No HARMs and Mavericks in ITO v0.99!
-
The answer is in the IAF -1-2 viper manuals that describe the loadouts, but since these are somewhat classified we canât actually tell if IAF paid to purchase and install the weapons software but not the missiles themselves. So since no Harms in their inventory, and no loaded Maverick photos available, the answer is clear.
-
Thanks for the replies.
But according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
Israel do possess the HARM in their inventories.I know that 's a Wikipedia site which much be taken with a âgrain of saltâ but digging a bit more I found this news from July 2013 in which it seems that Israel ordered or itâs imminent an order by Israel of HARM missiles for the Israel Air Force:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2013/07/01/Israel-seeks-50B-in-US-loans-to-buy-arms/UPI-49641372706630/
This same site indicates that Israel does possess the AGM-78 Standard missile (and Israel also possess or possessed AGM-45 Shrike missiles) which means that even if Israel still doesnât have HARM missiles it currently has ARM missiles in their inventory and modeling the HARM in ITO campaigns would IMO:
1- Give HARM capability which Israel will soon have if it doesnât already have (which is a possibility).
2- Model the current ARM weaponry that Israel currently have (albeit older, the capability is still there).Regarding the AGM-65 Maverick, if IAF F-4 Phantoms have and carry them I donât see ANY reason why IAF F-16s shouldnât also have!
-
Israel does not have the HARM. At present there are some talks about it but it has not been purchased.
AGM-78 has never been used on F-16s in the IAF.
The AGM-65 used to be carried by IAF F-16s, but this is no longer true (since 1990s at least). -
The answer was given, donât drag the waters more as Pantera would say. ITO is a very nice and tuned theater and what you see there is what currently exists. If the Harms are purchased and will be operational on the Sufaâs I guess you will see a hotfix sooner or later. But it will take you less than a minute to anytime add yourself the Harm and Mavericks to the variants you want.
-
I fly the MLU in this theater. And in Belgium they replaced the AGM-65 with JDAMâs/LGBâs. We have no SEAD capacity, so therefore our tactics are build in accordance to that, and it works in my opinion better to attack tanks or other pieces of ground equipment with LGBâs âŚ. now that we have the GBU-54 in Belgium we are even more flexible
-
So we have to develop new campaign tactics for this? My tactics are so very desert storm related⌠Instead of SEAD strikes we are simply expected to avoid SAMs alltogether? It is possible for me to fly low to try and engage the SAMs with bombs but there are always SA-8s near these sights which will take me down, so engagement is impossible. This is interesting and I will try to apply it.
-
I have been doing experiments to figure out how to effectively conduct SEAD without HARMs or Mavericks. In the northern campaign there is a US carrier group in the Med with F/A-18s that you can task with SEAD if you likeâI may try this myself at some point. But mostly I try to avoid SAMs altogether. The catch is that there are SA-6 sites right near the FLOT, making CAS a bit hairy. Best thing I have found to do against the SA-6 is to go in with music on and use the TGP to ID the Straight Flush, make a markpoint, then drop GBU-38s from 33,000â and ~10nm out then get the hell out. The only remaining issue is enemy aircraft, which I am trying to deal with by fragging DCA and Sweeps in northern Israel before I try to take out SAMs.
-
@The:
So we have to develop new campaign tactics for this? My tactics are so very desert storm related⌠Instead of SEAD strikes we are simply expected to avoid SAMs alltogether? It is possible for me to fly low to try and engage the SAMs with bombs but there are always SA-8s near these sights which will take me down, so engagement is impossible. This is interesting and I will try to apply it.
Related discussions here:
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?17287-Israel-Theater-0-99-Release&p=248754&viewfull=1#post248754
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?17392-SA-6-SEAD-without-standoff-weapons -
Well they do have some Apacheâs there to clear the routeâŚ
-
Israel does not have the HARM. At present there are some talks about it but it has not been purchased.
AGM-78 has never been used on F-16s in the IAF.
The AGM-65 used to be carried by IAF F-16s, but this is no longer true (since 1990s at least).Thanks for the reply Echo7, that really clarified things on my part, specially regarding the Mavericks (which I was sure that they were carried by IAF F-16s at some point - at least in the 80âs).
The answer was given, donât drag the waters more as Pantera would say. ITO is a very nice and tuned theater and what you see there is what currently exists. If the Harms are purchased and will be operational on the Sufaâs I guess you will see a hotfix sooner or later. But it will take you less than a minute to anytime add yourself the Harm and Mavericks to the variants you want.
I âdrag the watersâ as I see fit which is until I get a reply that satisfies and clarifies my doubts which was the case of Echo7âs reply.
BTW, how can I edit ITO campaigns (or others) so that I can add Mavericks for example (or HARMs) to particular squadrons or aircraft?
I would really appreciate a reply on this regard since Iâm not familiarized with Falcon4 editing. Thanks in advance. -
Hi,everybody
i found these informations and iâm wonder if itâs possible to modelise those weapons in
IT-BMS,what are you thinking about? Python5,Derby,Spice,Popeye and some others perhaps? iâm thinking about bombs like BLU-107 Durandal but israelian version more effective to destroy runwaysIt appears that those weapons are destinated for F-16 IAF!
Is it a bad idea?
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/9/1189.pdf
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/8/1188.pdf
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/4/924.pdf
http://www.rafael.co.il/Marketing/332-892-en/Marketing.aspx -
I am on this road exactly, I will post news if I manage to succeed with the project.
BTW,
-
I am on this road exactly, I will post news if I manage to succeed with the project.
BTW,
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7559899/86DF89W3J7/Suf.jpg
In our falcon community we really have inspired man!
Many thanks to RAPTOR for his future work;
By the way against egyptianâs F-16 we really need operationnal IFF,because on radar MFD the are so many
aircrafts that impossible to call âDeclareâ for each one which seems suspect.
It appears a very low priority,said Dee-JayâŚBut with Israel theater itâs a another matter. -
Regarding the Python 5, SPICE and other advanced GPS / optical wepaons, they canât be modeled well with current code which is why we chose not to add them yet. We are however working on this, youâll need to wait a little for future BMS versionsâŚ
-
So no BLU-107âs either? Also even if you canât 100% model the Zephyr/Python5 fully why not use the regular A-A 120 setup for it or similar in the mean time.
I find it impossible to believe Israel would not have these weapons on hand for the F16 if a real war broke out right now and someone high in the CoC decided the F16âs need them. (surely the stock is there, and itâs not like an F16 canât drop Durandals)
-
(1) CFT Vipers are butt ugly
(2) If you fly Block50/52 will can have the full array of weapons. -
But it will take you less than a minute to anytime add yourself the Harm and Mavericks to the variants you want.
In F4Browse, correct? Is there any trickiness about the pylons/weapons pairings? And then you have to add stores to the squadrons at the airbases in TacEdit, right?
It might be nice, if it isnât too much work, to have a âPlaygroundâ option in ITO Config which would put back all the BMS weapons for F16s, at least until we can get Popeye, Spice, Delilah, etc. Iâm all for realism, but no F16 SEAD missions is not realistic, it seems to me. Waiting for US F/A-18 SEAD sorties, given todayâs political climate, is flat-out antirealism.
What would be very cool is to find a way to spoof the BMS code in order to âmodelâ an ECW control-insertion into the enemyâs IADS / C3I. Then invite some guys to play OPFOR in ITO Theater and watch the fireworks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suter_%28computer_program%29
Best regards!
-
(1) CFT Vipers are butt ugly
(2) If you fly Block50/52 will can have the full array of weapons.I think the Sufa is a gorgeous jet. Eye of the beholder I guess.
-
get rid of the CFT and they will stop being so butt ugly.
-
Just thinking out loud here, but playing ITO this weekend, another reason why having HARMs available is this: while it might be ârealisticâ to have only cluster bombs, etc. for SEAD, the AI cannot do effective SEAD without HARMs in my opinion. I base this on multiple missions I flew this weekend where my SEAD escort was great against AAA but of no use against SAMs. It made fore essentially impossible missions.
Until we get a smarter AI, I think there is value in making appropriate SEAD weapons available.