Forum: General F-16 forum

Could anyone know the pod on station 3 ?
New ECM pod for training ?

thx

USAF F-16C block 30 #86-0293 from the 18th AS taxis on the flight line at Anderson AFB during Cope North 2012 on February 14th, 2012.

F-16.net Sponsor

Most likely an ECM-pod. Looks a little like the Elta-pods, however not exactly either?

Not to pick nits or anything but that's station 7, not 3. The stations are numbered from left to right.

LinkF16SimDude wrote:

Not to pick nits or anything but that's station 7, not 3. The stations are numbered from left to right.

Thank you, Link! I was holding my breath hoping someone would pick that nit instead of me! haha Nothing wrong with being exact.
fisk

Looks like the rail for a harm or maverick on sta 7 and an acmi pod on 9

Harm rail is deeper, Maverick rail has different configuration/shape. The agressors have (almost) never flown with anything other than ecm pods and dummy missiles, so no need to start now Smile

Still clinging to my claim of it beeing an ecm pod Smile

Slightly different angle here, and closer:

http://www.pacaf.af.mil/shared/media/ph ... 36-165.jpg
fisk

Boman wrote:

...Still clinging to my claim of it beeing an ecm pod Smile

I kinda thought the same thing. It may not mean anything but the pod's nose cover looks an awful lot like the TWS antenna at the top of the tail. But what do I know? Wink

http://www.deagel.com/library/ELL-82122 ... 00003.aspx

Maybe?
fisk

And the sales brochure:
http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/0/36830.pdf
fisk

Wouldn't it be better suited to be installed on the centerline (sta 5) ? Why waste a good rail for a missile or bomb just my Two Cents

As the photo is taken at Anderson AFB, Guam, the centerline will be reserved for extra fuel tanks. Hence the loading on underwing station.

ghettobird wrote:

Wouldn't it be better suited to be installed on the centerline (sta 5) ? Why waste a good rail for a missile or bomb just my Two Cents

Well he's not that loaded up anyways so there's not much aerodynamic difference than having a missile there. May be slightly more draggy. I would also speculate that you may also get better coverage having it on the wing vs. between the bags, but don't quote me. If he had a war-time load out then moving it to STA 5 may be called for tho.

The aggressors do not fly with any weapons on 3&7 so it is not wasting a station. The reason it is not on station 5 is to minimize the possibility of the radome on the front from getting damaged. The nose wheel kick up a lot of debris and the wait time for new parts is very long so there is no need to risk it.

That makes sense too.. so our "real world" mission jets dont use these? Just the aggressors for training?

Forum: General F-16 forum

What is this on this F-16C Aggressor ?