Anyone know why real world F-16 aircraft don’t make use of a dual missile launcher for the AIM-120 etc?

[+dtmdragon 2,704]

Anyone know why real wold F-16 aircraft don’t make use of a dual missile launcher for the AIM-120 etc?

Edited March 19, 2013 by dtmdragon

[Wrench 9,856]

i would think weight being the issue? followed closely by space under the wings

[macelena 1,070]

It may be possible, but not advisable. If i recall correctly, Spanish F-18s are wired to use AMRAAMs from the wingtip rails, however, they only carry IRIS-T, or Sidewinders before that. Well, once they carried Python 5 because the Israelis wanted to test their integration in our test-experimental unit...i guess the only reason for that was that they wanted to sell them to us or something

[Slartibartfast 153]

Space would probably be the answer as there is not a lot of room under there... or most probably clearance from other stores... for example drop tanks...

Edited March 19, 2013 by Slartibartfast

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

If use of CFT's on Vipers were to become more widespread maybe it would be a more attractive option?

 

Craig

Edited March 19, 2013 by fallenphoenix1986

[MigBuster 2,884]

F-16Cs can carry LAU-117s with the BRU-57/A on stations 3 and 7

 

The BRU-57 allows twin 1000lbs ordnance - so 2 x AGM-154s for example

 

So its not really space, drag, or weight that is stopping this from happening - probably more of - 'whats the point'.

 

Although ive seen photos - I doubt the BRU-57 would be used that much because it is still really draggy

Edited March 19, 2013 by MigBuster

[Nesher 628]

I was thinking the same thing about the Phantoms in Vietnam... (after re-watching "Dogfights")

in today's aircrafts and missiles is seems a bit redundant

accuracy is higher, performance is higher, number of aerial opponents in war is lessen

[JediMaster 451]

There is also the carry life, or whatever they call it. A given missile can only be carried on a flight so many times before it's considered "expired" and must be scrapped or fired. You don't take a missile built in 2001 and fly it every mission until you fire it, even if it takes 10 years. Carrying a huge number of missiles when it's highly unlikely they'll be needed is a waste. The usual 2x2 strategy for IR/RH missiles makes sense for planes like the F-16/18 that aren't dedicated A2A. Those like the 14 and 15C that are usually carry 8, either 4x4 or 2x6.

So while it may look impressive to see a Flanker carrying 10+ missiles, it's not really a likely scenario.

[+dtmdragon 2,704]

Makes sense