triple GBU-12s

[twistking]

The manual official manual states that the F-16 is not cleared to carry triple gbu-12s on triple racks if external wing tanks are carried.
From that it seems that it is indeed cleared to carry them if no ext wing tanks are carried.

Could this be added please? Mission makers could always inhibit this with the new restriction feature, if they don't trust players to only equip triples without ext tanks...

[SpaceKraken]

+1

Also there is a recent photo of ROCAF F-16 carrying triple GBU-12, together with wing tanks.

[Deano87]

26 minutes ago, SpaceKraken said:

+1

Also there is a recent photo of ROCAF F-16 carrying triple GBU-12, together with wing tanks.

Yes that was for mockup purposes for static jets in an airshow/parade. They don't fly them like that.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Deano87

[Bunny Clark]

My understanding is that there are clearance concerns where a GBU-12 dropped from the inboard station on a TER-9 may impact the drop tank. Carrying a bomb there is not a certified load for the USAF, and I don't think any other users fly with that configuration either. 

[twistking]

59 minutes ago, Bunny Clark said:

My understanding is that there are clearance concerns where a GBU-12 dropped from the inboard station on a TER-9 may impact the drop tank. Carrying a bomb there is not a certified load for the USAF, and I don't think any other users fly with that configuration either. 

that's also what's stated in the modules manual. i assume that without drop tanks it should be fine. of course i don't know if it has ever been officialy certified.
maybe one of EDs SMEs knows the answer. implementation in the sim should be a matter of minutes one would think...

Edited December 31, 2021 by twistking

[Bunny Clark]

22 hours ago, twistking said:

i assume that without drop tanks it should be fine.

Possibly. I don't think the USAF has bothered to spend the money testing and certifying that loadout since Vipers always fly combat missions with drop tanks. 

[Crptalk]

2 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

Possibly. I don't think the USAF has bothered to spend the money testing and certifying that loadout since Vipers always fly combat missions with drop tanks. 

Not always

[Jackjack171]

13 hours ago, Crptalk said:

Not always

Not too sure about that. I was stationed in Misawa (Wild Weasel heaven), and it seemed pretty standard! Also, the key word being "combat", in 20 years I've never seen an aircraft go on a strike without a drop tank or 2 bud!

[Deano87]

The Viper has been around for a long time, and the way it has been used has changed over the years. While sure, in the last 20 years it's mostly been doing long loitering missions with tanks and PGMs, during Desert Storm it absolutely flew missions with no tanks and 4 dumb bombs. Not something you'd probably see today.
 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Deano87

[Icarus31]

but please at least give us the option to store 2 gbu's on the inner pylons.....

[Deano87]

3 hours ago, Icarus31 said:

but please at least give us the option to store 2 gbu's on the inner pylons.....

While I'd like it... It's not a payload that's cleared IRL, AFAIK.

[Icarus31]

Sooo lucky for me then.....

We fly not in real, but a sim, sooo... everything is possible.... hehehehe

[Deano87]

A simulation that is trying to represent real life... no?

[Hardcard]

On 3/7/2022 at 5:28 PM, Deano87 said:

While I'd like it... It's not a payload that's cleared IRL, AFAIK.

Inner pylons can carry gbu-10 (2000lbs) and TER-9A triple racks with either dumb or cluster bombs.
I find it strange that multiple gbu-12 combinations aren't allowed in those pylons... they can obviously take the weight, have enough clearance and are wired for gbu-12 employment. 
 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Hardcard

[Dragon1-1]

It's probably an aerodynamic thing. Also, 3xGBU with drop tanks is perfectly fine - as long as the tanks are, well, dropped before you ingress.  Now, you wouldn't want to do that normally because you'd run out of tanks, but you could, in principle, fly it like this.

[Deano87]

2 hours ago, Hardcard said:

Inner pylons can carry gbu-10 (2000lbs) and TER-9A triple racks with either dumb or cluster bombs.
I find it strange that multiple gbu-12 combinations aren't allowed in those pylons... they can obviously take the weight, have enough clearance and are wired for gbu-12 employment. 
 

 

I'm sure it's probably physically capable of flying in that config. But these configs take time and money to validate and test so configs that are never going to be used IRL don't get tested an cleared for use. I can't see any reason IRL why you'd want 8 GBU-12s on a jet with such a small wing, and so little gas. Staggering around with a drag index of 400+ is no fun for anybody and madness IRL. In DCS with our relative short range and often solo missions where going full bomb truck is more viable and fun it makes more sense.

If you really need to put that many warheads on target then there are bigger and more capable aircraft for the job, like the Strike Eagle.

[Falconeer]

3 hours ago, Hardcard said:

and are wired for gbu-12 employment. 

What is there to wire for a gbu12? 

There is absolutely no interface between aircraft and a laser guided bomb. Its just a simple dumb bomb body with a guidenance unit mounted to it. 

All guidenance and steering is done from the CCG (the head) without any input from the aircraft. Even the laser codes are set on the CCG itself, which is also strange, why you can change the laser codes in the F18 from the cockpit

The fuses and tail are activated by lawnyards, which are nothing more than a steel wire, attached to the pylon, which pull a lever (in case of tail and battery activation CCG) or a safety pin out out the fuse. As the bomb falls away from the aircraft, the other end of the wire breaks off and goes with the bomb.

Again, no interface with the aircraft here. 

Hope this explains it a bit on the laser guided bombs part

[Hardcard]

@Deano87

Who said anything about flying with 8x gbu-12s?
I'm talking about a couple of gbu-12s mounted on either inner pylon (or both), to balance mixed loadouts and to carry one or two extra bombs when there's absolutely no reason not to.

Besides, inner pylons currently accept triple racks of dumb bombs and cbus, which are more draggy than a couple of gbu-12s would be. 
Arguments about bomb aerodynamics make no sense either, since anything affecting a rack with 2x gbu-12s would also affect the triple rack bomb combinations that are currently allowed.

Wouldn't surprise me if devs simply forgot to add the double gbu-12 rack ids for the inner pylons in the loadout tables for the viper. 


@Falconeer

Like I said, inner pylons are wired (ie ready) for gbu-12 operation.

But thanks for stating the obvious anyway 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Hardcard

[Frederf]

It must be clearance and separation issues. It's not enough that the bombs fit when parked on the ramp. During release the fins flip out and air flow can do exciting things. Plus it needs to be safe throughout the entire release envelope of speed, Gs, and pitch/roll rates. All of this requires dedicated approval testings of that specific config with and without stores nearby like TGP and whatever might be on 3/7. On top of all that GBU-12 puts more stresses than a Mk 82 by virtue of higher weight, polar moment of inertia, and aero surface area.

The Mk 82 TER load made sense in 1981 because the airplane might be expected to deliver Vietnam stlye large stick releases. I can't imagine any real mission that would benefit from such a thing to justify the risky config.

Anyway ED's not going to model any non-approved configs and GBU-12 quantity 3 on TER on 4/8 isn't approved.

[Hardcard]

@Frederf

If you're talking about the inner pylons, keep in mind that they currently accept triple racks of dumb bombs and cbus, which are more draggy and take more space than a couple of gbu-12s would. 
 

[Frederf]

It's not allowed if it wasn't tested and approved. The CBU-TER (assuming SUU-64) on 4/6 is only allowed with one particular store (or nothing) on 3/7. In most cases it's not. Anyway drag and "taking space" isn't the primary concern, it's carriage stress on the airplane and safety of separation. Two stores can look very similar but not behave the same on separation.

[Bunny Clark]

On 3/21/2022 at 4:34 AM, Hardcard said:

Inner pylons can carry gbu-10 (2000lbs) and TER-9A triple racks with either dumb or cluster bombs.
I find it strange that multiple gbu-12 combinations aren't allowed in those pylons... they can obviously take the weight, have enough clearance and are wired for gbu-12 employment. 

Bombs and fuel tanks can do some really weird things when released from aircraft. It's not enough that they physically fit on the station, extensive testing is done to ensure that the released weapon doesn't come back and hit the aircraft. Different racks and pylons have different effects on this, and different adjacent stores can have an aerodynamic effect as well. 

Here are some classic examples of how badly things can go wrong during separation testing, the carriage and separation test and certification process is designed to prevent exactly these sorts of things happening in combat:

 

[Hardcard]

@Frederf
 @Bunny Clark

I think that the problem here is that you haven't scrutinized the armaments currently allowed on the inner pylons of the viper, in Mission Editor.

From where I'm standing, you seem to be focusing on the fact that 2x gbu-12s aren't allowed on the inner pylons, therefore assuming that there must be a logical reason for it (physical or otherwise).

If you scrutinized the currently allowed armaments on the inner pylons, you'd realize that the reason can't be physical. 

 

- Aerodynamic effects / safety of separation:
A single gbu-12 or gbu-10 is allowed on the inner pylons.
2x or 3x cbu87/97 or dumb bomb racks are allowed too.

Are you willing to claim that 2x gbu-12s have crazier aerodynamic effects on separation than the aforementioned?  

Just think about it. 
 

- Carriage stress:
2x cbu-97 = 2000lbs
3x cbu-97 = 3000lbs
370 gal tank = 3000lbs
2x gbu12s = 1000lbs

Are you willing to claim that 2x gbu-12s put more stress on the inner pylons (and the viper in general) than the aforementioned?  

Just think about it.

- Clearance:   
3x cbu87/97 take more space than 2x gbu-12s.

Just think about it and check it in ME's ordinance viewer.



I'll say it again, guys: wouldn't surprise me if devs simply forgot to add the double gbu-12 rack ids for the inner pylons in the loadout tables for the viper. 

[Bunny Clark]

 

I honestly don't know. I can't claim to have any expert knowledge on weapons separation, nor hard data on USAF certified loadouts circa the mid-2000s. I assume ED has better information than I. 

13 minutes ago, Hardcard said:

If you scrutinized the currently allowed armaments on the inner pylons, you'd realize that the reason can't be physical. 

I disagree, and that was the point of the video I posted. Aerodynamic effects on weapons separation can be difficult to predict and behave in unexpected ways. I'm fairly confident that the reason we can't load GBU-12s on the inner station of a TER on 3 & 7 is aerodynamic effects from inboard stores, especially drop tanks. The inboard stations are closer to the fuselage and forward of the horizontal stabs, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were aerodynamic concerns caused by a slipstream, or issues with weapon impact on the stabs. 

The other side of the issue is that the extensive testing required to certify weapon carriage on a station means that's it's a fairly expensive process. It wouldn't surprise me if 3x GBU-12 could be carried and released safely from 4 & 6 and it was just never certified by the USAF because the low probability of its use didn't justify the cost. 

Unfortunately, without specific knowledge about why the USAF does not use such loads, we can only speculate. Maybe it's safe, maybe it's not, unless someone has more knowledge all we can say is that the USAF does not fly with those loadouts. That may be doctrinal, it may be safety, we don't know. But pure speculation that it may  be safe and practical isn't sufficient cause to add it to DCS in my opinion.

[Hardcard]

@Bunny Clark

Did you check available armament options for the viper in ME?

Notice that, just like gbu-12s, cbu87/97 are also limited to 2 on pylons 3 & 7... yet 3 of them are allowed on the inner pylons (4 & 6), whereas only 1x gbu-12 is allowed.

Makes no sense, no matter how you slice it.

Here, check these out:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Regarding aerodynamic concerns upon release, if those massive cbu canisters don't cause problems, why should gbu-12s?  
Hell, even 3x dumb mk82s are allowed on the inner pylons, if those don't cause problems, why should gbu-12s?

Also, if gbu-12s are so dangerous, why are they so popular? 

Like you said, extensive testing is performed before clearing these weapons for employment, I would be very surprised if gbu-12s hadn't been thoroughly tested and modified to ensure safe release.

Now, whether the USAF adopted that kind of loadout for the inner pylons, that's another matter, I'm talking about physical reasons here... and I see none that would prevent, at least, 2x gbu-12 to be mounted on the inner pylons.  

Edited March 24, 2022 by Hardcard