External A/G loads are not what the jet was designed for and won’t be flown operationally in that configuration. It was designed for internal A/A and A/G internal loads for a specific mission: kick down the door so the trucks (F-15E’s) could flow through. Think F-177’s on the first night of the first Gulf War.
External hard points are not the usual configuration, as they are like putting high-beams while driving down a very dark road. Not a way to hide.
Combat configuration is strictly internal A/G loads. Simply because you have air superiority doesn’t mean anything as long as you have active IADS and other air defenses that can take a shot at you. Think the F-177 shoot-down by an SA-6, it was shot-down when it opened it’s internal weapons bay doors and that lit it up, saying “here I am, shoot me!” Of course, didn’t help that the jets were flying the same ingress and egress routes for the past few nights (political pressures and airspace, the usual nonsense).
So, air superiority means great things but it isn’t all there is to it. (Oh, and the preferred terms is now is “air supremacy,” not air superiority. Regardless, in either case, the generally accepted understanding is related to control over the air while some thinkers related the definition to control of all opposing forces, air, land, sea, by your own air forces.)
The jet has the capability to hang hard-points simply because of the need for external tanks. That is all.
The external weapons configuration was added for two specific reasons: 1) the SAC/HAC/SASC/HASC would never have approved funding for a single-mission jet—no matter how good. All modern jets must “swing” if they wish to be built. 2) For PR purposes for the uninformed public that wails about cost and then would wail louder when they discover the jet couldn’t drop a single bomb. Simple solution—expand the internal bay and adjust the hard points to allow carry of external loads.
Nonetheless, you would never fly in combat an external weapons load (understanding “never” is a relative term. . .who knows what the future may demand. . .think the F-4 and adding the gun. . .the gun, a weapon that was never to be used again in an A/A engagement.).
So, basically, the configuration is internal A/A and limited smoke-and-mirrors A/G loads.
TACAIR experience? Well, because anyone can claim anything on the net, and not to be rude (seriously), that question is valueless. If you wish to FReepmail me to discuss jets and such, we can do that and swap a few stories as well. . .always fun to shoot our watches and drink “Weed.” (Fighter pilots know what “weed” I am referring to).
That's what I thought. And perhaps armaments in the case of an extremely unusual but not inconceivable mission profile. P.S. I am not/was not a fighter pilot by any means, but did manage to pull 2.9G in my Tripacer once!
It has no external hard-points to hang anything on,
Once again, you are incorrect.
Think F-177’s(sic)
Think F-117
Think the F-177
F-117
(political pressures and airspace, the usual nonsense).
BS. Zoomie arrogance and s****y tactics are what led to the shootdown.
If you wish to FReepmail me to discuss jets and such, we can do that and swap a few stories as well. . .always fun to shoot our watches and drink “Weed.”
Not gonna happen. I don't consort with pogues.