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

[D-Scythe]

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.

 

What about thermal clutter? And isn't there a specific time that vehicles heat up/cool down to roughly the same temperature as the ground around it? I forgot what that was called, but a LLTV EO sensor would probably be a better bet.

 

Interesting site here:

http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb7.html

 

Hughes followed up this feature with an improvement known as "Quick Draw". Quick Draw allowed one Maverick to be locked onto a target and launched, with the next available missile automatically boresighted onto the same target. This meant that if there were several targets close together, the operator could quickly and accurately launch several missiles in quick succession with only minor movements of the crosshairs, allowing multiple attacks in a single attack pass.

 

So, maybe ED can implement this feature? Furthermore, all my sources consistently state that the AGM-65B has twice the magnification of the AGM-65A, not 1.5X.

 

And according to Designation Systems.net, the AGM-65G does have a longer range than the AGM-65D, but this is due to software improvements that allow the seeker to pick out targets at longer ranges. Physically, its almost 200 lbs heavier, but I'd imagine that the Mav can fly further than its seeker can track.

 

And, according to Raytheon's website, regarding the seeker of the K compared to the A/B:

 

The newer configurations incorporate modern charge-coupled-device (CCD) TV technology, circuitry and associated software to more than triple the lock on and launch range of the older TV versions. The CCD seeker's sharper image gives the aircrew longer acquisition and launch ranges, allowing full use of the aerodynamic envelope of the missile.

 

@ SK

I haven't checked in v1.1, but the last I time I looked it was "over-modelled" not "under-modelled".

 

What? I thought the whole point of this discussion was that it was *undermodelled.* I mean, fine, if TV Mavs can lock onto targets at night, that's a bug that should be fixed, but the capability of its seeker currently still leaves a lot to be desired.

 

What I'm trying to get at is, I think that the lock on range of the K should be extended, but not to the level of the -D's. Three miles is far too low IMO for the -K.

 

I'll go through my Airpower and International Airpower Review journals and see what I can find.

[GGTharos]

Actually, according to 'A-10's over Kosovo', thermal clutter is barely an issue at all - one of the pilots locked a maverick onto a stationary APC that had been sitting more or less under a tree, and beside a house all day and night; it was cool. The IIR maverick locked onto it immidiately and killed it with minimal damage to the house.

 

IIR /contrast/ is actually not difficult to obtain - you only need a few degrees difference, and due to the different specific heats of materials, various objects will actually look different even if they're at 'ambient temperature', simply because they're absorbing and radiating differently from their surroundings.

Thermal clutter is a bigger issue for the reticle seekers of heat-seeking AAM's which can't tell the diffrence between a dog and and a jet engine.

Once you have an image to work with, instead of jsut an energy measurement through a rotating slit, things CHANGE. Big time.

 

Nevertheless, optical guidance is cheaper and easier to maintain compared to IIR which requires special glasses and cooling mechanisms, and that is most likely why it is being used. Besides this, due to the use ofCCD and the ability to include image processing software, you can give the missile the ability to perform LOAL (newer mavericks have this capability) by firing it at an 'area' and having it pick targts on its own according to specific parameters (target size, contrast etc) ... so there are a lot of reasons to use EO, but IIR will pretty much always beat it, simply ebcause it gets rid of a HUGE load of background noise by comparison, and makes the seeker mostly immune to seasonal/weather changes of the non-severe kind, where an EO seeker could get screwed up by a cloud suddenly casting its shadow over the target. This isn't something new in image processing, it's quite old, and well known ;)

[silent one]

reality check. If your flying like its a game your gonna loose because its more like a simulator ;) One cant complain that you want more reality then complain when you get killed like you would in reality. A10 isnt a sead plane.

[tflash]

reality check. If your flying like its a game your gonna loose because its more like a simulator ;) One cant complain that you want more reality then complain when you get killed like you would in reality. A10 isnt a sead plane.

 

I agree that A-10's would not be engaging Strela's in real life? Knocking out a Schilka should be safe however.

 

To come back to the IIR/EO discussion: cost is the driving factor, I guess, also the fact that they have to use old airframes to build new Mavericks.

 

Now that the A-10 is rapidly getting Lightening-II pods, I presume it will be possible to slave the Maverick seeker to the Lightening, which should solve most standoff identification problems mentioned.

 

To bad there are not that many Laser Mavericks produced: the LMAV is a very flexible weapon in the sense that you can rely on buddy-lasing or lasing by a FAC (there's an S-3 pilot posting on this in Ubi's Lockon forum).

 

If we look at a commercial statement by Raytheon:

 

"The newer configurations incorporate modern charge-coupled-device

(CCD) TV technology, circuitry and associated software to more than triple the lock-on and launch range of the older TV versions."

 

It's rather strange they compare to the TV-version, since most of the upgrade will involve IIR-guided G-models. So I guess it will NOT triple the range of the IIR-version. My feeling is it will be something like 5-7 nm.

 

The future looks bright however:

 

"GPS-aided guidance will expand Maverick's launch envelope 3-5 times, and will allow employment in adverse weather with at least GPS accuracy. A 2-way datalink to allow Man-In-The-Loop (MITL) endgame control, using video from the missile after launch,will allow precise endgame guidance."

 

Guess Raytheon's sales department could use some of the spare IIR-coolers!

[Kula66]

reality check. If your flying like its a game your gonna loose because its more like a simulator ;) One cant complain that you want more reality then complain when you get killed like you would in reality. A10 isnt a sead plane.

I seem to remember in the AirLand US Army/Airforce Doctrine, Apaches would be used to knock out AAA/SAM as a priority, leaving the way clear for A-10s ... to mop up.

[D-Scythe]

Nevertheless, optical guidance is cheaper and easier to maintain compared to IIR which requires special glasses and cooling mechanisms, and that is most likely why it is being used. Besides this, due to the use ofCCD and the ability to include image processing software, you can give the missile the ability to perform LOAL (newer mavericks have this capability) by firing it at an 'area' and having it pick targts on its own according to specific parameters (target size, contrast etc) ... so there are a lot of reasons to use EO, but IIR will pretty much always beat it, simply ebcause it gets rid of a HUGE load of background noise by comparison, and makes the seeker mostly immune to seasonal/weather changes of the non-severe kind, where an EO seeker could get screwed up by a cloud suddenly casting its shadow over the target. This isn't something new in image processing, it's quite old, and well known

 

So you don't think the AGM-65K is undermodelled right now in terms of seeker? As I stated before, I agree that in a huge part of the MEZ the AGM-65D should beat the AGM-65K, but do you really think it is as bad as it is in Lock On? Currently, the MEZ of the -D is at twice that of the -K in every scenario. I'm just saying that the difference shouldn't be so huge, except at night, of course.

 

As a fix, I rather have them rename the -K to AGM-65B.

 

And what do you think of Quick Draw?

[tflash]

So you don't think the AGM-65K is undermodelled right now in terms of seeker? As I stated before, I agree that in a huge part of the MEZ the AGM-65D should beat the AGM-65K, but do you really think it is as bad as it is in Lock On? Currently, the MEZ of the -D is at twice that of the -K in every scenario. I'm just saying that the difference shouldn't be so huge, except at night, of course.

 

As a fix, I rather have them rename the -K to AGM-65B.

 

And what do you think of Quick Draw?

 

I totally agree, except for the first part: I do not even think the D model can anywhere beat the K except at night.

 

The K model is an UPGRADE to the G, which is an evolved model of the D.

How would Raytheon sell an inferior missile to its customers as an UPGRADE???? GGTharos simply seems to ignore advances in CCD technology.

 

As for the modelling in Lo-mac: the K is modelled with 57 kg warhead (see encyclopedia). This is plain wrong. Proof: the same bridge I kill with 1 Kh-29T requires 2 Mav-K's to kill. Wrong, should be the same.

 

The whole point is: modern CCD allows to use a cheap TV-seeker instead of a cooled IIR AND achieve better resolution/lockon range in daylight conditions. It is also more compact and maintainable. This is called progress, and Raytheon had years to develop this.

 

So, D-scythe is totally right: ED, just change the designation AGM-65K back to AGM-65B because that is what you have very well modelled, for us all to enjoy, because let there be no doubt: ED's A-10A/Maverick is fantastic and the whole reason I bought the product!

[Wags]

In regards to realism, that would be a big mistake. The B uses a very different symbology feedback system (variable tracking gates based on E/O contrast breakout), and is much different from the symbology of the D and K that share the same system (what you see in LOMAC). If I remember correctly, the primary reason the K was chosen was because it shares the same symbology system as the D and the team simply did not have the time and resources to do the B system.

 

-Matt

 

So, D-scythe is totally right: ED, just change the designation AGM-65K back to AGM-65B because that is what you have very well modelled, for us all to enjoy, because let there be no doubt: ED's A-10A/Maverick is fantastic and the whole reason I bought the product!

[GGTharos]

I totally agree, except for the first part: I do not even think the D model can anywhere beat the K except at night.

 

The K model is an UPGRADE to the G, which is an evolved model of the D.

How would Raytheon sell an inferior missile to its customers as an UPGRADE???? GGTharos simply seems to ignore advances in CCD technology.

 

As for the modelling in Lo-mac: the K is modelled with 57 kg warhead (see encyclopedia). This is plain wrong. Proof: the same bridge I kill with 1 Kh-29T requires 2 Mav-K's to kill. Wrong, should be the same.

 

The whole point is: modern CCD allows to use a cheap TV-seeker instead of a cooled IIR AND achieve better resolution/lockon range in daylight conditions. It is also more compact and maintainable. This is called progress, and Raytheon had years to develop this.

 

So, D-scythe is totally right: ED, just change the designation AGM-65K back to AGM-65B because that is what you have very well modelled, for us all to enjoy, because let there be no doubt: ED's A-10A/Maverick is fantastic and the whole reason I bought the product!

 

 

Uh, no. Even in the day an IIR seeker will beat the daytime CCD in just about any case other than perfect conditions. There are -other- things that may contribute to better performance, but the CCD /alone/ doesn't do it.

The CCD can be compared to a *TV* seeker, not an IIR one - and IIR CCD -also- need to be cooled, and they -do- beat the daytime CCDs hands down in just about every case, too.

 

Daytime CCD's allow for a relatively CHEAP solution with better image processing capability than a TV type seeker (inluding the IIR seeker) but it's not 'leaps and bounds' over the IIR seeker because JUST BY BEING IIR it already removes /loads/ of the clutter that visible light instrumentation must deal with. This is neither new nor secret.

 

The other thing to consider is that the G was originally intended as a bunker buster weapon - since you're shooting relatively large objects, theoretically speaking, the K 'upgrade' makes some sense - save some on the electronics and update them (seekers do get old you know!) while maintaining the lowest cost possible that'll get the job done in the day - a building will give you plenty to lock on to, so you can use the weapon from quite some range.

 

When ou're shooting vehicles, which may attempts to protect themselves, may be moving, or evironmental condition may aid their masking, things change. A lot.

[D-Scythe]

The other thing to consider is that the G was originally intended as a bunker buster weapon

 

Not entirely correct. The G is basically an Air Force hybrid of the AGM-65D and the Navy AGM-65F. The larger warhead is the same as the AGM-65F's (and consequently the E's), which is designed to attack more heavily armoured targets, such as amphibious vessels and other small-to-medium ships. The AGM-65G is intended to take advantage of everything in Maverick technology in the 90s, taking the best out of the -D, -E and -F variants. It can kill vehicles better than the AGM-65D, and cripple ships more effectively than the -F.

 

Thusly, the AGM-65K should be superior to the AGM-65D in every respect EXCEPT its CCD E/O seeker. However, the gap between E/O and IIR should not be as pronounced as it currently is in Lock On.

 

In any case, Quick Draw seems like a neat (and simple) feature. Any chance this will be implemented in V1.2?

[SwingKid]

In regards to realism, that would be a big mistake. The B uses a very different symbology feedback system (variable tracking gates based on E/O contrast breakout), and is much different from the symbology of the D and K that share the same system (what you see in LOMAC).

 

If it has all the functional attributes of a B, but the lines on the HDD are drawn like a K, I'd have to vote with tflash and D-Scythe to call it a B.

 

Lock On's MiG-29 also has imperfect HDD symbology, but we don't correct that by calling it a "Flanker"... :)

 

-SK

[Wags]

The TVM symbology is very different. Just a question of degrees of realism and where the end-user wants it.

 

-Matt

 

If it has all the functional attributes of a B, but the lines on the HDD are drawn like a K, I'd have to vote with tflash and D-Scythe to call it a B.

 

Lock On's MiG-29 also has imperfect HDD symbology, but we don't correct that by calling it a "Flanker"... :)

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

In regards to realism, that would be a big mistake. The B uses a very different symbology feedback system (variable tracking gates based on E/O contrast breakout), and is much different from the symbology of the D and K that share the same system (what you see in LOMAC). If I remember correctly, the primary reason the K was chosen was because it shares the same symbology system as the D and the team simply did not have the time and resources to do the B system.

 

Hmm, but right now, I think the AGM-65K in Lock On performs very much like an AGM-65B, and wouldn't that be a realism mistake also? I can't help but think that the whole problem can be solved if the performance of the E/O seeker is slightly improved in Lock On.

 

In any case, the next major fix I want to see in the A-10 department is Quick Draw for Mavs, which is simply having the next Mav up boresight the same spot as the 'Ready' Mav. When that is launched, the pilot would save some time and effort by not having to slew the TDC across the HUD back to the area of interest. Main advantage is rapid death of vehicles in a convoy or parked in the same area.

[Wags]

Just calling the K a B is a catch 22 and someone will complain. However, I agree that increasing the acq/lock range and increasing the warhead of the K is the best way to go for the next product.

 

-Matt

 

Hmm, but right now, I think the AGM-65K in Lock On performs very much like an AGM-65B, and wouldn't that be a realism mistake also? I can't help but think that the whole problem can be solved if the performance of the E/O seeker is slightly improved in Lock On.

 

In any case, the next major fix I want to see in the A-10 department is Quick Draw for Mavs, which is simply having the next Mav up boresight the same spot as the 'Ready' Mav. When that is launched, the pilot would save some time and effort by not having to slew the TDC across the HUD back to the area of interest. Main advantage is rapid death of vehicles in a convoy or parked in the same area.

[SwingKid]

In any case, the next major fix I want to see in the A-10 department is Quick Draw for Mavs, which is simply having the next Mav up boresight the same spot as the 'Ready' Mav.

 

Why do I get the feeling that if somebody doesn't reply to this, you're going to pop? :)

 

I can't make it so, but I think it's a good idea too. Especially, thanks for the reference about it!

 

2Wags:

 

Do we know what the magnification level is for the K? I didn't realize data for it was available...

 

-SK

[Wags]

I don't Andrew.

 

-Matt

 

Why do I get the feeling that if somebody doesn't reply to this, you're going to pop? :)

 

I can't make it so, but I think it's a good idea too. Especially, thanks for the reference about it!

 

2Wags:

 

Do we know what the magnification level is for the K? I didn't realize data for it was available...

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

Why do I get the feeling that if somebody doesn't reply to this, you're going to pop?

 

Yes, finally a response! :D

 

Anyway, maybe Dice can chime in here and set things straight...

[SwingKid]

Anyway, maybe Dice can chime in here and set things straight...

 

Dice was one of the original advisors IIRC, but to me the solution seems pretty simple. There's not enough data to model the K, and not enough resources to model the B... So, if someone likes realism, they should always use the D, which gives about 6 nm lock range vs tanks anyway.

 

My only reason for not always using the D before was that it's more expensive than the B, and I thought that in a real operation, the B would be preferred whenever possible to save costs. But the increased cost of the K eliminates that advantage of EO anyway, so I think in my missions I'll just use the D from now on and the virtual USAF can thank me for saving them money. :)

 

-SK

[MBot]

I hope nobody minds if I ask a little semi-OT question here:

 

Let's imagine a tank commander realizes that he is under A-10 attack and launches smoke to cover his position ( disregarding how probable or unprobale this is ). How would IIR and EO seekers deal with that situation ? I guess the IIR Mav would still home in for the kill. But whats about the EO version, wouldn't it loose lock in such a situation ? This this might be another small advantage of the IIR version, higher resistance against counter-measures.

[SwingKid]

Interesting link:

 

http://www.sdslink.com/SDS_International/PDF_PUB/AGM65.PDF

 

Indicates that AGM-65A-G were launched from slant ranges of typically 10-20,000 feet, but the CCD-equipped AGM-65H in tests from ranges of 20,000-35,000 feet.

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

And according to this:

 

http://home.wanadoo.nl/tcc/rnlaf/agm65.html

 

...the CCD seeker should have the same two magnification levels as the IR seeker. Hmm, maybe we have enough information to model the K after all?

 

-SK

[Wags]

According to the same site:

 

"The H is equipped with improved TV seeker with replacement CCD camera, 2.5 and 1.25 deg field of view, synergistic tracking, haze penetration lens and improved slave & boresight."

 

-Matt

 

And according to this:

 

http://home.wanadoo.nl/tcc/rnlaf/agm65.html

 

...the CCD seeker should have the same two magnification levels as the IR seeker. Hmm, maybe we have enough information to model the K after all?

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

But the K and H share common seekers, no?

[SwingKid]

It's like there's an echo in here.

 

HEL-LO!

 

SWING-KID IS THE BEST!

 

(listening...)

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

Haha. Well, I sent an email to Dice...the K's classified, but maybe he could provide some info on the A and B.