short-range Mavericks/few flares/deadly SAM render the A-10 obsolete

[D-Scythe]

GG, I could actually care less about the K's warhead. It's the zoomable EO seeker that I worry about. EO seekers DO have their advantages over IIR, but ED hasn't modelled that.

[GGTharos]

Like what? Unless you're implying that IIR is not using a CCD, in which case i can think of a thing or two myself, but other than that...

 

But yes, the K shoudl be able to deal with longer ranged shots ... and /I/ do care about the warhead. Right now it makes zero sense to use the K. If it at least had the heavy warhead, things would be different. Or it'll just get renamed to B and that'll be that.

 

Also, if its range equals or is better than the D's, people would stop using the D ... bigger warhead, bigger (or same) range? Dude!

 

The only exception would possibly be night missions.

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

Just finished flying it - took me a while to get it right.

 

It ended so well ! It started great when I told my wingman to engage target, he fired two D's on a missile boat ahead of us and sunk it - what a guy! :) then I took out the convoy.

 

Unfortunately he got hit by something while I had to evade a BUK SAM - so I didn't see what hit him and didn't even see what hit me, but I survived the explosion.

 

Hydraulics down, I limped my way home - and landed, just in time, as a MiG-23 was in pursuit - the idiot got too close and got shot down by a SAM!

 

All is well in Lomacland... so off I went to the OC - to have a cool drink and relax.

 

PS:

Of course you can't fly a 1.02 with 1.1 - that is why I am redoing this pack.

[coldcrew]

In 1.02 I could engage that ship and disable it - in 1.1 not.

 

In this scenario I have to sink a convoy - those are the warships I have to avoid in order to do it.

 

In Jane's F-18 I used Mavericks to disable frigates before I hit them with a Harpoon.

 

I agree with you D-Scythe, the Maverick is way under-modeled in LO, now it is not only that, it lost any edge it had over the defenses.

 

Janes F-18 modelled the E, G and F versions of the mav. Lomac models the D and K. The E is special laser guided versions, the F and G have larger warheads. Another thing is the variety of ships in the different sims. In janes you would either engage a destroyer or an OSA (small boat with guns). In lomac it's either destroyer or cargo ship. You cannot engage destroyers in either game with the agm-65, sorry. So you must have been using them on OSAs which aren't in lomac.

[D-Scythe]

Like what? Unless you're implying that IIR is not using a CCD, in which case i can think of a thing or two myself, but other than that...

 

But yes, the K shoudl be able to deal with longer ranged shots ... and /I/ do care about the warhead. Right now it makes zero sense to use the K. If it at least had the heavy warhead, things would be different. Or it'll just get renamed to B and that'll be that.

 

I'd rather have it renamed to "AGM-65B." But even still, the AGM-65B has a seeker that can *zoom*. The so-called AGM-65K in Lock On has a seeker that has no magnification/long-range capability whatsover.

 

I mean, its basically the same airframe right? I expect that in optimal visual conditions I should get the same range out of my Ks as I do my Ds at least. Remember, the AGM-65K is the EO version of the AGM-65G, which is an updated AGM-65D with the 300 lb warhead.

 

The fact that the U.S. military bothered to make an EO version of their newest, most advanced Maverick obviously says something about the advantages and disadvantages of EO and IIR seeker. It's obviously beneficial to have both. In Lock On, this isn't true at all.

 

Also, if its range equals or is better than the D's, people would stop using the D ... bigger warhead, bigger (or same) range? Dude!

 

No, I wasn't implying/asking for that. But I do know that in some situations, it is more beneficial to have an EO CCD seeker rather than an IIR one. Both have their advantages/disadvantages. That's why optical Mavs are still in service (if they performed as badly as they are modelled in LOMAC, they would've been phased out in the 80s), and why most modern targeting pods (Litening, Sniper XR) feature both EO and IIR capabilities - compared to older pods (LANTIRN) that featured only IIR.

[GGTharos]

D-Scythe, look up SK's post in this thread ... a numerb of A-10 pilot testimonials also make it seem that the mavericks had fairly poor range, for a number of reasons, ranging from terrain that produced poor contrast to light fog doing the same when it came to the units flying over europe anyway.

 

I dont' see hwo an EO seeker would fix that, barring some sort of image processing which is fine, but also causes its own problems - however you do have the advantage now of locking on not just to a 'contrast' differentail, but an image (like the 9X) so your target may have a harder time hiding itself if it detects the launch or in adverse weather conditions or generally in other combat-generated poor visibility conditions. That I'll buy - and extended range due to sharper image and better resolution ... however IIR simply eliminates a whle load of the background noise and cuonter-measures, which still makes it better in a number of cases.

 

I'd love to know the exact advantages/disadvanges of each though (in truth, I think it's the image processing capability that counts here. This is probably what gives mav's the new features like autonomous LOAL in a target-rich environment etc)

[SwingKid]

I'd rather have it renamed to "AGM-65B."

 

Me too. The B is the tank-killer; the K is more of a bunker-buster. What does bunker-busting have to do with CAS?

 

But even still, the AGM-65B has a seeker that can *zoom*. The so-called AGM-65K in Lock On has a seeker that has no magnification/long-range capability whatsover.

 

Do you have accurate references that the B has multiple magnifications? My understanding was that the B simply had a higher magnification than the A (but lower than the D, and thus shorter range). IIRC we were told that a few years ago by an A-10 pilot then serving in Iraq.

 

I mean, its basically the same airframe right? I expect that in optimal visual conditions I should get the same range out of my Ks as I do my Ds at least.

 

Wait, are we talking about Bs or Ks?

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

I already asked for the bigger warhead for teh K and we might well get it ;)

 

What? In addition to messing up the AGM-65B's name, now they're going to mess up its warhead too? ;)

 

I think D-Scythe has a point. If ED is serious about modelling the K, they should probably make it a third AGM-65 variant instead of taking away our primary anti-tank CAS weapon - and give it a better TV image.

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

I expect that in optimal visual conditions I should get the same range out of my Ks as I do my Ds at least.

...

The fact that the U.S. military bothered to make an EO version of their newest, most advanced Maverick obviously says something about the advantages and disadvantages of EO and IIR seeker. It's obviously beneficial to have both.

 

I'm not so sure. If you read this article carefully:

 

http://www.dau.mil/pubs/pm/pmpdf99/jhnsn01.pdf

 

nowhere do they say the CCD seeker is superior to, or even matches, the capabilities of the IR seeker. They repeatedly compare it only to the capabilities of the old TV seekers of the A and B Mavericks.

 

The whole "G's for K's" program appears to be nothing more than a financing stunt at the expense of capability - i.e. swapping out a better, more expensive seeker for a less capable one at lower cost, then selling the expensive seeker on export and pocketing the profit.

 

At least, it helps explain why there is so much confusion in this topic...

 

(X-files conspiracy theme music plays in background)

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

Do you have accurate references that the B has multiple magnifications? My understanding was that the B simply had a higher magnification than the A (but lower than the D, and thus shorter range). IIRC we were told that a few years ago by an A-10 pilot then serving in Iraq.

 

What do you mean by multiple magnifications? If IIRC, the AGM-65B had its seeker FOV reduced to ~ 2.5 degrees, increasing the magnification two fold over the AGM-65A.

 

Wait, are we talking about Bs or Ks?

 

In optimal conditions (cool, clear air) for an E/O shot, I was saying that I expect the AGM-65K to have at least the range of an AGM-65D. AFAIK, the AGM-65K is basically an AGM-65G with a 480x480 pixel E/O CCD seeker, which offers better reliability and performance in low light conditions, and better image quality overall for greater stand-off, over normal E/O seekers in the -A and -B.

 

I think I recall that the WGU-10 seeker of the AGM-65D has twice the lock on range of the AGM-65A. So maybe, both the AGM-65D and AGM-65B should have around the same lock on range when they are both at their best. However, later versions of the -D, the D-2,which had the WGU-22(?) seeker, probably offers greater capabilities, and I'm not sure which one is modelled in Lock On.

 

Maybe Dice can chime in here.

 

D-Scythe, look up SK's post in this thread ... a numerb of A-10 pilot testimonials also make it seem that the mavericks had fairly poor range, for a number of reasons, ranging from terrain that produced poor contrast to light fog doing the same when it came to the units flying over europe anyway.

 

Yeah, but those are NOT the optimal conditions I was talking about. Besides, you make it seem that IIR seekers are superior to their E/O counterparts, in all conditions, which is simply not true. Lot's of things can blur and reduce the effectiveness of IIR, including thermal blooming/clutter, terrain temperature, etc. Maybe IIR seekers generally provide greater stand-off capability overall, but E/O seekers have their strengths.

 

I'd love to know the exact advantages/disadvanges of each though (in truth, I think it's the image processing capability that counts here. This is probably what gives mav's the new features like autonomous LOAL in a target-rich environment etc)

 

LOAL? As in Lock On After Launch? Are you sure Mavs have this capability?

[D-Scythe]

Read the article. It doesn't have anything regarding the E/O CCD vs. IIR topic, except that it refers to the conversion of Gs from Ks as an 'upgrade.'

 

I'm not so sure. If you read this article carefully:

 

http://www.dau.mil/pubs/pm/pmpdf99/jhnsn01.pdf

 

nowhere do they say the CCD seeker is superior to, or even matches, the capabilities of the IR seeker. They repeatedly compare it only to the capabilities of the old TV seekers of the A and B Mavericks.

 

But we're talking about the AGM-65K, which has a different seeker. Besides, I never said a CCD seeker is superior - just that it may perform better in some situations (like the AIM-7 over the AIM-120). Besides, if IIR seekers are so superior, why does the AGM-130 use both E/O and IIR guidance? Doesn't make sense to have such a weapon equipped with an 'inferior' E/O seeker. I don't know the specifics, but there's obviously a reason. Furthermore, the latest targetting pods also are equipped with dual E/O CCD and IIR sensors, a shift away from the traditional, IIR only targetting pod.

 

As I said before, I simply don't agree with the way ED has modelled the AGM-65D as the omnipotent anti-tank missile for the A-10. I just think that in some cases, an E/O weapon, especially a modern one like the AGM-65K, should perform better in some parts of its employment envelope. Not asking for a 40 mile+, AGM-65L Longhorn here.

[SwingKid]

What do you mean by multiple magnifications? If IIRC, the AGM-65B had its seeker FOV reduced to ~ 2.5 degrees, increasing the magnification two fold over the AGM-65A.

 

Earlier, you wrote:

 

But even still, the AGM-65B has a seeker that can *zoom*. The so-called AGM-65K in Lock On has a seeker that has no magnification/long-range capability whatsover.

 

Since the EO Maverick in Lock On does have a magnification of exactly 2x, I thought that by "zoom" you meant a user-controllable, adjustable magnification. Now I'm not sure what you meant..?

 

http://www.dau.mil/pubs/pm/pmpdf99/jhnsn01.pdf

But we're talking about the AGM-65K, which has a different seeker.

 

Lost me again. What is the difference between the CCD seeker of the AGM-65K that we are talking about and the CCD seeker of the AGM-65K that the article is talking about?

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

Whoa, let's back up a bit here ;)

 

Since the EO Maverick in Lock On does have a magnification of exactly 2x, I thought that by "zoom" you meant a user-controllable, adjustable magnification. Now I'm not sure what you meant..?

 

I meant the actual magnification, not user-controlled zoom (like in the D right now). The AGM-65A had a 5 degree FOV, and I thought that its magnification was more than 1X (and since the mag on the -B is 2X that of the AGM-65A, not just 2X). Can you confirm that it is...? Just out of curiosity.

 

Lost me again. What is the difference between the CCD seeker of the AGM-65K that we are talking about and the CCD seeker of the AGM-65K that the article is talking about?

 

Earlier, you wrote: "...nowhere do they say the CCD seeker is superior to, or even matches, the capabilities of the IR seeker. They repeatedly compare it only to the capabilities of the old TV seekers of the A and B Mavericks."

 

I've also read the article, and as I said before, there is no direct comparison between the E/O CCD seeker in the -K and the IIR seeker in the -G. The only thing they mention is that the E/O seeker is an "upgrade" over the IIR seeker in the -G.

[SwingKid]

Doesn't make sense to have such a weapon equipped with an 'inferior' E/O seeker.

 

Sure it does. The cold war is over. Programmes are being cut. For a program to survive, it tries to cut costs.

 

The way I see it, the USAF decided they have a lot more use for a high-magnification IR seeker on an anti-tank weapon like the AGM-65D, than on a bunker-busting weapon they can employ in the daytime against much larger, non-moving targets.

 

Similarly, there are F-15Cs flying around today with 1970s-technology APG-63 radars that were removed from decomissioned F-15As, because their higher-spec APG-70s were removed for use in the F-15E fleet. It happens.

 

I just think that in some cases, an E/O weapon, especially a modern one like the AGM-65K, should perform better in some parts of its employment envelope.

 

It sounds hard to believe - the only advantage I ever heard of for EO over IR is lower cost. Can you back up your thought with a reference?

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

It sounds hard to believe - the only advantage I ever heard of for EO over IR is lower cost. Can you back up your thought with a reference?

 

I'll find something later, but then how do you explain the fact that all the *newest* targetting pods, like the Sniper XR, have both E/O and IIR sensors, rather than just IIR? Older pods had only IIR, so there seems to be something about E/O sensors that have mandated that new TPs have both. And your Cold War argument does not apply here - yet it still happens.

[SwingKid]

I meant the actual magnification, not user-controlled zoom (like in the D right now). The AGM-65A had a 5 degree FOV, and I thought that its magnification was more than 1X (and since the mag on the -B is 2X that of the AGM-65A, not just 2X). Can you confirm that it is...? Just out of curiosity.

 

The pilot said he thought the -A did have some magnification, but also the the magnification of the -B was less than 2x that of the A - closer to 1.5x. Not sure how to interpret that, given other sources that say that it's exactly 2x.

 

Anyway even if ED increases the magnification for the TV display for cosmetic reasons, I don't think it should increase the lock range vs. a tank target. The pilot said the lock range is limited by a minimum pixel size of the target in the display, and beyond about 3 nm for a tank target you can have all the clear-weather visibility in the world, it will still be too small in the TV display to trigger the edge-detection locking. Lock On already models the main anti-tank functionality of the AGM-65B and D pretty accurately. Even the AGM-65A achieved 85% hit rate in the Middle East.

 

I've also read the article, and as I said before, there is no direct comparison between the E/O CCD seeker in the -K and the IIR seeker in the -G. The only thing they mention is that the E/O seeker is an "upgrade" over the IIR seeker in the -G.

 

"The seeker upgrade became necessary, he explains, because obsolete parts made it very difficult to maintain the older vidicon-based TV Mavericks."

 

What does that have to do with upgrading IIR Mavericks? No, it's all smoke and mirrors. Nowhere in the article do I see that they describe the K as a capability upgrade for the G.

 

I'll find something later, but then how do you explain the fact that all the *newest* targetting pods, like the Sniper XR, have both E/O and IIR sensors, rather than just IIR?

 

Targetting pods are not expendable munitions, and have other measures of merit besides just being able to lock onto things at the maximum possible range. EO might help navigate terrain or ID a friendly.

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

The seeker upgrade became necessary, he explains, because obsolete parts made it very difficult to maintain the older vidicon-based TV Mavericks

 

...Nowhere in the article do I see that they describe the K as a capability upgrade for the G.

 

But we aren't comparing the AGM-65K to the -G here. We are comparing the AGM-65K to the -A/B, and the article explicitly states that it is an upgrade over older E/O Mavs.

 

Remember, I'm not saying that E/O mavs should be superior, just that they have strengths (as well as lots of weaknesses).

 

Anyway even if ED increases the magnification for the TV display for cosmetic reasons, I don't think it should increase the lock range vs. a tank target. The pilot said the lock range is limited by a minimum pixel size of the target in the display, and beyond about 3 nm for a tank target you can have all the clear-weather visibility in the world, it will still be too small in the TV display to trigger the edge-detection locking.

 

Wait, back up. Wouldn't increasing the magnification make a target bigger? Thus the size of a tank would be bigger at 3 nm? Thus, it wouldn't be one pixel on video anymore.

 

Targetting pods are not expendable munitions, and have other measures of merit besides just being able to lock onto things at the maximum possible range. EO might help navigate terrain or ID a friendly.

 

Having an EO seeker (with its associated cost/size/weight complications) in your newest, most advanced TP simply to navigate the terrain when you have a complementary AN/AAQ-13 Nav pod with NavFLIR and terrain following radar seems sorta redundant, don't you think?

 

Furthermore, I don't see how EO can 'help' ID a target - firstly, the image it displays is not in colour, and secondly, if it DOES help ID a target better than an IIR sensor, than that's an advantage it has over IIR, no? ;)

[Kula66]

Furthermore, I don't see how EO can 'help' ID a target - firstly, the image it displays is not in colour, and secondly, if it DOES help ID a target better than an IIR sensor, than that's an advantage it has over IIR, no? ;)

A-10 used binos and Mav EO to ID targets in GW1 ... you are right, it wasn't very good ... as the deaths of the crews of 2 x Warrior MICVs show (and I am sure other Friendlies). The pilots deserved a better mechanism.

[GGTharos]

The EO has been added to the pods because it's useful (easier to interpret visisble image than IIR image in some cases) for target ID, recon photos and likely a number of other things.

The recon package I worked with had a daytime camera and it featured higher zoom than the IIR one - in addition, in SOME environmental conditions, the daytime would see better/farther than IIR (in rain for example).

But there were no other advantages.

Right now you can shove an EO sensor in there and you should because it's easy. Earlier yo'd have had to use a TV camera which added nothing but complexity and weight.

[Kula66]

I think the reason its added to a pod is that ou can change to a big more sophisticated seeker without having to modify your inventory of missiles. You also need fewer of them, 1 per a/c instead of 1 per missile ... Also easier to upgrade later ...

[SwingKid]

But we aren't comparing the AGM-65K to the -G here. We are comparing the AGM-65K to the -A/B, and the article explicitly states that it is an upgrade over older E/O Mavs.

 

Hmm, I thought the question was about EO having a shorter lock range than IR.

 

Wait, back up. Wouldn't increasing the magnification make a target bigger? Thus the size of a tank would be bigger at 3 nm? Thus, it wouldn't be one pixel on video anymore.

 

Whoops, the pilot said the target must be a "minimum number of pixels across" - but he didn't say how many pixels, we had to figure out for ourselves from the "3 nm vs tank" description. He seemed pretty clear though that one pixel wouldn't be enough. IIRC he didn't call them "pixels", but rather something else... Maybe "rasters".

 

-SK

[MBot]

Do the 300lb warhead variants have reduced range ? As far as I know, the dimension of all Mavericks are the same, so the bigger warhead should take away space from other equippment ( fuel ? ).

Also, does the 300lb warhead still has the "directional charge" ( anti armour warhead ) or is it more of a general purpose type ? What is its effectiveness against tanks ?

[SwingKid]

Do the 300lb warhead variants have reduced range ? As far as I know, the dimension of all Mavericks are the same, so the bigger warhead should take away space from other equippment ( fuel ? ).

Also, does the 300lb warhead still has the "directional charge" ( anti armour warhead ) or is it more of a general purpose type ? What is its effectiveness against tanks ?

 

Good question. The "weight" of an explosive is often measured in equivalent TNT explosive power. I'm not sure if that's what's happening here but it may be that the new warhead actually weighs the same, it just uses a new explosive filler with more punch. AFAIK the new warhead is not a shaped charge. I think it would surely disable a tank, but maybe not actually penetrate its armor. It is designed to penetrate concrete.

 

-SK

[tflash]

Optical seekers are short-ranged by nature. 1-2 nm was the typical employment range for AGM-65A/B. The AGM-65D IIR Maverick has a zoomable magnification that might be more useful at longer ranges.

 

I think what you are seeing is one of the reasons that the USAF was originally determined to retire the A-10. It is arguably only with the shift in modern warfare, away from superpower conflict and towards bombing weaker opponents in unopposed conditions of friendly air superiority, that the A-10 has continued to be so successful.

 

-SK

 

Swingkid, I could agree in part on the A-10 but not on your claims about the Maverick. The Maverick is one of the most succesful weapons employed in many conflicts; best proof is the fact that the RAF is delaying the introduction of Brimstone on the Harrier since the Maverick G2 proved so valid.

 

The 3nm range is the AGM-65B speck. The AGM-65D's range is substantially longer.

 

In fact, ED made the very disputable choice of offering and totally undermodelling the AGM-65K which is a current, ongoing upgrade program to my knowledge beyond the scope of Lockon's timeframe. In fact, they should have provided the D and the G/G2 model. The G has longer range and larger 300 pound warhead than the D.

 

Of course, even a Maverick G (or the naval E/F versions) is not suited to tackle a ship like Albatros. It should be sufficient however to sink Ivanov and destroy buildings and bridges.

 

What ED has done is modelling the K-model with its modern low-light CCD to the poor standards of the older TV-guided AGM-65B.

 

Sadly a lot of people that have experienced the maverick's performance where on the wrong side of the event and won't be able to testify!

[SwingKid]

Swingkid, I could agree in part on the A-10 but not on your claims about the Maverick. The Maverick is one of the most succesful weapons employed in many conflicts; best proof is the fact that the RAF is delaying the introduction of Brimstone on the Harrier since the Maverick G2 proved so valid.

 

The 3nm range is the AGM-65B speck. The AGM-65D's range is substantially longer.

 

I'm not sure where our disagreement is here. The Maverick is my favourite weapon in Lock On and I agree, one of the most successful in history. And I am also arguing in this very thread that the zoomable IIR AGM-65D should have a much longer range than the "3 nm" AGM-65B - as it does in Lock On.

 

In fact, ED made the very disputable choice of offering and totally undermodelling the AGM-65K which is a current, ongoing upgrade program to my knowledge beyond the scope of Lockon's timeframe. In fact, they should have provided the D and the G/G2 model. The G has longer range and larger 300 pound warhead than the D.

 

Hmm, that's new. What gives the IIR G a longer range than the IIR D? I thought the Gs were all being removed from service.

 

What ED has done is modelling the K-model with its modern low-light CCD to the poor standards of the older TV-guided AGM-65B.

 

Am I mistaken, or is ED's "AGM-65K" not perfectly capable of locking targets at night? I haven't checked in v1.1, but the last I time I looked it was "over-modelled" not "under-modelled".

 

-SK