Some questions about Mavericks

[soldano]

Some questions about Mavericks

1. In real life, the boresight correction procedure is usually performed at ground or on the air ?
2. The G versión Maverick doesnt need to blow its cover to become active, is it because is has not a cover ?
3. Which are the differences in terms of advantages or disadvantages between visual and bore launch modes ?
4. Provided a visual launch inside the parameters of angles, distance, keyhole, etc, Is there any symbology other that a steady cross hair reticle that guarantees a lock and a good shot ?
   Thanks

[Stevie]

In my limited experience:

1. on the ground.
2. covers are never on at takeoff for any variety of AGM-65 because blowing them in the air presents a hazard to wingmen.
3. standoff depending on target, and other RL considerations which are not modeled in BMS re: thermal signature.
4. No. But beware of confusing “valid shot” vs “good shot”…you’ve described a valid shot, but that does not guarantee you will hit the target. Many factors at play, but the object is always to take valid shots.

[soldano]

Thanks Stevie
About question 2, I thought that Mavs loaded at multiple rails launchers as A, B, C and D versions, needed covers for protecting them from the blast of a nearby missile igniting.- Not so in the case of the G versión which is loaded at a single launcher.-
In any case at BMS all Mavs except G version need to blow its covers before shooting, and now I am in doubt if it is real due to your reply.-

[Stevie]

Depends on how you choose to loadout, I guess…one way to mitigate is to not fire each weapon too quickly in succession. And I can see no reason why you couldn’t load any variety AGM-65 on a any type launcher it will fire from. The USN/USMC doesn’t load MAVs (MAV E or F for them) on anything other than a single rail, so for them plume interference is a moot issue. I would also think that the release sequence from a multi-launcher would be chosen such to reduce any impingement of the plume on the next missile.

Not to mention that to your point, if you did have to blow covers that would be one more step you’d need to perform to get the next missile off the rail…which wastes attack time.

[I-Hawk]

Hi,

1. Usually Initial boresighting is performed on the ground in order to make it much easier to boresight in the air, but boresight in the air is necessary anyway, as the ground boresight is range limited.
2. G version needs no cover as they can only loaded one per station so there is no danger of the lens to burn from a previously launched missile.
3. Visual is when you want to ground stabilize to a single point on the ground and fire all your missiles on nearby targets. Bore is when you want to perform a one-time attack on some target, it’ll be faster.
4. No, if you are in parameters, a steady cross is your only indication that a Fired missile should hit its target.

[genbrien]

@I-Hawk:

Hi,

1. Usually Initial boresighting is performed on the ground in order to make it much easier to boresight in the air, but boresight in the air is necessary anyway, as the ground boresight is range limited.
.

could you elaborate on that please? is there a min/max range that should be use to borsight?

also, is there a way in the campaign that the default loudout of 6 mavs(3/stations) is replaced by 1/station?

[rmax]

I thought the covers were there to stop FOD. If the alignment needs to be done on the ground, then obviously the FOD does not cause a problem. In that case why are there covers? Is it so that in piece time the FOD does not cause an issue? Confused…

[Leech]

Dome covers are not needed for a single AGM-65 loaded on a LAU-117 (AGM-65 G for example)
Dome covers are for protection during priority missile for the remaining missiles, If more than one where loaded on a single rack

[rmax]

@Leech:

Dome covers are not needed for a single AGM-65 loaded on a LAU-117 (AGM-65 G for example)
Dome covers are for protection during priority missile for the remaining missiles, If more than one where loaded on a single rack

OK - but I thought in RL you had to boresight each individual missile before firing.

[Planehazza]

@genbrien:

could you elaborate on that please? is there a min/max range that should be use to borsight?

also, is there a way in the campaign that the default loudout of 6 mavs(3/stations) is replaced by 1/station?

My guess is due to trigonometry. The further out you’re referencing an object to boresight to, the more accurate it will be; more resolution if you will. I’m just guessing though, but it makes sense, seeing as an air based boresight is done at what, 9nm? A ground based boresight will well under 1nm as there’s always going to be something in the way such as buildings and other objects.

[Leech]

No.
On LAU-117s, boresight each launcher/missile.
On a LAU-88A/A, boresight only the priority missile on each launcher

[Malc]

@genbrien:

could you elaborate on that please? is there a min/max range that should be use to borsight?

also, is there a way in the campaign that the default loudout of 6 mavs(3/stations) is replaced by 1/station?

As best as I have been able to determine, a boresight will only complete fully once the ranging scale is visible on the WPN page.

See here for example:

[Ironman53rd]

Why reset the point track on the TGP to bore sight the second MAV?

[Malc]

@Ironman53rd:

Why reset the point track on the TGP to bore sight the second MAV?

If I don’t TMS up after switching to the second missile, I don’t get the “Handoff in Progress Station X” message on the WPN page, see the above video at 1:59 minutes. It may well be I don’t need to, but I prefer to see the message to be sure.

[Hallgrim]

@I-Hawk:

Usually Initial boresighting is performed on the ground in order to make it much easier to boresight in the air, but boresight in the air is necessary anyway, as the ground boresight is range limited.

Just wondering if the boresighting procedure in real life is so clustermonkey? It seems to me if I was a weapon designer or customer I would not accept what we see in BMS 4.33. I can understand the requirement to 1st lock the target with the aircraft systems, then select ONE OSB button on the WPN page, label it ALIGN. Slew and lock with the weapon, then OSB “NEXT” to the next station until all unaligned stations are done without ever having to unlock the TGP. Thoughts?

[ewildcat]

You can already do it in BMS, kinda : start with the TGP page on one MFD and anything you want on the other MFD, except the WPN page.
Lock a target with the TGP, then select the WPN page on the left MFD. Slew the Maverick seeker, lock, depress BSGT. Switch to the 2nd Maverick station, lock, depress BSGT. Done. It’s pretty quick and you don’t have to go through the clumsy hand-off caution clearing process.

[Stevie]

@Hallgrim:

Just wondering if the boresighting procedure in real life is so clustermonkey? It seems to me if I was a weapon designer or customer I would not accept what we see in BMS 4.33. I can understand the requirement to 1st lock the target with the aircraft systems, then select ONE OSB button on the WPN page, label it ALIGN. Slew and lock with the weapon, then OSB “NEXT” to the next station until all unaligned stations are done without ever having to unlock the TGP. Thoughts?

BMS has it done pretty much like RL…though I seriously question boresighting a whole triple-rack’s worth of missiles using just one of them per rack.

[drtbkj]

@Stevie:

In my limited experience:

2. covers are never on at takeoff for any variety of AGM-65 because blowing them in the air presents a hazard to wingmen.

Interesting, Stevie. Wouldn’t doing it on the ground be more hazardous( to ground crew), not to mention FOD’ing the jet?

[Stevie]

@drtbkj:

Interesting, Stevie. Wouldn’t doing it on the ground be more hazardous( to ground crew), not to mention FOD’ing the jet?

Not as I’ve seen it done, because the covers aren’t in place and don’t need to be blown off. Which is why I question having them there in BMS, and why we seem to default to triple mounts.

Most (not all) of my RL MAV experience is with Harrier operations, and single rail mounting (USN/USMC platforms). What we did was to use something like a runway distance marker, and before incorporation of Litening (yeah, 'm that old…) we boresighted to the HUD; so it did have to be something prominent. The reason to do it on deck is because it’s more stable, but it’s not hard and fast that one must do it that way.

As an aside, I myself have spent a goodly amount of time standing in front of fully armed jets…guns, rockets, MAVs…all pointing at me in the dark, with engines running. One gets used to it and just does the job they are there to do. That’s what MASTER ARM and all the safety pins are for - that all gets pulled at final checkers where nobody is in the hazard zone.

[drtbkj]

@Stevie:

The reason to do it on deck is because it’s more stable, but it’s not hard and fast that one must do it that way.

This, too, is interesting. When I first starting dealing with Boresighting, my thought was to do it on the ground(for the reason you mention),using the screen ships as “targets”. The problem was I could never get the TGP to “time in” in the 20 minute window we have. The best result I remember was when it would time in on the Cat, too late for on deck alignment.
Your post is making me wonder if I was missing something back then, and/or if RL is a bit different in this case.
The best result I’ve found is to get the TGP warming up on deck,autopowering the Mavs at WP 2, and Boresighting at Fence In.