AGM65F F/A18C

[Matt Glover]

Does SHIP mode actually work and if so what should it do?

[Dscross]

Matt, the ship mode kinda sorta works. What the mode does is change the aim point for the missile, ideally causing the weapon to hit the ship at the waterline to cause the most damage and flooding. Yes, that feature works. However, the damage model of all ships is really, really broken in DCS. (Castle class is one of the worst offenders). So, no weapon made for killing ships, really kills ships in DCS. (apart from the RB-04 and RB-15). So yeas the ship mode works. But since flooding damage isn't part of DCS, machinery damage to internal components isn't part of DCS etc, so the utility of using the ship mode for the AGM-65F is questionable. 

[CBStu]

But a MavF beats the heck out of trying to enter 89 items to launch a Harpoon so it can fly around out there and pick it's own target. 

[SickSidewinder9]

On 9/3/2023 at 9:35 AM, Dscross said:

Matt, the ship mode kinda sorta works. What the mode does is change the aim point for the missile, ideally causing the weapon to hit the ship at the waterline to cause the most damage and flooding. Yes, that feature works. However, the damage model of all ships is really, really broken in DCS. (Castle class is one of the worst offenders). So, no weapon made for killing ships, really kills ships in DCS. (apart from the RB-04 and RB-15). So yeas the ship mode works. But since flooding damage isn't part of DCS, machinery damage to internal components isn't part of DCS etc, so the utility of using the ship mode for the AGM-65F is questionable. 

Is it glitched or does it just not take water into account?

 

 

How does one use the mav without the tpod?  I thought I figured it out, but maybe not. Or I forgot.

[rob10]

1 hour ago, SickSidewinder9 said:

How does one use the mav without the tpod?  I thought I figured it out, but maybe not. Or I forgot.

I assume you're talking the IR Mav.  Press and HOLD TDC to slew.  it will attempt to lock on whatever is under the cursor when you release the TDC press.  HOWEVER, you CANNOT slew with a target or waypoint designated which could be what's tripping you up.  Can be used with without a pod, but definitely much easier to use with.

[Dscross]

SickSidewinder9, 

Yes the IR Mav. 

The Weapon itself is fine, apparently from lately only tracking light poles if used around a road or something. The problem is that ships in DCS work on the hit point system. There are no internal compartments, there are no flooding or fire damage mechanics. The AGM-65F was made (in ship mode) to alter it's attack profile to hit a ship at the waterline as opposed to hitting a tank in the side or top. Waterline hits would in the real world, cause flooding. But since none of those factors are modeled in DCS, it really doesn't matter where the mav hits, as it's just taking hit points off the ship based on the hit point damage the weapon is coded with. In my testing the MAV F does go for the waterline, but since it doesn't matter it's up to the player how they want to use it. 

 

[Atazar SPN]

I would never use a MAV-F on a ship unless it is an undefended ship. Anything approaching a frigate or armed destroyer above 10 feet above sea will be intercepted. The Harpoons are working well now due to saturation. If used well, at least one in four achieves its objective. Regarding designating moving TGP targets on the road, it is true, the light poles are a big obstacle and I think it should not be like that, since a moving vehicle concentrates more heat than the lighting. I could be wrong but it's my reflection. Although accuracy has improved, the FLIR designation and IR pointer of the MAV-F has a level of desynchronization that requires de-designation to make precise adjustments, otherwise the MAV-F would never be exactly on the target and could not be used .

However, TGP+MAV-F synchronization on static targets is very good and the IR pointer updates following the FLIR designation without the need for corrections.

I only had difficulty with moving targets.

I hope I expressed it well. I don't speak English and this is a translation.

[amalahama]

19 hours ago, Atazar SPN said:

I would never use a MAV-F on a ship unless it is an undefended ship. Anything approaching a frigate or armed destroyer above 10 feet above sea will be intercepted. The Harpoons are working well now due to saturation. If used well, at least one in four achieves its objective. Regarding designating moving TGP targets on the road, it is true, the light poles are a big obstacle and I think it should not be like that, since a moving vehicle concentrates more heat than the lighting. I could be wrong but it's my reflection. Although accuracy has improved, the FLIR designation and IR pointer of the MAV-F has a level of desynchronization that requires de-designation to make precise adjustments, otherwise the MAV-F would never be exactly on the target and could not be used .

However, TGP+MAV-F synchronization on static targets is very good and the IR pointer updates following the FLIR designation without the need for corrections.

I only had difficulty with moving targets.

I hope I expressed it well. I don't speak English and this is a translation.

The de-synchronization in moving targets make sense as the Hornet doesn't have a Handoff function like the Viper. In fact, for static targets some misalignments should also be perceived, needing a final fine manual adjustment on the target, specially at long distances where the hot spot is small. Alignment is perfect by default in Hornet so this manual fine adjustement is not necessary. Mavericks boresight can also be adjusted in flight like in the Viper to improve alignment between TGP and the Mav, but for whatever reason ED has decided to not implement this functionality.

[Harlikwin]

On 9/23/2023 at 3:09 PM, CBStu said:

But a MavF beats the heck out of trying to enter 89 items to launch a Harpoon so it can fly around out there and pick it's own target. 

Why do you hate realism

Edited October 13, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

On 10/6/2023 at 4:35 PM, Dscross said:

SickSidewinder9, 

Yes the IR Mav. 

The Weapon itself is fine, apparently from lately only tracking light poles if used around a road or something. The problem is that ships in DCS work on the hit point system. There are no internal compartments, there are no flooding or fire damage mechanics. The AGM-65F was made (in ship mode) to alter it's attack profile to hit a ship at the waterline as opposed to hitting a tank in the side or top. Waterline hits would in the real world, cause flooding. But since none of those factors are modeled in DCS, it really doesn't matter where the mav hits, as it's just taking hit points off the ship based on the hit point damage the weapon is coded with. In my testing the MAV F does go for the waterline, but since it doesn't matter it's up to the player how they want to use it. 

 

Yeah sadly DCS navy stuff is just really badly done, its just hitpoints and a few bandaid fixes like the radar turns off, or fewer weapons fire after so many hitpoints are depleted. But at the same time, I think the amount of work to even do it halfway decently would be large. Just from the basic "SAM" perspective you'd have to model differences for search/track/guidance radars for one (and alot of that is poorly known). And then from the attacking them standpoint, things like ECM, countermeasures like chaff or flares for IR guided ASM's etc. (which is basically unknown) And THEN an actual damage model (also large gaps in knowledge there). And now multiply  that by all of the ships in DCS (which of course have gaping holes in the ship-set). Even for a small subset like the USN stuff in there, its a perry (Dear ED these used SM-1 not SM-2 btw), the burke, and a tico. So thats 3 major surface combatants right there, and then you have to actually try to model AEGIS and datalinks in how all that works from an air defense standpoint...

The simplest stuff, frankly would be the Falklands ships. Far simpler systems and radars for the most part, and even they are badly done in various regards, i.e. (sea-cat reload times) though the wibbly wobbly guidance with them is kinda fun. But then again systems like Sea-dart did actually have drawbacks, and weren't always quite the murder-death-kill machines that they are in DCS. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Harlikwin

[SickSidewinder9]

On 10/5/2023 at 6:39 PM, rob10 said:

I assume you're talking the IR Mav.  Press and HOLD TDC to slew.  it will attempt to lock on whatever is under the cursor when you release the TDC press.  HOWEVER, you CANNOT slew with a target or waypoint designated which could be what's tripping you up.  Can be used with without a pod, but definitely much easier to use with.

 

On 10/6/2023 at 4:35 PM, Dscross said:

SickSidewinder9, 

Yes the IR Mav. 

The Weapon itself is fine, apparently from lately only tracking light poles if used around a road or something. The problem is that ships in DCS work on the hit point system. There are no internal compartments, there are no flooding or fire damage mechanics. The AGM-65F was made (in ship mode) to alter it's attack profile to hit a ship at the waterline as opposed to hitting a tank in the side or top. Waterline hits would in the real world, cause flooding. But since none of those factors are modeled in DCS, it really doesn't matter where the mav hits, as it's just taking hit points off the ship based on the hit point damage the weapon is coded with. In my testing the MAV F does go for the waterline, but since it doesn't matter it's up to the player how they want to use it. 

 

Thanks, I think I got it now.