F-16.net

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 12, 2005 Posts: 1581 Status: Offline

Hello all,

Would this 706th FS / 926th FS "NO" AFRES Viper carry a realistic load-out??

AGM-65s on sta. 4/6??

Greetings,

Henrik.

F-16.net Sponsor

Henrik wrote:

Hello all,

Would this 706th FS / 926th FS "NO" AFRES Viper carry a realistic load-out??

AGM-65s on sta. 4/6??

Greetings,

Henrik.

As far as I know, those stations are not wired to transmit seeker imagery. Nor are they wired, for instance, to communicate with a JDAM. Thus, I do not think that the load-out is realistic in any real-world situation other than static display.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 12, 2005 Posts: 1581 Status: Offline

My thoughts, as well, idesof!! Thanks for Your reply.

Greetings,

Henrik.

Henrik, unless there is something in the photo I'm not seeing, it looks like those are slant loaded Mk 20's on sta. 3 and a maverick on sta. 4. Very possible. Not so sure you would see this loadout in this day and age. Especially older Mk 20's. More likely you'd see WCMD.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 12, 2005 Posts: 1581 Status: Offline

Hello Falconloader,

Sorry for not being more specific!! My thoughts were that the AGM-65s on Sta. 4/6 would cause problems/burns to the flaps when launched from these stations!! I would also believe that wing tanks would be the choice in most operations!! I have seen this load before, but the Mavericks and bombs had switched places.

Many thanks and greetings,

Henrik.

Enthusiast Joined: Aug 11, 2006 Posts: 25 Status: Offline

Well, someone was playing too much F-16 PC Sims when they prepared this bird for static display... lol Smile

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 07, 2005 Posts: 36 Status: Offline

Henrik and Falconloader are on the right track, station 4 and 6 are wired for EO signals, but the -2 flight manual does not allow for loading the AGM on those stations.

Enthusiast Joined: May 31, 2005 Posts: 71 Status: Offline

idesof wrote:

Nor are they wired, for instance, to communicate with a JDAM

4 and 6 have MIL-STD-1760, but the software in the jet doesn't generally allow IAM loadouts on those stations.

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 01, 2005 Posts: 27 Status: Offline

Years ago, I was personally told by a pilot from VTANG that Mavs weren't carried on the In-board pylons due to de-laminization problems on the tailerons when the missiles are launched. Is this still true?

AGM-65 were never authorized for loading on 4/6 because the USAF never asked GD/Lockheed to perform the analysis and testing to certify safe carriage and separation. Three AGM-65 on a LAU-88 launcher on sta 3/7 were analyzed and flight tested during the FSD program in 1977-78. However, the inboard missile on 3/7 did exactly what the pilot in the above post said - delaminated the horizontal tail leading edge. Not just on one launch, of course. But repeated launches would cause a serious problem. So the initial -1 launch clearances were for center and outboard AGM only. I seem to recall inboard launch clearance might be permitted in wartime only, not sure there.

Three AGM-5 on a LAU-88 are the most structurally severe load on 3/7, more than MK-84, GBU-10, or GBU-8, due to higher drag and higher g-limit. The AGM requirement was 6.5g while the bombs were only 5.5g.

johnwill wrote:

AGM-65 were never authorized for loading on 4/6 because the USAF never asked GD/Lockheed to perform the analysis and testing to certify safe carriage and separation. Three AGM-65 on a LAU-88 launcher on sta 3/7 were analyzed and flight tested during the FSD program in 1977-78. However, the inboard missile on 3/7 did exactly what the pilot in the above post said - delaminated the horizontal tail leading edge. Not just on one launch, of course. But repeated launches would cause a serious problem. So the initial -1 launch clearances were for center and outboard AGM only. I seem to recall inboard launch clearance might be permitted in wartime only, not sure there.

Three AGM-5 on a LAU-88 are the most structurally severe load on 3/7, more than MK-84, GBU-10, or GBU-8, due to higher drag and higher g-limit. The AGM requirement was 6.5g while the bombs were only 5.5g.

Thanks for the informative post. I was under the impression that 3/7 were stressed for 2,500 lbs. up to 9g and up to 3,500 lbs. for 5.5g.

idesof,
The nominal weight/g for sta 3/7 was 2500lb/5.5g. Nominal in this case is just approximate. In actuality, every store loading is analyzed to its requirements and the most severe ones are flight tested to verify the analysis. For FSD flight test for structural load at 3/7, GBU-8, 3-AGM-65/LAU-88, and 2-CBU/TER were flown. The bombs were flown to 5.5g symmetric/4.4g roll. and AGM limits were 6.5g symmetric, 5.2g roll. The single most severe condition for sta 3/7 was the AGM/LAU-88 in a 5.2g roll at low altitude, max speed. All this is for the FSD airplanes. Block 15 and on had added load capacity, but I had moved on to XL by then, so I'm not sure what the status is now.

johnwill wrote:

idesof,
The nominal weight/g for sta 3/7 was 2500lb/5.5g. Nominal in this case is just approximate. In actuality, every store loading is analyzed to its requirements and the most severe ones are flight tested to verify the analysis. For FSD flight test for structural load at 3/7, GBU-8, 3-AGM-65/LAU-88, and 2-CBU/TER were flown. The bombs were flown to 5.5g symmetric/4.4g roll. and AGM limits were 6.5g symmetric, 5.2g roll. The single most severe condition for sta 3/7 was the AGM/LAU-88 in a 5.2g roll at low altitude, max speed. All this is for the FSD airplanes. Block 15 and on had added load capacity, but I had moved on to XL by then, so I'm not sure what the status is now.

My understanding is that 3/7 are stressed for 2,500 lbs. at 9g flight and for 3.500 lbs. at 5.5g. My understanding is also that the F-16 can fly with up to 12,000 lbs. of external stores and still pull 9g. I'm sure that these are all theoretical figures, and that in the "real world" the loads and load factors are substantially less.

As I said, I am not up to date on current capability, and the hardpoint may now be good for nominally 3500 lb at 5.5g, The airplane can't pull 9g with 12,000 lb of stores, because the stores are generally limited to 5.5g, which is, as you say, substantially less.

Just to add somthing here LAU-88's are no longer carried on the USAF F-16's so you can only carry them on LAU-117 (V)3's and having AGM-65's on stations 4 or 6 is not an authorized loading.

Cheers,

ViperDude

F-16.net

Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

Realistic load-out