Laser guided Missiles
-
Wasn’t it 2-3 weeks? I am getting confused.
-
This post is deleted! -
AGM-65E need also correct WPN MFD page to make it realistic.
Here is a secret video from DCS with this MFD page (its secret because ED illegally modelled it in civilian DCS:A-10C version, then they removed it in later updates).
AGM-65E should be able to be fired using buddy’s laser even without TGP.
So there is a lot of work to implement it in BMS. -
AGM-65E need also correct WPN MFD page to make it realistic.
Here is a secret video from DCS with this MFD page (its secret because ED illegally modelled it in civilian DCS:A-10C version, then they removed it in later updates).
AGM-65E should be able to be fired using buddy’s laser even without TGP.
So there is a lot of work to implement it in BMS.The AGM-65E is illegal to develop ? … but the JDAM is not ? seriously …
-
After i did some kind of interiwev ED dev told me that they don’t got premission to release it in “enthertaiment” version.
You can find it out on ED forum. -
Sorry, i am not disputing what you say, it is just that it sounds very silly, they have JDAM modelled but yet the AGM-65E is not allowed …very silly, especially when the Maverick has been replaced by JDAM’s in former user countries.
-
I knew I’d read this somewhere else before.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3762308/Re_Functioning_AGM_65E_Laser_M
-
@Parker:
Sorry, i am not disputing what you say, it is just that it sounds very silly, they have JDAM modelled but yet the AGM-65E is not allowed …very silly, especially when the Maverick has been replaced by JDAM’s in former user countries.
AFAIK, is not due to the weapon, the restriction on DCS A-10C is to the A-10’s software. ED is allowed to modeled only a specific version with specific capabilities. So if the A-10C later acquired or gain new capabilities or ability to employ other weapons they can’t model those updates. Again, as I know, AGM-65E was introduce later. Not a missile normally use in the USAF ether. I never seen USAF F-16 carrying laser guided missiles. Out of curiosity, what laser guided missiles are carried by other countries on the F-16?
-
I see,as far as i know none, only the AGM-65/A/B/D/G was used.
-
Correct, why anybody would like to take the changes on guiding a missile weapon that can go ballistic if the beam is interrupted by weather or fire smoke? Don’t “smart bombs” produce enough side casualties already?
-
AGM-65E need also correct WPN MFD page to make it realistic.
Here is a secret video from DCS with this MFD page (its secret because ED illegally modelled it in civilian DCS:A-10C version, then they removed it in later updates).
AGM-65E should be able to be fired using buddy’s laser even without TGP.
So there is a lot of work to implement it in BMS.Interesting stuff about the WPN page, maybe will make use of it depends on priorities and time. Although I don’t see any “real” value here besides making sure that the missile can track the laser spot (and not suffer any damage, for example), but what’s the difference from a LGB in that regard?
Laser code is also not a big deal, for LGBs AFAIK the code is dialed before flight and can’t be changed because there is no interface with the weapon. For Mavericks there is an interface.
Of course all details would be nice to have but priority is low, at least for me. Laser guided missiles will “work” though.
-
Correct, why anybody would like to take the changes on guiding a missile weapon that can go ballistic if the beam is interrupted by weather or fire smoke? Don’t “smart bombs” produce enough side casualties already?
The E Maverick was developed based on a request from the USMC in the 1980s for a CAS variant of the Maverick. The SALH guidance offers two real advantages in this role.
- It allows a JTAC/FAC with a laser designator to guide a weapon to their intended target directly.
- It allows the aircraft to engage targets such as bunkers/trenches/specific building parts that do not provide enough contrast for other maverick variants to lock on to.
Also, compared to LGBs of the era, it offers some form of standoff.
That said, I agree that I would prefer the fire and forget functionality of the other maverick variants just about any other job than CAS.
-
I started this thread not based on what is prefered to be used, but to see if there is a way to create laser guided missiles for use other than the F16. Like UAVs which is being worked on.
The answer was: not modelled and not possible.
Lock please
-
The E Maverick was developed based on a request from the USMC in the 1980s for a CAS variant of the Maverick. The SALH guidance offers two real advantages in this role.
- It allows a JTAC/FAC with a laser designator to guide a weapon to their intended target directly.
- It allows the aircraft to engage targets such as bunkers/trenches/specific building parts that do not provide enough contrast for other maverick variants to lock on to.
Also, compared to LGBs of the era, it offers some form of standoff.
That said, I agree that I would prefer the fire and forget functionality of the other maverick variants just about any other job than CAS.
I agree with you,
BUT,
War experience in Gulf and Bosnia proved the worst aliases theory: enemies just put on huge fires burning tires around major or possible targets, that most of the time would brake that kind of guidance. So the E usage was minimal, in fact in Gulf the USMC planes had a success ratio below 60% with the E exactly for this reason witch is unacceptable for an a2g precision attack weapon… So guess were the rest 40%+ hit.
-
The answer was: not modelled and not possible.
I think you got it wrong there…
Not modelled, yet, yes.
Not possible? It is absolutely possible, in 3-4 weeks.
-
Haha :D:p
Ok let me rephrase:
Not modelled and not possible yet. -
I think you got it wrong there…
Not modelled, yet, yes.
Not possible? It is absolutely possible, in 3-4 weeks.
Hello, Raptor.
Even if I’m a newbie in that - ask Nikos about - but this boy of good will would like to learn more about the “how to” procedure… also a hint to start from could be useful.
Would you help me?Thanks a lot, anyway it goes, and best regards,
-
AGM-65E need also correct WPN MFD page to make it realistic.
Here is a secret video from DCS with this MFD page (its secret because ED illegally modelled it in civilian DCS:A-10C version, then they removed it in later updates).
AGM-65E should be able to be fired using buddy’s laser even without TGP.
So there is a lot of work to implement it in BMS.You know if that page is common just to the AGM-65E or other laser weapons as well for seeker lock?
-
AGM-114 has different stuff. So I dont think an MFD page is the big issue. The main thing for the 114 is that it shows wether it locked on to the laser, shows the time of flight and from which wing it will fire.
Nothing fancy which we do not have.Basically all the coders need to do is make a missile that follows the laser marker of the tgp. That will be close enough.
Fireing the AGM114 is verymuch like dropping an LGB. Point….lase…pickle…boom -
From a quick search I did, both net & manuals, it appears that no; world-wide Viper user uses the -65E version on the bird. So modelling all these for a weapon that is actually not available for F-16; reduces the chances to minimal.
I am not sure my though is right, but I guess the E version plus the whole targeting operation maybe is suitable for lower speed aircrafts, like USMC’s Harriers and A-10. In a fast jet like the Viper, I thing (based only on that “secret” video feedback) that the targeting process (E seeker acquiring the laser beam) is taking longer than a G with the Handsoff help of TGP, thus limiting the plane’s actions and exposing it more time to enemy reactions. If this is a valid scenario, it might explains why no WW user purchased the E for the F-16;