Mavericks launch order

[bkthunder]

Given that only one type of Maverick si loaded, e.g. 4x AGM-65D, I'm wondering why the weapons system is expending all Mavericks loaded on, say, the left hardpoint, before starting to use the ones on the right, instead of alternating between the two sides in order to keep a more even lateral weight distribution.

 

This thing has always bothered me with the A-10, and I believe it's simulated incorrectly for the following reasons:

 

From the 'a-10a-non-nuclear-weapons-delivery-manual-TO-1A-10A-3411-A-10-OA-10A' document, page 1-58 (see picture) it is clear that release is alternating between pairs of stations (except stations 5 and 7).

 

- The F-16 alternates between hard points-

- The F/A-18C and later variants alternate between hardpoints

- The F-15C alternates between hardpoints when launching A-A missile

- It just makes a lot of sense

 

Can we get it fixed?

Edited April 15, 2016 by bkthunder
added reference form the RL manual

[Eddie]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=111476&highlight=Quick+draw

 

In short, yes it is correct. And the LUA-88 behaves the same regardless of aircraft.

[bkthunder]

Well, isn't it time they fix this then? :music_whistling:

[Eddie]

Did you you the info in the link?

 

There is nothing to fix, it is modelled correctly.

[bkthunder]

Yes I saw it now, sorry. May I ask what is the source of your information regarding Lau-88/Maverick? (Not that I don't trust you, I just wanna read it more in detail)

[Eddie]

Current documentation and operators.

 

You can't, unless you get a valid US/NATO security clearance.

[bkthunder]

Lol, I'll report back when I get one :P

 

I have another question: how often do A-10s actually carry more than 2 Mavericks? It seems that most loadouts are very "light" and only carry 2 mavs.

[Gliptal]

I seem to recall "pretty much never", since the third maverick has a chance of damaging some part of the airframe when launched.

[Yurgon]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=111476&highlight=Quick+draw

 

In short, yes it is correct. And the LUA-88 behaves the same regardless of aircraft.

 

Great info there, never knew about this. Thx a lot! :thumbup:

[ShuRugal]

Current documentation and operators.

 

You can't, unless you get a valid US/NATO security clearance.

 

If that were true, then you have just committed spillage by posting information contained in a classified document on a public web forum.

[Yurgon]

If that were true, then you have just committed spillage by posting information contained in a classified document on a public web forum.

 

Eddie might have been a tad more verbose on what exactly he's referring to, but I read his comment like this:

 

Yes I saw it now, sorry. May I ask what is the source of your information regarding Lau-88/Maverick?

 

Current documentation and operators.

 

(Not that I don't trust you, I just wanna read it more in detail)

 

You can't, unless you get a valid US/NATO security clearance.

 

Is it really necessary to argue semantics for this?

[KLR Rico]

I seem to recall "pretty much never", since the third maverick has a chance of damaging some part of the airframe when launched.

 

Specifically, the mav's motor burns the tires.

[ajsarge]

If that were true, then you have just committed spillage by posting information contained in a classified document on a public web forum.

 

The technical orders themselves (for all USAF assets) are not classified documents, but they are controlled, and the information in them is listed FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. On technicalities, we shouldn't be using them for DCS. The most recent operations AFI (AFI 11-2A/OA-10C vol.3) is freely available online at the USAF e-publishing site. I'll let you find it on your own time.

 

I would be curious to read the weapons employment T.O.s and the TTPs for USAF-correct employment of mavericks and everything else. Am I switching targets with the mav in the most effective manner? Am I approaching targets correctly to minimize the threat?

Edited April 16, 2016 by ajsarge

[Eddie]

Lol, I'll report back when I get one :P

 

I have another question: how often do A-10s actually carry more than 2 Mavericks? It seems that most loadouts are very "light" and only carry 2 mavs.

 

LAU-88s in general are not widely used anymore, and most active units don't have them readily available anymore.

 

As soon as you load LAU-88s you have give up the TGP as well.

[Eddie]

If that were true, then you have just committed spillage by posting information contained in a classified document on a public web forum.

 

No. Firstly it was a rather tongue in check comment.

 

My point is that unless you're going to get a job working directly in mil aviation, where you have access not only to documents, but also contact with people and training in the subject much of the content of even publicly available material is easily missunderstood. It also only tells half the story.

 

Documents, especially those regularly referenced here only tell part of the story and are not meant to be used in isolation. People without the necessary specialist training and background knowledge interpteting aviation documentation is the source of many errors and misunderstandings in the community, and with DCS itself.

[Gliptal]

LAU-88s in general are not widely used anymore, and most active units don't have them readily available anymore.

 

As soon as you load LAU-88s you have give up the TGP as well.

Is it still for possible damage?

[Eddie]

Yes, the TGP would ingest exhaust gasses from a missile on the outboard rail of the LAU-88, likely causes damage to the cooling system.

[Gliptal]

Thanks. I guess Mavericks aren't useful enough in current scenarios to warrant modifications in the LAU-88 or on the A-10C hardpoints.

[DUSTY]

LAU-88s in general are not widely used anymore, and most active units don't have them readily available anymore.

 

As soon as you load LAU-88s you have give up the TGP as well.

 

Ah crap, you mean I've been unrealistically employing the A10 all these years! Damn! :fear:

[Eddie]

Thanks. I guess Mavericks aren't useful enough in current scenarios to warrant modifications in the LAU-88 or on the A-10C hardpoints.

 

They are, but what mods would you/could you make. None as far as I can see.

 

Also they wouldn't be worth while. You aren't going to want to take 4+ Mavericks as well as other stores on a mission anyway. If you're carrying that many Mavs for a target, then it's because you're likely going against armour in a high threat environment, where you're going to be using terrain masking, so the TGP is useless/unnecessary anyway. And you'll only be making a few attacks (2-4) on the target as well, so extra ordnance is also unnecessary.

 

Don't forget that the AI (air interdiction) mission is not the same a CAS in a low threat environment. You don't have 30 minutes to sit there making mark points, and looking through the TGP etc. You get in and get out as fast as you can, both so you don't get shot down by hostile SAMs/fighters, but also so you're out of the way of other flights coming in behind you. And you're SEAD/Fighter escort also isn't going to hang around for 30 minutes + while you mess around making mark points etc.

[Eddie]

Ah crap, you mean I've been unrealistically employing the A10 all these years! Damn! :fear:

 

Most people are. ;)

[Gliptal]

They are, but what mods would you/could you make. None as far as I can see.

 

Also they wouldn't be worth while. You aren't going to want to take 4+ Mavericks as well as other stores on a mission anyway. If you're carrying that many Mavs for a target, then it's because you're likely going against armour in a high threat environment, where you're going to be using terrain masking, so the TGP is useless/unnecessary anyway. And you'll only be making a few attacks (2-4) on the target as well, so extra ordnance is also unnecessary.

 

Don't forget that the AI (air interdiction) mission is not the same a CAS in a low threat environment. You don't have 30 minutes to sit there making mark points, and looking through the TGP etc. You get in and get out as fast as you can, both so you don't get shot down by hostile SAMs/fighters, but also so you're out of the way of other flights coming in behind you. And you're SEAD/Fighter escort also isn't going to hang around for 30 minutes + while you mess around making mark points etc.

Makes sense. Thanks for these posts Eddie, they're always insightful and greatly appreciated.

 

Ah crap, you mean I've been unrealistically employing the A10 all these years! Damn! :fear:

Yeah I'd love to see a guide of some sort listing all the things that you can do in DCS that wouldn't work or be allowed IRL.

[bkthunder]

No. Firstly it was a rather tongue in check comment.

 

My point is that unless you're going to get a job working directly in mil aviation, where you have access not only to documents, but also contact with people and training in the subject much of the content of even publicly available material is easily missunderstood. It also only tells half the story.

 

Documents, especially those regularly referenced here only tell part of the story and are not meant to be used in isolation. People without the necessary specialist training and background knowledge interpteting aviation documentation is the source of many errors and misunderstandings in the community, and with DCS itself.

 

I didn't think that was a tongue in cheek comment, so do you work in the military or have access to this info, or where do you get your answers from?

[Eddie]

I didn't think that was a tongue in cheek comment, so do you work in the military or have access to this info, or where do you get your answers from?

 

Well as you've asked.

 

Ex air force, currently a civilian contractor working with Typhoon, responsible for maintaining airworthiness and current/future operational capability of the UK fleet.

 

As a consequence of this I have quite a few contacts in the military aviation world, and access to a lot of things that are not public, as well of course as an underlying knowledge base and understanding of the subject matter.

 

And I am far from the only such person within the 476th, a couple of members being directly, and currently, involved with the A-10C and other USAF/NATO platforms. So naturally there is a sharing of knowledge across platforms.

 

You don't need "classified" material to understand things to a more in depth level, as the subjects in those documents are largely not represented in DCS anyway. But there is far more to it than what the -1 and A model -34 reveal. Those docs are kind of like the owners manual you have for your car, they tell you some of what you need to know, but they expect you to have a certain amount of working knowledge to use them. If you don't have that required understanding, you will likely miss or not fully understand many aspects.

[seastate]

Would it not be possible to mount the TGP on station 6 - the middle one?