"Missile truck" loadouts on modern jets?

[SebastianP]

A combination of renewed interest in old flight simulators (like EF-2000, Total Air War, and Jane's F/A-18), some old promo pictures from Eurofighter, MCAIR and Dassault, and a growing pile of leftover AAMs in my spares box has made me wonder about whether the "Missile truck" loadouts demonstrated in those sims and promo pics (between 13 and 16 AAMs depending on the aircraft) would actually be realistic under any circumstances? The loadouts aren't flown operationally at the moment, but is that solely due to economics (costs too much to have that many missiles on the jet when there's no air-to-air threat), or are these huge loadouts just a sales trick that has no bearing on what's actually possible?

(I realize that the circumstances under which such loads would be neccessary are unlikely indeed - it would take something like an alien invasion for there to be enough of an air threat/target rich environment to need upwards of a dozen missiles per fighter. But if that *did* happen are the aircraft cleared to fly like that?)

[LanceB]

(I realize that the circumstances under which such loads would be neccessary are unlikely indeed - it would take something like an alien invasion for there to be enough of an air threat/target rich environment to need upwards of a dozen missiles per fighter. But if that *did* happen are the aircraft cleared to fly like that?)

Well, the Hornet can!

[SebastianP]

Well, the Hornet can!

That pic only demonstrates captive carry - it doesn't prove they even tried launching the missiles... :)

(IIRC, the first time they flew that loadout, they had pretty much the US Navy's entire stock of AMRAAMs hanging on that one aircraft...)

The loadouts I'm interested in in particular are: 12 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinders on a Super Hornet or Lightning; 8 AMRAAM/METEOR and 6 ASRAAM/IRIS-T on a Typhoon; 14 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinders on a Raptor; and 13/14 MICA on a Rafale. All of those were touted in the promo materials and sims, but I don't have a clue whether they were ever actually tested.

[pigsty]

Most promotional pictures use plastic missiles and bombs, and hang them anywhere where there's a 30-inch adapter (or equivalent). Whether the pylon is even wired for the item in question will be a secondary matter.* Generally, though, they won't show a weapon that the aircraft is incapable of carrying from any pylon. As for numbers, most such pictures show loads that are theoretically within the aircraft's lifting capability, so if the pylons were wired correctly, and the aerodynamics permitted, etc, etc, they could be carried. But then you have the problem that the weight and drag would be so great that range would suffer. There's a famous series of photos showing an F-4B carrying, I think, 24 500lb bombs. But what they don't show is how far it managed to get before it had to turn back.

Actual practical loads are a much leaner mix of weapons and fuel. Training loads are less again. As a rule it's better not to carry a weapon at all unless (i) you intend to fire it; (ii) it's a practice round and you need the seeker, or whatever, to be working; or (iii) for some reason the aircraft works better with it attached. This is partly a matter of economics - it's a lucky air arm that can simultaneously arm every one of its fleet to the maximum - but it's more a matter of reducing wear on the weapons and the risk that they might fall off and brain someone.

* goodness only knows who they're aiming these pictures at. It's like adverts for fighter planes in Flight International - exactly what market are they trying to appeal to?

Edited February 14, 2013 by pigsty

[SebastianP]

That's about what I thought... I need to start building kits from Hasegawa instead of Revell again, every time I buy a kit nowadays there's enough leftovers to arm another jet and a half. And that's if I finish the jet - I've had to throw out several jets after dad's cat broke all their landing gear. I counted sixty-odd air-to-air missiles in my spares box, and I only have six jets to put them on...one of which is French, and has it's own missiles.

[scapilot]

Well, I can speak from experience that we have successfully managed to slap 10 Mk. 83's on a Super Hornet (including the horrid stations 2 / 10) with the help of CVER's and a lot of booze. We were on a CAG detachment in Fallon though, and the range was roughly four minutes away, but it's not uncommon to still get good handling out of the aircraft. These days with the air to air refueling being such a luxury, weight isn't really much of an issue. We were flying three fuel tanks in OIF / OEF missions, which if you were to tally that up to AMRAAM weight, would be feasible. True...missiles don't get lighter in flight, and fuel tanks do...however, it is possible. And the capability is there because you never know where the future is going to lead your aircraft and it's payload into.

[ALF18]

Not too many years ago, when we operated CF-18s in Central Europe, one of our tasks was to do "point defence" CAPs near our bases in SW Germany. With the number of missiles it was possible to carry at the time, pre-upgrades with our CF-18As, we were seriously concerned that we would run out of missiles before we ran out of fuel. The best load was 3 x AIM 7 and 4 x AIM 9.

Of course, the air threats we currently plan for are not as extreme as the Warsaw Pact in Central Europe, but then again we almost never seem to guess right when it comes to what the next scenario would be. How about another all-out conventional war in the Korean peninsula? I'm sure the folks in Seoul would be happy to know that the USN/USMC Hornets can actually carry that many missiles. And yes, every single one of those stations is a viable one for carriage and firing of the missiles you see in that linked pic.

Believe me, having seen many simulated engagements with modernized Hornets, it doesn't take long to hose off that many AMRAAMs against a BVR (Beyond Visual Range) threat.

Most importantly - it looks awesome!

ALF

[scapilot]

that load out may have been for a live missile shoot where they hot switched three or four crews . We used to do that with guns and practice weapons on mers to prevent shutdown and reload.

[Joe Hegedus]

If you're talking about the linked image of the VX Hornet, it's only carrying 2 live missiles. The rest are all CATMs.

[Steve jahn]

If you're talking about the linked image of the VX Hornet, it's only carrying 2 live missiles. The rest are all CATMs.

Three live missiles. Two on right wing. one on left.

Steve

[Joe Hegedus]

Three live missiles. Two on right wing. one on left.

Steve

You're right. I missed the right outboard-most one.

[Bobski]

8 AMRAAM/METEOR and 6 ASRAAM/IRIS-T on a Typhoon;

Not going to happen. Your maximum AA loads on a Typhoon are:

4x SRAAM + 4x MRAAM

2x SRAAM + 6x MRAAM

There is a photo somewhere of a Spanish Typhoon with a Twin-Missile Carrier on the outboard station, which would theoretically permit the carriage of 6x SRAAM and 4x MRAAM, but it has never been flown as far as I know and is not in service.

EDIT: Here's the photo from another thread:

Edited February 15, 2013 by Bobski