LOMAC A-10 PGM employment is....

[Guest IguanaKing]

actually kinda friggin' awesome. That Pave Penny pod actually is limited by LOS when targeting GBUs, as it should be. Its all automatic if your mission has targets lased...select the weapon, get LOS on the target, select CCRP, align, then release when the TD crosses the pipper. Accurate as friggin' hell!!!:D The only complaint I have is a discussion that has come up before, the GBU-10 should have more far-reaching damage effects...but that's neither here nor there. The point is, to the guys who aren't saying "so?!!! We've known that for a while." ;) ...that the A-10 in LOMAC is fully capable of accurately deploying weapons not in its game, stock, arsenal. I'm slowly coming up with a LOPE file that mimics the stores loading diagrams I have for the A-10. Some weapons on that diagram are NLA, but what's the deal with the fuel tank? I can't seem to load a 610-gallon fuel tank on any of the certified pylons. Hint: I KNOW the A-10 fuel tanks are 600-gallon...just trying to come close.

[Pilotasso]

...because they are for ferry flight only? You dont ferry much in this game. And then the titanium bath tub wouldnt be much use if a round came up causing them to erupt like napalm bombs . ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

Doesn't matter really...but if they can be carried by the A-10....;)

 

I'm guessing that the 610-gl fuel tanks in LOPE are nowhere NEAR the design of the 600s on the Hog, and that's why the game won't allow it. I tried substituting the SUU-23 with the nearest LOPE equivalent (which was actually a Russian 23mm gun pod) and LOMAC told me..."Yeah...you know what?!!! Uh-uh!" (picture Nicole Sullivan). The game is actually pretty smart, it would seem, as to what it lets us hang. But, the GBU performance, along with the Pave Penny limitations, were actually kind of a pleasant surprise.

[tflash]

In my view, Mk84 and hence also GBU-10 are WAY to heavy weapons to be realistically employed on a Hog. They are "first day of conflict" weapons where you want to knock out big HQ buildings, bridges, depots, etc. or produce some shock and awe. Indeed, the blast off these weapons seems undermodelled.

 

But I guess it's not a Hog that would deliver them. I never saw a picture with a Hog sporting an Mk84-class weapon. GBU-12 seems more appropriate?

[Guest IguanaKing]

Here you go Tflash, two photos (thumbnails)...a pre-production and an early-production airframe...both with a GBU-10. The first one also has a GBU-8. You're right though, its not a weapon that would usually be carried, but it CAN carry them. ;)

 

 

 

Here are the charts (keep in mind, they are VERY old). LOPErs, feel free to use them.

 

[/url]

 

 

 

 

 

[504 Wolverine]

Thanks :) :book:

[504 Wolverine]

I see what you mean about the GBU deployment. Pretty cool.

 

So far have added the GBU-10 and GBU-12.

 

BTW any pics of the A-10 fuel tanks, I could only find this one so far.

 

 

And I think these tanks are pretty close, if you ignore the small fins on the nose. ;) Also they are only 528 US Gall (2000 Ltr) instead of 600 US Gall (2,271 Ltr) but whats 72 Gall between friends :D What do you think?

 

[Guest IguanaKing]

Looks good, Wolverine! :D Do they work?

 

Here are three more pics of A-10s with the tanks mounted.

 

Some of the scans are a little grainy though.

 

 

 

 

Edit: BTW, I DID get the 610gl tanks to work...I guess I was just crosseyed or something because I had them LOPEd to pylons 5 and 7, instead of where they SHOULD go, on 4, 6, and 8. I like yours better though, because they more-closely resemble the ones on the A-10. They are exactly the same tanks that are carried by F-111s, and have the 4 fins at the rear. I just answered my own question too, they actually work because my FQI went up to almost 22,000 pounds. :D

[Guest Cali]

Why do you want to load 610 gallon fuel tanks anyway. I use to work on A-10 in Alaska and we only had 600 gal tanks. But there was 2 kinds a sergeant felcther and a royal. The only different between these 2 tanks is the lenght and the royal is fatter. But I don't see the need to load tanks in LO, you have more then enough internal fuel to do whatever you want.

[Guest IguanaKing]

No reason really, just wanted to have all of the possibilities available to me. Saturday boredom leads to strange ideas I guess. LOL. :D Oh, and the reason they're 610gl tanks is because those are the only US fuel tanks available in LOMAC with a capacity that was close.

[tflash]

BTW did the A-10 carry Napalm canisters?

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yes. IIRC, A-10s have carried Mk77s. Heh...those diagrams I have are definitely old. The remaining Mk77s in the US inventory were mothballed after ODS, and haven't been used since to my knowledge.