Realistic 2003 loadout

[Snoopy]

13 hours ago, Dragan said:

How is it possible that only one Maverick is installed while on the other side there is a TGP instead of Maverick?Am I seeing this correctly?

Said it in the original post, they are A-10A+ (plus) models.  Basically an upgrade the Guard and AF reserve did prior to the A-10C upgrade.

11 hours ago, Yurgon said:

You mean the TGP on station 9 instead of station 10? See above, when the Litening TGP was first fielded it used the same interface and wiring that the Mavericks already used on stations 3 and 9 - the aircraft didn't even "know" there was a TGP there. Putting the TGP on stations 2 or 10 and making full use of it required new wiring, which was part of the upgrades that led to the A-10C and that also included the completely new HOTAS integration.

 

Not completely accurate but close.  The “plus” upgrade wasn’t as simple as you put it.

“The A-10A+ program leverages BAE’s smart color displays, which were installed as upgrades in a number of ANG and Reserve aircraft during 2006 to provide moving map displays et. al. Under A-10A+, the same SADL(Situational Awareness Data Link) radios used by the A-10Cs are inserted to receive information re: the position of friendly forces, and that information is routed through the smart color display into the pilot’s Head Up Display (HUD) for viewing.”

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kicked-up-hogs-the-a-10a-program-04217/

Edited August 22, 2023 by Snoopy

[Yurgon]

1 hour ago, Snoopy said:

Not completely accurate but close.  The “plus” upgrade wasn’t as simple as you put it.

[...]

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kicked-up-hogs-the-a-10a-program-04217/

Interesting read, thanks!

Not sure how I misrepresented any of the data in that article, or anything about the A-10A+ upgrade vs. the A-10C development, though. But yes, it was a fairly broad description; for me these details are stuff I read in books, I wasn't there when it happened.

[Snoopy]

18 hours ago, Yurgon said:

Interesting read, thanks!

Not sure how I misrepresented any of the data in that article, or anything about the A-10A+ upgrade vs. the A-10C development, though. But yes, it was a fairly broad description; for me these details are stuff I read in books, I wasn't there when it happened.

For one "the aircraft didn't even "know" there was a TGP there." isn't true in the A-10A+ the jet did know it was there, it wasn't just toss a TGP on the station using the same wiring and old TV screen the A model had for the maverick, the cockpit had a new TV and interface that replaced the old TV screen.  I can't find any pictures of it anymore to show you though.

[kotor633]

Hi,

I'm currently looking for realistic loadouts for the A-10C and came across the following page:

https://warthognews.blogspot.com/2010/02/latest-known-operation-enduring-freedom.html

[candydonzs]

I got the impression that they were usually fairly lightly armed, eg no more than 1 weapon per pylon, mainly to maintain their agility and speed.  

krnl download
hdstreamz.uno
 

[TheGhostOfDefi]

4 hours ago, candydonzs said:

I got the impression that they were usually fairly lightly armed, eg no more than 1 weapon per pylon, mainly to maintain their agility and speed.  

krnl download
hdstreamz.uno
 

Well if you Look at loadouts used in Coin Missions it’s no wonder because loiter time is very important there. A strength of the A-10 in general. 
In symmetric conflicts on the other hand you are right, they rather divide the ordnance between multiple planes. In contradiction to this: especially in the opening days of a symmetric conflict, like Desert Storm for example, you saw planes going fairly heavy loaded. But other than that, yeah…

[A10Yoda]

On 7/15/2023 at 5:03 AM, Snoopy said:

Something additionally to consider when it comes to the TGP in 03…the guard and reserve could carry them because they upgraded to A-10A+ and active duty didn’t.  The TGP could only be carried on station 9.  

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kicked-up-hogs-the-a-10a-program-04217/

The first C model didn’t fly until 2005.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/135132/c-model-a-10-takes-first-flight/

I’ll dig through some old pictures from back then and upload sometime this weekend.

 

I believe you meant, didn't fly "in combat."  I seem to recall a few at the end of 2004 flying.  The guys still deployed, did not get their upgrade until they got back.

[ASAP]

On 11/27/2023 at 8:14 AM, TheGhostOfDefi said:

Well if you Look at loadouts used in Coin Missions it’s no wonder because loiter time is very important there. A strength of the A-10 in general. 
In symmetric conflicts on the other hand you are right, they rather divide the ordnance between multiple planes. In contradiction to this: especially in the opening days of a symmetric conflict, like Desert Storm for example, you saw planes going fairly heavy loaded. But other than that, yeah…

I think another reason is that as more percision weapons were used you could get away with carrying less bombs. when carrying dumb bombs pilots would prefer to ripple more bombs because 1 bomb alone probably wont get desired weapons effects. With LGBs you can be a lot more confident that your 1 bomb is going to shack the target, so you don't have to bring fully loaded TERs anymore.

Mission sets where collateral damage are a concern also drove the use of more percision guided munitions and ground commanders had a much lower appetite for dumb bombs.

[Snoopy]

On 11/30/2023 at 10:33 PM, A10Yoda said:

I believe you meant, didn't fly "in combat."  I seem to recall a few at the end of 2004 flying.  The guys still deployed, did not get their upgrade until they got back.

Nope meant what I typed.  Guard/reserve could because A-10A+ (plus), AD couldn’t. 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Snoopy

[av8orDave]

On 12/1/2023 at 8:31 AM, ASAP said:

I think another reason is that as more percision weapons were used you could get away with carrying less bombs. when carrying dumb bombs pilots would prefer to ripple more bombs because 1 bomb alone probably wont get desired weapons effects. With LGBs you can be a lot more confident that your 1 bomb is going to shack the target, so you don't have to bring fully loaded TERs anymore.

Mission sets where collateral damage are a concern also drove the use of more percision guided munitions and ground commanders had a much lower appetite for dumb bombs.

This is a big consideration. If you look at loadouts used by the A-6 in Vietnam, for example, they weren’t carrying 12 or 18 MK-82’s because they were bombing multiple targets… they were carrying them because they’d have to ripple them off over a half mile area to try to hit anything. You don’t need to do that with precision weapons, eliminating the need for massive loadouts.