Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

Can anyone identify the stores in this picture:

http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F ... file/1645/

...of an F-16C from 50th TFW, Hahn AFB, Germany, circa 1987? The fuel tanks and Sidewinders are clear enough, but I can't make out (nor do I know enough to identify) what's on the centerline. Also, what pylons would typically be mounted during that era?

TIA
Pip Moss

F-16.net Sponsor

That's simply an AN-ALQ-131 ECM jamming pod.

Greets,

No Sidewinders in that photo. That's an ACMI pod on station 1, a missile adapter plus empty Sidewinder launcher on station 2, and a weapon pylon plus empty TER-9 on station 3.

johnwill wrote:

No Sidewinders in that photo. That's an ACMI pod on station 1, a missile adapter plus empty Sidewinder launcher on station 2, and a weapon pylon plus empty TER-9 on station 3.

Thanks for the help, guys. I'll now further display my ignorance: station 1 is the wingtip, yes? The fuel tank is at station 4, yes?

Pip

Sorry, I should have included that information in my post. External store stations are numbered from left wing tip (1) to right wing tip (9). So the left fuel tank is at station 4.

johnwill wrote:

Sorry, I should have included that information in my post. External store stations are numbered from left wing tip (1) to right wing tip (9). So the left fuel tank is at station 4.

Thanks again, johnwill. Glad I'm not totally out to lunch. Hope you don't mind another question: I'm thinking that the following loadout makes sense: ACMI pod on 1, AIM-9L/Ms on 2 and 8, TERs with Mk. 82s on 3 and 7, fuel tanks on 4 and 6, ALQ-131 on 5. What would then go on 9? Empty? Another AIM-9?

Pip

Depends on the mission. ACMI is a self-contained data package which transmits airplane flight condition (speed, altitude, g, roll rate, etc) to a ground station for combat training evaluations. ACMI and AIM-9 were interchangeable, meaning either could be installed at any missile hardpoint. TERs and Mk-82s are rarely if ever used these days, but were common in the 80s.

So, what is the mission? If it is air to ground (TERs + Mk-82s) you probably want only two missiles (or ACMI). If it is air to air, you don't want the TERs, but might want four missiles. I'm not very knowledgeable about operational issues, but there are plenty people here who are, so they can give you a better answer.

Just from memory, based on some F-4 Dash-Ones I have laying around, the drag numbers of TERs are some kind of scary. If you're flying general-purpose close air support or attacking structures, Mk 82s would be decent. However, if you're engaging enemy armor, I would go with Mk 20 Rockeye CBU. Rockeye has shaped-charge bomblets with a very high reported penetration versus RHA(E).

I believe that only stations 4 and 6 can take TERs (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Your heavy load most likely precludes significant external fuel carriage. Your choices now are between a smaller centerline tank and an ALQ-131/other ECM pod, as well as between 2 and 4 'Winders (to include an ACMI if you wish). If the chances of air attack against whatever troops you would be covering are reasonable, take the minor drag/endurance penalty and go for four. For pure A2A, take four 'Winders, add two 330gal tanks for extended-duration missions.

(This assumes negligible availability of guided munitions. We can leave the fancy stuff to the Pigs and Rhinos. I also find it mildly comical how the F-4's practical load carriage as so much higher than the F-16's Wink

)

As a general rule of thumb, bigger airplanes can carry heavier loads than smaller ones. The F-4 is about 80% heavier than the F-16, has about 80% more wing area, and about 85% more internal fuel. Yet its max external load is only about 20% greater. We both know max external loads are not practical loads, but the practical load differences would be about the same.

Is it mildly comical that an F-111 can carry much more than an F-4 or a B-1 can carry much more than an F-111?

Rolling Eyes

3,4,6,&7 can carry TERs, but 4 and 6 are where the ext. tanks ride, so usually just 3 and 7.

johnwill wrote:

As a general rule of thumb, bigger airplanes can carry heavier loads than smaller ones. The F-4 is about 80% heavier than the F-16, has about 80% more wing area, and about 85% more internal fuel. Yet its max external load is only about 20% greater. We both know max external loads are not practical loads, but the practical load differences would be about the same.

Is it mildly comical that an F-111 can carry much more than an F-4 or a B-1 can carry much more than an F-111?

Rolling Eyes

Oh, stop being so dismissive. I'm just pointing out the fact that the Rhino wins out against the Viper when it comes to employing large quantities of ordnance in combat. Imagine having fighter-bombers carrying over a dozen 500lb JDAMs or laser-guided bombs. Things like the F-4E AUP and Terminator 2020 are not to be sneezed at.

I found another picture of the plane I'm building -- 84-1315 of the 496th TFS, 50th TFW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:496th ... 4-1315.jpg

In this shot it's got an ACMI pod at station 1, an empty missile rail at station 2, and what looks like a 4-missile launcher pod at station 3. Can anybody identify the latter, and is it available in 1/48 scale?

BTW, I tried to insert the image into the post, but no joy.

Pip Moss

seawinder wrote:

I found another picture of the plane I'm building -- 84-1315 of the 496th TFS, 50th TFW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:496th ... 4-1315.jpg

In this shot it's got an ACMI pod at station 1, an empty missile rail at station 2, and what looks like a 4-missile launcher pod at station 3. Can anybody identify the latter, and is it available in 1/48 scale?

BTW, I tried to insert the image into the post, but no joy.

Pip Moss

http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item38849.html
SUU-20 training pod
don't know if it's part of any model kit?
fisk

[quote="fiskerwad"]
[Link pending approval]
I do know it is included in this kit: 1/48 [Link pending approval] Aircraft Weapons A, by Hasegawa

p0intyhead wrote:

I do know it is included in this kit: 1/48 U.S. Aircraft Weapons A, by Hasegawa

Son of a gun! I've got that kit --I was looking right at it. As my mother used to say, if it was a bear it would bite me. Many thanks to everyone for all the helpful information in this thread.

Pip Moss

Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

Loadout for 1980s block 25