Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Perusing af.mil's pix and caught this one of some Super Bugs behind the tanker over Afghanistan.

(U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Andy M. Kin)
What's odd is that none of 'em have a left external tank. WTF

Is there any time you'd WANT to fly this way? I mean, if you're gonna leave a tank off I'd thing it'd be the centerline just for the sake of symmetry. Just seems kinda...unorthodox. Question

F-16.net Sponsor

That's very common for Hornets, both Super and regular. Leaving the tank off gives the targeting pod (on the left intake) a better field of view, and also opens up the wing station for stores (it can handle a wider variety than the centerline tank). They've been doing it for a long time.

Yeah, ELP pretty much has this topic covered if you wish to ever review some of his past blogs on it. Very Happy

It's largely about the targeting pod placement, as gtg notes.

However, perhaps put a Litening ATP-SE on the centerline and you might have the solution for more symmetrical wing tank load.

The most unfortunate observation I can find in the above pic though, is 4 ships loaded with 2x bombs each. That doesn't seem too efficient to an admittedly uninformed observer, but maybe it's the optimal composition and if so, salute to that.

IMHO, the most cost-effective solution flying CAS over A-Stan today (per ongoing requirements), would be an F-16XL type with CFT and 8x bombs... yet requiring half the IFR refuels as a Super Hornet (not to mention, cheaper operational/Life cycle costs). Respects.

It's not efficient or practical in any way to build a new plane, and then develop a new CFT on top of that, for Afghanistan.

Field of view was one of the main reasons why the original plan to mount the targetting pod on a shoulder station of Typhoon was dropped. It was decided that limiting range to two-external tanks rather than three with a targetting pod was better than having a limited field of view and less a2a defensive capability (3 bvr instead of 4).

Andy

Interesting info, Andy.

Soon the Super Bugs should be equipped with CFT and when coupled w/ the twin wing tanks + centerline Litening, such a config should provide significant range boost in addition to maximal Search/targeting Field of view.

geogen wrote:

IMHO, the most cost-effective solution flying CAS over A-Stan today (per ongoing requirements), would be an F-16XL type with CFT and 8x bombs... yet requiring half the IFR refuels as a Super Hornet (not to mention, cheaper operational/Life cycle costs). Respects.

I'd prefer a Sniper equipped B-1 with a few bays full of LJDAMS in various sizes.

Don't forget the assloads of SDBII's

Several times, I've heard people note that the Hornet is especially well-suited to carrying an asymmetric load. Is the Hornet notably better than the Viper in this regard? Is it because of its twin engine configuration? Is it because it has 2 rudders? Curious minds want to know.

Nice picture. And to think, they regularly land on carriers that way. Twin rudders probably help as does the Hornet's overall draggier airframe.

Having sat through many briefings on both the F-18 and F-16, I can say that without a doubt, the Boeing boys are always bragging about their asymmetric load capability and the F-16’s lack thereof. Apparently, the old F-16 ADFs didn’t fly too well after firing off just one of their two Sparrows. I don’t recall anymore what the exact limitations were. I’m sure John Will or a pilot could probably enlighten us. Either way, the F-16 has done just fine as a fighter.

Asymmetrically loaded Hornet loses much of its maneuvering capability. A-6 and A-7 weren't the best dog fighters either, so I think it doesn't matter that much when trucking bombs.

Mechanic wrote:

Asymmetrically loaded Hornet loses much of its maneuvering capability. A-6 and A-7 weren't the best dog fighters either, so I think it doesn't matter that much when trucking bombs.

The only time the A-6 was sent on an air to air mission 'that I know of' is when the Russians buzzed the USS Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan back in Nov. 2000. The deck situation was as such the first aircraft that could be attached to the catapult was an A-6! I have no idea how long it took before a fighter could be launched.

I thought it was a Prowler that was sent up first in the Kitty Hawk incident you mention.

Couldn't have been an Intruder, they were all retired by early 1997.

I found this, I have no info on its truthfulness.
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/naval- ... -hawk.html
fisk

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Kind of an odd config for these Super Bugs, No?