The A-4E is supposed to have 8,400 lbf (3,810kgf) of thrust ,but it still has 7,650 lbf (3,470 kgf) of the A-4B that’s 750 lbf (340 kgf) missing. It’s even stated in the wiki but was never fixed.
Thrust values quoted online and in books are typically the thrust of the engine when it is outside of the aircraft on a test bench. Once the engine is installed in the aircraft the intakes restrict the airflow into the engine reducing thrust. This “installed thrust” is the value used in War Thunder.
It has 150 more thrust then the J52-P-3 engine. Also had the wrong engine the upgrades the A-4E has means it’s would have the J52-P-8A/B so 9,300.
The A-4E early and the A-4E(M) both have the -6A engine, I believe they made it like that solely because they were supposed to represent the earliest possible versions of the model (hence why they do not have mavericks, dunno why it would be such a problem if they added them lol).
So uh, yea, a tad bit of an unknown to me too.
yeah I don’t think they put much thought into it since all the upgrades it has are from the newest version not to mention they never gave it self-sealing fuel tanks in the wings which from the info I found said it did (only took a quick google search) so just laziness on their part.
Even if they were later models of the Skyhawk, they wouldn’t have Mavericks.
A-4E Early and A-4E Late are apparently official US designations. IIRC the difference is to do with the electrical wiring and avionics and both the Early and Late received the same upgrades throughout their life. Apparently there are plenty of issues with how the A-4E Early is modelled though.
Except all A-4 models are unique because their engines were tested when already installed on the aircraft, as such, if you see that it says 8400 lbf in its manual, it should actually have this amount of power in-game, as the static thrust would be higher.
A-4M will/should be able to equip Mavericks, if not, it should get a better A2A loadout so the export variant (the Israeli one) isn’t straight up better (the US A-4E is also missing 4x AIM-9D, the M should have 4x Ls or something)
Care to show any evidence to support that claim?
Here’s a bug report on the old forum by the man himself (joshwagstaff13) about the engine thrust issues - basically, the engine was tested when already installed on the A-4, meaning all A-4 variants are handily underperforming in engine power
Here is also a historical report proving that the A-4E should have not only AIM-9D, but also the capability to equip 4x AIM-9Ds
Here are also some pictures of the TA-4J carrying AIM-9L/Ms and a picture of the A-4M carrying AIM-9L/M - it is reasonable to assume that the A-4M would be able to carry 4x AIM-9L/M as the A-4E could the Ds:
Here’s also pictures of the A-4Ms carrying Mavericks:
While the Mavericks on the US A-4Ms where only experimentally fitted, I don’t see why it shouldn’t get them, as the Israeli A-4M (or A-4N) would still be better in the A2G role because of the triple Maverick setup on the center pylon (which was also only experimental to my knowledge). The US A-4Ms also only had laser Mavericks, but they should just replace them with the AGM-65As, Bs and Ds.
All-in-all, Israel can get a better ground attack A-4 with lots of Mavericks without sacrificing IR missiles capability, while the US can get better IR missiles (AIM-9G if same BR, L if 10.0+) and better Mavericks (AGM-65D) in return for less of them and sacrificing the IR missile payload
Oh nice, real cool to see those pics. I was searching for stuff I could include into possible suggestion posts for the A-4E late or A-4F.
Thank you, really
Those are laser-guided Mavericks (AGM-65C/E), which the A-4M did not have the capability to self-lase (as it lacked a laser-designator).
Only 2x A-4Ms were actually outfitted with the capability to test these Mavericks, and they had to rely on buddy-lasing to actually fire them.
I think you meant 2x 9Ds, which would increase its BR BTW.
It’s fine at 8.7.
4x missile loadouts are a variant after E.
As shown in the bug report, the A-4E was perfectly capable of using 4x AIM-9Ds because the current plane in-game is from like at least 1969, but more likely around the early 70s, at which point A-4Es and F received the capability.
Although I think it should not get AIM-9Ds, it most definitely should get the P-8 engine with increased thrust as the Israeli A-4 sits at the same BR with a better engine and GBU-8, for some fkin reason. Or the Israeli one should simply go up in BR as it is objectively better.
The A-4M is the one that should definitely get at least 4xAIM-9G AND AGM-65Bs, if not Ds, at the same BR as A-4N/Ayit (which should go to 9.7 in RB). I don’t see why it shouldn’t get Mavericks as it was at least tested with them and makes sense as the final US variant of the plane. Many other planes get equipment they only tested, most notably Harrier GR.7 getting guns that didn’t work at all and Mavericks it never used.
The Mavs on the A-4M would simply also be replaced by Bs and Ds instead of the laser guided ones.
Here’s some more pictures of different A-4Ms (?, no ARBS, drogue chute not visible?) equipped with AIM-9L/M on the outer pylon
From Brad Elward’s “McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk” showing the TA-4E BuNo. 152102 carrying 4x AIM-9s.
Unfortunately, my copy of this document is pretty bad, and it isn’t specified which AIM-9 variants these are or what year it is. I only managed to extract the text because Microsoft Edge’s PDF reader could copy it.
If we’re talking about additional ordnance for the A-4, here’s a few more that could be added.
The Walleye II
An early two way datalink (AN/AWG-16) for the Walleye, mounted to an A-4C
This is the ERDL (AN/AWW-13), which provided post release control to various Standoff ordnance.
The added cockpit panel for the datalink fitted to an A-4E & A-4M
AGM-65D seeker mated to a Walleye I & II (note the different gradient on the adapter in the 2nd image ) on an A-4E
BLU-95 & -96 (500lb /2000lb class FAE)
I bug reported this more than once in the old forums and I’ve always been shut down because “channel loss, that’s why the Skyhawks have less thrust than stated in the manual” but there’s plenty other planes that don’t have channel loss whatsoever???
That’s an A-4M, yeah. ARBS was a later improvement during the A-4M production run.
Talking about the A-4M, when the hell are we gonna get it. The fact that the US only has ONE variant of the Skyhawk in the regular tree, being one of the longest production and serving planes in the US is outrageous.
The only evidence of any A-4 having 4 Aim-9s is Australia adding support for theirs.
A-4Es we have in-game cannot have 4 Aim-9s.
TA-4E BuNo is an entirely different variant of the A-4E.