Announcement Regarding AGM-65 Maverick Loads

[shagrat]

23 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Good reason would be either one:

1) Free some memory from computer.

2) Normal maintenance task to disable unused codes to limit accidental entries.

 

But neither one is really good as if weapon is not even available for the missions, then you don't accidentally enter it either. 

That's the point. The software change/removal of the code, would require a thorough test that it does not cause issues with anything else.

Like you said, far easier to simply NOT enter the IRMAV code "accidentally", what should not happen anyway, as the ground crew follows strict procedures and crosschecks to prevent this on more than one level.

As for freeing up a weapon code... I would need to have a thorough look again, but how many combinations does the panel support?

 

But we can only speculate and apply educated guesses, though based on reason and logic, until someone with the detailed knowledge enlightens us.

 

For now I am glad we get even better representation of the Maverick in general including bore sighting procedure.

[Beirut]

49 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

It doesn't matter what community wants . . . 

 

True.

 

As long as you don't ever want money from that community.

[Harlikwin]

24 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

True.

 

As long as you don't ever want money from that community.

 

Yup, one recent example of this is the Modern Marianas map. No one really wanted that, its terrible performance wise, it fits no credible scenario. My best guess as to why it was made is that the "team" needed a nice tropical vacation to gather data. BUT, its FREE. Therefore, most people won't complain or care. If ED charged for it, I'd guess they would sell like 30 maps. 

[Beirut]

11 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yup, one recent example of this is the Modern Marianas map. No one really wanted that, its terrible performance wise, it fits no credible scenario. My best guess as to why it was made is that the "team" needed a nice tropical vacation to gather data. BUT, its FREE. Therefore, most people won't complain or care. If ED charged for it, I'd guess they would sell like 30 maps. 

 

I'm sorry you're not enjoying it. I like it. I certainly like that it's free, but I'd like it anyway if it had a price tag on it. I like the feel of it, I like the potential, I like that it's a bit of a test bed pushing things forward. I have at least a mid-level rig, I think, and the map runs nicely and looks great, albeit with modest action going on. I have no complaints.

 

And I don't think "no one really wanted that" is correct. A step into the Pacific, however incremental, is welcome by everyone I would imagine. A bigger sandbox is a better sandbox. And to bring this back OT, I have enjoyed firing AGM-65Fs from my Harrier on that map. 

 

To my point - if a company does not listen to, or care about, the opinions of it's customers, it's going to be an ex-company, pinning for the fjords, full of pride perhaps, but empty of bank account.

[Fri13]

18 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yup, one recent example of this is the Modern Marianas map. No one really wanted that, its terrible performance wise, it fits no credible scenario. My best guess as to why it was made is that the "team" needed a nice tropical vacation to gather data. BUT, its FREE. Therefore, most people won't complain or care. If ED charged for it, I'd guess they would sell like 30 maps. 

 

 

It is actually fairly good map. If you check diagonally from closest island to North-West you get about 1000 km distance. That is a massive for a fleet combat.

 

The area is as well fairly good for missions. Sure there is not so much for the historical events, but DCS World is not about historical events accuracies, but a sandbox that offers creative means to build missions that isn't historically correct but can be played technically properly. 

 

Seriously saying, ED would had a very easy time by making just a clear ocean map. Place it somewhere on the Atlantic outside of the Europe and it would had sold. 

But there is coming the WW2 era version of Marianas and there is more action to be made there. 

[Harlikwin]

Just now, Beirut said:

 

I'm sorry you're not enjoying it. I like it. I certainly like that it's free, but I'd like it anyway if it had a price tag on it. I like the feel of it, I like the potential, I like that it's a bit of a test bed pushing things forward. I have at least a mid-level rig, I think, and the map runs nicely and looks great, albeit with modest action going on. I have no complaints.

 

And I don't think "no one really wanted that" is correct. A step into the Pacific, however incremental, is welcome by everyone I would imagine. A bigger sandbox is a better sandbox. And to bring this back OT, I have enjoyed firing AGM-65Fs from my Harrier on that map. 

 

To my point - if a company does not listen to, or care about, the opinions of it's customers, it's going to be an ex-company, pinning for the fjords, full of pride perhaps, but empty of bank account.

 

I don't mean to derail, but its a pointless "modern" map (if it was WW2, well thats another conversation), But it runs like trash on RTX3090 in VR anywhere near the islands. So that brings up the double whammy of ED's commitment to VR and their commitment to deliver on anything resembling modern units. The only "vaguely" credible scenario where the marianas are threatened is by Chine in 20sometime sometime. Maybe like 2030. But guess when we might get 2030 or even 2015 era units into DCS... Yes... 2 looong centuries from now.

 

[Harlikwin]

1 minute ago, Fri13 said:

 

 

It is actually fairly good map. If you check diagonally from closest island to North-West you get about 1000 km distance. That is a massive for a fleet combat.

 

The area is as well fairly good for missions. Sure there is not so much for the historical events, but DCS World is not about historical events accuracies, but a sandbox that offers creative means to build missions that isn't historically correct but can be played technically properly. 

 

Seriously saying, ED would had a very easy time by making just a clear ocean map. Place it somewhere on the Atlantic outside of the Europe and it would had sold. 

But there is coming the WW2 era version of Marianas and there is more action to be made there. 

 

Uh oh... "Fleet combat".... ROFL... In DCS? 

Jesus the ship models are garbage.

Health bar damage model? Check!

1 "radar" per ship? Check!

0 damage control? Check!

Absolutely no Abilitiy to set different Air defense postures indepenendent from Air to surface postures? Check!

Antisubmarine warfare? LOFL NOPE!

Mission editor options for anything of the above? Nope!

Actual realistic Naval assets, tasking, missions, and so forth? LOL NOPE....

 

TLDR. Literally anything "Naval" so far produced by ED is terrible. And to add insult to injury they charged you for the super carrier module. And you and I bought it cuz as PT barnum said, there is a sucker born every minute.

 

Literally I could write a garbage level 1980's PERL scrip that could do a better job of naval combat than DCS. There a several games that did do a good job of that if thats where you want to go, but DCS is absolutely, and unequivocally not one of them. So it really boggles the mind, why do a "naval map" and an irrelevant one at that. They could have done falklands, have devs do the SHAR, A4, M3, and SupEtnard, and holy cow you have a scenario worth playing. BUT, I'd wager vacation time in tropical paradise sounds alot better than shagging sheep in the falklands.

 

 

[Beirut]

1 minute ago, Harlikwin said:

BUT, I'd wager vacation time in tropical paradise sounds alot better than shagging sheep in the falklands.

 

Love is where you find it. 

[Harlikwin]

22 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

Love is where you find it. 

 

Yes, Chiz says love is love...

 

[Fri13]

10 hours ago, shagrat said:

That's the point. The software change/removal of the code, would require a thorough test that it does not cause issues with anything else.

 

Exactly. Too much effort for removing just a weapon code when all other weapons use almost everything same, just different seeker (and warhead?).

 

10 hours ago, shagrat said:

Like you said, far easier to simply NOT enter the IRMAV code "accidentally", what should not happen anyway, as the ground crew follows strict procedures and crosschecks to prevent this on more than one level.

 

Yeah, ordinance crews doesn't really make a such a mistake that they would enter a AGM-65F to system while they loaded AGM-65E. It is same as entering a GBU-12 code instead.

 

10 hours ago, shagrat said:

As for freeing up a weapon code... I would need to have a thorough look again, but how many combinations does the panel support?

 

Should be infinite really if digital numpad as I have understood. But from the weapons code listings in ordinance manual it is limitation in computer to accept them. So in this case 4+1 is the combination as nowhere I have read incompatible combinations for mission computer part, so it is more of a weapon size compared next station.

 

10 hours ago, shagrat said:

But we can only speculate and apply educated guesses, though based on reason and logic, until someone with the detailed knowledge enlightens us.

 

What we need to accept is that Razbam didn't have evidence for the F being removed from the software as they didn't present it. And they jumped on the gun to remove it for political reasons and not technical ones as said. So old evidence for F compatibility holds.

All this week long theater caused just problems to Razbam communication and weaken the authority.

 

10 hours ago, shagrat said:

For now I am glad we get even better representation of the Maverick in general including bore sighting procedure.

 

Include DMT to that as well and I am happy.

But I am worried they made something own now with the E2/L by making it somehow compatible with the TPOD, as it should have same limitation in Harrier as E or F model (all AGM-65 models) because it is not the seeker but way how TPOD is connected to avionics in it.

It is like AGM-65E2/L was developed just for the Harrier to overcome the TPOD emulation problem. 

While E2/L was developed for everyone to come around original E seeker limitations to find and lock the laser spot and maintain the lock through launch so close to the laser beam source. It was much needed upgrade to F-16, F/A-18, F-15E and all that uses AGM-65E as it doesn't work so well with self-designation.

 

This mystical explanation that TPOD can now control E2/L missile and is reason it can be used same time without switching away from TPOD video.

Like how do you get commands to AGM when TPOD video is active two-way link from controls to it? Now suddenly because E2/L seeker the TPOD master mode is suddenly overwritten and system can handle a two busses simultaneously, one for TPOD and one for AGM?

 

As well the Razbam claim that one needs to switch TPOD to standby mode with E and F variants, what is illogical. As it will cut TPOD laser on the spot and all. While manual clearly talks about 15 seconds autonomous laser operation without video feed to plane.

 

[shagrat]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

Include DMT to that as well and I am happy.

But I am worried they made something own now with the E2/L by making it somehow compatible with the TPOD, as it should have same limitation in Harrier as E or F model (all AGM-65 models) because it is not the seeker but way how TPOD is connected to avionics in it.

It is like AGM-65E2/L was developed just for the Harrier to overcome the TPOD emulation problem. 

While E2/L was developed for everyone to come around original E seeker limitations to find and lock the laser spot and maintain the lock through launch so close to the laser beam source. It was much needed upgrade to F-16, F/A-18, F-15E and all that uses AGM-65E as it doesn't work so well with self-designation.

 

This mystical explanation that TPOD can now control E2/L missile and is reason it can be used same time without switching away from TPOD video.

Like how do you get commands to AGM when TPOD video is active two-way link from controls to it? Now suddenly because E2/L seeker the TPOD master mode is suddenly overwritten and system can handle a two busses simultaneously, one for TPOD and one for AGM?

 

As well the Razbam claim that one needs to switch TPOD to standby mode with E and F variants, what is illogical. As it will cut TPOD laser on the spot and all. While manual clearly talks about 15 seconds autonomous laser operation without video feed to plane.

 

I hope they sort out the details with their SMEs and implement it accordingly.

There is a lot of complexity behind the modern weapons.

I am glad for the commitment Razbam is showing to get it improved and ultimately right.

 

[Gary]

Just to add my thanks for taking this decision Razbam.

[Max1mus]

Can't wait for R-37Ms and R-77-1 on the soviet Su-27 then.

 

Interesting how the same people who complain about realism are now here celebrating these news.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Max1mus said:

Can't wait for R-37Ms and R-77-1 on the soviet Su-27 then.

 

Interesting how the same people who complain about realism are now here celebrating these news.

 

Kinda apples and oranges...

 

[Fri13]

9 hours ago, Max1mus said:

Can't wait for R-37Ms and R-77-1 on the soviet Su-27 then.

 

Interesting how the same people who complain about realism are now here celebrating these news.

 

How so? As it was Razbam claim that F version was technically removed, but they couldn't provide any technical evidence for that.

They made as well claim that F was never used, and that was quickly pointed with evidence that it wasn't true.

 

Now they have made claim that TPOD integrates to the E2 Maverick (and only to it, and not to any other) and can command and guide it as standalone Storage Computer and Mission Computer.

They have implied that E2 Maverick was specifically developed for the AV-8B Harrier to overcome the TPOD Maverick emulation restriction so Laser Maverick could be used for Self-Designation, and they have no evidence to backup anything they have been now talking for couple weeks about it, and they have even changed the reasoning with it. 

So now for some reason they have made a TPOD capture the other Maverick video and then repeat it to the avionics so that limitation of two maverick video feeds is overcome by them.

 

Maverick <-> TPOD <-> MC/SMCS <-> MFCD/HOTAS

 

I don't know how they explain these new technical capabilities as suddenly all the other limitations and technical functions in Harrier computers and Litening g4 are rewritten completely new ways just for the E2 maverick - to provide a self-designation capability that is suppose to be done other manner as the limitation is not in Harrier but in all aircraft using E variant as the seeker is the problematic, not avionics. 

 

[Ramsay]

14 hours ago, Max1mus said:

Can't wait for R-37Ms and R-77-1 on the soviet Su-27 then.

 

Interesting how the same people who complain about realism are now here celebrating these news.

Totally different situation, Razbam were proposing to remove a "legacy" weapon(s) the AV-8B has used in the past and for which there is documentation.

 

IR Maverick and Sidearm, Operation Southern Watch*, VMA-311, ~1996

Quote

‘As the Night Attack guys we flew with NVGs and the Nav FLIR at
night a lot, doing visual reconnaissance patrols looking for trucks and
military activity. Our ordnance included IR Mavericks, AIM-9s and the
AGM-122 Sidearm ARM [Anti-Radar Missile, based on remanufactured
AIM-9C Sidewinder] for self-defence. We did not drop anything because
the ROE [Rules Of Engagement] said we had to be fired on first.
Sometimes we would fly with a section of A-10As, which was interesting,
as they were so slow it was tough just flying in formation with them.’

 

Zuni Rockets, Operation Iraqi Freedom IV*, VMA-311, ~2006

Quote

Our typical load for a section of two
AV-8Bs was one 500-lb GBU-38 JDAM, one 500-lb GBU-12 LGB, one
AGM-65E Laser Maverick, the GAU-12 25 mm cannon and a five-inch
Zuni rocket pod. Each aircraft also carried a Litening II pod. This diverse
load-out gave us excellent flexibility since we usually only delivered one
weapon per engagement at that time.

 

* AV-8B Harrier II Units of Operation Iraqi Freedom I-VI, Osprey

Edited July 13, 2021 by Ramsay

[Holbeach]

That 1996 load out on Harrier 163675, was my inspiration for "Operation Rota Freedom", a mission I created for that set up.

 A very ficticious Marianas operation, Destroy the Radar and defences on top of the mountain, with Harriers fron NW Field Guam and A 10's from N Field Tinian, attacking tanks on the airport, with a genuine Harrier combo, 2 AGM 65F, 2 AGM 122, and 2 AIM 9M.

 

..

Edited July 15, 2021 by Holbeach

[Dragon1-1]

IMO, it's a good decision, mostly because a mid-2000s Harrier is actually more useful than a post-2010s one, since assets for the latter era are very sparse in DCS (basically the Harrier, the new A-10, JF-17 and IRIAF F-14). Mid-2000s will fit with the other assets better, even if some of the software is a little bit newer.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Dragon1-1

[Northstar98]

On 7/14/2021 at 11:04 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

IMO, it's a good decision, mostly because a mid-2000s Harrier is actually more useful than a post-2010s one, since assets for the latter era are very sparse in DCS (basically the Harrier, the new A-10, JF-17 and IRIAF F-14). Mid-2000s will fit with the other assets better, even if some of the software is a little bit newer.

Personally, the better solution is as follows:

• If you want a mid 2000s Harrier II, with mid 2000s weapons, then stick to that.
• If you want a mid 2010s Harrier II, with mid 2010s weapons, then stick to that.
• If you want to do both, fine, have them be 2 separate variants - they can both use a common model, texture set, FDM etc.

What they shouldn't do is start off with a mid 2000s Harrier, then when its left early access (or getting close to it) transform it into a 2010 Harrier II, with LITENING G4, APKWS and GBU-54, with AGM-65F removed.

They should pick an aircraft variant/fit (don't really care which) and then stick to it, being as realistic to it as feasibly possible.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[deephack]

Really interested in the line "We will contact the Combat flight team to see how we can integrate the Harrier with this software."
What form will this integration take? Will we be able to make a DTE cartridges for the harrier with radio presets, countermeasures presets, weapon profiles etc. Or is it intended just for creating overlays and waypoints for the EHSD?

[Coyote_One]

On 7/6/2021 at 7:33 PM, Coyote_One said:

I cant think of anyone who would be negatively impacted by the entire module because 1 variant of a weapon was in the arsenal that was a few years off service dates  

If you would be, please make yourself known so we can avoid your input in the future xD

I'd be pretty annoyed if they were removed for that reason so glad theyre staying.

Look at what just happened to Viper. ED could learn something from Razbam. Read my quote and ask yourself was it really worth it to remove the harms on all 4 pylons? 

 

Was the plan always to remove it, but they couldn't because they knew they wouldn't sell any?

 

The addition of a weapon that's not quite in the timeline is hardly game breaking and idk how anyone could sit there and say it's running their experience by merely having it in the selection screen.

 

Learn something from Razbam ED. You made a mistake.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Coyote_One
Addition.

[Harlikwin]

16 minutes ago, Coyote_One said:

Look at what just happened to Viper. ED could learn something from Razbam. Read my quote and ask yourself was it really worth it to remove the harms on all 4 pylons? 

 

Was the plan always to remove it, but they couldn't because they knew they wouldn't sell any?

 

The addition of a weapon that's not quite in the timeline is hardly game breaking and idk how anyone could sit there and say it's running their experience by merely having it in the selection screen.

 

Learn something from Razbam ED. You made a mistake.

 

 

The rather clear difference being, the harrier once carried the AGM-65G and could shoot it, while the viper couldn't ever "shoot" 4 harms (it could carry 2 usable, and 2 "duds") so its apples to oranges to comparison. So really ED is giving you the "full" capability, you can "use 2" and carry 4.

 

[Krez]

On 7/13/2021 at 4:21 AM, Fri13 said:

They have implied that E2 Maverick was specifically developed for the AV-8B Harrier to overcome the TPOD Maverick emulation restriction so Laser Maverick could be used for Self-Designation, and they have no evidence to backup anything they have been now talking for couple weeks about it, and they have even changed the reasoning with it. 

So now for some reason they have made a TPOD capture the other Maverick video and then repeat it to the avionics so that limitation of two maverick video feeds is overcome by them.

 

Maverick <-> TPOD <-> MC/SMCS <-> MFCD/HOTAS

 

I don't know how they explain these new technical capabilities as suddenly all the other limitations and technical functions in Harrier computers and Litening g4 are rewritten completely new ways just for the E2 maverick - to provide a self-designation capability that is suppose to be done other manner as the limitation is not in Harrier but in all aircraft using E variant as the seeker is the problematic, not avionics. 

 

The AGM-65 E2/L has an enhanced laser seeker and new software that reduces the risk of collateral damage and enables aircraft to use onboard, buddy- and ground-based lasing to designate targets. Earlier versions of the missile only enabled buddy- and ground-based laser designation.

 

https://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?item=1886

 

[Raidhen]

The AGM-65E can be use in self-designation mode :

 

"Functional Description.

The AGM-65E is an electro-optically guided, rocketpropelled, air-to-ground missile. After launch, the AGM-65E provides automatic missile homing on coded laser energy reflecting from a target. The laser designator may be a ground device, either hand-held or tripod mounted; or it may be a stabilized airborne device, either on a separate aircraft or the launching aircraft. The AGM-65E employs the MAW with a selectable delay fuze."

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/ntsp/agm-65-d_2002.pdf

 

 

For the E2 or L :

 

"To address the operational need for a TACAIR forward-firing missile, 500 legacy AGM-65F Infrared (IR) Mavericks will be purchased from the USAF and converted into modernized AGM-65E2 Laser Mavericks. These conversions will nearly double the current inventory of Laser Mavericks. The AGM-65E2 seeker provides F/A-18F and AV-8B with increased self-designation capability, greater chance of laser spot re-acquisition if lost due to obscurants, and a more accurate laser spot scan than the AGM-65E seeker."

 

 

The major difference between the two version is the re-acquisition, for the E If the missile loses laser spot it goes ballistic and flies up and over target -- the warhead does not explode, but becomes a dud.