A-10 weapons?

[wolfik]

hi all

want build an A-10 on a high way under a bridge in germany during the "red storm rising"...

read the book and from that this idea :)

my question is...what are the weapons which an A-10 would drop on russian tank formations?

which unit markings should be used?

and...any special weapons are used during this period?

many thanks for any help!!

best regards

Peter

[utley]

ECM pod on station 1, CBU-20 or CBU-96's on 2, 1 or 2 AGM-69 D or K on 3, CBU-20's on a TER on stations 4 and 5, and mirrored on the other side. Dont even ask about smart bombs. As far as squadrons go, VULTURES get my vote.

They would also carry the MK 80 series weps, usually AIR retarded, and IIRC the Mk 82's could be MER or TER on 4 5 7 8 stations or carry 1x MK-84 on 4 7 stations. Depends on what scenario, as in combat today they dont go out fully loaded with the whole armory.

i define station 6 as centerline and only 1 A10 has carried a 6 pack MER on that station. a fuel tank sits there now but only for short ferry flights or long distance missions.

Edited July 12, 2010 by utley

[Andre]

IIRC the Mk 82's could be MER or TER on 4 5 7 8 stations or carry 1x MK-84 on 4 7 stations.

FWIW: A-10's never used MERs operationally. A few Hogs on test flights in the '70s were fittted with them, but AFAIK MER's haven't been cleared officially and aren't a legal load.

HTH,

Andre

[Kurt Plummer]

hi all

want build an A-10 on a high way under a bridge in germany during the "red storm rising"...

read the book and from that this idea :)

my question is...what are the weapons which an A-10 would drop on russian tank formations?

which unit markings should be used?

and...any special weapons are used during this period?

many thanks for any help!!

best regards

Peter

Depends. This would be the -classic- scenario moment when the LAU-88 would be hauled out of the closet and damn the drag penalty and electrical issues. By 1984, it would still be more common to see LAU-117 on both stations with the AGM-65B or (ca. 1986) the AGM-65D. No 300lb warhead versions, no laser. The USAF dropped out of the common laser Mav program after the C finished testing in the 1979-80 period (wouldn't give the A-10 a zot, wouldn't dedicate the TACK 111s to support lasing in the CAS mission, didn't have enough MULE/GLLD available to the TACP teams to make it work any other way).

Use of ballistic weapons would depend on threat levels and weather as well as base dislocation and general supply issues but would in any case most likely be parent loaded on the inner four pylons for rapid turnaround and comprise Mk.20 or CBU-58/72 and (much later) CBU-97. All the same kind please, no mixed loads ala Monogram. Most of the Mk.115 tails were gone from inventory by about 1979 and ballute AIR weapons were hard to get in USAFE for awhile for some reason. Or maybe they just thought the Hog wasn't sexy enough.

ECM would (early) be 119 and later 131 shallow before standardizing on the 131 deep. The AIM-9 DRA was a much later system ('88 or so) and was only just becoming standardized by GW-1. It is nearly useless anyway, you have a better chance of locking on a Maverick to a helicopter than a Sidewinder...

The biggest problems for the Bentwaters/Woodbridge force (81st TFW) is quite simply that their FOLs were all known and being so close to the German frontier would be sabotaged by deepcover sleepers and/or overrun by cross-FLOT airmobile forces within minutes, linking up to armor within a few hours. The same goes for the deep stores depots.

With this condition, you would be very lucky to be able to get out the door with a hydra loader and some basic spares and might actually be -luckiest- to be in transit from England at the time the war went hot (it was 50:50 for awhile, as long as the Russians had SS-20 and we had a pathetic mix of Pershing 1 and a few 111s on Victor, whether the war would be won in minutes with nuclear decapitation or in days with conventional/CBW. There are those that say the latter would be more devastating but in no way would the Russians -ever- let the REFORGER elements make it from the States before exceeding threshold...They play to win. Tom Clancy was a fool in this.).

Next to the above issue, the A-10 is also more than a bit of a lame duck when it comes to power, being both massively oversized and underengined with a generic, gerbil-on-treadmill, TF34 whose enormous bypass ratio meant lousy windup acceleration. This instead of the Allison leaky turbojet engines it was supposed to get. The resulting lack of power is notorious, an A-10 might actually lose a zoom climbing contest with a paddle propped P-47 for instance and the lack of thrust trust could be particularly felt with large, high drag, payloads.

Given as most of the A-10s mission profile was in fact either a mixed medium altitude set of long range strage and Maverick tactics (above the sound detection threshold at 10K ft) to challenge the MANPADS and SPAAG envelope.

Or an ultralow level (under cbase as much as radar threat horizon) alternative specific to the use of grazing angle defeat on threat guns (literally below the turret roofline on the lead tanks), you needed as much power as you could get. Hog pilots used to run around at full thrust with partial speed brakes just to get that instant throttle slam equivalent for the 6-7G windup turn. Which is of course why A-10s are on their second set of wing reinforcement gusseting today.

The other issue is weapons system oriented.

Without a HUDWAC (the N/AW had one from the A-7) the period A-10 could not reliably do DTOSS or CDIP, even if you gave it a five minute climbout back above the threat floor. Both of which get to be important when the fight is mixed and friendly positions have no fixed FSCL to coordinate the IP route-ins from.

Add to this the fact that the low specular intensities of the typical grey-day in Germany often put even the AGM-65B out of contrast lockon before the Hog went _under RMin for guns_ (less than 2,500ft) and the weapon itself could also be 'clagged out' by low ceilings in winter and you have a real problem popping the airframe, getting the lock and the shot, and then bunting back under the treeline or hill crest before someone put an SA-8 or 9 through your dental work.

Which is supposedly why JAAT assigned threat suppression to the AAH community. That didn't really work either but anyway, the A-10 is a cheap strafer that is designed to kill revetted or column targets. 15-25 gun kills are not unheard of and when combined with 17-20 mission days, it can add up. But only at the cost of being so vulnerable to every known threat out there that it's survivability is questionable.

The Hog can do other things, as well if not better. Particularly in RESCAP coordinator and AME insertion roles, but it's cheap-is-as-does roots will always lie in SEA as a hurry up viz-CAS replacement for the A-1/LARA/AAFSS (say Key West) fiasco and it frankly was less than what it replaced in the USAF from the outset in Europe (the SLUF can at least do underweather, after hours, BAI over the FLOT).

Keeping the loadout light and concentrating on the gun was one way of dealing with that born-victim psychology.

As such, go with the old Revell boxart loadout-

http://www.oldmodelkits.com/jpegs/Revell%2...A-10%20TBII.JPG

Leaving off the ALE-40 pod and replacing the ALQ-101 and you won't be too wrong.

[PlasticWeapons]

Whoa! Classic KP! Where've you been man? :(

[Collin]

I'm grabbing a beer and going to kick back and watch this thread grow.

Cheers

ATIS

[Collin]

hi all

want build an A-10 on a high way under a bridge in germany during the "red storm rising"...

read the book and from that this idea :(

my question is...what are the weapons which an A-10 would drop on russian tank formations?

which unit markings should be used?

and...any special weapons are used during this period?

many thanks for any help!!

best regards

Peter

To answer your question quickly.... lots of Maverick (IR and/or EO), lots of CBU's (MK-20 would have been a fav), your normal ECM pod hanging out there... plus your gun. Whatever looks coolest under you jet...build that.

This should help:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/a-10%20...onsLoadout1.jpg

r/

ATIS

[utley]

To answer your question quickly.... lots of Maverick (IR and/or EO), lots of CBU's (MK-20 would have been a fav), your normal ECM pod hanging out there... plus your gun. Whatever looks coolest under you jet...build that.

This should help:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/a-10%20...onsLoadout1.jpg

r/

ATIS

i dont think that chart is correct...ive never heard of an a10 carrying suu 23 gun pods. the blu27 is a napalm cannister...it may be feasable as a cold war wep im not sure, and the smart weapons would need a lantirn pod or whatever to lase the target. like it was said earlier, MER and TERs are really only used for weapons ferry flights or not used at all. only the TER for 3 9 mav stations would be used, but the rail nearest the wheel well would be used for weps ferry, since you cant launch from that rail. the rocket motor would fry the tire.

[thatguy96]

That's the chart from one of the old Hasegawa weapon packs. I wouldn't put much stock in it. I'm sure the A-10 could have physically carried the SUU-23/A, but I can't imagine there would have been much point given its internal gun. As for the laser guided weapons, the A-10 was fitted from the beginning with the Pave Penny pod specifically to allow it to use such weapons against targets lased by other aircraft or by ground forces. I can't speak for how common that might have been in an operational scenario.

[Collin]

i dont think that chart is correct...ive never heard of an a10 carrying suu 23 gun pods. the blu27 is a napalm cannister...it may be feasable as a cold war wep im not sure, and the smart weapons would need a lantirn pod or whatever to lase the target. like it was said earlier, MER and TERs are really only used for weapons ferry flights or not used at all. only the TER for 3 9 mav stations would be used, but the rail nearest the wheel well would be used for weps ferry, since you cant launch from that rail. the rocket motor would fry the tire.

Of course that chart may not be correct...it came from the 1980's Minicraft/Hasa 1/72 A-10 T-bolt kit. Time to relax, just trying to give a guy a steer on how to load up his model. As I stated... don't think you can go wrong with Maverick and ROCKEYE (and your ECM pod).

I'm sure one of the A-10 ordies or maint folks will be along to tell us what they threw on the hardpoints back in the 80's.

ATIS

[Andre]

As for the laser guided weapons, the A-10 was fitted from the beginning with the Pave Penny pod specifically to allow it to use such weapons against targets lased by other aircraft or by ground forces.

The Pave Penny, AFAIK, can also be used to spot targets marked by a FAC (either airborne or on the ground) - it is not necessarily associated with guided weapons, but can also be used to improve the accuracy of dumb weapons. The British Harrier GR.3 and Jaguar GR.1/3 also carried similar equipment (called LRMTS - Laser Ranger and Marked Target Seeker) long before they carried LGB's.

There is a real life A-10 load chart on Jakubs Desert Storm site which would presumably be pretty applicable to an early 80's scenario, with the exception, as noted, of the Sidewinder DRA.

HTH,

Andre

[jmel]

i dont think that chart is correct...ive never heard of an a10 carrying suu 23 gun pods. the blu27 is a napalm cannister...it may be feasable as a cold war wep im not sure, and the smart weapons would need a lantirn pod or whatever to lase the target. like it was said earlier, MER and TERs are really only used for weapons ferry flights or not used at all. only the TER for 3 9 mav stations would be used, but the rail nearest the wheel well would be used for weps ferry, since you cant launch from that rail. the rocket motor would fry the tire.

The fuel tanks are only used for long-range ferry flights. They aren't used on combat missions due to the enormous drag. Let's face it: the Hog doesn't have an excess of thrust to go around.

Secondly, the A-10 does not use MERs. Never has, aside from initial weapons testing when the jet was born. Nor does the jet use a TER for AGM-65 carriage. AGM-65 can ONLY be carried/fired from station 3/9, typically by the single-rail LAU-117, again owing to the enormous drag of the triple-rail LAU-88. The LAU-88 fell out of favor by the early '80s due to drag, but was briefly resurrected after the LITENING pod was integrated.

A-10s do not carry LANTIRN pods. The A and A+ can carry the LITENING only on stations 3/9. The A-10C can carry LITENING and Sniper, on stations 2/10 or 3/9.

More Hog minutia can be found here.

[jmel]

I'm grabbing a beer and going to kick back and watch this thread grow.

Cheers

ATIS

[utley]

Of course that chart may not be correct...it came from the 1980's Minicraft/Hasa 1/72 A-10 T-bolt kit. Time to relax, just trying to give a guy a steer on how to load up his model. As I stated... don't think you can go wrong with Maverick and ROCKEYE (and your ECM pod).

I'm sure one of the A-10 ordies or maint folks will be along to tell us what they threw on the hardpoints back in the 80's.

ATIS

i know...just pointing that out.

The Pave Penny, AFAIK, can also be used to spot targets marked by a FAC (either airborne or on the ground) - it is not necessarily associated with guided weapons, but can also be used to improve the accuracy of dumb weapons. The British Harrier GR.3 and Jaguar GR.1/3 also carried similar equipment (called LRMTS - Laser Ranger and Marked Target Seeker) long before they carried LGB's.

the pave penny iirc can only recieve signals and used as a rangefinder for munitions. it cant lase targets if not for very long since its eye has a narrow fov.

[utley]

The fuel tanks are only used for long-range ferry flights. They aren't used on combat missions due to the enormous drag. Let's face it: the Hog doesn't have an excess of thrust to go around.

Secondly, the A-10 does not use MERs. Never has, aside from initial weapons testing when the jet was born. Nor does the jet use a TER for AGM-65 carriage. AGM-65 can ONLY be carried/fired from station 3/9, typically by the single-rail LAU-117, again owing to the enormous drag of the triple-rail LAU-88. The LAU-88 fell out of favor by the early '80s due to drag, but was briefly resurrected after the LITENING pod was integrated.

A-10s do not carry LANTIRN pods. The A and A+ can carry the LITENING only on stations 3/9. The A-10C can carry LITENING and Sniper, on stations 2/10 or 3/9.

More Hog minutia can be found here.

i want sure on the lantirn pod, honestly didnt know what it would carry for designation. im not saying it carries TERs and MERs either, although it just "can". best references for the a 10 can be found at warthogpen.com.

[thatguy96]

The Pave Penny, AFAIK, can also be used to spot targets marked by a FAC (either airborne or on the ground) - it is not necessarily associated with guided weapons, but can also be used to improve the accuracy of dumb weapons.

From defenseimagery.mil:

This shot is dated 1977, and was taken at Osan AB, ROK. LGBs (and what appears to be a BLU-27/:cheers: are present in the display. This is of course not clear whether or not the weapons on display are associate with the aircraft. The image caption, however, indicates that they are. Regardless of whether it was ever actually used in this capacity, it does seem that the Pave Penny pod was initially intended for this purpose. Likely on actual operations it was used more as a laser range finder, to help with conventional bombing accuracy as you noted.

the pave penny iirc can only recieve signals and used as a rangefinder for munitions. it cant lase targets if not for very long since its eye has a narrow fov.

I think we're all in agreement over the capabilities of the Pave Penny. Its intended function is being debated.

Edited July 12, 2010 by thatguy96

[utley]

yeah it can recieve signals like i said. it was only useful if you had grunts on the ground lasing for you, or other aircraft spotting like a FAC with the right gear.

[Andre]

This shot is dated 1977, and was taken at Osan AB, ROK. LGBs (and what appears to be a BLU-27/:whistle: are present in the display. This is of course not clear whether or not the weapons on display are associate with the aircraft. The image caption, however, indicates that they are.

Various Paveway I LGB's and the GBU-8 HOBOS were indeed testflown on early A-10 trials.

However, these were not used operationally.

Cheers,

Andre

[thatguy96]

Various Paveway I LGB's and the GBU-8 HOBOS were indeed testflown on early A-10 trials.

However, these were not used operationally.

Cheers,

Andre

This was not a test. Here is the caption:

A left side view of an A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft on static display during a tour of air bases on Korea to familiarize Korean and American field commanders with its capabilities. In the foreground are several types of bombs that can be carried by the A-10.

We're talking apples and oranges. You're saying that these were not used operationally. I'm not saying they were. All I'm saying is that initially, this was a planned capability to be able to use laser guided weapons in concert with a second entity marking the target. I have no idea how long that plan lasted, but it seems pretty clear it was the plan at least in the late 1970s and probably into the 1980s. Since there were no combat operations I'm aware of during the 1980s involving the A-10, and not knowing when a determination was made on their use on the A-10, I can't say they wouldn't have been used.

Edited July 12, 2010 by thatguy96

[Matt Roberts]

In the old Salamander book from the 80's ground units or perhaps an airborne designator such as a OH-58D would be used to designate targets and then the Hawg would pick it up with the Pave Penny and then would either launch Mavericks - using the Pave Penny to cue the seekers or to possibly loft an LGB at the target. The way the 'system' was said to work was stand off work with the Mavs would take out Shilkas and other air defence elements and the gun and free fall munitions against vehicles and troops

I think the book has a 1985 copyright to give an idea on how far back it goes (not even on Amazon for a cover shot!)

[Jinxter13]

I can't remember the webside, but if you go and search for Standard Conventional Loadouts, it should give you what you are looking for as far as weaps loading. Also F-16.net has some downloads that may be of good use to you...as it will provide info for more than Vipers.

It should give you a list from the 80-90's also

HTH

Edited July 13, 2010 by Angels49

[Collin]

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/pho...F-2911S-009.jpg

DS 1 loadout. 2 x Sidewinder, 2 x Maverick, looks like 2 x level load of MK-20 ROCKEYE

One of my favorite late 80's loadout: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:355tfs-0391.jpg

Lets see 6xRockeye, 2x rocket pods, 2xMaverick, 2x Sidewinder and of course the ECM pod.

Good luck with your build!!

Cheers

ATIS

Edited July 13, 2010 by Collin

[Mark S.]

One of my favorite late 80's loadout: 0391.jpg"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:355tfs-0391.jpg]

Lets see 6xRockeye, 2x rocket pods, 2xMaverick, 2x Sidewinder and of course the ECM pod.

Good luck with your build!!

Cheers

ATIS

Looks like those pods may be SUU-25 Flare pods.

Mark

Edited July 13, 2010 by Mark S.