Jump to content

Scrape

Members
  • Posts

    343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Scrape

  • Birthday 05/22/1980

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    Been flying sims since my 486SX!
  • Location
    Las Vegas Nevada
  • Interests
    Racing cars, riding motorcyles, writing books, filming and editing video and movie shorts
  • Occupation
    Business Owner and Weapons Systems Specialist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Was this question for me? If so, I didn't find the info. I was there, so to speak. Carrying the 130 on a Viper might have been an idea, as anything combat related is always an evolving idea. However, when it came to being used operationally the Viper did not use them.
  2. The AGM-130 was indeed used operationally on the F-15E. It was never used on the F-16. The AGM-130 is no longer maintained in the inventory to date.
  3. Fellow 2W1 Toad here! Over 20. Back in the day, the AIM-7 pylons/capes were retired during blk 30s (USAF). Some units moved away from them earlier than others, but the capes were there if the unit had the equipment. Max 2 could be loaded on sta 3 & 7. It wasn't widely used, and most units elected to not bother if they had the 120s, and left the equipment in cold storage. Underwing adapters and 129 rails were better than that 7 Pylon. The ACIS, with those super sensitive wafer connectors with the single allen screw connectors that'd snap if your breathed on them too hard (before MMS) could talk to the AIM-7 though.
  4. All good man, thanks for saying that. No hard feelings from me either. Which country's F-16s did you work with if you don't mind me asking? I have over a decade with the Viper myself. US F-16s only.
  5. Ya see, your response is interesting. You acknowledge that I "could" have been there, but also I can look up the information for myself. If I had been there, what would I have to look up? Kinda contradicts a bit. I get the need to be contrarian, it happens, but I offered you a branch when I said your information is incomplete. For someone who has to look it up, don't stand on the mountain of telling those who were there they are flat out wrong. Also, try to understand that while your source of information isn't something I would say must be thrown away entirely, I don't know what that source is, but I can say that I know a fair bit about upgrade programs and how they are run when it comes to the weapons capabilities of fighter aircraft. Using the language of "some" variants, as you put it, tells that you may not know enough to be so certain.
  6. I know how people typically respond on forums, forgive to directness, but I can tell you that your information is incomplete. I was there, and what I said was correct.
  7. In refence to the previous page, F-16s could carry and employ AIM-7s until the Blk 30s. After which AIM-7 support was abandoned. The sparrows were only capable on stations 3 & 7 and required a special pylon. The 7 was mounted on an AIM-7 Pylon which looked similar in shape and size to a WWP. However this was not widely used. At the time units understood the AIM-120 would be the future and that's where the focus was. It's safe to say Blk 40 and up no AIM-7 was used, but before then an asterisk is needed.
  8. That's correct. CBU-87s and up only.
  9. The F-16 is approved to fly with 88s on 4&6? Yes it is. However any reference to an SCL does not tell nor should it be interpreted that the missile was fired or employed from a particular station. There is no firing of munitions during SCL testing. All the SCL can tell you, it's one and only job, is to confirm that the aircraft is aerodynamically sound in flight and can be operated in the air without undue stress to the pilot or airframe with a particular loadout.
  10. That's a wicked loadout. I wonder what country is that? First thing my eyes zapped to were empty wingtips. Weird lol.
  11. Evidence points to this as being the case in part. F-16s were built for the option, but there is a but. Early F-16s were fielded during the days of Integrated Combat Turns or ICTs. An ICT was where the aircraft would be turned for another sortie without the pilot getting out or shutting the engine down. The aircraft would be loaded, serviced, and fueled all at the same time with the engine running. Then the jet would taxi right back out and complete another sortie. Effective ICTs could double a sortie rate in a given time period or at least increase sortie generation by 50%. That was meant to translate into the enemy being pummeled by constant pressure in a seemingly non-stop flow of fighters flowing into the target area. This practice was phased out by the Blk 30 era of F-16s. That could be, a factor, not a whole reason, but consideration why the initial design considered 4&6 as potential smart weapon capable. Another factor could be space. There's not a lot of it. It's remarkably tight behind the leading edge flap, and it is very easy to create a chafing situation there. Another bundle going to 4&6 is tough to imagine. There's no extra room in there as it is. Again a possible factor. Doubling up as you put it...I think I know what you mean, but the analogy doesn't align with how those stations are wired. In some cases you might have a point. F-15Es for example have a sort of complex rail yard style wiring system for their CFTs. Certain portions of the lines are shared. This is why you can't mix 120s and JDAMs on CFTs, for example. The F-16 though, has a completely different wiring system. It is in a way straight forward by comparison.
  12. No offense taken from if anyone who doesn't agree. From theory of operation, to application, to wire impedance the meat and potatoes of what I said cannot be challenged. I get that you don't know me personally, but you won't be able to find anyone else that's knowledgeable, from the perspective I've described, on the subject that would disagree. To answer your question about what if there was a few F-16s fitted and wired.... It doesn't work that way. I can explain how and why it doesn't work that way, but I'll leave it to you if you would like to go that route in the conversation rather than offer a deluge of operational examples on the why your what if question is not possible for multiple reasons. The F-16 upgrade program does not work the way you might think it could work. In short, versions are standardized, for all of the logistical reasons you may imagine. Upgrades are not mysterious, at a certain level we are aware of what unit X has going on, and there are reasons for that too. If you can't imagine I think I can offer a couple examples if you like. The other question of why did ED model the F-16 to fire HARMS from 4&6... That's the big money question for a lot of people because of what I've explained. ED spokespersons have stated they have documentation. I tried to explain how that documentation could be misleading. Not that I know what ED's documentation is, I don't know what they have. However I'm comfortable with this subject that I can take some guesses on what it could be, and ED should not be blamed for intentionally getting this one wrong, or not doing their research. I'm sure they did. Because this specific why of the system in the F-16 it's not something that is apparent outside of people intimate with the weapons system. A pilot, Crew Chief or Avionics troop would have no idea of the why or be able to match my explanation, for example. It's an honest mistake kind of situation. I don't have an opinion on how ED should handle the situation. That's up to them.
  13. I agree with what you bring up here. Often the nuance of information and the context of where a person sits in the chain of events, the difference between creator, maintainer, and end user is often mushed into a blob of all knowing. It's a challenge to parse that out and explain how that works. Especially when the thing being discussed is complex as it is. It's when someone ask you something like, you didn't realize that this panel changed shape between year X vs X? How could you not know, you touch it everyday? Inside your head, you might be thinking, because I never cared what shape the panel was, it's a panel, it's either open or closed.
  14. This is the what he was getting at. I'll repost here to clarify why some people bring my name up in this discussion since its buried several pages back on a different discussion. Link to post: Posted September 28, 2020 Outside of the factory and depo maintenance only one career field will wire a weapons harness for a wing on an F-16 when on station. Wing changes are completed on station. The only, not avionics, not crew chiefs, not anyone but 2W1 Weapons Troops will wire the wing of an F-16 for all weapon stations. When it comes to which wires and buses are present there is no greater SME on the flightline. Why? Because the wing harness comes as one piece and must be dissembled and then reassembled when installed on the wing with wires ran to their specific stations. I'm a Weapons Troop, and have spent 13 of my 20 years working F-16s in 4 units, 3 of which happened to be SEAD units. I'm posting not to make controversy, but to set the record straight. It is not an operational limitation to not carry HARMs on sta 4&6. There is no 1553 bus for 4&6. The 1553 bus is for 3&7 and sits near to the JRIU. No 1553 bus, means no 1760 capability for 4&6. No smart weapons, no JDAM, etc. That means only conventional stores can be reliably employed there. There's no "double braid" bundle for those who might know a thing or two. There is also no video line for sta 4&6. This means no AGM-65s either. I saw it mentioned that the AGM-65 and AGM-88 use different video lines. This is false. It's the same line. No video, no 1760 capability on 4&6 for any US F-16 unit. No variations. What this means is not only is it not possible to use 65s or 88s from 4&6 it would take a herculean effort to reconfigure an aircraft to do so. It's not feasible in terms of cost or man hours. It's not something that could be done in days. Each jet would take weeks of maintenance to convert, not to mention the cost of a redesigned harness. How can it be so confusing? If what I'm saying is true then how is there conflicting data? This is an easy mistake looking from the outside in. If one were to look at a wiring diagram, then they might come upon a T connector at the wing disconnect. This connector has three ports. A single on one side, and two on the other. This T connector, one on each side of the F-16 at the wing disconnect is a video line junction. The single plug goes forward toward the SMS, and there is a plug for sta 3&4 on the left side and correspondingly 6&7 on the right. They are labelled in the wire diagram. The 4&6 plugs of that T connector are capped. Without intimate knowledge of the system, it would be easy to make a mistake. The F-16 is approved to fly with 88s on 4&6? Yes it is. However any reference to an SCL does not tell nor should it be interpreted that the missile was fired or employed from a particular station. There is no firing of munitions during SCL testing. All the SCL can tell you, it's one and only job, is to confirm that the aircraft is aerodynamically sound in flight and can be operated in the air without undue stress to the pilot or airframe with a particular loadout. Any reference to test aircraft. Don't count. There's a book worth of reasons why, but test aircraft should never be considered when asking what if, because test birds are what ifs in and of themselves. Also, a test bird doesn't have to be at Edwards to be a test bird. I'm not posting to make an opinion about what ED is or is not doing with 4&6. I'm trying to shed a little light on real world F-16s because the community seems to have lots of questions in this regard with a search for the truth. I'm not coming from a position of being well read. Because of how a wiring harness must be installed, you get to know every single pin, because you'll be wiring every single pin for each station. Connect every matrix and multiplex bus. It's not an easy job, and not one that everyone is chosen to qualify for. The best guys still take a couple weeks to finish one side. I hope this helps shed a little understanding on where the real world jet sits on the matter, and why.
×
×
  • Create New...