Dice Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 I just read through the, now locked, thread on mixed AGM-65s, LAU-88s 2V3 loadouts, and why LOMAC does this load or that and all I can say is, WOW my head is spinning! Everyone (or most) are treating the A-10, the AGM-65, the LAU-88, and pictures and info from the net like they are all from the same time period. The A-10, the AGM-65, and the LAU-88 have evolved throught the years and without knowing this process (and the time the info and pictures were taken) you end-up thinking what was true yesterday is true today. Like the LAU-88 carrying 3 mavs...yes during the Desert Storm era the LAU-88 was unreliable (one reason the LAU-117 was used mostly) and the Mavs exhaust plume would/could burn the gear pod and tire. After DS both the LAU-88 and the MAV were improved. The LAU-88 is more reliable today and the exhaust on the newer mav are smaller so, they will not burn the pod/ties but, the drag issue is still there. During Operation Iraqi Freedom 3 mavs were loaded on LAU-88s but this was only to ferry them to the FOL and not used in combat. I don't know if I could give you a complete answer to all your questions on this forum (I'm in the middle of updating mmy website) but ask away and I will try to answer as best as I can. Ugly but well hung!
HungaroJET Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 I don't know if I could give you a complete answer to all your questions on this forum (I'm in the middle of updating mmy website) but ask away and I will try to answer as best as I can. Thank You Dice ...I think we need precise infos about the Hog & loadout Atop the midnight tarmac, a metal beast awaits. To be flown below the radar, to bring the enemy his fate. HAVE A BANDIT DAY ! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." - R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983), American Architect, Author, Designer, Inventor, and Futurist
Dice Posted February 7, 2007 Author Posted February 7, 2007 What is the weapons payload for the A-10 in lock on's time frame? Not the MAX PAYLOAD but the actual COMBAT PAYLOAD. LOMACs A-10s is a LASTE 4.0 early to mid 1990s aircraft. During this timeframe a normal combat load would be 2XAIM-9s (depending on the threat) 1XALQ pod (again depending on the threat), 2X AGM-65s (TV or IR), 2x or 4X 500 pounders or 2X 1,000 pounders (air burst or contact) and a full load of 30mm ammo. On todays A-10 some or all of the 500/1,000 pounders would either be normal gravity bombs or GBU-12/GBU-24s. in fact if you look at photos from "todays" conflets they will normaly carry two GBU-12s and two 500 pound radar fused gravity bombs. Ugly but well hung!
SwingKid Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 The LAU-88 is more reliable today and the exhaust on the newer mav are smaller so, they will not burn the pod/ties but, the drag issue is still there. ... I don't know if I could give you a complete answer to all your questions on this forum (I'm in the middle of updating mmy website) but ask away and I will try to answer as best as I can. "What types of Maverick does Lock On really model?" ;) -SK
Dice Posted February 7, 2007 Author Posted February 7, 2007 A couple of points from the closed thread. The LAU-88 loaded with 3X AGM-65s (6 total) and quickdraw were ferry mission to a couple of FLOs inside Iraqi. They would be downloaded and the aircraft uploaded them with single LAU-117 and single mavs pry to a combat mission. With the updated motors on the AGM-65 and the fixes (after Desert Storm) on the LAU-88 the load could have been used in combat but, the gain in firwpower did not out-weight the lost in range, loiter time, and most of all a huge lost in maneuverability. Also the color or a mavs body does correspond to the time frame it was build and not to help the troops “put them together right.” Missiles and bombs are “built-up” in weapons backshops before being delivered to the “line’ for use. They match serial numbers and mission types to determine the right build-up not the color of the body. Look at the picture below, three of the same seeker-heads attached to two different era bodies. As you may know “we” have large stock piles of weapons and why not us the older munitions first, if at all possible, and save the newer ones for later? They could be painted but why if stealth is not an issue? Three Mavs on a jet with quick draw Tipical load during OIF Ugly but well hung!
Dice Posted February 7, 2007 Author Posted February 7, 2007 "What types of Maverick does Lock On really model?" ;) -SK If I remember correctly it was the B and D. ;) Ugly but well hung!
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Thanks for the info, Dice! I can't remember which book I read the bad info about the body color, but if I ever find it, I'll be sure to burn it. :D
HungaroJET Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Three Mavs on a jet with quick draw I C : Three Mavs on an A-10 with quick draw but would U mind telling us which version R on it ? Im really curious but i dont wanna try to guess now :) And please dont say Aim-54s. Ill kill you. Thx again Hitman :D & THX Dice also. :) Atop the midnight tarmac, a metal beast awaits. To be flown below the radar, to bring the enemy his fate. HAVE A BANDIT DAY ! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." - R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983), American Architect, Author, Designer, Inventor, and Futurist
HungaroJET Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 OHH yes...iv just found an one year old discussion :) http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=10084&page=6 oopsy & sorry...i dont wanna B boring to U guys but i dont have enough time to read all the stuff/topics :D Atop the midnight tarmac, a metal beast awaits. To be flown below the radar, to bring the enemy his fate. HAVE A BANDIT DAY ! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." - R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983), American Architect, Author, Designer, Inventor, and Futurist
GGTharos Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 They are EO/TV versions. IR version glass is usually not see-through, but they may have come up with new materials now. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
SwingKid Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Three Mavs on a jet with quick draw Ok this one has also come up before: If the seeker has a rotationally asymmetrical field of view (I've heard it described by Falcon 4.0 enthusiasts as "keyhole-shaped"), then why can the seeker be mounted in different orientations like that? Mustn't it have a rotationally symmetrical field of view? -SK
HungaroJET Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Ok this one has also come up before: If the seeker has a rotationally asymmetrical field of view (I've heard it described by Falcon 4.0 enthusiasts as "keyhole-shaped"), then why can the seeker be mounted in different orientations like that? Mustn't it have a rotationally symmetrical field of view? -SK ...mayB the seeker head can move/rotate all around...or/and IS IT a LOAL (Lock On After Launch) version ? ...climbs on X degrees above after launch while it's searching (or locked onto) at the designated target ? ...and strikes down on the target to penetrate the roof of the target/tank where there is the least armour protection ? I think the LOAL operation needs NOT fixed seeker. Did U noticed ? All missile seeker on the rail R watching same direction. BTW: grammar What R the exact differences between Weapon LOADOUT and PAYLOAD ? THX Atop the midnight tarmac, a metal beast awaits. To be flown below the radar, to bring the enemy his fate. HAVE A BANDIT DAY ! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." - R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983), American Architect, Author, Designer, Inventor, and Futurist
Dice Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 2007 Swingkid, sorry you're asking questions outside my field, I have not studied weapons that indepth, I know just enough to get me in trouble. Ugly but well hung!
nscode Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 They are EO/TV versions. IR version glass is usually not see-through, but they may have come up with new materials now. Why would they do that? I mean... if it's IR then the point is that visible light should not get through :) Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
HungaroJET Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Why would they do that? I mean... if it's IR then the point is that visible light should not get through :) IR guidance does NOT need light...thats why it prefered at night Originally Posted by GGTharos: IR version glass is usually not see-through ...like this MAV Atop the midnight tarmac, a metal beast awaits. To be flown below the radar, to bring the enemy his fate. HAVE A BANDIT DAY ! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." - R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983), American Architect, Author, Designer, Inventor, and Futurist
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 What do you think IR is? It is light, just not in the part of the spectrum that us humans can see. The front of that missile IS see-thru, but again, not to the band of light frequencies that we can see...so we think of it as being opaque, when its actually transparent to IR light. :smilewink:
HungaroJET Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 yes ...true ...but has different wave-length... i know what the IR is Infrared light lies between the visible and microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. but it's not really a light. Visible light is the REAL light. IR is a kinda wave/radiation. ...& the wavelength longer than that of visible light. I wrote: IR guidance does NOT need (visible) light coz nscode was talking about visible light. :) Atop the midnight tarmac, a metal beast awaits. To be flown below the radar, to bring the enemy his fate. HAVE A BANDIT DAY ! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." - R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983), American Architect, Author, Designer, Inventor, and Futurist
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 You're thinking of it from a human standpoint though. IR is light, and can actually be seen by several species of reptile. Anyway, just nitpicking for fun. :)
HungaroJET Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 OK...RGR guys :D V cant C but I can FEEL :doh: :rotflmao: BTW: nitpicking for fun ? :lol: Atop the midnight tarmac, a metal beast awaits. To be flown below the radar, to bring the enemy his fate. HAVE A BANDIT DAY ! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." - R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983), American Architect, Author, Designer, Inventor, and Futurist
Hellcat61 Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Those EO mav seeker heads look so complex. Its sad that they have to blow up. :( I wonder how much a mav costs a piece. "When you're out of Tomcats, you're out of fighters!"
HungaroJET Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Ok Folks ...I dont wanna disturb U but there R more exact draftings on the NET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared IR not mentioned as light there ...but mayB that's wrong also Atop the midnight tarmac, a metal beast awaits. To be flown below the radar, to bring the enemy his fate. HAVE A BANDIT DAY ! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." - R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983), American Architect, Author, Designer, Inventor, and Futurist
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Here you go HJ. Its in there if you read through it all the way. :smilewink: "The boundary between visible and infrared light is not precisely defined. The human eye is markedly less sensitive to light above 700 nm wavelength, so longer frequencies make insignificant contributions to scenes illuminated by common light sources. But particularly intense light (e.g., from lasers, or from bright daylight with the visible light removed by coloured gels[1]) can be detected up to approximately 780 nm, and will be perceived as red light. The onset of infrared is defined (according to different standards) at various values typically between 700 nm and 780 nm."
HungaroJET Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Let we do a little business/deal :D :surrender: :beer: ...not precisely defined :D :book: :smilewink: Atop the midnight tarmac, a metal beast awaits. To be flown below the radar, to bring the enemy his fate. HAVE A BANDIT DAY ! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." - R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983), American Architect, Author, Designer, Inventor, and Futurist
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Sounds good to me! :D I've got a counter-offer for a business deal. Its in the area of optical communications (also mentioned in that Wikipedia article). I hear that it uses "infrared light" or something. :beer: Just funnin', dude.:D The electromagnetic spectrum is my life, quite literally sometimes. ;) I have to know what is what...what will and won't kill me...and what can just blind me.:) OT: Cel phones? Yeah...that's just a microwave RF risk I choose to stay away from. There probably won't be much evidence of them causing cellular damage though. The people using them constantly are likely to die in car accidents long before they develop brain tumors.
Recommended Posts