F/A-18A/C pylon question

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 14 Aug 2017, 16:28

I came across this pic showing a Swiss F/A-18C with what appears to be smaller low drag AIM-120 pylons. Granted this is only for a single missile load out.

http://imgur.com/a/vYz9k

US Navy Hornets (legacy A/C, not SH) it seems, if they are going to carry AMRAAM's on the outers, will always carry the twin setup. Did they ever evaluate this single far smaller low drag pylon? Was figuring they could cut down on the drag for a 6 AAM CAP loadout (2 AIM-120's on fuselage cheeks, 2 AIM-120's on the outer singles (instead of carrying the twins), and 2 AIM-9's on the wingtip stations)?

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 14 Aug 2017, 17:05

Here is a batter pic of the Swiss pylon.

Yes, the USN mounts them individually. It's hard to tell, but I think this is the same pylon as the Swiss one.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 14 Aug 2017, 18:41

The NATOPS for the Hornet only lists the big pylons. The Super Hornet NATOPS lists small AAM pylons. This coincides with your pictures Spud.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 14 Aug 2017, 19:18

Here is a closeup of the Super Hornet small pylon and it's definitely not the Swiss version.

The Swiss version looks more like this Gripen (?) version

Here is the clearest shot I can find of the Swiss one:

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 14 Aug 2017, 21:17

That bottom pic is very clear. I wonder what the CAP radius would be if the F-18C is equipped with 3 EFT, 4 AMRAAM (2 on the fuselage cheeks, 2 under the wings on those tiny low drag pylons), and 2 Sidewinders on the wingtips? I imagine it would be rather respectable-

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 15 Aug 2017, 15:03

I guess it is a Swiss only product.

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 16 Aug 2017, 05:30

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The NATOPS for the Hornet only lists the big pylons. The Super Hornet NATOPS lists small AAM pylons. This coincides with your pictures Spud.

It's worth noting that Swiss F-18s are cleared to 9Gs and originally were configured for Air-to-Air only so its quite possible they use different pylons. My understanding is that Swiss F-18s don't fly NATOPS but have Swiss specific operating "standards", which includes pylon configuration and limits. Several other operators, notably Canada, have their own CF-18 operations standards that is not NATOPS. Pretty sure Finland and Australia have specific standards that are not covered by the F/A-18 NATOPS. The RAAF Super Hornets do use NATOPS apparently.

@Spazsinbad: The RAN A-4s used to fly according to NATOPS, correct?

Navy legacy F/A-18s might not be cleared to use certain pylons, even though the SuperBug has them as standard. Every configuration has to be verified by a test pilot, including separation tests, before its added to NATOPS.

f-16adf wrote:That bottom pic is very clear. I wonder what the CAP radius would be if the F-18C is equipped with 3 EFT, 4 AMRAAM (2 on the fuselage cheeks, 2 under the wings on those tiny low drag pylons), and 2 Sidewinders on the wingtips? I imagine it would be rather respectable-

The NATOPS lists the Drag Index so it would be possible to figure out the performance difference. The SuperBug is notoriously draggy with certain configurations.

linkomart · by **linkomart** » 16 Aug 2017, 09:59

SpudmanWP wrote:Here is a closeup of the Super Hornet small pylon and it's definitely not the Swiss version.

The Swiss version looks more like this Gripen (?) version

Here is the clearest shot I can find of the Swiss one:

The Gripen pylons in the picture are the older (=better) ones for the Swedish Airforce. They don't use the standard 14" and 30" lugs with swaybars, but a different standard that IIRC comes from the USN or MDD. We call it a T-plug but I can't on top of my head come up with any more specificatins. Dim memory....
When Gripen C was designed and sold to South Africa the interface to the weapons were adopted to NATO standard, with new pylons. That interface is heavier and draggier and takers longer to re-arm. (At least in the initial tests...) Not by a significant amount since the SWAF later adopted the interface, but still...

I don't know what interface the Swiss uses, but if they only carry rail launched A2A missiles then the pylon can be signifcally lighter constructed.
And since Ruag is from Switzerland it's not a wild guess that they equipped their fighters with own pylons.
But note that the last thing is a guess from my side, don't take it as facts.

my 5 cent

cantaz · by **cantaz** » 16 Aug 2017, 15:59

To clarify, what you're looking at is a pylon + a launcher. The launcher is almost certainly a version of the LAU-127, the pylon is the real mystery. The 127 is attached in pairs to a LAU-7 to attach to the full size pylons (SUU-63), or in the case of the SH, you can do single 127 to an adapter to whatever their smallest pylon is called.

So the launcher is OTS, because it can be. The real question is how the Swiss skipped over the LAU-7 and SUU-63.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 17 Aug 2017, 01:20

To answer 'neurotech' question: "...@Spazsinbad: The RAN A-4s used to fly according to NATOPS, correct?..."

Yes the RAN FAA adhered to NATOPS for the A-4E/F/G with some SOPs for A4G specific stuff at NAS Nowra / HMAS Melbourne. In the same manner the RNZAF initially used NATOPS for their humpy A-4Fs (I gather with Kiwi specific SOPs) and then the KAHU upgrade caused a specific Flight Manual to be issued. Only recently I received a copy and it shows a bunch of obvious airframe A-4F NATOPS and the specific avionics and associated equipment KAHU upgrade material.