So when are we getting MK-83, GBU-16, GBU-32, MK-77, LAU-61..........

[b101uk]

So when are we getting MK-83, GBU-16, GBU-32, MK-77, LAU-61 (19 x 70mm launcher) or the ~36” long nose fuse for the MK-80’s for above ground detonation or the ability to change fuse/timing during ordinance selection/loading?

[Outlaw24]

I think the US Navy is the only branch that use the MK-83, the USAF only use the MK-84's and differenent versions of MK-82's.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Outlaw24

[Damage]

Mk-77's would be nice. I love the smell of Napalm in the morning ;-)

[AlphaOneSix]

The Mk-77, like the Mk-83 weapons (which includes the GBU-16 and the GBU-32) are only used by the USN/USMC, so we're not going to see them on the A-10.

[skouras]

what about Nevada map

[WRFirefox]

LOL:megalol:

 

Maybe b101uk means: "So when are we getting the F/A-18C?":pilotfly:

[nomdeplume]

How about being able to carry something other than a fuel tank on the center pylon? According to this, common loadout in Operation Enduring Freedom is with a Mk-82LD on the centerline. Even has photos!

 

Also notable is the TGP on station 9 (instead of 10/2 in the sim) and the SUU-25 flare dispenser.

[Frostiken]

I want DCS: F-15E for two reasons:

 

Small Diameter Bombs

AGM-130s

 

 

:D :D :D

[b101uk]

The USAF have plenty of MK-83 in their inventory though the US Navy do use lots, BUT all the munitions are legitimate payloads of the A-10A/C and there is no technical reasoning as to why if you can use MK-82 & MK-84 or there derivatives (GBU’s) as to why you could not use MK-83 or its derivative GBU’s, its not as if any of the above haven’t been used on A-10 with MER or have only been fit tested given if your operating from bases which also have F-16 etc operating from them or joint USAF/USMC/USN air bases/air stations/FOB/NAF etc there are going to be MK-83, GBU-16, GBU-32 + MER etc etc around to use (that’s without including joint bases with allies using F-18 or Tornado who use the MK-80/GBU family of bombs)

 

The campaigns depicted would all require heavy reliance on fleet auxiliary etc for supply and multi service joint operating airbases given the Montreux Convention of 1936 which lets Turkey limit military ships especially capital ships (as defined by the London Naval Treaty of 1936) threw the Bosporus/Sea of Marmara thus precluding any big US aircraft carriers from getting into the black sea.

Edited May 9, 2011 by b101uk
added the Montreux Convention of 1936.........

[AlphaOneSix]

How about being able to carry something other than a fuel tank on the center pylon? According to this, common loadout in Operation Enduring Freedom is with a Mk-82LD on the centerline. Even has photos!

 

Also notable is the TGP on station 9 (instead of 10/2 in the sim) and the SUU-25 flare dispenser.

 

Not sure if it matters (re: the bomb on station 6) but those are all A-10A models. Suite 2 upgrade to the A-10A had the Litening AT pod on station 3 or 9.

[Chris CDN]

So when are we getting MK-83, GBU-16, GBU-32, MK-77, LAU-61 (19 x 70mm launcher) or the ~36” long nose fuse for the MK-80’s for above ground detonation or the ability to change fuse/timing during ordinance selection/loading?

 

I'm pretty sure I heard Tuesday.

[Rainmaker]

The USAF have plenty of MK-83 in their inventory though the US Navy do use lots, BUT all the munitions are legitimate payloads of the A-10A/C and there is no technical reasoning as to why if you can use MK-82 & MK-84 or there derivatives (GBU’s) as to why you could not use MK-83 or its derivative GBU’s, its not as if any of the above haven’t been used on A-10 with MER or have only been fit tested given if your operating from bases which also have F-16 etc operating from them or joint USAF/USMC/USN air bases/air stations/FOB/NAF etc there are going to be MK-83, GBU-16, GBU-32 + MER etc etc around to use (that’s without including joint bases with allies using F-18 or Tornado who use the MK-80/GBU family of bombs)

 

The campaigns depicted would all require heavy reliance on fleet auxiliary etc for supply and multi service joint operating airbases.

 

 

I am going to have to call you on this. Considering every USAF fighter manual I have seen does not have this as a configuration. Also of note, I am going on 12 years in the active duty AF and have yet to see a Mk-83 or any any version of a gbu outside of the normal loads(31's, 38's, 12's, 10's, 24's, etc) on an USAF fighter. And this coming from a -15 guy, so I have seen about everything the AF inventory has loaded at one time or another. So if I am wrong them by all means provide me the right FACTUAL info, but I am going to go ahead and say that you are not speaking in anyway correctly about what you are talking about.

[HiJack]

I'm pretty sure I heard Tuesday.

No, I guess you heard one of the programmers say "I'm thirsty" :D

[Bullitt]

I want DCS: F-15E for two reasons:

 

Small Diameter Bombs

AGM-130s

 

 

 

And a synthetic aperture radar plus the ability to play a WSO online with people. This would be pure win.

[b101uk]

I am going to have to call you on this. Considering every USAF fighter manual I have seen does not have this as a configuration. Also of note, I am going on 12 years in the active duty AF and have yet to see a Mk-83 or any any version of a gbu outside of the normal loads(31's, 38's, 12's, 10's, 24's, etc) on an USAF fighter. And this coming from a -15 guy, so I have seen about everything the AF inventory has loaded at one time or another. So if I am wrong them by all means provide me the right FACTUAL info, but I am going to go ahead and say that you are not speaking in anyway correctly about what you are talking about.

 

Well Mr “12 years in the active duty AF” it works both ways! ;)

Provide a technical reason why “ Mk-83 or derivative GBU” cannot be used either with or without a MER on an A-10/F-16 etc, if you can provide no technical reasoning as to why they cannot be used and given the A-10 is perhaps as old or older than you and the MK-80’s are even older are you going to say that the MK-83 has never departed a rack or MER of a USAF A-10/F-16. :P

 

You would have to be extremely dumb to preclude the use of MK-83 or derivative GBU from compatibility of a launch platform such as the A-10/F-16 even if its not the normal every day payload/inventory. :music_whistling:

 

so given the campaign’s/mission possibilities offered in game along with geographical & logistical constraints on supply or the fact that in real life no USN carrier with catapults would be in the black sea you would have a lot of multi service air bases just so you can keep an amount of capability close to hand. :thumbup:

[Frostiken]

Just because it *could* be put on an aircraft doesn't mean they bothered to spend the money test flying it, measuring jettison parameters, fine-tuning the whole thing, and programming it into the computers.

[Speed]

I want DCS: F-15E for two reasons:

 

Small Diameter Bombs

AGM-130s

 

 

:D :D :D

 

Yes, but if we get DCS: F/A-18C, then we should be getting AGM-84E, extended range version. It looks like the F/A-18C can carry the SLAM-ER, though, I wouldn't mind someone with more knowledge on the subject (lots of those folks on here) confirming or denying that.

 

SLAM-ER is like our own little cruise missile we get to steer after launch and can go like 150 miles :thumbup:

 

AGM-130 on the F-15E is really nice too, though. Either of them would add some seriously awesome striking power.

[Merlin216]

Well Mr “12 years in the active duty AF” it works both ways! ;)

Provide a technical reason why “ Mk-83 or derivative GBU” cannot be used either with or without a MER on an A-10/F-16 etc, if you can provide no technical reasoning as to why they cannot be used and given the A-10 is perhaps as old or older than you and the MK-80’s are even older are you going to say that the MK-83 has never departed a rack or MER of a USAF A-10/F-16. :P

 

You would have to be extremely dumb to preclude the use of MK-83 or derivative GBU from compatibility of a launch platform such as the A-10/F-16 even if its not the normal every day payload/inventory. :music_whistling:

 

so given the campaign’s/mission possibilities offered in game along with geographical & logistical constraints on supply or the fact that in real life no USN carrier with catapults would be in the black sea you would have a lot of multi service air bases just so you can keep an amount of capability close to hand. :thumbup:

 

What grounds do you have to speak on? Are you using logic or credible experience like Rainmaker? Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it will be done. Factual evidence would be nice, especially before you go and callout someone with a credible background.

[Arclight]

It's "Ka-50 should have AA missiles!1!" all over again. :(

 

ED models load-outs that are actually used, not what is theoretically possible.

[David A Sell]

I am going to have to call you on this. Considering every USAF fighter manual I have seen does not have this as a configuration. Also of note, I am going on 12 years in the active duty AF and have yet to see a Mk-83 or any any version of a gbu outside of the normal loads(31's, 38's, 12's, 10's, 24's, etc) on an USAF fighter. And this coming from a -15 guy, so I have seen about everything the AF inventory has loaded at one time or another. So if I am wrong them by all means provide me the right FACTUAL info, but I am going to go ahead and say that you are not speaking in anyway correctly about what you are talking about.

 

 

+1 sir...

[GGTharos]

Well Mr “12 years in the active duty AF” it works both ways! ;)

 

No, it doesn't.

 

Provide a technical reason why “ Mk-83 or derivative GBU” cannot be used either with or without a MER on an A-10/F-16 etc,

 

He doesn't need to provide a technical reason. All he has to do is tell you that the USAF does not use them, period, end of story. There is no 'technical' reason that you couldn't launch any weapon from any platform if you want to do so. There is 'we use' and 'we do not use'. The USAF does not use them.

 

You would have to be extremely dumb to preclude the use of MK-83 or derivative GBU from compatibility of a launch platform such as the A-10/F-16 even if its not the normal every day payload/inventory. :music_whistling:

 

No, he just has to know they're not part of inventory. It's interesting you want to call someone who knows how it is dumb while assuming you know everything ;)

 

We done?

[b101uk]

No, it doesn't.

 

 

 

He doesn't need to provide a technical reason. All he has to do is tell you that the USAF does not use them, period, end of story. There is no 'technical' reason that you couldn't launch any weapon from any platform if you want to do so. There is 'we use' and 'we do not use'. The USAF does not use them.

 

The USAF has MK-83 warheads in stockpile, this is a fact as it forms the backbone of the largest GBU ordinance that will fit in an F-22, the USAF has used the MK-83 in history and yes it did give most of them up to the USN/USMC at one time, ergo the MK-83 warhead is in the USAF inventory under one of its pseudonyms and given the nose and tail sections of the GBU’s are essentially retrofit to MK-8# LDGP’s it would be no big step in times of operational need to fit MK-83/BLU-110/GBU derivatives under A-10 in the field if operating from a joint USAF/USN/USMC base.

 

If you want to play the “real world card” then why is the MK-83 missing from the US Navy/etc aircraft in-game, oh and while were at it what’s a USN carrier doing in the black sea, you have a dam sight more chance of MK-83 etc on an A-10 than that ever happening! :laugh:

 

 

No, he just has to know they're not part of inventory. It's interesting you want to call someone who knows how it is dumb while assuming you know everything ;)

 

We done?

 

Did I call him “dumb” no, I said

“You would have to be extremely dumb to preclude the use of MK-83 or derivative GBU from compatibility of a launch platform such as the A-10/F-16 even if its not the normal every day payload/inventory.”

 

one assumes he is a minion in the USAF rather than the person/s who decides anything of any major importance in the grand scheme of things therefore wont be privy of absolutely all circumstance or operational “what ifs” over the years and would be the logic shared by many people both in and out of service though it would be a different matter if there was a technical consideration like “we don’t use MK-83/BLU-110 ever on USAF A-10 etc plane because when you do the wings fall off yet strangely don’t with MK-84‘s” :smilewink:

[BrumTx]

"One" assumes you need to learn manners, although I suppose you'll start using the Royal "WE" in your next post.

Manners cost nothing b101 I suggest you start learning some.

After 12 years of service in the USAF I very much doubt he is a 'minion'

 

Oh and before you start 'bashing' Americans I'm ENGLISH and proud of it

Edited May 9, 2011 by BrumTx

[WarriorX]

Well you gotta hand it to somebody that can get that many red reputation marks in 21 posts.

[BrumTx]

Warrior, +1,

looking through some of his earlier posts it's understandable