Scrape

I'm tracking when you reference the 54. Not withstanding the different delivery methods experimented with and used across the decades of combat aviation - sorry for not specifying the specific dates of the absolutism of my statements. The point is, regardless of where the fuse sits on the bomb, in the nose or tail well of the munition, it would not be connected to the TAIL arm option, which is the point of the conversation.

Tail fuses aren't used with high drag 82s and 84s. Certainly not in the US and I'm not sure if other countries have some different fuses going on but generally this is true. No tail fuze in the AIR or SNAKEYE bombs because it's needlessly redundant. The ATU-35 drive would not be installed when the AIR package is present, and an initiator that goes through the center well is redundant and I'll explain. In the case of the MAU-12 there are 3 solenoids but only two options. NOSE (on/off) and TAIL (on/off). The BOTH selection in the aircraft is telling the weapons computer NOSE on and TAIL on. There is no BOTH signal electrically, only a signal for NOSE and a signal for TAIL. The center solenoid is wired to NOSE and is not independent. Since dropping in high drag is an option for the pilot, the only way to provide that option is to use one of the solenoids. The tail package is mechanical and not electrical and the only way to affect any option mechanically is through the solenoids. The TAIL option is used because it's closest to the AIR package and name wise makes sense. The nose fuze is reserved for the fuze that will initiate detonation. The remaining solenoid is the center solenoid. Plugging a tail fuze into the same solenoid as the nose fuze is the redundant part I mentioned earlier. There's no point to this and it serves no purpose. There's already a fuze in the nose, don't need two fuzes in the nose solenoid. One is all you need. In addition, there is no way to perform maintenance on a tail fuze while the high drag package is installed. If the fuze needed to be safed, disarmed, it could not be reached by hand without first removing the tail package. Meaning if for any reason an unsafe condition would occur with the tail fuze, the tail package would have to be removed before the munition could be rendered safe to be around. The access window in the AIR package is to verify there is no fuze installed, not to perform maintenance on the fuze like the door that exist on normal low drag tail packages. Since slow moving bombs have severely reduced penetrating properties there is little if any reason to prefer a tail fuse over a nose fuse. In the case of a TER rack there are only 2 solenoids. One less than the MAU-12, but the same number of options exist. Nose and TAIL, and of course the option of BOTH. Again the high drag or low drag release of the SNAKEYE and AIR packages is an option, and like the MAU-12 the tail solenoid is used to exercise this option. The NOSE solenoid on the TER would be reserved for the nose fuze. Is it possible to install a nose plug into the bomb and use a tail fuze with a Mk-82AIR? Sure it can be configured this way, but it is not standard practice, nor a safe one unless other concerns are addressed. Could it be done? Yea I suppose. Is the bug that's highlighted indeed a bug? Yes it is. Selecting TAIL only on a high drag Mk-82 or Mk-84 should result in a dud when it hits the ground. NOSE only = Bomb explodes but high drag device does not deploy TAIL only = No explosion, high drag device deploys BOTH = Bomb explodes, high drag device deploys JETTISON (any) = No explosion, high drag device does not deploy

There's an aspect to engine performance in fighters that's often considered. Tuning is done more often than people think, by which I mean daily or near to. An engine is tuned for a particular mission condition, and this is often done without pilot input or knowledge. The sortie/mission dictates the tuning. Mission says the pilot will be performing high altitude CAP? An engine tune is set for that. Next mission the jet will be loaded with snake eyes? He'll be low level then, and a tune is loaded for that. Like a racecar before a race, mechanics tune the engine for that particular track. Fighter engines are the same way. Data is analyzed after the flight and the tune is either kept or adjusted. This can greatly affect performance output in addition to atmospheric variables and other factors. This can also vary pilot accounts of what their engine was able to do when and how much power is made. This is the way it is currently and has been for the last couple of decades. I can't imagine it being much different during the days of the Tomcat.

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.

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.

Man, I missed out on a interesting conversation. Too bad I wasn't here sooner lol. Ah well.

Correct. Demo teams, such as the Thunderbirds are exempt from this restriction.

Yea, sorry for the vague response. Normal ops do not allow for formation take-offs. It was quite common back in the day once a pilot had passed a certain number of hours/takeoffs, but it's not done anymore unless special circumstances like an airshow. Safety was the primary concern for normal ops. It's not required other than to show it can be done, with a lot of risk for very little operational gain. Even with experienced pilots at the controls it's not allowed for normal day to day ops.

Jettison system is independent of the radar. They should not be connected.

Yes.

Was this question for me? If so, I didn't find the info. I was there, so to speak. Carrying the 130 on a Viper might have been an idea, as anything combat related is always an evolving idea. However, when it came to being used operationally the Viper did not use them.

The AGM-130 was indeed used operationally on the F-15E. It was never used on the F-16. The AGM-130 is no longer maintained in the inventory to date.

That or a 7-level screwdriver.

Fellow 2W1 Toad here! Over 20. Back in the day, the AIM-7 pylons/capes were retired during blk 30s (USAF). Some units moved away from them earlier than others, but the capes were there if the unit had the equipment. Max 2 could be loaded on sta 3 & 7. It wasn't widely used, and most units elected to not bother if they had the 120s, and left the equipment in cold storage. Underwing adapters and 129 rails were better than that 7 Pylon. The ACIS, with those super sensitive wafer connectors with the single allen screw connectors that'd snap if your breathed on them too hard (before MMS) could talk to the AIM-7 though.

All good man, thanks for saying that. No hard feelings from me either. Which country's F-16s did you work with if you don't mind me asking? I have over a decade with the Viper myself. US F-16s only.