BarTzi Posted August 15, 2024 Posted August 15, 2024 The attached picture is of an Israeli F-4E during the 73 war. As you can see, the bombs on the ter are mounted in such a way that allows carrying a heat-seeking missile without using the special weapons adapter. I don't think this was specific to the IAF, or a modification that was made at the time. I was wondering if this was ever considered as a possible loadout option.
Stackup Posted August 16, 2024 Posted August 16, 2024 2 hours ago, BarTzi said: The attached picture is of an Israeli F-4E during the 73 war. As you can see, the bombs on the ter are mounted in such a way that allows carrying a heat-seeking missile without using the special weapons adapter. I don't think this was specific to the IAF, or a modification that was made at the time. I was wondering if this was ever considered as a possible loadout option. At one point in development they had it enabled to have a full TER plus both sidewinders with no adapter and presumably that configuration would have been possible under the earlier version. (2023 and Beyond video) I'd be interested to hear the explanation of the Israeli loadout considering the common explanation is that it's the TER itself, not the bombs, that is actually in the way of the missile fins. Okay, so you can't fire the sidewinders if the TER is on the pylon. However, the TER only blocks the firing of the missile, not the ability to mount the missile. So my argument for this is simple. Jettison drops the TER. So why can't we mount Sidewinders and only be allowed to fire them after the TERs are jettisoned? Just because it wasn't common practice? Pretty sure the MAK-79 mounts for the F-14 weren't commonly used to strap 14 Mk-82s into the tunnel either, but we got that feature anyways because it was possible. So why not this? Modules: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, F-16C, F-4E, F-5E, FC3, AV-8B, Mirage 2000C, L-39, Huey, F-86, P-51, P-47, Spitfire, Mosquito, Supercarrier Maps: Persian Gulf, Syria, NTTR, Marianas, Normandy 2, Channel, Kola Upcoming Modules Wishlist: A-1H, A-7E, A-6E, Naval F-4, F-8J, F-100D, MiG-17F
Kalasnkova74 Posted August 16, 2024 Posted August 16, 2024 18 minutes ago, Stackup said: At one point in development they had it enabled to have a full TER plus both sidewinders with no adapter and presumably that configuration would have been possible under the earlier version. (2023 and Beyond video) I'd be interested to hear the explanation of the Israeli loadout considering the common explanation is that it's the TER itself, not the bombs, that is actually in the way of the missile fins. Okay, so you can't fire the sidewinders if the TER is on the pylon. However, the TER only blocks the firing of the missile, not the ability to mount the missile. So my argument for this is simple. Jettison drops the TER. So why can't we mount Sidewinders and only be allowed to fire them after the TERs are jettisoned? Just because it wasn't common practice? Pretty sure the MAK-79 mounts for the F-14 weren't commonly used to strap 14 Mk-82s into the tunnel either, but we got that feature anyways because it was possible. So why not this? If I recall correctly , the Sidewinder’s fins will not clear a 750lb bomb - hence choosing the smaller 500lb option enables Sidewinder carriage.
BarTzi Posted August 16, 2024 Author Posted August 16, 2024 9 hours ago, Stackup said: At one point in development they had it enabled to have a full TER plus both sidewinders with no adapter and presumably that configuration would have been possible under the earlier version. (2023 and Beyond video) I'd be interested to hear the explanation of the Israeli loadout considering the common explanation is that it's the TER itself, not the bombs, that is actually in the way of the missile fins. Okay, so you can't fire the sidewinders if the TER is on the pylon. However, the TER only blocks the firing of the missile, not the ability to mount the missile. So my argument for this is simple. Jettison drops the TER. So why can't we mount Sidewinders and only be allowed to fire them after the TERs are jettisoned? Just because it wasn't common practice? Pretty sure the MAK-79 mounts for the F-14 weren't commonly used to strap 14 Mk-82s into the tunnel either, but we got that feature anyways because it was possible. So why not this? Interesting. I will try to dig deeper. From what I can currently tell, they used to carry the missiles on the ter (as shown in the picture I attached) or use asymmetric loadouts. Here's another picture, this time with cluster bombs.
Zabuzard Posted August 19, 2024 Posted August 19, 2024 Ive put it on the list for the team to investigate and callback, cheers 3 1
ben_der Posted August 20, 2024 Posted August 20, 2024 Regarding this Screenshot from the Trailer: Loadout restrictions weren't in place at the time thats why this Loadout was possible ingame.
ben_der Posted August 21, 2024 Posted August 21, 2024 (edited) @BarTzi I'm looking into it right now and it looks like the Israeli Air Force spaced out their LAU-7 Launcher further for the Sidewinder to Clear the TER of when the Missile leaves the Rail. With LAU-7 modeled right now, the Fins of the AIM9 would be right in the way of the Bomb Hold Mechanism and not clear it when the Missile leaves the Rail. So we have the MCD / USAF Standard 3" LAU-7 Spacer modeled, the Israelis, as with many custom mods by them, spaced out their LAU-7 Launchers further to trade one Bomb for one Heater. Edited August 21, 2024 by ben_der
Stackup Posted August 21, 2024 Posted August 21, 2024 (edited) 2 hours ago, ben_der said: With LAU-7 modeled right now, the Fins of the AIM9 would be right in the way of the Bomb Hold Mechanism and not clear it when the Missile leaves the Rail. So how do you counter the fact we can jettison the TER? It's not in the way if it's no longer there and you should be jettisoning your heavy stores before you enter a dogfight anyways. Edit: At the risk of removing this loadout option from the F-4, the missile fins also do not appear to clear the single LAU-3 pod either and they look really close to the LAU-68 as well. Is this just an oversight that wasn't as obvious as the bomb mounts on the TER? Or is there some extremely small gap that allows the missiles to be fired without jettisoning the rocket pod? Edited August 21, 2024 by Stackup Modules: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, F-16C, F-4E, F-5E, FC3, AV-8B, Mirage 2000C, L-39, Huey, F-86, P-51, P-47, Spitfire, Mosquito, Supercarrier Maps: Persian Gulf, Syria, NTTR, Marianas, Normandy 2, Channel, Kola Upcoming Modules Wishlist: A-1H, A-7E, A-6E, Naval F-4, F-8J, F-100D, MiG-17F
BarTzi Posted August 22, 2024 Author Posted August 22, 2024 (edited) 10 hours ago, ben_der said: @BarTzi I'm looking into it right now and it looks like the Israeli Air Force spaced out their LAU-7 Launcher further for the Sidewinder to Clear the TER of when the Missile leaves the Rail. With LAU-7 modeled right now, the Fins of the AIM9 would be right in the way of the Bomb Hold Mechanism and not clear it when the Missile leaves the Rail. So we have the MCD / USAF Standard 3" LAU-7 Spacer modeled, the Israelis, as with many custom mods by them, spaced out their LAU-7 Launchers further to trade one Bomb for one Heater. Thank you for looking into it, ben_der! I didn't even think about the spacers initially, so that makes sense. The thought of arming a plane in a way that allows launching a missile only after you jettison the ter seems odd. However, if you ever decide to include those more spaced-out variants of the LAU-7 - that would be greatly appreciated (like the Iranian Tomcat). Edited August 22, 2024 by BarTzi
Kalasnkova74 Posted August 22, 2024 Posted August 22, 2024 4 hours ago, BarTzi said: Thank you for looking into it, ben_der! I didn't even think about the spacers initially, so that makes sense. The thought of arming a plane in a way that allows launching a missile only after you jettison the ter seems odd. Not if you consider Israeli Air Force doctrine circa 1973. The F-4E Kurnass was tasked mainly with interdiction bombing- unfortunately, many of the Kurnass pilots wanted MiG kills and some left the attack formation to do so in early Yom Kippur operations. That decision scored some MiG kills, but the dogfighting jets threatened the integrity of the flights coming off target -forcing one damaged Phantom II to limp home alone in hostile territory . The squadron commander cracked down and made it clear any pilot who did that again would lose their wings. Since no MiG engagements were expected until the Israeli F-4s came off target, the configuration makes sense.
BarTzi Posted August 22, 2024 Author Posted August 22, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kalasnkova74 said: Not if you consider Israeli Air Force doctrine circa 1973. The F-4E Kurnass was tasked mainly with interdiction bombing- unfortunately, many of the Kurnass pilots wanted MiG kills and some left the attack formation to do so in early Yom Kippur operations. That decision scored some MiG kills, but the dogfighting jets threatened the integrity of the flights coming off target -forcing one damaged Phantom II to limp home alone in hostile territory . The squadron commander cracked down and made it clear any pilot who did that again would lose their wings. Since no MiG engagements were expected until the Israeli F-4s came off target, the configuration makes sense. Ok, so what happens if you forget to jettison the TER and then fire the missile? What if the TER hits the missile while coming off the mounting point? This seems like a big deal and I don't see it mentioned anywhere in stories from the early 70's. I can try and contact some Israeli WSO's who flew back then to get that answer. Edited August 22, 2024 by BarTzi
Kalasnkova74 Posted August 22, 2024 Posted August 22, 2024 1 hour ago, BarTzi said: Ok, so what happens if you forget to jettison the TER and then fire the missile? What if the TER hits the missile while coming off the mounting point? This seems like a big deal and I don't see it mentioned anywhere in stories from the early 70's. I can try and contact some Israeli WSO's who flew back then to get that answer. According to Shlomo Aloni’s research, the F-4E crews typically jettisoned TERs/ Centerline rails + external tanks via the “panic button” before engaging MiGs. I’m curious to see what the WSOs have to say.
Kurnass1977 Posted August 22, 2024 Posted August 22, 2024 (edited) Guys, remember that the IAF Kurnass was wired for the Navy Winders,-9B,-9D and -9G until introduction of the -9L, so have the same U.S. Navy configuration for the launch rails ( AERO-7). Edited August 22, 2024 by Kurnass1977
BarTzi Posted August 22, 2024 Author Posted August 22, 2024 7 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said: According to Shlomo Aloni’s research, the F-4E crews typically jettisoned TERs/ Centerline rails + external tanks via the “panic button” before engaging MiGs. I’m curious to see what the WSOs have to say. I got in touch with a WSO, and he said that he does not know about any procedure preventing the aircrew from launching the AA missile in the configuration mentioned above (PANIC isn't needed). As Kurnass1977 mentioned, there are similar configurations used by the US Navy - so given the right type of spacer\ter, you can achieve this (which is probably what the IAF did). This request can be considered unrealistic for this specific variant of the jet. 1
Naquaii Posted August 22, 2024 Posted August 22, 2024 5 minutes ago, BarTzi said: I got in touch with a WSO, and he said that he does not know about any procedure preventing the aircrew from launching the AA missile in the configuration mentioned above (PANIC isn't needed). As Kurnass1977 mentioned, there are similar configurations used by the US Navy - so given the right type of spacer\ter, you can achieve this (which is probably what the IAF did). This request can be considered unrealistic for this specific variant of the jet. The USN Phantoms had slightly different pylons so they could do some stuff the USAF ones couldn't. They didn't need the special weapons adapter for a lot of the stuff the F-4E needed it for. That's why you can have three bombs and two AIM-9s like that. 1
ben_der Posted August 23, 2024 Posted August 23, 2024 On 8/22/2024 at 12:30 AM, Stackup said: So how do you counter the fact we can jettison the TER? It's not in the way if it's no longer there and you should be jettisoning your heavy stores before you enter a dogfight anyways. Edit: At the risk of removing this loadout option from the F-4, the missile fins also do not appear to clear the single LAU-3 pod either and they look really close to the LAU-68 as well. Is this just an oversight that wasn't as obvious as the bomb mounts on the TER? Or is there some extremely small gap that allows the missiles to be fired without jettisoning the rocket pod? Well, if we'd to keep such a loadout, I would say we need to implement some sort of damage that would occur when firing a Sidewinder as is (Sidewinder goes kaputt and jet stays fine, sidewinder goes up and breaks the slat/wing, sidewinder does crazy stuff and the whole airframe is lost for example). Because if, like it currently is, the Sidewinder can be fired without any effects to the jet, thats some sort of advantage that shouldn't exist. IRL there was no security layer in place that would inhibit the Launch of the Missile with any ordnance still present on the Pylon. The only combo thats allowed by the Dash-1 is CATM-9 with BDU-33s on the TER. Now was there potentially countries that didn't care for the Dash-1? Possibly. But again, if they first had to jettision the Ter before being able to fire a Sidewinder, they would have faced a potential loss of airframe when they'd forget to jettison the Ter. The Israeli Loadouts on the Pictures posted above work without dropping the TER first because the Lau-7 is specially spaced. Thats a custom mod by the Israelis. Our SMEs basically said they never flew with a loadout that wasn't allowed by the Dash-1.
Recommended Posts