Possible bug AGM-65 and ships
-
I have observed some strange behaviour of AGM-65’s launched against moving ships. It seems that around 50% of AGM-65’s fired have no effect. Tested in multiple TE’s, single KF-16C with 2 AGM-65G’s vs OSA 11’s and 053H3 CLS.
Missiles are fired within parameters (jet has also been flown within applicable limits), always launched with steady cross and within keyhole, distance to target at launch between 4 - 8 Nm. Missiles track the target and impact but no explosion and also in the debrief it says that the missile has missed. Funny thing btw, in TACVIEW it says the missile has hit. Usually one of both missiles has this while the other has a proper explosion. Missiles are launched individually against seperate targets, sometimes second missile launched before impact of first missile, sometimes not. Does not seem to make any difference.Against moving vehicles no problems observed. Not tried against non-moving ships and with other AGM-65 variants.
Has anyone observed this as well? Seems like a bug to me.
-
Tacview calls anything a hit if it suddenly stops within x distance of an object. I wonder if the missile is hitting the water surface before the target.
-
Be very careful to insure you are tracking the ship itself and not the combination of the ship and its wake…
-
Be very careful to insure you are tracking the ship itself and not the combination of the ship and its wake…
… which is not applicable to BMS, as locking on waves is not modeled
-
Hey Cruz … I know that this is not where to post this but I have not much time right now and I am afraid to forget it …
I’ve seen this afternoon that, with AGM-65A under my wings, and being under NAV master mode, action on CURSOR ENABLE is cycling the FRC (which was in AG mode) from normal GM mode to telemetry and so on … switched to AG master mode, and I see that maverick VIS, BORE, PRE are cycling the same way.
Conclusion is that CURSOR ENABLE is acting even is not in AG master mode …Is this expected or … ?
Anybody here can confirm this behavior?
(sorry about the thread, I will try to remember it and open a bug tracker if this is not normal).
-
Hey Cruz … I know that this is not where to post this but I have not much time right now and I am afraid to forget it …
I’ve seen this afternoon that, with AGM-65A under my wings, and being under NAV master mode, action on CURSOR ENABLE is cycling the FRC (which was in AG mode) from normal GM mode to telemetry and so on … switched to AG master mode, and I see that maverick VIS, BORE, PRE are cycling the same way.
Conclusion is that CURSOR ENABLE is acting even is not in AG master mode …Is this expected or … ?
Anybody here can confirm this behavior?
(sorry about the thread, I will try to remember it and open a bug tracker if this is not normal).
Will check
(it shouldnt be normal).
-
… which is not applicable to BMS, as locking on waves is not modeled
…that’s unfortunate.
-
kyros, I’ve been seeing it. Not 50% but often indeed. Made it harder to get the Carrier Group.
-
After some more testing it seems this bug is only applicable to the AGM-65 GOLF model. It happens both for moving and stationary ships.
-
…if the AGM-65G is modeled true to life, it’s not really optimized for shooting ships - the AGM-65F is. Pretty sure the -65F is not in the USAF inventory, though.
And for the devs - there is heat in the wake of a ship in contrast to the surrounding water - so the seeker isn’t really “tracking waves” but it should track the wake, to an extent.
-
…if the AGM-65G is modeled true to life, it’s not really optimized for shooting ships .
It is.
-
As I figured…with the exception of not biting the ship’s wake. It should also bite on the exhaust plume or track dust from tanks and vehicles.
-
The GOLF model is perfectly capable of targeting ships, it even has a special SHIP/LAND selector switch. Please read the entire Maverick section (page 701 and further):
http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/HAF-F16-34.pdfCan one of the dev’s weigh in and share if the observed behavior is designed (if so, why?) or a possible bug?
-
I didn’t say it wasn’t capable, I said it’s not optimized for that target…and in RL it is NOT, the F seeker is - no matter what the button says; it aids, but it’s still not the same missile/seeker and the G and F don’t behave the same.
What is still missing in any case is how the seeker behaves regarding residual heat in the environment…that could stand some improvement. Other than that, the fact that MAVs have become harder to use instead of easier is a nice improvement…because it reflects RL. I still really wish we had LMAVs…because that’s really the MAV of choice in most cases.
-
After some more testing it seems this bug is only applicable to the AGM-65 GOLF model. It happens both for moving and stationary ships.
Is the GOLF variant modeled diferently than the DELTA (with respect to ships)? Any idea what else might explain this behaviour? I’ve fired dozens of mavericks (DELTA’s and GOLF’s) under very controlled circumstances on moving and stationary ships. DELTA’s always hit, and a significant portion of the GOLF’s misses.
-
Is the GOLF variant modeled diferently than the DELTA (with respect to ships)? Any idea what else might explain this behaviour? I’ve fired dozens of mavericks (DELTA’s and GOLF’s) under very controlled circumstances on moving and stationary ships. DELTA’s always hit, and a significant portion of the GOLF’s misses.
upload a video
-
I still agree with you on this.
Kyros, are you not seeing this with targets other than ships, in regards to the G?
I haven’t done enough of it like that to say.perhaps I’ll run some tests against non-ship targets with the G to see.
Did ya’ll notice in my screenshot where it said ‘miss’?
-
Follow up on a little testing with the AGM-65G:
Buildings–-100% hits
Moving ground targets—100%
Ships—50 to 75% or something around that.I didn’t see this in 4.33
My postulation: PK has been reduced for AGM-65G on a Ship.Like Stevie said, I guess it’d make it more realistic like this.
I’m going with this conclusion until someone explains it better.
-
Moving ground targets should be something less than 100% too…but I’d suspect that this has something to do with not modeling residual/atmospheric heating in the environment. This would make the attack have to be more precise WRT aspect on the mover.
-
Stevie, my sample size for moving ground targets, and buildings (for this recent spate of testing) was pretty small.
I felt I could make a conclusion, of sorts, anyway. I went from missing a lot of the ships to hitting everything else.
(weird thing is the ACMI showed visual hits on all the ones debriefing said were misses.)
I suppose (??) that’s one way to lower the PK, or it’s a side effect.I’ll do more as time permits.
thanks,