Some A-6 questions

[+allenjb42 4,133]

I'm thinking of updating the A-6E SWIP and USMC (and doing some other A-6 variants):

 

1) AIM 9s were carried by USN Intruders. Did Marine Corps aircraft carry them too?

2) Did Marine Corps A-6s carry nuclear weapons? Navy aircraft did.

3) Did either Navy or Marine Intruders carry AGM 65 Mavericks on triple racks? I've seen illustrations in books but no actual photos.

 

Thanks

[column5 62]

1) Although the outer pylons were wired for AIM-9s, I can find no evidence that they ever carried them in any circumstance. The only in-flight pic I have ever seen of a Sidewinder-armed A-6 was of the A-6F prototype.

 

2) To my knowledge, the Marines had/have no stocks of nuclear weapons.

 

3) I have never seen this, either.

Edited April 18, 2007 by column5

[Southernap 1]

1. AIM-9's were carried mainly in training by both USN and USMC units. Operationally the only time that that I heard of A-6's carrying AIM-9's was during Operation Praying Mantis, which was strikes against Iranian oil platforms in 1989. VA-95 had 2 of them fitted with bombs on the inner stations and a Sidewinder each on the outer station. These aircraft were ready to go in an bomb an Iranian naval base near the Straits of Hormuz, if needed. The thought was that if the strikers were jumped by IIRAF fighters they would might be able to get in a couple of snap shots and then boogie out of town, while screaming for the F-18's or F-14's of the airgroup.

2. USMC A-6 squadrons trained on how to deliever nuclear weapons. However, they would draw the weapons from US aircraft carriers if the need rose operationally.

3. The USN and USMC does not use the triple rack for the AGM-65. We hang a single missile per wing pylon. The primary verisons that the USN/USMC uses are the AGM-65E which is a laser guided version optimized for anti-shipping and heavy bunker busting. The other verison used is the AGM-65F which is the same as the AGM-65E but instead uses a infrared sensor.

 

Here is an example of an F-18 carrying a Maverick.

[JediMaster 451]

IIRC, the ones the USN/USMC use are the heavier Mav variants with the larger warhead. Perhaps the TER doesn't work so well with them?

 

As for the TER, they only seem to carry pairs operationally in a slant load, with the 3rd spot always vacant.

[+drdoyo 2]

Hey Guys, My Roommate was an A-6E BN with VMA(AW)-242 "Bats" I've asked him about the stores in question.

 

1) VMA(AW)-242 Carried AIM-9Ms at least in training. Initially 2 were mounted on the outer pylons (1 each), but due to limitations with AG ordnance on the INBD pylons imposed by clearance with the gear doors (2 fwd inbd bombs omitted) they later started carrying the AIM-9Ms on the INBD pylons.

 

2) My roommate just happened to be the squadrons Nuclear Safety Officer. They could carry B43, B57, and B61 weapons.

 

3) VMA(AW)-242 never had, trained, or flew AGM-65s

Edited April 20, 2007 by drdoyo

[+Typhoid 231]

also need to ensure Harpoons can be loaded and include anti-ship in the missions.

 

how about mines for some mine dropping missions

[+allenjb42 4,133]

Gents, thanks for the info. I'm upgrading to add Sidewinders and Nukes, but will leave just single Mavericks.

 

Typhoid: the SWIP already has the anti-ship role and Harpoon capability in the version that's uploaded.

 

Next question: I can carry Sidewinders on the wing pylons with no problem, just had to add IRM to the weapons station in the data.ini but how do I get the missiles to show launch rails instead of just sitting on the pylons like bombs?

[+Dave 2,318]

I would just leave the Sidewinders off of them. I mean it flew 99.9% of the time without them. I have only seen one picture with them on it. I mean theres what it could carry and what it did carry. So many people shout "realism realism", where then, there is your answer. It was a strike fighter, leave it as it was. Anything else is getting to the realm of ridiculous. Just my 2 cents.

[Sparkchaser2010 24]

The heavier warhead AGM-65 Maverick versions such as the G & E can not be carried on the LAU-88 (Triple Launcher) due the missiles overall weight.

[firehawkordy 34]

I you want I can ask some of my AO buds about the mines. About the only ones I remember seeing were Mk36 DST's, basicly a Mk82 Snakeye with a different fuzing system.

 

I remember seeing the AGM-45 on one station and an AGM-78 on the opposite wing. I never saw any AIM-9's carried operationally in my 20 years of NAVAIR.

Even though I'm not as active with Strike Fighters as I once was feel free to ask about ordnance that the Navy carried. I'll always try to help out.

[firehawkordy 34]

One more thing, there was a book series written for the scale modeler called Detail and Scale. There was a volume devoted to the A-6. In the back of these books are load charts for it's ordnance. It's worth the time to look for these to figure a proper load out.

[DWCAce 19]

I'll check through the versions I have, and see what I can post :)

[+Dave 2,318]

For the record Allen I am not busting your nuts. I just have a vision of how things should be in the Mil aircraft world.

 

Bombcat: NOT..... Cardinal sin......

SH: Fleet Defender....AH.......No

A-6: Pure Mud mover

F-15C with A2G ordinance, surely you just......

 

Just some examples...

 

Just some examples.......

[+EricJ 3,954]

Gents, thanks for the info. I'm upgrading to add Sidewinders and Nukes, but will leave just single Mavericks.

 

Typhoid: the SWIP already has the anti-ship role and Harpoon capability in the version that's uploaded.

 

Next question: I can carry Sidewinders on the wing pylons with no problem, just had to add IRM to the weapons station in the data.ini but how do I get the missiles to show launch rails instead of just sitting on the pylons like bombs?

 

From what I noticed when doing the Blue Angels skins, least with the column5 F/A-18A, is that it's actually part of the model, as well as an ini edit. I've tried that on other aircraft, but it may just be "hardcoded" for the AGM-65E and AGM-88C HARM.

 

BTW Southernap, got any more pics you fee like sharing on Bugs? Or anything current?

[charlielima 328]

Hmmm. some of the above seem like good points for a "beyond A6E" mod, a skosh amount of extra hard points for the big mavs and AIM-9s. If we had a functional key to get help from the mig killers and such, I'd say every pound for air to ground. But we don't. Was there ever a Mud Moving Mafia movement? A10s carry AIM-9s. I would not be supportive of them being mounted on SPADS, or USAF COIN equivilents. :ph34r: VR, CL

 

 

[+Dave 2,318]

Its just the point for example yesterday I was talking to Julhelm about the A-5A loadouts. Yes it could carry conventional, however, I know a retired Navy O6 who works at Tinker as a contractor, who flew them, and he said all they did was the nuclear mission in the A-5A. Never did they fly a conventional mission. So I think that the "yeah they could of" but the "what they did in practice" should be taken into consideration. Same goes for F-111's, they flew well over 95% without AIM-9's. But some wanted it so we added it. In retrospect, I think we should of left it A2G 100%, no A2A stuff.

[+Gunrunner 313]

I feel, the problem is less what was used during peace time and "police operation" than what would have been available in case of a "full-scale" conflict.

 

Yes the bombcat is an heresy, yet, once the intruder gone, it would leave only the tomcat with the range for certain missions until the arrival of the super-hornet, and if you wish to play an hypothetical conflict in that time frame, you would have to use bombcats for certain missions.

Same goes for unusual A-6 or A-5 configurations (ie. RA-5C with bombs, never used but still a possibility throughout the service life of the plane).

As long as the ordnance was tested and integrated, it's not completely absurd to add them, even if they were never used in operation so far.

[+Crusader 2,059]

single IRM pylons must be part of the main .lod file.

but you can use a special 2IR rail adapter , just need to find a frienfly 3d max owner who build you one :D

add the IRM and 2IR to the left inboard or outboard station. the 2IR rail model should have its x-axis 0 position below the left pylon, and extends invisible to the right pylon where the 2nd rail and missile position is located.....

 

kinda a stretched LAU-105 ...

 

well thats the theory so far...

 

btw...

 

2 out of the 8 IDF/AF F-15 bombing the PLO HQ in Tunis 1985 were F-15C with a MER of MK82's on the centerline ....hehehe

[+EricJ 3,954]

single IRM pylons must be part of the main .lod file.

 

Yeah that's what I figured after it not working after awhile, okay.

 

2 out of the 8 IDF/AF F-15 bombing the PLO HQ in Tunis 1985 were F-15C with a MER of MK82's on the centerline ....hehehe

 

Don't let the LOMACers see that.....

 

Thing is that was the Israelis are just innovators about anything that has to do with blowing stuff up with bombs, so if we're going to argue that point, then only an Israeli F-15 should be allowed to drop iron bombs, nee USAF or other "C" versions.

[+Dave 2,318]

I feel, the problem is less what was used during peace time and "police operation" than what would have been available in case of a "full-scale" conflict.

 

As long as the ordnance was tested and integrated, it's not completely absurd to add them, even if they were never used in operation so far.

 

Then you way beyond the scope of what was really done and what wasn't, just because it could, doesn't mean it did. That is the reality of combat aircraft and I can get real world fighter pilots to back me up on that. I will go with what they have to say then a book or the internet any day.

 

The IAF example was the 1% I was talking about.

[+EricJ 3,954]

0.01% Wing Wiper

[+drdoyo 2]

1. AIM-9's were carried mainly in training by both USN and USMC units. Operationally the only time that that I heard of A-6's carrying AIM-9's was during Operation Praying Mantis, which was strikes against Iranian oil platforms in 1989. VA-95 had 2 of them fitted with bombs on the inner stations and a Sidewinder each on the outer station. These aircraft were ready to go in an bomb an Iranian naval base near the Straits of Hormuz, if needed. The thought was that if the strikers were jumped by IIRAF fighters they would might be able to get in a couple of snap shots and then boogie out of town, while screaming for the F-18's or F-14's of the airgroup.

2. USMC A-6 squadrons trained on how to deliever nuclear weapons. However, they would draw the weapons from US aircraft carriers if the need rose operationally.

 

Ok,.....before we all get bent out of shape on what could have been -vs- what is/was I think we should consider practicality.

 

I ststed in my original post in the thread that I live with a former A-6E Bombardier/Navigator who was the Nuclear Safety Officer of a Marine Squadron. I asked him about what they did with the stores in question and posted the reply. They carried the stuff in training. Training is preporation for a possible nessessity. In the quote from Southernap, #1 shows that nessessityand training nearly became reality. The same goes for #2, though the "reality" was much farther from truth. VMA(AW)-242 trained to deliver nuclear weapons. I personally don't see why a capibility should be omitted if there was training to use the capibility. These aircraft will still only use the weapons in campaign that there is a supply allicated for.

 

I do agree with you Dave on "Not a pound for Air to Ground" for the F-15C

[+allenjb42 4,133]

Blimey, talk about opening a can of worms!

 

The A-6 had a nuclear strike mission so there's no reason why the SF versions shouldn't have that capability. Case closed.

 

Similarly, if the real life units trained with AIM-9s and, as noted above actually deployed with them, then why not have them on the SF aircraft? This is supposed to be a simulation after all, and you're always free not to select those weapons in the loadout screen.

 

I'm all for realism, and really got hot under the collar over the mods to fit out the early F-4s with an internal gun a while ago because of some 'mistake' by the aircraft's makers (whether that was McDonnell Douglas or Thirdwire I don't think we ever got to the bottom of!).

 

However, in this case the A-6 was cleared for and flew with Sidewinders so I see no reason not to have them as a loadout option. As for the lack of a Sidewinder rail, I do see that as a problem and it would probably make me less likely to load these in game, but others may feel differently and don't mind that.

 

Having said all this, I totally agree that some aircraft have defined roles, and I certainly won't be giving the A-6s any air to air roles, but you never know when a 'winder comes in handy - I bagged a Parani MiG 21 last night coming off target in a test mission!

 

So my plan for now is to update the A-6E SWIP and the A-6E USMC to include nuclear weapons and AM-9s, and then to mod Monty CZ's A-6A to an A-6B and also to an early A-6E (prior to the TRAM turrent being fitted) and maybe do a USMC version of that too.

[+NeverEnough 78]

Kudos to you, Allenjb42, for your modding efforts. I'll bet that if you post the up-dated A-6's, they'll most certainly be downloaded! I don't know if I'll ever load up a nuke (but if you got em, smoke em!), but on lots of occasions I sure would have appreciated having a Sidewinder or a gun to fend off the predators. I know the gun is not an issue, but if they really did or could carry Sidewinders, what the hell.

Most importantly, this is about a GAME not a documentary.

[+Dave 2,318]

Most importantly, this is about a GAME not a documentary.

 

But you know what I can get you about a 1000 post when people cry realism fouls. Of course people will download it. Good on Allen for doing the updates. It was a just a subject of discussion.