Super Hornet ordnance load

Skip the AGM-123...nobody uses them these days, and I'm pretty sure the Super can't even carry them...yup...definately sure - for the same reason no rockets: toed pylons. I'd nix the Harpoons, too.

Go with two tanks on the inboards, and move your MK-80's to the mids and turn them into 1000# LGB's, or JDAM. Retain or lose the centerline tank as you wish. Leave the outboards empty, and/or the pylons off. Swap the -9X's for the -9M's.

That will get you a realistic, operationally representative loadout.

Thanks for the answer. I only have one fuel tank available and wish to 'fill' the inboard pylons. Another pair of LGB's perhaps? 1000# also? Or may be a tank on one inboard and a LGB on the other? Leaving Centerline empty...

By the way, why do the pylons have such a strange angle outwards? Does that keep them from carrying rockets? No AGM-84? hmmm.. Thing is that I am building two SHornets right now. One is to be made with the external load provided by Revell, including JDAM. Unfortunately the kit has only one ext. tank, so it's one tank per a/c.

Where can I use those AGM-123's and the AGM-84? I am looking for an opportunity to attach them since I have Hasegawas Weapon Set 'D'. Lots of question marks again.... :-) Ingo

*time is an enemy*

The pylons are toed out 4 degrees as a fix for multiple weapons release issues...there are varying opinions as to if it's actually required. It does preclude delivery of boosted free-fall weapons - like 2.75" FFAR,

5" Zuni, and Skipper.

Yes - wall to wall 1000# LGBs would be representative; same for JDAM if you'd rather.

Hornets (A-D and Super Hornets) routinely fly configured "goofy" - external tanks on the centerline and right hand fuel station - to keep an extra weapon station available. Shame you don't have another tank. This is also the correct configuration for GBU-24; one only, opposite a wing tank.

The AGM-123s would be more appropiate for an A-6, A-7, F-100, or maybe even a Phantom. Even then, I've never heard much about actual combat useage of them from any of the vets I know. Maybe there's other vets out there that know different...I only know a couple guys that shot them and they didn't have very good things to say about using them. Same for Bullpup missiles...there's a laugh.

As for the AGM-84, you'll mostly see them on P-3's these days I think. It's an anti-ship missle - a SLAM-E/R would be more appropiate for modern times...although I think the last time SLAM (or SLAM-ER) were used in numbers was over Bosnia...check your history.

If you want to put Harpoon on a Hornet, use an A, C, or D - preferrably a C, and only mount one on an inboard station. Fuel tank and a Maverick on the opposite side...HARM outboard. Or something like that...

But SLAM/HARPOON are basically possible loads for SHornets, aren't they? see link. I can see the reason for the unability to carry rockets fired from a launch rail, but for example SLAM is first dropped and ingnition of the rocket motor follows a few seconds later, right? So toed pylons should be no problem here...as I understand it...? Ingo

Rufus schrieb:

Heh...ignore that site. Most (if not all) of those weapons depicted are available for A-D Hornets, but not for the Super - Walleye being a good example. Rockets are another...I still need to check into the SLAM/HARPOON series.

The toed pylon issue come in for rockets in that 2.75" and Zuni are basically unguided, ballistic free fall weapons. Since the pylons are toed out 4 degrees, the rockets will boost four degrees left or right of target as you point the nose. For a guided weapon this may not be much of an issue - although it may affect the employment envelope for a guided weapon - but for a ballistic weapon like a rocket it's a real concern.

Another issue that comes into play with the toed pylons is airframe side loads on the weapon during carriage. Some weapons can stand the side loads, some can't. Ditto for the pylon and the attachments. Then there are perfomance constraints based on drag, gross weight and CG, thrust available, fit, separation characteristics, and mission requirement...to mention just a few. It's just not as simple as slapping any old weapon on the jet.

So - you get cartoons like the ones on that website. Especially in the case of a new airframe like the Super Hornet. In the end analysis it is always best to look at pictures of actual aircraft in actual operation and model what you see there if you want to be accurate. Take everything else with a grain of salt.

I see... Photographs of real actual aircraft are normally my source for external loads, too -this worked excellent for Vietnam-F-4s for example- , but so far I could not find too many from the Super Hornet. (most carry a centerline fuel tank only) So: I will make one of the models with the complete Revell weapons because it is a review kit for a magazine. For the other one I will look for 4 GBU's. The AGM-84 I will use on a C-Hornet as this is one of my future projects anyway. I like the load you proposed for it. Thanks again for all the detailed info! Ingo

No problem. I like to try and help where I can.

Yes - the Super Hornet is still new enough that there aren't many operational pictures out there yet. And be careful with what you're looking at - for example, most of the ones in the D&S book on the E/F are of test aircraft or of newly delivered jets during training/transition operations. VFA-115, VFA-41, and VFA-14 are good subjects for study/build as they were the first to deploy in the new jet and have been around the "longest".

Another way to look at doing ordnance loads on models is to do a bit of "mission planning" based on events in the news. Do a bit of research on what is going on in the world, and some thinking on which weapons might be considered "appropriate" for responding to that situation...which can also make for interesting discussion. For example - if you can hit what you aim at with a precision weapon, you'll probably carry less (and smaller) weapons. So as events/politics/policy may demand, you are probably going to see increasing numbers of jets operating with less and not more ordnance onboard. Have fun with it all.

May be some training-loads would be appropriate for the VX-9 aircraft I am going to make....:-) Regarding GBU's: can it be that the colors of these are changing from green to grey? I found pictures of completely green painted weapons...or green bomb body,grey LASER-guidance tip and/or grey fin component / grey body...etc. If so, any combination should be possible...or is there any kind of rule? I have looked for GBU-10 Paveway II in this case. ingo

There's a difference in the warhead nomenclature - the green ones are the older Mk-80 series, and the grey ones are the newer BLU-XXX or DSU-XXX series. The warheads sort of just come of of the magazine as available, so go ahead and have fun mixing them up of you wish, but match the CCU and fin groupings. Go ahead and put a full-on combat load on that VX-9 jet - that's thier job.

GBU-12 and 16 are more common these days - to help control collateral damage.

BTW - I just confirmed for myself that the aft end of the Hasegawa F kit (and probably the E as well) is all wrong. The engine nozzle base diameters are exactly the same on the F kit as on my D kit (the aft portions of each are molded to the same parting line), and they should be about a scale foot or so larger. Going to be very noticable if you park your E/F next to an A-D.

I still have to check that (nozzle diameters) for the Revell Super Hornet, although the nozzles themselves already look quite small... Thanks for the info about the GBU's. Ingo

A friend of mine is doing the Revell and Hasegawa kits side by side. The nozzles on the Revell are parted a bit different from the ones on the Hasegawa kit, so look carefully. Also note that the ones on the Hasegawa kit are molded a bit to open for engines which are completely shut down.

From what I can see, both got the nozzles undersized. So did Italleri...just checked.

ok, so what are the most accurate kits in 1/72 and 1/48 of the E/F ? or which have the least wrong and what is wrong?

Alastair Macfarlane

Hasegawa's 1/72 E/F kits are pretty nice, but now that you've made me look (I have a 1/72 F on my bench and a built up 1/72 D in my livingroom) I can confirm that they also have the same problem that the

1/48 kits do at the aft end - the nozzles are undersized.

Even with that said, the Hasegawa kits in any scale do the best job of capturing the overall outline and features of a Super Hornet - they just aren't as accurate as they could be. Here's my previously posted short list of things I don't like about the 1/48 Hasegawa F (and presumably E) kit:

1) The kit's biggest flaw - the engine nozzles are nearly the same size/diameter as the ones in my Hasegawa baby-Hornet kits. This is WRONG...the F-414 is a noticably larger diameter engine than the F-404, so this would imply that the contour of the whole aft end of the kit is a bit off. Noticeable?..probably, if you park this kit next to an A-D kit and know what you're looking at. NOTE: anyone planning a 1/32 E/F kit...take notes. And better measurements...

2) The kit's second biggest flaw. While the main gear seem to be nicely represented, with the proper planing links for E/F gear vice A-D ones, the main wheels are the same or near the same size as in my D kit. Wrong

- Super Hornet main wheels are larger. Noticeably so when sitting side by side with an A-D wheel assembly. Another problem with the mains is that there is too much tire and not enough hub - readily apparent from looking at the included pictures. (The nose wheels are probably undersized as well, but I didn't check.) The main gear shock absorbers are a bit strange looking as well...not to mention that I got METAL gear in my C and D kits for the same price...

3) Strange raised square shape under the L/H canopy sill. Later jets have a stowable grab handle here, but it's flush when stowed (and it's visible in the pictures). Should be an engraved detail...no detail for the handle in any event - just the raised square.

4) No option for alternate aft cockpit configurations - even though the VFA-103 jet in the picture book is of the later configuration with the UFCD located on top of the (newer) glareshield, only the original LRIP missionized configuration - which is the way the VFA-102 jets in the photos are configured - is provided in the kit parts.

5) ALE-50 launcher not represented...funny, as it's nicely done on the 1/72 kit. (I've since discovered that the ALE-50 launcher is included.)

6) Shape of the forward cockpit glareshield - much better done on the D kit.

7) Erosion boots not represented on External Tanks.

8) No optional parts for post Phase II Upgrade ECS Heat Exchanger exhausts.

9) Size...I dunno. Maybe I spend too much time on the flightline, or it's just the way the two kits look in the box, but I don't get the impression of the difference in size that I get when a C and an F are parked next to each other in real life...if you have ever have walked up to a Super Hornet the first thing that grabs you is it's size. I don't get that feeling looking at the two kits side by side...the boxes are the same size...maybe once the kits are built.

What I now believe to be the biggest flaw in seemingly every E/F kit out there is the undersized nozzles. This is probably also what is contributing to my impression #9), above. The back end of the kits are a bit too small.

My opinion -

Best: Hasegawa in any scale. 2nd: Revell 1/48. Worst: Italleri.

Choose as you see "fit".