Mavericks don't hit using Force Correlation Track
-
Hey there!
I’ve been doing a lot of Maverick practicing lately. TGP boresighting has become second nature, I hit 9/10 using TGP handoff and also 9/10 using VIS mode (in training scenarios granting me a lot of time for preparation, my statistics would definitely look different in combat situations…)
However, if I use AGM 65 G in VIS mode using AREA (force correlation track), I hit NOTHING (well, more or less I will come to that later on).
Here is a screenshot right before firing the Maverick:
This is what I’ve done:
- TGP is OFF, I did not boresight the Mavericks, as I am using VIS mode
- Slew the TD box in the HUD over the bridge -> TMS UP
- Fine tune the MAV LOS on the WPN page, switching to Narrow FOV (no brackets)
- TMS RIGHT (AREA) -> TMS UP (crosshairs intersected)
- Level flight, no change in speed, bank, pitch whatsover
- Steady pointing cross within keyhole
- I fired 1 sec after taking this screenshot, when the range was at 7 nm
The maverick splashed into the water, approx. 200m before the bridge. Just like it did every other time (approx. 20 tries).
I’ve found a way the mavericks would hit: If I launch them at a range of 3 to 5 nm, they will hit! (I am only talking about to AREA mode!) Does the force correlation track mode only work on short distances?
AGM operational limits:
- Max speed: Mach 1.2 -> current speed: 465 kt -> OK
- Max dive angle: 60° -> current angle: 1° -> OK
- Max bank angle: 30° -> current angle: 0° -> OK
- Max roll rate: 30°/s -> current roll rate: 0 -> OK
- Min/Max load factor: +0.5g/3g -> current load factor: 1g -> OK
- Distance (for G model): > 2nm and <15nm -> current distance 7-8nm -> OK
Other requirements:
- pointing cross within keyhole
horizontal deviation: almost none -> OK
vertical deviation: -1° -> OK- Lock-on in narrow FOV: OK
- pointing cross steady: OK
- crosshairs intersecting: OK
Here is another screenshot:
As mentioned earlier, I have this problem using Force correlation track ONLY, not in any other mode!
What am I doing wrong?
-
I’ve found it to be the same. Unsure if it’s supposed be like this or not though.
-
I think you mentioned the magic word “bridge” which is an irregular object mavs don’t like them as they are difficult for the seeker head to lock on to - repeat the same scenario but aim at a building see what happens.
-
I think you mentioned the magic word “bridge” which is an irregular object mavs don’t like them as they are difficult for the seeker head to lock on to - repeat the same scenario but aim at a building see what happens.
I think force correlation is designed for this sort of situation, but I could be wrong. Haven’t used it extensively.
-
I’ve found a way the mavericks would hit: If I launch them at a range of 3 to 5 nm, they will hit! (I am only talking about to AREA mode!) Does the force correlation track mode only work on short distances?
I seen that you like launches at maximum range shown by DLZ. DLZ is not perfectly acurate thing, as everything it may be imperfect and launching from maximum range shown by DLZ is not the best idea.
Another thing is that the further you launch the worse the resolution of image. Maybe force correlate requires better picture resolution and this is the reason why they don’t hit?
-
I think force correlation is designed for this sort of situation, but I could be wrong. Haven’t used it extensively.
I agree - but - irregular object do present problems for Mavs - may be it’s on the devs list - it must work better in RL than BMS - surely ???
-
I seen that you like launches at maximum range shown by DLZ. DLZ is not perfectly acurate thing, as everything it may be imperfect and launching from maximum range shown by DLZ is not the best idea.
I’ve fired the Mavs at 7nm which is right within the DLZ, not at max range.
Also the manual gives an employment distance of up to 15nm for AGM 65 G. So 7nm is right in the middle of this distance, far away from max. range.
In this context I’m wondering why the DLZ bracket does not match with the max range of the chosen model. It’s the same bracket for D and G models although their max ranges differ a lot.
-
I think force correlation is designed for this sort of situation, but I could be wrong. Haven’t used it extensively.
There is an official training mission (and the corresponding information in the manual) in which you learn to use this mode in order to hit a specific pylon of the bridge. As I understand it (from the manual), it is exactly for this sort of situation.
-
There is an official training mission (and the corresponding information in the manual) in which you learn to use this mode in order to hit a specific pylon of the bridge. As I understand it (from the manual), it is exactly for this sort of situation.
Yeah that’s as far as I’ve used this mode and you’re correct; in bms at least, we need to target the pillars, not the flat spans.
-
Isn’t force correlate (in BMS) effectively geographical as opposed to image analysis targeting? It’s aiming for the ground behind the bridge.
-
Hi,
To the OP - Yes the implementation of Maverick FC mode isn’t perfect. To be more accurate:
For all A-G missiles that don’t fly after a locked target, I implemented special code that will make them do flight corrections kinda manually. Now it mostly works OK but at some launch profiles and target aspect, the forced surface control is simply not accurate enough and causing the missile to miss.In the attached screenshot, I can see that the bridge is attacked right in-front and the missile should hit the thin area of the bridge, so it could be that the missile will miss (Not sure 100%, maybe from a little different launch profiles it’ll hit just fine). I suggest to attack from a little above so the hit surface is larger, reducing the possible surface control error.
Now for the good news - Fortunately for the next BMS version, the Mavericks FM was improved by someone who actually knows Aerodynamics physics (God knows not me :)) so the special surface control mode isn’t needed anymore and the FC mode is actually WAY more accurate this way. I was able to hit NP in the same attack profile as seen in the attached screens. So, you will just have to wait for the next version.
Isn’t force correlate (in BMS) effectively geographical as opposed to image analysis targeting? It’s aiming for the ground behind the bridge.
Yes, but assuming the target isn’t a VERY thin object, most chances are that the missile will pass on the way through it, and the missiles code has object detonation detection so it will hit.