F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

[strikeeagle801]

Hello everyone. I am in the planning stages of doing four F/A-18's. The C and D from Hasegawa, and the E and F from Revell. I am going to have the C as a bomb truck, the D as a HARM/Maverick shooter, the E loaded for OCA, and the F as precision strike. So here are my questions:

1) what would a standard air-to-air loadout be for an E-model Super Hornet? Does anyone have any good pictures of the missile launchers used on the wing pylons?

2) I know what the standard combat loadouts are for F's right now, but would it be possible for an F to carry two GBU-24's on the the inboard pylons, and then either GBU-10 or -12's on the center pylons? This would be in addition to the ATFLIR, one AMRAAM, and two AIM-9X or M's.

Thank you for your help.

Aaron

Edited December 7, 2006 by strikeeagle801

[Cobrahistorian]

Aaron,

According to the Twobobs "OIF Screamin Eagles" sheet, the typical E model loadouts were as follows:

Strike:

4 JDAM (Sta 3,4,8,9)

2 AIM-9 (Sta. 1 & 11)

2 AIM-120 (Sta. 7)

CAS:

3 Mk83 (Sta 3&4)

1 GBU-16 (Sta 8)

2 AIM-9 (1&11)

2 AIM-120 (7)

DCA:

2 AIM-9 (1&11)

2 AIM-120 (2&7)

1 AIM-7 (10)

Tanker:

2 AIM-9 (1&11)

1 AIM-120 (7)

1 buddy pod (6)

4 tanks

Still not sure which I'm going with. Probably the DCA load. Granted other units probably go with different "standard" loads, but according to the VFA-115 sheet, this was standard for them in OIF.

Jon

[strikeeagle801]

Hey Jon

Could you help me out with what station is which? They are still carrying the AIM-7? I thought that those were retired/not used any more. Wierd. By the way, the wife and I like your sig pic. Looks like our one month old when he has a dirty diaper.

Aaron

[Spongebob]

Loads are standardized by Air Wing, and FWIW the loads that 115 flew with in OIF have proven to be less than optimal - actually, pretty much everything CVW-14 put out about Rhino ops from that first cruise has proven to be junk. More importantly, the strike planning team is going to look at the distance, tanker plan, type of target and collateral damage estimate to come up with a load for that mission. "standard" loads come into play for conditions later like OEF/OIF now where it's the same mission each day and the goal is to have the full palate of weapons to put on any target that might come up. But, CVW-14 flies different loads from CVW-1, etc. etc.

Best bet it to check www.navy.mil for pics! There is also a previous thread describing what is legal (at that time) for a Rhino to carry.

HTH

Spongebob

[Cobrahistorian]

Aaron,

Stations are numbered from left to right 1 through 11. Your wingtip rails are station 1 and 11, three underwing stations per wing (2,3,4 & 8,9,10), and three fuselage stations (5, 6 centerline, 7).

The AIM-7 loadout was for OIF I in 2003. Not sure if Sparrows are still carried. They're too big to fit on my aircraft!

Jon

PS, Spongebob, what would you recommend as a proper E loadout? Thanks!

Edited December 7, 2006 by Cobrahistorian

[Spongebob]

The CVW-14 standard OIF XCAS load-out was:

1-Empty

2-Empty

3-LMAV

4-Empty

5-ATFLIR

6-AIM-120

7-Tank

8-Empty

9-GBU-38

10-GBU-12

11-Empty

That follows CVW-14's policy of using a Super Hornet like a Baby Hornet and not taking into account some of the advantages it has, but it works. Like I said, each airwing comes up with these on their own. When I was in CVW-11 CAG wanted minimal dependence on Air Force tanking, so everything flew with three tanks. So, it depends on what the leadership directs.

Also, for the "current" environment, bring back is a HUGE issue, whereas during the start of OEF or OIF the ordnance was going to get dropped, so there was little concern for bring back capability.

HTH

Spongebob

Edited December 7, 2006 by Spongebob

[Spongebob]

For a baby Hornet:

1-Empty

2-LMAV or GBU-38

3-Empty

4-ATFLIR

5-Tank

6-AIM-120

7-Tank

8-GBU-12

9-Empty

And the flights were normally scheduled so there would be 1 LMAV aircraft and 1 GBU-38 aircraft per section.

On both Hornet flavors, the inboard, port pylon was left empty to improve the FLIR field of view.

HTH

Spongebob

Edited December 7, 2006 by Spongebob

[Joe Hegedus]

2) I know what the standard combat loadouts are for F's right now, but would it be possible for an F to carry two GBU-24's on the the inboard pylons, and then either GBU-10 or -12's on the center pylons? This would be in addition to the ATFLIR, one AMRAAM, and two AIM-9X or M's.

As bizarre as it may sound, I do believe that your GBU-24/GBU-12 mix IS one of the authorized configurations, but I won't be able to confirm with the manual until next Thursday. WHY one would want to carry that particular mix is beyond my knowledge though. I do know that GBU-10/GBU-24 combination is not allowed, although GBU-24/GBU-16 may be but I'd need to check the manual to be sure.

[Joe Hegedus]

Aaron,

According to the Twobobs "OIF Screamin Eagles" sheet, the typical E model loadouts were as follows:

CAS:

3 Mk83 (Sta 3&4)

1 GBU-16 (Sta 8)

2 AIM-9 (1&11)

2 AIM-120 (7)

Based on pictures from OIF, this one is listed backwards on the sheet. The GBU-16 was carried on sta 3 and the MK-83/BSU-85 AIR (no conical fins on this load) were on sta 8 and 9 wtih the station 8 bombs on a CVER and the sta 9 bomb on the parent rack. The BSU-85 fin is what is on the MK-83 in the Revell Super Hornet kit.

Oh, and the AIM-120 was on sta 2 with sta 7 empty, and an empty LAU-127 rail was carried on sta 10 opposite the sta 2 missile. A TFLIR was on sta 5 with a centerline bag.

Edited December 8, 2006 by Joe Hegedus

[Rodney]

Not sure if Sparrows are still carried.

Occasionally, you'll still see a AIM-7 being carried. Navy.mil had a picture of one the other day on Station 10 on a F.

http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=40969

I'm sure main reason is inventory and cost. Sparrow can still deal with some threats and there are plenty in the inventory. It isn't uncommon to have a missile Ex. with more Sparrows being fired than AMRAAMS.

HTH,

Rodneyh

[Joe Hegedus]

Loads are standardized by Air Wing, and FWIW the loads that 115 flew with in OIF have proven to be less than optimal - actually, pretty much everything CVW-14 put out about Rhino ops from that first cruise has proven to be junk. More importantly, the strike planning team is going to look at the distance, tanker plan, type of target and collateral damage estimate to come up with a load for that mission. "standard" loads come into play for conditions later like OEF/OIF now where it's the same mission each day and the goal is to have the full palate of weapons to put on any target that might come up. But, CVW-14 flies different loads from CVW-1, etc. etc.

Best bet it to check www.navy.mil for pics! There is also a previous thread describing what is legal (at that time) for a Rhino to carry.

HTH

Spongebob

FWIW, they did the best they could with what was authorized at the time. The program hadn't placed a high priority on small PGM, so GBU-12 didn't come along until a rush job once the shooting in Iraz started. For some reason, the "high-priority" stores were the heavy stuff, GBU-31, GBU-10, GBU-16 and later GBU-24. GBU-12 was cleared about a week before the "end" of the war, just in time for VFA-115 to miss using it and just in time for VFA-14 and 41 to have it available. Mk-83 was preferred to MK-82, as I understand things, because the 3-bomb configuration used was authorized "pilot-option" for high-drag or low-drag whereas all the Mk-82 loads were to be hard-wired one way or the other which limited flexibility.

[strikeeagle801]

Are the LAU-127's ever carried on the inboard pylons? If so, is there a certain adapter that has to be added, or are they bolted directly to the pylon? Also, are GBU-12's ever carried on the twin horizontal racks (not sure what they are called)?

Edited December 8, 2006 by strikeeagle801

[Spongebob]

Joe, very true statement about the Talons (115); I remember guys in 41 & 14 firing emails off with the loads they wanted to carry to get them moved up in the testing schedule. Similar to the baby Hornets first deployment where it was not cleared for any A/G ordnance yet. I'm guessing the heavy stuff was given priority as that was standard for OSW - GBU-12's only rattle the lights on a bunker and OEF where collateral damage concerns were low.

My comment more concerned the doctrine they were putting out about how the aircraft fit into the big picture and the advantages in brought.

Spongebob

[Joe Hegedus]

Are the LAU-127's ever carried on the inboard pylons? If so, is there a certain adapter that has to be added, or are they bolted directly to the pylon? Also, are GBU-12's ever carried on the twin horizontal racks (not sure what they are called)?

The answer to both questions for a Super Hornet is: no, at least not yet. If and when the single AIM-120 is cleared for the middle and inner pylons, it will use the same adapter and rail as the outboard pylon load. GBU-12 on CVER hasn't been tasked for us to look at yet.

[strikeeagle801]

The answer to both questions for a Super Hornet is: no, at least not yet. If and when the single AIM-120 is cleared for the middle and inner pylons, it will use the same adapter and rail as the outboard pylon load. GBU-12 on CVER hasn't been tasked for us to look at yet.

Hi Joe

On the first question, the one about the LAU-127's, it was aimed at the baby Hornet. Also, were you able to check and see if you could use the GBU-24 and GBU-12/16? I think I will go with the GBU-16 if it is allowed, as my GBU-12's I have are going on to a fully-loaded, early-OIF Strike Eagle.

Aaron

[Joe Hegedus]

Hi Joe

On the first question, the one about the LAU-127's, it was aimed at the baby Hornet. Also, were you able to check and see if you could use the GBU-24 and GBU-12/16? I think I will go with the GBU-16 if it is allowed, as my GBU-12's I have are going on to a fully-loaded, early-OIF Strike Eagle.

Aaron

OK, I misunderstood the initial ? re. the LAU-127. Yes, legacy Hornets can put 2 LAU-127 on a LAU-115 to carry AIM-120 or AIM-9 (only "C", "D" or "A+" versions can put the AIM-120 there).

As I put in a PM I sent this AM, GBU-12 and GBU-16 are OK on midboard pylons next to inboard GBU-24.

[bizzah]

Quick question....i know it probably wouldn't happen...or maybe it would, would a Super Hornet ever go out with:

2 AIM-9's

2 AIM-120's

2 JDAM's

2 GBU-10/24/16?

1 centerline tank

Also, is it cleared for a TER? and would it ever happen(if it was cleared) to put 3 GBU-12's instead of something else? Or if different squadrons have different load outs, what owuld be a typical VFA-27, Black Mace loadout.

Biz

[Joe Hegedus]

Quick question....i know it probably wouldn't happen...or maybe it would, would a Super Hornet ever go out with:

2 AIM-9's

2 AIM-120's

2 JDAM's

2 GBU-10/24/16?

1 centerline tank

Also, is it cleared for a TER? and would it ever happen(if it was cleared) to put 3 GBU-12's instead of something else? Or if different squadrons have different load outs, what owuld be a typical VFA-27, Black Mace loadout.

Biz

I can't say whether or not that load would ever happen on a real mission, but I DO know that it isn't cleared yet. Re. TERs, the answer to that one is a firm NO. Only thing that will llkely go on a TER in the forseeable future are LGTRs on the outboard pylons, and possibly MK-76 or BDU-48 practice bombs on the other pylons, and finally maybe ITALD decoys.

As for the final question, I'd suggest a search through the photos on navy.mil for VFA-27 and see what pops up. I suspect you'll be seeing combinations of GBU-12, GBU-38 and AGM-65.

[bizzah]

kedokey, thanks. im just looking for a good loadout to basically maximize the amount of stuff on the aircraft, using the Hasagawa weapons set D (smart bombs) an dthe kit missiles (aim-9's and aamrams). could someone suggest a loadout using the weapons stated in my last post (JDAMS, GBU-10/12/16/24)? that would be really appreciated.

Biz

Edited August 29, 2007 by bizzah

[VFA-103guy]

Here's some F-18F stuff for ya..

[RedStar]

Good photo...

Anyone have anything on VFA-211 loadouts appropriate to the subjects on the Afterburner sheet? Want to do one of those 2005 combat birds.

Thanks,

Paul

[USAFsparkchaser]

Good Question I can use this answer as well I plan on makeing one of those VFA-211 as well.

[bizzah]

as i am rather new to the bomb world(before they were all laser guided bombs.... just small, bigger, and big bombs), am i correct in saying that those are *bigger* GBU-16's and a GBU-38? (as apposed to *small* GBU-12's) thats quite an interesting loadout there, i must say. would it be acceptable to trade the small JDAM for a GBU-31, the maverick for....a GBU-24 (or would something like a 16 or 10 work better) and then adding aamram to the nonexistant station and a station 1/11(dunno which) AIM-9? just a question, cuz thats a weird loadout....but i don't have that variety of ordinance. wish did, but money only lasts so long.

Thanks for the pic by the way. Definitly given me some inspiration as to what to build off of.

Biz

Edited September 1, 2007 by bizzah

[VFA-103guy]

Those are actually GBU-12's.

This load out was not very common for VFA-103, but was loaded a few times.

More typical was 2 or 3 GBU-38's, and 2 GBU-12's, and 1 AIM-9X.

GBU-24's haven't been loaded much for combat ops on Super Hornets that I've seen, but it's your model man, load it like you want it.

[bizzah]

kedokey, im just trying to keep it within reasonable limits. I don't wanna go with something thats completely unrealistic, but i don't think i'll find something totaly acceptaable that fits what i have available. Thanks for your guy's help.

Biz

ps. i have a pic of a F/A-18F as a "wet five" tanker...but it still has the ATFLIR on the side of the intake. Is it just more trouble than its worth to take it off than leave it on? or is there some other purpose for leaving it on?

Edited September 1, 2007 by bizzah