Re: 4 Harms and "Tactical Weapon Ferry" on F-15E

[Snake122]

This is more a general knowledge update.  I know ED is going to do what they want on the 4 HARMs issue and I expect this thread to be locked.  But just though this article was interesting talking about F-15Es being recently certified in 2021 to carry extra bombs that would not be usable in flight to a forward deployment.

 

There was speculation that this is a reason why the USAF loadout guide would list 4 AGM-88s with the second pair being put on hardpoints that multiple sources say that do not have the wiring to launch was to self deploy ("tac-ferry") with extra HARMs. Nobody was sure if it is actually a USAF logistics policy. This article shows in at least 2021 F-15Es that can be a thing to carry weapons that can't be used in flight so they don't have to depend as much on transport planes.

 

https://www.airforcemag.com/deployed-f-15es-prove-capability-to-tactically-ferry-bombs/

[deadpool]

44 minutes ago, Snake122 said:

This is more a general knowledge update.  I know ED is going to do what they want on the 4 HARMs issue and I expect this thread to be locked.  But just though this article was interesting talking about F-15Es being recently certified in 2021 to carry extra bombs that would not be usable in flight to a forward deployment.

 

There was speculation that this is a reason why the USAF loadout guide would list 4 AGM-88s with the second pair being put on hardpoints that multiple sources say that do not have the wiring to launch was to self deploy ("tac-ferry") with extra HARMs. Nobody was sure if it is actually a USAF logistics policy. This article shows in at least 2021 F-15Es that can be a thing to carry weapons that can't be used in flight so they don't have to depend as much on transport planes.

 

https://www.airforcemag.com/deployed-f-15es-prove-capability-to-tactically-ferry-bombs/

 

Just don't take 4 HARMs then.

 

But HARMs are generally a weird product. On one plane they behave like you read, on another plane they give you magic and physically unrealistical HTS-functionality. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Snake122]

6 minutes ago, deadpool said:

 

Just don't take 4 HARMs then.

 

But HARMs are generally a weird product. On one plane they behave like you read, on another plane they give you magic and physically unrealistical HTS-functionality. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I get it. Again, more a general knowledge update that I found interesting due to that debate. There were some people that I thought would know the answers, especially those that said the wiring wasn't there why it could have 4 listed.  This was floated as a possibility so it could be the explanation or not. But carrying extra weapons that you can't launch is apparently a thing at least now F-15Es. I'm not saying if that is the case in 4 HARM F-16. 

[Furiz]

Why is this topic started on F-16 forum when you talk about F-15?

 

8 hours ago, Snake122 said:

This is more a general knowledge update.  I know ED is going to do what they want on the 4 HARMs issue and I expect this thread to be locked.  But just though this article was interesting talking about F-15Es being recently certified in 2021 to carry extra bombs that would not be usable in flight to a forward deployment.

 

There was speculation that this is a reason why the USAF loadout guide would list 4 AGM-88s with the second pair being put on hardpoints that multiple sources say that do not have the wiring to launch was to self deploy ("tac-ferry") with extra HARMs. Nobody was sure if it is actually a USAF logistics policy. This article shows in at least 2021 F-15Es that can be a thing to carry weapons that can't be used in flight so they don't have to depend as much on transport planes.

 

https://www.airforcemag.com/deployed-f-15es-prove-capability-to-tactically-ferry-bombs/

 

[Snake122]

12 hours ago, Furiz said:

Why is this topic started on F-16 forum when you talk about F-15?

 

 

Because what they are doing in F-15Es is one of the reasons suggested for the PACAF guide to say 4 Harms as a valid F-16C Blk50 loadout despite some SMEs saying only 2 hardpoints were wired.  "Tac ferry" the extra pair of HARMs in F-16s was suggested to be an explanation but no one at the time had any evidence that the USAF actually does this.  Here is an article saying that it is at least now a thing in F-15Es, it is still unknown for F-16s and does not confirm that is the reason for 4 AGM-88s.  But some of us that were paying attention to that detail in the thread (like me) could find it interesting that indeed the USAF will put weapons on hardpoints that can't be employed that flight on a plane for its ferry flight to a forward combat deployment so they do not have to depend on transport planes as much.

[Furiz]

Yea but you opened a hornets nest again, cause you read an article on F-15E, a different plane 14 years later then the modeled F-16 we have in DCS. The size and carry capacity of F-15 is FAR FAR greater than F-16,

 

F-15E

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104499/f-15e-strike-eagle/

Weight: 37,500 pounds ( 17,010 kilograms)
Maximum takeoff weight: 81,000 pounds (36,450 kilograms)

 

F-16C

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104505/f-16-fighting-falcon/

Weight: 19,700 pounds without fuel (8,936 kilograms)  
Maximum takeoff weight: 37,500 pounds (16,875 kilograms)

 

So by using my calculator I can see that F-15E can take as much as 43500 pounds and an F-16 can take 17800 pounds,

so why on earth would you think the F-16 would be a ferry aircraft in USAF?

 

So I'm wondering whats the motive behind this topic, cause I can't find any other then trying to light the flame again?

 

(maybe this info I got by using google is wrong, but it can't be wrong for 10000000 pounds, maybe a few pounds or 500 pounds wrong)

[Snake122]

27 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Yea but you opened a hornets nest again, cause you read an article on F-15E, a different plane 14 years later then the modeled F-16 we have in DCS. The size and carry capacity of F-15 is FAR FAR greater than F-16,

 

F-15E

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104499/f-15e-strike-eagle/

Weight: 37,500 pounds ( 17,010 kilograms)
Maximum takeoff weight: 81,000 pounds (36,450 kilograms)

 

F-16C

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104505/f-16-fighting-falcon/

Weight: 19,700 pounds without fuel (8,936 kilograms)  
Maximum takeoff weight: 37,500 pounds (16,875 kilograms)

 

So by using my calculator I can see that F-15E can take as much as 43500 pounds and an F-16 can take 17800 pounds,

so why on earth would you think the F-16 would be a ferry aircraft in USAF?

 

So I'm wondering whats the motive behind this topic, cause I can't find any other then trying to light the flame again?

 

(maybe this info I got by using google is wrong, but it can't be wrong for 10000000 pounds, maybe a few pounds or 500 pounds wrong)

If it wasn't locked I would have gladly dropped this into the old thread but its the flipside of locking one when new info becomes available.  ED should do what they want with the 4 Harms. I have no way other than this to let anyone else that wondered if apparently what they call "Tac-Ferry" is a thing that it actually is. 

 

Yes it only is modern day F-15Es but its that it is interesting they will deploy unusable weapons on the jet.  I even thought that was a little strange that they would do that because you are going into a potential combat zone with extra stuff on the jet that you can't use for a pop up fight.  Tactics also have a strange way of repeating themselves so it may not be new.

 

Yes the F-15E is a truck! But you may also have to factor in scale. With the F-15E they are only doing it for 6 extra JDAMs to the forward base over the 9 employable for a total of 15.  That's only 2/3 full second sortie loadout.  If F-16 is 4 Harms only for "tac-ferry", its actually a full second loadout.  But again, as you say, it may not be a thing even currently in F-16Cs not to mention 2005 Blk50s.

 

  If @BIGNEWY or @NineLine

want to lock this thread now to avoid the debate over a mute topic since ED is going to do what they want with the 4 Harms, please do.  I just wanted to get out there for those that wondered if "tac-ferry" is a USAF tactic, at least today in F-15Es it is, you can use it whatever way you want for loading your Harms for DCS if ED allows 4 Harms or not.

[Schmidtfire]

For realism you should only take 2 HARMs. That is a fact.

4 HARM's ain't used on the Viper IRL, but might be technically possible. So there you go.
Experimental loadout avalible aswell.

It would be nice with an option to restrict all loadouts serverside. "Force Real Loadouts" or something like that.
Players would then only be able to select verified loadouts that are used IRL, not what is technically possible.
I understand that it is fun to fly with 12 GBU's on the Harrier or 8 JSOW's on the Hornet, but it's not for
every server.


 

[BIGNEWY]

16 minutes ago, Snake122 said:

If @BIGNEWY or @NineLine

want to lock this thread now to avoid the debate over a mute topic since ED is going to do what they want with the 4 Harms, please do.  I just wanted to get out there for those that wondered if "tac-ferry" is a USAF tactic, at least today in F-15Es it is, you can use it whatever way you want for loading your Harms for DCS if ED allows 4 Harms or not.

 

As requested, thread locked