Maverick PRE
-
Not being able to slave a weapon to a TGP SPI cuts the FBMS Sniper pod’s usefulness in HALF.
Yep… Couldn’t said it better myself
-
Right. I get that the maverick is an optical weapons system. I guess the question is what the PRE mode in maverick really means?
-
Right. I get that the maverick is an optical weapons system. I guess the question is what the PRE mode in maverick really means?
Pre “target designation” I reckon. As opposed to visual and bore whereby you lock the seeker head directly onto a target as opposed to slaving the seeker to an FCR assigned target…dunno, roll with it.
-
Can you set a mark point with the TGP, then set the markpoint as your current steerpoint, and then slave the Mav to that steerpoint?
-
In the F-16 it’s known as Targeting Pod EO Delivery and it has a similar ease of use to the DCS A-10 but it’s even cooler. Instead of “slaving Mav to SPI” and then having to command lock using the MAV/WPN page like a caveman, the mechanism for readying the Maverick to fire is called Missile Boresight Correlator. PRE mode is a radar-Maverick mode and VIS is a HUD-Maverick mode. You can use the TGP to employ the Maverick starting from either of these modes. The MBC is another layer of logic that takes over Maverick aiming from the other modes. When MBC is in effect you aren’t really in PRE or VIS, those were just to get the TGP pointed in the proper direction.
In the A-10 the steerpoint (standing in for the F-16’s radar), TGP, and HUD TDC are all peer sensors which can be the “SPI generator” and then the Maverick is slaved LOS to SPI. The F-16 method is more hierarchical, strict, and automated. That doesn’t mean that the F-16 doesn’t use the SPI concept, it just doesn’t come up in TGP EO delivery. PRE means FCR, VIS means HUD; you don’t get the flexible toolbox approach like the A-10. The MBC is an override which rips control away from the previous delivery schemes. You’re still in PRE or VIS and the symbology is unchanged but the MBC has control of the missile.
So if an object is point tracked in TGP NFOV (should auto NFOV if WFOV). Assuming AGM-65 selected, the MBC enacts to override VIS/PRE to slew the Maverick LOS to the TGP LOS (this is why NFOV and IR is required to match the IR video from the Maverick), compare the two images for fine correction, and command track. The whole process is called “handoff” with a “handoff in progress” and a “handoff complete” message on the TGP MFD page. It’s a script of sorts that is triggered by a point track (and SOI!) of TGP.
Using the MBC you never actually interface with the WPN MFD format at all. The TGP steals the WPN video feed during the handoff. Two missiles (one each side) can be handed off to separate targets at any time. WPN video switches to the active handoff process. If handoff fails a number of times the TGP steps through the LAU-88A to the next missile. TMS right restarts the handoff.
I don’t know how well or if this works using H/K model Mavericks and the TV camera for the TGP. The process I’m reading is only for IIR.
So the upshot of all this is, command TGP point track, wait for handoff, fire. It’s significantly more automated than the A-10 method.
-
Can you set a mark point with the TGP, then set the markpoint as your current steerpoint, and then slave the Mav to that steerpoint?
Yes. I do that very often.
-
In the F-16 it’s known as Targeting Pod EO Delivery and it has a similar ease of use to the DCS A-10 but it’s even cooler. Instead of “slaving Mav to SPI” and then having to command lock using the MAV/WPN page like a caveman, the mechanism for readying the Maverick to fire is called Missile Boresight Correlator. PRE mode is a radar-Maverick mode and VIS is a HUD-Maverick mode. You can use the TGP to employ the Maverick starting from either of these modes. The MBC is another layer of logic that takes over Maverick aiming from the other modes. When MBC is in effect you aren’t really in PRE or VIS, those were just to get the TGP pointed in the proper direction.
In the A-10 the steerpoint (standing in for the F-16’s radar), TGP, and HUD TDC are all peer sensors which can be the “SPI generator” and then the Maverick is slaved LOS to SPI. The F-16 method is more hierarchical, strict, and automated. That doesn’t mean that the F-16 doesn’t use the SPI concept, it just doesn’t come up in TGP EO delivery. PRE means FCR, VIS means HUD; you don’t get the flexible toolbox approach like the A-10. The MBC is an override which rips control away from the previous delivery schemes. You’re still in PRE or VIS and the symbology is unchanged but the MBC has control of the missile.
So if an object is point tracked in TGP NFOV (should auto NFOV if WFOV). Assuming AGM-65 selected, the MBC enacts to override VIS/PRE to slew the Maverick LOS to the TGP LOS (this is why NFOV and IR is required to match the IR video from the Maverick), compare the two images for fine correction, and command track. The whole process is called “handoff” with a “handoff in progress” and a “handoff complete” message on the TGP MFD page. It’s a script of sorts that is triggered by a point track (and SOI!) of TGP.
Using the MBC you never actually interface with the WPN MFD format at all. The TGP steals the WPN video feed during the handoff. Two missiles (one each side) can be handed off to separate targets at any time. WPN video switches to the active handoff process. If handoff fails a number of times the TGP steps through the LAU-88A to the next missile. TMS right restarts the handoff.
I don’t know how well or if this works using H/K model Mavericks and the TV camera for the TGP. The process I’m reading is only for IIR.
So the upshot of all this is, command TGP point track, wait for handoff, fire. It’s significantly more automated than the A-10 method.
Hnggggg…
How about slaving it to the HMCS?
-
Can you set a mark point with the TGP, then set the markpoint as your current steerpoint, and then slave the Mav to that steerpoint?
Yes and no. If you have a steerpoint (no matter how you got it, TGP or otherwise) then you just use PREplanned mode like normal. The problem is that you can’t get slew control over the Maverick directly until you get a FTT in GM/GMT/SEA. So if you wanted to attack a non-radar target in PRE, you’ll go crazy as the Maverick is pointed at the steer/target but you can’t have control of it directly until the radar locks.
I don’t know if this is a realistic limitation or not. It says it switches SOI automagically on FCR lock but I don’t know if it’s possible to “break slave” of a Maverick in PRE without having an FCR lock, you certainly can’t in BMS. In such a situation I would recommend BORE which has CCRP type symbology on the HUD but allows direct Maverick control. You’ll have to fly the bore cross onto the target manually though.
Hnggggg…
How about slaving it to the HMCS?
I assume it can be done but I have no knowledge. If I had to make a stab at how it works -stroke- how I would do it if I were the engineer I would say that if HMCS is active that VIS mode would be designated by HMCS priority over the HUD. To revert to HUD-VIS you’d have to suspend the HMCS. That’s just a guess though.
Here’s an article that a quick Googling brought up http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=998446 If anyone feels like investing $18 USD.
-
-
Yes and no. If you have a steerpoint (no matter how you got it, TGP or otherwise) then you just use PREplanned mode like normal. The problem is that you can’t get slew control over the Maverick directly until you get a FTT in GM/GMT/SEA. So if you wanted to attack a non-radar target in PRE, you’ll go crazy as the Maverick is pointed at the steer/target but you can’t have control of it directly until the radar locks.
I don’t know if this is a realistic limitation or not. It says it switches SOI automagically on FCR lock but I don’t know if it’s possible to “break slave” of a Maverick in PRE without having an FCR lock, you certainly can’t in BMS. In such a situation I would recommend BORE which has CCRP type symbology on the HUD but allows direct Maverick control. You’ll have to fly the bore cross onto the target manually though.
Thanks! This feels more like PRE mode for the FCR, so I think there probably is something missing here.
-
Yes and no. If you have a steerpoint (no matter how you got it, TGP or otherwise) then you just use PREplanned mode like normal. The problem is that you can’t get slew control over the Maverick directly until you get a FTT in GM/GMT/SEA. So if you wanted to attack a non-radar target in PRE, you’ll go crazy as the Maverick is pointed at the steer/target but you can’t have control of it directly until the radar locks.
I don’t know if this is a realistic limitation or not. It says it switches SOI automagically on FCR lock but I don’t know if it’s possible to “break slave” of a Maverick in PRE without having an FCR lock, you certainly can’t in BMS. In such a situation I would recommend BORE which has CCRP type symbology on the HUD but allows direct Maverick control. You’ll have to fly the bore cross onto the target manually though.
I assume it can be done but I have no knowledge. If I had to make a stab at how it works -stroke- how I would do it if I were the engineer I would say that if HMCS is active that VIS mode would be designated by HMCS priority over the HUD. To revert to HUD-VIS you’d have to suspend the HMCS. That’s just a guess though.
Here’s an article that a quick Googling brought up http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=998446 If anyone feels like investing $18 USD.
I was hoping to avoid putting the HUD on the target, because that means you’re running straight at it and rapidly closing the distance, reducing the time you have to play with the switchology and potentially putting yourself into the target’s own WEZ if it’s an anti-aircraft unit. Back in my F4AF days I was pretty good at the HARM lockup-HUD onto HARM box-switch to MAV-lock-fire routine, but it was always dicey.
-
Thanks! This feels more like PRE mode for the FCR, so I think there probably is something missing here.
Sorry, I should mention that this is RL behavior. BMS doesn’t do the MBC logic.
I was hoping to avoid putting the HUD on the target, because that means you’re running straight at it and rapidly closing the distance, reducing the time you have to play with the switchology and potentially putting yourself into the target’s own WEZ if it’s an anti-aircraft unit. Back in my F4AF days I was pretty good at the HARM lockup-HUD onto HARM box-switch to MAV-lock-fire routine, but it was always dicey.
It’s a Maverick which isn’t very good off boresight anyway. Realistically you’d obey the 30-30-30 rule and have to launch from the “keyhole” angular limits. The gimbal does 60 degrees off but you can’t exploit all of that practically. If your steer is radar significant then by all means use PRE and you’re done in record time. If your target isn’t radar significant it’s probably going to take some slewing anyway to refine the gates and that sucks to do with any sort of parallax motion. The BMS Maverick doesn’t accurately portray how hard it is to slew if there’s any parallax motion going on.
-
In the F-16 it’s known as Targeting Pod EO Delivery and it has a similar ease of use to the DCS A-10 but it’s even cooler. Instead of “slaving Mav to SPI” and then having to command lock using the MAV/WPN page like a caveman, the mechanism for readying the Maverick to fire is called Missile Boresight Correlator. PRE mode is a radar-Maverick mode and VIS is a HUD-Maverick mode. You can use the TGP to employ the Maverick starting from either of these modes. The MBC is another layer of logic that takes over Maverick aiming from the other modes. When MBC is in effect you aren’t really in PRE or VIS, those were just to get the TGP pointed in the proper direction.
Hi, MBC isn’t really about TGP, but it’s about generic missile eye missalignment due to the missile’s loading on a given rack. The MBC process is done once for each station and you can theoretically do it without involving the TGP at all. With TGP on the alignment will be more appropriate because TGP Handoff is sensitive to even small missalignments between TPG and missile eye. In general before MBC you can operated the missile normally in PRE mode just you’ll have some gap between the SPI position and the missile eye position, but if you slew the WPN page to where you want, the missile will lock and hit. TGP Handoff though will probably fail because of the gap.
EDIT: Please ignore this post, I confused the MBC with other Boresight process related to the missile itself.
-
Interesting. I missed that in my read of the dash.
At all, Id personally avoid using BORE for mavericks. Avionics for that mode are basically made up. VIS does the same thing anyway and better.
-
Yes, BORE is poorly implemented currently. In RL it’s working different than VIS.
-
Yes, BORE is poorly implemented currently. In RL it’s working different than VIS.
Besides the Square/Cross on the hud - i didn’t notice any difference at all.
But I must admit that I mostly use PRE with the FCR, the TGP and WPN slaved to it.
Actually I always want to use the TGP for better zoom and identifying, but sometimes (especially if I wasn’t playing for a few weeks :eek:[jeah happens sometimes]) i get messed up with the SOIs and Locks and then it happens that while I have to struggle with it, I just pass over their heads, and have to turn around. In this case I am mostly still too close to fiddle around with radar, and that’s when I hop to bore or vis -
I-Hawk, the dash I have has a different understanding of the missile boresight correlator than you described. You suggested that the MBC is not specific to the TGP, but my understanding is that the hardware for the MBC is contained within the TGP and is very specific to that task. Im wondering whether we are using the same term to describe two different things, as its fairly simple in its description and Im not sure how else we could have such a difference of opinion here.
1.32.1.1 of the double sticks describes the LANTIRN system, and the location of hardware within the pod. The center section contains the missile boresight correlator.
1.33.11.2.15.7 describes AGM-65 Handoff using a Sniper. “As with the LANTIRN targeting pod, once the target pod is tracking an IR target and an AGM-65D/G is the selected weapon, the AGM-65’s LOS is aligned to the targeting pod LOS. The avionics system then routes the missile video to the TGP. The pod’s Missile Boresight Correlator (MBC) then compares the AGM-65 video to the TGP video, aligns the AGM-65 to the same target, and commands track. If the pod is in narrow FOV when a maverick handoff is commanded, the pod will automatically transition to the wide FOV until handoff is complete and then return to narrow FOV. A wide FOV is required to ensure the maximum scene overlap between the two video sources.”
-
This post is deleted! -
I-Hawk, the dash I have has a different understanding of the missile boresight correlator than you described. You suggested that the MBC is not specific to the TGP, but my understanding is that the hardware for the MBC is contained within the TGP and is very specific to that task. Im wondering whether we are using the same term to describe two different things, as its fairly simple in its description and Im not sure how else we could have such a difference of opinion here.
1.32.1.1 of the double sticks describes the LANTIRN system, and the location of hardware within the pod. The center section contains the missile boresight correlator.
1.33.11.2.15.7 describes AGM-65 Handoff using a Sniper. “As with the LANTIRN targeting pod, once the target pod is tracking an IR target and an AGM-65D/G is the selected weapon, the AGM-65’s LOS is aligned to the targeting pod LOS. The avionics system then routes the missile video to the TGP. The pod’s Missile Boresight Correlator (MBC) then compares the AGM-65 video to the TGP video, aligns the AGM-65 to the same target, and commands track. If the pod is in narrow FOV when a maverick handoff is commanded, the pod will automatically transition to the wide FOV until handoff is complete and then return to narrow FOV. A wide FOV is required to ensure the maximum scene overlap between the two video sources.”
Yes sorry, obviously I did a little mess here
Now that I see what you mean by MBC, I understand. So yes the MBC is the TGP component that is responsible to sync the missile eye with the TGP tracking position.
There is a different Boresight alignment related to the missile itself and has effect on the missile eye alignment with the SPI position. And that missalignment requires special alignment per station in order to be aligned with the SPI in general (TGP as well, and specifically when Handoff is tried).
-
That certainly makes sense, I shall have to look that procedure up… sounds interesting!
This is all stuff Id love to see in BMS one day…