Jump to content

Justification for GBU-12s on ITERs?


tom_19d

Recommended Posts

Hi all, fairly new to the Harrier and just got the NATOPS package for the aircraft. I am trying to find out where the ability to put GBU-12s on TERs is documented (actually I can't find justification for many of the loadouts available in DCS, but I figure this is an easy place to start).

 

Specifically, page XI-02-5 of A1-AV8BB-NFM-400 (Change 5/1 Feb 2003) shows that only one GBU-12 is authorized on both the inboard and intermediate pylon. This is backed up further by page 5-49 of the TAC-050 (Change 1/1 May 1998 ) I'm sure I'm missing something, but I can't find it. Where is it documented that we should be able to load GBU's on triple ejector racks?

 

Thanks.

Multiplayer as Variable

 

Asus Z97-A - I7 4790K - 32 GB HyperX - EVGA GTX 1080 Ti - Corsair 750i PSU

 

TM Warthog HOTAS - TM Cougar MFDs - CH Pedals - TrackIR 5 - Samsung RU8000 55”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all, fairly new to the Harrier and just got the NATOPS package for the aircraft. I am trying to find out where the ability to put GBU-12s on TERs is documented (actually I can't find justification for many of the loadouts available in DCS, but I figure this is an easy place to start).

 

Specifically, page XI-02-5 of A1-AV8BB-NFM-400 (Change 5/1 Feb 2003) shows that only one GBU-12 is authorized on both the inboard and intermediate pylon. This is backed up further by page 5-49 of the TAC-050 (Change 1/1 May 1998 ) I'm sure I'm missing something, but I can't find it. Where is it documented that we should be able to load GBU's on triple ejector racks?

 

Thanks.

 

Interesting, I agree ...

 

AV-8 Tactical Manual Vol 2, A1-AV8BB-TAC-050 (NWP 3-22.5-AV8B, Vol. II)

 

Chapter 1 (page 134, 1-90), Figure 1-30. Release Sequence (Sheet 1 of 3)

 

• Groups Mk81, Mk82, etc. with GBU-12s and shows TER loadouts and release sequences.

 

but it looks like only "ITERS=None" is a valid loadout for GBU-12s as ...

 

Chapter 5 (page 995, 5-19), Figure 5-3. External Stores Limitations (Sheet 39 of 66)

 

• only shows 1 GBU-12 per station and no ITERS.

 

... GBU-12s on ITERS look like an invalid loadout IRL.

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 64GB DDR4, RTX4070 12GB, 1+2TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 4+1TB SSD, Winwing Orion 2 F-15EX Throttle + F-16EX Stick, TPR Pedals, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for looking Ramsey, I found the sequencing diagrams you mentioned in Chapter 1 as well; I believe it is showing the GBUs grouped in with the Mk80 group for cases in which you were carrying say an ITER of Mk82s on one set of pylons and GBUs on the other, which from what I can tell would be authorized.

 

 

I agree that Chapter 5 should be the limiting diagrams, since that is precisely what the point of the chapter is.

 

 

One more quick question for you, what is the date on your TAC-050 manual? I'm sure we are looking at the same diagram in chapter 5 but my page number is different. I have Change 1, dated May of 1998, I just want to make sure I am using the manuals I should be using.

Multiplayer as Variable

 

Asus Z97-A - I7 4790K - 32 GB HyperX - EVGA GTX 1080 Ti - Corsair 750i PSU

 

TM Warthog HOTAS - TM Cougar MFDs - CH Pedals - TrackIR 5 - Samsung RU8000 55”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't take the NATOPS as bibles on what something can or is capable of doing. Those are more operation manuals on standard ops. You don't see most planes capable of caring multiple GBUs actually doing it.

 

 

 

It probably says targeting pod on middle pilon is not allowed either but it is done. https://www.military.com/equipment/av-8b-harrier-ii

 

 

First off we are Marines. Many times we adapt and overcome to do things which strangely enough is our motto as well. I have seen Harriers propped up on a jack and then 2 2x4s so they could fix the wing gear. Don't get me wrong I am not an expert nor did I fly while I was in but I can tell you things are not the same from the book to the fleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't take the NATOPS as bibles on what something can or is capable of doing. Those are more operation manuals on standard ops. You don't see most planes capable of caring multiple GBUs actually doing it.

 

 

 

It probably says targeting pod on middle pilon is not allowed either but it is done. https://www.military.com/equipment/av-8b-harrier-ii

 

 

First off we are Marines. Many times we adapt and overcome to do things which strangely enough is our motto as well. I have seen Harriers propped up on a jack and then 2 2x4s so they could fix the wing gear. Don't get me wrong I am not an expert nor did I fly while I was in but I can tell you things are not the same from the book to the fleet.

 

People seem to forget that nifty little line at the beginning of every NATOPS manual which says

 

Nothing in this manual serves to prevent your from doing something that makes sense, if you can justify it

Paraphrasing, of course.

Aurora R7 || i7K 8700K || 2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s || 2TB M.2 PCIe x4 SSD || GTX 1080 Ti with 11GB GDDR5X || Windows 10 Pro || 32GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2667MHz || Virpil Warbird Base || Virpil T-50 Stick || Virpil MT-50 Throttle || Thrustmaster TPR Pedals || Oculus Rift

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you guys are saying. Obviously in combat conditions rules will be bent/broken/ignored as dictated by the situation. My original question remains though, "Where is it documented?"

 

Thanks for the comments and your service.

Multiplayer as Variable

 

Asus Z97-A - I7 4790K - 32 GB HyperX - EVGA GTX 1080 Ti - Corsair 750i PSU

 

TM Warthog HOTAS - TM Cougar MFDs - CH Pedals - TrackIR 5 - Samsung RU8000 55”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all, fairly new to the Harrier and just got the NATOPS package for the aircraft. I am trying to find out where the ability to put GBU-12s on TERs is documented (actually I can't find justification for many of the loadouts available in DCS, but I figure this is an easy place to start).

 

Specifically, page XI-02-5 of A1-AV8BB-NFM-400 (Change 5/1 Feb 2003) shows that only one GBU-12 is authorized on both the inboard and intermediate pylon. This is backed up further by page 5-49 of the TAC-050 (Change 1/1 May 1998 ) I'm sure I'm missing something, but I can't find it. Where is it documented that we should be able to load GBU's on triple ejector racks?

 

Thanks.

 

Interesting, I agree ...

 

AV-8 Tactical Manual Vol 2, A1-AV8BB-TAC-050 (NWP 3-22.5-AV8B, Vol. II)

 

Chapter 1 (page 134, 1-90), Figure 1-30. Release Sequence (Sheet 1 of 3)

 

• Groups Mk81, Mk82, etc. with GBU-12s and shows TER loadouts and release sequences.

 

but it looks like only "ITERS=None" is a valid loadout for GBU-12s as ...

 

Chapter 5 (page 995, 5-19), Figure 5-3. External Stores Limitations (Sheet 39 of 66)

 

• only shows 1 GBU-12 per station and no ITERS.

 

... GBU-12s on ITERS look like an invalid loadout IRL.

 

That seems legit, good find guys. I never even thought about it. It matches what we outsiders see through deployment photos and videos. I wish we knew the years the DCS AV-8B is suppose to emulate. Most other module seem to be before 2010.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While researching photo refs of real payloads I also have not seen GBU-12s (or any other smart weapon) loaded on TERs in the Harrier. The only references I've seen of TERs used at all is with Mk82s, and even then they were only loaded with two bombs each, not the max possible of three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Nealius, that lines up with the TAC 050 too — it shows that with sidewinders hung and 2 TERs on each side you could only put 2 MK82s on each TER. The only way I am seeing authorized to put 3 MK82s on a TER is on the intermediate pylon, with the outboard either empty or holding another MK82.

Multiplayer as Variable

 

Asus Z97-A - I7 4790K - 32 GB HyperX - EVGA GTX 1080 Ti - Corsair 750i PSU

 

TM Warthog HOTAS - TM Cougar MFDs - CH Pedals - TrackIR 5 - Samsung RU8000 55”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://hushkit.net/2019/02/08/flying-fighting-in-the-harrier-raf-pilot-interview/

 

the Paveway 4 GPS/laser bomb with which we could simultaneously release six bombs against six different targets through cloud

 

Admitedly this is the gr9 so uk, but is very clear the plain had the ability.

 

I would suggest that it isnt seen in photos or recommend is down to the physics of taking off from the us carriers, uk carriers with ski jumos allowed increased loads, and even beyound that the vertical landing limits would mean having to dump munitions, not ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But GR9 has different equipment and does different thing. One example of this is the outrigger pylons/ stations. In the USMC AV-8B is wired yet never used. Even if the USMC AB-8B N/A from different year will have different capabilities since they went through so many update/upgrades. Even flying from Afghanistan or Iraq they are only caring single GBU.

I think the 1A-AV8BB-TAC-050 (NWP 3-22.5-AV8B, Vol. II) from 1998 we can find is 8 to 10 years outdated in relation to the DCS versions, but it matches photos and videos of USMC deployments. When this manual was used, I don't think the Night attack AV-8B could carry the TGP. If we can find a newer NATOPS, that would be great.


Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this photos you can see them load what looks like 3 GBU-38 on a TER, but this is in 2019, 12 to 15 years ahead of the DCS version.

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/5098104/ordnance-bringing-bombs-with-vma-223-spmagtf-cr-cc-191

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that it isnt seen in photos or recommend is down to the physics of taking off from the us carriers, uk carriers with ski jumos allowed increased loads, and even beyound that the vertical landing limits would mean having to dump munitions, not ideal.

 

Not really, we are talking about limitations here, not recommendations. The NATOPS is full of allowable configurations that will weigh much more than a collection of ITERs and mk82 class bombs. After all, a full drop tank weighs more than 2000 pounds. A great number of AV-8 loadouts are not suitable for working off a boat, but they are still published; similarly a loadout that would work on a 40 degree day might not work on a 90 degree day. The external stores limitations in question work around the functional and structural limits of the aircraft. It is up to the operational side of the house (pilots/dispatchers/ect) to ensure a given loadout will ensure safe performance margins for a given set of mission parameters.

 

If we can find a newer NATOPS, that would be great.

 

Absolutely, or like you said if we knew exactly the vintage of our Harrier, beyond just "BuNo 163853 and up." I have long wished the DCS manual for a given module would have the aircraft serial number/bureau number as appropriate and a breakdown of exactly which service bulletins, technical directives, ect had been performed (just like a real aircraft) so that between the devs and the community everyone could be starting discussions such as this from a common starting point using the correct documentation.

Multiplayer as Variable

 

Asus Z97-A - I7 4790K - 32 GB HyperX - EVGA GTX 1080 Ti - Corsair 750i PSU

 

TM Warthog HOTAS - TM Cougar MFDs - CH Pedals - TrackIR 5 - Samsung RU8000 55”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But GR9 has different equipment and does different thing. One example of this is the outrigger pylons/ stations. In the USMC AV-8B is wired yet never used. Even if the USMC AB-8B N/A from different year will have different capabilities since they went through so many update/upgrades. Even flying from Afghanistan or Iraq they are only caring single GBU.

I think the 1A-AV8BB-TAC-050 (NWP 3-22.5-AV8B, Vol. II) from 1998 we can find is 8 to 10 years outdated in relation to the DCS versions, but it matches photos and videos of USMC deployments. When this manual was used, I don't think the Night attack AV-8B could carry the TGP. If we can find a newer NATOPS, that would be great.

It may has to do with "practical" loadouts. It may be possible to carry 6 GBU-12, but why would you load them, when you never get to drop more than 2-4 on a sortie with your wingman, but would need to dump 2-4 of the pretty expensive smart bombs for getting down to landing weight?

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may has to do with "practical" loadouts. It may be possible to carry 6 GBU-12, but why would you load them, when you never get to drop more than 2-4 on a sortie with your wingman, but would need to dump 2-4 of the pretty expensive smart bombs for getting down to landing weight?

 

Vol 2 of the Tactical Manual (TAC-50, Change 1 - May 1998 ) is very clear about the reason for the Stores Limitations.

 

 

WARNING

No store loadings other than those shown in Figure 5-3 are authorized.

 

 

WARNING

Only those multiple store loads shown in Figure 5-3 are authorized.

 

Loading stores in a store load that is not shown or loading stores on a station that is shown empty (no store or mixed store loading symbol displayed) is not authorized.

 

Such loadings will result in unsafe weapon releases.


Edited by Ramsay

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 64GB DDR4, RTX4070 12GB, 1+2TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 4+1TB SSD, Winwing Orion 2 F-15EX Throttle + F-16EX Stick, TPR Pedals, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to interject something into this discussion -- not that I have an horse on either side, because I feel both sides have valid arguments.

 

Since we are talking about GBU's here, I think it would be prudent to think about how GBU's are used. They are laser guided munitions, which means they are only going to be dropped one at a time. No saturation bombing with these babies; only pin-point precision bomb delivery.

 

In training, it's fine to load up 12 of them and then practice either JTAC or self-lasing one target after another. You probably don't have CAP to worry about in practice, and loitering around a target range will probably also not call them on to you.

 

If you are flying in MP with lots of players on the other side just raring to take down some pesky Harrier circling high above some FARP or ammo dump, your world is going to look very different. Plus flight times and fuel consumption are gong to play a huge role as well.

 

I don't see anybody doing precision bombing with 12 GBU's on for example 'Georgia at War' -- although I may be mistaken, but I don't think so -- because you just won't survive long enough to deploy them all, while loitering near the front line. Plus you probably wont have enough fuel left to RTB by the time you did deploy all your GBU's. The Harrier suck fuel with a big straw indeed.

 

So, even if you shouldn't be allowed to load 3 GBU's onto a TER, I don't think you will see it in practice; at least no on any MP server with any realism.

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to interject something into this discussion -- not that I have an horse on either side, because I feel both sides have valid arguments.

 

 

I guess the discussion here is more academic in nature anyway.

Those of us caring for realism will just load 1 anyway, regardless of what is possible or not. The gamers will be gamers and hang on as much as possible - fine with me tho.

 

And to add to the discussion; NAVAIR 00-110AV8-4, dated Oct. 1986 lists 3 GBU-12 on station 3 & 5 and 2 GBU-12 on 2 & 6 (with reduced load factor).

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, even if you shouldn't be allowed to load 3 GBU's onto a TER, I don't think you will see it in practice; at least no on any MP server with any realism.

 

The only ref. I've found ...

 

AV-8B Harrier II Units of Operation Enduring Freedom, page 12

 

Re: transformation since OEF in 2001 to today.

 

"The latest upgrade includes a digital improved triple triple ejector rack [DITER], which adds increased smart weapon carriage by allowing the aircraft to be armed with up to ten 500-lb JDAMs."

 

Although I've found ref. to 500-lb GBU-38 JDAMs mounted on DITERs, I've yet to find a link or info that suggests GBU-12s can be mounted similarly.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=205092&stc=1&d=1551105556

 

It'd be nice if @Decoy or Razbam could confirm the current GBU-12 loadout has been validated by USMC engineers, etc.

28744894_AV-8BGBU-38vsGBU-12.JPG.7d08f0931bbdf5cdb44a316f7a53f1e9.JPG

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 64GB DDR4, RTX4070 12GB, 1+2TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 4+1TB SSD, Winwing Orion 2 F-15EX Throttle + F-16EX Stick, TPR Pedals, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using those old manuals as a bible is not accurate. The Harriers in DCS are representing somewhere between 2012 - present. You are using outdated information trying to consider what is valid or not. Based upon the info provided 6xJDAMs could even be considered a valid load out at this point without an actual date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the harrier did start using the litening pod in 2002sh, they did not get upgrade to carry it centerline till 2012 at a minimum (I know they started implementing them but not sure when they finished). So if our bird can carry it centerline, that means it has that upgrade and that places it somewhere from 2012 to present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just found this photo. It suppose to be a exchange pilot in training from VVMA-213 at Yuma MCAS circa 2006. I guess the unit name is wrong since I can find any info. I think they mean VMA-311 Tomcats.

COBRA-8_b.jpg

CF Manuel Rodríguez en abril de 2006 durante su intercambio con los Marines, junto a un “Radar” del escuadrón VVMA-213 “Tomcats”, que lleva cuatro GBU-12 y el Litening. La base es MCAS Yuma, Arizona. (M. Rodríguez)

The article is in spanish

http://www.hispaviacion.es/aviador-naval/

 

Obviously this is a AV-8B+ so not the same we have and not sure if it matters.


Edited by mvsgas
spelling

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do got so far:

- The the manuals available to us are painfully outdated.

- That the AV-8B in DCS may be between 2006 to 2012 and my not represent a specific date version.

- That if the AV-8B can carry GBU-12 on ITER or DITER, is done rarely if ever.

- We know the RL AV-8B underwent several upgrades/updates very rapidly like most combat aircraft from 2000 to 2015.

- We know that by 2011, RL AV-8B could only carry the TGP on Station 2, 5 and 6.

 

Anything else guys?

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do got so far:

- The the manuals available to us are painfully outdated.

- That the AV-8B in DCS may be between 2006 to 2012 and my not represent a specific date version.

- That if the AV-8B can carry GBU-12 on ITER or DITER, is done rarely if ever.

- We know the RL AV-8B underwent several upgrades/updates very rapidly like most combat aircraft from 2000 to 2015.

- We know that by 2011, RL AV-8B could only carry the TGP on Station 2, 5 and 6.

 

Anything else guys?

 

Yup, so we are clear as mud!

Aurora R7 || i7K 8700K || 2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s || 2TB M.2 PCIe x4 SSD || GTX 1080 Ti with 11GB GDDR5X || Windows 10 Pro || 32GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2667MHz || Virpil Warbird Base || Virpil T-50 Stick || Virpil MT-50 Throttle || Thrustmaster TPR Pedals || Oculus Rift

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, typical to all the Modules we have, right?

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...