AGM-65L vs AGM-65D

[bojangles_25]

Is it just me or is anyone else having difficulty seeing the advantages of the AGM-65L over the AGM-65D?

 

It makes sense that the 65L doesn't have much of a camera, and instead just has the laser search page, since all planes would now have the TGP. However, they suffer from the same problems that laser guided weapons have, i.e. you have to lase the target until impact.

 

With the 65D, yes it has poor image quality but I'm slaving it to the TGP anyway.. Plus, I can fire 6 of them in a single pass and I don't have to keep lasing the target.

 

Is the 65L just a product of how these missiles are deployed in missions today, or are they cheaper to make, or what?

[Tippis]

Stand-off range, buddy lasing, increased precision and greater control (and no locking on to telephone poles in true DCS fashion), and also lasers are just cooler. :P

[Tom Kazansky]

Moving targets in non open areas like cities or roads with trees close to it.

 

 

Ability to cancel an attack when situation changes.

[bojangles_25]

I'll have to put a mission together with some harder to hit targets :joystick:

 

Regarding buddy lasing though.. you could just have the TGP search for the laser, point track the target, set it as SPI, then hit it with whatever you want, right?

 

The only benefit of buddy lasing that I can see is that someone else is actually finding the target. Once you've found it, does it matter if the actual weapon you fire is guided by that same buddy laser?

[Dragon1-1]

Well, with buddy lasing you can hit things that you can't reliably lock onto with TGP. It's also quicker than fiddling around with the SPI.

[HunterICX]

I mainly use the L in hard to reach places like when units are hidden in urban areas with lots of clutter that the D might have issues with. When targets are in the open I'd be using the D.

[webweaver40]

Moving targets in non open areas like cities or roads with trees close to it.

 

 

Ability to cancel an attack when situation changes.

This is the biggest reason to carry Ls

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Nealius]

In DCS I really don't see an advantage given our laser distance is hard-coded at 8nm. This means you have to stay within 8nm of the target until impact, which doesn't exactly make it a standoff weapon.

 

In real life, I understand it to have more precision like what Tippis and Tom said.

[Vanguard]

The issue we are facing is we have multiple years worth of tech and they don't suit each other. If your mission is old school with Tunkustas and Osa's, then the D is fine. When you add more modern units, say a Tor, you need a more modern weapon, like an L. The F K and L variants not only have larger warheads, they have larger standoff range as well. They're all meant to go hand in hand with each other. I'm a big fan of the new historic mode, but from I can see thus far, it's only for units, not the weapons they can carry.

 

It's no different than flying a modern hornet with AMRAAMs against a 40 year old jet armed with SAHR missles... if you're using SLAMs against a Tunkuska for example, well, it's just unfair haha.

 

Also, the L won't lock on to all the telephone poles ;)

[EasyEB]

Also, the L won't lock on to all the telephone poles ;)

 

Not saying you can't hit telephone poles with it. Just now you have a choice.

[bart]

Not saying you can't hit telephone poles with it. Just now you have a choice.

 

That's one way to knock out enemy communication, target all their telephone poles with AGM-65D's! and there's the added bonus that the poles don't shoot back :D

[Bunny Clark]

Comparing the L to the D there's quite a few differences. The D version is only capable of centroid targeting of a high contrast point target. If you want to attack something that isn't a bright point, or hit a target somewhere other than its center, the D is going to fail you.

 

The L is more comparable to the G. They share the same larger blast fragmentation warhead, which makes them more useful against buildings and hard targets. The G has more ability to attack larger targets, or aim at a non-center point in force correlate mode, but the guidance system in the G isn't nearly as sophisticated as what you can do with the Lightening pod. Both the D and G are limited in what they can attack by their sensor and guidance systems, while the L is limited in what it can attack only by what you can accurately point your TGP at. You can also get a better view of your target area from further away, and you get exact distance to your target point at all times. The L has the additional advantage of being able to be guided directly by a JTAC, you don't even need to use your TGP for LSS, just point the Mav in the right direction and lock onto the beam. Ground troops taking fire from a specific window on a building? You can put an L Mav through that window at 8 miles pretty easily - good luck doing that with a G.

 

D Mav is great for blowing up tanks and vehicles.

 

G Mav is great for blowing up bridges, buildings, and ships.

 

L Mav is great for blowing up literally anything you can point your TGP at, or anything a JTAC can point a laser designator at.

[Vanguard]

Not saying you can't hit telephone poles with it. Just now you have a choice.

 

:megalol:

[nickos86]

why not doing a D like model so that the plane could carry 4 missiles?

[EasyEB]

why not doing a D like model so that the plane could carry 4 missiles?

 

A-10 does not carry more than one AGM-65 per pylon irl.

[Dragon1-1]

Not the Echo, anyway. The biggest problem is that it's simply too heavy, LMAV has the same big warhead as the G. It's not compatible with the triple pylon.

[Frederf]

The 125 lb HEAT warhead missiles can go on LAU-88. The 300 lb HE warhead missiles can't.

[Mike5560]

The L MAV has advantages that are much more beneficial to counter-insurgency operations (COIN). The target does not need to be an IR/EO significant blob, and with the laser you have much more precise control of where the weapon will impact. That said, it requires a man in the loop needing continuous lasing until impact.

[Emmy]

The L MAV has advantages that are much more beneficial to counter-insurgency operations (COIN). The target does not need to be an IR/EO significant blob, and with the laser you have much more precise control of where the weapon will impact. That said, it requires a man in the loop needing continuous lasing until impact.

 

This...

 

As an “every day use” weapon, I’m not all that enthralled with the L

 

If self-lasing, you have to drive in uncomfortably close and I much prefer to “shoot & scoot” but the L is awesome with a JTAC or FAC(A) handling the designation.