Announcement Regarding AGM-65 Maverick Loads

[Holbeach]

 

Wow! Loft Bombing is still in the mix.

 

That was a surprise.

 

..

[olivier-gaming]

merci de prendre en compte cela

[Gizmo03]

I‘m impressed!!!! Very good decission. Thanks for that. 

With this attitude you can count on me as a customer.

[Beltza]

Muy buena decisión: muchas gracias por todo el excelente trabajo que hacéis.

Very good decision: thank you very much for all the excellent work you do.

[Marsvinet]

This was the best decision. Finding the best balance between 100% Ultra realism and realising that the Maverick is a beloved weapon by many, myself included, while it also is necessary in the DCS environment.

[MrReynolds]

Thank you for listening to feedback.

Question on the new operation regards the Mav:  Can you still find the target with TGP and then uncaage the seeker?  The TPG goes off and control moves to mav, or is there no TGP at all if the Mav is selected?  New to the Harrier so don't know it's avionics history in DCS. 

Thanks.

 

 

[Shimmergloom667]

Eh, I had hoped you would stick to more realism. When you have a simulated timeframe in your mind then stick to it.

 

Typical, caving in to the whine.

[Vakarian]

11 minutes ago, Shimmergloom667 said:

 When you have a simulated timeframe in your mind then stick to it.

 

You know, us customers would also like to know that timeframe. We would also love that that timeframe doesn't change whenever wind blows

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Sounds good to me. I like anti-fast surface craft mission via AV-8B with 4X AGM-65F. Now can we talk AIM-9X and JHMQS for Harrier?

[Gizmo03]

vor 17 Minuten schrieb Shimmergloom667:

Eh, I had hoped you would stick to more realism.

Like flying with the A-10C over the Caucasus??

[Fri13]

5 hours ago, StandingCow said:

Thanks for listening Razbam.  Although I have to say the decision shouldn't have been based purely on customer feedback but rather that the Harrier CAN carry and deploy these weapons, just because the marines no longer employed the weapon doesn't mean the capability was removed.  Now if I am totally wrong and the capability was removed that's another story.

 

Anyway, thanks Razbam.

 

That is my stance. Technical compatibility goes first, and there is no much space for a personal opinion based to entertainment.

Razbam says again that the IRMAV support was removed in the updates given in the 2010. It is still one SME word, with the translation from Razbam to us. Many things can go wrong right there in any point. 

 

IMHO we still need evidence for the removal of that IRMAV support, as much people would hate others for it, but it shouldn't be kept in the Harrier only because people want it.

But we are in difficult situation where suddenly Harrier was shifted from 2000-2010 to 2010-2020 version, and technical compatibilities can differ.

This is again one of those cases where History Filter is important, where date selected for the Mission should dynamically (by default) set the available liveries and weapons. So missions dated to earlier than 201? will have IRMAV available, but missions dated to 201? or later will have it removed. That so if it is technically so. 

 

IMHO the heat from the available weapons should be directed to mission designers and not toward module developers. It should be that players are expressing their feelings to that who runs the multiplayer server or who made campaign or mission etc. As otherwise they can just direct their feelings to themselves if they do own missions. 

This meaning that studios producing the modules should take only the technical capability stance, leave politics, religion and all that out of the consideration. This would lead to situation that if there is one plane, then include all the possible technical capabilities in it to module. Mark them for the year and so on, so if even one plane was tested for something (like four F-16CM Blk 50 were rewired for four HARM missiles to be launched, but everything else was without) and there is enough information for it, then implement it but be very clear for everyone that it is up to mission designer to enable such a special feature. If there is no technical evidence for something, then no-go.

[Fri13]

In the new announcement there is written next thing (btw, was not smart or nice to delete the previous one because it is like trying to wash blood as evidence from own wrong doing. Just unpin the thread and lock it. It is the written history and your customers put time and effort to discuss about topic and with you...):

 

"The AGM-65E will have its implementation improved with the addition of limitations linked to the TPOD integration. The TPOD video can’t be displayed at the same time as the Maverick video, this is true for the AGM-65F and the AGM-65E. Since when the TPOD is not displayed, the HOTAS controls reverts to its default settings and the AGM-65 is a lock-on before launch (LOBL) type of weapon, the missile can’t be guided by the launching aircraft. The AGM-65E2 goes around this limitation because it can be uncaged and launched from the TPOD page, or the TPOD video can be switched to the MAV video momentarily. We will also implement a particularity of the E2 that it can lock on the TPOD laser source if the laser is fired before the missile is uncaged and the TPOD is loaded on station 4."

 

As far the information is either pointing or explaining, the moment any Maverick is uncaged, it will activate its video feed fully automatic to the left side MFCD without caring that what page is open there.

Question is that will this be corrected in the upcoming patch? There is no requirement to do MENU -> STRS before uncaging a Maverick. The manual is as well very clear that this is only for the first time of that missile. So if pilot switches after that away from the maverick video on the left MFCD, then Cage/Uncage does not bring the video back to left MFCD, but pilot is required to do that MENU -> STRS and then uncage maverick to get video visible again. There is as well special note that if the STRS page is open on the right MFCD before uncage is pressed on first time, then a maverick video will be opened to the MFCD that has STRS open -> to the right MFCD. 

 

For the older Litening II pod the manual says that TPOD will keep firing laser 15 seconds after the TPOD page is switched off. Meaning that if the pilot will press MENU on the TPOD page while the TPOD is tracking, armed and firing the laser, the TPOD will autonomously continue doing so. The pilot has 15 seconds time to open the TPOD page back on either MFCD and then laser keeps firing undisturbed. If that is not done (or any other unarm action is performed like Master Arm switch operated) then the laser will unarm itself automatically, but TPOD keeps tracking the target at the background.

 

This is the reason why the laser weapons can still be guided and used by the TPOD even when the Litening page is not visible for a while for what ever reason. Example pilot should be able to have TPOD on the right MFCD, press Uncage when Maverick is selected weapon, get automatically a Maverick video to left MFCD and on that moment the TPOD page would be switched to MENU. Not to put the TPOD in Standby mode, because it will automatically unarm the laser, stop tracking and boresight itself. Basically reset. 

 

This is against the whole manual laser safety part of the 15 second timer!

 

The Laser Mavericks AGM-65E buddy lazing limitation is not the TPOD video via Maverick emulation, it has nothing to do with it. That limitation is the seeker and the its automatic safety feature where once the missile seeker lose the laser spot, it will activate safety mode where warhead is disabled (made dud) and missile will perform full upward evasive maneuver to avoid impacting anything on the ground in that area. The whole idea of that is that when the laser designator makes a call to abort the strike, that power is still there as long the missile has not hit the target. It is enough to shut off the laser and target is saved. Be it any reason as target is identified as friendly, that new information is received that there is too high collateral damage, civilians enter the kill zone, a target doesn't appear to be what it was thought to be. That is the last abort possibility. 

 

  The problem is when for whatever reason that laser beam is cut off / lost, the E Maverick performs it. So you have a MBT as target that has LWS and it gets triggered, maverick is launched and the vehicle commander pop the smoke screen. A one that is anti-laser, anti-FLIR, anti-VIS and even anti-Radar. Boom, your laser is lost by the weapon seeker. It is not anymore seen and track is lost. And Maverick does in that moment the evasive maneuver and is dud.

 For a self-designation the problem is that the Maverick has very big smoke. The rocket motor heat plume as well distorts the air. So when launching the maverick in the proper "key-hole" parameters your maverick and the TPOD are aligned with each others. The missile will likely cross or enter to the line of sight of your TPOD that is firing the laser. The Maverick itself will block the laser badly enough that makes it lost the track and render itself dud. 

 

This is why the E2/L seeker was developed that fixes this problem by adding a delay for lock and unlock. So that seeker has timer to detect when it truly has lost the lock and when it is just momentarily lost it. This makes the E2/L seeker survive from that launch parameter when it blocks the laser as it knows to try to search the laser spot for moments after such scenario. When the MBT pop up the smoke screen, the pilot or JTAC has time to react to it and aim the TPOD at different position where smoke is not blocking the emission (dimishing it) and keep Maverick flying at the target, expecting the MBT to perform the tactical reverse movement behind the smoke and become visible from the air and it can be targeted again for last seconds impact. 

 

This Laser Maverick limitation for buddy lazing is not just with Harrier, it is with all the aircraft that utilize it. It is A-10, F/A-18, F-16 etc etc. Everyone has that limitation. The E2/L seeker was not developed just for the Harrier TPOD limitation but for everyone because that laser seeker variant is problematic. 

 

Now the E2/L seeker is not special one that doesn't utilize the Maverick video feed. The TPOD still in the Harrier should have its automatic page shut off with the E2/L maverick.

The TPOD can not receive any information that where the seeker is looking on the TPOD video by uncaging the E2/L seeker because it will activate the video feed. The weapons system can not receive any information that when E2/L seeker has acquired a lock and is tracking properly the laser spot - Without Maverick video feed. 

 

As I quoted in the previous deleted thread the statement about the upgraded features in the E2/L compared to previous E variant, it is just more accurate to find the laser spot (increase the launch range as it can detect spot further), it has faster scan speed (faster locking time) and it has the delayed timer before deciding lock is lost. This makes it more survivable of the launch of the aircraft, and make it possible to be self-designated with higher probability of success). 

 

The manual says (1-298) other things about weapon selection as well. The ACP can be used to select maverick without doing so using MFCD. This allows the pilot to select the Laser Maverick without using any MFCD page top row that includes the max five different weapon types (last fifth, OSB 10 is dedicated for the gun and sidearm, so total of four different type of weapons for flight). This weapon selection should be available on Master Modes of NAV, A/G but not in A/A. In top row on pages of EHSI, DMT, ECM and STRS.

 

The manual is as well very clear (1.18.1.4, page 1-366) that TPOD video is master video, where Maverick video isn't.

So Maverick video doesn't appear on MFCD when uncaged as long TPOD video is shown. This means that pilot should first switch away from TPOD video by pressing MENU, and then uncage the Maverick to get it visible on the Left MFCD.

 

There is separate question that what will happen with the TDC with the HTS mode activated in TPOD when its video is not displayed on either MFCD? This because manual says for the older TPOD that the TPOD maintains TDC mode for 15 seconds after that. So assumption would be that on the moment the maverick video is possible be opened with uncaging after TPOD video is not visible by pressing MENU, that Maverick overrides the TDC control from the TPOD. As the manual as well say that TDC is returned to TPOD when the TPOD page is shown again (1.18.4.4.2).

 

 

[Alpiinoo]

Thanks.

[Spirale]

Wise decision...

 

Thx Razbam

[=DISCO=]

Thanks gluebags.

[shagrat]

2 hours ago, Shimmergloom667 said:

Eh, I had hoped you would stick to more realism. When you have a simulated timeframe in your mind then stick to it.

 

Typical, caving in to the whine.

Not at all. The question that needed to be addressed was: do we now start simulating doctrine changes, budget cuts and timeframe related "type of missions" flown instead of simulating the actual capabilities of a certain aircraft version, or do we leave decisions about mission requiremenrs, tasking, available loadout in fictional scenarios to mission designers.

I am glad reason prevailed over a very debatable "realism"...

Everybody from mission builders to online players are still free to choose NOT to add the AGM-65F as a weapon when launching a fictional attack on Russia in a fictional war in the Caucasus, launching fictional AV-8Bs from a US Carrier in the Black Sea and call it "realism".

The others can still enjoy the realistic capability despite the doctrine change due to the asymmetrical conflicts...

I call this a typical win-win, as everyone can enjoy what he likes best.

[Beirut]

 

2 hours ago, Shimmergloom667 said:

 

Typical, caving in to the whine.

 

Let's express that differently: Listening to customer feedback and implementing decisions that support good customers relations and thus a profitable business future.

 

Anyone working for a living understands this concept very well.

[Northstar98]

I'm pleased with this decision. But wouldn't it be better to just offer both a mid 2000s Harrier, and a mid 2010s Harrier as separate variants? Even if 90% of it is copy and paste?

If you want to do a mid 2010s Harrier, that should be a separate variant, and just label it accordingly in the unit list, or tie it into historical mode. What we should absolutely avoid doing is starting off as one variant and then transforming it into a different one as development progresses. Especially after it's "out of early access", and especially when the original plans for what variant it was supposed to be were never/poorly communicated (at least to my knowledge).

I don't care which variant you pick, just pick a variant and commit to it, as accurately as you can. If you want to add in the capabilities of different variants, fine - provide that variant, even if that variant is mostly a copy and paste, and be accurate to that too.

On 7/7/2021 at 9:16 AM, Gizmo03 said:

Like flying with the A-10C over the Caucasus??

The whole point of DCS is that the assets and maps should be as realistic as possible. The scenarios you make out of them and how you use them is and should be, entirely up to you; as realistic or as unrealistic, as hardcore or as casual as the mission editor desires.

People always bring up unrealistic scenarios or unrealistic use of xxxx to justify that realism is in some way invalid or something, when every single mission in DCS is in some way completely fictional (even if heavily inspired by real life), and it's not even what DCS is trying to achieve.

Doing otherwise would mandate deletion of the mission editor.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Northstar98

[Beirut]

I still think the main issue was the possible removal of something we already had, used, and enjoyed. It looked like the module was going to become less than, and that doesn't play well with customers who already paid for it.

 

With the decision to not take away existing features, but to actually improve them and add others, RAZBAM went 100% in the right direction. 

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

Not at all. The question that needed to be addressed was: do we now start simulating doctrine changes, budget cuts and timeframe related "type of missions" flown instead of simulating the actual capabilities of a certain aircraft version, or do we leave decisions about mission requiremenrs, tasking, available loadout in fictional scenarios to mission designers.

 

That was the question. Either Razbam models a realistic technical capability of the Harrier with evidence that F variant would be technically incompatible and reason to be removed from weapons loadout. And if they can't provide evidence for that it is not technically possible, then it should be kept in.

 

But at not any position should any weapon be include in the aircraft without technical compatibility because players want so. That will lead to situation that ED has been in problems, example HARM on the F-16CM four stations instead just two. ED didn't give up with the change to have capability carry all four HARM on the four stations, because it was technically possible. ED just removed the launching capability from the extra two stations because technically there is no compatible wiring for the HARM missiles in those. So you got four HARM missiles as people wanted with evidence, but they as well got to keep technical realism where only two stations is capable launch them. That is Win-Win situation for everyone, even when some players must have bad feeling that they can't launch all four...

 

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

I am glad reason prevailed over a very debatable "realism"...

 

What reason? Reasoning was "It is fun to have a real fire'n'forget weapon!" and not about realism.

The main question was that what version Razbam is modeling, and answer to that is a version that was updated with a Maverick F feature removed. That would mean that F maverick should be removed. But Razbam should have needed to provide irrefutable evidence for that, and it didn't happen. So because lack of evidence for it, Razbam shouldn't deny the F maverick. 

 

And at that moment it has nothing to do that people are reasoning with emotional expression of gameplay experience with the F, as it shouldn't matter but just the technical compatibility to the weapon. 

 

So is it possible that Razbam didn't find any irrefutable evidence for F version being removed, so it would be easier to just say "okay, we give up for your emotional needs" than admit that no such evidence can be used?

 

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

Everybody from mission builders to online players are still free to choose NOT to add the AGM-65F as a weapon when launching a fictional attack on Russia in a fictional war in the Caucasus, launching fictional AV-8Bs from a US Carrier in the Black Sea and call it "realism".

 

Now you are binding multiple arguments to one.

Whatever is the fictional scenario is the whole point of the simulator. Even if we would only fly the Harriers at the NTTR map, it would need to be in proper exercises, times and ways etc. Happy gaming for ultimate history reality repetition game. 

As we have maps like Caucasus where we can set any module flying, doesn't mean it is a valid argument for a technically possible weapon loadout. They are separate things. 

 

Of course if you can provide evidence that because we can fly a Harrier in 2022 in a Caucasus or any map really, then it will affect to technical specifications to what a given weapons aircraft can technically handle....

 

 

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

The others can still enjoy the realistic capability despite the doctrine change due to the asymmetrical conflicts...

I call this a typical win-win, as everyone can enjoy what he likes best.

 

This is a win for those who screams for entertainment value, and is not much different from going just for a limited political loadout option.

Only thing that should matter is the technical capability. And as long Razbam can not provide documentation for IRMAV support being removed from the Harrier, the old technical evidence holds and Harrier is compatible with it. It is so simple as that.

 

What next when the people come to say that they want to see a B61 nuclear bomb on Harrier because it would be fun?

Should Razbam listen those who have emotional feelings for it, or against it? 

Neither one, because only the technical compatibility should matter with its logic to be used. Like you don't load a B61 nuclear bomb on a helicopter even when you could attach it and release it, because that helicopter would never survive from its release.

 

What everyone should agree upon is that every change that module is going through needs to be based to technical capability in technical specifications of the aircraft, regardless the year, service, country etc.

 

 

[Beirut]

7 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

What next when the people come to say that they want to see a B61 nuclear bomb on Harrier because it would be fun?

 

Well now that you mention it... 

 

It's a question of balance, and fun and entertainment are a big fat part of the equation. If they said they were going to mount AMRAAMS on the wingtips, okay, that's a bridge too far. If they said they were going to reduce the AGM-65F to only two pylons because of real life tech reasons, okay, I prefer four, but two it is. But to remove existing features that people use and enjoy, that are realistic on apparently some level, that can become a problem. This is a game after all and it has to be fun or no one will buy anything.

 

If I want truly hardcore realism, I'll go to work.

 

 

[Woogey]

The big thing that Dev’s need to think about here is: could the weapon be carried, not was it ever carried.  If it was cleared for use by China Lake, then it should be available for our use.  
 

-Rune

[Recluse]

Quote

The AGM-65E will have its implementation improved with the addition of limitations linked to the TPOD integration. The TPOD video can’t be displayed at the same time as the Maverick video, this is true for the AGM-65F and the AGM-65E. Since when the TPOD is not displayed, the HOTAS controls reverts to its default settings and the AGM-65 is a lock-on before launch (LOBL) type of weapon, the missile can’t be guided by the launching aircraft. The AGM-65E2 goes around this limitation because it can be uncaged and launched from the TPOD page, or the TPOD video can be switched to the MAV video momentarily. We will also implement a particularity of the E2 that it can lock on the TPOD laser source if the laser is fired before the missile is uncaged and the TPOD is loaded on station 4.

 

OK can someone enlighten me here.  Given the constraints of weapon Video and TPOD that has been extensively discussed,  I am confused by the contradictory "LOBL" type and the contention that "the missile can't be guided by the Launching Aircraft"

 

If you create a Target Point from TPOD video, I assume that is still the point to which the Maverick gets slaved (locked on before launch) regardless of whether or not the TPOD video is still up.  I agree that LOBL means you cannot do any mid-course correction "guidance"  once launched for an AGM-65F but the INITIAL designation is still possible with any Sensor of the launching aircraft, correct?

 

[QuiGon]

12 hours ago, Beirut said:

As stated by RAZBAM_Elmo:  "It has been decided to give the user that option. . . . "

 

That is the kind of language that builds trust in a developer. Trust = $$$

 

Not for me. It means more casual washed down Frankenplanes in the future instead of a true to real life simulation of actual aircraft.

 

  

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

But at not any position should any weapon be include in the aircraft without technical compatibility because players want so.

 

This!

Edited July 7, 2021 by QuiGon

[Fri13]

19 minutes ago, Recluse said:

OK can someone enlighten me here.  Given the constraints of weapon Video and TPOD that has been extensively discussed,

 

IMHO it has not been discussed almost at all. Almost everyone else is just discussing about F being removed or not to be removed. But the TPOD overriding all Mavericks simultaneous use is barely mentioned by anyone else than me.  

 

19 minutes ago, Recluse said:

  I am confused by the contradictory "LOBL" type and the contention that "the missile can't be guided by the Launching Aircraft"

 

The "Lock On Before Launch" is critical part of the Maverick. You can't launch the Maverick unless it has a track. With the IRMAV that tracking is that seeker has locked to either HOT or COLD contrast based your selection of the polarity (the crosshair color changes its color between black and white depending which you are locking on). With the LMAV the track is when the maverick seeker has scanned the decided pattern and it find first laser spot that corresponds to the laser frequency code. When the maverick seeker is locked on the target, it is tracking it.

 

You can launch the maverick outside of the "keyhole" but the seeker likely can't maintain the lock because launch shake and acceleration etc but will lose a lock. And when it loses the lock it is then lost missile. The lock might not always be lost, it can shift something else midway of flight, like a moving target moves through a "hot spot" on terrain and Maverick seeker locks on it and flies there while original target continues moving elsewhere. Or you locked on nearby hot bush or something that you couldn't see from IRMAV seeker video as it is so low resolution and it will fly at it. Or there is a shadow or something else like a dust cloud that is the locked part and missile will fly toward it closer it gets as it couldn't separate the detail at the distance. 

 

The problem with the self-designation is that your laser beam is aligned with the seeker LOS. The laser beam angle can be bad that it is not strong enough to allow seeker maintain the lock after launch. The smoke or heat plume can block the laser line of sight and missile loses lock because of that.

The LMAV has been launched by the designating aircraft itself, but it very likely doesn't survive the launch parameters.

I have never seen LMAV in DCS to lose a lock unless laser firing is stopped. And the crosshair should inform pilot that if seeker estimates too weak lock that it can't maintain lock after launch by having the crosshair shaking or staying little wide. 

The real Harrier manual explain these well. 

 

The E2/L seeker is just better, designed to withstand the launch from the designating aircraft so even if the laser is blocked for moment or missile shake because launch, it doesn't lose the track but can acquire it again. It is not developed for Harrier and its TPOD emulation in mind, but for all aircraft. 

 

19 minutes ago, Recluse said:

If you create a Target Point from TPOD video, I assume that is still the point to which the Maverick gets slaved (locked on before launch) regardless of whether or not the TPOD video is still up.

 

You can slave the Maverick seeker on that Target Designation, but you need to acquire a lock with the seeker itself.

Again what we need is proper DMT/LST scanning behavior first. We should have Wide, Narrow and HUD. The Wide and Narrow will by default center to 5 miles ahead of the Harrier by reading the Harrier radar altitude and concentrate search pattern to it. The scan pattern is a box that you can move around with TDC, the Wide is full DMT gimbal width so you can move it just up and down and the DMT/LST will scan around pattern inside its search box. The Narrow is much narrower and little taller box that you can move around the whole DMT gimbal area. And the HUD is the Instant Field Of View area of the HUD and not slewable. Meant to be used when you know that laser spot will be inside the HUD.

 

The IRMAV seeker scan pattern is suppose to match these by the limitation of the Maverick Seeker FOV. The DMT/LST is more sensitive and higher resolution than LMAV seeker why it can detect and lock on laser spot at further distance or weaker signal, and this way it can help LMAV to concentrate scan on proper position. But this way we can have LMAV search pattern moved around by using DMT/LST TDC.

We likely should have only a roll stabilization and need to fly steadily to get IRMAV seeker on the target and then try to acquire a lock with it on wanted target.

So you would use the TPOD just to create the Mark Points or Target Points and use them as Target Designation (T0) to get a maverick seeker on that position but it is always stationary position, so no moving targets so easily.

 

19 minutes ago, Recluse said:

  I agree that LOBL means you cannot do any mid-course correction "guidance"  once launched for an AGM-65F but the INITIAL designation is still possible with any Sensor of the launching aircraft, correct?

 

Now you can do it with TPOD that you have to have either Target Designation or you will just uncage maverick and it will be movable by the TDC in LMAV/IRMV mode and looking the video area. You can't have TPOD page open at the same time as it will overcome any maverick video. So you should press MENU on TPOD page to shut off the TPOD video.

But your point is valid, it doesn't matter where the Target Designation comes, as long you just have one to slave Maverick seeker to it if so wanted. TPOD video just is not visible same time.