Some A-6 questions

[+Dave 2,318]

In the mean time, keep pressing the wife for more books.......then soon we will rule the world...MUAHAHHAHAHHAHHA

[+Typhoid 231]

Guy's I spent many a year around A-6's in the fleet and I never saw a sidewinder loaded.

I'm not saying they didn't try it at a test facility, but in the 15+ years I did in tailhooks i never saw one loaded.

 

Intruder pilots had big brass ones but even they wouldn't tangle A2A in the "whistlin sh**can"

 

actually, just for training and not for real missions, our A-6E birds would go up and do DACT with our F-4S's (CVW-5 Midway in 1983).

 

The F-4 dudes found the A-6 to be a pretty tough opponent because it could easily turn inside the F-4. Obviously it couldn't REALLY fight A2A but it in a pinch it could have easily jettisoned the bomb and tanks and with AIM-9L's could have made it an "interesting" event for an overconfident Mig dude.

 

and you all might recall the special projects photo I posted here a while back of the Hummer?.......

 

[+EricJ 3,954]

They should have put it Jaguar style really , then most people would have kittens

[HrntFixr 4]

And where are the Mythbusters? LOL

Jamie: Well, There is a photo.

Adam: But Jamie, it's just a training round

Jamie: The audiance needs a decision here

Adam: Well, Ok it's PLAUSABLE, but not prooven

 

 

Now thats dam funny!!!!!

[column5 62]

Does this mean no afterburners or GAU-8 either???

 

Weeeelllll....maybe not afterburners but the original A-6 design featured vectored thrust nozzles to shorten takeoff roll.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

If you don't see pylons from the cockpit, forget them. Just add the missiles yourself.

 

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.

I like to think F-5A would have become a prime USAF fighter in an extended WoE-esque scenario, and later -- if NATO was winning -- a prime fighter bomber, perhaps even in US Army skins (sorry USAFMTL ). I suggest adding flyable F-5A to WoE campaigns. Arm to Taste.

 

There are related things like 3rd Party dark stained or hazy canopy "glass" (even on some stock ThudWire aircraft) that can't be turned OFF with the sim's Cockpit Reflection grafix option, although there are always workarounds to this, it can be deep. Another is Pasko's F-106 which assumes the "historic" peacetime mission procedure of bringing home the drop tanks. The F-106 360gal drop tanks are coded into the model and cannot be dropped if they are chosen. You can fix this by specifying FuelTankName=Tank370_F4 in the DATA file and loading 370 F-4 tanks in the loadout file instead of the normal F-106 tanks. It's close, it works. So if you want minimum drag for top speed/range chasing one-way refueled Soviet or Canadian ( ) Tu-22s when defending the South Dakota Skies, you can now drop your tanks. The tanks are expensive, and a terrible thing to waste, but so are Ussian city tiles.

 

One of the bizzare computer gamer clinical behavioral events was observed during early pre-releace screenshots of Pacific Fighters showing Japanese carrier aircraft operating from Ussian aircraft carriers, and teh UBI.com dogfight gamers cried foul. However, nothing in the laws of aerodynamics or physics prevents such an event (I checked), and preventing such political or social absurdities is up to the mission or campaign designer, not the flight sim's core game engine.

[+Crusader 2,059]

LOL

 

hey Lexx,

 

edit:

 

you are right. tanks are a part of the model

Edited April 25, 2007 by Crusader

[+Crusader 2,059]

A thought here about the A-6 loadouts during the Lybia encounters, it could be possible that they had the AIM-9L because of possible encounters with Lybian helicopters, Hinds etc.

 

If you come across one, its always good if you have something to zap it no ?

 

Reminds me of USMC AH-1T which were armed with 1 AIM-9M during OP Preying Mantis int he Persian Gulf...... that wasnt a common configuration either ....

 

Of course, the USMC wanted and made sure that the AH-1T got AIM-9 capability. But it wasn't a common operational configuration.

But there were/are times where a AIM-9 just might be handy.

 

I think that applies to the A-6 too.

Think about a "low Intensity" conflict where Coastal Anti-Shipping Patrols need to be done and the opposing forces have armed Helos or other small aircraft, which can pop up out of hides and appear real quick.

 

Or think about the RAF Buccaneers in the Gulf War, they had a AIM-9L . Not a Fighter either. But its still causing trouble for the enemy by just beeing there, since its no easy meat in any case.

 

MJ

[column5 62]

It strikes me as odd that we would go to such trouble to be accurate in our models, skins, cockpits etc. but would be willing to play fast and loose with things such as loadouts and tactics. The game is probably too forgiving in this regard--the AI can't capitalize on the player who makes the mistake of engaging in A2A in an A-6 for example. I think the best way to anticipate how an aircraft would have been employed operationally is to look at its combat record and training doctrine. Anything else is pure conjecture. In the case of the A-6, countless missions flown over North Vietnam without Sidewinders should be indicative.

[+Dave 2,318]

It strikes me as odd that we would go to such trouble to be accurate in our models, skins, cockpits etc. but would be willing to play fast and loose with things such as loadouts and tactics. The game is probably too forgiving in this regard--the AI can't capitalize on the player who makes the mistake of engaging in A2A in an A-6 for example. I think the best way to anticipate how an aircraft would have been employed operationally is to look at its combat record and training doctrine. Anything else is pure conjecture. In the case of the A-6, countless missions flown over North Vietnam without Sidewinders should be indicative.

 

I think that sums it up. And it was the point I was trying to make. The Cobra example is something I am going to ask 531Ghost about, I think the Cobra carried AIM-9's more then often than A-6's ever did.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

It strikes me as odd that we would go to such trouble to be accurate in our models, skins, cockpits etc. but would be willing to play fast and loose with things such as loadouts and tactics.

Not the same people. The 3D model rivet counter bullies don't know how to have fun with anything, or anybody. The oddball loadout people have fun with and explore their sims.

 

But, the oddball people who have fun also know they don't need to bully the 3D modders for missile pylons. If they don't know this, they are pylon rivet counters.

 

 

 

....PS: typically, I "forgot" to add earlier, the droppable F-4 drop tank replacement for F-106 doesn't come with pylons that are never seen from the cockpit anyways. I "forgot" because perfect pylons just don't matter compared to something really important like being able to drop tanks.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Lexx_Luthor

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Crusader::

A thought here about the A-6 loadouts during the Lybia encounters, it could be possible that they had the AIM-9L because of possible encounters with Lybian helicopters, Hinds etc.

 

If you come across one, its always good if you have something to zap it no ?

 

Reminds me of USMC AH-1T which were armed with 1 AIM-9M during OP Preying Mantis int he Persian Gulf...... that wasnt a common configuration either ....

 

Of course, the USMC wanted and made sure that the AH-1T got AIM-9 capability. But it wasn't a common operational configuration.

But there were/are times where a AIM-9 just might be handy.

 

I think that applies to the A-6 too.

Think about a "low Intensity" conflict where Coastal Anti-Shipping Patrols need to be done and the opposing forces have armed Helos or other small aircraft, which can pop up out of hides and appear real quick.

Think about a "fantasy" B-58 strategic strike campaign into Siberia with F-105s having guns and strike abiility stripped and replaced by drop tanks and sidewinder racks for the long range escort role, before F-4C is available, with F-101A (Jaguar 3d model) having been mauled by Su-7 and MiG-21F day fighters. What-if scenarios often require some common sense changes to Hysterical Correct loadout options.

 

Su-24s carry R-60s. A Kingfisher shot down a Zero. Stuka pilot Frank Neubert may have gotten the first air-air kill in World War 2, a possibilty shared with Stanislaw Skalski in a fighter just as slow as a Stuka.

[+allenjb42 4,133]

Also, let's not forget that that the proposed A-6F and A-6G models would have given the Intruder extra wing stations for carrying Sidewinders outboard, thereby freeing up the existing stations purely for fuel/A2G weapons, and they would have gotten a new radar with the capability for using AIM-120 - which is a whole other debate!

 

I personally don't think that adding Sidewinders to the A-6 is 'play{ing} fast and loose with things such as loadouts and tactics.' On the contrary it's just adding a capability to the in game plane that was there on the real thing. There have been posts on the thread supporting that, and I think everyone agrees that it could carry them and squadrons at least practiced with them even if it wasn't all that common to carry them operationally.

 

Whether individuals take the option of including those missiles when they go for a flight is up to them. I won't be including Sidewinders on the loadouts or giving the plane any air to air roles, but I just felt that the option should be there if anyone wants it.

 

As an aside, the stock A-6A in WOV has IRM included on the weapons stations right out of the box.

 

As another aside, and this may well be my memory playing tricks, but I'm sure I remember reading an article in a magazine several years ago about a carrier airwing (may have been a Pacific Fleet carrier) where the fighters were grounded for some technical reason (suggesting it was a Midway class because surely if the carrier had both F-14s and 18s both fleets wouldn't be grounded at the same time would they?), and the A-6s had to stand alert and even flew some intercepts on probing Bears or Badgers - I would assume that they would have carried AIM-9s then - there may have been pics in the article.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

allen::

Also, let's not forget that that the proposed A-6F and A-6G models would have given the Intruder extra wing stations for carrying Sidewinders outboard, thereby freeing up the existing stations purely for fuel/A2G weapons, and they would have gotten a new radar with the capability for using AIM-120 - which is a whole other debate!

hehe it gets alot worse. Lacking F-14s, NAVY might could convert A-6s into the modern version of the Missileer subsonic standoff fleet defender with Phoenix+ missiles.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

:

:

Originally, the Navy had planned to meet this FAD ((Fleet Air Defence)) requirement with the Douglas F6D-1 Missileer. The F6D-1 was a subsonic aircraft that looked a lot like a scaled-up F3D Skyknight. It was to be powered by two 10,000 lb.s.t. Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-2 turbofans, and was to carry a three-man crew (pilot, co-pilot, and weapons system operator). The Missileer was to be capable of remaining on patrol for up to six hours, tracking targets at long range using its powerful Hughes pulsed-Doppler track-while-scan radar and attacking threats with its six long-range Bendix XAAM-10 Eagle air-to-air missiles. The Eagle was a massive long-range air-to-air missile with a maximum speed of Mach 4. It was equipped with an advanced pulse-Doppler active radar homer. The warhead of the Eagle could be either conventional or nuclear.

 

The F6D aircraft was considered by the Navy to be too costly and too specialized, and was thought to be too slow to be capable of defending itself once its missiles had been launched. Consequently, the F6D and its Eagle missiles were both cancelled in December of 1960 in the last waning days of the Eisenhower administration. This still left the FAD requirement unfulfilled.

:

:

F-111A ~ http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f111_1.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You know, anything that looks a lot like a scaled up F3D Skynight would resemble an A-6.

[charlielima 328]

Quote from ALLENJB42's:

Also, let's not forget that that the proposed A-6F and A-6G models would have given the Intruder extra wing stations for carrying Sidewinders outboard, thereby freeing up the existing stations purely for fuel/A2G weapons, and they would have gotten a new radar with the capability for using AIM-120 - which is a whole other debate!

 

It appears it is part of this debate now. If the CAG wants to launch aircraft for the Bear or Badger, yah He'll want fleet intercepters first but if there is A-7s or A-6s on the cats with Arms and CBUs guess what thier mission is now. folks in Navy / Carrier Air are always being pulled in one or more direction then they have the right weapons platform, training, experiance, and flexibility for. Remember the movie The bridges over Toko Ri? The carrier used up the SPADS to do what tugboats are for. Sure thats fiction, but those of us who went to war (Peace if there is such a thing @ sea) in a big grey building with a roof load of airplanes know or have experianced something equally absurd. Part of the joy in the Naval Aviation adventure is the pride we take in performing something twisted, executing it profesionaly, getting a bitchin' out come for shop, squadron, airwing, ship, and country. All for the best reward I can remember: a glass of bug juice, detailed direction on what I don't know, what we didn't do, and what didn't happen, and a hearty Bravo Zulu from a guy twice my age and 5 times the experiance and worth as me. :ph34r: CL

 

 

[+allenjb42 4,133]

Next question is re. The A-6B defence suppression variant.

 

Anyone know how many were assigned to a squadron and which modex numbers were assigned?

 

My research is taking me nowhere at the moment.

 

Thanks

[Blade 291]

Next question is re. The A-6B defence suppression variant.

 

Anyone know how many were assigned to a squadron and which modex numbers were assigned?

 

My research is taking me nowhere at the moment.

 

Thanks

 

Considering the fact that only 19 Intruders were converted to A-6B standards, I guess only a handful could be assigned to each squadron. The following quotation (http://www.aero-web.org/specs/grumman/a-6b.htm) seems to suport this:

 

While a member of VA-75 in 1967, I took training on The Standard ARM platform through VX-5, Det O. VA-75 was the FIRST operational Navy squadron to use this plane and missle in combat (1967-68 West Pac on USS Kitty Hawk.

The bureau numbers of our 3 aircraft were 149949, 151561 and 151564. We had the planes before the missles and the Captain of the Kitty Hawk told us there were no free riders on his ship. If we didn't have missiles, we were to affix drop tanks and a budddy store and tank CAG 11 aircraft.Imagine the forerunner of the KA-6D cosing 22 million dollars a pop in 1968! Thankfully, we did not loose any of ours while we had them.

[+allenjb42 4,133]

Yeah, I've read that article too Blade. I also had a look in my dog eared copy of Flight of the Intruder, and when Grafton and Tiger Cole fly the B their callsign is Devil 511.

 

So would the A's be 500 - 510, the B's be 511, 512 & 513 and the D's 520 - 524?

[ezlead 42]

Just my 2 cents.

Try to fly an A-6 campaign in SFP1 or WOV and half the time your not escorted.

When Migs show up(almost everytime) you scream for Red Crown for assistance and you get "There are no fighter aircraft available".

After being shot down twice by them I loaded up the "Winders.

I sometimes even put a Suu gunpod on centerline.

It's like dogfighting with an Abrams,but sometimes you get lucky if you keep your speed up.

Just an FYI .

In Vietnam there were so many of our Mig hungry fighter jocks in the area(Navy alpha strikes),that you were afraid one of them would hose your A_ _.

I got bounced twice by F-4's and once by F-8's.

Good thing Rules of Engagement was Visual I D.

[+saint aj 0]

I don't see why the sidewinder thing is even a debate. Rig the appropriate pylons for IRMs and leave the Sidewinders out of the default loadouts. You don't get AI planes carrying AAMs and the rivet counters don't have to worry about their precious historical accuracy being spoiled. Problem solved.

[ironroad 218]

After going I have been re-affirmed in my core morals and beliefs that...

 

No F-4 shall carry a gun off the deck of a carrier.

 

No man should ever smoke a "slim " cigarette.

 

No Navy F-8 shall carry a pound for air to ground (unless you count zuni pods)

 

No A-5 shall carry external stores (expect a strobe, fuel tank, or canoe)

 

No light beers

 

I will not fire a gun pod above 500kts

 

No tomcat shall be armed with a/g before 1992 (I don't care what your Spirit of 76* edition of Aviation Weekly says)

 

If you shook it more than once, you played with it...

 

Only IAF/Saudi F-15Cs can carry bombs

 

The bullpup is not a toy

 

No fuselage weapons when the TARPS is loaded (forward phoenix pylons and or Bullwinkles are required)

 

 

 

 

Ohh... but the exception is a Marine airframe can be loaded up with everything from grandma's bloomers and the kitchen sink :-)

Edited June 10, 2007 by ironroad

[+Crusader 2,059]

I came across this today.....

( btw I like to dig up old threads :D ) LOL

 

 

typical loadout for ops agains Libya... ?

I've read Southernap's post at page 2 of this thread..

 

'winder or no 'winder - that is the question ... LOL

Edited September 22, 2007 by Crusader

[WarlordATF 1]

This has been a very interesting discussion. IMO I think that if the aircraft had the ability to carry the weapon than it would be realisticly wrong not to include that option. At the same time i agree that the loadouts should reflect the real loadouts. So if the A-6 could carry Sidewinders than the sims version should be able to also, but it should not be a part of the loadout since they were not used in operations.

 

Both sides to this discussion have valid points and i can understand both points of view. From a realism standpoint, you really need the aircrafts full loadouts, Then each person can decide if they want to use them or not. In the real world there are higher ranking officers who make the call about what is and is not loaded, however in this sim we are the ultimate authority so it should be up to us to make the call.

 

I'm not saying that we should give fantasy loadouts, just that what the aircraft could actually carry should be available.

[dannavy85 25]

So one post to this thread talked about fighters being downed for a technical issue, that was the F/A-18 fleet back in 1990 between February to July. Reason being was cracking in the vertical stabs that caused one to depart an 18 off California. I was assigned as an NDI tech at NAF Atsugi in 90 when the emergency message called for all of CVW-5's 18's to be x-rayed for vert stab cracks....we found two birds that were. Our crew spent three days and nights shooting every Hornet and sending the results to NAVAIR. Till then the Intruders that were capable from VA-115 and 185 were ready ordered to be armed with "winders" (2 per each 4 pylons) that would have been a sight.​

Flying an A-6F is like being Trudy from Avatar...."Oops....I got a gun too bitch." not to mention winders and a faster Intruder mister MIG.