A-10 loadouts

[Ramstein]

http://www.bobheffner.com/OVERLAYS/A10LOAD.PDF

 

I was wondering why I cannot load Harms missles on the A-10. I see that harms (AGM-88) missles are listed as a loadout..

 

is this a bug, or is the A-10A the wrong model?

 

I tried adding them as a custom loadout, I still could not add them..

[EtherealN]

AFAIK the A10 doesn't employ HARMs - at least not A-model hogs. SEAD isn't quite a CAS mission after all. I haven't looked too close at the C-model though. That PDF is the first time I see AGM-88 listed for hogs...

 

EDIT: Wait, is that a keyboard overlay for a 1995 flight sim? Not exactly authoritative even though it does have A10 Cuba as an offspring to boost it's pedigree.

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

Never heard of HARM being integrated onto A-10. My initial reaction to that link would be to say that you can read a lot of nonsense on the Internet. I'd also agree with EtherealN that a keyboard overlay to an old game isn't much proof......

[Ramstein]

OK, I cannot find any information (using Internet searches) that shows the A-10 using AGM-88 HARMS. So, that' ok, if they didn't, then, they did not..

 

:joystick:

[Ramstein]

more discussions on the A-10 loadouts and Sams:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/115773/1/

[Avilator]

One more (not online) source: The Modern Hog Guide makes no mention of HARMs either.

[Feuerfalke]

It's a game manual. Why do you take it for real? :music_whistling:

[Skoop]

I would be more happy with the A-10 being able to carry more Mavericks. All those hard points and you can only carry 4 AM-65Ds really sucks. FC2 definately killed the uber untouchable myth pedistal I had the A-10 on. If you could pile on Mavericks to every hardpoint, the aircraft would be so much more effective. I wish you load up 12 Mavs instead of 4. FC2 showed me that the A-10 needs some serious modernization if we ever take on a sophisticated foe.

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

I would be more happy with the A-10 being able to carry more Mavericks. All those hard points and you can only carry 4 AM-65Ds really sucks. FC2 definately killed the uber untouchable myth pedistal I had the A-10 on. If you could pile on Mavericks to every hardpoint, the aircraft would be so much more effective. I wish you load up 12 Mavs instead of 4. FC2 showed me that the A-10 needs some serious modernization if we ever take on a sophisticated foe.

 

When the A-10 was originally designed, only pylons 3 and 9 were wired up for Maverick use.

 

The recent A-10 upgrade to the A-10C does not appear to have added to that. I can only assume that drag and weight issues are the reason. The accounts I've read of A-10 usage in GW1 and GW2 tend to have the A-10 carrying only 2 or 4 Mavs on actual missions, so I guess the USAF feel that the aircraft is currently adequate as is.

[Skoop]

I guess the problems I had flying the A-10 in the FC2 campaign and constantly running out of mavs and rtb for reload could have been resolved by the wingman using his more effectively and not being such cannon foddar.

In a high intensity conlict such as the FC2 campaign, the mav is so good at allowing the A-10 to kill from distance and stay out of harms way. You would think the USAF would want to increase this ability and wire up to carry more mavs inspite of weight / drag issues.

[GGTharos]

You should only be loading 2 mavericks at a time anyway, unless you're facing a Fulda gap scenario which - let's face it - you're not. And if you were, your chances of returning wouldn't be good ;)

 

The A-10 does most of its work, at least AFAIK, with a 2-mav, 4-6 bomb payload normally.

 

The '500000000 weapons onboard' mentality is for flight sim players only. A real pilot is unlikely to use up his weapons for a variety of reasons, and likewise, he is unlikely to take more than the standard for a variety of reasons (including drag and weight, as well as the fact that you just won't be getting to use a larger amount of weapons under normal circumstances).

 

You should aim at dropping 4 bombs on a bunch of enemies and taking whatever kills you get with you (and prefferably use CCRP while at it ... prevents you from going down below 10000' where the nasty little SAMs live), and use your 2 mavs for the nastier of air defenses, or harder targets.

 

As for the USAF wanting to wite up more mavs due to weight/drag issues? They seem to be in disagreement with you - the A-10C uses JDAMs and LGB's instead. Drag (The primary enemy, probably more so than weight) wastes fuel and prevents you from climbing as fast as you can, and keeps you out of high altitudes you could use otherwise. Yeah, I know - all you A-10 junkies only think about flying below 200' ;) Try 30000'. Yes, you can.

 

FYI, in the campaign I have not had any problems taking out my primary targets using the 2+4+gun setup. And yes, the wingman could do a little better.

 

I would be more happy with the A-10 being able to carry more Mavericks. All those hard points and you can only carry 4 AM-65Ds really sucks. FC2 definately killed the uber untouchable myth pedistal I had the A-10 on. If you could pile on Mavericks to every hardpoint, the aircraft would be so much more effective. I wish you load up 12 Mavs instead of 4. FC2 showed me that the A-10 needs some serious modernization if we ever take on a sophisticated foe.

Edited May 5, 2010 by GGTharos

[EtherealN]

allowing the A-10 to kill from distance and stay out of harms way. You would think the USAF would want to increase this ability and wire up to carry more mavs inspite of weight / drag issues.

 

...or it could drop LGB's and JDAMs from 30k feet up and 20nm* out, like the A10C... ;)

 

*Number out of my behind - I don't quite recall the actual attack profile of the C.

Edited May 5, 2010 by EtherealN

[159th_Viper]

...from 30k feet up.......

 

Now don't you go falling for that too......It's all a Cunning Plan cooked up by GG to get all the Bombers up to his altitude so he doesn't have to go looking for them :P

 

As an aside, never really relied too much on Mav's.....apart from the occasional SEAD engagement. As such, numbers not really an issue. Looking forward to the Smart-Bombs though :)

[GGTharos]

Fighters and Medium/High altitude SAMs obviously change everything :P

 

But people fly like they're around even when they're not, and IMHO they are shorting themselves that way.

[EtherealN]

Now don't you go falling for that too......It's all a Cunning Plan cooked up by GG to get all the Bombers up to his altitude so he doesn't have to go looking for them :P

 

He already got me up there - flying Eagles on his wing. Comsicomsi up to angels 30 Viper! :D

[159th_Viper]

He already got me up there - flying Eagles on his wing. Comsicomsi up to angels 30 Viper! :D

 

Me - Straddle a Budgie? Never!!! :P

 

In any event - Toad vs Budgie.......It's a Lose-Lose Situation........

 

 

.............

 

 

...................

 

 

 

:D

[VTJS17_Fire]

Try 30000'. Yes, you can.

 

I fly always between Angels 10 and 20. But this altitude is only a good choice, if your tasks are AFAC or BAI/ ground attack.

If your task is CAS, so you have to go low (not 200 feet but 3.000 to 5.000 feet) and attack them (such as men with ak47) with your gun. Because this is still the A-10s primary weapon (for this task).

 

 

kind regards,

fire

[GGTharos]

I think in this case you should be able to attack with the gun from almost 5nm slant, and you can just drop dumb bombs on them anyway ... and yes, AFAC would really help.

[VTJS17_Fire]

I think in this case you should be able to attack with the gun from almost 5nm slant, and you can just drop dumb bombs on them anyway ... and yes, AFAC would really help.

 

Between our men and the enemy 50 to 100 meters and drop dump bombs? Then you shouldn't say, if you drop the bombs, "bombs gone" but "sorry man". :music_whistling: :lol:

 

 

kind regards,

fire

[GGTharos]

No, in that case you wouldn't use an A-10. You'd use an attack helicopter.

[VTJS17_Fire]

No, in that case you wouldn't use an A-10. You'd use an attack helicopter.

 

The USAF use the hog in that cases gladly. :smilewink:

 

But, back to topic.

 

 

kind regards,

fire

[MBot]

Regarding the "limited" AGM-65 armament of the A-10, one should remember that even in the high-threat environment of Germany the A-10 only carried 2 or 4 Mavs and the gun. Except for ECM and later Sidewinders, the other stations remained empty. The reasons for this are simple and plausible. More stores would simply slow it down and kill its maneuverability, which the A-10 needed to exploit the terrain and evade threats. This effect is already noticable in FC2 and I expect that this will be fully felt with DCS: Warthog. The other reason is that you would not have done multiple passes on targets. After the first attack, you can be sure that the AA guns on tanks are manned and ready, Shilkas and SA-13 trained in your direction and Igla teams deployed from their rides. The A-10 was not expected to whipe out complete tank companies, that was the job of the Cobras and Apaches. Rather the A-10 was to strike key targets like Shilkas (to allow the Cobras to do their job) or to create traffic jams in bottlenecks (to buy time for the ground forces). A single destroyed T-80 blocking the way for 30 more tanks is worth a lot.

[Dudikoff]

No, in that case you wouldn't use an A-10. You'd use an attack helicopter.

 

As for the USAF wanting to wite up more mavs due to weight/drag issues? They seem to be in disagreement with you - the A-10C uses JDAMs and LGB's instead. Drag (The primary enemy, probably more so than weight) wastes fuel and prevents you from climbing as fast as you can, and keeps you out of high altitudes you could use otherwise. Yeah, I know - all you A-10 junkies only think about flying below 200' Try 30000'. Yes, you can.

 

Yeah, but I don't see the benefits of using the A-10 at 10,000 m if you have other options (like F-15/16) which have more acquisition options (i.e. radar), better ECM, faster reaction time, can defend themselves and can get the hell out of Dodge, if needed.

 

Updating A-10s for dropping LGBs from high altitudes seems more like giving it extra mission options just to keep it from being scrapped by some Congress bureaucrats than it being particulary suited for that.

[MBot]

Yeah, but I don't see the benefits of using the A-10 at 10,000 m if you have other options (like F-15/16) which have more acquisition options (i.e. radar), better ECM, faster reaction time, can defend themselves and can get the hell out of Dodge, if needed.

 

Updating A-10s for dropping LGBs from high altitudes seems more like giving it extra mission options just to keep it from being scrapped by some Congress bureaucrats than it being particulary suited for that.

 

There is some truthe in that. I guess the biggest advantage the A-10 has in that scenario is loiter time. But then it doesn't have the speed to cover a larger area with good reaction time...

 

I still propose to take an B-767/A-330, add a pair of targeting pods and an array of LGBs for your modern A-G needs :)

[GGTharos]

Minimum safe distances for 500lb bomb drops are definitely beyond 50m last I checked ... not to mention that + CEP. A-10's will not likely engage in such proximity to troops except by mistake.

 

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/1997/MAR_APR_1997/MAR_APR_1997_PAGES_8_10.pdf

Edited May 6, 2010 by GGTharos