Looking for F-15C + 8x AIM-120

[Pilotasso]

Can we stay on topic please? No picture, no proof. What kind of F-16 is in service in Portugal? The kind that can not carry AMRAAM's?

 

PS

Why would F-15 ever carry 8 AMRAAMS in real life is the real question?

 

PoAF has converted its F-16's to block 50 standard. They are armed with AIM-120C's for AA combat. JDAM's and EGBU-12's (GPS+laser) among other guided weapons. In future they will carry the JSOW as well.

 

 

There are no pictures of F-15's carrying 8 AMRAAM's, but all racks are configured to load this missile and the 8 load is an available option.

[VTJS17_Fire]

Is there a g-limit with 4 AMRAAMs on the wing pylons (like the Hornet has with AMRAAMs on the wing-tip pylons)? Anybody told me this in the past.

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

[GGTharos]

No, the g-limit for the F-15C in any air to air combat configuration is strictly by gross weight.

[Laud]

Makes sense, as it has no wing-tip-pylons and though all the load mounted close to the length-axxis.

 

No, the g-limit for the F-15C in any air to air combat configuration is strictly by gross weight.

[mvsgas]

What kind of F-16 is in service in Portugal?

Block 20 MLU

 

Block 20 And MLU

 

Block 20 refers to new-production F-16As that incorporate significant avionic enhancements, including a modular mission computer replacing three other computers. The processing speed of the computer is more than 740 times faster than the computer in the original F-16. It has more than 180 times the memory. An improved radar, the APG-66(V2), features increased detection and tracking ranges and the ability to track more targets.

 

The Mid-Life Update program, or MLU, refers to the 300 retrofitted F-16A/B Belgian, Danish, Dutch, and Norwegian aircraft. These aircraft were also structurally upgraded to meet an 8,000-hour airframe lifespan in a program called Falcon UP (for unos programmum). Several other current F-16 operators have upgraded their earlier model Fighting Falcons as well.

 

Block 20 and MLU F-16s have wide-angle head-up displays, color multifunction cockpit displays, upfront controls (a set of programmable pushbuttons placed just below the head-up display), a Block 50-style sidestick and throttle, ring laser inertial navigation systems, miniaturized global positioning systems, digital terrain systems, improved data modems, and advanced interrogators for identifying friendly or foe aircraft. The lighting in the cockpit is compatible with night-vision systems. The aircraft also have provisions for microwave landing systems and helmet-mounted displays.

 

Do not want to miss lead, I can't tell if this aircraft is Portuguese, photo is in the article link below.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=51

[mvsgas]

There is a video on youtube of Indian MiG-21 Bisson firing R-77, if the Indians are doing it with such an old airframe (even though upgraded) why wouldn't the Russians who built the missile (and aircraft) have it and be able to use it? Surely no such conflict has come about (thank god so to say) where Russia or USA would use their airforce to full potential. Yes the USA has lead quite a few wars and used their aircraft in A2A combat (although not with equivalent oponent) the Russia has not.

Now, I'm not saying R-77/AA-12 is/isn't in service and all that, I'm just a mechanic, I have not idea. Just simply talking about;

if the Indians are doing it with such an old airframe (even though upgraded) why wouldn't the Russians who built the missile (and aircraft) have it and be able to use it?

 

Using the F-16 as an example, not all upgrades are used by all countries. Look at the block 60 F-16 sold to UAE. AESA radar, conformal tanks, ability to in the future carry integrated FLIR, ect. Non of this stuff used on USAF F-16 ( original costumer for aircraft). Look at other example like Israeli, Polish, ROCAF, etc

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Do not want to miss lead, I can't tell if this aircraft is Portuguese, photo is in the article link below.

I appreciate your effort. Those AMRAAM's are dummy missiles. And, as you mentioned we don't even know who does that F-16 belongs to.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I'd suppose for air-superiority missions over skies with low-capability bogies? Any sensible Air Force would never just spam their technologically capable enemies with the same missiles, as jamming that would bottleneck them and leave pidgeons to be roasted.

There is a very good reason why Soviets and later Russians are investing a lot's of effort in developing EOS systems. F-35 has an advanced EOS and if I am not mistaken, they are thinking about installing it on F-22 as well. Why am I saying this? Because radar, and radar homing (active or semi-active) missiles can be detected and possibly jammed.

 

That means that nobody in the right mind would only carry AMRAAM's or RVV-EA's. Because, the fight would most likely end up within EOS range where IR missiles would finish the job.

 

What has happened in the last several decades was the fact the F-15's were usually generation or a generation + class ahead of its opponent. Not to mention some recent conflicts where there were 20 or 30 aircraft (F16, F18, F-15) plus AWACS in the air hunting for a single MiG-29, and even then ... there is still MiG-29's flying over there!!! BTW, that's how F-15 achieved all those AA kills, some of them with AMRAAM's.

 

With everything I said, I seriously doubt we will find a picture of F-15 with 8 AMRAAM's.

 

And by the way, I only take pictures of the real, armed missile, hooked on F-15, clearly visible, on a sunny day so as that I can confirm its status by reading marks on the missile. ;) That's the standard we established for validating real missiles on this forum.

[Pilotasso]

I appreciate your effort. Those AMRAAM's are dummy missiles. And, as you mentioned we don't even know who does that F-16 belongs to.

 

Wrong. Those are CATM-120's training and aerial warfare simulation pods, not mock-ups. Usually they are included in the same weapons package they simulate.

 

Also each country has to declare conventional weapon acquisition by international law. If its declared then they have it. Though sometimes the quantities and exact version of the weapon are kept classified.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Pilotasso

[mvsgas]

=4c= Hajduk Veljko,

I know there is not photo of all 8 AIM-120 loaded, but there are several photos of live 120 loaded on each missile rail/fuselage station (Different configuration). I guess is your choice to see that or not.

 

Also their are different versions of dummy missile, some you can not fly with, some you can't.

I'm not saying nothing about validity of your missiles nor am I taking side on this never ending missile discussion.

[Pilotasso]

There is a very good reason why Soviets and later Russians are investing a lot's of effort in developing EOS systems.

 

It has to do completely with doctrines. Also Both russians and US had different expectations of their radar hardware. The west had once EOS too, read F-14 tomcat history.

 

F-35 has an advanced EOS and if I am not mistaken, they are thinking about installing it on F-22 as well.

 

The F-35 doesn't have EOS, it has DAS, a system which is an integrated warning and internal optical and laser designator pods. Its a different apparatus and different purpose. The F-22 has always had an EOS in its plans. It was postponed because its already capable of acquiring targets without lighting up the radar and money was put somewhere else.

 

That means that nobody in the right mind would only carry AMRAAM's or RVV-EA's. Because, the fight would most likely end up within EOS range where IR missiles would finish the job.

 

Probably why you dont have a military advisory career! Where did you pull that theory from??

 

What has happened in the last several decades was the fact the F-15's were usually generation or a generation + class ahead of its opponent. Not to mention some recent conflicts where there were 20 or 30 aircraft (F16, F18, F-15) plus AWACS in the air hunting for a single MiG-29, and even then ... there is still MiG-29's flying over there!!! BTW, that's how F-15 achieved all those AA kills, some of them with AMRAAM's.

 

With everything I said, I seriously doubt we will find a picture of F-15 with 8 AMRAAM's.

 

 

You dont know whats reserved for you tomorrow and theres no point in fighting on your adversaries terms if you want to end with the upper hand in the conflict.

 

While there is no 8 AMRAAM picture, you can see missiles loaded on any pylon on separate occasions.

 

The 8 AMRAAM load is a valid option and it CAN be used.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Pilotasso

[Exorcet]

There is a very good reason why Soviets and later Russians are investing a lot's of effort in developing EOS systems. F-35 has an advanced EOS and if I am not mistaken, they are thinking about installing it on F-22 as well. Why am I saying this? Because radar, and radar homing (active or semi-active) missiles can be detected and possibly jammed.

The F-35 has EODAS and EOTS. EOTS would be the advanced EOS you're talking about. The F-22's IRST was deemed not needed and never fitted.

 

That means that nobody in the right mind would only carry AMRAAM's or RVV-EA's. Because, the fight would most likely end up within EOS range where IR missiles would finish the job.

The latest AMRAAM are designed to get around such problems, but of course expecting 100% success is unrealistic. IR missiles can be detected and jammed too, it just requires different methods.

 

What has happened in the last several decades was the fact the F-15's were usually generation or a generation + class ahead of its opponent. Not to mention some recent conflicts where there were 20 or 30 aircraft (F16, F18, F-15) plus AWACS in the air hunting for a single MiG-29, and even then ... there is still MiG-29's flying over there!!! BTW, that's how F-15 achieved all those AA kills, some of them with AMRAAM's.

 

I agree, the Eagle has an impressive ratio, but it did not always fight "fair".

[GGTharos]

No, that is the standard you would like to apply.

 

The F-15 flight manual shows 8 an 8x120 configuration is quite useable, and the APG-63 can support all 8 in flight ;)

 

Your R-27EA hunt, on the other hand, failed to yield any other sources of information save for Yefim Gordon saying something was an R-27EA, without actually knowing what he was talking about.

 

And now we'll stop this derailing ;)

 

And by the way, I only take pictures of the real, armed missile, hooked on F-15, clearly visible, on a sunny day so as that I can confirm its status by reading marks on the missile. ;) That's the standard we established for validating real missiles on this forum.

[IronsightSniper]

Air forces are not giving up radar guided missiles, and in fact expect them to work against technologically capable opponents.

You'd carry 8 120's if you were expecting a target rich environment and you'd only engage BVR and then return. How likely such a mission is, I don't know, but either way, the capability is there if required.

 

I never said that Air forces are giving up ARH missiles, but what I was saying is that if you're only carrying 1 type of missile(in this case, 8 AIM-120), than if the enemy succeeds in jamming them, you're pretty much getting choked by your achilles heel. And no, if you're carrying 8 AIM-120's in a technologically capable airspace(say against the same numbers of MiGs), then it would be logical for them to carry their maximum loadout of R-77s. And it would also be logical to carry jamming equipment for such missiles. So that would basically mean a BVR shootout but bothsides are hindered by ECW, and when the fight gets close, everybody would die. It's only logical to carry a mix of weapons, such as 4 AIM-120s and 4 AIM-9X, so that the enemy would have to utilize both Radar and IR jamming.

 

The latest AMRAAM are designed to get around such problems, but of course expecting 100% success is unrealistic. IR missiles can be detected and jammed too, it just requires different methods.

 

Of course, you could always carry the mystical and non-existant R-74AE-PD or R-74E-PD. Long range of the newest R-27 variants, but with a high maneuverability seeker head. Sounds magical :cry:

 

Actually, I think I found the Eagle you're looking for!

 

Edited September 7, 2010 by IronsightSniper

[tflash]

5th generation heaters give you high off-boresight engagement envelope quite on the contrary to AESA/Amraam pair.

 

Since most ROE would require visual check because there are many more Piper, Learjet, 737, Fokkers and the likes to check out than that you would encounter Su-27.

 

Over Europe and CONUS, the airspace is so full that the whole idea of BVR engagement is absurd. The latter makes more sense in Pacific and Nordic region.

 

So in Europe, even when Amraam proved incredibly good, airforces invest in 5th generation heaters like Asraam and Iris-T; and would most probably at least carry two.

[Fahhh]

Actually, I think I found the Eagle you're looking for!

 

 

That's a hornet ;)

[IronsightSniper]

Derp. Stupid google :V

[Pilotasso]

That photo has something else curious. They mixed CATM-120's with real missiles.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

That photo has something else curious. They mixed CATM-120's with real missiles.

Ohh, boy, this is serious now! FA-18 can not carry eight (8) AMRAAM's!! This picture shows dummy (OK Pilotasso the CATM's or whatever) missiles. What about a picture of a real missiles, armed and ready to be launched, maybe even a video of all eight of them being launched (at once), in TWS mode ... :music_whistling: :lol:

[Pilotasso]

What for?

[RIPTIDE]

C'mon guys.. my popcorn has run out... and its getting boring. Lets get back to F-15C with Octoraams.

[Pilotasso]

Heres something interesting from USAF's site:

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=102

 

Is this accurate?

 

BOEING:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/docs/F-15E_overview.pdf

 

Apparently both the F-15C and E can carry up to 8 AMRAAM's with he E requiring the removal of FAST packs.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Pilotasso

[GGTharos]

CATM's are quite real; they are missing the warhead and rocket, but other than that they do everything a real missile does. They show up on your SMS, they do the BIT, they are 'ready to fire', only they won't come off the rail. They are used in training and other situations where missiles do not need to be launched because each missile has a limited captive carry time. Given the cost of the missiles and your rants about the economy, I thought you'd be happy about that ;) It makes no sense to fly as many live missiles as you can on training. In this case, they put all the CATM's they had available on the plane, and supplemented with live missiles.

 

Ohh, boy, this is serious now! FA-18 can not carry eight (8) AMRAAM's!! This picture shows dummy (OK Pilotasso the CATM's or whatever) missiles. What about a picture of a real missiles, armed and ready to be launched, maybe even a video of all eight of them being launched (at once), in TWS mode ... :music_whistling: :lol:

[GGTharos]

Those are a bit out-dated ... 15E's are now getting the APG-82. Also I've seen 7's mounted on the FAST packs, and where you can stick a 7 you can usually stick a 120 .... but why would you? If you want to use this thing in the A2A role, you'd probably want to strip off the FAST packs anyway.

 

The most interesting thing to me is that the 220's can be tuned up to 25000lbs of thrust. The Strike Eagle demo crew I spoke with explained that the 220's have tunable profiles.

 

 

Heres something interesting from USAF's site:

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=102

 

Is this accurate?

 

BOEING:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/docs/F-15E_overview.pdf

 

Apparently both the F-15C and E can carry up to 8 AMRAAM's with he E requiring the removal of FAST packs.

[Pilotasso]

IF the F-15E is simulated again it would nice have an option of self escort capability instead of a mere self defense AIM-9 capability even when your flying a fat loaded aircraft. We can dream... :)