[Planned] LAU-88 and triple AGM-65s?

[QuiGon]

2x LAU-88 with two AGM-65 per station was an allowed operational load out for the A-10A.

 

2x LAU-88 with three AGM-65 per station was only for ferry flights, airshows, etc.

Operation Iraqi Freedom: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1958983&postcount=11

[Mr_sukebe]

4 Mavericks (2x LAU-88 with two AGM-65D/H per station) was an allowed operational load out for the A-10A.

 

6 Mavericks (2x LAU-88 with three AGM-65D/H per station) was only for ferry flights, airshows, etc.

 

The AGM-65G/K is a heavier missile / LAU-117 mounted, so you can only carry 2 of those.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I’ll update my mission loads tonight

[=Panther=]

The LAU-88 triplet launchers can only be fitted to nr. 3 and 7 station, whereas the LAU-117/A can be fitted to nr. 3,4,6 and 7 station.

 

 

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article4.html

 

Curious, do you work on the F-16? Not insulting your knowledge or your source, but what I wrote in the your quote is fact for F-16 since 2001 and to date.

[Panzerfan]

What about the triple launchers only carrying 2 missiles each?

 

 

Or just letting us do it anyways and burn our stabs away? Like i needed them, just useless weight ;)

[mvsgas]

Never happened in USAF F-16 block 50 circa 2007, same with CFT, AGM-154/158, GBU-39 nor 54, Will not have TFR, No beyond the horizon communication, no AGCAS, no APG-68V9, no 600g external tanks, no internal jammer, no MWS, no large HUD like a block 40/42, not a two seater in DCS, no AIM-2000, no AIM-132, no anti ship missiles, LAU-88, no additional chaff and flare buckets on the weapons pylons, not recce pod, not gun pods, python 4 or 5 missiles, AGM-142, no EGBU, no EGI...the list goes on.

 

I think I going to make this my new response to every post.

Edited May 20, 2019 by mvsgas

[Mira73]

Curious, do you work on the F-16? Not insulting your knowledge or your source, but what I wrote in the your quote is fact for F-16 since 2001 and to date.

 

 

Thank you. You just helped me save my money.

BTW : you work on the F-16 ?

[mvsgas]

Thank you. You just helped me save my money.

BTW : you work on the F-16 ?

 

=Panther= don't mean to speak for you apologies

 

Mira73, she does, for almost 20 years now.

[Sierra99]

I think the question is was it "prohibited" for the A-10C...or just not used?

[=Panther=]

Thank you. You just helped me save my money.

BTW : you work on the F-16 ?

 

Yes, nearly 20 years with combine service between active duty and contractor. Won't pretend to know everything on the F-16, if I don't know the answer I'll try to find the answer or otherwise say so. If I do know it, I'll post it. The LAU-88 and triple 65s was a hot topic back in 2005 when I was heavily into Falcon 4 AF.

[Revelation]

Yes, nearly 20 years with combine service between active duty and contractor. Won't pretend to know everything on the F-16, if I don't know the answer I'll try to find the answer or otherwise say so. If I do know it, I'll post it. The LAU-88 and triple 65s was a hot topic back in 2005 when I was heavily into Falcon 4 AF.

 

Those were the days back on Multiviper's; fond memories.

[=Panther=]

Those were the days back on Multiviper's; fond memories.

 

Good times!

[Majinbot]

Maybe ED could be a little more flexible and add different f-16 version weapons, since it's not the official Usaf simulator but a videogame. It's player discretion whether to use them or not. They did the same with the hornet BRU-55. IMHO.

[RaceFuel85]

Maybe ED could be a little more flexible and add different f-16 version weapons, since it's not the official Usaf simulator but a videogame. It's player discretion whether to use them or not. They did the same with the hornet BRU-55. IMHO.

 

ED is going for it to be a study sim, which means it's between hard core USAF simulator and video game.

[AMEDooley]

We want accurate sims, please don’t complain when they are accurate with the load out. Just because something could do something, doesn’t mean that it was done. This is a 2007 USAF CCIP F-16CM not the FrankenViper.

[macrossMX]

At least in terms of loadouts, those were tested and we're shown to work even if the loadouts might create some problems for the plane.

 

If you want a true frankenviper, load a USAF F-16 with conformal fuel tanks. Was first tested in the US and exported to all F-16 owners around the world, but the USAF never ordered any in defense that the fleet of tankers will make the need for it redundant.

[discwalker]

Hypocrasy to say noone will use modified lua files to load 2 or 3 mavs per pylon.

[Tippis]

We want accurate sims, please don’t complain when they are accurate with the load out. Just because something could do something, doesn’t mean that it was done. This is a 2007 USAF CCIP F-16CM not the FrankenViper.

That works both ways: if it could do something, then it would be realistic to simulate that capability. Just because a capability was not utilised does not mean it does not exist or that it should be cut out, especially based on some inherently contradictory “accuracy” argument.

 

What are you trying to simulate in the end? An airplane or an organisational doctrine?

Edited May 22, 2019 by Tippis

[falcon_120]

I think flexibility is an advantage here that should not be confronted with having a realistic simulation.

 

There are certain minor aspects like loadouts that should be allowed to reflect certain nation configuration, even though it might not be totally realistic for the exact model simulated.

 

Otherwise we should not allowed aircraft playing for nations that never had that exact model, which is a non sense. I love flying my beloved F18 hornet with spanish air force painting and loadouts even though i know is not the very same aircraft, just very similar...

 

Playing by the same rules, I can bear a triple maverick loadout in an israeli F16 if (hypothetically) they allow this configuration.

 

This should not be a concern for anyone as long as these "not totally standard" loadouts are banned in MP and only allowed (partially) in SP.

[falcon_120]

We want accurate sims, please don’t complain when they are accurate with the load out. Just because something could do something, doesn’t mean that it was done. This is a 2007 USAF CCIP F-16CM not the FrankenViper.

 

So I guess this plane will only be selectable by USA, and by no means by any european user or Israel, because that is being totally realistic, otherwise we have double standards.

[Tomsk]

I think flexibility is an advantage here that should not be confronted with having a realistic simulation.

 

There are certain minor aspects like loadouts that should be allowed to reflect certain nation configuration, even though it might not be totally realistic for the exact model simulated.

 

I can certainly understand this, I know our squadron will be simulating a lot of F-16s scenarios where the F-16s are not USAF ones and having the load outs available for those nations would be great.

 

However ... I can also understand that from ED's point of view this is a massively slippery slope. How far should they go adding such features? The Viper in particular has so many different version and was exported to so many countries that the full list of all weapons every version has ever carried would be an awful lot of work for them to do. Then it has to be a much more expensive module to account for all the extra time that goes into it ... and that's not necessarily a good business decision for them.

[FSKRipper]

I think flexibility is an advantage here that should not be confronted with having a realistic simulation.

 

There are certain minor aspects like loadouts that should be allowed to reflect certain nation configuration, even though it might not be totally realistic for the exact model simulated.

 

Otherwise we should not allowed aircraft playing for nations that never had that exact model, which is a non sense. I love flying my beloved F18 hornet with spanish air force painting and loadouts even though i know is not the very same aircraft, just very similar...

 

Playing by the same rules, I can bear a triple maverick loadout in an israeli F16 if (hypothetically) they allow this configuration.

 

This should not be a concern for anyone as long as these "not totally standard" loadouts are banned in MP and only allowed (partially) in SP.

 

The FSD flight test in 1977 cleared the 3 AGM-65 loading for operational use. Maneuver limits (6.5g) were higher than most other air to ground stores (5.5g). That was the most severe loading for wing hardpoints 3/7, but was within the hardpoint capability.

 

However, there were launch limits placed on the loading due to scorching of the horizontal tail from the inboard AGM. Launch from that location was limited to war time only, none in training.

 

This was not a Block 50/52 clearance so openening these gates you could also allow MK82's on the F-15C. Why? Because you could do it in war time. You can even drop one from a Cessna 172 if you like. There is a good reason why ED limits the loadouts. You can change it by Lua's or a mod yourself for SP use but don't expect Server admins to mess with thousands of combinations for allowed and forbidden configs.

Edited May 22, 2019 by FSKRipper

[billeinstein]

But there IS a war in most servers, right?

[Kev2go]

The FSD flight test in 1977 cleared the 3 AGM-65 loading for operational use. Maneuver limits (6.5g) were higher than most other air to ground stores (5.5g). That was the most severe loading for wing hardpoints 3/7, but was within the hardpoint capability.

 

However, there were launch limits placed on the loading due to scorching of the horizontal tail from the inboard AGM. Launch from that location was limited to war time only, none in training.

 

This was not a Block 50/52 clearance so openening these gates you could also allow MK82's on the F-15C. Why? Because you could do it in war time. You can even drop one from a Cessna 172 if you like. There is a good reason why ED limits the loadouts. You can change it by Lua's or a mod yourself for SP use but don't expect Server admins to mess with thousands of combinations for allowed and forbidden configs.

 

actually i would like mk82's on my F15 ;) ( irrc those being referenced in the manual and dash 34 also showing CCIP/CCRP delivery). Yes they were never trained for that nor did f15 ever drop a bomb in anger ( at least not in USAF service), but it still could do so because the capability was always there, and its documented in manuals.

 

 

its not very realsitc for F14's to be lobbing unguided Mk80 munitions yet, Heatblur included unguided bombs on F14B ( technically its a pre bombcat model if you fly without LantirN TGP) and will also do for the F14A.

in Reality USN F14 pilots never trained nor dropped any bombs for a long time. That didnt become a mission until post cold war era. Even then when training for it did get implemented, as well as capability upgraded for precision, F14's flew A/G missions predominately ( if not entirely) using PGM's.

 

 

 

Though i agree there have been some good arguments brought up.. IF its not in the manual ( at least not in a blk 50 revision) then i suppose it could be excluded. though IF the 3rd maverick on a LAu88 could burn the elevator and cause critical failure, then it should be limited to just 2 mavs per Lau88. Assuming ED do decide to include it.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Kev2go

[fl0w]

A-10C has triple racks for the Mavericks, yet they were never carried in actual operations. I don't see why the F-16CM is now suddenly applied to not have this either.

[=Panther=]

A-10C has triple racks for the Mavericks, yet they were never carried in actual operations. I don't see why the F-16CM is now suddenly applied to not have this either.

 

The A-10C did in fact carry triple 65s in combat.