Jump to content

Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6


Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6  

285 members have voted

  1. 1. Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6

    • YES - stations 4 and 6 should have HARM and Maverick
      99
    • NO - stations 4 and 6 should not have HARM and Maverick
      186

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Thank you all for your participation. 

 

Poll now closed. 

  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In USAF/ANG F-16s, the wiring that provides HARM and Maverick video is not installed in stations 4 and 6. This means the weapons can be installed and ferried but they are not functional (which is why

And facts should always win the day.

Hello all,    We are reviewing the data again on the use of Viper stations 4 and 6 for HARM and Mavericks. We are considering many factors and data sources like reference documents and SMEs.

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

If they're going to promise x, they should deliver x.

 

 

 

I agree.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Where's the line here?

 

 

This is a good question to ask, but I don't think it's hard to answer. Provide the authentic aircraft as accurate as possible (deliver the x), then lump anything else into an "other" checkbox. This way we retain all the limitations necessary to mimic the target aircraft while at the same time providing a work around for situations where we can afford to deviate from absolute historical accuracy.

 

What options ED might choose to give us in the checkbox is up to them. Adding existing sim weapons with existing aircraft interfacing to existing pylons is low hanging fruit that won't take much work on their part. Adding something completely out of fantasy like, and I'm just exaggerating for the sake of making a point, rotary gattling lasers would take more work and frankly aren't in the realm of plausibility so I don't think there is any fear of ED wasting time on such a thing.

[sIGPIC]http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk187/Exorcet/F-15singaturebaseACOmodifiedcomp-1.jpg[/sIGPIC]

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 3 Minuten schrieb Matti0503:

cool that they tested it but was the average, combat use viper ever equipped with the wiring? I don't think so

Then took off the walleye II because when your f18c of about 2005 was in service the Walleye was not in service for the hornet for years!


Edited by jojojung
Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 1 Minute schrieb Matti0503:

you're completely missing my point but I agree that the Walleye and the SLAM should be removed

I cant say what the result of this testing was. I dont know them but the autor says that "normaly two HARMS" indicating that there are special cases for 4 HARMS but thats my interpretation.

To resolve this I have send an E-Mail to the Website and hope to contact the autor Lt. Carl Krittenden.

But there was so much written in this topic here about, never a single time on the block 50 etc. and this is the proof that the HARMS on 4 and 6 worked. If they were put into service I can not say but I will try to find it out!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jojojung said:

I cant say what the result of this testing was. I dont know them but the autor says that "normaly two HARMS" indicating that there are special cases for 4 HARMS but thats my interpretation.

To resolve this I have send an E-Mail to the Website and hope to contact the autor Lt. Carl Krittenden.

But there was so much written in this topic here about, never a single time on the block 50 etc. and this is the proof that the HARMS on 4 and 6 worked. If they were put into service I can not say but I will try to find it out!

What type of testing exactly tho? Just carry test or actual firing. If it was firing, they probably had a special Viper with the needed Wiring just for this purpose. It not being on other/later Vipers would indicate that these tests weren't particularly successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gerade eben schrieb Matti0503:

What type of testing exactly tho? Just carry test or actual firing. If it was firing, they probably had a special Viper with the needed Wiring just for this purpose. It not being on other/later Vipers would indicate that these tests weren't particularly successful.

I think thats too much speculation. When many planes does testing on this it would not be done to only want to know if the viper can carry this missiles for transport use only. I think they tested the operational usage for sure. Why they didnt make it to the actuel piectime certified loadouts I dont know either. Maybe because its simply not nessecarry in piecetime. Maybe for security reasons, I dont know. I only want to show that it was done with quite some planes of the block 50. But I will let you know when I get more information, OK? Above in this topic guys said that it was 100% never done without any proof and influenced this poll, so I dicided to do some research. But now its closed allready!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...