boresight at 3 to 5 - not 7 Boresighting Mavericks at 7nm

[Hyperlynx]

I just tried out a setup with an SA-8 surrounded by civilian buses, as an exercise in boresighting at the limits of the AGM-65's range, so I can use it for SEAD.

I locked up one of the busses with the Maverick, used point-track on my TGP with the same bus, boresighted. Unlocked, put TGP in auto mode, pointed it right at the Gecko and hit TMS up. The TGP handed off to the Maverick, I fired, and the missile went right into the bus behind the Gecko.

The boresighting and the shoot were both at around 7nm, which I believe is about the limit of the Maverick. Is this expected behaviour? I was really hoping to be able to precisely strike targets at standoff range, but it sure seems like the Mav isn't really usable unless you're close enough to determine what you're locking up on the WPN page, with its own sensor...

Or am I missing something here, and it there is a reliable way to use it at standoff range when you do care about which of the black blobs gets blown up?

Edited June 23 by Hyperlynx

[Hobel]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb Hyperlynx:

I just tried out a setup with an SA-8 surrounded by civilian buses, as an exercise in boresighting at the limits of the AGM-65's range, so I can use it for SEAD.

I locked up one of the busses with the Maverick, used point-track on my TGP with the same bus, boresighted. Unlocked, put TGP in auto mode, pointed it right at the Gecko and hit TMS up. The TGP handed off to the Maverick, I fired, and the missile went right into the bus behind the Gecko.

The boresighting and the shoot were both at around 7nm, which I believe is about the limit of the Maverick. Is this expected behaviour? I was really hoping to be able to precisely strike targets at standoff range, but it sure seems like the Mav isn't really usable unless you're close enough to determine what you're locking up on the WPN page, with its own sensor...

Or am I missing something here, and it there is a reliable way to use it at standoff range when you do care about which of the black blobs gets blown up?

 

Use the TV maverick, WPN SOI >Press TMS left 2 times, slewe on a target that is far away, press TMS UP and shoot.  

My record is 30nm

[Hyperlynx]

15 minutes ago, Hobel said:

Use the TV maverick, WPN SOI >Press TMS left 2 times, slewe on a target that is far away, press TMS UP and shoot.  

My record is 30nm

Right, but how are you managing to lock on the black blob that is what you want to kill and not accidentally on the other black blobs right next to it that you don't want to kill? I don't mean one target by itself in a field at 30nm (!!) I mean one eg next to a building that I do not want to blow up

Also
 

Quote

Press TMS left 2 times

Looking at Chuck's Guide that's... toggling to hot-on-cold and then back to cold-on-hot? Huh?

Edited June 23 by Hyperlynx

[Hobel]

vor 36 Minuten schrieb Hyperlynx:

ght, but how are you managing to lock on the black blob that is what you want to kill and not accidentally on the other black blobs right next to it that you don't want to kill? I don't mean one target by itself in a field at 30nm (!!) I mean one eg next to a building that I do not want to blow up

For this you have the TGP, when you have the right target  change the SOI to maverick, then TMS left 2 times and then TMS UP

 

[Hyperlynx]

But... How are you managing to boresight the missile so that the TGP points the missile at the right place?

 

And what is TMS left twice for?

 

You haven't answered any of my questions, you've just posted the same thing again but now with a video

Edited June 23 by Hyperlynx

[Hobel]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Hyperlynx:

But... How are you managing to boresight the missile so that the TGP points the missile at the right place?

 

And what is TMS left twice for?

 

You haven't answered any of my questions, you've just posted the same thing again but now with a video

Simply carry out a clean BSGT, should the Maverick still show a slight offset, you can simply correct it after   30nm is also very utopian, 15nm is more the use case. 

2x TMS LEFT triggers the TV Maverick Force Corelate, so you can stabilize the Seeker to a point on the ground and also shoot it, so the method only works for static targets

Edited June 23 by Hobel

[Hyperlynx]

12 hours ago, Hobel said:

should the Maverick still show a slight offset, you can simply correct it after   30nm is also very utopian, 15nm is more the use case. 

Surely this only works if your target is not near anything which you might target by accident, instead of the thing you actually want to blow up. Because at that kind of range the missile camera doesn't have very good zoom.

It seems to me like you can only use a maverick when you're close enough to distinguish between objects or, like I said, if you're shooting at one object that's distinctive and all by itself.

I realise there might be some confusion here, I'm talking about the small mavericks (like the D model) not the big ones.

Edited June 24 by Hyperlynx

[QuiGon]

23 hours ago, Hyperlynx said:

I just tried out a setup with an SA-8 surrounded by civilian buses, as an exercise in boresighting at the limits of the AGM-65's range, so I can use it for SEAD.

I locked up one of the busses with the Maverick, used point-track on my TGP with the same bus, boresighted. Unlocked, put TGP in auto mode, pointed it right at the Gecko and hit TMS up. The TGP handed off to the Maverick, I fired, and the missile went right into the bus behind the Gecko.

The boresighting and the shoot were both at around 7nm, which I believe is about the limit of the Maverick. Is this expected behaviour? I was really hoping to be able to precisely strike targets at standoff range, but it sure seems like the Mav isn't really usable unless you're close enough to determine what you're locking up on the WPN page, with its own sensor...

Or am I missing something here, and it there is a reliable way to use it at standoff range when you do care about which of the black blobs gets blown up?

 

Can you upload a short track file showing this situation in action?

[Hyperlynx]

1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

Can you upload a short track file showing this situation in action?

Yeah, will do. I'll give it another go next weekend or so. I do have a Tacview file, but that's probably not so helpful.

[Willdass]

I've experienced the same as OP many times. Auto handoff is not reliable, works sometimes but not always. 
Even with a solid boresight at 7-10nm  (D variant), if I try to launch on group of targets, there is a good chance the maverick locks on to a object next to my selected target (auto handoff from TGP). This could be other vehicles or even light posts...
Therefore I always feel the need to visually verify the lock on the WPN page , which kind of removes the point of auto handoff from TGP...

When it works, it's usually because there are no other heat sources nearby.

[greenmamba]

In a modern threat scenario, the more i think about it, the more i find that the maverick is a demanding weapon to operate that takes your focus away from your situation awareness and from flying the Viper. It is nice in a low threat environment. 

[QuiGon]

On 6/27/2024 at 11:02 AM, greenmamba said:

In a modern threat scenario, the more i think about it, the more i find that the maverick is a demanding weapon to operate that takes your focus away from your situation awareness and from flying the Viper. It is nice in a low threat environment. 

I find that quite interesting, because for me the Maverick is the weapon of choice in a high threat environment that doesn't allow me to fly high to drop bombs, so I come in low using terrain masking, pop up at <10nm and engage the target with Mavericks instead.

[greenmamba]

with the latest implementation of IR picture ... the angle of the sun and light conditions i still find the Maverick to be kind of work intensive. especially in terms of heads down. works well for easily recognizable targets such as buildings and such, but when it comes to Tanks, launchers, radars etc  ... i find the heads down time too much time consuming. 

Edited June 28 by greenmamba

[Hyperlynx]

JDAMs feel way more reliable, or even LGBUs. They've got similar range. But then again, I'm used to uncontested environments or short-range SAMs.

I'm starting to think that mavs just aren't good for standoff, and are for close-range, low altitude runs on SAMs or picking off tanks when you know there's nothing else in the kill box. But taking out a Gecko next to some civilian buildings? JDAM.

(I had another go at the boresighting, to produce a track file for review, but it's actually bloody difficult to boresight a missile at something that's also trying to kill you! I'll keep at it, though...)

Edited June 29 by Hyperlynx

[LastRifleRound]

This is a problem regardless of boresighting and has been since before they updated (or broke) any of that stuff.

The issue is there doesn't appear to be any "inner working" to this. The auto handoff just commands lock at whatever the maverick is looking at (which if you're in PRE is whatever the TGP is looking at) just as if you switched SOI to maverick and hit TMS up.

You can test this by locking with maverick zoomed out with AUTO vs zoomed in. Zoomed in maverick will give you a better result when using AUTO, which seems to suggest there's nothing special programmed here, just some additional animation and hold time before the maverick is just told to lock whatever is under its crosshair. It's been this way since they implemented auto hand off

[Hyperlynx]

Here's a track file.

Same result, I hit a bus instead of the target.

boresighting mavericks.trk

[Hobel]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Hyperlynx:

Here's a track file.

Same result, I hit a bus instead of the target.

boresighting mavericks.trk 6.61 MB · 2 Downloads

but this is simply a user error.
The objects are very close to each other, just a few metres apart, and basically form one large object, so it's no wonder that the handoff is not clean.

In such a situation, you have to lure the Maverick onto the target yourself

 

from the point where you can see that you are lock the bus, I take over and then lock the correct target with the IR mav.

In the second example, I make an FC with the TV maverick and also hit the target.

 

 

 

[Nedum]

5 hours ago, Hobel said:

but this is simply a user error.
The objects are very close to each other, just a few metres apart, and basically form one large object, so it's no wonder that the handoff is not clean.

In such a situation, you have to lure the Maverick onto the target yourself

 

from the point where you can see that you are lock the bus, I take over and then lock the correct target with the IR mav.

In the second example, I make an FC with the TV maverick and also hit the target.

 

 

 

I tried this several times, I always have to "adjust" the target. But even so, I tried it to do it manually, the Mav D snaps to the more in the front Target until I am below 7-6 miles. And it doesn't matter the wrong target is in direct line of site or left and right but more near to me as the target of interest. At less than 6 miles, the Auto Handoff always works, even so the wrong target is now closer to the right target (angle wise). No correction using the Mav picture necessary.

The Magic Border is 6 or fewer miles for a working Auto Handoff snap with a Mav D. The TV Mav is the better pick for daytime. There is something completely wrong with the Auto Handoff and the Mav D.

For what is the TGP and an IR Missile good for (no matter which daytime), if the Missile snaps to targets which are 100 feet away from the line of sight off the designated target, only because they are more near to me?
One can test this behavior very good with the weapon test quick action mission on the Sinai map. Try the Auto Handoff with the Mavs D. At 6 miles the Magic happens and the Mav D will lock the right target without any correction needed even the wrong target in front of the designated target is now more overlapping the target of interest. The angle got worse, so the view to the target of interest, but the "Magic" does its job. How is that possible? Explanation? More overlapping but better clearance for a target pick? What would we do without some kind of Magic.

But this all away. The real questions are, why is it more complicated with the F-16 to designate and pick targets as with any other AC using the same weapon, and why wasn't it that complicated before, even it was marked for years as "correct as is"?

Do we require evidence again, because evidence has changed again? Is there any explanation, why all the stuff with nearly the same hardware is working so different with the F-16, and that even so this good old working behavior was marked for years as "correct as is"? I can't wait to hear that explanation.

[Hobel]

 

 

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Nedum:

For what is the TGP and an IR Missile good for (no matter which daytime), if the Missile snaps to targets which are 100 feet away from the line of sight off the designated target, only because they are more near to me?

100feet or even 30m is not much at all - this is what it looks like for the IR seeker at 8nm

3 targets are in the tracking gate so it is not surprising that the wrong one may be locked, if this happens press (TGP SOI) TMS UP or right to start a relock until the correct target is selected. the Handoff and IR Maverick are very cool tools but targets that are close together can cause problems which is not uncommon.
other aircraft have the same problem

 

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Nedum:

Do we require evidence again, because evidence has changed again?

public document

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA361645.pdf



page 136

https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/29/2001329786/-1/-1/0/AFD-100929-043.pdf
 

Zitat

Is there any explanation, why all the stuff with nearly the same hardware is working so different with the F-16, and that even so this good old working behavior was marked for years as "correct as is"? I can't wait to hear that explanation.

what exactly has changed? on other aircraft the D Maverick behaves in the same way as on the F16
the logic in the F16 makes it the easiest overall

Edited June 30 by Hobel

[Hyperlynx]

21 hours ago, Hobel said:

but this is simply a user error.
The objects are very close to each other, just a few metres apart, and basically form one large object, so it's no wonder that the handoff is not clean.

In such a situation, you have to lure the Maverick onto the target yourself

 

from the point where you can see that you are lock the bus, I take over and then lock the correct target with the IR mav.

In the second example, I make an FC with the TV maverick and also hit the target.

 

 

 

Dude, "User error" nothing! You haven't understood what I'm getting at here.

I deliberately locked a bus as my boresighting target for that range, boresighted the missile, UNLOCKED, put the TGP over the Gecko, attempted a lock, and it actually doesn't lock anything until I get closer, when it locks what's obviously the wrong target.

The point I'm making is that boresighting and using the TGP is indeed imprecise and unreliable, and that if you're too far away to be able to distinguish the target in the WPN page then you're also too far away for the TGP to be able to hand it off properly.

If I am close enough to correct the target on the WPN page then what's the point in using the TGP at all?

[QuiGon]

1 hour ago, Hyperlynx said:

Dude, "User error" nothing! You haven't understood what I'm getting at here.

I deliberately locked a bus as my boresighting target for that range, boresighted the missile, UNLOCKED, put the TGP over the Gecko, attempted a lock, and it actually doesn't lock anything until I get closer, when it locks what's obviously the wrong target.

The point I'm making is that boresighting and using the TGP is indeed imprecise and unreliable, and that if you're too far away to be able to distinguish the target in the WPN page then you're also too far away for the TGP to be able to hand it off properly.

If I am close enough to correct the target on the WPN page then what's the point in using the TGP at all?

I think you have way too high expectations on how well these systems should work. In fact they work already much more reliable in DCS than IRL, which is why Mavericks (especially the non-laser Mavericks) aren't used much IRL at all. It's great to hunt tanks in the empty dessert, but as soon as there are many objects in close vicinity or the target is in an area with ambigious contrast levels the Maverick is pretty unreliable IRL. Now in DCS it works much more reliable and unlike IRL you can be sure it will track the target that you have locked up all the way to the target, whereas IRL the imaging Mavericks have a tendency to lock onto shadows and other things that generate contrast.

The Maverick in DCS on the F-16 works mostly the same as on other aircraft (e.g. the Hornet), except two things:
1) You need to boresight the missile to the TGP if you want to use it with the TGP. That is correct for the F-16 and is currently missing from other aircraft in DCS, which is unrealisitc. I hope ED will correct that and add the boresighting process to the other aircraft as well ( https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-10-pilot-explains-why-warthog-drivers-often-boresight-the-agm-65-maverick-on-wingman-rather-than-on-a-ground-target/ ).
2) The F-16 offers the ability to perform a target handoff from the TGP, to the missile, which is an added benefit compared to other Maverick capable aircraft in DCS.

Now in regards to your specific use case: The buses in your example are incredibly close together which makes it very difficult for the missile seeker to discern the targets at long range. That's especially true if you use the target handoff, which adds the parallax error on top of the already poor seeker precision. I personally never use the handoff if there are many targets close together and always target them manually through the WPN page for that very reason.

Edited July 1 by QuiGon

[Hobel]

vor 30 Minuten schrieb Hyperlynx:

UNLOCKED, put the TGP over the Gecko, attempted a lock, and it actually doesn't lock anything until I get closer, when it locks what's obviously the wrong target.

And I have explained above what the reason for this is the targets are too close to each other the sensor of the maverick has in relation a too large tracking gate therefore it may be that the wrong target was locked, then you try with the TGP a new handoff with TMS RIGHT/UP, I did it on the 2nd try no problems, this behaviour is pointed out in the docs.

 

vor 34 Minuten schrieb Hyperlynx:

The point I'm making is that boresighting and using the TGP is indeed imprecise and unreliable,

If you make a good BSGT, it is more than accurate enough(Btw a bus is not suitable for this.) and the targets are not as extremely close together as in your example, the handoff is a good tool

vor 40 Minuten schrieb Hyperlynx:

If I am close enough to correct the target on the WPN page then what's the point in using the TGP at all?

Better target detection and fine adjustment with the tgp and then you can do a handoff directly and that works well in dcs .

 

 

The only point that could be made is that the D cannot track targets that far, the document talks about over 15nm in some cases, but even then we encounter the same characteristics as already discussed

 

[Hyperlynx]

4 hours ago, QuiGon said:

I think you have way too high expectations on how well these systems should work. In fact they work already much more reliable in DCS than IRL, which is why Mavericks (especially the non-laser Mavericks) aren't used much IRL at all. It's great to hunt tanks in the empty dessert, but as soon as there are many objects in close vicinity or the target is in an area with ambigious contrast levels the Maverick is pretty unreliable IRL

Actually, I was starting to come to the conclusion that mavs are only any good for picking off tanks out in the open. This thread was to see if I was missing something

The actual scenario is some of the Wild Weasels SEAD campaign missions, where they keep giving me two AGM-65Ds and two JDAMs/LGBUs. The bombs are just fine, but I'm having a  hell of a time accurately picking off AAA or a Gecko or whatever that's been parked next to a building.

I thought maybe the solution is "yes, you need to boresight the missiles, then you can accurately pick out the target with the TGP and do a handoff". The bus scenario was just to test that out. The distances are pretty similar to the Gecko being parked next to a building. The conclusion I was coming to was that yeah, Mavs really aren't suited for this sort of thing, and the TGP isn't going to help much.

In the context of the SEAD campaign, I'm thinking only try to use the Mavericks on things I can clearly identify, and for cleaning up TELs after the radars are destroyed, and to use guided bombs for everything else.

e: I wish we got the laser guided mavs, (ersatz Hellfires?) because they'd probably work a lot better. Or, even better, APKWS

Edited July 1 by Hyperlynx

[Hobel]

vor 34 Minuten schrieb Hyperlynx:

AAA or a Gecko or whatever that's been parked next to a building.

wait a minute buildings?
so that makes a certain difference, vehicles standing next to each other in DCS and representing a larger IR source is different from a cold house vs. a Hot vehicle.

could you show this scene?

[LastRifleRound]

On 7/1/2024 at 2:59 AM, QuiGon said:

I think you have way too high expectations on how well these systems should work. In fact they work already much more reliable in DCS than IRL, which is why Mavericks (especially the non-laser Mavericks) aren't used much IRL at all. It's great to hunt tanks in the empty dessert, but as soon as there are many objects in close vicinity or the target is in an area with ambigious contrast levels the Maverick is pretty unreliable IRL. Now in DCS it works much more reliable and unlike IRL you can be sure it will track the target that you have locked up all the way to the target, whereas IRL the imaging Mavericks have a tendency to lock onto shadows and other things that generate contrast.

The Maverick in DCS on the F-16 works mostly the same as on other aircraft (e.g. the Hornet), except two things:
1) You need to boresight the missile to the TGP if you want to use it with the TGP. That is correct for the F-16 and is currently missing from other aircraft in DCS, which is unrealisitc. I hope ED will correct that and add the boresighting process to the other aircraft as well ( https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-10-pilot-explains-why-warthog-drivers-often-boresight-the-agm-65-maverick-on-wingman-rather-than-on-a-ground-target/ ).
2) The F-16 offers the ability to perform a target handoff from the TGP, to the missile, which is an added benefit compared to other Maverick capable aircraft in DCS.

Now in regards to your specific use case: The buses in your example are incredibly close together which makes it very difficult for the missile seeker to discern the targets at long range. That's especially true if you use the target handoff, which adds the parallax error on top of the already poor seeker precision. I personally never use the handoff if there are many targets close together and always target them manually through the WPN page for that very reason.

 

If you read that article more carefully, you'll see that boresight procedure decsribed is not to co-witness with a TGP, but the starting point of the seeker when used in isolation.