Tripple Mk82's and GBU's on TER rack?

[Kev2go]

 

 

 

 

 

Lots of more current images as opposed to older ones of earler F16 blocks consistently show only x2 bombs being carried on Ter racks, but is this just a consideration for weight/ drag or reducing air frame wear? Or are X3 500 lbs bombs ( be it mk82 , CBU's or Gbu12) not authorized and thus entirely not in the realm of possibility for a USAF flown F16C blk50 that ED will model?

Edited May 19, 2019 by Kev2go

[Nealius]

It looks like this particular bird isn't carrying wing tanks. I've also noticed most payloads showing 2xMk82 on TERs, with wing tanks attached. I wonder if it's a munition separation issue with the tanks being there.

[Tomsk]

It looks like this particular bird isn't carrying wing tanks. I've also noticed most payloads showing 2xMk82 on TERs, with wing tanks attached. I wonder if it's a munition separation issue with the tanks being there.

 

I don’t think so. If you search for a document called PACAF Standard Conventional Loads May 2003, you’ll find a bunch of standard load outs for F-16s near the bottom (starts page 18 ). Triple Mk-82s (or Mk-82 AIR) and 2 fuel tanks is a common load out in that list. You can even find 6 Mk-20 and 2 tanks. The one that doesn’t appear is triple mounted GBU-12, I’m guessing the clearances are different with the guidance kits attached.

[mvsgas]

Tomsk

Some of the things to consider

Many of the Squadrons or Wings on the list have change in aircraft and their missions, consequently so have their loadouts. For example 8FW no longer have block 30 like on that list and 51 FW, 8 FW and 35 FW now have same capabilities and loadouts.

 

AFIAK, the reason for only 2 CBU (87, 89, 97 etc) or 2 GBU-12 are carried on the TER is the fins on the rear. When those weapons a thrown away from the TER (as all bombs are when separating from the TER or MAU-12, they are physically pushed away by ejector feet) The have lanyards attach to the rack. This lanyards not only activate the fuses but physically extend the fins. As the fins extend (if loaded on the inboard side of the TER) they have the potential to come in contact and damage the external wing tanks or the ventral fins (fins on the bottom of the F-16 on panel 4301 and 4302)

 

The only question remains will be the Mk-20. I can only guess since I never saw this weapons loaded in any F-16. So either this canisters rear fins are small enough to alleviate concerns or the fins extension was delayed enough not to cause problems when loaded on the inboard TER station.

 

Here you can see several aircraft with MER, and weapons on the inner station and how the bombs acted on release. Keeping in mind these are test video and lack content and details and may not reflect operational behavior of the weapons when release.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by mvsgas

[Nealius]

Just checked the PACAF SCLs to see. For the 35FW there are indeed 2 entries with 6xMk82s plus wing bags, one with slicks and one with ballutes. There's also one entry with 6xMk20s and wing bags.

 

But, how do we know any of those were actually operational? There are also a few loads with 12xMk82s and no fuel tanks, which seems odd considering that it's my understanding that wing tanks are always used except for certain A2A roles. I mean, a payload with 12 Mk82s and zero extra fuel and I doubt they'd make it from Misawa down to Tokyo on a single tank of gas.

[billeinstein]

Tomsk

Some of the things to consider

Many of the Squadrons or Wings on the list have change in aircraft and their missions, consequently so have their loadouts. For example 8FW no longer have block 30 like on that list and 51 FW, 8 FW and 35 FW now have same capabilities and loadouts.

 

AFIAK, the reason for only 2 CBU (87, 89, 97 etc) or 2 GBU-12 are carried on the TER is the fins on the rear. When those weapons a thrown away from the TER (as all bombs are when separating from the TER or MAU-12, they are physically pushed away by ejector feet) The have lanyards attach to the rack. This lanyards not only activate the fuses but physically extend the fins. As the fins extend (if loaded on the inboard side of the TER) they have the potential to come in contact and damage the external wing tanks or the ventral fins (fins on the bottom of the F-16 on panel 4301 and 4302)

 

The only question remains will be the Mk-20. I can only guess since I never saw this weapons loaded in any F-16. So either this canisters rear fins are small enough to alleviate concerns or the fins extension was delayed enough not to cause problems when loaded on the inboard TER station.

 

Here you can see several aircraft with MER, and weapons on the inner station and how the bombs acted on release. Keeping in mind these are test video and lack content and details and may not reflect operational behavior of the weapons when release.

 

 

Wish the game can simulate these behaviors someday, then players must choose their payloads much more carefully.

 

Test fly may also be a way to play, maybe.:)

[EcceHomo]

Another explanation may be the station weight limit.

[mvsgas]

EcceHomo

Not sure the validity of that since I never seen a loaded Smart weapons (JDAM or WCMD) on a TER in operational squadrons on the F-16.

[EcceHomo]

EcceHomo

Not sure the validity of that since I never seen a loaded Smart weapons (JDAM or WCMD) on a TER in operational squadrons on the F-16.

 

TER-9A has never actually existed, it's just a modification plan. The F-16/18 station weight limit makes it meaningless.

[billeinstein]

Er, Mk82 is a 500 lb bomb...