What is the typical lock range for an AGM-65H?

[Xavven]

I seem to remember getting decent lock ranges on the AGM-65H in the A-10C, like 5 miles or something. In the Viper I'm lucky to get a lock at 3 miles. The AGM-65D on the other hand locks from an even better distance, like 7 or even 8 if I'm using the TGP.

 

Is this modeled correctly, first off, and if so, is there any particular reason anyone would want to use the H instead of the D? Is the D too washed out in, say, a hot desert environment?

[Dragon1-1]

Pretty much. DCS IR is far too clear, IRL there are situations, particularly in hot climates, where the H is more reliable. In cold environments you'll have good IR contrast, so lock range will be longer.

[Ignition]

1 hour ago, Xavven said:

Is this modeled correctly, first off, and if so, is there any particular reason anyone would want to use the H instead of the D? Is the D too washed out in, say, a hot desert environment?

 

The H and specially the K are really good for buildings since you can ground stabilize from a greater distance.

[deadpool]

The Maverick (not unlike the AGM88) feeds a video stream to your video processor in the plane.

Yet you will still see big differences in behaviour between airframes in DCS (A10,FA18,F16). HARMs have an inbuild HTS in the Hornet, Mavericks do auto-boresight alignment in the A10 / FA18 / AV8B. Maybe they are really this different between airframes, maybe some day we will have consistency, which in turn can pave the way for trust in what's modelled.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Hulkbust44]

The Maverick (not unlike the AGM88) feeds a video stream to your video processor in the plane.
Yet you will still see big differences in behaviour between airframes in DCS (A10,FA18,F16). HARMs have an inbuild HTS in the Hornet, Mavericks do auto-boresight alignment in the A10 / FA18 / AV8B. Maybe they are really this different between airframes, maybe some day we will have consistency, which in turn can pave the way for trust in what's modelled.
 
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Could you elaborate on the built in HTS in regards to the Hornet with AGM-88C?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Ignition]

14 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Could you elaborate on the built in HTS in regards to the Hornet with AGM-88C?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

 

The HARMS on the F18 loft like they know exactly where the radar is in TOO, which is weird but it may be right, I don't know.

 

As I understand the HTS its a little bit more complex though, since it can share information through datalink.

[deadpool]

15 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Could you elaborate on the built in HTS in regards to the Hornet with AGM-88C?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

I was exaggerating a bit. But in the Hornet the AGM-88C will magically indicate the emitter with quite some precision on your HUD. so you just have to slew your Tpod on it and are good to go for whatever.

There is (or used to be) a thread on the hornets forum about how physics involved for typical radar wavelength, aperture size of the dish inside the 88C, etc. and what the angular errors would be.

 

[Hulkbust44]

I was exaggerating a bit. But in the Hornet the AGM-88C will magically indicate the emitter with quite some precision on your HUD. so you just have to slew your Tpod on it and are good to go for whatever.
There is (or used to be) a thread on the hornets forum about how physics involved for typical radar wavelength, aperture size of the dish inside the 88C, etc. and what the angular errors would be.
 

I believe the only real issue with it is the refresh rate of the TD box on the HUD.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[TLTeo]

34 minutes ago, deadpool said:

There is (or used to be) a thread on the hornets forum about how physics involved for typical radar wavelength, aperture size of the dish inside the 88C, etc. and what the angular errors would be.

My crappy order of magnitude estimate was here:
 

for reference, the ~2 degree error I worked out would produce an uncertainty of ~1 nm on the location of the SAM, if looking at it from 25nm away (taking just delta_L = D*sin(theta), where theta is the PSF of our detector, D the distance of the emitter, and delta_L the uncertainty on its position). So basically in the Hornet in TOO, you would get your target box in the HUD, point your TGP at it, and have the same could be anywhere 1nm to the left or right of where you have pointed the FLIR. And that obviously neglects the fact you can't estimate distance either, so you would have an even bigger area to search.

Instead in DCS, we can point the TGP at the box in the HUD and always instantly spot the SAM site.

 

edit: to avoid derailing the thread and asnwer the OP, at what time of the day were you flying? I noticed the lock range of the Walleye is a strong function of time of day rather than light conditions, even though the scenario may look the same between, say, 7 and 8 am. The -H also has a TV sensor, so maybe that's what's going on.

Edited May 9, 2021 by TLTeo

[Xavven]

3 hours ago, TLTeo said:

edit: to avoid derailing the thread and asnwer the OP, at what time of the day were you flying? I noticed the lock range of the Walleye is a strong function of time of day rather than light conditions, even though the scenario may look the same between, say, 7 and 8 am. The -H also has a TV sensor, so maybe that's what's going on.

 

 

Oh wow, this was it 100%. The weapons training mission I made was set at 7 AM in the summer and it locked at around the 2 mile mark. I switched it to noon and it locks at 6 miles now.

 

Thank you!

 

So yeah, I'm going to go with "not modeled correctly". I'd understand it having poor contrast at twilight hours, but flying around at 7 AM in my mission the sun is like 20° above the horizon and everything is well lit, just with somewhat long shadows, and I'm trying to lock with the sun at my back, so....

Edited May 10, 2021 by Xavven

[3WA]

Yes, ED needs to cut the simplistic "time of day" crap and work on realistic EO.  Hopefully, it is next after they figure out RADAR.

[Teeps]

I was going to say that's a fairly major bit of work, especially when you consider it's got to work alongside all the other simulations and bit destroy frame rates.  On the other hand we already have a screen showing us the seeker's view that takes ambient light levels into account, so if it's just contrast detection this might not be a massive task. They could probably make it magic after launch if necessary without players noticing any effect. 

[Hardcard]

@Xavven

 

If you're using mav H or K with the viper, it makes much more sense to force correlate after TPOD designation.

 

Why get within 3nm of the target when you can force correlate and hit from 12nm?

[Xavven]

1 hour ago, Hardcard said:

@Xavven

 

If you're using mav H or K with the viper, it makes much more sense to force correlate after TPOD designation.

 

Why get within 3nm of the target when you can force correlate and hit from 12nm?

 

I would, but that's not how they're used IRL if I'm not mistaken. About six years ago, someone who I presume has shot these IRL explained it on the A-10C forums:

 

On 2/10/2015 at 10:49 AM, Eddie said:

 

No Correlate track is tracking the entire image and giving guidance commands to ensure the image expands out equally in all directions, it is the weapon's terminal guidance phase with is used when the weapon gets too close to the target for a centroid track to be held. All force correlate does is quite literally force the use of correlate track at launch.

 

Depending on launch distance the Maverick has CEP of over 100 metres when employed in force correlate (1 mil in fact, you can do the angle maths to calculate the distance based on a given range). In short, it will not hit a small point target, and it flat out should not work the way most DCS players employ it.

[Frederf]

AGM-65G has an AREA mode. Is that the same as F/C?