This happens to be a myth.
No, the AGM-65 on the LAU-88 will not cause direct damage to the tire of the landing gear or the aft flap while being on the inboard station of a LAU-88, this was done at the request of maintainers due to discoloration on the aft flap requiring more repainting, it was not causing actual tangible damage.
To quote the 10C’s SAC, “Launching Maverick missiles from the inboard rail of a LAU-88A/A should be avoided to minimize paint and rain erosion coating deterioration.”
TLDR, the inner rail was cleared on modern 88s because it reduced maintenance overhead, not because it was dangerous.
That and as others have said, if it is the outboard AGM-65, why not just remove that missile from the LAU-88, there is nothing stopping such from occurring and it is heavily against SAC to have asymmetric MERs on any aircraft.
So either fully remove the LAU-88 from the A-10C as it one does not load asymmetric MERs onto a USAF aircraft, remove the outboard AGM-65, or we can realize that this is a game where systems operate in their absolute perfect forms and give it the 6 AGM-65s as it should have.
Come to think of it, similar issues have been handwaved on other aircraft like the SU-27, who’s RWR cannot function while the radar is emitting, why isn’t that in game if we are modeling such a similar issue on the A-10C?
Making a edit here to also ask a question that just popped into my mind on the dev server as well.
Why do laser mavs exist on the AV-8B NA and A-10C, as of now they are just worse IR mavs as their maximum seeker range is a mere 10km while IR mavs can lock targets out to 20km. Laser mavs have equal range to some helicopter ATGMs.
I really see no reason for laser mavs to exist in game if they can only engage out to 10km, unless someone is camping next to wrecks which can already be solved in other ways.
