FLIR what will this mean for our beloved F16?

[AngryViper.101]

Will we be getting a FLIR mode, will this apply to the TGP only or also for example maverick video seeker feed?

[Gunrun_KS]

It's a core DCS change so all FLIR capable equipment will be updated. 

"Our new FLIR technology is progressing well. It takes into account how various terrain elements are rendered in the IR spectrum. This includes large masses of water, vegetation, asphalt and concrete that have high thermal retention capacities. These gradually heat up and cool down at different rates depending on the color and material. This leads to bodies of water and forests looking cooler during the day and at night time seeming warmer.

Houses, buildings, runways and many other man-made structures often look warmer at night as they have absorbed heat during the day and are clearly visible in the IR spectrum. In addition to the dynamic nature of all vehicles and changing heat signatures, which are dependent on their movement, we will continue to tune the terrains, associated map objects and vehicles to bring you these enhancements in time for the DCS: AH-64D Early Access launch. We are confident that the new FLIR technology will be available across all compatible sensors deployed in DCS."

 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Gunrun_KS
Added information from Newsletter

[unlikely_spider]

32 minutes ago, Gunrun_KS said:

We are confident that the new FLIR technology will be available across all compatible sensors deployed in DCS.

That's kind of a weird qualifier - I'm not sure I understand. Will each module that uses FLIR need to be manually updated, or will the changes automatically be seen across all of them once the new tech is released?

[Kilo]

2 hours ago, warford said:

Will we be getting a FLIR mode, will this apply to the TGP only or also for example maverick video seeker feed?

Well, we already have a flir-mode in the F-16. It will just be upgraded.

29 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

That's kind of a weird qualifier - I'm not sure I understand. Will each module that uses FLIR need to be manually updated, or will the changes automatically be seen across all of them once the new tech is released?

It will still need to be updated for each aircraft individually. Though, it will be quicker as the tech itself will already be in the game.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Kilo

[WobblyFlops]

In practice, this will likely be the end of perfect sensors, the Maverick is a pretty horrendous offender in this category. Real IR Mavs are pretty terrible weapons in any humid environment and certain atmoshperic factors can mess with them quite badly. (Things like uneven heating on vehicles combined with the presence of contrast reversal) Therefore, utilizing proper planning would be mandatory if you're trying to employ IR weapons because during certain hours of the day it would be a pretty significant degradation and you may not be able to lock up that tank or APC even inside the minimum range. 

[WobblyFlops]

6 minutes ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

Clouds also need to interact with any IR sensors in the game.

For sure, once you start peeling the FLIR onion, you can go incredibly deep. What I believe is important isn't necessarily a comprehensive, scientifically accurate rendition of all these interactions (which is possible based on public data but incredibly cost ineffective) but a realistic rendition of the limitations that are inherent to the tactical employment of these sensors. Even basic stuff like if there's not enough delta T, the IR MAV won't lock or to have the effect of the black hot/white hot polarity (for Mavs) properly simulated when it comes to establishing lock and so on.

 

I'm not entirely sure how apparent this will be in game, after all it's possible that it will be a visual, rendering difference and won't really affect employment or sensor capabilities.

[Bunny Clark]

6 hours ago, unlikely_spider said:

That's kind of a weird qualifier - I'm not sure I understand. Will each module that uses FLIR need to be manually updated, or will the changes automatically be seen across all of them once the new tech is released?

From what I understand the new FLIR engine is a new API, so the new system will need to be integrated with every module individually. But, I expect that the Viper will probably see it on day 1 or very soon thereafter.

5 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

Real IR Mavs are pretty terrible weapons ...

I think modern Mavericks get a little wrongly maligned. The A and B Mavericks were hot garbage, and every horror story I've seen from real pilots struggling to get locks come from those versions. The D sensor is waaaay better than the old vidicon sensors in the A and B. I agree, Mavericks in DCS are still significantly overperforming, and hopefully they get more realistic with the sensor overhaul. It would also be cool if we see the IR Mavs start to struggle in hot desert environments to give the H and K a realistic reason to exist. But I don't expect that they'll become terrible. 

[Dragon1-1]

He didn't say there were terrible, they say they were so in a humid environment. Or in a hot one, for that matter, because you don't get enough contrast if the air itself is 40 degrees or so. Mavs would be affected by a plethora of factors, particularly in maps that we have, except for Caucasus and (upcoming) South America, where I suspect they'd work without issue.

[Northstar98]

I would've thought that everything would use the new texture set.

As ultimately, that's what the new FLIR upgrade is, just now those textures are dynamic and actually account for numerous factors, in theory making them much more representative of the real thing.

But properties integral to whatever sensors themselves will probably need to done on a per system basis.

[TobiasA]

Well given the fact that the current IR implementation struggles to pick up anything at night time when there are ideal conditions which only got better in the latest updates, I would expect nothing but a positive outcome with the reworked IR engine.
I mean, if I look at what I see with the Apaches IR sensor, and compare it with my TGP- wish I had the Apaches picture in my TGP.

I am not talking about the desert, I am talking about picking up something in the caucasus, little overcast but dry, 14°C. I highly appreciate the updated IR imagining and think it will bring a lot more realisms to DCS, together with a very much improved night ability in the F-16.

[WobblyFlops]

11 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

I think modern Mavericks get a little wrongly maligned. The A and B Mavericks were hot garbage, and every horror story I've seen from real pilots struggling to get locks come from those versions. The D sensor is waaaay better than the old vidicon sensors in the A and B. I agree

As Dragon 1-1 explained, I said that IR Mavericks were  bad weapons in humid environments. My point was that these weapons come with heavy limitations and when employing them accurately, you have to account for time of day, atmoshperics, emissivity of the target and the background and many other, fairly arcane factors. They are better than the B or God forbid, the A, that's for sure, but there's a reason why they are not exactly considered to be as universal in real life as they are in DCS. 

I've never talked to a Hornet pilot that trained or actually employed IRMAVs (GB didn't even know how to use them when he tried it during a stream), the Harrier guys all gave theirs away (sure, that's an F Mav, which isn't in the Air Force but still), Strike Eagle guys had it as an integrated weapon in the 90s but as far as I'm aware, barely anyone trained to use them and it was very quickly phased out. Notso, a Strike Eagle WSO had this to say about the old IR Maverick seekers. 

 

Quote

In a super dry desert environment like DS, they were pretty decent.  But in any sort of humidity, the IR seekers were ****.  The ability to hold a track was super poor.  And the camera resolution was horrible.  Nothing at all like you see in DCS.  So you have an incredibly small window to search, acquire the tgt, lock it, and shoot.  You'd be super lucky to get one weapon off in one pass much less several.
 

He never used 65s but he did use GBU-15s. The GBU-15(V2)/B used the same WGU-10/B seekerhead as the early IR Mavericks, and compared to the A-B, it must have felt like a generational leap and surely enough it proved fairly useful in Desert Storm, especially for platforms that lacked a dedicated FLIR, like the A-10A. But Notso's point makes sense. This of course doesn't mean that D-G Mavs should be completely useless but there are significant limitations when it comes to their employment and currently they are much better in DCS than how they should behave. 

 

But it's important to see these weapons in their proper historical context. Compared to using mil reticle bombing in an F-4, the PK of even the AGM-65A against soviet tanks in the Fulda Gap would have been a substantial upgrade. The D-G were definitely similar leaps in capability when compared to the A. (Which needed less than 7000 feet slant range against a typical MBT.) If you now have a weapon that has twice the range, a much better seeker and can be used at night or as a stand in FLIR for platforms that lack one, you've substantially increased your capabilities, but we're still talking about weapons that were outperformed by first generation FLIRs+GBU-12s when it comes to engaging tanks. And even if you need stand off, an LGB loft is seemed to be a much more reliable way of engaging the target than fiddling with the IR MAVs, especially in a single seat fast mover. A-10s get a bit of extra advantage here because their typical profile allows them to do low and slow attacks in permissive environments. Pointy nosed jets don't really get used like that.

Edited February 13, 2022 by WobblyFlops

[Kev2go]

5 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

As Dragon 1-1 explained, I said that IR Mavericks were  bad weapons in humid environments. My point was that these weapons come with heavy limitations and when employing them accurately, you have to account for time of day, atmoshperics, emissivity of the target and the background and many other, fairly arcane factors. They are better than the B or God forbid, the A, that's for sure, but there's a reason why they are not exactly considered to be as universal in real life as they are in DCS. 

I've never talked to a Hornet pilot that trained or actually employed IRMAVs (GB didn't even know how to use them when he tried it during a stream), the Harrier guys all gave theirs away (sure, that's an F Mav, which isn't in the Air Force but still), Strike Eagle guys had it as an integrated weapon in the 90s but as far as I'm aware, barely anyone trained to use them and it was very quickly phased out. Notso, a Strike Eagle WSO had this to say about the old IR Maverick seekers. 

 

He never used 65s but he did use GBU-15s. The GBU-15(V2)/B used the same WGU-10/B seekerhead as the early IR Mavericks, and compared to the A-B, it must have felt like a generational leap and surely enough it proved fairly useful in Desert Storm, especially for platforms that lacked a dedicated FLIR, like the A-10A. But Notso's point makes sense. This of course doesn't mean that D-G Mavs should be completely useless but there are significant limitations when it comes to their employment and currently they are much better in DCS than how they should behave. 

 

But it's important to see these weapons in their proper historical context. Compared to using mil reticle bombing in an F-4, the PK of even the AGM-65A against soviet tanks in the Fulda Gap would have been a substantial upgrade. The D-G were definitely similar leaps in capability when compared to the A. (Which needed less than 7000 feet slant range against a typical MBT.) If you now have a weapon that has twice the range, a much better seeker and can be used at night or as a stand in FLIR for platforms that lack one, you've substantially increased your capabilities, but we're still talking about weapons that were outperformed by first generation FLIRs+GBU-12s when it comes to engaging tanks. And even if you need stand off, an LGB loft is seemed to be a much more reliable way of engaging the target than fiddling with the IR MAVs, especially in a single seat fast mover. A-10s get a bit of extra advantage here because their typical profile allows them to do low and slow attacks in permissive environments. Pointy nosed jets don't really get used like that.

 

 

 

isnt this why the CCD based AGM65H/K mavericks were produced as a alternative? for use in daylight but  hot humid environments where IR maverick would have some issues like you describe. Also I wonder If Agm65D's were refurbished with more modern IR seeker tech would they be more effective since D/G's are still 80s vintage IR tech?

 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Kev2go

[WobblyFlops]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

isnt this why the CCD based AGM65H/K mavericks were produced as a alternative? for use in daylight but  hot humid environments where IR maverick would have some issues like you describe. Also I wonder If Agm65D's were refurbished with more modern IR seeker tech would they be more effective since D/G's are still 80s vintage IR tech?

 

Not that I'm aware of. The upgraded seekers were the CCD seekers in the H/K. Like all the other Mavericks, these also rely on sufficient contrast to establish a centroid track (force correlation isn't necessarily something that the seeker is capable of but rather the guidance logic of the missile, because when employing against buildings, the centroid of a building may not necessarily be your DPI) and like with IR, they also depend on permissive environmental factors. Losing lock because the target drives in front of an area that messes up the contrast, or having low sun angle (and therefore longer shadows) and locking up the centroid of a tank and its shadow (and hitting in between them) or not locking camouflaged targets are potential pitfalls.

Force correlate is another possibility but based on an A-10 pilot's AMA response, it's something you'd use as a last resort type of deal. And if we think about it, what advantages would Mavs bring when employing against buildings compared to JDAMs or LGBs? Pilots generally agree that if you're using Mavs against vehicles and tanks, using LMAVs is probably your best bet. 

 

On the flipside, as TobiasA said, the TGP FLIR would likely be end up getting even more potent in most conditions where it's currently not that useful, so even without LMAVs that will increase capabilities of the Viper when using LGBs. As long as LGB/laser limitations aren't getting implemented as well, at least. (At the risk of sounding like a broken record, those are also far from being perfect weapons and again, rely heavily on atmospheric conditions being kind and the inherent laser limitation factors not being present.) Ultimately, what we will circle back when talking about these types of weapons is that they heavily rely on proper weather modelling and until the new weather engine is implemented, these factors would be very difficult to properly modelled I'd imagine.

[Kev2go]

4 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

Not that I'm aware of. The upgraded seekers were the CCD seekers in the H/K. Like all the other Mavericks, these also rely on sufficient contrast to establish a centroid track (force correlation isn't necessarily something that the seeker is capable of but rather the guidance logic of the missile, because when employing against buildings, the centroid of a building may not necessarily be your DPI) and like with IR, they also depend on permissive environmental factors. Losing lock because the target drives in front of an area that messes up the contrast, or having low sun angle (and therefore longer shadows) and locking up the centroid of a tank and its shadow (and hitting in between them) or not locking camouflaged targets are potential pitfalls.

Force correlate is another possibility but based on an A-10 pilot's AMA response, it's something you'd use as a last resort type of deal. And if we think about it, what advantages would Mavs bring when employing against buildings compared to JDAMs or LGBs? Pilots generally agree that if you're using Mavs against vehicles and tanks, using LMAVs is probably your best bet. 

 

On the flipside, as TobiasA said, the TGP FLIR would likely be end up getting even more potent in most conditions where it's currently not that useful, so even without LMAVs that will increase capabilities of the Viper when using LGBs. As long as LGB/laser limitations aren't getting implemented as well, at least. (At the risk of sounding like a broken record, those are also far from being perfect weapons and again, rely heavily on atmospheric conditions being kind and the inherent laser limitation factors not being present.) Ultimately, what we will circle back when talking about these types of weapons is that they heavily rely on proper weather modelling and until the new weather engine is implemented, these factors would be very difficult to properly modelled I'd imagine.

the advantage of the IR mavs is that they are fire and forget. and do not have to be lased till impact, which with laser based weapons also means only 1 target can be attacked per pass. In non permissive environments its preferable to just ripple off a bunch of PGM's ( against multiple targets if feasibly possible) and be able to break off to avoid risk to getting within range  of mobile tracked air defenses escorting a armored/mechanized unit. JDAMS arent true fire and forget as they have no means to self adjust against a moving target. you need to have some sort of IR seeker guidance for that.

 

hence whatever thier limitations Mavericks fill this void as a useful armored vehicle buster . AFAIk there isnt anything comparable  or with longer stand off range to IR mavs, except maybe IRL with the newer gen JSOWS that have terminal IR guidance included.

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Kev2go

[Frederf]

There have been improvements to the IIR seeker, e.g. the AGM-65D-2 although it only mentions faster seeker capability and not necessarily any clarity. Notably the "WGU-10" is the D seeker but so is the WGU-8 and WGU-22. This suggests that there have been at least three seekers for the "D" Maverick over the years. It's hard to believe the seeker section would be made identically from 1983 to 2022.

Usually humid air has an issue with thermal-spectrum EM attenuation, not that "hot air" produces interference. Hot, dry air is essentially optically clear. Hot air will have more moisture in it (and thus more attenuation) for a given RH but it just being hot outside doesn't itself reduce contrast. We say "IR" like everything IR operates the same but an IR AA missile is tuned to a shorter wavelength than say the FLIR pod for night navigation. Different water droplet sizes mess with different IR sensors differently as when the size of the droplet approaches the wavelength the attenuation is high. In general longer wavelength has better "weather penetration" than shorter.

I have read that Maverick is often seeker limited over kinematic limited but it was in reference to the target size for centroid tracking. Some objects have too small of an angular size at max kinematic range for tracking. Clearly there are reports of range reduction by attenuation by water-air condition.

In DCS I have found that my ability to see the target distinctly is hampered by the video presentation but the actual missile lock ability is not. If the missile is pointed at something that I can't see at all with my human eye but I know it's on target (TGP or similar cueing) it will track far, far beyond what the video shows as a valid object. It would be nice for my human ability to see a distinct object and the simulation locking/not locking whatever's in the middle of the crosshairs to be roughly the same performance. Lastly while "in poor conditions" missile video may suffer but I haven't found a way to see reasonably a boat on an ocean at even half kinematic range. I could try different temperatures, seasons, weathers, etc. but I doubt there is any difference. Visually it looks like the video is worst case environment in all environments.

[WobblyFlops]

8 hours ago, Kev2go said:

the advantage of the IR mavs is that they are fire and forget. and do not have to be lased till impact, which with laser based weapons also means only 1 target can be attacked per pass

This is more like a DCSism. SME input indicates that if all things work out and the conditions are suitable, launching a single Maverick against a tank reliably is already a high workload task. While it was definitely possible during training to try, in actual combat conditions, a multi target pass likely wouldn't have worked out too well. (If it was reliable and an expected way to employ, people wouldn't get beer and admiration if they were to successfully pull it off. In training, mind you.)

Quote

There was also an option to select "pairs" on the AGM-65. You'd lock the Mavericks onto separate targets, then launch them simultaneously. Successfully accomplishing that without running into the dirt earned you the a beer and the admiration of your fellow aviators!

 

8 hours ago, Kev2go said:

In non permissive environments its preferable to just ripple off a bunch of PGM's ( against multiple targets if feasibly possible) and be able to break off to avoid risk to getting within range  of mobile tracked air defenses escorting a armored/mechanized unit

Lock on range would be limited by the seeker and today a 54 would most likely be a much more reliable choice if you need to operate inside any kind of threat heavy environment, or the LMAV. Traditional PW 2s would be limited by their guidance logic but lofting those would probably still be a better idea in a non permissive environment than D-G Mavs. PW 3s were designed for low level/lofting attacks and they have a much more complex guidance logic and different modes but they are notoriously difficult to self laze but that's also probably a better option. 

Lazing can also increase the workload (especially with more advanced low level lofts or other type of attacks) but don't forget, you don't have to fly into the target area when employing LGBs, you can also delay laze after doing a SEM. And if there are enough dispersed air defenses near those tanks, the Maverick likely wouldn't offer any stand off to begin with. It was mainly intended to be a precision guided anti tank munition and the design goals grew after that. In an all out war, 97s/105s are also an option and I'd bet those are the best ones, but I've never talked to or even seen any SME who really trained for those let alone used them in real combat.

 

To quote some SMEs, Notso's previously quoted comment had this footnote:

 

Note that due to the fact that the Strike Eagle is a two seater, more advanced LGB attack profiles are possible with less risk than what would be feasible with a single pilot.

 

The second quote is Tailhook, a Super Hornet pilot from Reddit.

 

Quote

Even in a high threat environment, I'd rather do an LGB loft against against tanks than try to shoot some mavericks at them.

Quote

As for stand-off, in practical use it’s not really any more than a JDAM due to reasons. This is poorly represented in any flight sim out there. IR Mavericks are even worse.

 

IR-EO Mavs were pretty good in DS when self lazing wasn't available to all platforms. Today, with 54s, LMAVs, 53s or as you said, JSOWs, you have more than enough precision to not rely on older Mavericks. 

[Kev2go]

On 2/14/2022 at 6:58 AM, WobblyFlops said:

This is more like a DCSism. SME input indicates that if all things work out and the conditions are suitable, launching a single Maverick against a tank reliably is already a high workload task. While it was definitely possible during training to try, in actual combat conditions, a multi target pass likely wouldn't have worked out too well. (If it was reliable and an expected way to employ, people wouldn't get beer and admiration if they were to successfully pull it off. In training, mind you.)

 

Lock on range would be limited by the seeker and today a 54 would most likely be a much more reliable choice if you need to operate inside any kind of threat heavy environment, or the LMAV. Traditional PW 2s would be limited by their guidance logic but lofting those would probably still be a better idea in a non permissive environment than D-G Mavs. PW 3s were designed for low level/lofting attacks and they have a much more complex guidance logic and different modes but they are notoriously difficult to self laze but that's also probably a better option. 

I mean maviercks arent the only system that doesnt have limitations modelled.  we would also have to take into consideration that TGP's are also dont have thier limitations represented in DCS. The Coordinates generation from TGP to feed to JDAM launch are always perfect. and the image clarity does not degrade as you zoom in. This should especially be the case for the litening as it only has 1 level of magnification and very reliant on figitally enhanced Zoom. Litening AT is from early 2000s. using max level zoom you wouldnt be able to tell anything of detail, because any armored vehicle would be a total Blur.

 

On 2/14/2022 at 6:58 AM, WobblyFlops said:

Lazing can also increase the workload (especially with more advanced low level lofts or other type of attacks) but don't forget, you don't have to fly into the target area when employing LGBs, you can also delay laze after doing a SEM. And if there are enough dispersed air defenses near those tanks, the Maverick likely wouldn't offer any stand off to begin with. It was mainly intended to be a precision guided anti tank munition and the design goals grew after that.

 

 

sO its a long way of saying you agree. the limitations of using laser guided weapons are valid in poor weather conditions or in higher risk environments , but again most of the complaints are probably due to the limitations of Maverick being dated technology in the 21sst century.  But as i mentioned there are more advanced weapons filling its role for high threat environments that heave IR guidance

perhaps the AGM 179 project will replace Mavericks directly.

 

 

 

 

On 2/14/2022 at 6:58 AM, WobblyFlops said:

 

 

In an all out war, 97s/105s are also an option and I'd bet those are the best ones, but I've never talked to or even seen any SME who really trained for those let alone used them in real combat.

 

 

 

YES THESE ARE also pretty useful  but when is the last time there was a conventional war?  There has been no need to drop cluster munitions of any sort. Pilots have been pretty much just flying around  in the last couple decades and dropping LGB's and JDAMS in uncontested environments against insurgents.

 

what i notice this discussion about people trying to complain about mavericks not being as usefull IRL to DCS is alot liike the people with Air to Surface radar of older generations.

 

that its "useless" and virtually never use  due to limitations 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Kev2go

[WobblyFlops]

21 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

I mean maviercks arent the only system that doesnt have limitations modelled.  we would also have to take into consideration that TGP's are also dont have thier limitations represented in DCS. The Coordinates generation from TGP to feed to JDAM launch are always perfect. and the image clarity does not degrade as you zoom in

This is a really good point. Currently, the limitations of proper contrast lock, lazing, TLEs and certain IAM errors aren't represented well or at all. 

24 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

sO its a long way of saying you agree. the limitations of using laser guided weapons are valid in poor weather conditions or in higher risk environments

Not entirely. I agree with the point about JSOWs or SDBs or other advanced weapons but I'm saying that if we're talking about a theoretical situation where your choices are either D Mavs or GBU-12s, you'd probably be better off with lofting the PW 2s, especially in a two seater. If the weather makes it impossible to laze or to conduct LGB attacks, the notoriously weather sensitive IR MAVs would also be impacted. This is obviously a highly simplified approach, because in real life, this stuff is incredibly complicated, even back in the DS era, let alone today. This quote can reflect to how sensitive all these weapons are to specific conditions and how a non-permissive environment can degrade effectiveness.

 

Quote

I was an aviation meteorologist, assigned to Lt. General Hoerner's battle staff. My team and I provided operational weather support for strike missions. Modern sensors need much more than simple cloud base/visibility forecasts. We had to get involved, directly, with the flight planners to determine what weapon systems were best suited for each mission. I had a computer program, an Mark IV Tactical Decision Aid (TDA), which incorporated target area data. SOME of this data was latitude, longitude, elevation, type of target, bridge, tank, building etc., sun angle, moon angle, percent illumination, and target area background...32 different types, dirt, sand, trees, etc. After the target characteristics were uploaded, THEN I applied the weather. Temp, dewpoint, winds, pressure, precipitation, visibility, clouds, all kinds of stuff. The third piece of the puzzle was one of the 25 different sensor types coalition forces had. Some were better than others. The end result was two numbers, TAL, and TLR. TAL is "Target acquisition range", which was just that. When can the sensor detect the target. TLR was "Target lock-on range." So...a massive bridge over water, during the day, with no clouds, can be detected and locked onto 20 miles away. You can use a standoff weapon. A tank, in camo, at night, with the engines off, in trees, can't be locked onto until you are VERY close. Different targets needed different approaches. Desert Storm was the FIRST war where the weather guy became part of the decision making process. I loved my job..and was pretty good at it.

 

28 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

YES THESE ARE also pretty useful  but when is the last time there was a conventional war?

Sure, the last time these were used in combat were around the start of OIF but that doesn't mean that in this theoretical discussion we should dismiss them. When conditions make it likely that a certain weapon would get employed, even if it's not part of the traditional training cycle, people will bring out the books and start refreshing their memory on them. So they would surely be an option if a conventional war broke out with massive amounts of MBTs.

 

30 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

to Surface radar of older generations.

 

that its "useless" and virtually never use  due to limitations

Radars are platform specific. Strike Eagle guys love their radar and it was heavily used even in Desert Storm. Hornet guys said that even the 73 was virtually useless in real conditions for anything else than INS updates and anti shipping, let alone the 65. Some people find this very hard to accept but like always, if there's no hard data, the only thing we can rely on are SME statements.

[Kev2go]

On 2/16/2022 at 12:46 PM, WobblyFlops said:

This is a really good point. Currently, the limitations of proper contrast lock, lazing, TLEs and certain IAM errors aren't represented well or at all. 

Not entirely. I agree with the point about JSOWs or SDBs or other advanced weapons but I'm saying that if we're talking about a theoretical situation where your choices are either D Mavs or GBU-12s, you'd probably be better off with lofting the PW 2s, especially in a two seater. If the weather makes it impossible to laze or to conduct LGB attacks, the notoriously weather sensitive IR MAVs would also be impacted. This is obviously a highly simplified approach, because in real life, this stuff is incredibly complicated, even back in the DS era, let alone today. This quote can reflect to how sensitive all these weapons are to specific conditions and how a non-permissive environment can degrade effectiveness.

 

not necessarily. If the only thing preventing you from lasing is Cloud cover. then if course you can drop down to lower altitude below cloud cover to launch mavericks. Of course that puts you at greater risk if there is some form of air defeces, but its either that or fly home.

 

On 2/16/2022 at 12:46 PM, WobblyFlops said:

 

 

Sure, the last time these were used in combat were around the start of OIF but that doesn't mean that in this theoretical discussion we should dismiss them. When conditions make it likely that a certain weapon would get employed, even if it's not part of the traditional training cycle, people will bring out the books and start refreshing their memory on them. So they would surely be an option if a conventional war broke out with massive amounts of MBTs.

 

but i was  not being dismissive of these weapons but point out why maybe pilots arent trained on them anymore.

 

On 2/16/2022 at 12:46 PM, WobblyFlops said:

 

Radars are platform specific. Strike Eagle guys love their radar and it was heavily used even in Desert Storm. Hornet guys said that even the 73 was virtually useless in real conditions for anything else than INS updates and anti shipping, let alone the 65. Some people find this very hard to accept but like always, if there's no hard data, the only thing we can rely on are SME statements.

 

Yes and this has been discussed to death. having to work with limitations of an older system  or not being trained to employ it for its designed use  the answer is not simple  ' its useless" i think is not a fair description at all.

If a radars air to surface modes are considered "useless"  then air to surface modes wouldn't have been included to begin with.  One has to consider what said systems were designed for at the time for adoption, versus what is available in present day allowing for better alternatives given a older generation of Radars limitations. and also for what role pilots train and use their aircraft combat today versus back then.

if you would want to take things further  we can also compare and contrast to an earlier generation of Aircraft like A6 or F111 which were designed around radar attack, and the capabilities of those systems versus what you have in generation 4 of multirole aircraft. Do those aircraft in turn become useless?

 There also is for example another disconnect between what certain navy pilots here have  said about APG73 and what i hear/read about APG73 phase 2 on USMC F/A18D's with ATARS. Its said its uses more advanced air to surface software and its SAR modes are closer to whats found on a APG70's  Strike eagle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Kev2go

[Chibawang]

Has ED actually stated that these new dynamic textures will be anything more than a VISUAL change? I'm not a programmer, but it seems like a lot of CPU horsepower would be needed for what you guys are hoping for...

[WobblyFlops]

17 hours ago, Kev2go said:

not necessarily. If the only thing preventing you from lasing is Cloud cover. then if course you can drop down to lower altitude below cloud cover to launch mavericks. Of course that puts you at greater risk if there is some form of air defeces, but its either that or fly home.

 

If you can go below the cloud cover to launch a Maverick, you can also loft LGBs. This delivery profile isn't replicated in DCS and many people don't even know that it exists but it was practiced extensively. Even PW 2s can be employed from down low from a loft (in a tactically limited manner but still), and the 24 was specifically designed to be employed on a terrain masking interdictor with a much more sophisticated autopilot guidance scheme, where the main limitation is not the energy retention capabilities of the weapon but the ability to designate the target at such a range where this can be exploited. 

This is why self lazing a 24 is a very difficult endevour and really only Strike Eagles were capable of developing a good enough workflow to reliably do this. Vipers flew into the ground when trying the same thing, it's just one of those things that a single seat aircraft can't really utilize effectively and safely. This mission profile was the entire reason why the Block 40 with the LANTIRN and NAVFLIR capable HUD was a thing.

 

17 hours ago, Kev2go said:

If a radars air to surface modes are considered "useless"  then air to surface modes wouldn't have been included to begin with.

There are many things on military platforms that sound good on paper but never really perform at the expected level in real life. A2G radars are kind of steering us off topic, but I don't really disagree with you about the fact that we must consider the platform specific differences. If you ask a Viggen pilot from the 70s or an A-7E pilot from the 80s, even they would likely say that the radar was useful and trained on, even though the absolute capabilities would be exceeded by the 73. But as time went on, more and more capable radars emerged (like the APG-70) and the required resolution, reliability and effectiveness became much higher so the relative capabilities of say the 73 made it that its use became very limited. 

 

The APG-70 can target individual stationary tanks and generate accurate coordinates to drop JDAMs on them. The 73 cannot even be utilized to generate coordinates for TOO attacks at all. So if we get down into the weeds, the relative performance difference is staggering, which is why comparatively the 73 can be considered of very limited use. Now the upgraded USMC version are not something I know much about so it's possible that they are much more capable than what the Navy Hornets used.

 

 

14 hours ago, Chibawang said:

Has ED actually stated that these new dynamic textures will be anything more than a VISUAL change? I'm not a programmer, but it seems like a lot of CPU horsepower would be needed for what you guys are hoping for...

This is true about pretty much everything about the core game except for maybe ATC. 

[Chibawang]

@WobblyFlops Not really. In any simulation there will be simplification of systems, some more simplified than others. IR certainly feels like one of those systems, and I've seen no indication that this change will be anything other than visual. If there is anything other than wishful thinking behind this, please share with us.

 

Frankly, I'm not sure I would want the added headache of complex infrared attempted, but I'm sure I'm in the minority there. It just seems to me that the sim already struggles enough with unit calculations, online at least. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Chibawang

[WobblyFlops]

1 hour ago, Chibawang said:

Not really. In any simulation there will be simplification of systems, some more simplified than others

Sure, you don't have to simulate the internals of the FLIR pod and work out how the sensors actually IR information and output it on the display. But simulating real life interactions and more importantly limitations allows to have a faithful recreation of the experience of operating such a system. I also don't think it will amount to any of this stuff, but it's nice to discuss what the ideal implementation would look like.

Without proper multicore support and Vulcan none of the deficiencies can be corrected aside from ATC. The core game needs better AI, better damage model, better weapon and sensor simulation. The only way any of this stuff is possible if they actually update the engine so that it can utilize modern hardware better, which they are already working on. If that arrives, I'm sure that it would make it possible to correct these issues and according to ED's statements, many of these are on the to do list.