Do F-18's carry the MK 82 snake eyes in OIF or OEF?

[Reddog]

I'm not planning on going anywhere, unless Steve throws me out.

But I am getting tired of people taking some book or photo and sticking it in my nose and then saying I'm wrong. I don't respond to questions unless I'm 100% sure I'm giving the right answer, if I don't know the answer then I will say something like "IMHO" or "I believe". I'm not trying to say I'm right 100% of the time, just that I research the answer before I throw it out or know it out hand, I don't shoot from the hip when I answer questions.

I don't give NAVAIR wrong answers, why would I post one here.

Reddog :)

[Reddog]

delete

Edited January 14, 2010 by Reddog

[Fishwelding]

Thank you both, Joe and Reddog for your answers. Good to know that the Monogram gear is good. I would gladly build 1980s and earlier 1990s jets carrying dumb ordnance. But aftermarket decals can be somewhat thin from this era, so I end up building jets from this decade with what seems the same precision weaponry over and over.

Regarding the HTS Pod: In the summer of 2007, I took photographs of F-16C-52 93-0549, a South Carolina Air Guard F-16, that was carrying what I think was an HTS pod. I was happy they loaded the pod and some dummy HARMs for my local airshow, as I'm not often around military aircraft. Earlier today I just cut into a Hasagawa kit to build this very bird, although I think I'll finish the ordinance as live, swap the baggage blivet for an ECM pod, and add some sidewinders, that the jet wasn't carrying that day.

.

[Murph]

Don't know what the designation is (other than HTS), but it is the HARM Targeting System that the Air Force puts on the Block 40/42 F-16Cs (IIRC) for the SEAD mission. I'm not sure why they need to do that, but they do.

Joe,

It's the block 50/52s (F-16CJ) that carry the HTS; the block 40/42s (F-16CG) were originally intended to specialize in night attack with the LANTIRN system. The HTS provides additional capability.

Regards,

Murph

[chuck540z3]

Folks...as far as Reddog and his nearly unlimited knowledge of what ordnance is used/not used legal/illlegal on USN aircraft....it has been verified time and again. I'll say this; Confucious say "Hungry man, should not insult the cook". Reddog may not be the only show in town, but I doubt if we'll find one that's better. We the other modelers are the hungry and he is the cook. Let's not give him cause to stop answering the questions a lot of us have, some repeated more than once.

Thank you Reddog for providing a source for info that without it, some would be embarrased and very vexed when they are told or find out that the loadout is wrong for that aircraft; it's been proven that the instruction sheets are flawed in what the sometimes suggest a loadout should be; Reddog and others help us get it right.

Ditto all of the above. We have scared a few experts away in the past and there's NO WAY we want Reddog to ever get ticked off and leave. Besides being an expert, he's a gracious gentleman. Without him a lot of our Navy jets would look like crap, including mine. :blink:

[LanceB]

Reddog, not going to keep this going forever and not trying to get the last word. I did know you were an ordie, and I did not mean what I initially said to be a "you don't know what you are talking about" type of comment. I also know things change really quickly - I got out of the Corps in '90, and I still have ordnance charts and other stuff from the time. They are all hopelessly out-of-date, and have been for a long time. For example, the pics I have are from the Jan. '96 issue of Koku Fan, which means the pics were taken probably mid-'95, only 5 years after I got out, and they show VMA-542 operating:

-an aircraft that only existed as a sole prototype 5 years prior

-powered by an engine that was still on paper 5 years prior

-with airframes changes to accommodate that engine and improve flight characteristics, none of which had been thought of 5 years prior

-carrying a store that was not listed as cleared for flight in the NATOPS manual 5 years prior

Plus it was at CAX, and they did weird stuff out there. Now, without that picture, if someone told me they saw a Harrier with a ballute bomb on it in '95, my first reaction would be "BS, those weren't cleared" - unless they meant a Mk40 Destructor with high-drag fins, but what pics I saw and can find of Mk 40s (we never actually loaded them on any exercise I took part in, so I've never seen a live one) do not look like what is in the CAX pics. Things change quick, I had a discussion with a Harrier mech of more recent vintage who thought I was on crack for talking about carrying two 82 slicks on a TER on the CL pylon - but it is in the charts I've got and I even have a nice MacAir pic of a Harrier doing it. That carriage option is apparently no longer in the manual for some reason. Things change. Makes one feel old sometimes... :blink:

Still, I goofed by misidentifying the mark of bomb being used (probably should have double-checked the book before posting). Probably if I had said "Mk83 ballute bomb" it would have made more sense to you and you would have piped up like Joe did and pointed out that there are different types of BRUs in play, one is approved and one is not. Interesting how one for a Mk83 got cleared while the one for the Mk82 didn't. I'm sure there is a logic to that decision in there somewhere...

Anyway, learned something new, and I thank you and Joe for setting me straight.

[John B]

...Things change quick, I had a discussion with a Harrier mech of more recent vintage who thought I was on crack for talking about carrying two 82 slicks on a TER on the CL pylon - but it is in the charts I've got and I even have a nice MacAir pic of a Harrier doing it. That carriage option is apparently no longer in the manual for some reason. Things change. Makes one feel old sometimes...

At least your old MOS code still exists and all the equipment you worked with/on isn't in a museum. That'll age you quicker than a SSgt calling you "Sir". :blink:

[Joe Hegedus]

Joe,

It's the block 50/52s (F-16CJ) that carry the HTS; the block 40/42s (F-16CG) were originally intended to specialize in night attack with the LANTIRN system. The HTS provides additional capability.

Regards,

Murph

Thanks for the correction.

Joe

[Joe Hegedus]

Interesting how one for a Mk83 got cleared while the one for the Mk82 didn't. I'm sure there is a logic to that decision in there somewhere...

I wasn't around when the work was done, but back in the 80's the BSU-49 was evaluated on the FA-18. From what I was told, it had very poor separation characteristics from the jet and was never cleared; ergo it was never added to the Navy inventory. The BSU-85 fin on the MK-83, though, was quite satisfactory to use on the Hornets. I never saw the data, so I don't know just how bad the -49 fin was off the Hornet, just going by what the guy who did the work told me.

[Murph]

Thanks for the correction.

Joe

I think the F-16 and SU-27 series are in a race for producing the most confusing number of variants.

Regards,

Murph

[Collin]

Hey Reddog...can't we just end this conversation about weapons and tease Joe for not weathering any of his models he brings to the meetings.

Hope you guys had a good time last week, sorry I missed the meeting. My head is finally clearing from Vegas.

Cheers

ATIS

[LanceB]

At least your old MOS code still exists and all the equipment you worked with/on isn't in a museum. That'll age you quicker than a SSgt calling you "Sir". :(

No, MOS 6095 AV-8B Aircraft Structures Mechanic no longer exists. It now seems to be 6252 Fixed-Wing Aircraft Airframe Mechanic, AV-8/TAV-8, and covers Hyd shop (which used to be a separate MOS) plus CC and possibly some other stuff. AV-8Bs may not be in museums, but when is the F-35B coming online again? ;)

Had a Corporal call me "sir" at Yokota a few months ago. Gave him the obligatory "Don't call me sir, my parents were..." Um, sorry Murph & Waco... Anyway, he just gave me a blank look like he didn't get it...

[Red_Baron_13]

I wasn't around when the work was done, but back in the 80's the BSU-49 was evaluated on the FA-18. From what I was told, it had very poor separation characteristics from the jet and was never cleared; ergo it was never added to the Navy inventory. The BSU-85 fin on the MK-83, though, was quite satisfactory to use on the Hornets. I never saw the data, so I don't know just how bad the -49 fin was off the Hornet, just going by what the guy who did the work told me.

Canadian CF-188 (F/A-18A+) carry the Mk-82/BSU-49 - never got asked for the US.

[Andre]

Earlier today I just cut into a Hasagawa kit to build this very bird

I don't know if you build in 1/72nd or 1/48th, but the HTS pod in the smaller kit is woefully underscale - it has about the right size for a Pave Penny, not a HTS.

The RoG "Block 50" kit has a better sized representation.

HTH,

Andre

[Fishwelding]

I don't know if you build in 1/72nd or 1/48th, but the HTS pod in the smaller kit is woefully underscale - it has about the right size for a Pave Penny, not a HTS.

The RoG "Block 50" kit has a better sized representation.

HTH,

Andre

Good to know, but I happen to be building the 1/48th scale kit, their "Misawa" boxing. Come to think of it though, I haven't checked to see how the quarter-inch Hasagawa pod scales to the jet.

I think the F-16 and SU-27 series are in a race for producing the most confusing number of variants.

Regards,

Murph

No kidding. I felt like the typical modeling dork asking the South Carolina F-16 guy which "Block" his jet was, but I honestly wanted to know, because I forget all the specifics. I console myself with the thought that I didn't ask him such airshow crowd gems such as: is that (the baggage can) a napalm canister, like in Iron Eagle?

[Joe Hegedus]

Hey Reddog...can't we just end this conversation about weapons and tease Joe for not weathering any of his models he brings to the meetings.

Hope you guys had a good time last week, sorry I missed the meeting. My head is finally clearing from Vegas.

Cheers

ATIS

That's me, the Nonconformist! A man once said, "Build what you want the WAY you want..."

I didn't make the party either.

[mrvark]

FWIW, the HTS designation is AN/ASQ-213. Now, with that bit of information and a buck or so, you can get a cup of coffee...

Merry Christmas to all.

[TomcatFanatic123]

.

When did the HTS pods start getting painted all gray instead of with the white tips? I'll have to remember that when I pull out the Blk. 50/52 Tamiya Viper I've got in the stash :D...