Active and Former Servicemembers: Share your memories of loadouts

[KTesh]

My request is simple. Start a thread on what you supported (if there isn't one already) specifically, and share with those who might want to model your plane.

One of the things that so many modelers need is specific information about the weapons loadouts of the aircraft they are modeling.

I'm asking that anyone who used to load, fly, or otherwise maintain aircraft, share their memories of what was, and wasn't, carried on the aircraft they supported. Model kit manufacturers can't be trusted for accurate information, and sometimes photographs can be misleading (Hero shots of F-111s with 4 nukes comes to mind, or an EF-111A loaded with AIM-9s). I don't know about you, but I find it sad to see someone's hard work in making a really nice model ruined because they trusted what the instructions said about what could be carried.

[EDIT]Dramatic editing to improve Intra-MOS relations have been made to the title and OP.[/EDIT]

Also, as the times change, so might the weapons. I'm sure that as Korean and Vietnam war era munitions were fazed out what a plane would carry would change, depending on how long it remained in service. Electronic pods also changed with time. So, knowledge of when and where you loaded could be valuable too.

I'm hoping to get lists of what were possible (legal) loads (no matter how rare), as well as what was actually carried (and when), and specifically what would have never been loaded (despite model instructions charts claims to the otherwise). So if someone wants to model an aircraft as it served during Vietnam, or the same aircraft as it served during the training periods of the Cold War, or during the combat of Desert Storm, they can make it with a period accurate weapons load.

Thanks

Edited June 11, 2016 by KTesh

[Scott R Wilson]

KTesh, interesting idea posting this. I hope you get some good response from any other BB Stackers who might be in this group.

Just out of curiosity, back in the day did you ever hear or use the term "loadout"? Several of us ex-military folks on this group had never heard that term during our time in service. As I recall it was simply the "weapons load" which was "uploaded" onto the jet or "downloaded" back off.

[Finn]

Here is a listing i posted back in 2000:

CF-104 Loads

Here are some of the ones I did during my time loading the CF-104 in Germany in the mid-80's:

3 BL755s - on centreline and one each on the pylons.

5 BL755s - on centreline and 2 on each Twin Stores Carrier - TSC - on the pylons.

3 Mk-82 Snakeyes - same layout as top

5 Mk-82 Snakeyes - 1 c/l and 2 on TSCs

2 LAU-5003 Rocket Pods (19 Rx) - one on each pylon (LAU-3 was also loaded but externally they were the same as the LAU-5003)

4 LAU-5003 Rocket Pods - 2 on each TSC

4 Mk-20 Rockeye - 2 on each TSC (late 84)

For 20mm ammo: 100 or 350 round belts were used but 500 round belts were stowed at times, by hand which was fun on hot humid days.

On the centreline, the fins on the BL and Mk-82 were turned 15 degrees from vertical (+) counter clockwise (looking fwd) to clear the gear doors. Also if you plan to have a centreline store, do not install Part R9 on the Hasegawa kit, which is the external de-linker (as we called it). The compartment where the spent casings and links went couldn't hold any more than 350 rds worth but if the ext de-linker was used, the links would beat whatever was on the centreline rack so the ext de-linker wasn't used. One last bit, there were 2 different types of pylon sway braces, one larger curved set for stores on the pylon and one smaller straight set when the TSCs were installed. Check pics for their shapes. When tanks were carried on the pylons, no sway braces were used.

Also while in Baden i was trained to load the F-104G and the F-111 which we put 20 Mk-82 Snakeyes on- 6 on o/b BRU and 4 on the i/b.

Jari

[KTesh]

KTesh, interesting idea posting this. I hope you get some good response from any other BB Stackers who might be in this group.

Just out of curiosity, back in the day did you ever hear or use the term "loadout"? Several of us ex-military folks on this group had never heard that term during our time in service. As I recall it was simply the "weapons load" which was "uploaded" onto the jet or "downloaded" back off.

I remember "uploading" and "downloading", and "weapons load", but I'm fuzzy on "loadout". I even use the term in my posts. I don't exactly remember where I'd have picked it up from.

Speculating here... One possible reason why others might not remember the term is due to Branch/MOS specifics. It may be that it was a term that we Weapons/Ammo troops used in the barn, and amongst ourselves, and not something that a crew chief or other maintenance worker may have had heard often. If I had to guess, I'd bet that it came from within the Weapons/Ammo community, probably the 461's specifically... "Hey, go run a load (of bombs) out to shelter 15", or "Hey! Get that load out of here! This jet's broke"

It's my belief that "loadout" refers to the various configuration of weapons that a plane would carry (Which is how I use it). So, you'd never see a loadout of MK-82 Snakeyes and a B61 nukes on the same plane at the same time. Nukes and conventional bombs weren't mixed, you were either carrying one or the other. However, it's very likely that you'd see nukes and missiles, or conventional bombs and missiles at the same time.

So one possible loadout for an F-111E from UH might include two SUU-21s (on STA 3 and 6)(one carrying BDU-33s and the other carrying MK-106s), as well as BRU's on STA 4 and 5 (carrying a full load of inert (or even possibly live) Mk-82 AIR bombs), and maybe even a practice AIM-9 or two. (Remember, I served during the Cold War, not during any real fighting)

Another would be like Jari said... 20 Mk-82's with full BRUs on STAs 3 and 6, and slant 4 BRUs on STAs 4 and 5 (with inboard weapons removed).

Edited June 9, 2016 by KTesh

[Collin]

My request is simple. Start a thread on what you supported (if there isn't one already) specifically, and share with those who might want to model your plane.

One of the things that so many modelers need is specific information about the weapons loadouts of the aircraft they are modeling.

I'm asking that anyone who used to load aircraft share their memories of what was, and wasn't, carried on the aircraft they supported. Model kit manufacturers can't be trusted for accurate information, and sometimes photographs can be misleading (Hero shots of F-111s with 4 nukes comes to mind). I don't know about you, but I find it sad to see someone's hard work in making a really nice model ruined because they trusted what the instructions said about what could be carried.

Pilots and crew chiefs are great sources of info, but sometimes their knowledge of which weapons were loaded (and where) can be a little fuzzy. Can they tell the difference between a CBU-58 and a CBU-87? Or the differences in what an F-111E would have been loaded with compared to what a F-111F would have been loaded up with going into combat, or for just everyday training flights?

Also, as the times change, so might the weapons. I'm sure that as Korean and Vietnam war era munitions were fazed out what a plane would carry would change, depending on how long it remained in service. Electronic pods also changed with time. So, knowledge of when and where you loaded could be valuable too.

Thanks

So you are asking "loads" to answer and post stuff correct?

I'll just stick to my models and my "fuzzy" minded pilot/NFO/WSO partners in crime.

Collin

Edited June 9, 2016 by Collin

[KTesh]

So you are asking "loads" to answer and post stuff correct?

I'll just stick to my models and my "fuzzy" minded pilot/NFO/WSO partners in crime.

Collin

Collin, I don't mean to insult anyone... What I was hoping to inspire is more people to post correct information on what was possible as a load, thus people won't be wasting time trying to model an accurate config, only to be let down because the instructions were off... (a careful look at the Academy 1/48 F-111E kit is a prime example).

It's likely that Weapons troops would have a better idea of what we loaded, what we could load, and what would and wouldn't be mixed together. Not every pilot/NFO/WSO gets the chance to fly with every load combination weapons troops trained with. The vast majority of the time flight crews get to fly with practice munitions and only get to simulate the mission.

[admiralcag]

I *believe* the term loadout comes from the -1 flight manual for the respective aircraft, showing what it can be safely loaded with. I loaded F-16Cs for 15 years, but hardly saw every conceivable configuration. The pilots/NFOs/WSOs would probably have a better feel for what is possible.

A point of clarification -- to call an Air Force Loader (462/2W1) a BB stacker is an insult. We are load toads and muzzle f***ers, thank you very much. AMMO troops (461/2W0) are the BB stackers.

Vern

"If you ain't AMMO, you're waiting on them..."

[Rex]

Another factor that comes into play is that even if a load is "legal" on an aircraft, sometimes only certain squadrons carried that load combination, while other units might not have ever had that weapon in inventory.

I admit that I am a big fan of the info that the Ordies post about their work,,,,,,,but, I still go by a photo of a load for any specific thing I want to hang on a model.

If I have a photo of VA-22 carrying this thing, I know I can build it,,,,,,,,,,even though I still pay close attention to the "VA-22 had those because they were the Wing's ________ squadron, while VA-94 didn't do that mission within the Wing on that cruise" type of discussions.

I don't expect the Ordies to know or remember which BuNo had the wiring changed or updated to hang _____ on it and which ones didn't. F-4D wiring comes to mind as the perfect example of seeing something on an F-4D that you couldn't hang on most of the other F-4Ds that were built.

[Collin]

I'll just leave these here....let the Navy loads tell me what I dropped.

[Scott R Wilson]

I *believe* the term loadout comes from the -1 flight manual for the respective aircraft, showing what it can be safely loaded with. I loaded F-16Cs for 15 years, but hardly saw every conceivable configuration. The pilots/NFOs/WSOs would probably have a better feel for what is possible.

A point of clarification -- to call an Air Force Loader (462/2W1) a BB stacker is an insult. We are load toads and muzzle f***ers, thank you very much. AMMO troops (461/2W0) are the BB stackers.

Vern

"If you ain't AMMO, you're waiting on them..."

I stand corrected. I was a mere spark chaser, fwiw.

[KTesh]

Mods please delete

Edited June 11, 2016 by KTesh

[KTesh]

I'd like to apologize to anyone who was offended by my original post as it appeared originally.

I have hurt some people's feelings, and it wasn't my intention at all. I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I was trying to help, and thanks to my Autism (diagnosed after my service in the USAF) I still obviously lack the social skills to be able to tactfully do so without coming off as one.

I was hoping to inspire people to share information with fellow modellers so they could make the most accurate model of the subject they have selected. One of the most frustrating things in modeling is to follow the instructions and produce something that you're proud of, only to have someone (like me) home in on that detail and tell you that you've messed it up.

Thanks to all of our Active Duty and former service members from all branches for your service.

Peace

Edited June 11, 2016 by KTesh

[Scooby]

You did nothing to offend me, I thought it was a simple question.

The truth is, day to day our jets flew most of the time with just tanks.

And you weren't a mere spark chaser, you were a USAF Airman.

[yardbird78]

KTesh, I saw nothing in your original post or later for anyone to take offense. Your intention to help other modelers seems clear to me and commendable for such.

[Grey Ghost 531]

I stand corrected. I was a mere spark chaser, fwiw.

I never heard, "spark chaser" much. There were tin benders, knuckle draggers and bubble chasers but the avionics shops were usually called "tweaks" or "tweets". I was radar, the real "tweaks", we called the electricians "one wires" and the com/nav guys "two wires" because that's all the circuit complexity they were capable of troubleshooting... B)

[KTesh]

KTesh, I saw nothing in your original post or later for anyone to take offense. Your intention to help other modelers seems clear to me and commendable for such.

Thanks!

As it stands now, perhaps more people will be willing to jump in and post what they know.

Peace!

BTW, Collin's weapons are a Mk-20 (I loaded those in the USAF), a trio of Mk-83 "slicks"(1000lb bombs) loaded on a TER (never saw them at RAF UH, or in training, but a little research (and a question to Collin) confirmed them), a Harpoon Missile (again only by doing research (and it happens that my dad worked on them too (for McDonald Douglas))), and another trio of Mk-83 "slicks".

Edited June 11, 2016 by KTesh

[Rex]

Ktesh, your idea has plenty of merit. It is just such a complex subject.

So much so in fact, that there is a guy (or guys?) working on a book on the subject. I am sure it will get done so that I can buy it in my lifetime,,,,,,,,,,but, it might get done so late that I will be nearly done with my collection by the time the research is all done for it.

(*I think there is a book in the works, I've seen it mentioned, but, for obvious reasons we can't expect it very soon, it would be a lot of work)

[Scott R Wilson]

I never heard "spark chaser" much. There were tin benders, knuckle draggers and bubble chasers but the avionics shops were usually called "tweaks" or "tweets". I was radar, the real "tweaks", we called the electricians "one wires" and the com/nav guys "two wires" because that's all the circuit complexity they were capable of troubleshooting... B)/>/>

I was comm-nav avionics. In the USAF back 30 years ago (can it really have been that long ago? Damn I'm getting old!) the term "spark chaser" most often referred to electricians but was sometimes used for anyone that worked on electrical equipment of any type. I have only heard "tweaker" used by Navy folks.

The WCS (Weapons Control Systems) guys proudly called themselves "knuckle draggers" but I never understood why.

I guess it was ignorance, but we called all weapons people BB Stackers. I frankly didn't know there was a separate career field for folks working on the gun and ammunition versus bomb assemblers and loaders.

Some of the nicknames were pretty offensive. Specialists were often a bit prima donna-ish, and some of them called crew chiefs "nose pickers" or "booger hookers." I thought that was inappropriate, I rarely used the terms unless a crew chief had ticked me off in some way.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Scott R Wilson

[Slartibartfast]

There's this: World Encyclopaedia of Modern Air Weapons

But my copy is twenty-eight years out of date. And it only talks about the weapons and some of the aircraft to which they were fitted. One really needs a good book on each aircraft that has a load diagram. Even then, that's permissible loading, not actual loading. We're back to photos.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[admiralcag]

I'd like to apologize to anyone who was offended by my original post as it appeared originally.

I was not too seriously offended. Thank you for the apology. There really needs to be a sarcasm font.

There is a big difference between Weapons and AMMO and a very intense, albeit friendly, rivalry.

Vern

[phantom]

Only thing I ever loaded was casualties, in Twin Hueys stretchers. Labrador stretchers, and Kiowa sitting in the back. BUT, that was pretty darn rare.90% of my casulities were treated at scene and carried on.

[11bee]

Standard loadout?

7 magazines of 5.56, maybe a few extra in the ruck

1 can of 7.62 or at least a few belts

LAW or later an AT-4

2 canteens and a 2 quart on the ruck

e-tool

first aid kit and compass

maybe a flare or smoke grenade

radio battery and/or some extra batteries for NVG

NVG (PVS-7, which was the first one I used that was actually decent)

extra socks, in ziploc bags to keep them dry

gold bond powder

baby wipes

bug juice if required

TP (in ziploc bag)

maybe a gortex rain jacket (hardly ever used the pants except in the winter)

poncho (never wore the damn thing but it was useful if you were able to build a hooch, or use with poncho liner as a basic sleeping bag)

cord

leatherman, (I never took the issue bayonet into the field unless ordered to)

Protective mask (hate)

MOPP gear (HATE)

poncho liner (LOVE - without doubt the best thing ever developed in all of military history), maybe two if it was cold

glove liners, leather shells if it was cold. At one point I scored a pair of nomex flight gloves. Not that much of an improvement over the regular grunt stuff but a significant increase to the cool-factor.

extra thermal undershirt or field jacket liner if it was cold

sleeping bag (if it was winter)

MREs as required, beef jerky, misc small bits of junk food, maybe a small bottle of your favorite hot sauce

Motrin

smokes (at one time in my life)

dip (critical item, can't go in the field without it)

"grown-up" magazine or two. If any down-time was anticipated, maybe a good paperback book.

I'm sure I've forgotten a couple of odds and ends....

Some other poor SOB's got all the above and also got stuck with an MG tripod / spare barrel or a radio or mortar crap.

Edited June 12, 2016 by 11bee

[admiralcag]

I was comm-nav avionics. In the USAF back 30 years ago (can it really have been that long ago? Damn I'm getting old!) the term "spark chaser" most often referred to electricians but was sometimes used for anyone that worked on electrical equipment of any type. I have only heard "tweaker" used by Navy folks.

The WCS (Weapons Control Systems) guys proudly called themselves "knuckle draggers" but I never understood why.

I guess it was ignorance, but we called all weapons people BB Stackers. I frankly didn't know there was a separate career field for folks working on the gun and ammunition versus bomb assemblers and loaders.

Some of the nicknames were pretty offensive. Specialists were often a bit prima donna-ish, and some of them called crew chiefs "nose pickers" or "booger hookers." I thought that was inappropriate, I rarely used the terms unless a crew chief had ticked me off in some way.

I am a proud specialist, aka a** scratcher.

AMMO stores, builds up, and delivers the munitions. Armament troops configure and test the aircraft with launchers and pylons, service the gun, load, arm, safe, and unload munitions, and inspect, test, and overhaul the gun, launchers, and pylons.

For most of Iraqi Freedom, we were flying a GBU-31, a TER-9A with 2 GBU-12's, 2 wing tanks, 2 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9Ms. We also had AlQ-131 ECM pods and either a Litening or a Sniper targeting pod on the right chin mount on the F-16. If you can find them, the TwoBobs F-1C OIF Vipers decal sheet has jets I loaded on it (336 and 284). We didn't get GBU-38s until we were flying out of Iraq

Typically, on the F-16, the heavier load will go on the left side to counteract the torque of the engine.

Vern

Edited June 12, 2016 by admiralcag

[admiralcag]

Thanks!

As it stands now, perhaps more people will be willing to jump in and post what they know.

Peace!

BTW, Collin's weapons are a Mk-20 (I loaded those in the USAF), a trio of Mk-83 "slicks"(1000lb bombs) loaded on a TER (never saw them at RAF UH, or in training, but a little research (and a question to Collin) confirmed them), a Harpoon Missile (again only by doing research (and it happens that my dad worked on them too (for McDonald Douglas))), and another trio of Mk-83 "slicks".

It looks like they also have M904 nose fuzes. I don't know about the Navy, but the Air Force would also put an M905 tail fuze in as well. Never loaded a Mk-83. Just Mk-82s and Mk-84s. I certified on the Mk-20, but never loaded it for an actual flying mission.

Vern

[Ben Brown]

Hi All,

Since this is the ordnance thread, can someone confirm the load on these F/A-18s in Desert Storm? Mk 82s on the wings and a Mk 83 on the centerline, or is that another 82?

Link 1

Link 2

Thanks,

Ben