Weapons?

[NoodI]

What kind of air to ground and air to air weapons and guided weapons should we expect from the corsair, and what targeting pods did it carry?

[WinterH]

5 minutes ago, NoodI said:

and what targeting pods did it carry?

None, there is a FLIR pod but afaik it is a navigation tool for night flying.

As for the weapons, it will depend what year our bird will be to some degree I'd think. But, air to air: up to AIM-9Ms, air to ground guided stuff: AGM-45, AGM-88, AGM-62, bombs: lots of all sorts of iron bombs, and many cool modes of delivery for them, LGBs can be carried but no self lasing, rockets of both 2.75 inch and Zuni varieties.

[Dragon1-1]

I hope we'll get the GBU-8 HOBOS. Heatblur is probably going to work on it for the Phantom, so it should be available. In general, the armament selection will probably be similar to what the Phantom will get, minus the TGPs and Sparrows. 

[WinterH]

Just now, Dragon1-1 said:

I hope we'll get the GBU-8 HOBOS. Heatblur is probably going to work on it for the Phantom, so it should be available. In general, the armament selection will probably be similar to what the Phantom will get, minus the TGPs and Sparrows. 

Not entirely sure, but afaik we shouldn't, as that's an air force weapon that may have seen use of A-7Ds probably. Honestly though, we should be getting AGM-62, which is basically the same thing, arguably better even.

Walleye can be used either as a fire and forget weapon, or a man in the loop weapon if you have the datalink pod onboard. Also, unlike the Phantom we shouldn't get Mavericks, also a A-7D only thing, but on the flipside, if our A-7E will be late enough, also unlike F-4E, we should get AGM-88 HARMs. Zunis shouldn't be available on F-4E either. According to some info you can find online, not even the 2.75 inch rockets despite being listed in manuals weren't used on F-4 in practice as apparently they caused engine surge problems from ingestion of smoke and debris, but I think we'll most likely get them in F-4.

As far as I know, bombing in A-7 will be slightly more akin to AJS 37 Viggen we have in that it will have pre-planned modes to deliver ordnance on coordinates, but it will also have CCIP modes that are more familiar than Viggen's bombing symbology.

[Bremspropeller]

35 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Also, unlike the Phantom we shouldn't get Mavericks, also a A-7D only thing, but on the flipside, if our A-7E will be late enough, also unlike F-4E, we should get AGM-88 HARMs.

You don't see Mavericks carried too often, but apparently they were part of the spectrum (AGM-65F):

 

[Dragon1-1]

4 hours ago, WinterH said:

Not entirely sure, but afaik we shouldn't, as that's an air force weapon that may have seen use of A-7Ds probably. Honestly though, we should be getting AGM-62, which is basically the same thing, arguably better even.

A-7E is basically a navalized A-7D. The HOBOS wasn't widely used even by the USAF and the Navy didn't have them, but it's probably certified for the A-7E, just in case. AFAIK, they use the same wiring as the Maverick and Walleye do, and the A-7E can carry Mavs.

CCRP and CCIP in the A-7E will be similar to what we currently have in the Viper. The F-16A used the same HUD as the A-7, and avionics in the early version were quite similar. Modern variants of the Viper have different avionics, but retain large parts of the old logic.

[NoodI]

Could it do any anti ship? 

[Avimimus]

It is certified for at least one type of gunpod, correct?

[Bremspropeller]

18 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

It is certified for at least one type of gunpod, correct?

IIRC that was a USAF loadout.

Then again, you'll have over 1000 rounds of 20mm-brrrt internally

[RaisedByWolves]

On 1/2/2023 at 3:43 AM, Bremspropeller said:

You don't see Mavericks carried too often, but apparently they were part of the spectrum (AGM-65F):

 

She is an ugly bastard but will soon be our ugly bastard.

[QuiGon]

On 1/2/2023 at 6:53 PM, NoodI said:

Could it do any anti ship? 

It could drop bombs on ships, yeah.

[Bremspropeller]

It could also drop sea-mines and a large Bullpup (AGM-12C) would certainly leave a dent in most ships. Not sure if those were carried over into the A-7E, though.

A-6A and an A-7 with mines.

More mining in progress....

 

[yngvef]

I seem to recall them saying (in 1975) that it could carry "any air-to-ground ordnance available in NATO". That might have been an exaggeration though, however I think there's a lot to choose from.

Though most of the time, in Vietnam for example, it carried mostly Mk-80-series iron bombs as far as I understand.

[Harlikwin]

On 1/1/2023 at 1:28 PM, WinterH said:

None, there is a FLIR pod but afaik it is a navigation tool for night flying.

As for the weapons, it will depend what year our bird will be to some degree I'd think. But, air to air: up to AIM-9Ms, air to ground guided stuff: AGM-45, AGM-88, AGM-62, bombs: lots of all sorts of iron bombs, and many cool modes of delivery for them, LGBs can be carried but no self lasing, rockets of both 2.75 inch and Zuni varieties.

The LANA pod was basically a hudflir like we have in the harrier, it also had a low mag zoom mode (2x IIRC), so for example it could be used for CCIP deliveries on targets as one example. but it was used for night navigation more.  Hopefully they can model it similarly to the F15E navflir. 

On 1/2/2023 at 8:12 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

CCRP and CCIP in the A-7E will be similar to what we currently have in the Viper. The F-16A used the same HUD as the A-7, and avionics in the early version were quite similar. Modern variants of the Viper have different avionics, but retain large parts of the old logic.

I mean sort of, what we have is a much later version of the hud/systems. It was similar to the early 16A huds, but our 16C hud is way later. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Dragon1-1]

The HUD is much later, but the logic that drives what is shown on the HUD is surprisingly similar. It's descended from the original F-16A HUD, which in turn is pretty much the same as the A-7 HUD. The big difference is that most of what you do with dials on the F-16A HUD, you do with DED and MFDs on the F-16C. CCIP and CCRP implementation would not have changed between them, though obviously the new HUD displays much more information, and it has the EEGS gunsight which would be absent on the A-7.

[Silver_Dragon]

On 1/4/2023 at 12:48 PM, Bremspropeller said:

It could also drop sea-mines and a large Bullpup (AGM-12C) would certainly leave a dent in most ships. Not sure if those were carried over into the A-7E, though.

A-6A and an A-7 with mines.

More mining in progress....

 

Expected ED implemented them, has a "missing" feature from F/A-18C never implement.

[AG-51_Razor]

Regarding that picture above of the A-7 with the MAVs loaded, how would they be delivered without a TGP?

[Dr_Pavelheer]

@AG-51_Razor If were to guess similarly to F16 in VIS mode or Viggen

[Gunfreak]

On 10/12/2023 at 8:50 PM, AG-51_Razor said:

Regarding that picture above of the A-7 with the MAVs loaded, how would they be delivered without a TGP?

Like how all mavs were originally used. Their camera.

[Dragon1-1]

You can display the camera image on a radar screen. Yes, they're limited to what the missile can see, but back then it was pretty good.

[Harlikwin]

36 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You can display the camera image on a radar screen. Yes, they're limited to what the missile can see, but back then it was pretty good.

It wasn't very good. Most mav engagments were like 1 mile shots, if that because they could barely see anything. 

[Dragon1-1]

Yes, and the alternative was dumb bombs or the manually guided Bullpup, which required you to come even closer. Compared to them? I'd say the Mav was really good for the era it appeared in. You could get to one mile, lock on and pull away. No staring at the tail flare, no fiddling with the zot box, no missing with the whole damn stick because the target had moved a little to the side.

Of course, we have better PGMs now. Back in A-7's heyday, when they first appeared, the A model Mav was revolutionary. Even if they did like to go for a tactical bush once in a while.  

Edited October 17, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[Gunfreak]

14 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

It wasn't very good. Most mav engagments were like 1 mile shots, if that because they could barely see anything. 

Even now I can bearly see anything using the mav cam in the F16.

I usually can only pick up targets at 2 miles out. (Unless they are in the completely open and I know exactly where they are from before)

[Harlikwin]

9 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Even now I can bearly see anything using the mav cam in the F16.

I usually can only pick up targets at 2 miles out. (Unless they are in the completely open and I know exactly where they are from before)

I mean, thats not really that unreasonable. If read about it, they were hard for fast movers to employ. One of the reasons the A10 guys got more use out of them was because usually the target was outrunning them.

 

[Shrike88]

Has there been any further recent updates on the progress of the module ? seems all I find are old posts.