AGM-123 Skipper

[Raptor.777]

Was reading on this forum somewhere where someone with personal experience said these bombs were not that well liked. I was kind of curious why. Was planning on doing a A-6E from Desert Storm, was going for an armed reconnaissance role. On outside pylon, 2 Mk 20 cluster bombs on a MER, front and aft lower stations on the MER, inboard station AGM 123 Skipper, inboard station on other wing will be a 300 gallon fuel tank and two Mk 82s on a MER, same configurations as the Mk 20s

Thanks

Jeff

[LDM]

I'll let those with the personal experience attest to why it was disliked, though my understanding is it was unreliable and not as great as it sounded on paper.  Also, the rocket motor made it so the fins couldn't retract all the way which is why you see it carried on the aircraft with the fins already deployed.  I built a Desert Storm Intruder with similar ordnance to what you describe (1xAGM-123, 2xMER, 2xMk. 20, 2x Mk. 82 Snakeye, and 1xFuel Tank), just arranged slightly different based on photo evidence I found.

 

 

 

[GW8345]

I posted this in the A-6 Weapons thread and will re-post it here.

 

"Where do I start;

 

1) The AGM-123 was a PITA to handle and load due to the fins being deployed and not folded. It was difficult to move around the deck due to it's placement on the weapon skid, making the skid top heavy (not something you want to move around on a pitching rolling deck). Usually for 1,000 lb LBG's (Mk 83 LGB/GBU-16's) we would just hand hump them (hand load them) but for the AGM-123, while you could hand hump it, most of the time we just used a hoist so you had to rig the hoist which slowed down loading, something you didn't want to do when you had limited time between launches to get everything loaded. Back then, we usually had about 30 minutes to reload all the jets for the next launch and we usually had about 8 ordies to load anywhere from 2 to 4 aircraft. It takes 8 ordies to hand hump it and 5 ordies to hoist load it so that didn't leave that many guys to do other things needed to get the bird's ready for the next launch. The engineer's out at China Lake (who came up with the idea) had no clue on what it took to load it (they used SATS Loaders and never hand humped bombs) and had no practical knowledge of deck operations so they didn't factor any real world issues when coming up with the weapon.

 

2) While they shoved a rocket motor up it's rear, they never upgraded the guidance section. The guidance section was never upgraded to compensate for the missile's (yes, it was a missile) speed and so it couldn't keep up and didn't guide worth a @#$%.

 

3) It wasn't an improvement over anything and was actually worse then a regular Mk 83 LGB/GBU-16. It was just a waste of money, man power and resources.

 

Just my perspective of having to deal with the thing, I'm just thankful I only had to load it once and deal with a few other times, it was a total POS IMO.

 

GW"

[Raptor.777]

38 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

I posted this in the A-6 Weapons thread and will re-post it here.

 

"Where do I start;

 

1) The AGM-123 was a PITA to handle and load due to the fins being deployed and not folded. It was difficult to move around the deck due to it's placement on the weapon skid, making the skid top heavy (not something you want to move around on a pitching rolling deck). Usually for 1,000 lb LBG's (Mk 83 LGB/GBU-16's) we would just hand hump them (hand load them) but for the AGM-123, while you could hand hump it, most of the time we just used a hoist so you had to rig the hoist which slowed down loading, something you didn't want to do when you had limited time between launches to get everything loaded. Back then, we usually had about 30 minutes to reload all the jets for the next launch and we usually had about 8 ordies to load anywhere from 2 to 4 aircraft. It takes 8 ordies to hand hump it and 5 ordies to hoist load it so that didn't leave that many guys to do other things needed to get the bird's ready for the next launch. The engineer's out at China Lake (who came up with the idea) had no clue on what it took to load it (they used SATS Loaders and never hand humped bombs) and had no practical knowledge of deck operations so they didn't factor any real world issues when coming up with the weapon.

 

2) While they shoved a rocket motor up it's rear, they never upgraded the guidance section. The guidance section was never upgraded to compensate for the missile's (yes, it was a missile) speed and so it couldn't keep up and didn't guide worth a @#$%.

 

3) It wasn't an improvement over anything and was actually worse then a regular Mk 83 LGB/GBU-16. It was just a waste of money, man power and resources.

 

Just my perspective of having to deal with the thing, I'm just thankful I only had to load it once and deal with a few other times, it was a total POS IMO.

 

GW"

I thought that was your thread I read on here but couldnt remember. Thank you for your input, I really appreciate it. I'm going to scrap the idea with the AGM 123 skippers. I was thinking of another possible loadout. Let me know what you think. Outboard pylon with a MER with 3 mk 20s, 2 on the forward shoulder stations and 1 on the lower aft station, inboard pylon a GBU 12 or GBU 16, same on the other inboard pylon on other wing and 3 mk 82s on the MER on the outboard pylon, same configuration as the mk 20s. Just trying to think of a loadout that is a bit different from what everyone else does with mk20s and mk 82s. You seem to be quite knowledgeable when it comes to these matters. I would really appreciate any insight on this subject of A-6E weapon loadouts.

Thank you

Jeff

Edited April 19, 2025 by Raptor.777

[GW8345]

14 minutes ago, Raptor.777 said:

I thought that was your thread I read on here but couldnt remember. Thank you for your input, I really appreciate it. I'm going to scrap the idea with the AGM 123 skippers. I was thinking of another possible loadout. Let me know what you think. Outboard pylon with a MER with 3 mk 20s, 2 on the forward shoulder stations and 1 on the lower aft station, inboard pylon a GBU 12 or GBU 16, same on the other inboard pylon on other wing and 3 mk 82s on the MER on the outboard pylon, same configuration as the mk 20s. Just trying to think of a loadout that is a bit different from what everyone else does with mk20s and mk 82s. You seem to be quite knowledgeable when it comes to these matters. I would really appreciate any insight on this subject of A-6E weapon loadouts.

Thank you

Jeff

Jeff,

That's a "plausible" load out (and legal) so I say go for it.

 

As I tell everyone, I'm a well of useless knowledge. 😄

 

GW

[Raptor.777]

25 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

Jeff,

That's a "plausible" load out (and legal) so I say go for it.

 

As I tell everyone, I'm a well of useless knowledge. 😄

 

GW

what makes a load unlegal? And thank you for input on my loadout

Jeff

[strikeeagle801]

Others can go more in-depth, but to answer your question in general, lots of things can make a load not legal. Imbalance one wing vs the other (like 5,000 pounds on one wing, and only 500 on the other) separation issues, clearance issues (like the F-16 can only slant-load two GBU-12's on a TER, if it carries all three, the inside bomb's fins when deployed will tear into the drop tanks). All of the "legality" of a load is the responsibility of the weapons test squadrons (like VX-9 for the Navy/Marine Corps and the 422nd TES for the Air Force). These squadrons test just about every weapon scenerio possible to determine what works and what doesn't before it is authorized for squadron use. 

 

For instance, a F-14 tried to launch an AIM-7 Sparrow from a belly station early on, and the missile released, wobbled in the disturbed air beneath the plane, then actually flew back up into the plane and caused it to crash. 

 

Aaron

[Raptor.777]

12 hours ago, strikeeagle801 said:

Others can go more in-depth, but to answer your question in general, lots of things can make a load not legal. Imbalance one wing vs the other (like 5,000 pounds on one wing, and only 500 on the other) separation issues, clearance issues (like the F-16 can only slant-load two GBU-12's on a TER, if it carries all three, the inside bomb's fins when deployed will tear into the drop tanks). All of the "legality" of a load is the responsibility of the weapons test squadrons (like VX-9 for the Navy/Marine Corps and the 422nd TES for the Air Force). These squadrons test just about every weapon scenerio possible to determine what works and what doesn't before it is authorized for squadron use. 

 

For instance, a F-14 tried to launch an AIM-7 Sparrow from a belly station early on, and the missile released, wobbled in the disturbed air beneath the plane, then actually flew back up into the plane and caused it to crash. 

 

Aaron

Wow, I didn't know that about the F-14. Have plans for that aircraft to. Have 2 tamiya kits of the F-14, one a B model which Im converting from a late A model and a D model

Thanks again guys

Jeff

[GW8345]

18 hours ago, strikeeagle801 said:

For instance, a F-14 tried to launch an AIM-7 Sparrow from a belly station early on, and the missile released, wobbled in the disturbed air beneath the plane, then actually flew back up into the plane and caused it to crash. 

 

Aaron

Are you referring to this incident?

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-behind-this-photo-of-an-f-14-tomcat-shooting-itself-down-while-firing-an-aim-7-sparrow-air-to-air-missile/

 

GW

[GW8345]

As Aaron stated, illegal loads (known as unauthorized loads) are due to many factors; store to store collision, store to aircraft collision, asymmetric loading restrictions, airframe structural limitations and my favorite.........it was never tested.

 

GW

[Joe Hegedus]

20 hours ago, strikeeagle801 said:

Others can go more in-depth, but to answer your question in general, lots of things can make a load not legal. Imbalance one wing vs the other (like 5,000 pounds on one wing, and only 500 on the other) separation issues, clearance issues (like the F-16 can only slant-load two GBU-12's on a TER, if it carries all three, the inside bomb's fins when deployed will tear into the drop tanks). All of the "legality" of a load is the responsibility of the weapons test squadrons (like VX-9 for the Navy/Marine Corps and the 422nd TES for the Air Force). These squadrons test just about every weapon scenerio possible to determine what works and what doesn't before it is authorized for squadron use. 

 

For instance, a F-14 tried to launch an AIM-7 Sparrow from a belly station early on, and the missile released, wobbled in the disturbed air beneath the plane, then actually flew back up into the plane and caused it to crash. 

 

Aaron

You’re mostly correct here, except that VX-9 doesn’t do the work to clear weapon configurations.  That is the role of the DT test squadrons (VX-23, VX-20, and the others at Pax; VX-30 and 31 out west are weapon development squadrons that evaluate how well the weapon actually works, generally after the east coast squadrons have established an envelope to use it).  VX-9 is an OT squadron - they take the weapon envelopes that the DT guys determine and evaluate whether or not they are actually useful for the mission. In other words, the DT guys establish whether or not the weapon or system that the manufacturer delivered is what we asked them to make, and the OT guys determine if what we bought is actually useful.

 

The DT guys would love to test every possible scenario, but that isn’t realistic.  There isn’t time or money to do that, so there is a lot of effort put into efficient testing to get the most useful information with the least amount of testing, with some of the gaps filled in by analysis and similarity and others just ignored for various reasons.   One of the more common reasons for ignoring/not evaluating something is that none of the users have requested a specific capability.  

[strikeeagle801]

3 hours ago, GW8345 said:

Are you referring to this incident?

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-behind-this-photo-of-an-f-14-tomcat-shooting-itself-down-while-firing-an-aim-7-sparrow-air-to-air-missile/

 

GW

Yes, I believe that was the one.

[strikeeagle801]

21 minutes ago, Joe Hegedus said:

You’re mostly correct here, except that VX-9 doesn’t do the work to clear weapon configurations.  That is the role of the DT test squadrons (VX-23, VX-20, and the others at Pax; VX-30 and 31 out west are weapon development squadrons that evaluate how well the weapon actually works, generally after the east coast squadrons have established an envelope to use it).  VX-9 is an OT squadron - they take the weapon envelopes that the DT guys determine and evaluate whether or not they are actually useful for the mission. In other words, the DT guys establish whether or not the weapon or system that the manufacturer delivered is what we asked them to make, and the OT guys determine if what we bought is actually useful.

 

The DT guys would love to test every possible scenario, but that isn’t realistic.  There isn’t time or money to do that, so there is a lot of effort put into efficient testing to get the most useful information with the least amount of testing, with some of the gaps filled in by analysis and similarity and others just ignored for various reasons.   One of the more common reasons for ignoring/not evaluating something is that none of the users have requested a specific capability.  

Thanks for setting me straight Joe.

 

Aaron

[usmcski6502]

On 4/18/2025 at 6:22 PM, GW8345 said:

I posted this in the A-6 Weapons thread and will re-post it here.

 

"Where do I start;

 

1) The AGM-123 was a PITA to handle and load due to the fins being deployed and not folded. It was difficult to move around the deck due to it's placement on the weapon skid, making the skid top heavy (not something you want to move around on a pitching rolling deck). Usually for 1,000 lb LBG's (Mk 83 LGB/GBU-16's) we would just hand hump them (hand load them) but for the AGM-123, while you could hand hump it, most of the time we just used a hoist so you had to rig the hoist which slowed down loading, something you didn't want to do when you had limited time between launches to get everything loaded. Back then, we usually had about 30 minutes to reload all the jets for the next launch and we usually had about 8 ordies to load anywhere from 2 to 4 aircraft. It takes 8 ordies to hand hump it and 5 ordies to hoist load it so that didn't leave that many guys to do other things needed to get the bird's ready for the next launch. The engineer's out at China Lake (who came up with the idea) had no clue on what it took to load it (they used SATS Loaders and never hand humped bombs) and had no practical knowledge of deck operations so they didn't factor any real world issues when coming up with the weapon.

 

2) While they shoved a rocket motor up it's rear, they never upgraded the guidance section. The guidance section was never upgraded to compensate for the missile's (yes, it was a missile) speed and so it couldn't keep up and didn't guide worth a @#$%.

 

3) It wasn't an improvement over anything and was actually worse then a regular Mk 83 LGB/GBU-16. It was just a waste of money, man power and resources.

 

Just my perspective of having to deal with the thing, I'm just thankful I only had to load it once and deal with a few other times, it was a total POS IMO.

 

GW"

GW,

 

Ahh, you’re taking me back to my days of working “the roof”. One of my least-favorite loads was CBUs on a CVER on the centerline station of a legacy Hornet. No other way to load them except hand-humping. The first one was a PITA, but then trying to lift the second one off the skid, while reaching under the already loaded one… I swear on more than one occasion I thought my shoulder was gonna pop out of socket. Couple that with kneeling on a hot catapult track and you’re miserable. Didn’t care for being on the tail-end of a hernia-bar Mk 83 load with the bird tail over water either, one foot on the scupper and another on the framing of the net, at night. Working the roof is definitely a young man’s game. My time on LHDs and LPDs pales in comparison to those long nights on the carrier.

 

Thanks for the stroll down memory lane!

 

Semper,

 

Ski

Edited April 20, 2025 by usmcski6502

[GW8345]

15 hours ago, strikeeagle801 said:

Yes, I believe that was the one.

Ok, here's the straight skinny on what really happened.

 

For Sparrow's, the rocket motor was not supposed to get the signal to fire until 85 milliseconds after the ejector feet were extended but for that incident, the motor fired before the ejector feet extended (basically, instead of the missile being ejected and then the motor firing, it fired straight off the launcher as soon as the hooks opened). This caused the top wing and fin to cut the fuselage (basically a hot knife going through butter) and then be ripped off which caused the missile to go haywire. The wing slicing through the bottom of the fuselage created a massive amount of FOD which then went down the starboard intake FOD'ing out the starboard engine which threw fan blades and cut hydraulic lines, you can guess what happened next.

 

We have the video of this at incident at work and all the Tomcat guys who have watched it came up with the same conclusion, it was failure of the "slide switch" in the Sparrow launcher (LAU-92) and didn't have anything to do with the airflow in the tunnel. The missile was launched off of station 6 (right forward) which is forward of the starboard intake and not in the tunnel. Teh slide switch in the LAU-92 (Sprarrow launcher) prevented the rocket motor firing voltage (from the aircraft to the motor) from going to the motor until 85 milliseconds after the ejector feet was fully extended. On this missile launch, the slide switch failed and allowed the voltage to go to the rocket motor as soon as the launcher's hooks opened.

 

For you Tomcat guys, remember doing the 28 day inspection blow-down's on the LAU-92 with the AWM-85 test set (and a N2 walk-around bottle), that was to check the slide switch in the LAU-92 and ensure it didn't pass firing voltage to the rocket motor until 85 milliseconds after the feet were fully extended.

 

The airflow problem in the tunnel didn't affect Sparrow/Phoenix but did affect other weapons when they were released from the original BRU-21/-22's (mounted on the side of the Weapon Rails) since the racks weren't powerful enough to provide the adequate ejection velocity for the bomb to overcome the aerodynamic forces created in the tunnel. The Sparrow was able to be launched up to the aircraft's top speed (i.e. Limits of NATOPS). (the other weapon separation issues were solved with the BRU-32 bomb rock, it provided enough ejection velocity to overcome the aerodynamic forces the tunnel created.)

 

And........before anyone asks me to get the video and post it, no, that is not going to happen so don't ask.

 

hth

GW