FC2.0 AGM-65 short range

[GumidekCZ]

At FC2.0 there are two types of AGM-65 usable for A-10:

AGM-65D.... infra guided

AGM-65K.... TV guided

 

Raytheon source range data of average AGM-65:

20km range from 15000ft

12km at ground level

http://www.ausairpower.net/AGM-65-Maverick-Charts-S.jpg

 

FC2.0 encyclopedia data:

AGM-65D....8-16km

AGM-65K....5-10km

 

FC2.0 simulation range capable to lock target:

(nice weather, noon, wehicle on the runway)

AGM-65D.... 8km

AGM-65K.... 3km

 

Why the lock range is so short at FC?? Thanks to this wrong range, A-10 is far less dangerous on a virtual battlefield than he actualy is in real battle!

[Boberro]

It is not kilometer.

 

You are locking target in miles, so 3 nm is about 5.5 km, 8 nm about 15 km.

[GumidekCZ]

I cant believe Im so stupid =) Im sorry

AGM-65K....3nm ...5,5km but still, it should be at least about 5nm. =(

Someone put its range to absolutley minimum.

Edited May 3, 2010 by GumidekCZ

[GumidekCZ]

Please, if somedbody know how to fix this, i will be glad.

For now, Im going from one *.lua to another and searching for this script.

[VTJS17_Fire]

The Maverick missiles have this range since Lock On 1.01. :music_whistling::(

I know too, they are outranged, but i think this (not range, more the chance to lock a target) is still hard coded. :helpsmilie:

 

But you're right: this need a fix. ;)

 

 

kind regards,

fire

[26-J39]

I'm not 100% sure but I think the Mav's require a targeting pod for those long range shots, such as on the A-10C. A-10A is just using the Mav's seeker head to lock the target so range is not so good.. Don't quote me tho :P

[GumidekCZ]

I know that TV camera inside AGM-65K isnt perfect, but still 3nm is allmost half range what it should be by Raytheon sources. Everytime I try suppres some close range SAMs with AGM-65K I´ve been allmost killed. 5nm could be perfect!!

[EtherealN]

What conditions were said sources for? Brochure-type information and charts usually take the optimum condition to boost the numbers, and therefore are greatly exhaggerated compared to any practical use. (Compare with the charts for the AIM120 and it's real use, f.ex.)

 

And ausairpower is not a good source.

 

Why not use D-model instead? I just now launched those at Shilkas from 6.5nm. The K simply needs much better contrast to resolve the target, making the missile effectively outrange it's seaker for smaller target.

Edited May 4, 2010 by EtherealN

[GumidekCZ]

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=500&ct=2

Range: 17 nautical miles

I know that this range is still not precise accurate, but still there is a huge defference in range. Some may say that one thing is range to fly and the other is to lock to target range. But there is one simple question. Why we than have big heavy missile with big range to fly if it could lock target only on 3nm distance??

 

A-10 campaign include both types of AGM-65D/K. I cant choose load at campaign. And I can destroy Shilkas with GAU-8 canon easy!

[Boberro]

Real informations have only producer. I have seen many websites where was written that Russians missiles have enormous range (where they don't).

 

Check Falcon, simulator with much deeper realism than Lock on. If there is range similar to LO's one it'll mean LO's Mavericks are quite accurate.

 

personally i think LO's Mavericks have good range, maybe K is a bit too short... however maybe not ;]

[EtherealN]

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=500&ct=2

Range: 17 nautical miles

 

Missile range is 17 nautical miles when released from 30 000 feet at Mach 0.9. That's missile. Not the seeker. K model's seeker is far more restrictive than other seekers. Release the missile at 2k feet and you won't even get close to 17 nautical miles.

 

Why we than have big heavy missile with big range to fly if it could lock target only on 3nm distance??

 

Because different missiles are intended for different targets. D model will only lock properly if there's an IR signature to home in on. If there is none, you use the K and lock for optical contrast. Unfortunately this generally means less range due to the seeker, not the missile itself.

 

I cant choose load at campaign.

 

Yes, you can. Click "mission planner".

[GumidekCZ]

One major drawback of the A-model was the limited range at which the TV-seeker could lock on: although the missile has a range of up to 7nm (13km) under the worst possible circumstances (a low and slow aircraft), attenuation at optical wavelengths limits lock-on range to about 3nm (5.5km). Furthermore, the AGM-65A needs 4-8 seconds to lock on, which is an eternity on the modern battlefield.

 

This is the citation from this Falcon4.0 page:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article4.html

 

This is for A version

 

The AGM-65K missiles should be an updated derivative of AGM-65G. G's guidance section would be replaced with a 480x480 pixels CCD-TV sensor, the same used in H models, plus modern hardware and software. CCD-TV sensor will provide mainly clearer picture and longer standoff range.

Edited May 4, 2010 by GumidekCZ

[EtherealN]

What I'm are trying to explain is: as far as I can see there's nothing to fix. If you feel the missile isn't the right one for the job in a given mission, just use a different one.

 

Especially since I have no issue at all using the K-model at roughly those distances.

 

Also:

"And it says: under the worst possible circumstances....3nm"

 

No. It says 7nm actual range of the missile under worst possible launch parameters, being the "low and slow" part. The "3nm" bit is caused by attenuation of optical wavelengths - meaning: unless you've strapped it to the space shuttle, that's that seeker's limit. Read the quote very carefully:

 

"although the missile has a range of up to 7nm (13km) under the worst possible circumstances (a low and slow aircraft), attenuation at optical wavelengths limits lock-on range to about 3nm (5.5km)."

Edited May 4, 2010 by EtherealN

[foxwxl]

Just for sure to ask:

 

The AGM65D seeker doesn't show vehicle's IR image in FC2 , that's an known issue ,right?

[EtherealN]

Could you screenshot that? It does for me.

[foxwxl]

Could you screenshot that? It does for me.

My mistake here......

 

I check carefully of the TV display, the IR image does shown up , but very unnoticeable .......not a clear and strong signal compared with FC1 and LOMAC....

 

My screenshots here, Zoom the TV to biggest.....Very hard to spot the IR signal from ground targets......