Maverick question
-
correct behavior for which F-16 though? F-16I? PXIII? PV? CCIP?
or is the assertion that it is that behavior for all 4 and a half thousand jets?
-
correct behavior for which F-16 though? F-16I? PXIII? PV? CCIP?
or is the assertion that it is that behavior for all 4 and a half thousand jets?
Well… I sure hope that you:
1. Realize that it would be EXTREMELY odd for me to just pop such behavior out of my mind.2. Understand that not ANYTHING you read in the real 3-4 is 100% accurate and with some of the subjects you will not even come close to find an answer of how a system behaves in situation x (See e.g SPI behavior in 4.33 and tell me if you can understand the exact details from reading the 3-4 only…)
3. Understand that while we try to simulate some “generic” F-16 tape, it’s really impossible, so the BMS F-16 probably includes bits and pieces from many tapes/Blocks.
4. Understand that the real jet probably also suffers some design shorts and not everything is so great and comfortable, that as far as your “intuitive” comment goes… I can give you a dozen more examples where I think that the real jet is acting dumb and I would have done it otherwise bla bla bla.
-
1 and 3, certainly - 3 irks me, but what can -I- do? Nothing.
I would be very curious about number 4, if you are willing to share. Number 2, the SPI stuff actually seems reasonably sensible in its explanation - although perhaps as you say, I am only thinking I understand it, and that the manual is not accurate to any real jet. Number 1, I would never accuse you of making stuff up or pulling it out of thin air. I can appreciate how my curiousity about the source is quite likely to not be satiated, but I am sure you can appreciate how that does not itself make the curiosity any less! -
… to the FCR ~ 5:10
Cheers,http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f82/lazystone/Smileys/hat_3.gif
LSI watched this video but i dont think boresighting has anything to do with my issue. As long as i can get the FCR and mav seeker to sync up, I cant think of a good reason to even bother boresighting TBH
So is that dgft mode + cancel dgft “fix” an actual thing? Like is that the “proper way” to regain slave function?
-
There is some debate over that… that was the topic of the last few posts.
It is definitely ‘a’ way to do it… it would definitely work, whether the manuals description above is correct or whether it only works as I-Hawk says.
-
There is no debate here, and repeating the same thing and quoting the same sentences from the 3-4 again and again will not change anything, I suggest to re-read my post above if you really feel like you need to
-
There’s certainly a difference of opinion, I can see why. just my 2c, It doesn’t feel intuitive at all tbh. Being new to falcon and having read through the paragraphs on the Mav operation I would have had to read the sections a few times to eventually fathom that I needed to press DGFT mode/cancel especially since its under a mode section that does not even apply to what I was in namely VIS. I was in PRE in fact. At least this works now, then again so does PWR the Mav on and off.
-
It doesn’t strictly need to be DGFT/MRM, any master mode change will do. The hands on overrides simply are the most convenient. Whether or not there’s a way to reset the sensor cueing chain after slewing Maverick back to pre-designate PRE/VIS/BORE without MM change is academic in BMS, you can’t.
Settling the bet regarding the real airplane would probably require sitting in the real thing and trying it at this point. If I was the OFP programmer I would have made some way to return to pre-designate via TMS say with the pre-designating sensor SOI. But like I-HAWK says “would be nice” isn’t “the way it is.” The manual also says that there’s no such thing as HUD SOI in BORE mode and yet in BMS there is. It’s a direct contradiction. Who’s right? Did the software change? It’s hard to say.
-
Firstly, don’t mix up how LMAV works with how IMAV works…
…secondly, the MAV itself (any MAV) does not make a “designation” in that what the missile sees is not fed back to the aircraft and retained - the MAV “locks on”. Once you break that lock the missile should return to slave to what/wherever your SOI is pointed (in the case of IMAV). Depending on how well you did your boresight (and in RL I strongly think you have to boresight each weapon as they come under pickle) you may or may not be close to your intended target. If you are using a TGP, you need to learn to transition from the TGP as your SOI to the weapon as your SOI and operate that way during the attack; “funnel in”.
-
By designate I mean when the LOS of the Maverick is pointed via another sensor such as FCR in PRE or TDC in VIS, slaved and the weapon hasn’t been slewed directly yet. If you break track with Maverick it doesn’t return to the designating sensor (e.g. FCR) directed LOS, not in BMS and likely not R/W either. It would be annoying if you accidentally started tracking an object right next to your intended target and breaking lock would send the Maverick all the way back to the sensor LOS no matter how far that is. Maybe it would resume slaved LOS if you set SOI away from WPN, that would be workable.
That’s really what surprises Blu and myself that there isn’t a return-to-slave mechanic aside from cycling master mode and starting all over. Breaking Maverick slave to autonomous operation is a one way ticket.
I’m confused by what you mean “boresight each weapon as they come under the pickle.” Boresighting is done well before the attack run. When the weapon is tracking the same item as something else (FCR, TGP) that’s when the calibration is saved. When it comes time to use the thing that’s all done. I also don’t understand transitioning from TGP SOI to WPN SOI. During a TGP-EO attack the WPN page is never SOI.
-
Again, don’t mix your terminology - what you mean is “slaved”, not designation/designated. You can screw up here in a few ways - mistaking where your SOI is, having a poor boresight, etc. And again, I strongly think that you have to boresige each missile in turn - so if you boresight #1, fire, and then step to the next and wake it up you may find you need to boresight that one before it slaves properly/effectively; this is what I mean by “boresight as each comes under pickle”.
Also know and be certain of which lock you are breaking - if your SOI is the TGP and you break, you have undesignated. If you break missile lock (missile as SOI) and the missile is not slaved, I’m pretty sure you can command it back to slave via either CAGE/UNCAGE or CURSOR ENABLE - you’ll have to cross-check me in the manual on that one. But you need to insure the TGP is SOI first.
As for “transitioning” - the TGP is effective at picking out targets at much longer ranges than the MAV. So you can use the TGP to get you “funneled” into the target area, but in the endgame and prior to launch you must switch your SOI to MAV and lock the weapon - just because the MAV is slaved onto target doesn’t mean it’s locked on target…in point of fact, it shouldn’t be - it should just be staring in the general vicinity. You have to “transition” your SOI to MAV, lock the target, verify launch parameters, then fire a valid shot…one weapon. Then egress and set up for re-attack if/as required.
-
Neither of those hotas commands will do that. Uncage will command it to uncage the gyro in the seeker, which should have happened already, and cursor enable will cycle through the submodes VIS, PRE and BORE.
-
Hi,
Once you break that lock the missile should return to slave to what/wherever your SOI is pointed (in the case of IMAV). Depending on how well you did your boresight (and in RL I strongly think you have to boresight each weapon as they come under pickle) you may or may not be close to your intended target. If you are using a TGP, you need to learn to transition from the TGP as your SOI to the weapon as your SOI and operate that way during the attack; “funnel in”.
All wrong… the correct behavior is as in BMS.
And yes, Boresighting is per station and NOT per missile… that also makes sense from an engineering POV because the actual distortion comes from the rack angle.
-
Again, don’t mix your terminology what you mean is “slaved”, not designation/designated.
I mean both. The Maverick’s LOS is designated in direction by virtue of being slaved to some sort of sensor LOS. But everything considered slaved is a better word.
And again, I strongly think that you have to boresige each missile in turn - so if you boresight #1, fire, and then step to the next and wake it up you may find you need to boresight that one before it slaves properly/effectively; this is what I mean by “boresight as each comes under pickle”.
You do have to calibrate the boresight per individual station but you don’t have to do it as they are fired. You don’t have to shoot the missile off station 3 prior to calibrating boresight on station 9. You can do it “as you go” but it can (and should) be entirely done for all stations before any attack. In the case of LAU-88, all missiles on a station share a calibration value. It shouldn’t be required to change calibration for missiles on the same LAU-88 (and in BMS you never do) but if one rail was bent then you’d have to alter that station’s calibration value as you got to that missile I guess.
Also know and be certain of which lock you are breaking - if your SOI is the TGP and you break, you have undesignated. If you break missile lock (missile as SOI) and the missile is not slaved, I’m pretty sure you can command it back to slave via either CAGE/UNCAGE or CURSOR ENABLE - you’ll have to cross-check me in the manual on that one. But you need to insure the TGP is SOI first.
In PRE using TGP (but avoiding MBC usage) the Maverick is always slaved to TGP LOS no matter if INR or AREA or none. There’s no way to TGP break track enough to unslave the Maverick. On the other hand if you break slave by making the Maverick autonomous then there is no way to resume the slaved situation without resetting the whole mess and trying again. For example in VIS once you put the box down on the ground there’s no way to move it or pick it back up or return the Maverick LOS to that box after slewing.
As for “transitioning” - the TGP is effective at picking out targets at much longer ranges than the MAV. So you can use the TGP to get you “funneled” into the target area, but in the endgame and prior to launch you must switch your SOI to MAV and lock the weapon - just because the MAV is slaved onto target doesn’t mean it’s locked on target…in point of fact, it shouldn’t be - it should just be staring in the general vicinity. You have to “transition” your SOI to MAV, lock the target, verify launch parameters, then fire a valid shot…one weapon. Then egress and set up for re-attack if/as required.
There is no requirement when using the MBC function. Maverick is fired after being commanded track and the WPN page is never SOI at any point. That is the preferred method. You can of course do it the more manual way of slewing SPI in PRE and switching SOI and slewing for track. This avoids using the MBC function by never commanding point track in TGP. You’re going to have to give the “one missile per pass” lecture a rest. It might be advisable in most situations but the F-16 avionics are absolutely built for the multi-missile attack capability.
-
Multi makes sense for LMAV…maybe. Not even close for IR. If the aircraft software does that, that’s fine…but I’d wager that in RL pilots don’t use the weapon that way. Ever. Unless you can show me…
“Designated” ans “slaved” are not the same thing, and I think that’s where a great deal of the confusion is coming from. But I think this is clear now. But in any case, if you haven’t actually locked the MAV I would fully expect you to miss the target.
-
TGP operations are designed to work that way, Stevie. You dont lock the Mav, you dont switch SOI - but the mav does get locked, by the MBC. One of the features I am very happy to see modeled.
-
That must be one of the things the guys meant when they told me the G missile had/has a “better” seeker than the F…I have a lot of experience with the F missile, and the LMAV for that matter. But from what I read on the web the two are just optimized for different target sets and appear to be the same other than that. I also know the USAF has done a better job of integrating the G into the sensor suite…which is another reason I would use it as I describe.
-
I suspect finding pilots using more than one maverick per pass is also limited by the availability of valid targets, too. In training you want to maximise the training attempts, so you are not going to ripple active mavericks for the sake of doing it. In a full up shooting war where you have your pick of valid targets though, this would be a little different. Getting those valid targets could be more of an issue. In Vipers in the Storm, they brought back their mavs fairly often, IIRC.
-
Target set, cost of the weapon, availability of the weapon…other RW effects that aren’t modeled in BMS.
…after looking at some of the BMS MAV tutorials, yeah…I’m convinced the G missile is more capable than the F. AND - “ripple” means something different to me in my Navy world…I “ripple” bombs and/or rockets - QTY/MULT/INT - and use that term exclusively to describe that; one pickle depression/multiple weapons away. That’s not what people are doing with MAV in this case…they’re doing multi pickles…which isn’t the same thing. Mea Culpa…I’ll get this lingo straight one day. Maybe…
-
There is some debate over that…
There is no debate here, and repeating the same thing and quoting the same sentences from the 3-4 again and again will not change anything, I suggest to re-read my post above if you really feel like you need to
Those posts being here:
Well… I sure hope that you:
1. Realize that it would be EXTREMELY odd for me to just pop such behavior out of my mind.The implication of course being that you did not make this up, and that you are not the firsthand source for the information. The only issue there is the flack that Dan Hampton gets over the stuff in Viper Pilot, specifically the things he says you can do in an F-16, which no manual supports.
Hi,
You need to RTFM the Maverick section of the BMS 3-4. Once a Mav is slewed, it becomes ground stabilized and works on its own, in order to “Reset” it you can change Master mode to DGFT/MRM-Override and cancel.
See, the manual agrees that this will work. By switching master modes, you move the SOI away from the WPN page, and thus command a return to slaved condition. There is no debate about this - it will work.
I’m fairly certain that it is correct behavior, EVEN if the real manuals may suggest otherwise…
Well. As mentioned above, it is correct behavior, in that it will work. Its likely even operational practice, because switching to DGFT and back is quick and easy. That switching mastermodes is the only way to do that… the manual does not suggest otherwise, it flat out states otherwise. But it does not state that switching mastermodes will not work - because it will.
2.8.12.1.11.8 In non-TGP operations, the SOI moves to the WPN page (if displayed) upon the target designation.
Well, everyone agrees about this part also.
If the SOI is on the FCR page with either FTT or GMTT selected, then the SOI moves to the WPN page upon the target designation after the radar has acquired track.
This part is irrelevant to BMS, because FTT/GMTT acquire track instantly in BMS, rather than taking 5 to 10 seconds to get a stable track. So, its basically just the same as the last sentence, until/unless the GM/GMT modes get an upgrade in a future BMS version.
If the SOI changes from WPN to another sensor while the selected Maverick is in slew mode, then the Maverick is commanded into SLAVE (BORE) mode.
This is the part that is apparently disputed. If you, while in PRE with a mav tracking and a valid GMTT, position the DMS down, the SOI will switch to the FCR. According to the manual, the mav will return to slave at that point (or bore depending on mode). According to an unnamed source, the mav will remain in slew mode at that point, unless and until a mastermode change is commanded.
So I suppose there is some disagreement there. The manual in question may not relate to the same aircraft as the source is familiar with. The manual may be wrong. The source may be wrong. I think those three possibilities, are the only three?
Not knowing the source, I cannot know its accuracy. This is the wikipedia problem! The manual is certainly capable of mistakes, and given the wide range of F-16s and F-16 variations, its entirely possible that both the source and the manual are correct, depending on which F-16 you are discussing.