A-10 and Mk83

[Laud]

May I ask why the A-10 (the "A" in LO as well as the "C") doesn't support the Mk83 bombs?

[Scabbers]

May I ask why the A-10 (the "A" in LO as well as the "C") doesn't support the Mk83 bombs?

 

Because the USAF does not use the MK-83. The navy does. USAF uses the MK-82 and MK-84

[Steve Davies]

With the exception of the GBU-32 for the F-22, the US Air Force does not use the Mk.83 LDGP series.

[Laud]

Oh, never knew...

 

Thanks guys!

 

Don't they (USAF) ever feel like I do, when a 82 seems too small while a 84 would be a bit too much?

 

:music_whistling:

[Speed]

Oh, never knew...

 

Thanks guys!

 

Don't they (USAF) ever feel like I do, when a 82 seems too small while a 84 would be a bit too much?

 

:music_whistling:

 

Apparently not, in fact, it seems they think the Mk-82 is too big alot of the time, example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_diameter_bomb

[CAT_101st]

thanks for that little bit of info. I was wondering that as well.

[Laud]

Ok, when you got penetration-techniques that makes things happen... But to destroy tanks or thick concrete with a simple iron bomb a 82 is sometimes a bit too weak. However, thanks for that input! :thumbup:

 

Apparently not, in fact, it seems they think the Mk-82 is too big alot of the time, example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_diameter_bomb

[jalebru]

If you can't take out a t-80 with a single mk-82, might want to resync your mk-1 eyeball so your aim is better.

[Feuerfalke]

I think this a view from the players point of view.

 

With a realistic perspective, based on statistics and hit-ratios, it's unlikely to engage tanks with Mk-82:

If there is a single tank, it's most likely destroyed by a Maverick, if there is a group of tanks, a CBU will do the job.

 

IMHO the advantage of the Mk-82 is the ability to carry a higher number and cover a larger area, whereas the Mk-84 is a good for a bigger punch.

 

 

And besides that, the USAF doesn't have a major problem the NAVY always have to consider: Take-Off-Weight. So when the NAVY goes for a Mk-83 to reduce weight for a carrier-start, the USAF just choose a longer runway. ;)

[TeeJay82]

If you can't take out a t-80 with a single mk-82, might want to resync your mk-1 eyeball so your aim is better.

 

who needs bombs when you got the avenger aboard:D

[mvsgas]

If you can't take out a t-80 with a single mk-82, might want to resync your mk-1 eyeball so your aim is better.

 

Do you mean RL or in the game?

[Laud]

If you can't take out a t-80 with a single mk-82, might want to resync your mk-1 eyeball so your aim is better.

 

Can you from a 12.000ft hard-deck in a windy environment??? :huh: :music_whistling:

[MBot]

And besides that, the USAF doesn't have a major problem the NAVY always have to consider: Take-Off-Weight. So when the NAVY goes for a Mk-83 to reduce weight for a carrier-start, the USAF just choose a longer runway. ;)

 

I think the effect of spreading explosive power over a wider area is an important factor for the Mk-83. I have seen pics of Hornets carrying two Mk-83 on a dual-rack instead of a single Mk-84.

 

No Idea why air force doesn't at least has the option for the Mk-83. The 1000 lb class of bombs also seems to be popular with the Brits.

[Speed]

who needs bombs when you got the avenger aboard:D

 

When you don't want to die maybe? I'm predicting scores of people who won't figure out that it is unwise to recklessly use their GAU-8 until they get shot down the 1000th time, if they ever figure it out at all.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Speed

[Speed]

If you can't take out a t-80 with a single mk-82, might want to resync your mk-1 eyeball so your aim is better.

 

No, I'll just plink them from 20k feet with GBU-12s while you are being tortured in the prison camp because you descended to 3k feet to drop Mk-82s CCIP and got shot down by a guy holding a slingshot.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Speed

[Speed]

I think the effect of spreading explosive power over a wider area is an important factor for the Mk-83. I have seen pics of Hornets carrying two Mk-83 on a dual-rack instead of a single Mk-84.

 

No Idea why air force doesn't at least has the option for the Mk-83. The 1000 lb class of bombs also seems to be popular with the Brits.

 

Russians too

[Laud]

Russians too

 

Damn, where did they get the MK83s from??? :huh: :lol:

[Speed]

Damn, where did they get the MK83s from??? :huh: :lol:

 

Hmm.. FAB-250, FAB-500, FAB-1000.... oh gee, I wonder what number after "FAB-" stands for? Oh yea, maybe it's the approximate weight of the bomb in kilograms! What a novel concept! So guess what 500 kilograms is roughly equivalent to? :huh: :lol:

 

Seriously though, while both FAB-500s and Mk-83s are in the "1000 lb bomb" class, what is the comparison between them? What percentage of bomb weight in the FAB-500 is explosive compared to the Mk-83? I can't find any good online sources for this information.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Speed

[Kuky]

Damn, where did they get the MK83s from??? :huh: :lol:

 

Yeah, he was referring to "...The 1000 lb class of bombs..." :smilewink:

[Frederf]

"The Mk 83 is a streamlined steel casing containing 445 lb (202 kg) of Tritonal high explosive." --Wiki

 

Don't know what the FAB-500 is but it's probably a different chemical compound so it's apples and oranges.

[Laud]

Yeah, he was referring to "...The 1000 lb class of bombs..." :smilewink:

 

I know! I was just joking... That's why i put this -> :lol: guy behind.

[Speed]

I know! I was just joking... That's why i put this -> :lol: guy behind.

 

Sorry then. It seemed to me at the time that you were ridiculing me and laughing at me, and it was offensive, though somewhat amusing because you were so clearly wrong.

[Kuky]

Sorry then. It seemed to me at the time that you were ridiculing me and laughing at me, and it was offensive, though somewhat amusing because you were so clearly wrong.

 

That's what I thought also

[Laud]

Oooops, sorry... Thought it was clear...