The right man (missile) for the job..?

[Ashilta]

Folks,

 

I've been picking the 10C up a lot recently and I've found that on occasions, the Maverick is particularly bad at finding targets and so I end up over-using Force Correlate. It struck me that the sensors on each Mav might be different, and so the question is raised: are the 'better' and 'worse' missiles for a given tasking, or are the sensors more-or-less the same?

 

Ashilta

[mwd2]

AGM-65G. Imaging infrared seeker with 300 lb heavyweight penetrator warhead

AGM-65H. Electro-optical seeker with 125 lb shaped warhead

AGM-65K. Electro-optical seeker with 300 lb heavyweight penetrator warhead

TGM-65D. Training version of AGM-65D with inert rocket motor and warhead

TGM-65G. Training version of AGM-65G with inert rocket motor and warhead

CATM-65K. Training version of AGM-65K with inert rocket motor and warhead

TGM-65H. Training version of AGM-65H with inert rocket motor and warhead

[PFunk1606688187]

D/G's tend to have better range and clearly are the only ones that work at night. H/K's as I understand it are actually considerably newer missiles and in correct conditions ought to at least match or outrange Ds but this doesn't seem to be reflected in their performance in sim. Gs and Ks are basically the same seekers but larger in 300lb heavyweight warheads that are intended to penetrate larger targets like structures rather than vehicles (warhead qualities almost certainly not fully modeled in DCS). There's little reason to use a G on a tank when you can use a D instead, same with K versus H. At best you get better secondaries but you lose the option of the LAU-88. If you didn't know the D/G is an Imaging Infra-Red seeker and the H/K is an Electro-Optical seeker.

 

FYI use of Force Correlate is currently an exploit of the under-modeling of the Mavericks. The very nature of how Force Correlate tracking mode functions in real life would make it effectively impossible to use as a super leet sniper mode. Basically if the missile can't lock in Centroid tracking mode it will not hit a point target in FC. Realistically though lock on ranges for Mavericks in real life are considerably variable based on light and environment conditions. My understanding is that RL lock on ranges under 5nm are realistic to an extent while max theoretical launch ranges found in DCS and achieved with Force Correlate are not reflective of real life practical range.

 

The practical issue with the Maverick simulation appears to be that it does not in fact lock onto the contrast image observed by the seeker head but instead only locks onto actual living objects in the game world. You can observe this by seeing how you cannot lock onto a destroyed vehicle despite it possibly demonstrating a superior contrast once burning or how if two aircraft fire simultaneously on the same vehicle that the late Maverick will veer off target wildly as it loses track the moment the unit is destroyed by the first hit. This means that regardless of the quality of the image your lock on range seems to be limited by some invisible voodoo magic making judgment of lock on ranges less about observation and more about rote knowledge of the abstraction of the seeker head simulation.

 

So clearly there are considerable deficiencies in the Maverick model (nothing to ruin your fun thankfully), not the least of which is the apparent absence of any real limited lock and launch parameters (referred to as the keyhole) along with all the above. In general its undermodeling seems to cut both ways in the advantageous/disadvantageous continuum. With respect to issues with lock on range I'd suggest you adapt as a real pilot would and utilize tactics in place of conveniently excessive range to target as a means to defeat threats to you. Terrain masking works well.

Edited September 14, 2015 by P*Funk

[Ashilta]

I wonder then if I've simply been coming about this wrong... I typically load two racks of K's, force correlate my way through long range missile threats and then rely on a combination of TGP SPI and Slave Mav's to SPI to identify and Maverick any remaining AAA threats. I guess my problem is that I'm expecting to lock on further than I actually can, because of the contrast issue you've suggested. I frequently find that with the K, at ranges of seven or eight miles, I simply can't lock onto a target with Mav. I was wanting to blame the sensor but maybe it's just my expectation!

[BaconSarnie]

Well at least I know its not just me having this issue, Ive been scratching my head for ages wondering why I constantly have to ground stabilise and force correlate.

[PFunk1606688187]

Well, like I said, my understanding is that the real world is very dynamic. Your Mavericks won't lock at the same ranges all the time. Surely the CCD seeker should lock further than it does but there's no guarantee you should get the ranges you're looking for (honestly I can't be sure what the practical range of an H/K Mav is under ideal conditions). This means that unlike with other types of guidance such as radar or INS the reliability of practical effect from a certain range using contrast imaging guidance can't be certain so you need -> Tactics.

 

Big bold letters. Now, there are ways to improve your use. Higher alt makes it easier to engage at range and stay out of a SAM WEZ but it also leaves you vulnerable to enemy air threats. Terrain masking lets you get inside of that SAM WEZ then pop up to destroy the target at the nearer range you can lock on. A good teamwork tactic is to use a decoy at the limits of the SAM range and time his decoy maneuver to distract the SAM while you pop up hopefully giving you time to engage then remask. This would involve counting time unmasked in seconds and by double digits you should on your way back behind cover regardless of whether you get the shot off.

 

Realistically though the tactic an A-10 would use is coordinating with SEAD aircraft to have them take out any threats the A-10 can't deal with. Without this more likely than not the A-10 would then not engage targets inside a SAM WEZ that it can't deal with effectively. Thus is a nature of combined operations. This is the great issue with DCS' lack of a multi-role fighter.

[Ashilta]

Cheers, Funk - I guess I just have to play more and find the limitations within the Sim.

 

Forgive the direct question, but are you a driver of the beast or just particularly knowledgeable?

[PFunk1606688187]

You mean of the real beast? Hell no. I wish. I'm merely a dilettante like the rest of us. I've just spent more time dabbling in its dark arts.

 

And as for limitations, its not just sim limitations. The real world has limitations too, hence the need for tactics. If your weapons always out range your enemy's there's not much of a tactical problem for the single seat tactical aircraft to solve. Generally speaking longer range SAMs and networks of them ought to have a leg up on the single seat fighter, particularly one without SEAD support. DCS SAMs are stupid however so you get a leg up on them in that sense, assuming no crafty scripting.

[Ashilta]

From the contrast issues you've described, it sounds like the Sim is more limiting than the real beast!

 

As an extension of my original question, is it more typical to pack a rack of (D's or G's) and a second rack of (H's or K's) or is it entirely mission specific?

 

Ash

[Deezle]

I use the Gs almost exclusively now, the warhead will take out several light/non-armored vehicles in reasonably close proximity.

 

If I'm put up against SAMs in my lone A-10, I don't feel bad about using force correlate to take one at out 14nm.

[=4c=Nikola]

FYI use of Force Correlate is currently an exploit of the under-modeling of the Mavericks. The very nature of how Force Correlate tracking mode functions in real life would make it effectively impossible to use as a super leet sniper mode. Basically if the missile can't lock in Centroid tracking mode it will not hit a point target in FC. Realistically though lock on ranges for Mavericks in real life are considerably variable based on light and environment conditions. My understanding is that RL lock on ranges under 5nm are realistic to an extent while max theoretical launch ranges found in DCS and achieved with Force Correlate are not reflective of real life practical range.

 

Why is that? What is "the very nature of how Force Correlate tracking mode functions in real life"?

[GGTharos]

Without getting too deep into it, force correlate didn't track a target, it tracks a scene. The CEP of this mode is something like 40' at 5nm IIRC, so if you're using it to attack vehicles from extra long range, you're getting the wrong result :-)

[Ragnarok]

Without getting too deep into it, force correlate didn't track a target, it tracks a scene. The CEP of this mode is something like 40' at 5nm IIRC, so if you're using it to attack vehicles from extra long range, you're getting the wrong result :-)

 

is it realistic to 16nm, hit vehicle with Force Correlate tracking mode?

my case: A10 altitude 20000ft, AGM-65K, hit 9S18M1

[GGTharos]

It isn't realistic even at 5nm. Scene correlate is basically a mode that the missile uses to track a target automatically when it gets very close, ie. it becomes very large very quickly in the FoV and expands beyond the point-track gate's capability.

 

Force correlate is basically a way to select this mode while the missile is on the pylon, and aim it at something large. The CEP around the aim point is quite large, large enough that from 5nm you could stand a chance to actually miss a building ... never mind something as small as a vehicle.

 

is it realistic to 16nm, hit vehicle with Force Correlate tracking mode?

my case: A10 altitude 20000ft, AGM-65K, hit 9S18M1

[PFunk1606688187]

I don't believe that people will disabuse themselves of their conceptions of the Maverick without a fight. I don't think my pep talk about tactics made any headway either. :laugh:

[EasyEB]

I like to carry the H model during the day. I feel the slight higher resolution/clearer image it produces lets me pick out targets when they are parked/driving in close proximity with higher certainty, and I have to take out one specific target/threat.

[GGTharos]

Yep, people will keep using what works in the game. No big deal :)

[Ashilta]

Are we essentially saying (conditions depending obviously) that the max engagement range of an A-10 is something like 7 miles, that being the distance at which the sensor picture is clear enough to identify a target by contrast?

[GGTharos]

The range at which the blob is large enough for the gate to track.

 

RL launch ranges for this missile can be as far as 7nm, but according to studies that I've see that's rare. On average they fall inside 3-5nm.

 

If you want to recognize/ID the target itself, IIRC about 7 vertical lines of video are the minimum requirement, so in RL this can also be a factor.

Edited September 15, 2015 by GGTharos

[Ashilta]

This explains why SA11s routinely get the better of me!

[Ragnarok]

I was convinced that AGM65 awesome missile into reality. Honestly, a big disappointment for me :cry:

[=4c=Nikola]

I don't believe that people will disabuse themselves of their conceptions of the Maverick without a fight. I don't think my pep talk about tactics made any headway either. :laugh:

 

What makes you think so? I asked you a genuine question, you didn't even bother to explain.

[GGTharos]

There has been some work to add a data-link to the 65 so you can lock into onto a target in-flight. That was you can launch it from quite far away.

 

I don't know if this has been implemented in practice though, since there are other weapons that can strike targets accurately from those ranges.

 

I was convinced that AGM65 awesome missile into reality. Honestly, a big disappointment for me :cry:

[Ragnarok]

Why is there no laser guided AGM65E/L for A10? Exactly would that be a solution? Like russian Kh-29L, and additionally AGM has more range and benefit is greater! Precision from a long distance...

Edited September 15, 2015 by Ragnarok

[GGTharos]

It's a solution to a different problem. Keep in mind that the laser spot also gets larger with distance.

 

Laser mav's are more about a different way or tracking IMHO than longer range.

 

Anyway the reason we don't have those in-game have to do with contractual requirements of modeling a specific version of the A-10C, AFAIK.

 

Why is there no laser guided AGM65E/L for A10? Exactly would that be a solution? Like russian Kh-29L, and additionally AGM has more range and benefit is greater! Precision from a long distance...