Project Reality Forums

CAS, landing on a carrier involves a max landing weight. Exceed that weight and the landing gear goes crunch, plane goes splat, fuel goes poof, CAG goes "Oh Shit", carrier becomes roman candle. There is a balance between "bingo fuel" and ordinance load. You must have enough gas for 3 go arounds when you are on final. Throwing away good ordinance is a waste of tax payer money, so it is something people try to avoid, though splatting good airplanes is a much bigger waste. So, to answer your Q directly, a "fully loaded" A-6 could not land with 17000lbs of bombs underwing, though landing with 4000lbs was possible provided they were bingo. Same would apply to F/A-18's, though they are much lighter birds and have a lower max landing weight. Shore based birds also have a max landing weight, but it is much higher since they don't have to hit the deck as hard and stop as quickly.

Liquid_Cow wrote:CAS, landing on a carrier involves a max landing weight. Exceed that weight and the landing gear goes crunch, plane goes splat, fuel goes poof, CAG goes "Oh Shit", carrier becomes roman candle. There is a balance between "bingo fuel" and ordinance load. You must have enough gas for 3 go arounds when you are on final. Throwing away good ordinance is a waste of tax payer money, so it is something people try to avoid, though splatting good airplanes is a much bigger waste. So, to answer your Q directly, a "fully loaded" A-6 could not land with 17000lbs of bombs underwing, though landing with 4000lbs was possible provided they were bingo. Same would apply to F/A-18's, though they are much lighter birds and have a lower max landing weight. Shore based birds also have a max landing weight, but it is much higher since they don't have to hit the deck as hard and stop as quickly.

If it can take off from carrier loaded, it will be able to land on carrier loaded.And a bomb cost around 50 000$ max 200 000$ (talking about BOMB not MISSILE.), F18 cost 20 milions... so i think they gonna drop the ordinance in the ocean/desert even if its a "waste of tax". Anywayz, Maverick, Sidewinger and AIM120 dont weight 20,000lbs all puts together.

Hotrod525 wrote:If it can take off from carrier loaded, it will be able to land on carrier loaded.

No.
Take the F/A-18E for example. Max takeoff weight is 66,000lbs. Max landing on a carrier is 42,900lbs. If you take off with a fully loaded bird you cannot trap until you've lost 24,000lbs. Since the plane carries 14,400lbs of fuel and max fuel for a trap is usually around 4000lbs, min around 2000 (don't have a NATOPS available to check those numbers) you have to drop some of your external stores prior to landing. Its not as much of a problem on lightweight fighters like the Hornet as it was on an A-6E which could carry 30,000lbs of fuel and 15,000lbs of bombs, but those are all gone (sigh). Also, it is rare for an aircraft to take off fully loaded, especially in the age of smart weapons which don't like to share pylons (usually only one bomb per hardpoint, where as you can put 2 Mk82's on the same pylon you can only put one GBU-38 there, which limits the max weight you'll be flying with.

LeadMagnet wrote:You're comparing apples to oranges. The A10 has a far higher wing loading than the F16 and can therefore carry more stores. Besides the last thing we need balance wise is a flying swiss army knife.

haha flying swiss army knife...good analogy

If the A10 can have sidewinders, as well as all the other ordinance it currently has, I see no reason why a F-16 can not have 2 maverick missiles, as well as the MIG having the Maverick equivalent. I think that it would give the F-16 the ability to take out AA targets for the A10, and become for of a escort to it, without turning it into a so called "Swiss Army Knife"

maverick551 wrote: I see no reason why a F-16 can not have 2 maverick missiles,

It can, but it would mean reducing your AA payload and limiting your manuverability.

There are only 2 configurable harpoints which can be used for ATG stores. As currently configured, they are carrying a pair of AIM-120 missles.

This F-16 is loaded for A-G, notice it only has 4 AAM's. It is also G limited to 6g's when loaded like this which is a huge penalty in a dog fight.



Here is PR's F-16, though I believe the inner hard points which have an AIM-9 here carries a pair of AIM-9's currently with AIM-120's on the other two points for a total of 8 missles.

Gunwing wrote:the A10 is only realy still in service with the Army Natinal Guard

Not to be nit picky, but no, the A-10 is not in service with the Army National Guard. The Army does not possess any fixed wing assests except for 2 small paratroop/cargo aircraft.

A-10's are the property of the US Air Force. There are currently about 350 in service with an order for 100 new (upgraded) A-10C's.

We are not in L.O.M.A.C. Liquid_Cow, BF2 engine cannot calculate G and things like that...

Oh, I'm quite aware of the limits of the engine, which is why, since we are in "Reality" we just cannot load our aircraft in a way which would require us to worry about G's. To do so would be, well, unrealistic

The A-10 is in service with the Air National Guard.

Based on all the information here, I think it'd be good for the F-16 to be equipped with some A-G ordinance on maps that require it to do so, but on the current ones (Kashan, mainly) the F-16 should stick to the AA loadout as that is its primary role.

as that is its primary role.

Why?

*Let me clarify: When was the last engagement of an F-16 with another plane? (Greece and Turkey aside). Then compare that with the number of bombing engagements it has had.

[R-DEV]CAS_117 wrote:The A-10 is in service with the Air National Guard.

A-10 is used by United States Air Force, Air National Guard & Air Force reserve.

[R-DEV]CAS_117 wrote:Why?

*Let me clarify: When was the last engagement of an F-16 with another plane? (Greece and Turkey aside). Then compare that with the number of bombing engagements it has had.

Totally agreed

Did i see a sneak peak at a new air map?

No, its an old map called Greasy Mullet, was removed from PR in 0.6, or 0.5, can't remember.

[R-DEV]CAS_117 wrote:Why?

*Let me clarify: When was the last engagement of an F-16 with another plane? (Greece and Turkey aside). Then compare that with the number of bombing engagements it has had.

Ever heard of Israel or how about Pakistan? Both have recorded several engagements versus migs with their F-16's (albiet Israel's is highly modified over the stock export variant).

My contention is if the F-16 is on a map where there are already dedicated ground attack aircraft then it should stick to flying air to air missions in support of the ground attack assets. On other maps I see no problem with giving it a mixed load provided we can mimic the limitations placed on such aircraft that has already been stated in this thread in regards to max G with a mixed ordinance load.

[R-DEV]CAS_117 wrote:Why?

*Let me clarify: When was the last engagement of an F-16 with another plane? (Greece and Turkey aside). Then compare that with the number of bombing engagements it has had.

It should be noted that the main reason for this is that the enemies of F16-using nations since the 1st Gulf War have either had no Air Force (Afghanistan) or simply been so outmatched that any resistance in the air was simply futile (Operation Iraqi Freedom)

In the case of PR, where we have two pretty much evenly matched air forces, one would expect much more of an air-air component to take place.

LeadMagnet wrote:Ever heard of Israel or how about Pakistan? Both have recorded several engagements versus migs with their F-16's (albiet Israel's is highly modified over the stock export variant).

My contention is if the F-16 is on a map where there are already dedicated ground attack aircraft then it should stick to flying air to air missions in support of the ground attack assets. On other maps I see no problem with giving it a mixed load provided we can mimic the limitations placed on such aircraft that has already been stated in this thread in regards to max G with a mixed ordinance load.

I fully agree with lead, f 16s should be primarly fighters.

I would not see a problem with all the fighters carring a single LGB under the fusulage, if possible.

...mongol...

OK, here's a monkey wrench for the works...

Does anyone know what plane was supposed to replace the A-10? Prior to the 1st Gulf War the USAF was transfering all A-10's to Reserve/Guard units with planes to eventually phase them out complete, but the A-10's performance was so shockingly good it reversed its decision and even decided to upgrade the A-10.