Jump to content

Today's dumb question: AA missile load config


Fuggzy
Go to solution Solved by skywalker22,

Recommended Posts

I've noticed that every default Viper layout puts AIM-9 missile variants on inboard rails while putting the bigger and heavier AIM-120 variants on the wingtips.  Is this how it's done in real life? I'd assume just by physics that it'd be optimal to put the lightest missiles on the wingtips and heavier stuff inboard.  I always reconfigure my loadouts that way, and noticed that none are that way by default. Do real F-16s mount AIM-120s on the wingtips with AIM-9s inboard?  I wouldn't, but maybe they do that for good reason. Thx!

System: Core i9 10980XE @ 4.00GHz -- MB: X299 UD4 Pro -- 32GB RAM -- RTX4070ti -- 1TB Intel NVMe x2 -- Win10 pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hawkeye91 said:

Also fun fact. I watched a Viper pilot do his air show spiel and one of their common modern loudouts is 5 amraams with only one Aim9x.

I also see similar air-to-ground payloads with a 3-1 setup with the AIM-9 loaded to offset a targeting pod.


Edited by Tholozor
  • Like 2

REAPER 51 | Tholozor
VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/
Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Hawkeye91 said:

Also fun fact. I watched a Viper pilot do his air show spiel and one of their common modern loudouts is 5 amraams with only one Aim9x.

Totally true. They also bring ECM pods (the long one we have in the game) as a routine. 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40242/japan-based-usaf-f-16s-flew-south-china-sea-mission-fully-loaded-with-live-air-to-air-missiles

"Each jet was armed with five beyond-visual-range AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles and a single short-range AIM-9 Sidewinder"

"Under the belly, each aircraft was fitted with an AN/ALQ-184 electronic countermeasures self-protection pod."

Btw, we also have the exact same livery you see in this article for our Viper in DCS.

I do have a question tho. The pic shows the Viper also brings HTS pod (the article mentioned this as well) even when they are doing CAP missions. Why do they bring HTS? What's the tactical advantage of bringing it since they won't be firing any HARMS?


Edited by SCPanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also:

At around 335 lb the AIM-120 is about 140 lb heavier than an AIM-9. Not quite double the size but still within the acceptable weight limits for the wingtip rails.

The big important factor here is that BVR fights are the most likely occurrence these days so the AIM-120’s will often go first and this drops several hundred pounds off the outer most area of the wing loading. So as the F-16 gets closer for WVR engagements it now has some improvement in its flight performance. If the AIM-9 is wingtip loaded then you still have about 190 pounds at the wing tip moving into WVR. Source.

I would say this is even more important then the fluttering issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

Also:

At around 335 lb the AIM-120 is about 140 lb heavier than an AIM-9. Not quite double the size but still within the acceptable weight limits for the wingtip rails.

The big important factor here is that BVR fights are the most likely occurrence these days so the AIM-120’s will often go first and this drops several hundred pounds off the outer most area of the wing loading. So as the F-16 gets closer for WVR engagements it now has some improvement in its flight performance. If the AIM-9 is wingtip loaded then you still have about 190 pounds at the wing tip moving into WVR. Source.

I would say this is even more important then the fluttering issue.

The flutter-answer really is the correct and most important one. If you have any weight on your wing, put it the farthest way out. It not only helps flutter, but designers could also make the wing-structure lighter, as the weight out there will reduce the torque- and bending-loads*. Now, the wing wasn't structurally lightened on the Viper when the 120s came around, but at the same structural weight, you'll have a longer structural life-time available, as the heavier load on the tips will decrese aeroelastic flutter** and cycles (which are more important).

By the logic of the post you quoted, squeezing off just one 120 at BVR maximizes your stores-asymmetry for the follow-on WVR engagement.

___

* Let's go on a tangent for a minute: The two-engine A330 and four-engine A340 share a very similar wing, yet the A340 (four engines, higher MTOW) actually has the lighter wing, because the several tons of engine-weight on the outboard wing are reducing bending and torsionary loads resultant from the lift-distribution. Also, the higher weight of the engine will act as a damper for oscillations like gust-response (turbulence).

** Flutter normally is an undamped divergent vibration/ oscillation that will destroy your structure quickly. But the term is also used in the sense of damped oscillations that won't destroy your structure right now, but will significantly fatigue it over time and the number of cycles it went through. Reducing this kind of flutter-mode will be incredibly beneficial for the life-limit and associated maintenance/ life-time-enhancement costs. Some F-16C Block 50s already have more than 10,000FH on them, which is a tremendous achievement for a "lightweight fighter".


Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Like 1

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SCPanda said:

I do have a question tho. The pic shows the Viper also brings HTS pod (the article mentioned this as well) even when they are doing CAP missions. Why do they bring HTS? What's the tactical advantage of bringing it since they won't be firing any HARMS?

 

Because Link16 allows the passing of SAM sites to other aircraft. The more HTS in the air, the more likely you are to find sites and engage them even if you are currently CAP tasked instead of SEAD/DEAD.

 

Also, HTS is super useful for ANY weapon you employ against a SAM site, not just HARM!  Always fun weaseling an SA-10 with GBU38s!

  • Like 1

My YT Channel (DCS World, War Thunder and World of Warships)

 

Too Many Modules to List

--Unapologetically In Love With the F-14-- Anytime Baby! --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

The flutter-answer really is the correct and most important one. If you have any weight on your wing, put it the farthest way out. It not only helps flutter, but designers could also make the wing-structure lighter, as the weight out there will reduce the torque- and bending-loads*. Now, the wing wasn't structurally lightened on the Viper when the 120s came around, but at the same structural weight, you'll have a longer structural life-time available, as the heavier load on the tips will decrese aeroelastic flutter** and cycles (which are more important).

By the logic of the post you quoted, squeezing off just one 120 at BVR maximizes your stores-asymmetry for the follow-on WVR engagement.

___

* Let's go on a tangent for a minute: The two-engine A330 and four-engine A340 share a very similar wing, yet the A340 (four engines, higher MTOW) actually has the lighter wing, because the several tons of engine-weight on the outboard wing are reducing bending and torsionary loads resultant from the lift-distribution. Also, the higher weight of the engine will act as a damper for oscillations like gust-response (turbulence).

** Flutter normally is an undamped divergent vibration/ oscillation that will destroy your structure quickly. But the term is also used in the sense of damped oscillations that won't destroy your structure right now, but will significantly fatigue it over time and the number of cycles it went through. Reducing this kind of flutter-mode will be incredibly beneficial for the life-limit and associated maintenance/ life-time-enhancement costs. Some F-16C Block 50s already have more than 10,000FH on them, which is a tremendous achievement for a "lightweight fighter".

 

Probably the same reason the german F-104's liked to carry their bags on the tips instead of having them under the wing in 2-bag-config?

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bananabrai said:

Probably the same reason the german F-104's liked to carry their bags on the tips instead of having them under the wing in 2-bag-config?

That and because "two-bag under the wing" was only used if you carried Sidewinders on the tips (JG 71 and JG 74 used this config). Only when the "catamaran" launchers under the fwd fuselage came around, this seems to have been changed. Seems like JG 71 never used the latter config a lot. Supposedly JG 74 did use it for a bit. AFAIK, the config was mostly used by the Marineflieger when they were using organic escorts. The catamarans freed the tips, so the tanks could be carried there.

Not sure if the catamarans were all that great in terms of yaw-stability.

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The flutter-answer really is the correct and most important one. If you have any weight on your wing, put it the farthest way out. It not only helps flutter, but designers could also make the wing-structure lighter, as the weight out there will reduce the torque- and bending-loads*. Now, the wing wasn't structurally lightened on the Viper when the 120s came around, but at the same structural weight, you'll have a longer structural life-time available, as the heavier load on the tips will decrese aeroelastic flutter** and cycles (which are more important).

By the logic of the post you quoted, squeezing off just one 120 at BVR maximizes your stores-asymmetry for the follow-on WVR engagement.

___

* Let's go on a tangent for a minute: The two-engine A330 and four-engine A340 share a very similar wing, yet the A340 (four engines, higher MTOW) actually has the lighter wing, because the several tons of engine-weight on the outboard wing are reducing bending and torsionary loads resultant from the lift-distribution. Also, the higher weight of the engine will act as a damper for oscillations like gust-response (turbulence).

** Flutter normally is an undamped divergent vibration/ oscillation that will destroy your structure quickly. But the term is also used in the sense of damped oscillations that won't destroy your structure right now, but will significantly fatigue it over time and the number of cycles it went through. Reducing this kind of flutter-mode will be incredibly beneficial for the life-limit and associated maintenance/ life-time-enhancement costs. Some F-16C Block 50s already have more than 10,000FH on them, which is a tremendous achievement for a "lightweight fighter".

 

I have also heard on f-16.net that 120 on the outboard stations and aim9s on the inboard stations gives the jet lower drag index thus more aerodynamically efficient. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ARM505 said:

The greater surface area of the -120's would act like slightly bigger winglets (whose purpose is to reduce tip vortice drag), but now we're probably talking %'s on %'s 😄

The 120 takes a different wing pylon with a larger drag index but probably still %'s on %'s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

When loading 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders, do the Sidewinders go in 2/8 or 3/7?  Seems like for a larger HOBS field of regard they should go more outboard to reduce masking from adjacent fuel tanks and the fuselage, so 2/8.

"Subsonic is below Mach 1, supersonic is up to Mach 5. Above Mach 5 is hypersonic. And reentry from space, well, that's like Mach a lot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Machalot said:

When loading 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders, do the Sidewinders go in 2/8 or 3/7?  Seems like for a larger HOBS field of regard they should go more outboard to reduce masking from adjacent fuel tanks and the fuselage, so 2/8.

One would think that, however the midboard stations are more forward than the outboards (further up towards the fuselage). An AIM-9 loaded midboard doesn't really loose that much FOV with an AMRAAM on the outboard. Only thing you'd really lose is a bit of the cross-fuselage FOV (depending on the aircraft's tank load, but more than likely if you're getting into a dogfight the tanks are gonna get dumped).

c89c0a04fb976fd8d61885e611aca4a9.jpg


Edited by Tholozor

REAPER 51 | Tholozor
VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/
Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Machalot said:

When loading 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders, do the Sidewinders go in 2/8 or 3/7?  Seems like for a larger HOBS field of regard they should go more outboard to reduce masking from adjacent fuel tanks and the fuselage, so 2/8.

by default amrams go on two outer (1,2,8,9), and 2 sidewinders to the inner (3,7)pilons.

 

Screenshot_20220728-132258_Chrome.jpg


Edited by skywalker22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

by default amrams go on two outer (1,2,8,9), and 2 sidewinders to the inner (3,7)pilons.

 

Screenshot_20220728-132258_Chrome.jpg

 

Yes, I was unclear in my question. Not asking where the appear in DCS but rather IRL, and why. 

"Subsonic is below Mach 1, supersonic is up to Mach 5. Above Mach 5 is hypersonic. And reentry from space, well, that's like Mach a lot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Machalot said:

Yes, I was unclear in my question. Not asking where the appear in DCS but rather IRL, and why. 

I’m no expert on the matter, but I’ve read that having the AIM-9s on station 3 and 7 has a lower drag index than on stations 2 and 8.  My (un)educated guess is that since stations 3 and 7 are more forward, it keeps the shorter AIM-9 in line with the longer AIM-120s.

I’ve also read elsewhere on the forum that irl in a 4x2 loadout the AIM-9s have been loaded on stations 2 and 8 before.  Reason being you can load up stations 1, 2, 8, and 9 with 2xAIM-120s and 2xAIM-9s when the plane is on standby, since regardless of whatever mission that plane will fly next it will use those stations for A/A missiles. This allows a single plane to be on standby for both A/G and A/A sorties; if they need to quickly load up for a strike they can slap A/G ordinance on 3 and 7 and be good to go, or if whatever A/A mission pops up they can put AMRAAMs on there instead.  I have no idea if this is actually the case and happened irl or if it was all made up by some forum troll, but the reasoning makes sense.  I imagine massive Airforces like the USAF can afford to have separate planes on standby dedicated to specific tasks, but maybe smaller air forces like the Polish Air Force do this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Machalot said:

Yes, I was unclear in my question. Not asking where the appear in DCS but rather IRL, and why. 

It's to reduce wing flutter and thus stress on the wing, as the AMRAAM provides more stable aerodynamics. There have been a number of threads abot this, some go quite in depth on it.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, QuiGon said:

It's to reduce wing flutter and thus stress on the wing, as the AMRAAM provides more stable aerodynamics. There have been a number of threads abot this, some go quite in depth on it.

Are you addressing the OP about wingtip 120s or my follow up question about AIM-9s on 2/8 vs 3/7?

"Subsonic is below Mach 1, supersonic is up to Mach 5. Above Mach 5 is hypersonic. And reentry from space, well, that's like Mach a lot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...