the MAVF not closed the cross

[flankerjun]

why the cross on DDI is not closed and i can not lanuch the MAVF?

[Dragon1-1]

It's not tracking. Try switching zoom levels, sometimes it can have trouble getting a lock. 

[bonesvf103]

You may have to undesignate the Maverick from the TPOD.  When you have a target locked in the TPOD, the Maverick will look at it, but will not necessarily see it, it's just looking at that area/point that is designated.  So if it is off a bit it might not see the target.  Slewing the Maverick seeker will help it to lock, but the problem is since you have the target designated in the TPOD, the Maverick seeker won't move.  You have to TDC to the TPOD, undesignate, and quickly TDC back to the Maverick and slew the seeker a tad and then it will lock up.

I've done many tests with the TPOD/GMT/WPDSG and found that the general rule of thumb is that the Maverick will look at the last place any of these sensors targeted, but you still have to undesignate the sensor then quickly update the Maverick yourself.  There are some times when the Maverick does happen to lock on to where the sensor was looking off the bat, but not all the time, so be prepared to adjust it.  Another poster on the forum when I brought up the issues I was having like you made a good point:  The Maverick doesn't work the same on the Hornet as it does on the Falcon.  If you were designating with the TPOD or GMT radar for instance  in the F-16, the Maverick  would know to follow whatever updates the sensor was detecting.

v6,

boNes

Edited April 11, 2023 by bonesvf103

[Razor18]

Tried to depress TDC (if you have realistic TDC slew OFF, that is...)?

[SickSidewinder9]

Move the TDC left and right till it locks.  It might need the TGP/Radar as the SOI to lock.  IDK, I can luck moving it 1 way then the other.

[Eclipse]

I found that the best way to fix this is to stop using the infrared MAV-F against that type of target. Use the laser-guided MAV-Es for armored vehicles and other small ground targets.

I've read that the infrared mavericks were designed more for anti-ship use, not for ground vehicles. My own experience with them suggests the same.  It's unreliable and fussy trying to target ground vehicles, and you have to get pretty close (8-10nm or so) to get a lock in my experience, if you get one. You were obviously close enough at 1.5nm distance, so the missile was just not getting a lock. 

This is from Wikipedia, and it specifically says the seeker is optimized for tracking ships:

• Maverick F, designed specially for United States Navy, it uses a modified Maverick D infrared guidance system optimized for tracking ships fitted onto a Maverick-E body and warhead.

 I didn't like the Maverick's until I switched to laser-guided MAV-Es, and now I think they are fantastic.  I haven't tested the MAV-F against ships, since so far ships haven't been targets in any mission I've flown. But I bet you would find that the Fs work much better against ships than they do against ground vehicles. 

Hope that helps 

[Razor18]

Only handicap is, the laser version is not fire and forget, unless someone else is lasing...

[Lane]

In general when this happend i will just cage uncage it.  ( at the moment the lock is on Tpod ). and if really this don^t do, redesignate on the Tpod )

 

Anyway, the multi-thread beta as reported have some bugs with some sensors, i have got some errratic results going.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Lane

[Lane]

6 hours ago, Eclipse said:

I found that the best way to fix this is to stop using the infrared MAV-F against that type of target. Use the laser-guided MAV-Es for armored vehicles and other small ground targets.

I've read that the infrared mavericks were designed more for anti-ship use, not for ground vehicles. My own experience with them suggests the same.  It's unreliable and fussy trying to target ground vehicles, and you have to get pretty close (8-10nm or so) to get a lock in my experience, if you get one. You were obviously close enough at 1.5nm distance, so the missile was just not getting a lock. 

This is from Wikipedia, and it specifically says the seeker is optimized for tracking ships:

• Maverick F, designed specially for United States Navy, it uses a modified Maverick D infrared guidance system optimized for tracking ships fitted onto a Maverick-E body and warhead.

 I didn't like the Maverick's until I switched to laser-guided MAV-Es, and now I think they are fantastic.  I haven't tested the MAV-F against ships, since so far ships haven't been targets in any mission I've flown. But I bet you would find that the Fs work much better against ships than they do against ground vehicles. 

Hope that helps 

Actually the difference is in the weight of the F variant, AGM-65B/D/H, 125 pounds (56.25 kilograms), AGM-65E/F/G/K, 300 pounds (135 kilograms)+ delayed-fuse penetrator.  This made the difference of 2 to 3 Mav D can be put on an F15- F16-A10 Air force and only one by pylon of the F18C of the Navy .  The point is for ships you want a larger warhead and more penetratrion.  I don't think the IR sensors have much difference between both variant if only some few.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Lane

[Eclipse]

22 minutes ago, Lane said:

Actually the difference is in the weight of the F variant, AGM-65B/D/H, 125 pounds (56.25 kilograms), AGM-65E/F/G/K, 300 pounds (135 kilograms)+ delayed-fuse penetrator.  This made the difference of 2 to 3 Mav D can be put on an F15- F16-A10 Air force and only one by pylon of the F18C of the Navy .  The point is for ships you want a larger warhead and more penetratrion.  I don't think the IR sensors have much difference between both variant if only some few.

 

I've read from multiple sources that the seeker is indeed different. I'm sure there are other differences as well, as you mentioned.