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
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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)
3 Likes
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???
1 Like
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.
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
A historical report by joshwagstaff13 on the A-4E (and A-4F) and a picture of the TA-4E carrying 4x AIM-9s is far more than enough proof that it CAN carry 4x AIM-9s, and by extension the A-4M should as well. This is objectively the truth.
So the Israeli A-4E(s) having the Sidewinders mounted on the outer-wing station(s) somehow isn’t a direct indication that the station could be fitted for Sidewinders on the A-4E?
The yet US A-4E can only take them on the Inner-wing Station do you not find that odd considering that they are the same airframes (Operation Nickel Grass)?
And implying that there were massive structural changes between the A-4E/F & G models is laughable.
The report in question
What’s also interesting is that every SAC for every A-4 says that the Sidewinder is carried on the inboard ing pylon, but every picture of a Sidewinder attached to a US A-4 is mounted on the outboard wing pylon, even on the older models like the A-4B
1 Like
As Josh put it the reasoning is as follows.
The LAU-7/A Launcher is attached to the Aero 20A-1 ejector rack by means of of a Missile launcher adapter.
As per Note “B” on page #10 [PDF #12] of the A-4E SAC All wing stations use the Aero -20 Wing Rack Pylon
The ADU-229/E Missile Launcher Adapter is used to adapt the LAU-7/A Guided Missile Launcher to the Aero -20-1 Ejector Rack
Four electrically triggered cartridge actuated. Aero -20-1 Ejector Racks may be suspended from left and right hand wing stations.
2 Likes