Maverick Stations

[cichlidfan]

Actual access is worth more than a proper footnote.

 

A-10 cockpit video from a member:

[Eddie]

*sigh*

And I have proof of his credentials, how? This is a forum. Consider this: if I was going to write a university paper, what kind of source would a professor allow? Do you think the quote of a forum user by the name of "Burnout55th" would qualify? I somewhat doubt it.

I know this is pretty demanding, but when I want to provide proof for something, I like to be able to present something more substantial than "it's in a video game" or "a guy on some forums said so".

 

Well, if you want THAT kind of "proof" all you need to do is join an airforce that operates the specific aircraft in question and be employed in a role that requires you to have access to the relevant aircraft and/or technical manuals.

 

Otherwise, those of us on these forums who do such jobs and have access to such material will have to do.

[Hamblue]

I've been able to find no documentation, and forum posts hardly constitute "reliable sources".

 

You seem like the type that believes only in what you see.

Look at this post. It appears the actual number is much more:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3572683/A_10_Super_Hog.html#Post3572683

[Speed]

Couple of AMRAAM's would be nice !!!

 

Meh, without a radar, you have to use the F10 map too much, which spoils the "immersion" :D:

(watch in 720p if you're going to watch it).

Edited May 15, 2012 by Speed

[Xeno426]

You seem like the type that believes only in what you see.

Look at this post. It appears the actual number is much more:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3572683/A_10_Super_Hog.html#Post3572683

I'm someone who doesn't like to provide answers to other people without credible sources to back it up. A forum post does not constitute a credible source. A properly documented interview with someone that works with these systems does. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

You also seem to be operating under the false assumption that requests for citable sources means the requester doesn't believe anything that anyone has said without it.

[cichlidfan]

I'm someone who doesn't like to provide answers to other people without credible sources to back it up. A forum post does not constitute a credible source. A properly documented interview with someone that works with these systems does.

 

Most of that kind of information is not discussed in detail with 'outsiders'. I think Eddie summed it up well.

 

Well, if you want THAT kind of "proof" all you need to do is join an airforce that operates the specific aircraft in question and be employed in a role that requires you to have access to the relevant aircraft and/or technical manuals.

 

Otherwise, those of us on these forums who do such jobs and have access to such material will have to do.

[213]

I'm someone who doesn't like to provide answers to other people without credible sources to back it up. A forum post does not constitute a credible source. A properly documented interview with someone that works with these systems does. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

You also seem to be operating under the false assumption that requests for citable sources means the requester doesn't believe anything that anyone has said without it.

 

if you don't trust forum posts, why are you asking for answers on a forum?

 

there's a difference between credibility in terms of fact and in terms of writing a research paper. is that what you're trying to do? if you're just replying to a casual question, i think you can exercise some judgment as to what constitutes a credible source without getting academic.

[Weaponz248]

What about the E-Version? It is laser-guided so there would be no additional wiring required.

However this is very unlikely as it is only used by the USMC.

 

And how do you come to that conclusion?

 

Hint: You're wrong.

 

 

Actually Cholerix is correct. The E-mod just picks up a laser via ground or TGP/Sniper Pod. No additional wiring needed to make it work on the jet side.

[Weaponz248]

Eemmm ..... the above document is published by the air force , dont you think they should know ?

 

What Maverick can travel 45 klicks ?

 

It has nothing to do with connecting a Lau to the hardpoint , as the pylon attachment lugs are the same , however , it has to do with , are the hardpoints wired up to deal with extra mavs .

 

QUOTE ::::: The A-10 can carry up to ten Maverick air-to-surface missiles. The Raytheon Maverick AGM-65 missile uses a variety of guidance systems, including imaging infrared guidance and warheads, including a high-penetration, 57kg conical-shaped charge warhead. Range is more than 45km. The A-10 can also carry the Sidewinder air-to-air missile, which is an all-aspect short-range missile with maximum speed over Mach 2.

 

 

No extra wiring to deal with extra MAVs. If a hard point is wired for one MAV it can carry up to 3 Mavs on one hardpoint. The Launcher that the Mav is installed on has the extra wiring for additional Mavs if need be.

[Weaponz248]

Apologies if this has been asked before, but after several forum searches nothing came up.

 

How many Mavericks can the real A-10 hold? The game allows a maximum of 6 on hardpoints 3 and 9, but several other sources I've read (like this one) claim as many as 10. Is this accurate? If not, where can I find more accurate (citable) sources?

 

I'm willing to bet ED did their homework on this, and that the 6 maximum is accurate, but I'd like something I can cite.

 

 

If you can get your hands on the 1A-10c-1-1 2007 edition you will get your reference. ED used that manual for most of the game IIRC. 6 is max, and Sta 3 and 9 are the only stations.

 

If I recall correctly six mavericks are already unrealistic.

 

The inner Mavericks damage the wheels in real life. On most missions the A10C's carry two mavericks each, assuming that they can complete their mission when using all their mavericks together.

 

I do not know anything about the possibility to use other hardpoints. If you can connect the lau-88 or lau-117 to other hardpoints it will work. I don't know if this is true.

 

EDIT:

 

Page 267 and 268 in the flight manual show that only stations 3 and 9 can take the launchers needed for AGM-65's.

 

 

Not so much unrealistic as not required. The -1 says if you fire the inner MAV off of a Lau-88 it will burn paint and cause corrosion. Nothing is mentioned about tires melting. Also the Sniper/TGP limit the use of the outboard Mav closest to the pod itself.

 

You are correct in saying IF you could connect to other hardpoints that it will work. However only 3 and 9 are wired.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Weaponz248

[BlueRidgeDx]

Actually Cholerix is correct. The E-mod just picks up a laser via ground or TGP/Sniper Pod. No additional wiring needed to make it work on the jet side.

 

Eddie was responding to what he (and I) perceived to be a comment saying that L-Mavs could be carried on stations other than 3/9 because they don't need any wiring, which of course is not true.

 

It seems you interpreted the comment to mean something along the lines of "L-Mavs don't require any additional 'wiring' as compared to EO/IR Mavs", which of course is correct.

 

I'm not sure what the poster actually meant, but I interpreted it the same way as Eddie.

[Weaponz248]

Eddie was responding to what he (and I) perceived to be a comment saying that L-Mavs could be carried on stations other than 3/9 because they don't need any wiring, which of course is not true.

 

It seems you interpreted the comment to mean something along the lines of "L-Mavs don't require any additional 'wiring' as compared to EO/IR Mavs", which of course is correct.

 

I'm not sure what the poster actually meant, but I interpreted it the same way as Eddie.

 

Ah right, I read it without taking the context of the OP. SO with that said both Eddie and Cholerix are correct depending on how you read it.