F/A-18C loadout question
-
I have a question concerning this famous photograph:
As you can see, the F/A-18 has a quite a lot of missiles (12 AIM-120X) on its hardpoints. Many of BMS’ default Korea theatre loadouts usually end up mirroring this configuration. Is this aircraft being used for a Fleet Defense role with this type of payload? If not, wouldn’t the sheer weight of the exterior load make dogfighting challenging when going against a repetitively modern aircraft such as a Mig-29 or an early generation Su-27?
-
I wouldn’t think it would be that terrible. With 12 aim120s and full internal fuel the bird will weigh in at 37,880lbs. Provided that the pilot loses the center tank and has burn 10% of fuel he will be back past a 1:1 t/w ratio. That is of course assuming that he was jumped and did not have a chance to fire any missiles before the merge.
If you really think about it the ratios in play are pretty close to the f-16 with full internal fuel, 6 aim120s, and the jamming pod. That tips the scale at about 29,000lbs.
-
I see 10 AIM-120s, and 2 Sidewinders.
That being said, if you get into a WVR fight with AIM-120’s still under your wings, you screwed up already.
Unless you intentionally took an aircraft to the merge, in which case, if it’s a class A fighter, you still screwed up.
-
-
I wouldn’t think it would be that terrible. With 12 aim120s and full internal fuel the bird will weigh in at 37,880lbs. Provided that the pilot loses the center tank and has burn 10% of fuel he will be back past a 1:1 t/w ratio. That is of course assuming that he was jumped and did not have a chance to fire any missiles before the merge.
If you really think about it the ratios in play are pretty close to the f-16 with full internal fuel, 6 aim120s, and the jamming pod. That tips the scale at about 29,000lbs.
Thrust depends on speed and alt either so pls forget such shit stat value such as t/w ratio with SL thrust on testpad. BTW drag also as a factor and not only the weight of AC… T/W is almost a pointless stat value the Ps exist for a very good reason…
From air combats in Africa and other cases one of the most important conclusion was that higer fuel level provides much better general tactical sit, so I rather sacrifice 2x2 AIM-120 to a pair of drop tanks… The loadout on the image is totally pointess because even in BARCAP drop tanks are better. You simply do not have enogh time to aim, guide and launch all AIM-120 on incoming supersonic targets, the chance is very theoretical.
-
In Falcon even flying a slightly upgraded F-18c I very rarely use the dual racks. 6 long 2 short and a tank. otherwise way to much drag.
Fox3x2 and extend twice doesn’t leave a lot of fuel to play with.
-
Thrust depends on speed and alt either so pls forget such shit stat value such as t/w ratio with SL thrust on testpad. BTW drag also as a factor and not only the weight of AC… T/W is almost a pointless stat value the Ps exist for a very good reason…
From air combats in Africa and other cases one of the most important conclusion was that higer fuel level provides much better general tactical sit, so I rather sacrifice 2x2 AIM-120 to a pair of drop tanks… The loadout on the image is totally pointess because even in BARCAP drop tanks are better. You simply do not have enogh time to aim, guide and launch all AIM-120 on incoming supersonic targets, the chance is very theoretical.
I was just making a general statement that this load with the bug is similar to the 6 load on the F-16. The use T/w is a simple measure of comparing a relative performance snapshot. There are tons of variables ranging from wing shape, loading, lifting body characteristic, temperature, alt, etc that will effect the aircraft up and down its envelope so T/w is common for a snap shot comparison.
What are you talking about with the no time to aim guide and fire. These missiles are fired in TWS, it is a simple as bug, and fire. A flight of 12 should be able to be engaged in under 20 Secs. I am of course simplifying the situation to head to head bvr combat, but you seem to be doing the same.Yes, I do know fuel in the long term is important, and can be the deciding factor in the engagement. A famous tomcat pilot quote(hoser ifirc but its been a while) quote went something like, “I can fight a f-16 to the neutral all day until he runs out of gas.” I still stand by the point that if you are bounced by a maneuverable foe and forced on the defensive dropping the tank it your best course of action. If you think the drag and weight on 4 120s is bad what are the wing tanks going do to you.
-
It’s a publicity photo nothing more. The weight wouldn’t be a concern, but the drag would ensure that Hornet would need to tank to full capacity right before crossing into enemy territory to fight. The only time I’ve heard of a legacy Hornet going into combat without at least dual tanks is in Gulf War 1, when they were used to drop 4 MK-84s a piece( big BOOM) on a target. This was Mark Fox’s flight that had just shot down the J-7s. Every other time I’ve read about them or seen them they’ve had a “hard wing” with a centerline and one under the port wing. This loadout probably eased training and provided a definite safety margin. I’d like to se Hornet loadouts in BMS changed to something more realistic during the campaign.
-
It’s a publicity photo nothing more. The weight wouldn’t be a concern, but the drag would ensure that Hornet would need to tank to full capacity right before crossing into enemy territory to fight. The only time I’ve heard of a legacy Hornet going into combat without at least dual tanks is in Gulf War 1, when they were used to drop 4 MK-84s a piece( big BOOM) on a target. This was Mark Fox’s flight that had just shot down the J-7s. Every other time I’ve read about them or seen them they’ve had a “hard wing” with a centerline and one under the port wing. This loadout probably eased training and provided a definite safety margin. I’d like to se Hornet loadouts in BMS changed to something more realistic during the campaign.
We need a realistic carrier placement. The thing is sitting 60 miles from the coast. Depending on which campaign it is between 60-120 miles to the FLOT from the carrier. That is very close distance for a CVBG. In the gulf war the closest the carriers ever got to the coast was 185 miles. The way we are set in this game you can take off hit your target, and land before a real pilot would even go feet dry. As it stands right now you don’t need the extra fuel for most missions because they are so short. In a real world I’m going to fly a far from ship scenario, sure I would rather have tanks, but if my mission is fly less than 200miles and shoot at the North Korean horde I’ll take the missiles.
On a more serious note, the only real world time I would ever expect to see that would the same situation that would have called for 6 phoenix from the tomcat. Large bomber formation with enough warning to alpha launch.
-
… unless you are “not flying realistically” (understand: sorting, ID, engagement) … more missiles means more fuel needed and more time in the FAOR.
But yes … in some cases you can reduce your fuel load if at appears that you will have far enough to fulfill your mission in the safest way. However … do not forget that combat is not the only thing that need fuel, facing unforeseen bad weather conditions, diverting, OSC tasks are requiring fuel also and must not be neglected.
-
IIRC it’s 185 miles because 180 miles is the closest the battle group will get to a coastline during combat engagements. Airborne bogies at sea at 180 mls distance is danger close for a carrier, I guess they want to avoid having to worry about land based threats as well.
We need a realistic carrier placement. The thing is sitting 60 miles from the coast. Depending on which campaign it is between 60-120 miles to the FLOT from the carrier. That is very close distance for a CVBG. In the gulf war the closest the carriers ever got to the coast was 185 miles. The way we are set in this game you can take off hit your target, and land before a real pilot would even go feet dry. As it stands right now you don’t need the extra fuel for most missions because they are so short. In a real world I’m going to fly a far from ship scenario, sure I would rather have tanks, but if my mission is fly less than 200miles and shoot at the North Korean horde I’ll take the missiles.
On a more serious note, the only real world time I would ever expect to see that would the same situation that would have called for 6 phoenix from the tomcat. Large bomber formation with enough warning to alpha launch.
-
Carrier placement changed with the Super Hornet taking the reigns, its a bit closer allowed now, based on threat and need to get the job done. An F/A-18 can’t do DLI and have enough gas to engage 10 targets before running our of gas. Its just not possible in any way unless the targets are slow flying en masse, with short range weapons to target to CSG. Six weapons is feasible based on jet speed, range, radar targeting capabilities to guide X number of AMRAAMs before they go active, and weapon range. The mission calls for a platform with lots of speed, lots of gas, and a radar that can handle all the targets and guidance- MiG-31, F-22 and F-14 territory. On a side note, F-22s may be able to do this for AESA F-15s, but I don’t know what the guidance limitations are for the APG-77. Also makes me wonder what a clean F/A-18F(stealthiest profile possible) with APG-79 could provide for LINK-16 equipped missile shooters.
-
If I remember correctly the tomcat had the ability to fire the pheonix nose cold data linked to the AWACS for missile guidance. Did that capability get lost in the hornet.
-
The flying SAM site loadout - only place this might have been useful was against Soviet bombers as a better F6D concept perhaps.
-
If I remember correctly the tomcat had the ability to fire the pheonix nose cold data linked to the AWACS for missile guidance. Did that capability get lost in the hornet.
Current legacy Hornets should have Link 16 for one which is fairly common - so can send/receive with any other node that has that.