Jump to content

Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6


BIGNEWY
 Share

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

i voted no, because from the reading the forums it seems not to be a realistic option. if ED has good proof that harms on 4/6 can indeed be used, i would change my vote obviously...

 

apart from that, i do like the idea to have a checkbox for experimental loadouts. people always say it could be easily done by lua, but truth is that most people are not confident with lua editing especially in a MP environment. honestly i don't really see how 4 harms would be such a  gamechanger anyway, but on other aircrafts (f5e for example) such a checkbox would open up really fun and interesting options.

  • Like 3

My personal wishlist after half a decade with DCS: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO Frankenstein's!!...should I have to find the quote??

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Marvin "Cactus" Palmer

 

DCS:World 2.5(ob)

Gigabyte Z390 Designare i7-9700K (4.6GHz), 32Gb RAM (3600MHz), GTX2070, 40" 1080p Monitor, TM Warthog, Saitek Rudder pedals,TM Cougar MFD, and an ipad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fish said:

Hmm. Not a very scientific approach. Counting yes/no's when you have no idea who voted or why! ED please stick to the facts, its what you are good at, and why your sims are held in such high regard.

 

 

 

 

 

No one said it was science. Its a simple feedback poll. 

 

thanks

  • Like 6

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 comment
Share on other sites

well, imo it should also be removed, I for one take realism with the good and bad, therefore whatever limits are present should be reflected where it can be, that being said I also think some systems should be changed to accommodate the lack of feeling and real hardware but this issue is not a matter of opinion

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi BN

 

I voted no for the sim, for reasons of accuracy.

 

However, if I was to play the arcade easy (MAG) style of the game...world is your oyster.

  • Like 2

My Hangar:

F16C | FA18C | F14A/B | M2000C | AV8B | A10C/ii | KA50 | UH1H | Gazelle | FC3 | CA | Supercarrier

 

My Spec:

Obsidian750D Airflow | Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon | 8700K | 32GB DDR4 Vengeance @3600 | RTX2070 Super | ZXR PCIe | WD Black 1TB SSD | Log X56 | Log G502 | TrackIR | 1 badass mutha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think stations 3 and 7 should also be limited to 2 mavericks. The blast of the 3rd maverick on LAU-88 risks damaging the tail stabilator. However it was installed and tested back then. Never seen combat operation as far as I know.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
[CENTER] [/CENTER]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good question, Thanks for raising this @BIGNEWY , I believe it should be base on realistic data, the F-16 Should be able to carry HARM, Mavericks and Sparrow, I know different block has different capabilities, but it will not hurt the simulator if we can have these capabilities, although may sound not practical to carry 4 HARMS or 8 Maverick but this will be user decisions
https://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article10.html

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


Need to point people would say no/yes due to some specific reasons, such as MP or because they are flying by another AC ..


Edited by Raviar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, people should not be able to ruin other folks' public multiplayer sessions by trucking 4 HARMs or 12 Mavericks. Limit them to two and four, respectively.

 

However, I believe there is a third option that will keep most* players happy: Allow the Viper to carry and fire smart weapons on inner pylons, if they have explicitly been pre-loaded in the .miz itself. At the same time, prevent players from choosing those weapons in the in-game rearm dialog. It used to work for the Ka-50, so I don't see why it could not be used in this case. If the mission creator explicitly wants that loadout, they're free to do as they see fit.

 

*There is always that small but voiced minority who makes themselves heard even in the most trivial matters. The vast majority of people do not really care.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

I'm all in for operational loadouts and equipment only where there is clear evidence of being correct and common on the F-16 version we got.

 

If we get in everything that is theoretically possible or was tested or considered once or similar: where is the line? How would we (you, ED) justify HARM or MAV on 4/6 but no AGM-84 at the same time? It was tested and considered by the USAF and the CCIP upgraded F-16 Block 50 is in theory capable of using it afaik (Turkey got it at least on theirs' afaik). There's lots of other equipment that would theoretically be possible "if would should could"...

 

Stick with operational options only since everything else is the dark path to frankensteining. How to justify X but deny Y?

 

If folks want whatever non-operational equipment or loadout options, they can still do a mod for it and be happy.

 

As i just read 'the other thread' ™: above ofc is true for the 6x AGM-65 thingy too. (and also outside the F-16 topic but in general when talking DCS things)

 

It might be theoretically possible and maybe even used or planned to be used in some isolated events, but it is far from what one would call a common operational loadout in reality. That's why there are simply no images to be found except for test flights maybe or more than a hand full of reports from ground crews stating they loaded this loadout but you've got to dig really deep in some manuals to learn about this is a thing (in theory) - it's a very special case event at best.

In terms of what DCS represents (simulating more of a realistic, dynamic, large(er)-scale conventional conflict environment than some isolated special case that maybe somewhere happened at some point in time) it therefore is absolutely irrelevant and i would like to see 6x AGM-65 gone too.

 

Like said: if folks want to simulate some of these isolated special test flight or whatever events, nothing is stopping people from modding 4x HARM or 6x AGM-65 availability or CFT and recreating it.

 


Edited by Desert Fox
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 32 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | DCS dedicated @ WD Blue 500 GB SSD | Win 10 (64-bit) | TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

 

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | Full Fidelity Su-25A | Asset packs (80s Iran, Lebanon 1982, Syria 2011+ factions)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i scoured net for information on mavericks in this config and could not find anything. however there was a post i take as honest that says 4 HARMS is possible.

 

"F-16 BLOCK 50/52 "WILD WEASEL Plus The first Block 50/52 was delivered to the US Air Force in 1991, and reached initial operational status in 1994. The Block 50/52 F-16 is recognized for its ability to carry the AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile in the suppression of enemy air defenses, or SEAD, missions. The F-16 can carry as many as four HARMs." 

 

Shaw AFB - F-16C Fighting Falcon

 

it makes sense for 4 HARMs because they can shoot those and then provide some additional CAP.


Edited by silverdevil
  • Like 1

AKA_SilverDevil AKA Forums

==============================================================

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. Mark Twain

==============================================================

Alienware Aurora R12, 2TB M.2 PCIe SSD, RTX 3090 24GB , i9 11900KF, 128GB Quad Channel DDR4 XMP at 3400MHz, Dell AW3420DW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see that ED is willing to rethink this, although I don't think it should be about opionions, but about facts. All the facts I know say that the required wiring for HARM and Maverick is not installed on station 4 and 6 on USAF F-16s. If ED has information that say otherwise I would love to see that! Untill then I hope the HARM will be removed from those stations again and voted accordingly, because this:

  

22 hours ago, Santi871 said:

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 flight manuals indicate it can be loaded). Not a matter of opinion, a matter of facts.

 

21 hours ago, Krippz said:

And facts should always win the day.

 


Edited by QuiGon
  • 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

48 minutes ago, silverdevil said:

i scoured net for information on mavericks in this config and could not find anything. however there was a post i take as honest that says 4 HARMS is possible.

 

"F-16 BLOCK 50/52 "WILD WEASEL Plus The first Block 50/52 was delivered to the US Air Force in 1991, and reached initial operational status in 1994. The Block 50/52 F-16 is recognized for its ability to carry the AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile in the suppression of enemy air defenses, or SEAD, missions. The F-16 can carry as many as four HARMs." 

 

Shaw AFB - F-16C Fighting Falcon

 

it makes sense for 4 HARMs because they can shoot those and then provide some additional CAP.

 

 

Looking at the source article (2015!), it isn't really clear if it's a block 50 or 52, if it's about the USAF/NG version we got and if its a C model or a general statement about the F-16 and, not sure if that is a thing, there might have been an actual Wild Weasel upgrade applied to those capable, if they are capable and it isn't a case of  "carry" vs. "fire" (like, those cables apparently missing. Could not find any info about that).

Also the article states the F-16 block 50/52 is capable to "fully integrate" the AGM-84 Harpoon - which is true for some export models like Turkey and maybe Greece and Japan but i'm not sure with those two. But our version definitely is not... it would... but here we go again with would could should if 😉

 

Interesting find for sure but really does not tell that much sadly.


Edited by Desert Fox
  • Like 1

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 32 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | DCS dedicated @ WD Blue 500 GB SSD | Win 10 (64-bit) | TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

 

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | Full Fidelity Su-25A | Asset packs (80s Iran, Lebanon 1982, Syria 2011+ factions)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Santi871 said:

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 flight manuals indicate it can be loaded). Not a matter of opinion, a matter of facts.

ah the old days going to the furniture store and there were all sorts of cardboard televisions... hey lets make the new guy ferry some HARMs over to Shaw this afternoon. the cargo planes need some rest.

  • Like 1

AKA_SilverDevil AKA Forums

==============================================================

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. Mark Twain

==============================================================

Alienware Aurora R12, 2TB M.2 PCIe SSD, RTX 3090 24GB , i9 11900KF, 128GB Quad Channel DDR4 XMP at 3400MHz, Dell AW3420DW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

No one said it was science. Its a simple feedback poll. 

 

thanks

But, let me ask, if there was a significant number of users who would like to see Mk82 on the tip of the wings, instead of A/A missiles, just because they want to get more bombs available, do you start this kind of poll? And why not? I think you're about to open a pandora box with this one.

Just my 2 cents

Cheers

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MROK73 said:

But, let me ask, if there was a significant number of users who would like to see Mk82 on the tip of the wings, instead of A/A missiles, just because they want to get more bombs available, do you start this kind of poll? And why not? I think you're about to open a pandora box with this one.

Just my 2 cents

Cheers

 

No. 

 

The team wanted to get the users feedback also, its that simple. We have data and SME feedback also. 

People can participate or not, the deciding factor will be for the team to make. 

 

thanks

  • Like 4

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 comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

I'm glad to see that ED is willing to rethink this, although I don't think it should be about opionions, but about facts. All the facts I know say that the required wiring for HARM and Maverick is not installed on station 4 and 6 on USAF F-16s. If ED has information that say otherwise I would love to see that! Untill then I hope the HARM will be removed from those stations again and voted accordingly, because this:

  

 

 

 

Do you guys have any proof or fact that it cant carry 4 HARM, other than quoting some people that say that they worked on F-16 as ground crew for years (is that even true=)?

 

Would you believe me if I said I worked on Viper for years and we have loaded 4 HARM occasionally when it was a short sortie? On longer sorties with no tankers half way we would have to load 2 bags so they have enough fuel for the sortie. Is it ok now to have 4 HARM?

 

You are asking for ED to provide facts but you don't have any.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Do you guys have any proof or fact that it cant carry 4 HARM, other than quoting some people that say that they worked on F-16 as ground crew for years (is that even true=)?

 

Would you believe me if I said I worked on Viper for years and we have loaded 4 HARM occasionally when it was a short sortie? On longer sorties with no tankers half way we would have to load 2 bags so they have enough fuel for the sortie. Is it ok now to have 4 HARM?

 

You are asking for ED to provide facts but you don't have any.

 

There is a major difference from an aircraft being able to carry a weapon and actually properly deploy/fire the weapon. Yes the F-16 was tested to carry 4 HARMS but it was never made operational to effectively deploy/fire the 2 HARMS on station 4 and 6. That is what is being missed here. The facts are the Viper was never outfitted to properly fire the HARM on station 4 and 6.


Edited by Alex2210
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alex2210 said:

 

There is a major difference from an aircraft being able to carry a weapon and actually properly deploy/fire the weapon. Yes the F-16 was tested to carry 4 HARMS but it was never made operational to effectively deploy/fire the 2 HARMS on station 4 and 6. That is what is being missed here.

 

Yea all that is fine, but I'm trying to point out that none of you people saying that are providing any fact or proof of that, you are just shouting that out loud, that doesn't make it true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

Yea all that is fine, but I'm trying to point out that none of you people saying that are providing any fact or proof of that, you are just shouting that out loud, that doesn't make it true.

 

It was literally tested at Edwards AFB with pictures of it. The USAF tests unconventional loadouts all the time with their test squadrons, that is literally their purpose. Just because the loadout is tested for effects on the airframe does not mean that they are put into the Standard Operating Procedures of the airframe. Which is the exact case with the block 50 viper, station 4 and 6 are not wired to employ the AGM-88C or the AGM-65. So unless substantial evidence is presented otherwise there is zero reason to be able to carry the HARM or MAV on station 4 and 6.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

 

Yea all that is fine, but I'm trying to point out that none of you people saying that are providing any fact or proof of that, you are just shouting that out loud, that doesn't make it true.

So, what you are saying is: you want to see the credentials that these people you speak of, are in fact in the Military and work on said system? There is a lot of current and ex-mil here. I'm sure none us would lie about that kind of thing. We are passionate about our former or current craft. 

If in fact that is what you are asking, how do you propose to see said credentials? And I can't speak for anyone else here but, I have never seen any of ED's SME's credentials! Or any other Devs SME's for that matter! I just trust the process!

  • Like 2

DO it or Don't, but don't cry about it. Real men don't cry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the controversy so long as things are labeled properly. Allow stations 4 and 6 to carry whatever and put a toggle option for it as other modules have (example civil plane checkbox for TF-51 and external mounts for UH-1). This preserves realism and allows us more flexibility.

[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 comment
Share on other sites

  • BIGNEWY locked this topic
  • BIGNEWY unlocked, locked, unpinned and unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...