Loadout for 1980s block 25

This particular forum is for everything related to F-16 Armament, fuel tanks, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

seawinder

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 22:06
  • Location: Boston, MA, USA

Unread post12 Jun 2012, 22:11

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
Offline
User avatar

Bjorn

F-16.net Editor

F-16.net Editor

  • Posts: 1594
  • Joined: 27 May 2003, 18:56

Unread post12 Jun 2012, 22:20

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

Greets,
Bjorn Claes
F-16.net Editor
Photo Library Admin
Aircraft Database Admin
Offline

johnwill

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1491
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 00:22

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.
Offline

seawinder

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 22:06
  • Location: Boston, MA, USA

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 01:11

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
Offline

johnwill

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1491
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 01:36

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.
Offline

seawinder

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 22:06
  • Location: Boston, MA, USA

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 01:59

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
Offline

johnwill

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1491
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 02:20

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.
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 04:48

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: :wink: )
Offline

johnwill

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1491
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 06:18

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?

:roll:
Offline

cutlassracer

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 395
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2006, 01:33
  • Location: Las Vegas, NV

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 06:21

3,4,6,&7 can carry TERs, but 4 and 6 are where the ext. tanks ride, so usually just 3 and 7.
Torrejon, Homestead, Moody, Osan, Holloman
USAF Crew Chief 89-99
F-16D 90-0794/90-0779
F-117A 83-0807
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 06:36

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?

:roll:


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.
Offline

seawinder

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 22:06
  • Location: Boston, MA, USA

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 07:48

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
Offline

fiskerwad

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 753
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2004, 19:43
  • Location: 76101

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 12:57

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
Mipple?
Offline

p0intyhead

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 01:54
  • Location: Abu Dhabi

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 15:00

[quote="fiskerwad"]
http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/hsg/hsg36001.htm
I do know it is included in this kit: 1/48 U.S. Aircraft Weapons A, by Hasegawa
Offline

seawinder

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 22:06
  • Location: Boston, MA, USA

Unread post13 Jun 2012, 15:51

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
Next

Return to F-16 Armament & Stores

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests