Mounting the right weapon on the right hardpoint.

[seadude]

Just curious, but is there an online source for showing the types of ordnance that various aircraft can carry, and especially how much (Amount of bombs/missiles and/or weight) or what types can be carried on each underwing/fuselage hardpoint of an aircraft?

On a whif aircraft, this might not be a problem as a modeler can build the aircraft anyway he/she wants and add whatever armament they want. But in a past issue of FineScale Modeler magazine, I think I read somewhere where one person wrote in to the Editor about how he saw some aircraft models with inaccurate loadings of various weapons on aircraft hardpoints.

Anyway, this all got me to wondering if there was some official site someplace that listed/showed accurate loading of various weapons on various aircraft hardpoints. What can be used/loaded vs. what can't on a hardpoint.

[zenrat]

Sometimes the kit instructions have a diagram and the Hasegawa weapons sets include them (but for limited aircraft).

Printed rules must have been produced for use by ground crew but I wouldn't know where to start looking for them on line without knowing the official military term for such things.

[scooter]

Inboard hardpoints can obviously carry more weight than outboard.  So, somethings should be obvious-  Sidewinders and AMRAAMs on wingtips, but not Sparrows; MERs inboard, some TERs outboard.  Fuel on centerline and inboard hardpoints, but not necessarily outboard.  BUFFs, Bones, Beaks, and 'Hogs- everything under the sun, lots of it, and the bathroom toilet.

[sandiego89]

Not aware of a site that lists them all, but I do find that a google image search of "xxxx (F-4 Phantom, Jaguar, Mirage 2000...) external store", or "xxxx weapons stations" often gives a good diagram of what can go on each station.  Profile books also often have them.

I do find a bit over the top when folks load aircraft with unrealistic loads.   

[kerick]

Manufacture's website can have some info but tend to be optimistic concerning totals.

[Dizzyfugu]

Another point is the mission the aircraft/model is intended to fly, beyond the mass of ordnance you sometimes see not only under whif aircraft.

[kerick]

Some of the weapons loads on models and pics of actual aircraft are so heavy the target better be a mile off the end of the runway!

[diegoepoimaria]

The problem isn't an easy one.

I've done some research ( and being a little bit obsessive compulsive with anxiety about finding the right information helped a lot ... ), and each loadout have it's own story.

Usually a loadout it's time specific, misison specific, location specific and user specific.
But to a higher degree than one might think.

For example:
USN Phantoms during Vietnam practically never carried ordinance or external tanks on the outboard pylons.
External tanks because i think i've read that they might give some problems during recovery on the carrier.
Ordinance i don't know ... maybe a cat limit, or mission requirements.

Also, they never ever carried a gunpod.

USAF Phantoms, on the other hand, usually carried external tanks on outboard pylons, and ordinance was very variegated.

USMC Phantoms stole everything wasn't nailed on the ground( saw a radome "stole" from another group, external tanks "stolen" from USAF ), and carrier everything, in every combination ( rockets on sidewinder rails, bombs in every combinations, rocket pods, cluster bombs and napalm canisters ).

Also, squadron specific ordinance is another issue.
So was the timeframe.


Some other aircraft never fired a shot in anger, and so the loadout was more theoretical than not.
For example, the F-104G and S are a nightmare for the loadout combinations, since only a few were actually used.

Other just looks cool with tons of ordinance, but in reality fought with a fraction of that.
For example, the A-10A dueing desert storm:
A common loadout was 1 ECM pod, 2 Sidewinders, 2 Mavericks and 2/4 cluster bombs or GP bombs. Period.
No tons of bombs on MER , no triple maverics, and so on.

Or, another example:
F/A-18C: Their loadout is absolutely crazy, and even crazier is the F/A-18E.
Asymetrical, one thank under the fuselage and one under the left wing, but sometimes even no internal pylon under the right wing ( because of FLIR field of view limitations ).
Mix of maverics, Jsow, Jdam and LGB, only one sidewinder during late war period, and so on.

Or, others changed loadout even during the same campaign, as the F-16CJ during the second gulf war.
They started as Wild weasel ( 1 sidewinder, 3 slammers, 2 Harms, 2 external tank and 1 ecm pod ) and then switched to strike ( changing the HARMs for 2000lbs JDAM ) mid campaing.
Or have different loadout in the same strike package, or even in the same formation of four.
But, for example, didn't carried LGB, since they can't have laser designator ( that were the role for the CG, block 40/42 aricrafts ).
Then the Air treat faded, and they started leaving home the sidewinders ( NOTE: slammers must go on wingtips, because they act as a anti flutter counterweight, and the heavier the better , so F-16 dropped the sidewinder and a slammer ), but can't drop sidewinder rails, since the towed decoy was integral with them.
But, after also the AAA become inexistent,  also those were left home.

Same for the F-15E, than goes around with one single Slammer and one single sidewinder ...

SO

For me, I have to see the picture, or have some solid documentation about that.
Usually, finding the correct loadout it's a hard and not rewarding job.
If it's a what-if, then I have to be reasonably sure that that loadout is indeed realstic and appropriate.
But it's VERY hard to do.

Suggested sources?
Eh... tough question.

Try google, and read a lot about WHY they went with that.
For example, for a wild weasel mission the HARM ( or any other Anti Radiation Missile ) will be first choice, but don't forget CBU.
But also JDAM ( blind their eyes with GPS-guided bomb is usually as effective as blinding they eyes with an ARM missile ).
Usually not LGB.
And so on.

Don't forget that YOU must like the loadout.


A good site is:http://www.dstorm.eu/pages/loadout/loadout.html
But it's only for desert storm.

For any other: try Osprey books, and pilots stories.



I hope my englis wasn't so bad, and I also hope that my post was useful.

[diegoepoimaria]

Oh, i forgot!
During vietnam, USN ( if i remember correctly ) feced a bomb shortage, but the public opinion and the plitics just watched the "number of sorties", so lots of aircraft were sent up with older, WW2 bombs, or with a reduced load, because 2 aircraft with 2 bombs each are 2 sorties, but 1 aircraft with 4 bombs is just one sortie ... !

Also:
Hornets, especially older F/A-18C, have a reduced "bring back capability", meaning they can't land on an aircraft carrier if too overweight.
The tought, at the time when the F/A.18 were created, was that the bombs were, on a weight basis, as cheap as hamburghers, and so they simply ditched them in the water if those weren't used ( mission abort or just no target found ).
But then the smart munitions came around ...
And then the asymetrical war ...
And then the long patrols without any target ...
And then the F/A-18 started going into patrols with just 2 or 3 500 pounds lgb, one slammer and one sidewinder, or even less.

The only consistent number I was able to find is for the F/A-18E, that says that it can bring back on board about 9000 pounds of things, plus it's own weight.
That means that, for a day landing, at the first landing it have to carry 4000lbs of fuel ( something like 4 landing attempts ), and can carry up to 5000lbs of weapons ... Anything more that that, were to be either used or ditched in the sea.

Based on that, when I saw that the naval Rafale ( Rafale M ) usually just carries a single Scalp/Storm Shadow, 4/6 Micas and  a couple of external tanks, while it's land based twins ( Rafale A and Rafale B ) carries 2, with sometimes even 3 external tanks and 4 micas, I've come to the conclusion that they have the same problem ( or that they have a catapult weight limit ).

[NARSES2]

Some of the weapons loads on models and pics of actual aircraft are so heavy the target better be a mile off the end of the runway!

When I got in my early teens I realised my model aircraft would have had to walk to the target if they were real, they were that overloaded.

[DarrenP2]

There are books out there that show load outs. hasegawa instructions are also good

[sandiego89]

Some folks also leave off external fuel tanks in a desire to load up the aircraft with all sorts of missiles and bombs, but in reality many jets almost always have external tanks in a realistic looking load out.  Aircraft almost always with tanks (except in airshow mode) include F-16, Harrier/Sea Harrier, F-4, F-14, Mirage III, F1, Jaguar, F-104 etc, etc.