correct as-is Drag issue with 4xJSOWs on F-16?

[pchRage]

Simple SP test mission.

Caucasus default setup... no wind, 25k AGL, S to N flow to a STP ~60nm away.  Full mil starting at 0.8M. Set auto-pilot for alt/course and observe..

Same load-outs for F-16 and F-18....

F-16: 2x120, 2x9x, 4xJSOW-A, 2xtanks, tpod, no pylon center, no hts

F-18: 2x120, 2x9x, 4xJSOW-A, 2xtanks, tpod on center

 

F-16 continually loses speed and increases alpha till its at a paltry 0.67M at the stp.

F-18 accelerates to~0.93M by mid-distance and maintains to the stp.

 

I know its sort of apples to oranges, but I wouldn't expect the F-16 to fall out of the sky.  I basically must use at least min AB to maintain speed...

The only way to get close to the same speed as the -18 is with only 4xJSOW, no missiles, zero pylons...completely clean.. and even then.. its 0.90M not .93...

In order to not fall out of the sky, I can swap the wing tanks for a center tank and leave everything else as originally tested... that will at best hold 0.80M...

Maybe this is completely accurate and you just cannot combine double load jsows with wing tanks...

 

testJS.miz

[Crptalk]

In early 2021 a mod stated that flight model changes would be coming in another thread bringing up the topic of lift and induced drag, but AFAIK those changes have not made it into the game yet.

[TobiasA]

The drag with 4 JSOW is insane. I would expect exactly that outcome.
The F-16 is smaller, so it will be more affected by the load than the F-18 with its two engines and higher wing area.
A typical loadout with 3x120, 2x370gal + ALQ and pods will be near the maximum takeoff weight, it is one of the heaviest and probably the draggiest loadout to take, while on the F-18 4 JSOW + AA weaponry will be way below MTOW.
Things will probably get a little bit better with the final FM, but don't expect miracles there... Probably something to hope for in Q2/2022, it seems to be more complicated than expected. And this will most probably affect the area below Mach 0.5, but have little to no effect above Mach 0.7- but it might be possible you can carry a 4x JSOW to angels 25 then.

Don't forget the drag of the BRU-57 as well, even when not carrying ordnance on this the drag is considerably high.

[FoxOne007]

1 hour ago, TobiasA said:

The drag with 4 JSOW is insane. I would expect exactly that outcome.
The F-16 is smaller, so it will be more affected by the load than the F-18 with its two engines and higher wing area.
A typical loadout with 3x120, 2x370gal + ALQ and pods will be near the maximum takeoff weight, it is one of the heaviest and probably the draggiest loadout to take, while on the F-18 4 JSOW + AA weaponry will be way below MTOW.
Things will probably get a little bit better with the final FM, but don't expect miracles there... Probably something to hope for in Q2/2022, it seems to be more complicated than expected. And this will most probably affect the area below Mach 0.5, but have little to no effect above Mach 0.7- but it might be possible you can carry a 4x JSOW to angels 25 then.

Don't forget the drag of the BRU-57 as well, even when not carrying ordnance on this the drag is considerably high.

There’s a reason it wasn’t carried on BRU’s . (I’ll just ignore the fact that the USAF doesn’t even use the JSOW)

Edited January 1, 2022 by FoxOne007

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, FoxOne007 said:

I’ll just ignore the fact that the USAF doesn’t even use the JSOW

Ummm, based on what references?

As opposed to all the other references that show the USAF has and does use it. I could be wrong (I'm not in the USAF), but there seems to be a lot of indications it does.

Edited January 1, 2022 by Raptor9

[wilbur81]

3 hours ago, TobiasA said:

The drag with 4 JSOW is insane. I would expect exactly that outcome.
The F-16 is smaller, so it will be more affected by the load than the F-18 with its two engines and higher wing area.
A typical loadout with 3x120, 2x370gal + ALQ and pods will be near the maximum takeoff weight, it is one of the heaviest and probably the draggiest loadout to take, while on the F-18 4 JSOW + AA weaponry will be way below MTOW.
Things will probably get a little bit better with the final FM, but don't expect miracles there... Probably something to hope for in Q2/2022, it seems to be more complicated than expected. And this will most probably affect the area below Mach 0.5, but have little to no effect above Mach 0.7- but it might be possible you can carry a 4x JSOW to angels 25 then.

Don't forget the drag of the BRU-57 as well, even when not carrying ordnance on this the drag is considerably high.

^^^This

[FoxOne007]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

Ummm, based on what references?

As opposed to all the other references that show the USAF has and does use it. I could be wrong (I'm not in the USAF), but there seems to be a lot of indications it does.

 

…..

based on this:

And various F-16 and F-15E SME’s have stated it was never actually used outside of initial testing. USAF chose to go with JASSM instead and stick with normal bombs. The Air Force doesn’t have these around anymore.

They may opt for it again for the F-35A but we’ll see.

PS: you should do better research, 90% of this information was 1 google search away

[Dragon1-1]

They stopped purchasing JSOWs in FY 2005. That doesn't mean they stopped using them, that means they decided they have enough for the time being. Now, bombs get expanded all the time, so this usually means they do intend to phase the weapon out. In reality, JSOW-A was pulled from USAF inventory in 2008, after Bush updated the rules on CBU usage. 
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20446/jassm-is-grabbing-headlines-but-the-navys-own-stealthy-weapon-is-set-to-get-way-more-capable

In other words, it's true now, but for most of the 2010s it wasn't. As such, JSOW on the Viper would be fine. Of course, nobody would be crazy enough to hang 4 of them from the wings.  It'll fly, but if you load it like a bomber, it'll handle like a bomber.

[FoxOne007]

15 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

They stopped purchasing JSOWs in FY 2005. That doesn't mean they stopped using them, that means they decided they have enough for the time being. Now, bombs get expanded all the time, so this usually means they do intend to phase the weapon out. In reality, JSOW-A was pulled from USAF inventory in 2008, after Bush updated the rules on CBU usage. 
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20446/jassm-is-grabbing-headlines-but-the-navys-own-stealthy-weapon-is-set-to-get-way-more-capable

In other words, it's true now, but for most of the 2010s it wasn't. As such, JSOW on the Viper would be fine. Of course, nobody would be crazy enough to hang 4 of them from the wings.  It'll fly, but if you load it like a bomber, it'll handle like a bomber.

It still isn’t as ONCE AGAIN it wasn’t actually used. USAF quit the entire project in ‘05, , it didn’t go beyond the initial testing phase of the project.

[Raptor9]

9 hours ago, FoxOne007 said:

PS: you should do better research, 90% of this information was 1 google search away

Your "research" wasn't any more conclusive than mine.  But honestly, I really don't care.  Good day.

[Sinclair_76]

13 hours ago, FoxOne007 said:

It still isn’t as ONCE AGAIN it wasn’t actually used. USAF quit the entire project in ‘05, , it didn’t go beyond the initial testing phase of the project.

Thing is, the Air Force quit the -154B project, (and Navy not long thereafter) not the -154A. It says so in your source.

To add to the story.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-154b.htm

As correctly stated by Dragon. The Air Force last purchase was in '05. This does not in any way imply that the weren't using the -154A up untill 2008. 

 

 

[FoxOne007]

9 hours ago, Sinclair_76 said:

Thing is, the Air Force quit the -154B project, (and Navy not long thereafter) not the -154A. It says so in your source.

To add to the story.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-154b.htm

As correctly stated by Dragon. The Air Force last purchase was in '05. This does not in any way imply that the weren't using the -154A up untill 2008. 

 

 

You can’t stop using something you never started using…..

15 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Your "research" wasn't any more conclusive than mine.  But honestly, I really don't care.  Good day.

It clearly was since you showed 0 actual knowledge. But if you don’t care then why are you here….

[Lima29]

36 minutes ago, FoxOne007 said:

You can’t stop using something you never started using…..

Out of interest, if the USAF never used the JSOW, why is it part of the PACAF Standard Loads list for 35FW F-16s? (Which was incidentally: 2x JSOW, 3x AIM-120, 1x AIM-9 & 2x wing tanks). 
Surely, to be included on the list of Loadouts it must be in the inventory to be used. I can’t imagine the Air Force would issue a list of what should be loaded if they don’t physically have the ordnance, that would be totally pointless!

Also, if they don’t use the JSOW why do they have a Loading Standards Time of 25 minutes to load a JSOW weapon onto an aircraft (F-16 and F-15) listed in their Aircraft & Equipment Maintenance Management documents?

[mvsgas]

Not sure why so many argue with each other ( I'm guilty of it too). Its a waste of time. I realize it was a waste of time when I saw people with zero F-16 experience arguing with C.W. Lemoine about flying the F-16. To many have very strong opinions about the F-16 because they play falcon 3.0, 4.0, free falcon, falcon allied force, open falcon, red viper or BMS etc. even they never touch the aircraft in real life. 

 

To each it own, I guess. 

[FoxOne007]

3 hours ago, Lima29 said:

Out of interest, if the USAF never used the JSOW, why is it part of the PACAF Standard Loads list for 35FW F-16s? (Which was incidentally: 2x JSOW, 3x AIM-120, 1x AIM-9 & 2x wing tanks). 
Surely, to be included on the list of Loadouts it must be in the inventory to be used. I can’t imagine the Air Force would issue a list of what should be loaded if they don’t physically have the ordnance, that would be totally pointless!

Also, if they don’t use the JSOW why do they have a Loading Standards Time of 25 minutes to load a JSOW weapon onto an aircraft (F-16 and F-15) listed in their Aircraft & Equipment Maintenance Management documents?

I’ll leave it at this. Again it was tested (there’s images if it too) but it wasn’t adopted by the USAF beyond that. So ofc there is going to be docs about it, as those were made during said testing period. In the end they scrapped the weapon so those docs become irrelevant 

[Dragon1-1]

Well, they had it in the inventory and they trained with it. That's what "being adopted" means in the real world. IIRC, PAKAF wasn't involved in any major combat operations that would call for JSOW use, so of course combat use didn't happen. But if it did, they would have deployed it during that time period. So far, I couldn't find any documentation that would conclusively state that a USAF aircraft had never dropped a JSOW, say, during Allied Force or Southern Watch. BTW, looking at Wikipedia isn't really "research". You'd have to present some real evidence. PAKAF docs, at least, show that USAF definitely did think it would use it at some point between 1998 and 2008.

1 hour ago, mvsgas said:

Not sure why so many argue with each other ( I'm guilty of it too). Its a waste of time. I realize it was a waste of time when I saw people with zero F-16 experience arguing with C.W. Lemoine about flying the F-16. To many have very strong opinions about the F-16 because they play falcon 3.0, 4.0, free falcon, falcon allied force, open falcon, red viper or BMS etc. even they never touch the aircraft in real life. 

Experience=/=knowledge. Not only did Mover fly a different block than we have, he was a pilot, not a crew chief. A crew chief would know things the pilot might gloss over. Sometimes this is something like TGP G limits, which can cause the chief some grief. In turn, a chief might not know some obscure tidbits like what a particular pin on the Viper's canopy is for, and when one is found missing, mayhem ensues until they can get ahold of a crusty old civilian engineer who remembers that it's a holdover from the A model that's not in any docs because the last time it did anything was in Block 15 or something like that. The engineering team at Lockheed is supposed to know everything there is to know about the aircraft, but in practice that probably means that they have a great big stack of binders full of docs for every Viper variant ever made, and they are able, on request, look up anything you might need to know.

In particular, people coming over from the original Falcon 3.0 are, by definition, simulation oldtimers and usually very hardcore fans of the Viper. That means they tend to have seen a whole lot of material on the thing, and also are likely to know what other SMEs said about the matter in the past. As the HARM debacle showed, a single SME isn't an infallible source of evidence. Even within a single block, things can be different across tapes, across squadrons and even individual machines. 

[pchRage]

well this thread went sideways

Thanks for the feedback though!

Given USAF "always?" runs wing-tanks, sounds like there is zero application for the 4x JSOW loadout.  Having to use gate just to transit to the AO... and also assuming launch would be >=30k for optimal launch range it would be even further impacted.

 

[Dragon1-1]

Try getting up to speed first, something like 400kts on deck, and then maintaining it through the climb. Not the most efficient, but with jet engines you need to be going fast to go faster. That is an extremely heavy, draggy loadout, so burning some gas at the start could help. It would also help if the weather was cold, since you'd have denser air and therefore better jet performance. Expect airliner-style turns, frequent AB use if your speed does drop, and generally poor flight characteristics. Punching off the tanks the moment they're dry can help, too. 

[Raptor9]

It also comes down to a possible loadout isn't necessarily a smart loadout.  Load an airplane down with as much ordnance it can carry, and you lose speed, acceleration, climb performance, altitude capability, endurance, and maneuverability.

I get it that a lot of people see it in terms of the "one-plane Air Force" in DCS, but if you carry excess munitions, expect excess performance impacts.