Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
agelos2005

F-14D assymeteical GBU GBU load

Recommended Posts

Hi guys I wanted to ask why the F-14D has assymeteical GBU load out with GBU-12 and GBU-16 on the front Phoenix pulins and one GBU-16 at the aft?

 

I am doing the tamiya F-14D and that's what they offer with the Phoenix missile 

 

Is it with weight distribution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, agelos2005 said:

Hi guys I wanted to ask why the F-14D has assymeteical GBU load out with GBU-12 and GBU-16 on the front Phoenix pulins and one GBU-16 at the aft?

 

I am doing the tamiya F-14D and that's what they offer with the Phoenix missile 

 

Is it with weight distribution?

The asymmetric loading was due to weapon carriage restrictions with being able to mix GBU-12 and GBU-16's on the belly. You were allowed to put a GBU-12 and GBU-16 side by side but not fore and aft of each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GW8345 said:

The asymmetric loading was due to weapon carriage restrictions with being able to mix GBU-12 and GBU-16's on the belly. You were allowed to put a GBU-12 and GBU-16 side by side but not fore and aft of each other.

So do I understand you correctly they had to have the GBU-16 on one side and GBU-12 on the other? Ie right side only 16's and 12's on left side? 

Or was the solution right forward GBU-16, left forward GBU-12, right rear GBU-12, left rear GBU-16? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Niels said:

So do I understand you correctly they had to have the GBU-16 on one side and GBU-12 on the other? Ie right side only 16's and 12's on left side? 

Or was the solution right forward GBU-16, left forward GBU-12, right rear GBU-12, left rear GBU-16? 

GBU-12's on ones side, i.e left side, GBU-16's on the other side, i.e., right side.

 

You were not allowed to load one in front of the other, ie, GBU-16's on the fron rails and GBU-12's on the back rails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much, this is most helpful for upcoming project 😎👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Checked some of the reference photos I've downloaded from the net, and seems that atleast later in service life it was possible to load 2x GBU-38 or GBU-12's on front pallets? Do you have more details on this please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Niels said:

Checked some of the reference photos I've downloaded from the net, and seems that atleast later in service life it was possible to load 2x GBU-38 or GBU-12's on front pallets? Do you have more details on this please?

For GBU-38/GBU-12 loading you can mix GBU-38 and GBU-12's. However, if you have two of the same they have to be either all on one side or all on the front / rear rails. Basically, you can't do GBU-12/38 on the front rails and GBU-12/38 on the back rails. Example;

 

2 x GBU-12 and 1 x GBU-38 would be loaded as;

 

Front Rails - GBU-12

any back rail - GBU-38

 

or

 

Left side (front & back) - GBU-12

Right side Front - GBU-38

 

If you have three bombs loaded, the forward rails have to be loaded and your choice of which back rail (provided the front rails are loaded with the same type weapon).

 

Note: Only VF-31 and VF-213 were authorized to carry the GBU-38 with any other weapon on the belly. VF-101 was authorized to carry the GBU-38 for testing only, no mix loading was authorized).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

 

Upon further research, you can put GBU-12's on the front rails and GBU-16's on the back rails.

 

You could not put GBU-12 and GBU-16 together on the front rails and you were not allowed to have one GBU-12 on the front and two GBU-16's on the back. If you had three bombs, both forward rails had to be loaded and then any aft rail could be loaded (provided the forward rails were the same type weapon).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, agelos2005 said:

So tamiya insteuctions are wrong?

Not surprising, most load out instructions you see on model instructions aren't factual. (this does not apply to the current aftermarket decal companies, they actually do their research and get info from "people in the know")

 

They tend to lean to what the aircraft is capable of carrying, not what it's authorized, two different things.

 

I had to look up the flight clearance for the GBU-38 and when I was searching for it I came across the GBU-12/16 flight clearance which made me re-exam what the manual states, that's when I noticed my original post was wrong.

 

The flight manuals are written by engineers and we all know engineers are not known for their grasp of the English language or being able to write things that are easy to read, trying to figure mix loading will make your eyes bleed and head explode.😉

Edited by GW8345

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks GW8345, excellent information🤩

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, agelos2005 said:

So i can put two gbu-12 front and one GBU-16 back?

Yes sir👍

51 minutes ago, Niels said:

Thanks GW8345, excellent information🤩

 

My pleasure👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VF-2 flew the F-14D until retirement - did the loadouts you provide apply for them too? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Niels said:

VF-2 flew the F-14D until retirement - did the loadouts you provide apply for them too? 

 

VF-2 transitioned in 2003 so they weren't around for the GBU-38, it wasn't cleared until 2005 so only VF-31 and VF-213 were cleared to employ them.

Edited by GW8345

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

VF-2 transitioned in 2003 so they weren't around for the GBU-38, it wasn't cleared until 2005 so only VF-31 and VF-213 were cleared to employ them.

Yeah, for one whole cruise.  Still not sure why they bothered to spend the money and effort for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Joe Hegedus said:

Yeah, for one whole cruise.  Still not sure why they bothered to spend the money and effort for that.

Because at the time they (Pentagon) wanted to reduce collateral damage and only wanted PGM's used, and here was "issues" with using LGB's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seems like a lot of money spent for a one-time capability that was already existant in the air wing, just on another platform.  Kinda like a political move to keep the aircraft relevant for the last cruise.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/26/2020 at 5:41 PM, Joe Hegedus said:

It just seems like a lot of money spent for a one-time capability that was already existant in the air wing, just on another platform.  Kinda like a political move to keep the aircraft relevant for the last cruise.  

 

These things are planned and paid for in advance, I guess. IIRC, the Tomcat was supposed to have been kept for longer (2010, then 2007 and finally 2006), especially if the Super Hornet introduction got delayed due to some issues.

Edited by ijozic

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...