A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam

What, no Rhino?

Sorry you are right :helpsmilie:

F-18 takes 3d place and the rest moves down a slot :music_whistling:

What? Not even close.

 

First, you'd be surprised at how accurately a well tuned single B-17 could drop its bombs.

 

Second, they sent more than 1 B-17's because a single B-17 was dead meat against any single fighter plane any country put up of any type, (most any) speed, armament, and / or pilot skill level. The "Flying Fortress" was not a fortress at all. Not to mention that AAA claimed more than interceptors did.

 

 

Area bombing with swarms of heavy bombers arose not out of inaccuracy, but of necessity for most to get through to accomplish the mission. Saying otherwise is just being ignorant of history and reality.

This was not a slight on the B-17 or its crews; this is merely a cold mathematical weaponeering calculation based on CEP.

I'll grant that a Norden bombsight in the hands of a very good bombardier could provide the accuracy of unassisted CCRP (think unzoomed A-10C TGP as SPI without lasing the target), but you still have to deal with dropping dumb bombs from high altitude, and the varying winds aloft that will change the bombs' flightpath. This makes for a large CEP, and CEP is the primary driver for the number of weapons you need on an aimpoint. Combine that with the fact that the surrounding bombers dropped on the primary bombardier's cue, and you have a philosophy of putting as many bombs in the area as possible hoping that enough will hit the target. This is also assuming that the bombardier had visibility to the target.

Of course, part of the numbers game was assuming some sort of attrition, and today's strikes are no different. Even if a single JDAM can take out the target, you'll have at least a section (more likely a 4-ship) as strikers in the package. This accounts for duds, mechanical failure in flight, etc.

What, no Rhino?

Actually, Mainstay had the original Rhino at #3 (the F-4). :D

I'd actually like to see a ka-6 pilotable: would add a new dimension to carrier-based recoveries (two pilots both flying straight and level)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A6 Tanker anyone?

Yep it would be a blast to fly the ole A6 in tanker configuration and do multiplayer refueling of F14's right after they launched in full burner and needed fuel for the mission.

A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam

Or passing fuel to late night bolters, in the weather, then making your own traps

By the way, any former intruder pilots or B/Ns here? I'd love to know more about how DIANE looked and worked, and haven't a clue where to look around.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would like to come back to the topic (A-6 Intruder):

Does anyone know whether the KA-6 tanker Intruders had a different cockpit?

So basically the question is: Was that a normal A-6 that could still be used for bombing, or was it modified?

 

EDIT: Found it myself. They were modified. So probably we won't get that so easily from Razbam. (not that I would be too interested in flying a tanker, but for some it would be fun I guess)

Interesting. For the A-4 to be capable of mounting the D-704, they only changed a single panel in the cockpit.

KA-6 would be really cool and a nice unique selling point for the A-6, specially with so many planes that use the hose and drogue method coming to DCS.

YES! The main aircraft ive been hopeing to fly in DCS!

Interesting. For the A-4 to be capable of mounting the D-704, they only changed a single panel in the cockpit.

The KA-6D had an internal hose drogue unit installed in the aft fuselage where the birdcage is located on the A-6E and EA-6B. It was missionized for the tanker role and DIANE was removed so it could not do night time radar bombing. It could also use the D-704 pod as well.

March 22, 1986, USS Coral Sea off Libya, two days prior the outbreak of hostilities. Note the Harpoon and Sidewinder missiles.

A-6E with a D-704 store refueling SuE's

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Super_Etendard_Intruder.jpg

Mhmmm pic from '96, most probably SEMs (upgraded SuE's) ;)

While the A-6 could carry a Sidewinder, I believe that doctrinally speaking they almost never did. After all, the A-6 was supposed to be either part of an Alpha Strike and as such defended by the F-14s/F-4s or they flew in such weather that nobody else could.

I remember reading a passage in "The Intruders" by Stephen Coonts, that he claimed happened in real life, where a couple of A-6 flew a strike package in the middle of a tropical storm against a Soviet fleet, in retaliation to an incident that happened a few days before. The A-6s were armed with flares but the message was just plain clear "Stormy weather will not save you." Fictional? Very likely, but the A-6 was supposed to be able to do that.

The choice not to fly sidewinders in the A6 seems more doctrinal than capability. I guess thinking is that a lot of people in planning, BARCAP, AWACS, and many other supporting roles in the intruder's mission will have completely screwed up if a flight of intruders have to make fox-2 calls...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The choice not to fly sidewinders in the A6 seems more doctrinal than capability. I guess thinking is that a lot of people in planning, BARCAP, AWACS, and many other supporting roles in the intruder's mission will have completely screwed up if a flight of intruders have to make fox-2 calls...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the above photo is indeed from just prior to El Dorado Canyon then the AIM-9 was definitely used as a self defense weapon for certain missions, anti-shipping strike in this case. This looks like a good loadout for attacking small surface combatants like missile boats, corvettes or frigates that would be operating together closer to shore. Being closer to shore means being closer to enemy interceptors so I can see the usefulness of bringing along a self defense weapon like the AIM-9.

That's a fair point. Bit telling that they only wanted to lug one along though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The picture above was taken when combat was imminent (March 22). On March 24, two Intruders from VA-34 (USS America) sunk a Libyan Combattante II missile boat with Harpoons and Intruders from VA-34 (USS Saratoga) damaged a Nanuchka with Rockeyes. On March 25, a Nanuchka II was damaged by A-6 from VA-55 (USS Coral Sea) with Rockeyes and sunk by VA-34 with Harpoon. A second Nanuchka II was apparently damaged as well but it made it back to Benghazi. During these days, Tomcats and Hornets intercepted numerous Libyan fighters but no shots were fired by either side.

Here is another picture of a Sidewinder getting loaded on a Intruder:

March 23, 1986, VA-55, USS Coral Sea

Well, i had a chance to chat with a former VA-55 A-6 B/N when i was developing the FSX version, since back then, we were the 1st to include "usable" weapons in FSX with this product, and I was checking on loadouts.

His info on winders on truders was that basically they were thought to be used as last minute defense against in-flight anti ship missiles, like the exocet which the Lybian had in it´s 2 forms, ship borne and aircraft borne. So if they happen to catch an in flight exocet, the idea was that they would shoot it down with the AIM-9, hence the anti-ship loadout.

At least, this is what i was told back then.

Best regards

Prowler

Sounds exciting!

The choice not to fly sidewinders in the A6 seems more doctrinal than capability.

I think it is also dictated by the self defense requirement : In a case of world war, it not likely a fighter squadron will stay at full strengh for long. -> Escorts may not be available after the few first serious aerial battle, and Aim9 on intruder needed.

Well, i had a chance to chat with a former VA-55 A-6 B/N when i was developing the FSX version, since back then, we were the 1st to include "usable" weapons in FSX with this product, and I was checking on loadouts.

His info on winders on truders was that basically they were thought to be used as last minute defense against in-flight anti ship missiles, like the exocet which the Lybian had in it´s 2 forms, ship borne and aircraft borne. So if they happen to catch an in flight exocet, the idea was that they would shoot it down with the AIM-9, hence the anti-ship loadout.

At least, this is what i was told back then.

Best regards

Prowler

Shooting down an Exocet with a sidewinder seems hopelessly optomistic. But I guess that's the military for you...

Shooting down an Exocet with a sidewinder seems hopelessly optomistic. But I guess that's the military for you...

Well if they are within missile range then it should be pretty plausible.

As the Exocet is not a very fast missile (mach 0.9 top speed)

So as long as its hot enough for the Seeker to see it then it should be doable.

But since the A-6 is not that fast it would have to be in the right spot to have a good chance at an intercept.

Not a perfect strategy but its doable.

A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam

Yeah I was thinking that the a-6's speed disadvantage plus the small heat source would've made a successful intercept unlikely

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We need a built-in mumble type system with squads if we want multicrews where pubbies can just jump in together. Rendering them only useful to clans or people who know each other will make the module sell less and its not necessary.

Pubbies in Project Reality were able to jump into multicrew vehicles that relied on one crewman giving orders to the other that required quick execution in the middle of combat and it worked.

Nothing that fancy is needed, we just need the ability to swap seats in MP if the other seats aren't taken by another human. The L-39 doesn't currently allow this and although not important for it, that ability will be critical for the true multicrewed aircraft being made such as the A-6. That issue is a ways off for the A-6 though, given that it's coming after the Harrier, Tucano and F-15E I think. Not sure if the F-15E offers any backseat functionality that isn't also present in the front, so it may not matter like with the L-39.