Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

Active Member Joined: Jun 01, 2004 - 08:55 AM Posts: 134

Loader is right, you can't put AMRAAMs on stations 4 & 6. And DeepSpace, if I'm not mistaken, The AGM-65F Maverick is used by the US Navy only. USAF birds (including the Viper) are armed with AGM-65B/D/G. Sorry folks (this is a reply from a post on page 1 of this 4-page thread. Smile

F-16.net Sponsor

But why can't stations 4 and 6 be wired for use of AAMs? Because the F-16 can use 6 of it's 8 wing stations for AAMs, why couldn't General Dynamics just have went ahead and wire the whole wing for AAM use? Has it always been that way, even back when the F-16 was thought to be only used for air-to-air missions? Would this by any chance have to do with the range of the F-16?

Sorry for all the questions in this one post, but this is just driving me insane.

Possibly they didn't want the rocket exhaust to cook the horizontal stabs, like they would if launched off 4 and 6?

I don't think that's the reason, because I think the AGM-65 can be carried on stations 4 and 6.

I'm still very confused over this, while the F-16 can tow around up to 6 AAMs, the F/A-18C can carry twice that amount. Just take a look at this photo:

With the new F/A-18E/F's larger wing, I would imagine that even more AAM's can be stored.

I know that the Hornet can carry much more A2A weaponry thanks to those duel weapons racks it uses, but I just don't understand why the Viper wasn't wired to use those racks, after all the Viper already uses similar racks to hold multiple A2G weapons.

Also, after observing an image of the Agile Falcon concept showing off it's full A2A armament, I noticed that even though 2 more stations were added due to the larger wing, the two stations closest to the fuselage remained empty. So the Agile Falcon was only carrying 8 AAMs on it's wings (Including the wing tips), even though there should be a total 10 stations on the wings. So can someone please fill me in on the reason why F-16s (Even the Agile Falcon) cannot store AAMs on the stations nearest to the fuselage?

Again, I'm sorry for asking so many questions.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

I BELIEVE its a matter of proper wiring. The station can obviously support the weight of the -120, but the proper connections aren't on the station pylons to allow the plane to talk to the missile. I think USAF doctrine is if you need more AAMs, launch more fighters...

If a jet's only mission in life was pure A2A then yeah you would wire it to the hilt for A2A missiles. That is not the case here.

Your theory reminds me of the guy who thinks more is better, takes 4 aspirin instead of 2 etc...

Hi guys and gals,

Hey Agile Falcon, nice pic. I remembered when the Falcon first came out, GD then loaded with two MERs. The plane can take it, but the AF didn't want it and now the USAF don't have any MERs that I know of, for the Falcon. The same for the wiring and double launchers. If the AF don't want it and is not going to pay for it. Do You think that GD or Lockheed is going to put it in for free? I don't think so. The aircraft can carry about 12,000 lbs of ordnance. Even with AIM 120 at about 335 pounds each, eight of them is only 2,680 pounds, way below what the aircraft max at. Structurely, there might be more in play. But over all, I think that the bottom line is money.

Take care now. Very Happy

Sorry about reviving this here old thread. But I think there is merit to the idea of allowing the viper to carry 2 AMRAAMS each on stations 3/7 on Twin Stores Carriers like those used on hornets, and also on 2/8 if possible, on a modified slanted TSC. It would vastly improve the viper's A-A endurance.

From a practical point of view, obviously it's kinda late now, since the F-35s will be entering service before the end of the decade. But here's my question: would this have been a good idea in the mid-80s, around the same time BVR capability was added to the viper?

The most AA kills the viper got in one mission is 4. and rarely it got more then 1, so getting more AA missiles shouldnot be a big priority. 3-4 missiles is great for 99% of missions. 6 missiles is enough for sure..
cheers.
Fezy.

fezt wrote:

The most AA kills the viper got in one mission is 4. and rarely it got more then 1, so getting more AA missiles shouldnot be a big priority. 3-4 missiles is great for 99% of missions. 6 missiles is enough for sure..
cheers.
Fezy.

I guess that's a good enough answer, as the question is related to design philosophy as well as neccesity. But missiles do miss and 6 AAMs, more often than not, would not translate into 6 kills.

Guess the verdict should go to the real viper pilots on this forum: do you forsee a situation where you might need more than 6 AAMs on a CAP mission or more than 4 AAMs on a A-G mission?

Corous wrote:

Guess the verdict should go to the real viper pilots on this forum: do you forsee a situation where you might need more than 6 AAMs on a CAP mission or more than 4 AAMs on a A-G mission?

I am a real Viper pilot. That's why I answered...

Cheers.
Fezy.

Oh cool.

How about the Israelis, you think I might be able to sell them the idea? With them crazy CFTs and 1000 mile runs, they might consider it, don't you think? Laughing

Corous, the IAF has the Viper from 1980. They've done all kinds of modifications on them. If they would have considered this idea practical, they would have done it. As fezt pointed it out already (BTW, he's IAF), the best fighter is not the one that carries more missiles, it's the one that carries JUST ENOUGH. How much is enough is decided in light of the previous combat experiences, as well as the technico-tactical situation in the field.

The Israelis bought the F-16I mainly for A2G. Turning it into an interceptor is not an issue as long as they have the F-15, which can already carry 8 missiles and 3 fuel tanks. That's a true and pure interceptor, designed for that and much better at it than the Viper.

RoAF wrote:

Corous, the IAF has the Viper from 1980. They've done all kinds of modifications on them. If they would have considered this idea practical, they would have done it. As fezt pointed it out already (BTW, he's IAF), the best fighter is not the one that carries more missiles, it's the one that carries JUST ENOUGH. How much is enough is decided in light of the previous combat experiences, as well as the technico-tactical situation in the field.

The Israelis bought the F-16I mainly for A2G. Turning it into an interceptor is not an issue as long as they have the F-15, which can already carry 8 missiles and 3 fuel tanks. That's a true and pure interceptor, designed for that and much better at it than the Viper.

Hmm, that's a very good point, the IDF/AF does have F-15s... darnit. But I also read that the F-16I is the first Israeli F-16 capable of carrying the AMRAAM, think I can sell the idea of the Sufa having a AMRAAM arsenal ship role to them? Laughing

Okay... going down the list, how about the South Koreans or the Saudis or maybe the Singaporeans? Very Happy

Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

How many air-to-air missiles can an F-16 airframe carry?