| Warthog Territory Forums https://warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| AGM-130 https://warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=12542 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | gifted [ 04 Mar 2008, 03:59 ] |
| Post subject: | AGM-130 |
I'm looking at this to answer a question on another forum. I remember getting the answer here, though it was long enough ago I could be mistaken. Anyway, my question was whether the F-22 could carry the bulkier weapons, like the AGM-130 and GBU-15. I remember hearing that it couldn't, because the bays were too small, and the pylons hung too low. I'd like some confirmation on this if possible, before I open my big mouth. The other point is really simple--tonnage. Can the Raptor carry more bombs than the Strike Eagle? This was a discussion of whether the F-22 could take the place of the F-15E. I wasn't sure if there was enough racks, even with the external hardpoints used. |
|
| Author: | prkiii [ 04 Mar 2008, 06:07 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: AGM-130 |
gifted wrote: I'm looking at this to answer a question on another forum. I remember getting the answer here, though it was long enough ago I could be mistaken.
Anyway, my question was whether the F-22 could carry the bulkier weapons, like the AGM-130 and GBU-15. I remember hearing that it couldn't, because the bays were too small, and the pylons hung too low. I'd like some confirmation on this if possible, before I open my big mouth. The other point is really simple--tonnage. Can the Raptor carry more bombs than the Strike Eagle? This was a discussion of whether the F-22 could take the place of the F-15E. I wasn't sure if there was enough racks, even with the external hardpoints used. I've never seen anything on if it can carry more and the E model but I remember a few years back they talked about another version of the F-22 that could carry more...haven't heard anything about that idea in a while... |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 04 Mar 2008, 10:25 ] |
| Post subject: | |
NO WAY can it carry the glide bombs internally. Externally maybee IF the weaps can be carried far forward on the pylon. The 600gal gas bags are right at the limit of size for the F-22. |
|
| Author: | Coach [ 02 Apr 2008, 16:35 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Raptor is nowhere close to the Strike Eagle in weapons capacity. http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199 2 x 1000LB bombs or 8 x Small Diameter Bombs plus up to 8 air to air missiles. No external weapons carriage, only fuel. Coach |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 02 Apr 2008, 18:07 ] |
| Post subject: | |
F-22 can deffinetly carry weps externally, at the very least 8 more AMRAAMs. I'm quite sure it will expand on that for A2G duties, but the AGM-130s mission will most likely go to another smaller weapon by then. |
|
| Author: | Coach [ 03 Apr 2008, 03:58 ] |
| Post subject: | |
boomer wrote: F-22 can deffinetly carry weps externally, at the very least 8 more AMRAAMs. I'm quite sure it will expand on that for A2G duties, but the AGM-130s mission will most likely go to another smaller weapon by then.
Nope, you're wrong. |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 03 Apr 2008, 07:18 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Coach wrote: boomer wrote: F-22 can deffinetly carry weps externally, at the very least 8 more AMRAAMs. I'm quite sure it will expand on that for A2G duties, but the AGM-130s mission will most likely go to another smaller weapon by then. Nope, you're wrong. About? |
|
| Author: | Coach [ 03 Apr 2008, 19:54 ] |
| Post subject: | |
External weapons carriage. |
|
| Author: | mark59 [ 04 Apr 2008, 04:21 ] |
| Post subject: | |
ummmm.....Coach? The F-22 CAN carry external weapons. Just AA missles though. I doubt it will be a regular practice anytime soon. If it means anything I have seen the pylons that they mount to. Here is a link to an AF approved poster of load outs. http://www.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery ... 05-002.jpg |
|
| Author: | Coach [ 04 Apr 2008, 14:48 ] |
| Post subject: | |
OK...I'm wrong. But they don't train with anything but fuel being carried externally. So, $375B to fly 4 extra AIM-120s to the war? I don't think so. Big fight in the F-35 community as well on this issue. What good is stealth when you have to carry weapons externally to be effective? By the way, the Hog can carry 16,000 pounds of ordnance and go Mach .75. Contractor claims can be deceiving. Coach |
|
| Author: | gifted [ 04 Apr 2008, 20:56 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The idea I'd heard is that they intended to carry stealthy inside at first, but after most of the AA is taken out, they can start carrying externally to carry more. That assumes that there would still be something needing to be blown up after AA is taken care of. I'd imagine that there would be a lot competing with the SAM sites for bombs, and so by the time you finish cleaning them out, and can safely carry externally, there's either nothing left to bomb, or you've won. |
|
| Author: | Coach [ 04 Apr 2008, 22:49 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The idea of external carriage on the Raptor makes no sense at all. All they can carry outside is A/A missiles and fuel, but the air to air fight is one where they need the stealth that external carriage ruins. The fuel tanks are for ferry only. If there is still an air threat, they will be stealthed up, if there is no air threat, carrying external missiles doesn't not increase their A/G loadout. Just because they can doesn't mean they will. |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 06 Apr 2008, 21:08 ] |
| Post subject: | |
But that's like saying \"speed is life\" so lets only carry a gun cause everything else will slow it down. Even with external weapons the F-22 and F-35 will be/are FAR stealthier than todays jets, no reason not to exploit that. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
