double jdam rack removed ? also missing triple rack for 500lb laser guided bomb on station 4 and 6

[jppsx]

just noticed that double jdam rack seam to be gone , any reason why ?

also why there no triple or double rack for 500lb laser bomb on pilon 4 and 6 wen there is triple  rack for dumb bomb of the same weight .

if it possible to load 3x 500lb dumb bomb or 2000lb lgb on station 4 and 6 there no reason for not be able to load 3x 500lgb .

Edited July 23, 2021 by jppsx

[Sinclair_76]

3 hours ago, jppsx said:

just noticed that double jdam rack seam to be gone , any reason why ?

also why there no triple or double rack for 500lb laser bomb on pilon 4 and 6 wen there is triple  rack for dumb bomb of the same weight .

if it possible to load 3x 500lb dumb bomb or 2000lb lgb on station 4 and 6 there no reason for not be able to load 3x 500lgb .

 

I checked and I am still able to select BRU-57 and double rack them with GBU-38 on station 3 & 7. I've read somewhere that seperation clearance is not enough for multiple GBU-12 on 4 & 6. The fins could damage the hull.

[jppsx]

would not make sense since it possible to use 2000lb lgb and they are as big than 3x 500lb lgb together also there is the 3x mk82 snakeyes that have fin on them just like the lgb .
if lgb could not work it should be the same for every other weapon on that station who have deployable fin .

also the fin don't instantly deploy to avoid hitting the plane , at worst if it where to be true  it should be still possible to have 2x 500lb lgb in the same way they are loaded on the pilon 3 and 7

also i cannot find the double gbu38 for station 3 and 7 anymore

Edited July 23, 2021 by jppsx

[Falconeer]

17 minutes ago, jppsx said:

would not make sense since it possible to use 2000lb lgb and they are as big than 3x 500lb lgb together also there is the 3x mk82 snakeyes that have fin on them just like the lgb .
if lgb could not work it should be the same for every other weapon on that station who have deployable fin .

also the fin don't instantly deploy to avoid hitting the plane , at worst if it where to be true  it should be still possible to have 2x 500lb lgb in the same way they are loaded on the pilon 3 and 7

 

No, sorry

 

- GBU-10 (2000lb) is 28. in diameter at the airfoil group (tail section)

- GBU-12 is 18 inches in diameter at the airfoil group (tail section) 

- Empty TER 9 is about 15 inches in diameter

 

 

[Sinclair_76]

40 minutes ago, jppsx said:

would not make sense since it possible to use 2000lb lgb and they are as big than 3x 500lb lgb together also there is the 3x mk82 snakeyes that have fin on them just like the lgb .
if lgb could not work it should be the same for every other weapon on that station who have deployable fin .

also the fin don't instantly deploy to avoid hitting the plane , at worst if it where to be true  it should be still possible to have 2x 500lb lgb in the same way they are loaded on the pilon 3 and 7

 

There is a lot more to it than above mentioned. 

First the Mk-82 fin, designed for stability, is not the same size as the GBU-12, which fins are designed for stability and maneuvering. The GBU-12 fins are a lot wider. 

 

 

Delaying the extension of the tail fins for the GBU-12 during release might seem smart. But since they have a draggy nose they might very well be unstable and wobble during release if the tail fin extension is delayed. 

Fact of the matter is release testing is not as simple as you make it sound. I included a quote from the Dutch National Aerospace Laboratorium (NLR), they aid the Royal Netherlands Airforce (RNLAF) in separation testing.

The underside of a military fast jet is not as sleek and smooth as the top. It is generally covered with an assortment of antennae, bombs, fins, fuel tanks, missiles, pods and rockets, closely huddling together. Apart from those bits which are permanently fixed to the aircraft, the rest can be dropped or jettisoned. It has to be assured however, that the separation does not result in damage to the aircraft or other stores. In military parlance, this is known as safe separation. The addition of a new object to the underside of the plane can create unexpected changes to the airow. Speedy explains, “It is a bit of a ‘black art’. The flow pattern around any aircraft is very complex, with numerous little pockets of turbulence. It all depends on the interaction between those areas of turbulence and the introduction of a new shape can have unforeseen and dramatic consequences.” Before a new system can be flown operationally it has to go through a rigorous testing process to find out what effect it will have on the aircraft, not just in terms of safe separation, but also in terms of aircraft handling characteristics and the potential for structural damage. Ordinarily, every time an air force wants to use a piece of hardware on the F-16 that has not yet been certified by the USAF, it needs to request that the Seek Eagle Office at Eglin Air Force Base (and manufacturer Lockheed Martin) begin the certification process.

https://www.nlr.nl/downloads/nlr_brochure_the_measure_of_success.pdf

Edited July 23, 2021 by Sinclair_76
technical correction

[Falconeer]

1 minute ago, Sinclair_76 said:

There is a lot more to it than above mentioned. 

First the Mk-84 fin, designed for stability, is not the same size as the GBU-12, which fins are designed for stability and maneuvering. The GBU-12 fins are a lot wider. 

 

 

Delaying the extension of the tail fins for the GBU-12 during release might seem smart. But since they have a draggy nose they might very well be unstable and wobble during release if the tail fin extension is delayed. 

Fact of the matter is release testing is not as simple as you make it sound. I included a quote from the Dutch National Aerospace Laboratorium (NLR), they aid the Royal Netherlands Airforce (RNLAF) in separation testing.

The underside of a military fast jet is not as sleek and smooth as the top. It is generally covered with an assortment of antennae, bombs, fins, fuel tanks, missiles, pods and rockets, closely huddling together. Apart from those bits which are permanently fixed to the aircraft, the rest can be dropped or jettisoned. It has to be assured however, that the separation does not result in damage to the aircraft or other stores. In military parlance, this is known as safe separation. The addition of a new object to the underside of the plane can create unexpected changes to the airow. Speedy explains, “It is a bit of a ‘black art’. The flow pattern around any aircraft is very complex, with numerous little pockets of turbulence. It all depends on the interaction between those areas of turbulence and the introduction of a new shape can have unforeseen and dramatic consequences.” Before a new system can be flown operationally it has to go through a rigorous testing process to find out what effect it will have on the aircraft, not just in terms of safe separation, but also in terms of aircraft handling characteristics and the potential for structural damage. Ordinarily, every time an air force wants to use a piece of hardware on the F-16 that has not yet been certified by the USAF, it needs to request that the Seek Eagle Office at Eglin Air Force Base (and manufacturer Lockheed Martin) begin the certification process.

https://www.nlr.nl/downloads/nlr_brochure_the_measure_of_success.pdf

 

Amen

 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Falconeer

[jppsx]

 i say m82 snake eyes not mk84 ,
 fin don't deploy instantly on gbu-12 or they be hitting the wing wen released  , 
there video of gbu12 drop and you clearly see that the fin don't totally deploy before they are a few feet away from the plane (you notice they deploy gradually )
skip at 3:04 to see the drop and use 0.25 playback speed

let hypothetically say your right for triple gbu12 because one of them would be to close to the air frame but there still absolutely no reason for not be able to load at least two just like on pilon 3 and 7 

Edited July 23, 2021 by jppsx

[Bunny Clark]

I believe that the USAF does a lot of its separation testing and load certification with the assumption that the inboard stations will always be carrying fuel tanks. Proximity to the tanks limits TER carriage on the outboard stations, and while I imagine it'd probably be fine to carry triple LGBs on the inboard stations, the USAF hasn't bothered to pay to test and certify this configuration because they know they'll never use it.