon X, and how to navigate with landing/take-off. But when it comes to combat relationship between ground units and air units, it is very simple.

Even the communication between JTAC and the air units is challenge to organize if not really putting more effort for it.

 

Like I haven't seen map markers being used to tell others that JTAC is in the area and what is their radio frequency so players could fly in that area and contact human JTAC for tasking.

And all these eventually means that many players will come either solo or with a friend or two to have some fun and then you have bunch of people doing that randomly on server.

 

 

But the fact is that no matter how many wish that DCS would get some infantry/First Person Shooter features, it just doesn't really work. As in DCS player is a pilot that can cover large distances quickly and be able to engage multiple targets in short time. While the foot soldier life is boring and slow. To travel 30-40 km takes lots of effort, and can become impossible depending what is between points.

So being a JTAC on the ground can have its highlights but that player is not really going to be having as much to do as pilot player does. Like plilot player can have fun by just flying 20-30 minutes back to base, land, rearm and then get back to action. While the JTAC player would be literally sitting that 20-30 minutes meanwhile doing nothing.

 

And that is what makes the Combined Arms module more interesting as RTS game than just JTAC unit. So you are commanding other ground units on that area and then jump to be JTAC when it is required. So ground player has more to do than just do the JTAC tasking.

 

 

[Xavven]

 

Many important features in DCS are missing or very simple. Like we do not have anykind intelligence gathering and tasking. There are wishes that recon pods and aircrafts would be implemented where you can do recon flights capturing photographs of units and their locations, have the ELINT missions like with Viggen to find radio transmissions and then have them later (with delay) presented some vague manner on the large map if the pilot survived back to base alive with aircraft intact (otherwise the data import is cancelled).

 

This would allow to generate missions based the intelligence and reports, so that in multiplayer we could have a map and board of automatically generated missions to be tasked. And if the human doesn't do it, then AI will try to fly the mission.

 

That is missing, what results to situation that it is mission designer to try to brief the situation and send the human JTAC to search the targets etc. While in good scenario you would have a generic idea where to expect enemies when you are scouting and then trying to get position for having good laser designation possibility. Why so many doesn't want to do that in multiplayer.

 

One challenge is as well we are lacking the special forces to do recon on foot for deeper areas and have them as well gather intelligence for larger scale war.

In current form the DCS is pretty much oriented to simulate cockpit operations.

 

 

There's a standing joke that DCS stands for "Digital Cockpit Simulator" for this reason. I have hopes that the dynamic campaign the devs are working on resolves this problem. Recon and fog of war would be a welcome addition. As it is, you look at the mission planner and see exactly where enemy units are unless the mission designer had the foresight to use the hide function.

 

[SkateZilla]

Like the Hornet,

 

The Viper is Modelled around a F-16CM Cira 2007, which pre-dates APKWS Use.

[BIGNEWY]

Hi,

we have no plans to add APKWS II to the viper, our viper is a F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007. All planned systems and weapons are listed here subject to change

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/digital-combat-simulator/dcs-f-16c-viper/242691-planned-f-16c-systems-and-payloads

 

Thanks

[Jester2138]

On 11/19/2020 at 3:49 AM, BIGNEWY said:

our viper is a F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

But there are several decidedly non-U.S. liveries provided by Eagle Dynamics... Should we expect them to be deleted?

[BIGNEWY]

16 minutes ago, Jester2138 said:

But there are several decidedly non-U.S. liveries provided by Eagle Dynamics... Should we expect them to be deleted?

A livery is a simpler issue, please don't confuse it with adding a weapon system and the avionics code needed for implementation. 

We have to draw the line somewhere. 

thanks

[Fri13]

On 12/2/2020 at 7:20 PM, BIGNEWY said:

adding a weapon system and the avionics code needed for implementation. 

We have to draw the line somewhere. 

thanks

 

And that is the question, when nothing would change in the cockpit, nothing would change in the systems, only thing is that the instead unguided rocket there is a guided rocket inside a rocket pod.

By the code part, it would simply be using the code already in DCS because A-10C II and using it in F-16C.

As in reality from the technical point, APKWS II is same procedure as with unguided variant. Easier really than painting a fighter to some other livery in reality.

That is the dilemma here, as APKWS II doesn't have anything changed in aircraft to be operationally usable as in reality was and is.

 

If it would be a requirement to rewire the F-16 pylons and make software updates to targeting systems etc, then it would be a different case. But it doesn't. Only limit is that in 2007 the APKWS II didn't exist as is, but in 2018 it did. Only restriction would be the date set in mission editor based reality or not.

 

 

[BIGNEWY]

The previous poster was comparing adding liveries to adding a weapon system, my answer was to point out it isn't that simple.

 

As mentioned the line has to be drawn somewhere when adding systems and weapons, we wont be getting APKWS on our viper, it was not used for that time period. 

[Fri13]

25 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

The previous poster was comparing adding liveries to adding a weapon system, my answer was to point out it isn't that simple.

 

How long it takes from a texture artist to make a new livery?

How long it takes from a programmer to implement existing weapon from one module to another with existing 3D models and such?

 

Quote

As mentioned the line has to be drawn somewhere when adding systems and weapons, we wont be getting APKWS on our viper, it was not used for that time period. 

 

It was not used in 2007, sure. But is our Viper used in 2007- by any means?

 

All that is requested is reality in DCS, that when a mission designer selects mission date to be 2016 or later then the APKWS II becomes available weapon for Viper - if the year filter is enabled (if it is disabled, then all technically compatible weapons are available for the mission regardless the date).

 

It is very simple thing really. Is it a fact that Our F-16C Blk 50 doesn't exist in 2016 or later? It must, or has ED traveled back in the time to 2007 to model it, and then back to so they can release that module in 2019.

What is that 2007 year exactly? What are the parameters why our Viper is from 2007 and not from 2008 or 2003 or 2019?

As we are using our Viper in 2020 and it will be used in 2021, it will be in service as is up to the date when there doesn't anymore exist any of them.

 

Edit: Shouldn't the "draw line somewhere" be about "Is it technically possible?" and not about "We do not want our Viper to be flown in other missions than dated to 2007"?

 

Like with liveries, we can select various different ones from historically accurate ones to custom fantasy ones etc.

We can place the Viper to fly under other country flags than USA, even when it is only modeling USAF variant.

We can take the Viper to 1944 Normandy and fly with Bf 109's. 

But we shouldn't be able add a "Fat Man" nuclear bomb from that era as it is many ways, like technically impossible.

 

But when something is technically possible in 2016 in our Viper, why the year becomes as "the line" while otherwise "not technically possible" is otherwise as only criteria?

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Fri13

[BIGNEWY]

 F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

 

All planned systems and payloads can be found here 

 

Thanks