Community A-4E-C v2.2 (October 2023)

[Armageddon666]

Hello.

First of all, congratulation to the dev team and community. What a great mod ! I've been flying the A-4E exclusively since the 2.0 release and I'm starting to know and handle that bird good enough.

Now I have a question, I don't know if this is a bug or not.

When I have the AGM-45 Shrike armed and ready to fire and that I aim in the direction of a battleship, there is no locking tone. First, I was thinking this was wrong because the ship has its radar running, is locking me and is firing missiles at me. So I was expecting the Shrike to be able to lock the ship’s radar source.

Then I tried to fire the Shrike at the ship, even with no lock tone. Guess what ? The missile tracks the ship and hits it perfectly. Boom !

Was it chance ? To better experiment, yesterday I started a mission with the unlimited ammo cheat on and 3 battleships in front of me. I managed to fire dozens of Shrike missiles to the ships and sink one of them. Each of the Shrikes I fired was tracking and seeking the ships perfectly. Although I had no locking tone while aiming at them (and yes I have the weapon properly set up and can hear the tracking tone).

At the end, it looks like a bug to me : if the missile does it job why is there no locking tone in the cockpit when I point my reticle at the radar source (like when I’m running on SAM sites) ?

I wonder if there could be other targets for which we cannot hear a lock tone but still can missile them down…

What do you think ?

[Calabrone]

Korie lthat actually wouldn't be a bad idea, but it would be great if they implemented, the developers or whoever makes mods, the guide bar on the cat. A beautiful dream, that would make this wonderful mod even more awesome. I love the scooter madly.

[RedeyeStorm]

On 1/14/2022 at 3:17 PM, plusnine said:

if you are locking up the brakes or over-castering the nose wheel, you're going too hard on your brakes (possibly as a result of throwing too much thrust in - remember the engine spool time is greatest at the idle end). if you bitch-slap those brakes, expect them to bitch-slap you right back by locking up or over-turning.

as is noted on the taxi/takeoff notes in the kneeboard, i recommend use of the controls indicator to monitor the nosewheel position and figure out exactly how, on your individual input setup you need to apply the brakes in order to get the turn you want while you develop your personal feel for ground handling in the A-4E-C. like a lot of things in DCS, some finesse is required, making too many or too extreme inputs in any one thing is what is going to trip you up.

 

Check the ‘specials’ tab in DCS menu, it already has the option to use rudder for steering.

[RealA4EPilot]

On 1/26/2022 at 5:12 PM, Skunk Cabbage said:

How should I set up my yaw, roll and pitch on my HOTAS to make the aircraft a little more stable in flight?  No matter what I do, or what setting I use the aircraft is a little too responsive for my old shacky hands. 

I am more convince than ever about the ground taxing. Please provide an "option" to use the new steering or not for us old shacky farts.

Welcome to the A-4 aircraft. The A-4 is highly maneuverable, and if you don't want it to drop off on a wing and start plunging toward the earth, you need to fly the aircraft. If you don't need to yank and bank and you're not at 300ft and 300 knots, engage the autopilot. Otherwise resign yourself to keeping your hand on the stick and flying the aircraft 100% of the time.

Taking a cross country in an A-4E was a piece of cake. Engage the autopilot at 2000 to 3000ft and fly the bird with the autopilot. Taking a cross country in the A-4B after we retro transitioned from the A-4Es was a real PITA because you had to fly the aircraft 100% of the time.

[RealA4EPilot]

On 2/4/2022 at 1:03 AM, Hiob said:

Jupp, and it works. They even added an instrument carrier landing quickstart mission.

I think this was another one of those NAVAIR AFCs that was approved and promulgated, but few if any A-4Es were modified. I flew A-4s from January 1965 to June 1972 and none of the A-4C or A-4E aircraft had either ACLS or ILS. The A-4 was transferred out of the last fleet squadrons in 1976. If any front line A-4s were modified they were probably Navy A-4Fs and Marine A-4Ms. Only way to know for sure would be for NAVAIR to check the logbooks of the A-4E aircraft.

[Koriel]

16 hours ago, RedeyeStorm said:

Check the ‘specials’ tab in DCS menu, it already has the option to use rudder for steering.

Actually all it does is akin to what the MiG-15 and the Yak-52 does. You apply brake through a keybind and whatever rudder is pressed will receive the brakepressure. 

What I am suggesting is to have a "cheat key" that will cancel the castering nosewheel and enable actual nosewheelsteering. 

I don't consider this a cheat. Heck, we fly a simulator on a PC. We don't have a nosewheel steering bar dude out there to help us. Why make things unnecessarily difficult?

[Weed89]

WHATTTttt????   you do not like making that PERFECT 3 wire landing...then heading to the parking position  only to fall off the side of the ship??   I was starting to think  not ALL  " A-4's forever"  was applying to only ME      ( my dad flew A-1 "SPADS   then went to the A-4's  )  Both brought him home safe ( a little shrapenal here and there)  every time....gotta' LOVE them both...i would LOVE to see a DSC  SPAD on the menu too   

    but the castoring nosewheel on DECK  reallly does SUCK !    seems to kinda sort it's self out on the ground.... but gets STUCK on deck everytime close to a Catwalk

[Stilgar]

Hi, to land the A4 in the carrier is necessary to buy the supercarrier  module?

There is an assistance system to land in the carrier, like the ILS?

[jurinko]

There is free Forrestal carrier with ILS-like system. 

[Stilgar]

1 hour ago, jurinko said:

There is free Forrestal carrier with ILS-like system. 

The Forrestal is part of the F14 addon, or is totaly free?

 

Because i searched, but i dont find a link to download

Edited February 14, 2022 by Stilgar

[Helles Belle]

1 hour ago, Stilgar said:

Hi, to land the A4 in the carrier is necessary to buy the supercarrier  module?

There is an assistance system to land in the carrier, like the ILS?

No, as above the in-game carriers work fine for landing & launch.

 

for a real challenge download the HMAS Melbourne mod and give it a go

[Captain Orso]

3 hours ago, Stilgar said:

The Forrestal is part of the F14 addon, or is totaly free?

 

Because i searched, but i dont find a link to download

 

You don't have to download the Forrestal. It is an integral part of DCS World. You only have to put it into a mission in the Mission Editor.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Captain Orso

[RealA4EPilot]

On 2/10/2022 at 3:15 AM, Armageddon666 said:

When I have the AGM-45 Shrike armed and ready to fire and that I aim in the direction of a battleship, there is no locking tone. First, I was thinking this was wrong because the ship has its radar running, is locking me and is firing missiles at me. So I was expecting the Shrike to be able to lock the ship’s radar source.

 

Then I tried to fire the Shrike at the ship, even with no lock tone. Guess what ? The missile tracks the ship and hits it perfectly. Boom !

< deleted >

What do you think ?

 

It looks to me that the Shrike worked as it was designed to.

Generally speaking, there appears to be a misunderstanding of how Shrike works. The AN/AGM-45 is basically a missile that is fired ballistically and is guided to the target by the missile maneuvering so that any azimuth or elevation error is zeroed out, i.e., the missile seeker bore sights the emitting radar maneuvers itself so it's aimed directly at the target and error corrects until the missile hits the target or strikes the ground short of the target radar. The missile is easily defeated by shutting the radar down.

To my memory there is neither a lock-on tone nor a procedure to lock on. It is fired ballistically and locks itself on the strongest target it sees after launch.

Edited February 15, 2022 by photowriters
spelling error

[RealA4EPilot]

Weapons Selection Criteria

I am working through the forum threads of the A-4E DCS Community. I believe there are three such threads. Currently, I am on page 50 of 53 in the first thread. Several members here have contacted me to get more information or to learn more about this and that from a former scooter driver. My plan is to create a PDF file with my unposted responses to the closed first and second forum threads, and post them for anyone that might have an interest in slogging through 120 or more pages of comments. I am extracting and posting this particular response to the current open thread because there are aspects to the Fun vs History debate that may not be readily apparent to either side.

     beppe_goodoldrebel: 16 NOV 2018
     Maybe GBUs are too heavy for carrier ops? Just my 2 cents.

From Beppe’s comment and the comments of others, it is obvious that there is limited understanding in the wider A-4E DCS Community of the multi-level nature of limitations as well as what factors determine whether an aircraft can carry a specific weapon. Beppe’s comment is restricted to the concept that weight is the critical issue, but whether a weapon can or should be carried by an aircraft is significantly more complex. I’ll address weight in particular but I’ll also address a more significant factor as well as examining the fun vs history debate from a viewpoint that appears to have escaped consideration.

Multiple Weight limitations
More than once, comments have led me to believe that the prototypical member of the A-4E DCS Community believe that the only thing that matters in determining whether an aircraft can carry a particular weapon is the weight of the weapon, but for a Mk 82 500lb GP bomb with a GBU-12 kit installed, there are at least four weight limitations in play, two for the aircraft and two for the ship. The aircraft limits are the individual weapons stations’ limits and the max gross takeoff weight limit. The ship’s weight limitations the are the catapult and arresting gear limitations.

I don’t know the specifics of either the installed weight of the GBU-12 system or the individual weights of each of the GBU 12 components, but I cannot conceive that the combined weight of a Mk82 500lb bomb with a GBU-12 kit installed would exceed any the various weight restrictions that might affect either the aircraft or the ship.

Weapons Separation Tests
As one would expect, weapons and their component parts are subjected to extensive testing before they are released to the fleet. One of the most critical and potentially dangerous series of tests are weapons separation tests. The separation tests are conducted to verify a weapon could both be carried safely and would not damage the aircraft when released.

A senior pilot in my A-4E squadron had been a project pilot at NAF [Naval Air Facility] China Lake. NAF project pilots flew R&D flights for the weapons development engineers at Naval Weapons Center at China Lake. Some of those R&D flights included weapons separation tests. According to LCDR Smith, in one of the tests conducted while he was stationed at China Lake, when the weapon was released it moved forward and came back over the top of the wing. The aircraft was lost because took off the horizontal stabilizer on the starboard [right] side of the aircraft. The pilot ejected safely, but the aircraft was lost.

If your initial reaction to the above paragraph is incredulity, welcome to the club. How can a heavy, high drag, unpowered shape move forward when the aircraft is moving through the air at 450KIAS? LCDR Smith’s explanation was that the airflow around a high speed aircraft was not as smooth as one would expect, and at various altitudes, airspeeds, and external configurations there were pockets of low air pressure that could be problematic when a weapon was released. I accepted the explanation, but remained very much a doubting Thomas.

Ironically, two years later I was ordered to VX-5 [Air Test and Evaluation Squadron FIVE] which was home based at NAF China Lake. VX-5’s mission was to test and develop tactics for new weapons before they were released to the fleet. My billet in the squadron was the fleet liaison officer. I edited a classified newsletter that was distributed to fleet units to keep them abreast of what was going on in the RDT&E [research, development, test, and evaluation] community in regards to air-to-ground ordnance. When a weapons training officer in an A-4 squadron sent a WTF letter to VX-5, it was my responsibility to fashion a reply.

Obviously, there was intense pressure from the fleet units during the Vietnam War for solutions to difficult combat situations. The periodic Bat Bulletin newsletter updates did not quench the thirst for information about what the RDT&E community was doing to solve these problems. To keep the fleet better informed, I put together a dog and pony show and went to all the CONUS [continental United States] Naval and Marine Corps air stations where A-4 and A-6 aircraft were based. Part of the preparation for the trip was to comb the archives for snippets of film from tests of weapons that were in development as well as modifications to weapons that were already in the fleet.

That involved hours of sitting next to a 16mm projector and viewing film clips. Unexpectedly that interlude was a quick education on a wide variety of weapons and technologies. One of the snippets of film I came across was shot from a chase plane. The film was shot as part of a weapon separation test, and it showed a 500lb napalm cannister after it was released climb up and over the leading edge of an A-4’s right wing only to streak out of left side of the frame as it was caught in the 450 knot slipstream.

Weapons developers expend considerable engineering effort ensuring a weapon’s weight, balance, and aerodynamics that will help ensure it will separate cleanly from the aircraft when it is released or jettisoned. Despite the designers’ best efforts, weapons release separation tests occasionally resulted in aircraft damage when weapon oscillations after release damaged the aircraft. The film clip was clear evidence that their efforts were not always successful. The erratic path of the napalm cannister was easily corrected by modifying the physical shape of the cannister.

The seven paragraphs above are offered simply as a statement as to why one should not hang weapons on any aircraft in willy-nilly manner just because it’s a neat weapon and it will fit on the weapons station or rack. Obviously, not a single drop of blood is shed or a single piece of high strength aluminum alloy is bent when someone digitally smacks him or herself into the digital ground in a digital A-4E or F/A-18, but strapping on a piece of ordnance that has not or was not cleared for use by that aircraft is not without its negative impact.

Not limiting the ordnance you carry to the ordnance that was cleared for use by that aircraft creates a psychological echo chamber that distorts reality in the same way that politically biased social media sites have done with political discourse around the world. The unintended bias here is the creation of a belief that weapons development is easy and solutions for threats should be quickly forthcoming. When they aren’t readily forthcoming, distrust of the government and the military in general grows, conditions which are not healthy for a representative democracy. While the overall impact may be minor when compared to the falsehoods and wild conspiracy theories that swirl around us, any activity that exacerbates the pervasive distrust that is rampant today in our society should be scrupulously and meticulously avoided.

[Victory205]

I haven’t explored weapons sep dynamics in DCS, and probably won’t, but I doubt that they are realistic in terms of aerodynamic interaction. I’ve never read anything here that references the G loading at release. I have seen video where players were pickling at zero G and holding it for a few seconds. Yikes!

We’re any of those incidents that you described at China Lake (lovely place ) performed at less than one G? 

I’m not sure many here are aware of the trajectory characteristics of Napalm canisters either.

[Calabrone]

.Photowriters I read your very interesting post carefully and I agree that the loads should be as close to reality as possible. In fact in the mission I did to test the Scooter the weapon loads are what in the Mission Editor are considered allowed or very similar to reality. Aware that we are using a simulator, which tries to be as faithful to the original, I do not know if what you have very well exposed has been addressed in part or completely ignored.  I only know that as a virtual pilot of the Huey I use a lot of rockets and in fact on the Scooter I adore the Zuni, which never played any funny tricks. Anyway I enjoy my A4-E trying to stay close to reality as best I can and honestly I look forward to reading your answers. Take care.

[RealA4EPilot]

On 2/15/2022 at 7:14 AM, Victory205 said:

I haven’t explored weapons sep dynamics in DCS, and probably won’t, but I doubt that they are realistic in terms of aerodynamic interaction. I’ve never read anything here that references the G loading at release. I have seen video where players were pickling at zero G and holding it for a few seconds. Yikes!

We’re any of those incidents that you described at China Lake (lovely place ) performed at less than one G? 

I’m not sure many here are aware of the trajectory characteristics of Napalm canisters either.

Hi, Victory,

Well this is my second attempt respond to you. The first time I out smarted myself by closing the response window before I had completed the response.

While I cannot speak with any authority whether any scooter driver at NWC China Lake deliberately or accidentally ever released ordnance with less than one g on the aircraft, I will say it was highly unlikely this was the case. I say that because with the exception of weapons released using the LABS or CP-741, every qualified light attack pilot knew the best chance to hit the targed was to release  bombs, napalm, etc. in unaccelerated flight.

There were two napalm containers we dropped in Vietnam the 1,000lb streamlined Mk79 and the unstreamlined 500lb Mk77. The Mk77 looked more like a beer keg than a piece of ordnance, and had the balistics of beer keg. With its streamlined shape and tail fins, THE MK79 did not tumble. The barrel shaped Mk77 begins to tumble almost as soon as it leaves the aircraft.

The video shows USAF aircraft and the napalm canisters are not Mk77s, but the video gives you an idea of what I'm talking about.

Just two quick side notes, first separation and DCS and second arming wires . if you take the time to pound on youtube and find video of snake eyes or high drag bombs and compare that with DCS snake eye video, you'll notice that real world snakes do not open as soon as they are released. If they opened as quickly as DCS shows the bottom of lots of A-4s would be dented or would have holes in the aircraft skin. I suspect the problem with the DCS digital simulation is that the velocity of the snakes away from the aircraft does not show the effect of impulse of the ejector feet of the bomb racks apply to the bombs.

I've seem some references to arming cords for bombs. Fabric, cotton, hemp, or nylon string is not used to arm a fuse or unlock a snake eye fin. a substantial copper wire with an oval toggle on one end is used on bombs and napalm. the wire is passed through the fuse and secured with fahnestock clips and the toggle end is attached to the arming selenoid in the bomb rack.

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by RealA4EPilot
spellimg

[RealA4EPilot]

12 hours ago, Calabrone said:

Photowriters I read your very interesting post carefully and I agree that the loads should be as close to reality as possible. In fact in the mission I did to test the Scooter the weapon loads are what in the Mission Editor are considered allowed or very similar to reality. Aware that we are using a simulator, which tries to be as faithful to the original, I do not know if what you have very well exposed has been addressed in part or completely ignored.  I only know that as a virtual pilot of the Huey I use a lot of rockets and in fact on the Scooter I adore the Zuni, which never played any funny tricks. Anyway I enjoy my A4-E trying to stay close to reality as best I can and honestly I look forward to reading your answers. Take care.

Dear, Calabrone,

I loved the Zunis especially in a RESCAP situation or on a truck hunting road RECCE. The Zuni has a velocity high enough that ambient winds and the aircraft's track across the ground had a minimal impact on where that rocket was going to hit. Zunis were like shooting a gun. where the nose of the aircraft was pointed is where the Zuni was going to hit. FWIW here's a combat tactic to remember.

If you find an enemy truck convoy, don't try to destroy the trucks one after another starting with the lead truck. Takeout the lead truck and crater the road and then destroy tailend charlie and crater the road behind the last truck. That way you've got all the trucks bottled up and you can pick 'em off one at a time. You can also call in other aircraft to help destroy the convoy. 

[RealA4EPilot]

Better yet, attack both ends of the convoy at the same time with two different aircraft. Need to brief over the air before you attack so you don't have a life ending midair over the center of the convoy.

Bonus Question:  How would you attack a bridge?

[Calabrone]

5 hours ago, photowriters said:

Dear, Calabrone,

I loved the Zunis especially in a RESCAP situation or on a truck hunting road RECCE. The Zuni has a velocity high enough that ambient winds and the aircraft's track across the ground had a minimal impact on where that rocket was going to hit. Zunis were like shooting a gun. where the nose of the aircraft was pointed is where the Zuni was going to hit. FWIW here's a combat tactic to remember.

If you find an enemy truck convoy, don't try to destroy the trucks one after another starting with the lead truck. Takeout the lead truck and crater the road and then destroy tailend charlie and crater the road behind the last truck. That way you've got all the trucks bottled up and you can pick 'em off one at a time. You can also call in other aircraft to help destroy the convoy. 

This tactic was used by Michael Wittmann on June 13, 1944, when in just one hour he destroyed 21 tanks and 28 other armored vehicles of the British 7th Armoured Division near the village of Villers-Bocage. I know it, but honestly I have never applied it with the A4-E. Thank you very much for the tip I will definitely apply it. Hi.

[Calabrone]

5 hours ago, photowriters said:

Better yet, attack both ends of the convoy at the same time with two different aircraft. Need to brief over the air before you attack so you don't have a life ending midair over the center of the convoy.

Bonus Question:  How would you attack a bridge?

As you know I fly solo and use AI as members of my squadron and I can get it to work pretty well. I would attach a bridge lengthwise, meaning I would fly parallel over the bridge and not with the bridge set at 90 degrees to my view. Thanks for the question I find it very interesting because I have only to learn from your answers.

[jurinko]

To attack a bridge call in Phantoms with Paveways. 

@photowriters you should start a separate thread on your own; "Q/A with Skyhawk veteran".

[RealA4EPilot]

10 hours ago, Calabrone said:

As you know I fly solo and use AI as members of my squadron and I can get it to work pretty well. I would attach a bridge lengthwise, meaning I would fly parallel over the bridge and not with the bridge set at 90 degrees to my view. Thanks for the question I find it very interesting because I have only to learn from your answers.

The best way to maximize the chances that you put one or more bombs on the bridge is to for your heading to be 15 to 20 degrees left or right of the longitudinal axis of the bridge, and the AWE-1 should be set so the bombs are 30 to 40 feet apart. While IMHBHAO the A-4 was the most effective attack aircraft in the Vietnam War, combat accuracy of all the aircraft with a simple depressible cunsight like the A-4 was terrible. The A-4 iron bomb, i.e., Mk 80 series, was a 30 to 35 mil system. "mil" is an abbreviation for miliradian. A miliradian is a very small angular measurement. At 1,000 feet, a milliradian subtends an measurement of one foot.

A 35 mil system means a CEP [circular error probable] of 35 mils or 245 feet at the slant range of a single bomb dropped in a 45 degree dive and released at 5,000 feet. A CEP of 245 feet means that half the bombs dropped will land within 245 of the target. Conversely, half the bombs will be further than 245 feet from the target.

If you play around with the numbers you quickly see why a major strike mission against a bridge had 16 to 20 strike aircraft 4 to 6 fighters for air-to-air defense and flak suppression, 4 to 6 Iron Hand, and a half dozen or more ECM [electronic counter measures], EW [early warning], tanker, and SAR [search and rescue] support aircraft.

The reality of a 35 mil system was that the 38 aircraft effort described above it took multiple major strikes to knock down a substantial bridge. There were some bridges like the Thanh Hóa Bridge spanning the Song Ma river we were never able to knock down.

Edited February 16, 2022 by photowriters
data added

[RealA4EPilot]

13 hours ago, jurinko said:

To attack a bridge call in Phantoms with Paveways. 

@photowriters you should start a separate thread on your own; "Q/A with Skyhawk veteran".

Paveway didn't exist in the during the Vietnam War. When the Walleye finally hit the fleet, everyone figured well they will finally knock the Than Hoa bridge down, but the bridge was tougher than the Walleye's shaped charge warhead. Walleye was used very successfully against North Vietnam's electrical infrastructure. As great as Walleye was, it had a significant systemic vulnerability. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by photowriters
spelling

[Armageddon666]

On 2/15/2022 at 2:30 AM, photowriters said:

It looks to me that the Shrike worked as it was designed to.

Generally speaking, there appears to be a misunderstanding of how Shrike works. The AN/AGM-45 is basically a missile that is fired ballistically and is guided to the target by the missile maneuvering so that any azimuth or elevation error is zeroed out, i.e., the missile seeker bore sights the emitting radar maneuvers itself so it's aimed directly at the target and error corrects until the missile hits the target or strikes the ground short of the target radar. The missile is easily defeated by shutting the radar down.

To my memory there is neither a lock-on tone nor a procedure to lock on. It is fired ballistically and locks itself on the strongest target it sees after launch.

 

Thanks for the answer !

So you mean the way the Shrike is currently implemented in the mod, with a lock-on tone, is not realistic ? Interesting.

Searching the web I found this and this which seam to describe the launch sequence of the Shrike. Unfortunately, the first image is out of focus and the text is unreadable. On the second image, top right, there is a sentence regarding "audio tone", which may indicate the pilot could hear when the seeker was detecting a signal, prior to launch. But the text is incomplete, so I'm not sure.

I also noted here that it is said the guidance system was limited to certain radar sources. That makes sense of course.