Ground attack loadouts discussion

[SgtPappy]

22 hours ago, G.J.S said:

It will be at the point of firing, more than that may cause missile fin impact to the rail (the aft fins on the winder versus the tip of the rail) if higher G is in effect at launch. It’s just to guarantee that it will leave the rail as god intended, after it’s clear it can rack up whatever it needs to.

Thanks! Did you have any restrictions on the AIM-9's used on the Phantoms you flew? IIRC the UK used the AIM-9D/G right?

[G.J.S]

6 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

Thanks! Did you have any restrictions on the AIM-9's used on the Phantoms you flew? IIRC the UK used the AIM-9D/G right?

Never saw a ‘D’ during my time on type, ‘G’ & latterly ‘L’. Launch restrictions basically the same, as the missile airframe itself needs to clear the rail.

[Aussie_Mantis]

On 1/14/2023 at 11:56 AM, SgtPappy said:

Being the expert that you are in munitions, I noticed that the TO 1F-4E-1 states that the max symmetric G's you can pull while carrying AIM-9E/J is only 6.5 G. But the missiles definitely pull way more than that in flight.

Do you know why this is so low? Is it an issue with the pylons or is 6.5 G the max G you can pull while firing the missile (since the max G load to fire does not seem to be stated in the -1)? I'm hoping I didn't miss something in the manual.

It's an issue with the pylons, you rip the bastards off or damage the winders because they smack into the rails while you're firing. Not pog. Technically, you can fire them at any speed, it's just that you want to make sure they clear properly.

The Max G-load IIRC is around the same, you just don't want to be pulling that much.

Sparrow G-force load should be about 4G FYI.

Still waiting for someone to find the fake weapons

On 1/16/2023 at 9:32 AM, G.J.S said:

Never saw a ‘D’ during my time on type, ‘G’ & latterly ‘L’. Launch restrictions basically the same, as the missile airframe itself needs to clear the rail.

Yo GJS;

Did the UK RAF F-4s have any kind of air to ground ordnance apart from dumb bombs and dumb rockets? And did any RAF F-4s keep the old Royal Navy Low-Drag 1000lbs bombs in service, or were they gone by your time?

 

Also, not sure if you answered this earlier or not, but did you have IFF on the old AN/APG-55 sets?

Edited January 17, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[Stackup]

Since we don't have a weapons list from HB yet, does anybody know anything about these cluster dispensers?  The only other place I've seen them is in the A-4 mod as the CBU-1 and CBU-2 dispenser pods.  Maybe the Skyraider will carry them too.

[Aussie_Mantis]

41 minutes ago, Stackup said:

Since we don't have a weapons list from HB yet, does anybody know anything about these cluster dispensers?  The only other place I've seen them is in the A-4 mod as the CBU-1 and CBU-2 dispenser pods.  Maybe the Skyraider will carry them too.

Ah, that's peak Vietnam. They dispense golfball sized HE bomblets out the ass.

It carries 508 of these things.

Also, nice shot of some extended fuse Mk 82s. the fuses are made from burnt out Marine A-4 Skyhawk barrels, and seeing asthis Phantom has them, I think this one's flying out from a base down south like Da Nang or Tan Sonh Nhut, where there were a few Muhreen Skyhookers out and about.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[Stackup]

7 minutes ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Also, nice shot of some extended fuse Mk 82s. the fuses are made from burnt out Marine A-4 Skyhawk barrels, and seeing asthis Phantom has them, I think this one's flying out from a base down south like Da Nang or Tan Sonh Nhut, where there were a few Muhreen Skyhookers out and about.

I guess you use what you got lying around , didn't know that's how they made those fuse extenders.

Edit:  Coincidentally, do you think we'll get the extended fuses in DCS?  Or is it more likely we won't get them until we have destructible trees/environment?

Edited January 17, 2023 by Stackup

[Aussie_Mantis]

8 minutes ago, Stackup said:

I guess you use what you got lying around , didn't know that's how they made those fuse extenders.

Edit:  Coincidentally, do you think we'll get the extended fuses in DCS?  Or is it more likely we won't get them until we have destructible trees/environment?

 

We might??? They're used mostly for anti-infantry work. And yes, that is how they made it. Rejected A-4 cannon barrels from skyhawks and stuff 'em into the bomb.

[Falconeer]

On 12/10/2022 at 10:17 PM, WinterH said:

Ours should have:

- GBU-12 and GBU-10 LGBs

- Pave Spike day time only targeting pod for first variant, and Pave Tack FLIR capable gigantic targeting pod for DMAS variant. Pave Spike is manual tracking only, no target locking/tracking, but Pave Tack does have auto tracking too afaik (could be wrong not fully sure).

How many GBU-12's can be loaded on the F4? Probably less than MK-82, due to the GBU being longer, i assume they can't be mounted on a MER?

[Biggus]

1 hour ago, Falconeer said:

How many GBU-12's can be loaded on the F4? Probably less than MK-82, due to the GBU being longer, i assume they can't be mounted on a MER?

Six, IIRC.  Singles on the outboards, pairs on TERs on the inboards.

[Aussie_Mantis]

On 1/1/2023 at 3:21 PM, NoodI said:

How good was the walleye on the f-4e and how many lbs of explosive was it?

 

The two games that allow F-4Es to carry walleyes are Strike Fighters 2 and War Thunder. I assume you played one or the other? The AGM-62 is a USN weapon and you'd have the GBU-8 or GBU-9 HOBOS, which are TV guided seekers mounted on a 2000lbs or 3000lbs GP Bomb warhead. Alternatively you could carry the GBU-15, which is a 2000lbs improved TV-guided bomb with large wings like the ones on Walleye II or Walleye-ER.

 

Israel allegedly used Walleyes on F-4Es but we don't have israeli F-4E ingame.

[Bozon]

1 hour ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Israel allegedly used Walleyes on F-4Es but we don't have israeli F-4E ingame.

AFAIK Israeli F-4E were carrying AGM-142 Have Nap (aka Popeye) during the 90’s until their retirement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popeye_(missile)
 

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, Bozon said:

AFAIK Israeli F-4E were carrying AGM-142 Have Nap (aka Popeye) during the 90’s until their retirement.

I'm not %100 sure, but I think they are Kurnass 2000s rather than F-4Es. Kurnass was a large upgrade like German ICE, Greek Peace Ikarus, Japanese EJ-Kai, and Turkish Terminator 2020, latter of which was in fact based somewhat on Kurnass and was mainly done by IAI of Israel, and it also could use AGM-142 Popeye.

[Aussie_Mantis]

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?

[G.J.S]

6 hours ago, 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?

Different mark of F-4, but shouldn’t be an issue.

[Northstar98]

On 6/1/2023 at 5:49 AM, 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?

The stores limitation charts in a circa 1984, revised 1990 -1 only states all 3 w/ BDU-33 and BLU-107. It does however state Mk 82 (both low-drag and Snake Eye), CBU-52, -58, -71, Mk 20 and GBU-12 can be carried as doubles. I'm assuming that ground clearance is a factor.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Northstar98
corrected

[Stackup]

42 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

The stores limitation charts in a circa 1984, revised 1990 -1 only states all 3 w/ BDU-33 and BLU-107. It does however state 2 w/ Mk 82 (both low-drag and Snake Eye), CBU-52, -58, -72, -87, -89, Mk 20 and GBU-12. I'm assumming that ground clearance is a factor.

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.

[Aussie_Mantis]

17 hours ago, G.J.S said:

Different mark of F-4, but shouldn’t be an issue.

Unfortunately, it's a museum piece- and I've never seen those in service at all. USN Phantoms can carry like that but that's because they have a shorter pylon than the USAF ones and different spacers, plus a MAU-12 adapter pop-out that they need to install that provides ground clearance. However, I can't find any F-4s using the payload pictured while not in a museum. Something to do with the sidewinders slapping the ends of the M117s from what I hear- which is why I wanted to pose the question about whether or not this config works IRL or not. All I've heard is that they use the Shrike adapter to further extend the TER away from the pylon.

On 2/19/2023 at 8:14 PM, Falconeer said:

How many GBU-12's can be loaded on the F4? Probably less than MK-82, due to the GBU being longer, i assume they can't be mounted on a MER?

sorry to necro, but the answer to this is up to ten. Paveways only are mountable on TERs in pairs- from what I hear, it's something about the bottom rack not giving enough clearance for it to drop properly (?) (Up for debate) (possibly inaccurate). They go on all the racks and can be mounted on an MER, but typically only go on the forwards hardpoints only.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[LanceCriminal86]

Drivebys elusive pylon photo

Refuses to elaborate

[Biggus]

Regarding GBU-12s, it depends on the variant of GBU-12.  For the GBU-12B/B, -12C/B and -12D/B, six is the quantity given in the 1990 -1.  One each on the outboards, two on TERs on the inboards.  It may be physically possible to mount a TER and a pair on the outers, but it is not listed in the TO.  For other variants of GBU-12, the total is four.  One on each pylon, no TER or MER.  The C/L pylon does not appear to be used for carrying any GBU-12 variant, TER or otherwise.

[Temetre]

I was mostly interested in the older F-4 variants, but its pretty fun to learn for me how much weird cold war weaponry the DMAS version will likely be able to carry. Could be fun to have those F4s as 90s bomb trucks in campaigns, dropping LGBs or all those remote+TV-guided bombs in lack of GPS munitions. Help the 80-90s era with Mirage 2000 and F-14 thats a bit empty otherwise.

Small question, especially considering the sidewinders+ter combo: Do the A2G payloads ever block the Aim7 missile slots from being usable? Its kinda unusual to think off, but with those slots, Aim7s might be a better backup "self-defense" weaponry than sidewinders, when you fly attack missions. Probably much lower drag than those pylon extensions for sidewinders. And at least the 79 manual doesnt seem to list anything but jammers carried below Aim-9s.

edit: Hm, after reading it up, its actually a bit more complicated: The 79 manual basically says "dont put AGM-65 below shoulder mounted Aim9". But considering thats specifically pointed out, that implies you can put other bombloads below the Aim9s, even if its not specifically listed. Only the ALQ pods are specifically listed, not bombs.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Temetre

[Tengu]

There is a very helpful article from the amazing treasure trove of "The Phantom Phacts".

The Phantom Phacts: THE F-4 INBOARD PYLONS

If you're interested in pylons, when this or that antenna was installed, or the evolution of dorsal panels in minutiae, it's amazing what you can learn there, even if you've been a phantom phanatic for a couple of decades.

This photo shows the Naval (and RF / early C marks) LAU-17/A pylon with the trapezoidal-shaped adaptor underneath.  All drawing credits to Kim Simmelink / The Phantom Phacts.

 

For what it's worth, it looks like there's more space "below" the LAU-7 Sidewinder rail when mounted on the AF's MAU-12 pylon compared to the USN's LAU-17/A.

 

 

This photo is from a JASDF F-4EJ, and they haven't loaded the AIM-9s.  These are also Mk82's.  But it doesn't appear to me that there's any adaptor between the MAU-12 and the TER.  This is the closest I can find to @Aussie_Mantis's search. Photo credits to Kazuteru Sugawara.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by Tengu

[Biggus]

13 hours ago, Temetre said:

Small question, especially considering the sidewinders+ter combo: Do the A2G payloads ever block the Aim7 missile slots from being usable? Its kinda unusual to think off, but with those slots, Aim7s might be a better backup "self-defense" weaponry than sidewinders, when you fly attack missions. Probably much lower drag than those pylon extensions for sidewinders. And at least the 79 manual doesnt seem to list anything but jammers carried below Aim-9s.

edit: Hm, after reading it up, its actually a bit more complicated: The 79 manual basically says "dont put AGM-65 below shoulder mounted Aim9". But considering thats specifically pointed out, that implies you can put other bombloads below the Aim9s, even if its not specifically listed. Only the ALQ pods are specifically listed, not bombs.

 

Regarding Sparrows, there's no limitation on the rear pair that I'm aware of.  The front wells can have Sparrows, but these cannot be launched with a C/L tank loaded without popping a circuit breaker or dropping the tank.  With other stores on that C/L station, my recollection is that generally the forward Sparrows would work but there were some caveats.  IIRC, Phantoms on mud-moving missions in Vietnam nearly always had at least a pair of Sparrows loaded in the rear wells, so you aren't alone in considering them a better option if you have bandits pop up suddenly.

I've seen a couple of accounts of Navy guys popping the breaker inhibiting launch on the front pair and actually launching with the C/L tank still onboard, and the fins of the Sparrow caused quite a bit of damage to the tank.

With Mavericks, the 1990 -1 shows them mounted singly on the launchers in the bottom position when Sidewinders are carried.

[Temetre]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Biggus:

Regarding Sparrows, there's no limitation on the rear pair that I'm aware of.  The front wells can have Sparrows, but these cannot be launched with a C/L tank loaded without popping a circuit breaker or dropping the tank.  With other stores on that C/L station, my recollection is that generally the forward Sparrows would work but there were some caveats.  IIRC, Phantoms on mud-moving missions in Vietnam nearly always had at least a pair of Sparrows loaded in the rear wells, so you aren't alone in considering them a better option if you have bandits pop up suddenly.

I've seen a couple of accounts of Navy guys popping the breaker inhibiting launch on the front pair and actually launching with the C/L tank still onboard, and the fins of the Sparrow caused quite a bit of damage to the tank.

Thx, sounds quite logical. 

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Biggus:

With Mavericks, the 1990 -1 shows them mounted singly on the launchers in the bottom position when Sidewinders are carried.

Yeh Ive seen that. Thought it had 3x, but its actually just one. Guess a lot of bombing missions will skip the sidewinders.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Temetre

[Biggus]

31 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Yeh Ive seen that. Thought it had 3x, but its actually just one. Guess a lot of bombing missions will skip the sidewinders.

 

I guess the question could be asked about having a single sidewinder and a second maverick on the side where there isn't a sidewinder loaded.  I'm sure someone will be able to fill that blank in, because to me it's an interesting possibility.

[Temetre]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb Biggus:

I guess the question could be asked about having a single sidewinder and a second maverick on the side where there isn't a sidewinder loaded.  I'm sure someone will be able to fill that blank in, because to me it's an interesting possibility.

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:

Am 1.6.2023 um 13:40 schrieb G.J.S:

I think thats the french bombs, which are a bit bulkier than MK-82s? And they havent even installed the 3 inch spacer.

To be fair, there might be a question with fin-clearance between Aim9s and Mavericks; in that case 1xAim9+2xAGM65 seems logical. But the fin-situatoin cant be that bad, considering they can carry AGM-45s with Aim9s.

Or maybe its like with the F-16s inner pylon, that they dont have enough connectors for 5x active missiles? But they also limit MK-82, when they dont BDUs. And apparently they can carry the B-107s in tripple-packs. So many questoins lol^^

Edited June 3, 2023 by Temetre