AGM-65F IRMAV locks onto building but impacts the fence at Pahute Mesa airfield.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

AGM-65F IRMAV locks onto building but impacts the fence at Pahute Mesa airfield.

 

For target practice with IRMAV , I often use Pahute Mesa airstrip buildings as target. In real world it is a prohibited area and is owned by DOE to support our nuclear safety & surety program, but in DCS: NTTR, it is a great target.

So I notice that when I lockup one of the buildings via 65F and release. The weapon flies but detonates at fence line.

The new 4 nm range of F seems a bit short. Its basically a G and E with enhanced range and warhead. Should be able to fire 7-10nm. At 4nm slant range from target , puts aircraft well within range of MANPADS and battlefield air defense. If its real OK, then its 4nm. Perhaps ED wanted to avoid any classified conflict, so they cut the effective range.

[Fri13]

3 hours ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

The new 4 nm range of F seems a bit short. Its basically a G and E with enhanced range and warhead. Should be able to fire 7-10nm. At 4nm slant range from target , puts aircraft well within range of MANPADS and battlefield air defense. If its real OK, then its 4nm. Perhaps ED wanted to avoid any classified conflict, so they cut the effective range.

 

F is naval variant from D/G, but with just a 300-pound penetration warhead.

 

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104577/agm-65-maverick/

 

The D has the IR seeker instead TV seeker, but it is otherwise same as the B. The B is just with 2x magnification option from the A. (you select the FOV before launch for locking, and that is used through the flight).

The G has heavy weight penetrator, but is otherwise same as D but has capability to track large objects (ships, large aircraft taxiing/taking-off or buildings).

 

Here are some users stories about the Maverick.:

 

Quote

[...] 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

 

Quote

 

Absolutely correct on the max range. 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

 

 

Quote

 

"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

 

 

 

And here are some launch parameters those were capable to.

 

 

 

Now notice that those are used with the AGM-65G model, not just the B. The G is same as D, and same as F as those two has same seeker as D does have, that is just IR version of the B.

 

So you can see that even with the D/F/G IR seeker, the launch ranges are between 6000 - 9000 ft. That is no more than 1 - 1.6 Nautical Miles.

The IR seeker was not much better than the TV seeker, but in a worst case scenario that is little rainy day, slight mist going and sun is at low or there are targets that are in shadows, the TV seeker will not do much at all, but the IR seeker can see better, but there are hot spots, false targets and all that can cause difficulties to spot the tank size target and lock on them.

This forces you to go to minimum range to get the lock and be able launch Maverick.

On the hot environments, summer, desert and such, the IR seeker becomes almost useless. You lock on everything and other around the targets. Why the CCD version was developed from the AGM-65B version. So TV was swapped to digital CCD seeker. You can't use IR seeker on hot environment or where you don't have thermal contrast, so you go for the visual spotting method that you see a clear target on desert that IR seeker doesn't see, but the CCD variant will at least find the contrast and be able lock on it.

The long launch ranges like 4-8 nmi they are for the large buildings, bridges, ships and a like. For the tank size targets, welcome the < 3-5 km ranges (0.8-2.5 nmi).

 

So even the 4 nmi range is just too good, should be against a large ship or building with strong contrast.

The kinematic ranges are clear, faster speed and higher altitude and you gain range. But the kinematic range is not the problem, but the seeker. And seeker is limited to target contrast and size.

 

IMHO, the Maverick lock ranges should be dramatically lowered, they are now overperforming compared to multiple evidences. Hopefully the upcoming FLIR update is going to change that, where players are forced to fly far closer distances to get a lock on, and fly properly to get the missile seeker maintain the lock. Launching from too far and missile will lose lock by its own shake as the target is too small.

 

 

 

 

 

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Hard to imagine better conditions for Mav engagement. Winter, daylight w/o sun, cold, snow, with dark vehicles as targets. Even winter camo painted vehicle stands out. Visually and in IR. Alaska ANG practice is great. But doesn't really show, relative positions and ranges at acquisition, lock, and release.

USAFPAC really ought to lobby for funds to take those long-pod ALQ-184 and put em inside the Viper. Either on dorsal spine or in ventral blister , or in vert Stab root fairing, and free up center line for tank or stores. USAF and ANG basically have agreed to fly Viper until 2040's. Take advantage of miniaturization, have ECM as organic equipment, not a draggy bolt on option. Use conformal bolt on tanks instead of stores tanks, hanging there instead of a munition. Consider borrowing GAU-25 from F-35 community as centerline pod for Viper to augment Vulcan, for anti-armor and CAS mission. Air Forces has relegated its aircraft to be JDAM trucks.

[Fri13]

34 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

Hard to imagine better conditions for Mav engagement. Winter, daylight w/o sun, cold, snow, with dark vehicles as targets. Even winter camo painted vehicle stands out. Visually and in IR. Alaska ANG practice is great. But doesn't really show, relative positions and ranges at acquisition, lock, and release.

 

You can see them. Firstly you see that the mavericks impact next to the pilot observing the impact (so slow they are). Secondly while on other video they hide the range scale, you can read the fighter altitude, and then check the maverick seeker target point in degrees in HUD. Now you have all the required information to calculate the slant range with assumption that target is at same level as the fighter, and you should get it about there in 1000 ft.

 

34 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

USAFPAC really ought to lobby for funds to take those long-pod ALQ-184 and put em inside the Viper. Either on dorsal spine or in ventral blister , or in vert Stab root fairing, and free up center line for tank or stores. USAF and ANG basically have agreed to fly Viper until 2040's. Take advantage of miniaturization, have ECM as organic equipment, not a draggy bolt on option. Use conformal bolt on tanks instead of stores tanks, hanging there instead of a munition. Consider borrowing GAU-25 from F-35 community as centerline pod for Viper to augment Vulcan, for anti-armor and CAS mission. Air Forces has relegated its aircraft to be JDAM trucks.

 

Pretty much the AGM-65 is done for. There is no such requirements to use it as mainly you go against some gorillas or insurgents that doesn't even have a proper anti-air capability (what no to shoot up in the air with 12.7 mm and some might have a stinger or something).

 

So what you need is a GBU-48 and APKWS II. You have great tracking on moving targets (some trucks and other vehicles), capability engage targets in tight streets, markets and buildings with 2.75" rockets etc.

 

The Maverick shouldn't be in the DCS a such "stand-off" weapon as there isn't much videos or evidence to show otherwise that it is always so great for those 6-12 nmi shots we see. Like now you can lock IR maverick on the targets that barely has a single pixel visible. While in real videos it is more like that you need at least that lock crosshair size target that is about that 2-3 nmi at best, even more about 1-1.5 nmi. So clearly way inside any MANPAD or AAA.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

I'd prefer GBU-53/B StormBreaker (SDB II) instead GBU-48 (which INS/GPS enhanced GBU-16 1000lb LGB), for anti-anything that moves work. Agree on APKWS rockets. But I doubt SDB's are gonna find their way into DCS before decade is out. In real world, Israelies are so in love with this SDBs, pilots want to sleep, with them. IDF packs them with reduced HE DIME warhead, which is powdered tungsten. Lethality radius is on 10-15 meters with very fast falloff. 

 

AGM-65G and F , at least in DCS, make for some mean anti-ship and anti-bunker weapons for AV-8B. Unless RAZMAM adds penetrator variants of JDAM to the kit. We don't have Harpoons, SLAMs, Brimstones, or Hellfires. BTW real world British Joint Force Harrier GR7/9 could carry Brimstone. In DCS, AV-8B engaging Tarantul corvette  with either two G (previous builds) or two F's puts that vessel on the bottom.  There is now in DCS, with PG map, an Iranian fast attack boat that looks like Miami Vice drug runner cigar boats, except they have naval variant of SA-8 and SA-15, and those buggers are mean. They are small and hard to engage, and those SAMs will nail you if you get into range. Flares and chaff don't seem to do much against them. Best bet is to engage from distance and altitude above angels12, then do an about face and separate at max power in 10 deg dive. In DCS: A-10C 1.0 and 2.0 , 2 X -65G puts smaller Russian surface combatants on the bottom, and a mobility kill on larger vessels. But is insufficient for destroyer and cruisers, due to their size and air defense. Basically if a surface combatant has no helo deck, pair of 65G or F will sink it. If it has a helo deck, then a mobility kill is most that can be hoped for. G and F, in DCS, appear to be very potent against surfaced SSKs. 

[Fri13]

23 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

I'd prefer GBU-53/B StormBreaker (SDB II) instead GBU-48 (which INS/GPS enhanced GBU-16 1000lb LGB), for anti-anything that moves work. Agree on APKWS rockets. But I doubt SDB's are gonna find their way into DCS before decade is out. In real world, Israelies are so in love with this SDBs, pilots want to sleep, with them. IDF packs them with reduced HE DIME warhead, which is powdered tungsten. Lethality radius is on 10-15 meters with very fast falloff. 

 

I would like to see the SDB in the DCS, but when we don't have it, it is a challenge. And when we don't have proper fragments, damage modeling for ground units (and buildings and a like, yet... 2021 might be the year) then we have little to no reason to care about those so much. Like creating a mission where you need to avoid collateral damage is very challenging to do.

 

23 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

AGM-65G and F , at least in DCS, make for some mean anti-ship and anti-bunker weapons for AV-8B. Unless RAZMAM adds penetrator variants of JDAM to the kit. We don't have Harpoons, SLAMs, Brimstones, or Hellfires. BTW real world British Joint Force Harrier GR7/9 could carry Brimstone.

 

When saying "anti-ship" it is better to say that it is useful against a cargo ship or a cruise ship. But against military ships they become already obsolete as you don't have that range and capability to take them down as they are so well protected and you need to get so close.

 

The F model with the 300 pound penetration warhead is nice, but we still lack in Hornet the Ship mode for it, so we can program the Maverick to hit below waterline, to maximize the destruction. Otherwise it should fly and impact to center mass of the visible ship, so somewhere between a waterline and the bridge, likely somewhere on the deck. Meaning it shouldn't cause any severe damage to ships at least by sinking them as you don't get them to make the hole to hull.

 

 

23 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

In DCS, AV-8B engaging Tarantul corvette  with either two G (previous builds) or two F's puts that vessel on the bottom.  There is now in DCS, with PG map, an Iranian fast attack boat that looks like Miami Vice drug runner cigar boats, except they have naval variant of SA-8 and SA-15, and those buggers are mean. They are small and hard to engage, and those SAMs will nail you if you get into range. Flares and chaff don't seem to do much against them. Best bet is to engage from distance and altitude above angels12, then do an about face and separate at max power in 10 deg dive.

 

Hopefully we see more third parties 3D models for surface and ground units, as well buildings and a like. So we could get multiple different ships and AFV's as well even civilian ones.

Those drug runner boats and aircrafts (like An-2 etc) would be nice ones to do in COIN missions.

 

23 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

In DCS: A-10C 1.0 and 2.0 , 2 X -65G puts smaller Russian surface combatants on the bottom, and a mobility kill on larger vessels. But is insufficient for destroyer and cruisers, due to their size and air defense. Basically if a surface combatant has no helo deck, pair of 65G or F will sink it. If it has a helo deck, then a mobility kill is most that can be hoped for. G and F, in DCS, appear to be very potent against surfaced SSKs. 

 

But yet we have unrealistic scenarios really where people leave those ships so unprotected and wide open. They don't have the proper CM systems and such in them etc. Why the Maverick works so great when it is like shooting fish in a barrel.