Jump to content

F/A-18E Load-out


eng

Recommended Posts

Been looking for pic's of F/A-18E's loaded out, but just seem to be coming up with the same pic's of un-armed, tanks-only or demo load-outs.

Would I be wrong in loading up as follows - Aim-9's on the wingtip rails, empty outer pylons, twin GBU-12's on one mid pylon ® and a single GBU-31 on the other mid pylon (L), and tanks on the inner wing pylons.

Thanks for any info.

Eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most common loadouts for recent missions over Afghanistan for both E and F Hornets is refered to as the "Double Ugly."

One AIM 9 on the port wing tip

2 GBU-38's on the port wing

Centerline tank

Drop tank on inner starboard pylon

GBU-12 middle pylon.

Both outer pylons are not in use and typically removed.

Here it is under a 103 F jet but you would see it on the E's currently as well .

loadout.jpg

Edited by Rhinolover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That just looks like such a puny warload for such a capable aircraft! -

I know you don't drop 2000lb GBU-12's any more , but 3x500Lb s , man , an A-4 could carry more .... Ah well such is life ,.. and as somone who can see a Trumpter 32nd Superhornet in my future , the info will be very useful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That just looks like such a puny warload for such a capable aircraft! -

I know you don't drop 2000lb GBU-12's any more , but 3x500Lb s , man , an A-4 could carry more .... Ah well such is life ,.. and as somone who can see a Trumpter 32nd Superhornet in my future , the info will be very useful!

Perhaps puny, but the A-4's load out would have been unguided, less accurate and therefore, less efficient. Add to that the fact that the Bug would probably have more time on station, and would be able to get 'there' quicker, it all evens out. IMHO, of course....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps puny, but the A-4's load out would have been unguided, less accurate and therefore, less efficient. Add to that the fact that the Bug would probably have more time on station, and would be able to get 'there' quicker, it all evens out. IMHO, of course....

I know all that , and yup the chances of an A-4 of A-7 being able to get in and out as quickly and efficently as a superbug are minimal , and they sure can't handle the mix of ordanace that modern aircraft can , but hey wouldn't a bug wouldn't look cool with a couple of MERs and 6 Mk 82's hanging off each of them. I know they wouldn't have a chance of hitting the same town as the target , let alone in through a specific window like a GBU-38 ..

Ah well perhaps I've spent too long building Vietnam era subjects!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps puny, but the A-4's load out would have been unguided, less accurate and therefore, less efficient. Add to that the fact that the Bug would probably have more time on station, and would be able to get 'there' quicker, it all evens out. IMHO, of course....

According to some who are in the know (actual USN pilots) the Superbug has it's shortcomings and due to its' engine/airframe matchup is looking for an airborne Texaco station a lot sooner than the legacy bugs and comes up short in the "get there now" department also. However it is more capable than the beloved "Scooter" as far as what its capabilities are. Some want it to be a do all/everything aircraft which it will never be, and as for it being a Tomcat replacement...jeez gimme a break!!!. I like it fine, but it is not as Super as Boeing wants us to think. The Navy probably wants it to be like that old stalwart the Phantom.....uh uh..there was only one, the Rafale is making a valiant effort, but still falls short of the Phantom II.

Edited by Angels49
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
That just looks like such a puny warload for such a capable aircraft! -

I know you don't drop 2000lb GBU-12's any more , but 3x500Lb s , man , an A-4 could carry more .... Ah well such is life ,.. and as somone who can see a Trumpter 32nd Superhornet in my future , the info will be very useful!

Sorry, pedantic I know but the GBU-12 is a 500lb class weapon, its the GBU-24 that is the 2000lb class.

D2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trumpeter has new modern US weapons packs in 32nd this year, one had the SLAM-ER in it.

Here is my tidbit from the Trumpy/HB release thread from earlier this year. According to the Trumpy website, sets A and E are due this month (in China) Air to Air and Dumb Bombs.

5 Modern 32nd US weapons sets - look to be the sprues in the Tomcat/Hornet boxes

A) Air to Air AIM-9X, AIM-9M, Sparrow, AMRAAM, Phoenix, LGTB (training laser guided bomb)

ALQ-131, Hornet FLIR pod, Lantirn targeting pod

B ) Air to ground, GBU-24, GBU-24B(?), AGM-130 (looks like an AGM-123 Skipper though), AGM-28 (Deep Throat - GBU-28), GBU-27, AGM-15V (GBU-15 original wing), GBU-12, GBU- 22, the pods from set A, GBU-15, GBU-15B (new style wing), MER, TER, LGTR

C) Air to Ground #2 - GBU-31, GBU-31 (penatrator warhead) AGM-156, MER, TER, AGM-154, Mk 82 slick (looks skinny) GBU-39 (no rack shown) AGM-141

D) Air to Ground #3 - SLAM-ER (shown with wings deployed), AGM-84D, AGM-84H, AGM-142 (Popeye) - No data link pods shown

E) Dumb bombs - BSU-49 (Ballute Mk 82), Mk-20 (Rockeye), Mk-83, Mk-117 (why?), Mk-84

Edited by Matt Roberts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 years later...
On 2/26/2010 at 9:26 PM, colin ritchie said:

That just looks like such a puny warload for such a capable aircraft! -

I know you don't drop 2000lb GBU-12's any more , but 3x500Lb s , man , an A-4 could carry more .... Ah well such is life ,.. and as somone who can see a Trumpter 32nd Superhornet in my future , the info will be very useful!

Hi there, Why do you say that the 2000lbs bombs are not dropped anymore?

Historically there are the

GBU-8 TV guided

GBU-10

GBU-10 Paveway II and

GBU-15 TV guided

 

And currently, the

GBU-24 Paveway III

GBU-31 JDAM (no need of targeting pod)

And the GPS and Laser guided combo kit types, too.

***

 

And to contribute to the thread, there's the BRU-55 which can carry two bombs up to 1000lbs ieach.

 

http://navybmr.com/study material/NAVEDTRA 14313B/14313B_ch15.pdf page 15-16

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s 

1 hour ago, Air Hockey Propellers said:

Hi there, Why do you say that the 2000lbs bombs are not dropped anymore?

Historically there are the

GBU-8 TV guided

GBU-10

GBU-10 Paveway II and

GBU-15 TV guided

 

And currently, the

GBU-24 Paveway III

GBU-31 JDAM (no need of targeting pod)

And the GPS and Laser guided combo kit types, too.

***

 

And to contribute to the thread, there's the BRU-55 which can carry two bombs up to 1000lbs ieach.

 

http://navybmr.com/study material/NAVEDTRA 14313B/14313B_ch15.pdf page 15-16

 

Probably more appropriate to say the the 2k is no longer the weapon of choice in the way targets are attacked these days, warfare and the type of target. The smaller the bang, the less collateral damage. Moreover, precision is way better than in days gone by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GBU-31 still carried frequently on F-15E's on current operations, along with the Small Diameter bomb and 500lb series of bombs. Haven't seen many Hornets with the GBU-31 recently, if at all, they fly with the GBU-32  (1000lb) though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2019 at 1:43 AM, DaveJL said:

GBU-31 still carried frequently on F-15E's on current operations, along with the Small Diameter bomb and 500lb series of bombs. Haven't seen many Hornets with the GBU-31 recently, if at all, they fly with the GBU-32  (1000lb) though.

Thank you for the information. Since the GBU-31 is the heaviest, what kind of operations would they use it in? I guess they wouldn't use it for close air support but rather strike missions. Are we talking Afghanistan here?

 

I like this Small Diameter bomb. It looks promising. Maybe I'll write a letter to Hasegawa to give them the idea and hopefully they will be reasonable enough to pack at least eight (!) in a box! These Hasegawa people are either dumb or something because they packed only six GBU-38s when they can  be carried in large numbers by Super Hornets (carries 10) and they did not include BRU-55 racks so thanks very much for the help Hasegawa. To add insult to injury they pack a bunch of sensors and Flirs together with bombs that don't require them!

 

On 1/12/2019 at 11:47 PM, Slater said:

USN (IIRC) never used the GBU-8 or GBU-15.  Possibly GBU-10 to some extent, but I would think that 500- and 1000 lb. class weapons would be easier to handle/store/load on a carrier deck.

Yeah, makes a lot of sense, actually. If I recall, the A-7 can carry the GBU-8 and GBU-15 and the Bullpup missiles all of which are optically guided. I was wondering if really a single dseater, a single pilot can realistically maneuver these considering the amount of time the bombs gliding down and all that. And while we are at the subject, those optically guided GBUs must have had quite some speed limitations upon launch, huh? I guess they're ill suited for supersonic aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Air Hockey Propellers said:

Yeah, makes a lot of sense, actually. If I recall, the A-7 can carry the GBU-8 and GBU-15 and the Bullpup missiles all of which are optically guided. I was wondering if really a single dseater, a single pilot can realistically maneuver these considering the amount of time the bombs gliding down and all that. And while we are at the subject, those optically guided GBUs must have had quite some speed limitations upon launch, huh? I guess they're ill suited for supersonic aircraft.

 

Both GBU-8 and 15 are completely independent once dropped, they will direct autonmously toward the target they are locked on. The GBU-15 can be if required controlled in different ways during flight via data-link but it's not necessary.

The Bullpup on the other hand required to be guided by the pilot during its flight, reason why this missile was at some point used as a dumb bomb in Vietnam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GBU-15 came in large wing (MXU-724) and small wing (MXU-787) versions, and the powered (AGM-130) version. The large-wing version (in my opinion) looks better when hanging on an aircraft.  GBU-8 is long gone, and I think was phased out by the mid 1980's. It was an early generation weapon that was never that reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2019 at 7:14 PM, Giorgio N said:

 

Both GBU-8 and 15 are completely independent once dropped, they will direct autonmously toward the target they are locked on. The GBU-15 can be if required controlled in different ways during flight via data-link but it's not necessary.

The Bullpup on the other hand required to be guided by the pilot during its flight, reason why this missile was at some point used as a dumb bomb in Vietnam

Thank you very much for the insight. Would you know about target adquisition for the GBU 8 and 15? Did that require any targeting pods? I also imagine that the bomb would have just enough capacity to correct its course for slow moving targets. Also, I imagine if laser guided bombs were to hit slow movers it would require constant input from a WSO. Pure GPS guided bombs couldn't hit moving targets... Just thinking aloud. ... I got a lot of studying to do...

 

 

On 1/14/2019 at 10:58 PM, colin ritchie said:

That was a surprise , a post I made nearly 9 years ago resurfacing .. Talk about Zombie posts! - My I was a know-it-all back then !

Yeah, I just hope nobody comes along saying that my questions belong in a different place...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Air Hockey Propellers said:

Thank you very much for the insight. Would you know about target adquisition for the GBU 8 and 15? Did that require any targeting pods? I also imagine that the bomb would have just enough capacity to correct its course for slow moving targets. Also, I imagine if laser guided bombs were to hit slow movers it would require constant input from a WSO. Pure GPS guided bombs couldn't hit moving targets... Just thinking aloud. ... I got a lot of studying to do...

 

These bombs do not require targeting pods, the acquisition is made through the bomb seeker itself, with the images relayed through the wiring to a display in the cockpit.

A data-link pod is used for the GBU-15 when used in "indirect" mode, that was actually the more common: the bomb is dropped with the aircraft moving away from the target. In the meantime the data-link transmitted to the aircraft the image from the seeker, so that at some point the system operator could lock the bomb on the target.

In theory TV guided bombs can hit moving targets but really these two weapons were only used against fixed targets, generally large infrastructures.

LGBs are better at hitting moving targets as they llluminator can follow this. With several modern pods there's no need for the WSO to steer the bomb, as the system can automatically keep traking a slow moving target.

GPS bombs are designed for stationary objects but there have been developments to make them capable of attacking moving targets. One solution was the addition of a data link capable of feeding into the bomb updated GPS coordinates of the target from the launching aircraft. However the most recent is the LJDAM, that adds laser guidance to the bombs. These are designate GBU-54.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

These bombs do not require targeting pods, the acquisition is made through the bomb seeker itself, with the images relayed through the wiring to a display in the cockpit.

A data-link pod is used for the GBU-15 when used in "indirect" mode, that was actually the more common: the bomb is dropped with the aircraft moving away from the target. In the meantime the data-link transmitted to the aircraft the image from the seeker, so that at some point the system operator could lock the bomb on the target.

In theory TV guided bombs can hit moving targets but really these two weapons were only used against fixed targets, generally large infrastructures.

LGBs are better at hitting moving targets as they llluminator can follow this. With several modern pods there's no need for the WSO to steer the bomb, as the system can automatically keep traking a slow moving target.

GPS bombs are designed for stationary objects but there have been developments to make them capable of attacking moving targets. One solution was the addition of a data link capable of feeding into the bomb updated GPS coordinates of the target from the launching aircraft. However the most recent is the LJDAM, that adds laser guidance to the bombs. These are designate GBU-54.

Thank you again for the information. I'm reading more and more about GBUs and I'm going to make a list of them in a table form highlighting their main characteristics one of these days.

 

Now, in case of the TV guided bombs, how do pilots find pre-determined targets and targets of opportunity through the display? Is there a way of scanning the ground, does he randomly zoom into objects, is it even touch screen?... is there use of the plane's INS for pre-determined targets? Does the pilot have to aim the plane to the general area where the target is? 

 

One other question, by now completely unrelated to the Hornet is, with the intention of eliminating dumb bombs from the US military inventory, is releasing these bombs becoming a lost art? If you have any web articles or books you can recommend me related with aiming and releasing dumb bombs I will gladly read them, (I need to make my play time with my model jets more realistic, jajaja).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...