AGM65-F salvo... What a pein...

[CougarFFW04]

Hi everyone

Maybe I'm doing it wrong but while I thought the AGM65-F would be a weapon of choice for attacking convoys (fire and forget, "stand-off"), firing them in salvo is a barely impossible challenge. When used in conjunction with the FLIR or GMT radar, the problem is that the head of the missile is positioned at ground level designated at the time t without following its movement. At this stage, it is impossible to move the missile head without delocking the FLIR/radar. Worse still, after the first shot the next missile is caged, and if that wasn't enough, the position on the HUD is not indicated by anything (as long as the AGM is uncadged) and does not coincide with the FPM...  In short, after shooting the first AGM, the whole acquisition sequence must be redone. So IMO shooting of AGMs in salvo is more a suicide procedure than anything else... I thought that this behavior was simply not correctly implemented but after months it is always the same...

Is this the way AGM65-F/FLIR/Radar works in confunction in RL ?

[Tholozor]

The Maverick seeker, when uncaged, will always slave to the TGT designation when one exists. Once the seeker has a lock, it ignores the TGT designation. I believe there is a reported issue regarding the TGT designation not following the FLIR pod when in PTRK, but it should work just fine with radar GMT. Depending on the range to the target, and how much stand-off you actually want, it can sometimes be easier to just engage visually using the Maverick LOS indicator on the HUD once you have the target in visual range.

Almost all of the time Hornets in fleet service never carried more than one Maverick to begin with (and they were usually Laser Mavericks). AGM salvo attacks aren't really much of a tactic to be employed by a single aircraft, as opposed to coordinating with a flight, especially to mitigate the re-targeting problems you've encountered.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Tholozor

[Bunny Clark]

On 10/28/2021 at 4:34 PM, CougarFFW04 said:

I thought the AGM65-F would be a weapon of choice for attacking convoys

Realistically, the weapon of choice would probably be a cluster bomb. Or in more modern times, GBU-12s coordinated with other flight members. 

The Hornet in USN and USMC service does not seem to have carried the MAV-F very often. The Navy seems to think of it more as an anti-ship weapon, and both the Navy and Marines prefer the Laser MAV-E for CAS missions. It is telling, perhaps, that the Hornet's computer systems call the laser version "MAV" and IR version "MAVF" like it's a secondary variant. 

[CougarFFW04]

Hi certainly CBU use would be more realistic but i found the CBU in DCS quite ineffective..

[Spirale]

I agree and disagree: MK20  for example are quite ineffective yes but CBU 97 are effective for me

[Sharkku]

I agree, shooting ir-mavs is an absolute pain. If the DCS implementation is realistic, I feel sorry for the poor pilots that have to use it. And the engineers constructing the system should be ashamed of themselves. It SHOULD be as easy as placing the marker in the FLIR over the target and pressing fire, slew to next target, press fire etc.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Sharkku

[CougarFFW04]

On 10/31/2021 at 8:00 PM, Spirale said:

I agree and disagree: MK20  for example are quite ineffective yes but CBU 97 are effective for me

There is NO CBU97 for the Hornet...

[Harlikwin]

Good news! With the FLIR update the IR mavs should get far worse, at least if IRL is any guide.

 

On 10/30/2021 at 6:30 PM, Bunny Clark said:

Realistically, the weapon of choice would probably be a cluster bomb. Or in more modern times, GBU-12s coordinated with other flight members. 

The Hornet in USN and USMC service does not seem to have carried the MAV-F very often. The Navy seems to think of it more as an anti-ship weapon, and both the Navy and Marines prefer the Laser MAV-E for CAS missions. It is telling, perhaps, that the Hornet's computer systems call the laser version "MAV" and IR version "MAVF" like it's a secondary variant. 

Yeah the IR mavs mostly sucked. Thats the reason. Right now in DCS the lock "live units". IRL they locked whatever had an IR contrast, live vehicles, burning vehicles, hot rocks, warm houses, sun glint off a puddle, whatever. And better yet they sometimes "switched" targets.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Spirale]

7 hours ago, CougarFFW04 said:

There is NO CBU97 for the Hornet...

I know but i 've spoken in general kind of effects in DCS