RB 75 Seeker Range

[Vladinsky]

A realistic maverick seeker is something I've wanted for a very long time, the question is, is it actually possible to make one in DCS? It sounds like it could be a potentially huge undertaking.

[Corrigan]

I don't know if it's possible to run your own scripts on top of DCS? Like, you could convolve the seeker image (which is "perfect" in DCS) and then see if the contrast is large enough in this image to allow a lock using a "simple" program. Don't know what that'd do to performance though.

[Pocket Sized]

I don't know if it's possible to run your own scripts on top of DCS? Like, you could convolve the seeker image (which is "perfect" in DCS) and then see if the contrast is large enough in this image to allow a lock using a "simple" program. Don't know what that'd do to performance though.

 

That's actually a really good idea! I have no idea if it would work in practice, but if you're going to make an accurate Maverick simulation, that's the way to do it. The Mav shouldn't have any insight as to where exactly objects are or if they're alive.

 

Once this script analyzed the image and determined it is within params for a lock, the trouble would be somehow telling the weapon in DCS where it's supposed to go.

 

Edit: Maybe you could simply keep the "lock" command from reaching the missile until the script gives the go ahead for a lock? Ofc this wouldn't allow for locking on to any object that has contrast but it would insure it's not locking on to things it shouldn't be. It would also make bigger objects lockable from much further away.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Pocket Sized

[Enduro14]

maybe this will be a fix included with the new thermal imaging they are working on.... i hope anyway it will be

[Schmidtfire]

The current Rb75 is actually a really good air-air weapon. Got a couple of MP kills from 10km+ against both manouvering MiG21s and Su27s. Turns great and will keep the lock and "chase" for a very long time. Maybe not realistic, but great fun :)

[Bullitthead]

The current Rb75 is actually a really good air-air weapon. Got a couple of MP kills from 10km+ against both manouvering MiG21s and Su27s. Turns great and will keep the lock and "chase" for a very long time. Maybe not realistic, but great fun :)

 

I shot an RB75 at a sam site and it ended up tracking and killing a missile that was shot from the site after I had fired.

[Flagrum]

I shot an RB75 at a sam site and it ended up tracking and killing a missile that was shot from the site after I had fired.

More likely the other way around: the SAM missile shot down your MAV ...

[some1]

A realistic maverick seeker is something I've wanted for a very long time, the question is, is it actually possible to make one in DCS? It sounds like it could be a potentially huge undertaking.

 

It's possible, but you need to implement a proper image recognition algorithm.

[Vatikus]

Looking at maverick B manual... the lock on ranges on sunny day (overcast -20%) are specified in avg. figures as:

bridge - 5-15km

train - 2-4km

tank - <3km

[QuiGon]

Cobra said something about the current implementation of the Mavericks, which seems to be outdated and will be updated soon:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3035207&postcount=487

[MBot]

Looking at maverick B manual... the lock on ranges on sunny day (overcast -20%) are specified in avg. figures as:

bridge - 5-15km

train - 2-4km

tank - <3km

 

Nice, this seems exactly what we need (though the A model would be even lower). Can you share this manual?

[MBot]

Cobra said something about the current implementation of the Mavericks, which seems to be outdated and will be updated soon:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3035207&postcount=487

 

That is good news, though I have the impression this applies to the flight dynamics. I am not sure if it affects the seeker.

[Fri13]

How would you know about the locking time? There is nothing in the mentioned tests on what they were actually testing. A pilot is taught to prepare himself as early as possible for an interdiction, that gives him more time and offloads him when he needs to make the decision whether to pull the trigger or not.

 

The variation that test is the interesting part, as when you do testing, repeatability is a key. So you have marked distances and all variations put same so you can rerun tests all the time.

And now on that chart the ranges varies, a lot more than a second or two.

 

And the release time after lock now was just based to A-10C timing, where you can release just after getting lock. And we are talking distances in that chart where you are in SAM zone, so you can't just sit there and wait seconds as every second is increase to change getting hit.

 

And I base myestimation that 5 seconds is final decision. You need to be sure at moment you remove safety,

Safety is removed when you are ready to release.

 

If this was a simulation of the weapons effectiveness in a real scenario, one could imagine the same tactic being used as was used with the A10A, where the maverick sensor was used as a means to identify a target through the Maverick optics. In which case locking on early would be the preferred option.

 

Again, let`s not extrapolate things that are clearly insufficiently described through a couple of diagrams.

 

Sure the Maverick was there as their eye ball Mk2 at low light, and with Viggen you don't have a ground stabilization so locking is required to get it stable. So two different ways.

And on Viggen unsafe triggered range and impact point calculations so you were required to unsafe before aiming basically.

 

Butthe point stillis,in real life I don't think no oneis locking and releasing immediately after that, instead they lock, confirm lock on right target, call the launch and then launch. Thatis at least 5 seconds with good margin.

[Fri13]

It's possible, but you need to implement a proper image recognition algorithm.

 

Just a contrast lock that is easy today really, this from a simple apps that does it on smartphones etc.

 

The problem really is more of a realistic visibility, that would require a simulated dark-flashlight modelling so your missile works as flashlight and everything is dark, and t needs to lit the scene by itself based inverse square law.

[MBot]

Regarding the RB 75/Maverick operational range, I came across some interesting comments from former F-4 and F-16 drivers:

 

[...] I did lots of Maverick at Homestead in Blk 15 jets from 1991 on. We trained with A, B, D, and G models and I shot a live B and D from the Blk 15s and a G-model from a Blk 32. The A-model was useless and dangerous as you needed to get closer to get a lock on and shoot than you did dropping dumb bombs and often you had to reattack to get lock on. Sometimes you couldn't (go all that way, face all those threats, and come away empty handed?). The B-model was only slightly better. The D and G were great and wish I had seen the H.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=364993&sid=a8c623d39825482b54a229f74cb24401#p364993

 

 

"Standoff": A little history on the Maverick missile; The F-4 and F-105 were the primary USAF air-to-ground fighters in Vietnam. They were "red reticle" or "iron sight" or manual bombers. We were terribly inaccurate, especially in combat conditions. I don't recall the exact numbers (and they were classified anyway) but to kill a Soviet tank, you had to physically hit the topside with a MK82 to kill it, and you had to get within something like 8 feet with a MK84. I worked with JMEMs a lot, and recall that an F-4D dropping 12xMK82 on a single pass had something like a 10% PK on a Soviet main battle tank. The main concern for USAFE was trying to stop waves of thousands of Warsaw Pact tanks rolling through the Fulda Gap. The MK20 Rockeye was one attempt to solve the problem. While better than MK82 GP bombs, it still had a pretty low PK. Another solution was the AGM-65. As I recall the AGM-65 PK was around 50% once launched. Therefore, an F-4 carrying 6xAGM-65 had a good chance of taking out three tanks, whereas an F-4 armed with 12xMK82 had a 10% chance of taking out one tank. Clearly, the Maverick was a much better tank killer than a GP bomb. Note that there was no mention of "standoff" with the AGM-65. It was not a "standoff" weapon, but a precision guided anti-tank munition.

 

A little reality check on the "standoff" concept: When attacking a runway, the enemy defenses (ZSU-23-4, SA-6, etc) are not parked on the center of your target runway. They surround the airfield within a radius of 3-5 miles. Similarly, if you attack a bridge, the defenses are not located on the middle span of the bridge, they're on the hilltops surrounding the bridge. When you attack a tank on a battlefield, it is surrounded by 30,000 troops within 10 miles carrying SA-7s and six bazillion guns. When you say that you are employing a "standoff" weapon against a target, that does not "stand you off" from all the defenses that you have to fly over to reach said target. As JB said, in USAFE in the early 1980s, you had to get right in amongst them to deliver your weapons. There was no "standoff" as it is envisioned today.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=365134&sid=a8c623d39825482b54a229f74cb24401#p365134

 

 

Remember, the AGM-65A/B was an anti-tank weapon. It was useless against bridge abutments or ships or aircraft shelters. Its sole advantage over a MK-82 was the greater likelihood of actually hitting a tank. Now think about what the prevailing weather would have been in Central Europe or Korea during a major tank invasion. The ceiling would have probably been around 2000' AGL, and the vis would have been less than 5 miles. Add in dense forests, tall buildings, dense urban areas, smoke, dust, haze, and rain. Now imagine trying to pick out a camouflaged tank operating in that environment. At 5 miles a tank is less than one mil size to the naked eye. The AGM-65A/B centroid tracker could not see a target that size, much less keep a lock during launch transients. You didn't want to waste your precious Maverick on a Red Army food truck serving borscht to Ivan, and you could not distinguish the many trucks from the few tanks at 5 miles. Realistically, the max range that you could acquire and lock up a tank was probably about 18,000' slant range, and min range was probably around 5,000' slant range.

 

When I shot my AGM-65B at Nellis in 1986, we were very familiar with the area, we had INS coordinates for the target tank column, the tanks were dark green against a bright yellow desert background, and the weather was CAVU, there was no smoke, and nobody was shooting at us. As I recall, I started trying to lock up my target (last tank in the column) at about 12,000' slant range, and drove in to almost minimum range before getting a solid lock at around 5,000' range. (The missile hit the tank.)

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=365176&sid=1fb46264e7fad44ade76ef5f7237a144#p365176

 

 

Fascinating reads.

 

Keep in mind that the RB 75 is a AGM-65A without the scene magnification of the AGM-65B. Also keep in mind that the RB 75T has a blast fragmentation warhead, as opposed to the anti-tank warhead of the RB 75/AGM-65A/AGM-65B.

[Fri13]

Regarding the RB 75/Maverick operational range, I came across some interesting comments from former F-4 and F-16 drivers:

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=364993&sid=a8c623d39825482b54a229f74cb24401#p364993

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=365134&sid=a8c623d39825482b54a229f74cb24401#p365134

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=365176&sid=1fb46264e7fad44ade76ef5f7237a144#p365176

 

 

 

 

 

Fascinating reads.

 

 

 

Keep in mind that the RB 75 is a AGM-65A without the scene magnification of the AGM-65B. Also keep in mind that the RB 75T has a blast fragmentation warhead, as opposed to the anti-tank warhead of the RB 75/AGM-65A/AGM-65B.

Those are. It is interesting that in DCS we have extremely long lock and launch ranges, constantly people launching from a 15-18 nm ranges and rarely missing at all.

 

So based just for your post quotes, lots of ranges should be cut down many times, and making a Maverick seeker camera far lower resolution and detailed....

 

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

[2-niner]

The only way to really do it properly is to simulate the original seekers functionality by letting it do feature-detection on a low-res rendered picture. I think you could actually do that relatively easily using something like OpenCV. The only issue is that it will require a little bit of CPU time to do.

[Fri13]

The only way to really do it properly is to simulate the original seekers functionality by letting it do feature-detection on a low-res rendered picture. I think you could actually do that relatively easily using something like OpenCV. The only issue is that it will require a little bit of CPU time to do.

 

IMHO, that is reason why we have multiple CPU motherboards and now multi-core CPU's.

 

As a one CPU/Core can execute only one process at the time, and one command, it becomes slow if one needs continually swap between multiple tasks. So as DCS uses only one core and another for audio, it is very CPU limited.

 

And I don't really get that why does so many want an AI that is all knowing? Limited by their rules to do not something if they know?

 

Like why not have:

One core for player aircraft

One core for team blue ground units

One core for team red ground units

One core for everything else

 

If someone has more core to spare, split other functions for them, one for missile logic, one for radar, one for imagery processing like targeting systems etc...

 

A each object would do own observations without knowledge of others. If a ground unit gets stuck, only its core is suppose to be affected and not the pilot aircraft core.

 

We should have with Vulcan a good improvement for performance as the own threads can be executed more freely on other core.

 

And features like this contrasts based tracking should become possible. Feed a 16*16-32*32-64*64 px black and white imagery to logic to do tracking. Things can get lost, not get a lock or lock on something "hot bush".

 

I would gladly dedicate one core to just crunch that tracking system....

[TLTeo]

Like why not have:

One core for player aircraft

One core for team blue ground units

One core for team red ground units

One core for everything else

 

 

Because parallel programming is really complicated. If it was that simple every game, not just DCS, would favour multi-threading over single core performance, yet the opposite is true.

[Osita]

[error]

Edited September 30, 2020 by Osita

[Tippis]

The current Rb75 is actually a really good air-air weapon. Got a couple of MP kills from 10km+ against both manouvering MiG21s and Su27s. Turns great and will keep the lock and "chase" for a very long time. Maybe not realistic, but great fun :)

A bit of a necropost, and I'm sorry about that… or nah, not really, because the current behaviour is pretty hilarious: https://imgur.com/Nk6c5NP

[Shadow KT]

lol... just... amazing, can this ever get fixed ?

[QuiGon]

Yeah, the RB-75 in DCS seems to have incredible exzessive range compared to real life:

  

Quote

To my knowledge the Maverick was always an option but I don't recall exactly if that was true in early 80s. In Europe we didn't do Maverick at TJ nor did we teach it in FTU when I was there 86-89, but I did lots of Maverick at Homestead in Blk 15 jets from 1991 on. We trained with A, B, D, and G models and I shot a live B and D from the Blk 15s and a G-model from a Blk 32. The A-model was useless and dangerous as you needed to get closer to get a lock on and shoot than you did dropping dumb bombs and often you had to reattack to get lock on. Sometimes you couldn't (go all that way, face all those threats, and come away empty handed?). The B-model was only slightly better. The D and G were great and wish I had seen the H. Never flew with the Laser Mavs but I know they have been used in Afghanistan.

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=364993#p364993

 

Quote

Remember, the AGM-65A/B was an anti-tank weapon. It was useless against bridge abutments or ships or aircraft shelters. Its sole advantage over a MK-82 was the greater likelihood of actually hitting a tank. Now think about what the prevailing weather would have been in Central Europe or Korea during a major tank invasion. The ceiling would have probably been around 2000' AGL, and the vis would have been less than 5 miles. Add in dense forests, tall buildings, dense urban areas, smoke, dust, haze, and rain. Now imagine trying to pick out a camouflaged tank operating in that environment. At 5 miles a tank is less than one mil size to the naked eye. The AGM-65A/B centroid tracker could not see a target that size, much less keep a lock during launch transients. You didn't want to waste your precious Maverick on a Red Army food truck serving borscht to Ivan, and you could not distinguish the many trucks from the few tanks at 5 miles. Realistically, the max range that you could acquire and lock up a tank was probably about 18,000' slant range, and min range was probably around 5,000' slant range.

When I shot my AGM-65B at Nellis in 1986, we were very familiar with the area, we had INS coordinates for the target tank column, the tanks were dark green against a bright yellow desert background, and the weather was CAVU, there was no smoke, and nobody was shooting at us. As I recall, I started trying to lock up my target (last tank in the column) at about 12,000' slant range, and drove in to almost minimum range before getting a solid lock at around 5,000' range. (The missile hit the tank.)

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=365176#p365176