Ground attack loadouts discussion

[Biggus]

I'm inclined to suspect that adequate physical clearance at 1G alone is not enough to make it a safe loadout, and/or possibly the left and right maverick positions may damage the sidewinder's seeker head when they launch.

Those bombs are likely to be M117s.  In the HB discord, somebody much wiser than I pointed out that museum images can be misleading, as they can often be loaded with invalid configurations.  In hindsight, I feel silly for not realising that earlier.

[Temetre]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb Biggus:

I'm inclined to suspect that adequate physical clearance at 1G alone is not enough to make it a safe loadout, and/or possibly the left and right maverick positions may damage the sidewinder's seeker head when they launch.

Yeah, that sounds like a logical conclusion. Its just interesting that they limit MK-82s to two, where youd think only weight and clearance matters. And then allow Durandals.

Tbf maybe its perfectly possible to have 3x MK-82s (with Aim9s) but for some reason they never bothered to validate it officially for the US.

vor 7 Minuten schrieb Biggus:

Those bombs are likely to be M117s.  In the HB discord, somebody much wiser than I pointed out that museum images can be misleading, as they can often be loaded with invalid configurations.  In hindsight, I feel silly for not realising that earlier.

True. M117s are also 700 pounds apparently.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Temetre

[G.J.S]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

With some of the pictures from before, I wonder if its technically possible to put 2xAim9+3xAGM65 (or MK-82). And that its just not done for some operative/weight reason or so?

Like how the F-16 normally doesnt use 6x Maverick loadouts because the elevator gets a bit crispy. Which is an issue when you wanna fly that plane for a long time, but maybe less so at the eve of world war 3. Like see the picture from GJS:

I think thats the french bombs, which are a bit bulkier than MK-82s? 

 

M117 GP.

 

[Temetre]

vor einer Stunde schrieb G.J.S:

M117 GP.

 

Jup, thought it was a Matra, but its an even bigger rock!

Fun fact, apparently that bombs warhead carries almost two times as much explosive filler as an MK-82s, at a weight of ~700lb, and the F-4 can carry up to 17 of those. Similar weight (but surely more drag) to maximum of 13xMK-83s, but more explosive. Slightly higher than maximum F-14 bomb load. Gonna be fun with splash damage mod.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Temetre

[Elf1606688794]

On 5/31/2023 at 11:49 PM, Aussie_Mantis said:

Hey @Elf1606688794, sorry to bother you again on an old thread- but I've a bit of a question, see, and I don't know anywhere to get an answer for this from. The F-4E can carry a TER with Sidewinders given a MAU-12 adapter and a double 3-inch spacer on inboard hardpoints 2 and 8- but when carrying this load, can it carry all 3 bombs on the TERs?

Yes it can. *Edit* Mk-82 slicks and snakeyes for sure but due to clearance issues it might not be able to carry 3 Mk-117's. Iirc a MER on the centerline can only carry 5 Mk-117's due to clearance issues on the forward/lower rack.

Just for clarification, the MAU-12 isn't an adapter per se, it's a full fledged bomb rack in it's own right and can carry/drop bombs. It does allow for other suspension equipment like the MER, TER and LAU-88 and others to be carried though.

*Edit again* I see what you meant by the MAU-12 adapter. The base I was at didn't use them.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Elf1606688794

[Elf1606688794]

On 6/1/2023 at 9:08 AM, Stackup said:

Yeah, that's the info given on the Discord was only two bombs on the pylon with Sidewinders loaded and ground clearance was assumed the issue.  The main question is, was loading 3 bombs done operationally depsite not being approved by the manual.

In 81-83 we loaded 3x Mk-82 on TERS that were mounted on the inboard pylons and 6 on the MERs that were loaded on the centerline rack.

On 6/2/2023 at 1:28 AM, LanceCriminal86 said:

Drivebys elusive pylon photo

Refuses to elaborate

I never saw the adapter shown here but that would make it unlikely that you could carry 3 Mk-117s on that TER and maybe only a pair of Mk-82s.

[Elf1606688794]

9 hours ago, Temetre said:

True. M117s are also 700 pounds apparently.

750 iirc.

7 hours ago, Temetre said:

Jup, thought it was a Matra, but its an even bigger rock!

Fun fact, apparently that bombs warhead carries almost two times as much explosive filler as an MK-82s, at a weight of ~700lb, and the F-4 can carry up to 17 of those. Similar weight (but surely more drag) to maximum of 13xMK-83s, but more explosive. Slightly higher than maximum F-14 bomb load. Gonna be fun with splash damage mod.

 

According to the T.O. we used the F-4E could carry up to 24 Mk-82s on 3 MERs and two TERs. MERs on 1, 5 and 9, TERS on 2 and 8. Additionally, it could carry 8 A2A missiles.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Elf1606688794

[Stackup]

28 minutes ago, Elf1606688794 said:

According to the T.O. we used the F-4E could carry up to 24 Mk-82s on 3 MERs and two TERs. MERs on 1, 5 and 9, TERS on 2 and 8. Additionally, it could carry 8 A2A missiles.

Just for clarification that was all at the same time?  4 Sidewinders, 4 Sparrows, and 24 Mk-82's like this?

Edited June 3, 2023 by Stackup
add photo

[Temetre]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Stackup:

Well, Heatblur, you cant walk away from this one  

[G.J.S]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

Well, Heatblur, you cant walk away from this one  

That IS the HB F-4. Screen-capture from a GS video I believe. 

[Elf1606688794]

2 hours ago, Stackup said:

Just for clarification that was all at the same time?  4 Sidewinders, 4 Sparrows, and 24 Mk-82's like this?

 

Yes. Exactly like this.

*Edit* We never did loads like this however. Stations 1 and 9 always had 370 gallon fuel tanks but according to the T.O. we could have done this.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Elf1606688794

[LanceCriminal86]

3 hours ago, Elf1606688794 said:

In 81-83 we loaded 3x Mk-82 on TERS that were mounted on the inboard pylons and 6 on the MERs that were loaded on the centerline rack.

I never saw the adapter shown here but that would make it unlikely that you could carry 3 Mk-117s on that TER and maybe only a pair of Mk-82s.

The adapter in the photo is the so-called "Special Weapons Adapter", which is bolted into the MAU-12 and replaces its ejector rack. It's not the entire assembly, but is basically an LAU-34 that bolts into where the MAU-12 ejector would go so it's stronger and no bracing is needed. It was the only instance that could be found in the F-4E TOs that showed loadouts with a TER of 3x bombs AND with AIM-9s on the inner pylons at the same time, due to clearance. Apparently, it was cleared for use in the mid-80s but only the Phantoms out of Clark with 3rd TFW had been seen to use them. And in the photo from the Gulf War they used the pylons but not fully loaded. The only TO that showed TER+bombs+AIM-9s was a very late one.

[Tengu]

Here's photos of GBU-12's, loaded in pairs, underneath (empty) Sidewinder rails. 

To my eyes, without @LanceCriminal86's LAU-34, it looks like AIM-9 fins (oriented at the 45s) would interfere with the forward vertical fins of the GBU-12s if you tried to send a Sidewinder down the rail.  Perhaps it's possible to use the TER and dumb iron bombs with the bomb's fins only at the rear, and still send a Sidewinder down the rail? 

 

Changing gears, does anyone know whether the Paveways' noses will center, aerodynamically or otherwise, in flight.  On the ground, do they always droop?

[Vampyre]

They will always droop unless the safety foam spacer is installed while on the ground. The seeker freely moves with airflow, or in that case, the lack there of.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Vampyre
photo reference

[Biggus]

7 hours ago, Stackup said:

Just for clarification that was all at the same time?  4 Sidewinders, 4 Sparrows, and 24 Mk-82's like this?

I suspect that you'd need to hit the tanker before you made it to the perimeter fence.

[LanceCriminal86]

2 hours ago, Tengu said:

Here's photos of GBU-12's, loaded in pairs, underneath (empty) Sidewinder rails. 

To my eyes, without @LanceCriminal86's LAU-34, it looks like AIM-9 fins (oriented at the 45s) would interfere with the forward vertical fins of the GBU-12s if you tried to send a Sidewinder down the rail.  Perhaps it's possible to use the TER and dumb iron bombs with the bomb's fins only at the rear, and still send a Sidewinder down the rail? 

 

Changing gears, does anyone know whether the Paveways' noses will center, aerodynamically or otherwise, in flight.  On the ground, do they always droop?

The photo isn't of an actual LAU-34, it's apparently a whole assembly that bolts up into where the MAU-12's ejector rack would be. Onto that, you could then mount an additional LAU-34, TER, etc. while having enough vertical spacing to mount two Sidewinders. Again it's only referred to as "Special Weapon Adapter" and doesn't seem to have a serial or other nomenclature. That's one of the only photos we've come across that seems to clearly show it, nothing about drawings, one removed from the aircraft, closeups of stencils, or the inner side of the pylon. But when reviewing the TOs through the latest ones in the 90s that seemed to be the only place where the TER was cleared to carry 3 bombs and sidewinders on those inner pylons together. Or, with LAU-34 would allow a Shrike with sidewinders potentially.

[Stackup]

1 hour ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

when reviewing the TOs through the latest ones in the 90s that seemed to be the only place where the TER was cleared to carry 3 bombs and sidewinders on those inner pylons together

Do you happen to know what all ordnance the TER can carry 3 of in this configuration?   Is it just the Mk-82s or can we triple rack other bombs and rocket pods as well?  It's interesting to me that they decided to use vertical spacing to get enough clearance for the sidewinders instead of just spacing the missile rails farther out.

[Elf1606688794]

6 hours ago, Tengu said:

Perhaps it's possible to use the TER and dumb iron bombs with the bomb's fins only at the rear, and still send a Sidewinder down the rail? 

It was my understanding that pilots would drop ordinance if air combat was imminent.

2 hours ago, Stackup said:

Do you happen to know what all ordnance the TER can carry 3 of in this configuration?   Is it just the Mk-82s or can we triple rack other bombs and rocket pods as well?  It's interesting to me that they decided to use vertical spacing to get enough clearance for the sidewinders instead of just spacing the missile rails farther out.

The F-4 only carried rockets briefly, at least the 2.75" rockets. It was discovered that when fired, a plastic piece on the back of the rocket would come off (intentional) as the fins popped out and it was getting injested into the engines causing damge to the turbine blades.

[Temetre]

Neat, im happy to see+hear that the 2xAim9+Tripple bombs is more of a legit configuration  

vor 9 Stunden schrieb G.J.S:

That IS the HB F-4. Screen-capture from a GS video I believe. 

Yeah, Im just kinda joking that people that people would be disappointed if its in their trailer and then they decide thats not a legal loadout^^

[Temetre]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb LanceCriminal86:

Or, with LAU-34 would allow a Shrike with sidewinders potentially.

Aim9+Shrike is even listed as a legal loadout on the inner pylons.

[Northstar98]

37 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Aim9+Shrike is even listed as a legal loadout on the inner pylons.

Yes, as is a single Maverick on a LAU-117. However, in a -1 revised in 1990, the only loadouts I'm seeing with 2 AIM-9s and all 3 bombs on a TER is the BDU-33/B and BLU-107 Durandal.

For the Mk 82 (both LDGP and Snake Eye), CBU-52, -58, -71, GBU-12 and Mk 20, the -1 only has them in doubles w/ AIM-9s.

 

[Temetre]

vor 31 Minuten schrieb Northstar98:

Yes, as is a single Maverick on a LAU-117. However, in a -1 revised in 1990, the only loadouts I'm seeing with 2 AIM-9s and all 3 bombs on a TER is the BDU-33/B and BLU-107 Durandal.

For the Mk 82 (both LDGP and Snake Eye), CBU-52, -58, -71, GBU-12 and Mk 20, the -1 only has them in doubles w/ AIM-9s.

You mean "TO 1F-4E-1 1990 flight manual (REDUCED)"? I got that too, it indeed only offers limited Aim9+bomb configurations.  

Now to be fair, that doesnt mean that its the only configurations possible, or even allowed. Eg in the 1979 manual I have, it lists the Aim9s alone, and with ECM-pods, but has no mention towards Aim9+munition combinations. Except in the AGM-65 notes, it notes they are not allowed to be used with shoulder mounted Sidewinders. Which implies that you can put other bombs below the Sidewinders with an F-4E true to the 1979 manual, but its just not listed there.

Theres also stuff like what Elf just mentioned: Rockets were carried on the F-4, but some of the missiles apparently caused plastic parts to get injected by the engine, so they stopped carrying them. Shows how loadouts can expand or shrink over time. Or, like with F-16, how the 6x AGM-65 is problematic, but validated and probably a realistic loadout in emergency situations. 

 

This stuff is always difficult to judge, as to what loadouts is viable, what you wanna allow, etc. Heatblur has to decide what on a philosophy for that. Personally I hope theyre gonna go with a more liberal approach, more about validated and possible loads. We got a lot of freedom to set up scenarios in DCS, which wouldve forced the USAF/USN to make tough decisions they might not have in conflicts like Vietnam, were there was no direct threat to America. Not to mention that those F-4s are for sure going to fly under Israel, German and other colors.

But thats also why, even if its shown in a trailer, I wouldnt be totally shocked if Heatblur goes "no you can have shoulder-mounted Aim9s with tripple MK-80s". I hope not, if theres no technical reason, but it wouldnt be a big shocker.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Temetre

[Northstar98]

On 6/4/2023 at 10:44 AM, Temetre said:

You mean "TO 1F-4E-1 1990 flight manual (REDUCED)"? I got that too, it indeed only offers limited Aim9+bomb configurations.

My one is an 84 revised 1990 manual, I've also got one dated for 1979 and yes, it doesn't list combinations.

Quote

Now to be fair, that doesnt mean that its the only configurations possible, or even allowed. Eg in the 1979 manual I have, it lists the Aim9s alone, and with ECM-pods, but has no mention towards Aim9+munition combinations. Except in the AGM-65 notes, it notes they are not allowed to be used with shoulder mounted Sidewinders. Which implies that you can put other bombs below the Sidewinders with an F-4E true to the 1979 manual, but its just not listed there.

Yeah, but this is why these manuals get revised as limitations on what stores can be carried, where they can be carried and in what quantity changes (the '79 one for instance doesn't make any reference to DMAS related stores, like Pave Tack, GBU-15 and its associated AN/AXQ-14 D/L pod (hardly surprising given the date) whereas the '84 revised 1990 references both DMAS and non-DMAS related stores).

On 6/4/2023 at 10:44 AM, Temetre said:

Or, like with F-16, how the 6x AGM-65 is problematic, but validated and probably a realistic loadout in emergency situations.

Well, with that AFAIK LAU-88 was out of inventory somewhere around the mid 2000s and there's the potential for damage.

On 6/4/2023 at 10:44 AM, Temetre said:

This stuff is always difficult to judge, as to what loadouts is viable, what you wanna allow, etc. Heatblur has to decide what on a philosophy for that. Personally I hope theyre gonna go with a more liberal approach, more about validated and possible loads.

Looking at JNelson's comments in the Discord, it looks like they're going with what's reflected in the manuals, citing ground-clearance as a factor.

On 6/4/2023 at 10:44 AM, Temetre said:

We got a lot of freedom to set up scenarios in DCS, which wouldve forced the USAF/USN to make tough decisions they might not have in conflicts like Vietnam, were there was no direct threat to America.

Yeah, but this is fairly dubious for changing capabilities, especially when IRL if you needed more ordnance to strike whatever target (in this case another 2 bombs), you'd either take more aircraft, make multiple strikes or omit the Sidewinders and rely on an escort flight.

In any case, I'm not really expecting HB to go outside of the manuals unless data exists to the contrary.

On 6/4/2023 at 10:44 AM, Temetre said:

Not to mention that those F-4s are for sure going to fly under Israel, German and other colors.

Well, we'll see what HB does with regard to variants, I know they've said an F isn't planned (though you could probably get pretty close with the DSCG Phantom and omitting weaponry, though the removed fuselage tank might be more problematic for mission editors). But liveries can be basically anything - they'll just be fictional for the variant being depicted.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Northstar98

[Temetre]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb Northstar98:

My one is an 84 revised 1990 manual, I've also got one dated for 1979 and yes, it doesn't list combinations.

Yeah, but this is why these manuals get revised as limitations on what stores can be carried and where in what quantity changes (the '79 one for instance doesn't make any reference to DMAS related stores, like Pave Tack, GBU-15 and its associated AN/AXQ-14 D/L pod - hardly surprising given the date whereas the '84 revised 1990 refernces both DMAS and non-DMAS related stores).

Well, with that AFAIK LAU-88 was out of inventory somewhere around the mid 2000s.

Looking at JNelson's comments in the Discord, it looks like they're going with what's reflected in the manuals, citing ground-clearance as a factor.

Yeah, but this is fairly dubious for changing capabilities, especially when IRL if you needed more ordnance to strike whatever target (in this case another 2 bombs), you'd either take more aircraft, make multiple strikes or omit the Sidewinders and rely on an escort flight.

In any case, I'm not really expecting HB to go outside of the manuals unless data exists to the contrary.

Well, we'll see what HB does with regard to variants, I know they've said an F isn't planned (though you could probably get pretty close with the DSCG Phantom and omitting weaponry, though the removed fuselage tank might be more problematic for mission editors). But liveries can be basically anything - they'll just be fictional for the variant being depicted.

I mean, if ground clearance was the factor and nobody else did the 2/3 load, then it would seem like a a pretty clear and cut thing to not allow it. I dont know how much documentation and IRL examples there are.^^

Interesting would be whats up if another airforce had the same gear and did such a loadout, showing it 'should' be possible for USAF birds as well. At that point its imo more complicated, since manuals dont tell everything. And if it was actually used that way by others, and ground-clearance becomes risky, then it wouldnt be hard to actually simulate that shortcoming. (this is pure theory tho)

Though I dont think itll kills us to either skip the Aim9s or two MK-20s. After dropping such a bomb load, were prolly not gonna do too much full afterburner dogfighting. And otherwise we just gotta learn how to use Aim7s better!

(im sure theres some Lau-88s in storage, I think A-10s actually use them?)

Edited June 4, 2023 by Temetre

[Bozon]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

Though I dont think itll kills us to either skip the Aim9s or two MK-20s. After dropping such a bomb load, were prolly not gonna do too much full afterburner dogfighting. And otherwise we just gotta learn how to use Aim7s better!

Aim-7s be damned - we have a cannon!