Jump to content

Can you build armed Aggressor F-16s


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, DarkKnight said:

I thought aggressors were stripped to reduce weight and increase maneuverability and not fully combat capable.

 

 

Some equipment might be removed to save weight or cost, but generally they're pretty close to the usual front-line example in most areas.  Think about it. How much would it cost in time, effort, and money to remove the wiring, switches, and whatever required to carry a live weapon versus the minor weight savings?

 

Regards,

Murph

Edited by Murph
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been a while, but when I was at Nellis AFB in the early 80s, they had just converted the Thunderbirds to F-16s. They were fully operational we were told, with the exception of the engine oil tank modified to feed in inverted flight. They were carried on the books as war ready and could be converted to a wartime mission just by reinstalling the Vulcan cannon. I haven't touched one in a while though.

 

The F-16s have gotten heavier with the addition of nav and targeting pods, and larger landing gear.  The F-16 pictured in the article #86-0310 is listed as an F-16C Block 30D in the 18th Aggressors. Looks like an ACMI (telemetry) pod on station 7.  The missiles in the stock photo appear to be inert with blue stripes on motor and warhead. That is a cool paint job though.

Edited by Planegeek
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Planegeek said:

Its been a while, but when I was at Nellis AFB in the early 80s, they had just converted the Thunderbirds to F-16s. They were fully operational we were told, with the exception of the engine oil tank modified to feed in inverted flight. They were carried on the books as war ready and could be converted to a wartime mission just by reinstalling the Vulcan cannon. I haven't touched one in a while though.

 

The F-16s have gotten heavier with the addition of nav and targeting pods, and larger landing gear.  The F-16 pictured in the article #86-0310 is listed as an F-16C Block 30D in the 18th Aggressors. Looks like an ACMI (telemetry) pod on station 7.  The missiles in the stock photo appear to be inert with blue stripes on motor and warhead. That is a cool paint job though.

Click on the links in the story to see the actual planes.

Seems they were used to intercept Russian bombers.  I hope PA puts photo's out. 

They've always had a secondary NORAD mission, so a cool event for two of their pilots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The AIM-120s on the depicted jet are captive carry; blue bands on their bodies plus the range pod is a training configuration. That said, I’m 99.9999% sure the aggressors are fully combat capable. Removal of equipment would change weight and balance values for one thing, effect cockpit switchology and make the airplane ineffective for training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-16's in the Aggressor role at Eielson AFB in Alaska are fully combat capable. They just don't have a combat mission. However the other Fighter squadron at Eielson is deployed and the aggressor squadron has taken over the armed intercept mission. Probably not the whole squadron but a detachment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BillS said:

The AIM-120s on the depicted jet are captive carry; blue bands on their bodies plus the range pod is a training configuration. That said, I’m 99.9999% sure the aggressors are fully combat capable. Removal of equipment would change weight and balance values for one thing, effect cockpit switchology and make the airplane ineffective for training.

 

312378479_525842579549827_79183284084433

 

312357390_525842626216489_79135369054452311991566_525842592883159_67471737183428

Link to post
Share on other sites

the pictures make it look like aircraft there are kept in spotless hangers, I thought that aggressor aircraft were unable to be fully combat capable, some with degraded radar for simulation or no radar for less weight,  but maybe that was Navy Top Gun adversary aircraft.  As for Thunderbirds, aren't they required to be able to be turned combat capable rapidly? Blue 
Angels too? isnt there a story of a Blue Angel aircraft that went into combat in same paint scheme.  I thought that some of the early Raptor and F-35s that were development aircraft serve as Aggressors as they are not fully combat capable.  Aren't AIM 120s mounted on the wingtips because somehow the weight there is better for balance or something even though they are heavier than a sidewinder?

Edited by DarkKnight
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DarkKnight said:

the pictures make it look like aircraft there are kept in spotless hangers, I thought that aggressor aircraft were unable to be fully combat capable, but maybe that was Navy Top Gun adversary aircraft.  As for Thunderbirds, aren't they required to be able to be turned combat capable rapidly? Blue 
Angels too? isnt there a story of a Blue Angel aircraft that went into combat in same paint scheme.  I thought that some of the early Raptor and F-35s that were development aircraft serve as Aggressors as they are not fully combat capable

I'm pretty sure that hangers are necessary in Alaska during October. All USAF F-16 aggressors are combat capable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stephen said:

I'm pretty sure that hangers are necessary in Alaska during October. All USAF F-16 aggressors are combat capable.

More likely an alert barn since the jets are armed and look ready to go. If you look at a google earth photo of Eielson, there's a 4 bay Alert barn off the threshold of runway 32. 

 

Cheers,

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2022 at 6:28 AM, Planegeek said:

Funny story: The F15s in Alaska used to fly training missions with one inert missile to interface with the radar. But they also carried a live missile on another station just in case they got tasked to do an intercept....

 

And this is what can happen as a result.

 

Alaska F-15 shoots AIM-9 at another F-15

 

Cheers,

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2022 at 12:46 PM, CF104 said:

More likely an alert barn since the jets are armed and look ready to go. If you look at a google earth photo of Eielson, there's a 4 bay Alert barn off the threshold of runway 32. 

 

Cheers,

 

John

 That looks like the normal bays, but I don't see the heater hoses hanging down like normal. It cant be the alert cell bays there are only 4, and that one says 5. The only time I saw them used was for broke TDY aircraft. Maybe its one of the F-35 bays, or maybe they are sitting at elmendorf. But all the bays were clean like that.  We flew the jets out of them.

Edited by kellyF15
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2022 at 9:19 PM, DarkKnight said:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/camouflaged-aggressor-f-16s-are-intercepting-russian-bombers-in-alaska

 

I thought aggressors were stripped to reduce weight and increase maneuverability and not fully combat capable.  Are we this thinly stretched now?  Are those live missiles?

 

 Yes they are mission capable, but im not going to post on an open forum what systems are deleted or added. Crew chiefs dont usually know that stuff anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, when the Bentwaters-based 527th AS switched from F-5Es to F-16Cs, their 'new' jets - drawn largely from the 52nd FW at Spangdahlem AB - remained fully combat-capable...

....reportedly, their preceding Tiger IIs had been assigned a secondary, limited air-defence role - like the RAF's Hawk trainers, they were to have operated in conjunction with radar-equipped fighters, such as Phantoms and Tornado F.3...

On 10/20/2022 at 2:49 PM, DarkKnight said:

As for Thunderbirds, aren't they required to be able to be turned combat capable rapidly? Blue 
Angels too? isnt there a story of a Blue Angel aircraft that went into combat in same paint scheme.

....back in the day, the Red Arrows officially had a secondary air-defence role:

8b6CSMK.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was PAO for the 81 TFW 527th AS at Bentwaters a long time ago.

Yes, They were combat capable...and powered by GE engines...the GE tech reps kept reminding me of that.

The often carried "training shape" AIM-9s as well as instrumentation pods.

When looking at photos, remember you can tell the difference because training rounds had blue on them.

 

 

 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...