Realistic 2003 loadout

[Gunfreak]

Any hog experts know what a "typical" A-10 would carry during the Iraq war?

[Yurgon]

I've read books about pretty much every other conflict A-10s were engaged in, just not this one.

AFAIK, they started fielding TGPs right around that timeframe, but did so in Afghanistan first. OAF in '99 was still binoculars only, no TGP to the best of my knowledge.

So in Iraq in 2003 I would assume that they would bring lots of Mavericks, probably the last time Mavs were carried on LAU-88s, and probably only 2 per side (lower and outer rail, to prevent the inner Maverick from potentially damaging the landing gear on launch). Maybe an occasional GBU-12 to be lased from an offboard source like a Strike Eagle or a Tomcat or someone on the ground, but otherwise probably a bunch of Mk-82s, CBUs, and rockets, possibly including smoke rockets to mark targets, especially for AFACs.

But all this is just guesswork on my end.

[av8orDave]

Like Yurgon in the post above, I've read quite a good deal about every other conflict the A-10 served in from this timeframe. Finding info on OIF is surprisingly hard. Having said that, there is a caption in the Osprey book "A-10 Thunderbolt II Units of Operation Enduring Freedom 2002 - 07" that reads "The AN/AAQ-28 Litening II targeting pod... Having served ANG and AFRES units well in OIF in 2003, was issued to active-duty squadrons in Afghanistan later that same year." This seems to indicate the pod was in use in Iraq in '03 and prior.

Outside of the pod, most images of A-10s from this timeframe show one or two AGM-65Ds, a mix of GBU-12s and Mk-82s, and a rocket pod. Overall, relatively lightly loaded. Granted, many of these photos are from Afghanistan, where density altitudes called for lighter loads. 

If I were aiming for realism, I'd put on a TGP, one MAV, a rocket pod, 2 GBU-12s, and 2 Mk-82s.

[Yurgon]

31 minutes ago, davidrbarnette said:

there is a caption in the Osprey book "A-10 Thunderbolt II Units of Operation Enduring Freedom 2002 - 07" that reads "The AN/AAQ-28 Litening II targeting pod... Having served ANG and AFRES units well in OIF in 2003, was issued to active-duty squadrons in Afghanistan later that same year."

Darn. I've got that, but didn't think to look at it.

One other thing that just came to mind: Kim "Killer Chick" Campbell got pretty well known for bringing her badly damaged A-10 back to base during OIF. She's given interviews and these should be pretty easy to find on Youtube. I don't recall if she talks about loadouts, but this would be a good starting point for a first-hand source.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Yurgon

[Dr_Arrow]

52 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

I've read books about pretty much every other conflict A-10s were engaged in, just not this one.

AFAIK, they started fielding TGPs right around that timeframe, but did so in Afghanistan first. OAF in '99 was still binoculars only, no TGP to the best of my knowledge.

So in Iraq in 2003 I would assume that they would bring lots of Mavericks, probably the last time Mavs were carried on LAU-88s, and probably only 2 per side (lower and outer rail, to prevent the inner Maverick from potentially damaging the landing gear on launch). Maybe an occasional GBU-12 to be lased from an offboard source like a Strike Eagle or a Tomcat or someone on the ground, but otherwise probably a bunch of Mk-82s, CBUs, and rockets, possibly including smoke rockets to mark targets, especially for AFACs.

But all this is just guesswork on my end.

... and wouldn't the outer rail Maverick damage optics of the TGP when carried? 

[Yurgon]

3 minutes ago, Dr_Arrow said:

... and wouldn't the outer rail Maverick damage optics of the TGP when carried? 

That is my understanding, yes.

The early adaptation of TGPs was putting them on station 3 or 9 and making the jet basically interface with them like Mavericks, so in OIF (having just learned that A-10s did indeed carry TGPs there in 2003) it would have been pretty unlikely to see a TGP on 2 or 10 to the best of my knowledge. But now I'd have to really hit the books for the details which year they upgraded the wiring in the wings to carry the TGP on 2 or 10. I hope some of the resident experts will have a better memory regarding these details.

Either way, I'm not sure if they ever carried a TGP on 3 or 9 and then a LAU-88 on the opposite side. Possibly yes, probably not.

TGP on 2 or 10 and LAU-88 next to it, I don't think this has ever been used operationally.

[Mr_sukebe]

From reading, 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.  
It’s worth doing a comparison yourself between a lightly armed version and a “full on” max weapons load out to really understand the difference.

[Gunfreak]

I gave my A10 a Tpod, 2 mavs, 1 CBU87, 2 GBU 12 and 2 rocket pods.

Or should I change the GBU to mk82s?

[jaylw314]

22 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

I gave my A10 a Tpod, 2 mavs, 1 CBU87, 2 GBU 12 and 2 rocket pods.

Or should I change the GBU to mk82s?

Nothing says CAS like CBU-87's! 

[Gunfreak]

1 minute ago, jaylw314 said:

Nothing says CAS like CBU-87's! 

Mortars/artillery have a long range and can be spread out. CAS doesn't necessarily mean danger close.

[Yurgon]

19 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Or should I change the GBU to mk82s?

It makes sense to carry LGBs when the jet is equipped with a TGP (not "TPOD" - this ain't no Hornet), but I believe during the shift to guided munitions it would not have been uncommon to bring a mix, so in this case maybe one GBU-12 and one Mk-82. But of course that depends on the mission. Against static and isolated targets, dumb bombs would work better than against moving targets or where collateral damage is going to be a factor. In CAS missions, I would always prefer guided munitions to mitigate the risk of blue-on-blue, but guided munitions also sometimes fail or miss.

2 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Nothing says CAS like CBU-87's! 

In the opening stages of the 2003 invasion, I assume many sorties were targeting ahead of friendly ground forces and operating in a non-CAS environment with less strict weaponeering restrictions.

1 minute ago, Gunfreak said:

Mortars/artillery have a long range and can be spread out. CAS doesn't necessarily mean danger close.

Going against these kinds of weapons could be CAS, but doesn't necessarily have to be CAS, as far as I understand the doctrine.

Either way, it's your mission/scenario, so you can decide whatever you think works best.

[jaylw314]

15 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

In the opening stages of the 2003 invasion, I assume many sorties were targeting ahead of friendly ground forces and operating in a non-CAS environment with less strict weaponeering restrictions.

 

19 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Mortars/artillery have a long range and can be spread out. CAS doesn't necessarily mean danger close.

I know, I just thought it was funny since I fly with a retired JTAC who always groans when he sees me with a bunch of CBUs

[Gunfreak]

17 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

 

I know, I just thought it was funny since I fly with a retired JTAC who always groans when he sees me with a bunch of CBUs

I'll just bring the one. Nice to have in case I come upon an appropriate target.

[Yurgon]

16 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

I know, I just thought it was funny since I fly with a retired JTAC who always groans when he sees me with a bunch of CBUs

A squad buddy recently showed up to a CAS exercise with a single Mk-84 on his Hornet. This was after I'd submitted a CAS request a day prior that said nothing about leveling a medium sized warehouse. I felt the option actually lacked the finesse I had been aiming for. Eventually had him kill a (cold) Zu-23 with it, only to realize it was well within danger close distance for the dozen grunts some Hueys had dropped into the target area a few minutes earlier (The only casualty, though, was a grunt ignoring all the warnings about staying clear of tail rotors. And maybe the guys suffered a burst virtual eardrum or 24).

I guess some people just can't get beyond the "go big or go home" mantra.

[Gunfreak]

6 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

A squad buddy recently showed up to a CAS exercise with a single Mk-84 on his Hornet. This was after I'd submitted a CAS request a day prior that said nothing about leveling a medium sized warehouse. I felt the option actually lacked the finesse I had been aiming for. Eventually had him kill a (cold) Zu-23 with it, only to realize it was well within danger close distance for the dozen grunts some Hueys had dropped into the target area a few minutes earlier (The only casualty, though, was a grunt ignoring all the warnings about staying clear of tail rotors. And maybe the guys suffered a burst virtual eardrum or 24).

I guess some people just can't get beyond the "go big or go home" mantra.

You might have to do CAS against a Decepticon, in which case the mk84 might come in handy.

[av8orDave]

Funny thing about the Mk-84 & GBU-31 conversation is that there are actually a number of photos out there of A-10s carrying a single GBU-31 along with their other CAS ordnance in Iraq & Afghanistan. I've read accounts of insurgents hiding out in buildings or reinforced structures, where a 2,000 lb. bomb comes in as a handy asset. Nothing wrong with having a variety of ordnance to provide a bit of flexibility!

 

null

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

You might have to do CAS against a Decepticon, in which case the mk84 might come in handy.

[Snoopy]

2 hours ago, davidrbarnette said:

Funny thing about the Mk-84 & GBU-31 conversation is that there are actually a number of photos out there of A-10s carrying a single GBU-31 along with their other CAS ordnance in Iraq & Afghanistan. I've read accounts of insurgents hiding out in buildings or reinforced structures, where a 2,000 lb. bomb comes in as a handy asset. Nothing wrong with having a variety of ordnance to provide a bit of flexibility!

 

null

Don’t recall doing it in Afghanistan but we did over Syria/Iraq starting in 2015.

[Snoopy]

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.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Snoopy

[ASAP]

To the best of my knowledge the active duty were all flying the A models without PGM capability. Guns, Mavericks, Rockets for marking, Mark 82/84s, CBU (Maybe that would be mission dependent because of ROE and ground commanders intent). If I were going to make a mission based around 2003 weapons i'd rock something like an ECM pod, 2xAIM-9s, pod of WP rockets, pod of HE rockets, 6x TER mounted  Mark-82s and 4 mavericks (2 Ds on one lau, and 2 Hs on the other).

I've heard flying with LAU-88s and and CBU seperately are like flying with your speed breaks open because they have so much drag so I'd imagine they wouldn't want to carry both at the same time. But I could very well be wrong about that.

Also my understanding is that they only cary 2 Mavericks on the LAU-88 was due to concerns about the flaps being damaged as the engine lights off, not the gear. I've heard this was because there was a time when the technique was to leave the flaps in MVR and rely on the Q sensor to raise/lower the flaps based on airspeed so there was a chance the flaps would be down and directly in the exauhst blast of the maverick if the pilot was slow at pickle. That's all anecdotal and I can't find where I read that so take it that for what its worth.

[Snoopy]

6 minutes ago, ASAP said:

Also my understanding is that they only cary 2 Mavericks on the LAU-88 was due to concerns about the flaps being damaged as the engine lights off, not the gear. I've heard this was because there was a time when the technique was to leave the flaps in MVR and rely on the Q sensor to raise/lower the flaps based on airspeed so there was a chance the flaps would be down and directly in the exauhst blast of the maverick if the pilot was slow at pickle. That's all anecdotal and I can't find where I read that so take it that for what its worth.

Nope they carried three picture are from 2003

On 7/14/2023 at 8:56 AM, Gunfreak said:

Any hog experts know what a "typical" A-10 would carry during the Iraq war?

Here are some pictures I was sent from a friend who deployed...all are from 2003 and are A-10A plus models.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Snoopy

[Gunfreak]

Thanks for the tips guys.

I was pleasantly surprised how well it went. I have like 2 hours total in the A10, and haven't flown it in over a year. But did manage to put bombs, rockets, bullets and missiles on targets.

 

[Gunnar81]

On 7/15/2023 at 10:41 AM, Snoopy said:

Nope they carried three picture are from 2003

Here are some pictures I was sent from a friend who deployed...all are from 2003 and are A-10A plus models.

 

Those are gnarly pics, thanks for sharing. I just love the A-10 in that timeframe, blast from the past!

[Yurgon]

2 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?

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.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Yurgon

[Yurgon]

3 hours ago, Dragan said:

It's a shame that in DCS we can't have skins from this former squadron from the Massachusetts MA base

Did you check the userfiles?