Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I just finished wrapping CINCLANTHOME's Christmas presents that I've gotten thus-an excellent exercise in moral building, patience and precision!?! So my mood is wonderful right now. First Don excellent site, I have a MiG site that offers the same type weapons config drawing for some of the MiG varients. It makes it easier "to see it" for perspective.
So to the GBU-39 or the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB). In regards to the F-22 RAPTOR I have started with my normal search pattern (For both really.) which if I'm lucky will give me my answers right away or confirm some information, provide me with some good pictures should they be needed and hopefully enough data to make it worth my time and others to use as a ref that could (And have.) opened up others unrelated issues. Again there is progression below in the refs.
Two planes were mentioned concerning the SDB, so I'll start with the...
F-15E STRIKE EAGLE...
The answer is up to 12. It will still carry an Air to Air load.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/f15_eagle.htm
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...ike-eagle.aspx
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f15/
See the weapons section for all above.

F-22 RAPTOR...
The answer is 8 plus 2 AMRAAM.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/f22_raptor.htm
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...22-raptor.aspx
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/
See the weapons section for all above.


That's what normaly happens "tail end Charlie" gets it in the end more ways then one. Might go beyond the last ref. but for as many years as I've used it now I normally won't. But I always have more along the same lines as ref. 3 (Also note the "Related News" section to the right.) for each of the above.

Many times the answer will require you to find what will hopefully will be a reliable ref. to a particular plane/jet. This much more the case with older planes, contrary to many peoples beliefs, the web data dumps old information just like a library gets rid of old books.
A perfect example is below...
http://burrusspta.org/thud.html
http://www.burrusspta.org/105ordnance.html

This was are our primier Fighter Bomber for over ten years. That being said, someone might be wondering why I kept this site...
hmmm one just never knows does one!?!

It's late and I have to work later today so-good night!!

Regards,
Pat

[sabresandy]

Yeah, I've been looking for exact information on loadouts and payloads vs range and practicality for all manners of aircraft for forever now, but hard information is extermely rare. I've found that Greg V. Goebel's invaluable Air Vectors website is pretty good about disambiguating between what could theoretically be carried versus what could actually be carried, up to an extent, so that might be a starting point.

As for the GBU-39, it's been in active service since 2006. The spec sheet says it is as effective versus concrete as a 2000lb Paveway, which I find difficult to believe, but that sounds like it'd be able to knock out just about any tank.

[Imp]

From my quick look on SDBs seems to me
Stuff in service is for use against installations or stationary targets like say SAM sites.

The penetration is gained because the bomb aligns its body perfectly with the approach vector just before impact meaning it uses ALL the kinetic energy it is carrying.

The one for use against moving targets like armour is a different more complex beast & either isn't in service yet or has not been for that long.

In game terms its harder to distract/jam than its predecessors

[DRG]

Thanks everyone. Because of space limitations in the OB I have added that as a new weapon to one F-22

This site has some good info

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html

The SDB I will be most effective in the urban and broader close air support, battlefield interdiction, Destruction of Enemy Air Defences (DEAD) lethal suppression and counter-air strike airfield attack roles. Against soft skinned vehicles and structures, armour, point emplacements, runways, aircraft shelters and SAM/SPAAG systems this weapon will be highly lethal.

Where the SDB I will be less than effective is against deep / hardened bunkers, large infrastructure targets, large buildings, industrial plant, bridges, large trench systems, vehicle parks, infantry on the move and other area or large point targets. These remain the domain of larger specialised bunker busting weapons, or large explosive bombs such as the Mk.83/BLU-110 (1,000 lb), Mk.84/BLU-117/BLU-119 (2,000 lb), BLU-109/116/118 (2,000 lb), BLU-113/122 (5,000 lb).

So this is not designed as a tank buster. ......... but the Raytheon GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II *IS* but it won't be ready until at least 2017

The design objectives for the GBU-53/B are quite different from those for the GBU-39/B. The GBU-39/B is a weapon optimised for fixed targets, especially hardened infrastructure and basing, whereas the GBU-53/B is intended for attacks on moving battlefield targets, especially vehicles and heavy armour. In the simplest of terms the GBU-53/B is a glidebomb equivalent to the AGM-65 Maverick missile, but with a more flexible and countermeasures resistant seeker.

So in game terms don't expect the -39 to be an uber tank killer. That's not what it's for but it will give increased stand off ability

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don glad you found this site! Yes the AUSA site is excellent!! I hope you aerial "jocks" would give it a look. I used the site for the S-400 TRUMF (In a sepreate thread.) submission years ago before I had the SPA/SPAA Thread going and am tracking the S-500 on it as well now. I see technical data not seen elsewhere along with system pictures before there there are system pictures if you catch my meaning. They also have a very respectable weapons database. This is a highly respected think tank that focuses only on air and air defence systems.
I leave you with an abstact based on their technical analysis of the jets involved. Note: As I've posted in the "news" portion in of this thread elsewhere, technically speaking the F-22 is much improved since this abstract was written. It has seen minor (Because that's all that was needed.) inprovements in avionics and major updates electronically (F-35 suite has been/is being installed as posted here as well.).
Enjoy the abstract and have a great weekend!!
PAK-FA vs the F-22 and F-35...
http://ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

Nice site Pat & they confirm what I have read elsewhere that the F-35 has some huge issues. Cant take on Russia or China

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well here's some more food for thought taking all emotion out of it between the F-22 and F-35. Why is it we're devoting all this time and effort into the F-35, and then turning around and selling it to about ten other countries. Granted we will not give up all the "Bells and Whistles" to the export market but if this fighter is so good in the first place, why are we selling it at all? When nobody will be buying the F-22 or even getting the opportunity to even get close to one to evaluate it. Hmmm, makes one wonder doesn't it? I can produce articles that reflect the true desire of Japan and Korea (Both should one happen land there in whole or pieces in N. Korea.) that they would prefer the F-22 especially facing the growing Chinese percived (Being politically correct here. ) threat to the region. And before someone says something I did post in this thread that the F-22 did deploy to Okinawa, UAE and S. Korea awhile back. Back to F-35; the USMC needs it since the HARRIERS will need a replacement in about 15yrs. and maybe the USN whose fighter fleet is also "getting long in the teeth" but, I'm not so sure about the USAF who afterall are getting RESET F-22 fighters now anyway as posted already.
The deployment issue has always been there for a variety of reasons, but it (F-22) did finally happen as shown below.
http://www.xairforces.net/newsd.asp?newsid=196&newst=8
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-ste...ry?id=16227614
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/31/world/...22s/index.html

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Since this is going to be a factor in this area I would think by next year and that this weapon and program caused some rework over the last couple of years I'm posting the ref for FYI purposes only. Basically the USA (And other countries now.) has rethought the role of the APKWS II for use with the APACHE AH-64D helo based on the mission successes experienced by the USMC in combat in Afghanistan. Also the USAF/USMC had stepped up it's testing program (2013) as well with fixed wing aircraft. The live fire exercises are complete. The rocket due to modifications made on it to resist high altitude and speed operations is designated as the APKWS FW it was mounted on the aircraft in a 7 rocket pod. Aircraft used were the A-10C THUNDERBOLT II, F-16 and AT-6 turboprop for the USAF. Of course for the CORPS the A/V 8B HARRIER II was used. Again this is only for FYI but important as it is coming very soon.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...d-phase-02193/

Why the DID site? Note info/status blocks (New this year.) to the right of info provided in each article segment-for me it makes the verification issues easier to check. At bottom are other sources (Which was why DEFPRO was so good.) used to support the current article. Combined with the source articles the reference base grows exponentially-and that's what I'm all about here.

Patch Update
MBT fixes from last year corrected now. Will have a couple of new MBTs, date changes and deletions also. Don also you did such a beautiful job on the Aussie M1A1 camo could use one from their M113AS4 APCs in for the same time period. This is not your standard M113A3. I have a detailed write up in one of the Australian Threads already which I'll use for submission. Quick ref here as well.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/m113as4.htm
Note: Cover pic shows "older/original" camo scheme.

See pics below for paint and game use as well if bored. Yeah that was a stupid comment!!!!



Under the right conditions they might just (Thread word ALERT!!) fly-who knows!?! Anyway have others if you don't see one you like. Presented ones with tanks because that is their SOP for their units.

Hate to "cross threads" but am very tired and had a long day at the "office" and I get to do it again in <9hrs-sorry.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

could use one from their M113AS4 APCs in for the same time period.

already done 6 months ago........

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Should've known you would've gotten ahead on that Icon as well. To the AUSCAMO M1A1 Icon go the the MBT Thread Pg. 27 Post 264. Proceeding posts back to page 26 provide the background.

Regards,
Pat