Jump to content

EAV-8B Harrier Weapon Load

snickers

By snickers,
in Jet Modeling

 Share Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Fuji

Fuji

Posted
Posted
Hi,

Do they carry LGBs like GBU-12/16? Did they ever participated strike missions?

Yes, they can use the same load outs as Marine Harriers but originally the most common load out seen was the air defense version with AIM-9s and 120s though lately I have been seeing them with the LITENING pod more often on the right inboard station and the tanks kicked out to the mid pylons.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Spain---Nav...V-8B/0847065/L/

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_TyriEvPmqhw/R8VnZiaA...VA.1B-39+27.JPG

including a Mav

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VoabGNCjIxg/SixO...23094b6fb_o.jpg

You may want to look on Airliners.net, Jetphotos.net, Airfighters.com and Flickr.com for more images - there's plenty of them out there if you look.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Fuji

Fuji

Posted
Posted
Finally, I've seen a photo of this aircraft carrying a gun pod. It's rare to a Spanish Harrier.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Spain---Nav...8d4258acc5a7c4f

And an Italian loadout! I like this!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Italy---Nav...fa9267a36f3152a

Nice find of the Spanish jet. It is rare to see them with it on unless they are doing gunnery exercises.

Link to post
Share on other sites
snickers

snickers

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Nice find of the Spanish jet. It is rare to see them with it on unless they are doing gunnery exercises.

-I'm thinking of loading a gun pod instead of strakes on my EAV-8B (on-going build) 1/144 kit. Let's say a CAS loadout; Litening pod, GBU-12 on inner pylons, tanks on middle stations, and AIM-9s or just launchers on farther pylons.

I think there's no need for a gun on a strike mission? Or If i choose strike loudout, I must cast strakes.

BTW, are all stations can be loaded with AG ordnance? And why not install additional pylons like the Gr.7s? Not a requirement, I guess?

Edited by snickers
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuji

Fuji

Posted
Posted
-I'm thinking of loading a gun pod instead of strakes on my EAV-8B (on-going build) 1/144 kit. Let's say a CAS loadout; Litening pod, GBU-12 on inner pylons, tanks on middle stations, and AIM-9s or just launchers on farther pylons.

I think there's no need for a gun on a strike mission? Or If i choose strike loud-out, I must cast strakes.

BTW, are all stations can be loaded with AG ordnance? And why not install additional pylons like the Gr.7s? Not a requirement, I guess?

In my honest opinion, there is always need for a gun in any strike mission. Never know if you might have to use it. Look at Afghanistan. Aircraft were banned from going below 10,000 feet for fear of SAMs. In the first few weeks of the war, Tomcat's and Hornets were going below that mark after expending all their bombs to support ground troops in close contact with Taliban and Al Qaeda forces by using the gun to strafe enemy positions. Many times they saved the day. Soon Eagles, Falcons and others were following suit.

Your load out seems good and its one I have seen. Just go ahead and at the Winders. They always look good.

Yes all stations can carry AG weapons. As to why the Marnies, and by default the Spanish and Italians, never added the extra stations for the Sidewinders to free up a station for more AG stores, two things come to mind - shortsightedness and money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reddog

Reddog

Posted
Posted
Yes all stations can carry AG weapons. As to why the Marnies, and by default the Spanish and Italians, never added the extra stations for the Sidewinders to free up a station for more AG stores, two things come to mind - shortsightedness and money.

Actually it would be;

1) At the time the AV-8B came out, air defense was not a mission it was intended to do, that's why they have F-18's.

2) Drag and Weight, less drag and weight means more fuel, which means more time on target.

The Harrier was intended to be strickly a strike aircraft, air defense was to be provided either the CBG or other tactical components.

Also, the only thing the outboard station can carry, besides AIM-9's/ACMI Pods, is Mk 82's and Cluster Bombs.

Reddog :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Julien (UK)

Julien (UK)

Posted
Posted
In my honest opinion, there is always need for a gun in any strike mission. Never know if you might have to use it.

Exactly! why the RAF harriers have been partly replaced by Tornados in Afghanistan. Due to a major balls up our harriers dont have a gun anymore. Tornados do. Guns have proved very good, and a cheap way to take out targets.

Ask a few UK paras about how "useful" the A-10's were in peeling back the Taliban!

Julien

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuji

Fuji

Posted
Posted
Actually it would be;

1) At the time the AV-8B came out, air defense was not a mission it was intended to do, that's why they have F-18's.

2) Drag and Weight, less drag and weight means more fuel, which means more time on target.

The Harrier was intended to be strickly a strike aircraft, air defense was to be provided either the CBG or other tactical components.

Also, the only thing the outboard station can carry, besides AIM-9's/ACMI Pods, is Mk 82's and Cluster Bombs.

Reddog :jaw-dropping:

Doesn't matter Reddog, the RAF developed and installed the catamaran AIM-9 launchers on their GR.5,7 and 9 Harriers not for any air defense role, but to free up a couple of stations for more AG stores or countermeasures and retain a self defense capability. THAT is the question snickers brought up on this thread. Not air defense or counter air, but self defense and the ability to still deliver a hard punch. You know as well as I do that Sidewinders on the Harrier were primarily self defense, not any air superiority mission. That means worst case scenario when some guy gets through the supposedly and hopefully present Hornets (which probably have their own AG missions to cover and are probably count on the Navy or Air FOrce for fighter cover considering the G limitations of their high time airframes) and threatens the CAS group. If that MiG does get through, calling for help isn't going to do anything, the Harriers are on their own.

When outfitted with that self defense capability its limits its ability to deliver a full punch, especially these days when you throw a LANTIRN on yet another station. Who cares about less drag and more fuel after you drop your single bomb? What are you going to do with all that extra time over target. Pick your nose? Now imagine the capability of a Harrier with catamaran AIM-9s, LITENING, LMAV or GBU-12 /16, tanks and two GBU-38s on the outboard most pylons now mostly seen with AIM-9 LAUs. Or even better, move the LITENING to the centerline as is being discussed and add an extra LGB. Now that would be an aircraft capable of delivering a punch and defending itself. Would you have to rearrange some tanker support, maybe. But its better than tying up tanker support to put one LGB per airframe on target.

Most people I have talked to, primarily military, say this is a waste of resources

AV-8B_Harrier.KC-10.drogue.jpg

Now I like the Harrier, much to the horror of some of my peers. I look at that jet and will always think woulda shoulda coulda. It is capable, but could have been much more so. This is not a slight on the crews who fly them, I just feel they have been let down by the system. You and I have danced on this subject before and nothing you have said can convince me, in fact, it only serves to re-enforce my argument that the Marines have always been shortsighted when looking at the Harrier while the rest of the operators world wide have forged ahead of them. Yes there is the money issue, but that is shortsightedness as the command hierarchy was not concerned enough with the Harrier's capability to see and fund its upgrades when they could have. Its been reactionary at best. Even a couple of Marine pilots I know who now fly with the Navy Reserve cannot understand the Corps obsession with VSTOL, Harrier and F-35, given its limitations, imposed and inherent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hemspilot

hemspilot

Posted
Posted

Some time in the past (could have been the early nineties) I saw a picture of an experimental wingtip launcher for AIM-9s on a AV-8B, I believe it was on Aviation Week or Air International, back when the Harrier was still a McDonnell Douglas product.

The new wingtip was designed to accommodate for the wingtip reaction nozzles.

I wish I could find that picture for a what if.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuji

Fuji

Posted
Posted (edited)
Some time in the past (could have been the early nineties) I saw a picture of an experimental wingtip launcher for AIM-9s on a AV-8B, I believe it was on Aviation Week or Air International, back when the Harrier was still a McDonnell Douglas product.

The new wingtip was designed to accommodate for the wingtip reaction nozzles.

I wish I could find that picture for a what if.

avav8_3_02.png

And one to show what a heavy armed harrier should look like, more of a punch than 1 LGB - the only thing missing is the gun as Julian said. Seems all service branches of all countries suffer from shortsightedness.

800px-.jpg

Edited by Fuji
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuji

Fuji

Posted
Posted
Fuji,

Yes, we have gone around on this issue before so I recommend we agree to disagree. I feel that it isn't the Marines fault but the pencil pushers in the puzzle palace inside the beltway.

Reddog :cheers:

That's my point exactly Reddog

that is shortsightedness as the command hierarchy was not concerned enough with the Harrier's capability to see and fund its upgrades when they could have. Its been reactionary at best.

And some of those responsible have worn stars on their collars and wore Marine Green.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reddog

Reddog

Posted
Posted

I apologize then, to me it sounded like you where laying blame at the sqaudron/wing level and not the morons in the puzzle palace. I see first hand how the puzzle palace is under funding the Harrier community everyday, it's fustrating.

Reddog :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuji

Fuji

Posted
Posted
I apologize then, to me it sounded like you where laying blame at the sqaudron/wing level and not the morons in the puzzle palace. I see first hand how the puzzle palace is under funding the Harrier community everyday, it's fustrating.

Reddog :salute:

I never blame the guy at the pointy end, crap rolls down hill as we both know and its them that have to deal with it.

This is not a slight on the crews who fly them, I just feel they have been let down by the system.

:salute:

Link to post
Share on other sites
snickers

snickers

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
avav8_3_02.png

And one to show what a heavy armed harrier should look like, more of a punch than 1 LGB - the only thing missing is the gun as Julian said. Seems all service branches of all countries suffer from shortsightedness.

800px-.jpg

-Wow! THATs should it look like! Are those GBU-12? That targeting pod looks new to me. Thanks, I learned a lot from this thread.

BTW, someone said that Gr.7s dont carry guns anymore? This sounds I have to scratchbuilt some parts for my Gr.7 kit.

Edited by snickers
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...