inner wing pylon payloads?

[Xavven]

11 minutes ago, ViFF said:

 

Its for the purpose of loitering.  When loitering is not expected you can use them for JDAM.  Unlike the USAF ANG, the IAF do not remove the umbilicals from Stations 4 and 6.

 

Here is a picture from the recent conflict in May 2021 of an Israeli Block 40 of the 101st Squadron with GBU-31 JDAMS on stations 4 and 6:

 

 

 

Wow! Sidewinders on the wingtips, too! I guess other countries do things a little differently

[ViFF]

12 minutes ago, Xavven said:

 

Wow! Sidewinders on the wingtips, too! I guess other countries do things a little differently

 

Specifically on this sortie they were mounted only for reducing wing flutter. The IAF Block 40 does not have AIM-120 capability.

Edited July 22, 2021 by ViFF

[Frederf]

1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

Take a look at the loadout screenshots I posted above. 3x CBU is allowed on the inner pylons.

I mean RL.

[Falconeer]

3 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

But we can load 3x CBU's on the TER racks...

 

 

 In DCS yes, in RL no

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Falconeer

[Falconeer]

9 hours ago, twistking said:

does the usaf even operate the centreline fuel tank, or is it exclusively used on export aircrafts.

 

 

We (NL) use centreline tanks when pilots are training for BFM combat. 

 

[QuiGon]

12 hours ago, Falconeer said:

 In DCS yes, in RL no

 

Why the difference? If this is not possible IRL, then why does DCS make 3x CBUpossible on the innermost pylon, but restricts it to 2x CBU on the 2nd inner pylon?

Edited July 23, 2021 by QuiGon

[Falconeer]

Because in RL there are restrictions to certain loadouts or to what a specific rack is allowed / certified for carrying. DCS is not modeling this properly. 

 

Look at the recent to station 4-6 change to the HARM missile. They *should* change the 3x Maverick on 1 rack too, because in RL, firing the 3rd Maverick damages the horizontals.

 

Yes, DCS is a simulator. But that doesn't mean they are right on every account and everything is modelled to RL. 

 

Also, not all clusterbombe have the same weight. Therefore some types can be carried as much to 3,  while others are limited to 2

Edited July 23, 2021 by Falconeer

[QuiGon]

1 hour ago, Falconeer said:

Because in RL there are restrictions to certain loadouts or to what a specific rack is allowed / certified for carrying. DCS is not modeling this properly. 

 

Look at the recent to station 4-6 change to the HARM missile. They *should* change the 3x Maverick on 1 rack too, because in RL, firing the 3rd Maverick damages the horizontals.

 

Yes, DCS is a simulator. But that doesn't mean they are right on every account and everything is modelled to RL. 

 

Also, not all clusterbombe have the same weight. Therefore some types can be carried as much to 3,  while others are limited to 2

 

 

Yes, but I thought ED tries to stick to those limitations as can be seen with the new HARM restriction for the inner pylons. Otherwise I don't understand why ED allows us to carry 3x CBU on the innermost pylons but only 2x CBU on the neighbouring pylons. That tells me they do stick to real life restrictions and maybe they just aren't aware that 3x CBU isn't even possible on the innermost pylon and someone should tell them?

[Falconeer]

I think part of these "problems" is that there are dozens of books (T.O.'s as we call them) about the F16 and all of it's systems, repair manuals, weapon loading manuals, inspection manuals, just to name a few. Also each component you mount can to the aircraft has its own workshop manuals aswell (think of launchers, weapon pylons, missiles, etc. These are normally used in the shops which perform the maintenance)

 

I'm pretty sure that ED doesn't have acces to all of these book, so you can never model something accurate as in RL

Edited July 23, 2021 by Falconeer

[QuiGon]

2 hours ago, Falconeer said:

I think part of these "problems" is that there are dozens of books (T.O.'s as we call them) about the F16 and all of it's systems, repair manuals, weapon loading manuals, inspection manuals, just to name a few. Also each component you mount can to the aircraft has its own workshop manuals aswell (think of launchers, weapon pylons, missiles, etc. These are normally used in the shops which perform the maintenance)

 

I'm pretty sure that ED doesn't have acces to all of these book, so you can never model something accurate as in RL

 

They don't necessarily need access to these books. ED has SMEs for things like that and if you know better than them, then ED should know! The case of the HARM has shown, that such information can come from various places.

Edited July 23, 2021 by QuiGon

[Falconeer]

9 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

They don't necessarily need access to these books. ED has SMEs for things like that and if you know better than them, then ED should know! The case of the HARM has shown, that such information can come from various places.

 

 

SMEs were wrong before. So, thats why books are relevant.

 

 

[Frederf]

Triple missiles in say 1996 was a valid load under certain conditions. Slant two and single use were evolutions in policy over time.

 

We're already says confusing phrases like 3x CBUs when it's not mentioned which CBUs specifically. -87s no, Rockeye yes. Or at least Rockeye was valid I think up to 12 like Mk82 at one time. The 12x conventional load is legacy but air force doesn't throw away capability it paid for lightly.

 

F-16 is operated by so many nations for so many years under so many contexts that a strict interpretation is unsatisfying. We're already a little fuzzy from that discipline. Did tape M5.1 come out later than 2007? That would mean no JDAM. How much noise would that cause?

[Corvet_01]

Regarding DCS vs RL -

Referencing USAF only -

We fly with 300G C/L tanks about 70% of the time.  Depends on what the mission is.  A2A combat loadouts, BFM training, etc.,we don't use the 370's, only the C/L tank.  Combat or training A2G missions where tankers are in use or four large munitions need uploaded, C/L tank is used.  Mk84 X 4, no ECM, C/L tank with ICT was in use often during the Gulf War.

CAP aircraft were 6 X AIM-9, C/L tank, no ECM.  No AAMRAM missiles at the time.

Regarding TER's, we regularly flew TERs, no slant load, iron bombs and CBU loads on sta 3 and sta 7, could also do on sta 4 and sta 6.  Sta 5 was ECM if tanks on sta 4 and 6.

Never saw slant TER loads until larger CBU's were in use.  Usually 3 x Snakeye, 3 x Rockeye, 3 X Mk82.

We also fly AGM-65 on LAU rails on 3 and 7.  But... I have seen them up on 4 and 6, never fired.

I get a laugh out of YouTube videos with 3 bags on the aircraft and going into combat.  Never, ever... ever.  3 bags up only when flying a ferry mission or deploying.

BTW, B61 tac nuke goes up on 3 or 7, 370's, C/L ECM.  Have also seen B61 uploaded on 3 or 7 with ECM on the other wing.

Also, DCS has a major bug.  When you cart the wing tanks off the jet, the pylons go with the tanks in RL.  DCS leaves the tank pylons, which is incorrect. Not the case with external stores pylons, you cart off the TER, MER, or LAU or the weapons themselves if only one up on the pylon, like a Mk84.

[Carbon715]

3 hours ago, Corvet_01 said:

Also, DCS has a major bug.  When you cart the wing tanks off the jet, the pylons go with the tanks in RL.  DCS leaves the tank pylons, which is incorrect. Not the case with external stores pylons, you cart off the TER, MER, or LAU or the weapons themselves if only one up on the pylon, like a Mk84.

got a point, the other year a pilot accidently jettisoned his lt tank...pylon came with it...

[Py]

What doesn't make sense to me is only allowing a single GBU-12 on the inner pylons (in DCS).

Is that a real limitation?

3xMK-82 or 3xCBU-87/97 fit, so why not 3xGBU-12?

[Frederf]

Yeah it's real. 3xCBU-87s don't fit either AFAIK. Maximum is slant-two for GBU-12 and the larger CBUs. The full TER of three is limited to MK82s and maybe? the smallest CBUs (Rockeye). The only 12-weapon loads I see are MK82 and MK82 AIR.

It's not just if they fit. If you've ever put your hand out the window of a car at 80 mph you know the wind force is strong. Now think about 580 mph. Even a half ton bomb can get blown around unpredictably with small aerodynamic features. Every loadout has to go through specific carriage and separation testing. It can't wiggle in a bad way or produce undue stresses or come off dangerously. Remember that GBU-12 has big pop out fins too. Passing the flight test isn't guaranteed just because a similar or even larger store passed.

And lastly they don't test loadouts they don't plan on using because it's expensive and time consuming to run these tests. It takes dozens of hours with very specialized test squadron time. A particular loadout might be fine physically but it hasn't been tested. If it hasn't been tested specifically then it doesn't get in the approved list. Why would anyone test 6x anything on the inner pylons? For MK82 it's because it was possibly needed for delivering entire sticks of 12 unguided bombs at once. This would have been a test done very early in history, possibly on F-16A. By the time smart or precision weapons are added the need to carry a huge number of them is reduced. Not only would carrying 12 GBU-12s require 12 passes worth of fuel, you'd have at most the centerline external tank and loads of drag. No one felt like a $250,000 test was worth it.

[Lace]

I think people approach loadouts in the wrong way.  Instead of just thinking MOAAAR GBU!!!1!, perhaps present a use case where a mission objective dictates a requirement to carry 12x GBU.  People say they want realism, but then try to fly completely unrealistic ops.

[Spurts]

Use case for more than 1 inner GBU:  HARMs on 3/7, 2xCBU on 4, 2xGBU on 6.  Has nothing to do with 12 GBUs.

[Tholozor]

That kind of payload would create a fairly significant asymmetrical load.

[ZeroReady]

I've seen pictures, but I can't find them now, of a double ugly load on the F-16. So one wing tank, C/L tank, then a GBU12 on the other wing where the tank would go. Meant to try it out in DCS to see if the jet will tolerate it.

[Corvet_01]

3 hours ago, ZeroReady said:

I've seen pictures, but I can't find them now, of a double ugly load on the F-16. So one wing tank, C/L tank, then a GBU12 on the other wing where the tank would go. Meant to try it out in DCS to see if the jet will tolerate it.

Sorry, but configuration management T.O.s in the USAF prevent that kind of madness.  Pretty sure you'd end up a smoking hole in the ground.

[Nealius]

RE Centerline tank on USAF Vipers:

My understanding is that centerline tank is used for alert aircraft. Logically it makes sense: not enough gas without a tank, two tanks slow you down when you need to intercept somebody.

RE Double ugly/needing HARMs plus GBUs:

Two wing tanks with one HARM and 2xGBU38 is a valid asymmetric load. I can't dig up the picture at the moment but it was from a fairly recent conflict. 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Nealius

[Frederf]

I've not seen any combat USAF load that didn't have 370s. There is one photo floating around w/ centerline + 6 live AMRAAM but it's mythically rare. Center line is nice for AA training sorties, enough fuel to practice a bit and you can fly it like a clean airplane with the center empty.

[Nealius]

20 minutes ago, Frederf said:

I've not seen any combat USAF load that didn't have 370s. There is one photo floating around w/ centerline + 6 live AMRAAM but it's mythically rare. Center line is nice for AA training sorties, enough fuel to practice a bit and you can fly it like a clean airplane with the center empty.

Misawa birds semi-frequently use the centerline setup for training, but I thought the US military always "trained like they fight." If they don't intend on using centerlines in combat then why train to it?

[Frederf]

Because to "train like you fight" you have to either kiss off 2x370 tanks every training engagement or suffer dogfighting for a split second without any external at all. Center line simulates jettisoning 2x370 at the merge without the expense.