Some questions about Mavericks
-
Yep. Only LAU-88 require covers and only for IR MAVs.
Without covers the guidance system (the IR sensor) could get damaged by the rocket motor of launched missile. If you load 3 or 2 of them on LAU-88 the first one launched could damage the rest.
I gess that this is because rocket motor generates a lot of heat and this could simply blind the sensor permanently (much like night vision devices that can be permanently damaged when exposed to sunlight).
With LAU-117 you got single MAV on launcher, so there are no other MAVs on the same launcher that could get damaged.
And with B and A MAVs you got EO sensor within visible light spectrum so its not that much sensitive for heat.Macieksoft, I agree in part, except for we Carrier-types. We don’t have handy cities on ingress because we’re over water until close to the enemy coast. So, I would prefer doing it on deck. I would easily have time while the INS completes alignment. The problem is, the TGP won’t time in soon enough.
It may be “cheating”, but is there something in Config. that could be changed? I know there’s one for Mav boresight time.I do not fly carrier OPS. I fly F-16 only.
I am not even sure if real Hornets have boresight and TGP handoff functions. -
Are IR Mavs available at BMS ?, I couldnt find them.-
What happens if when boresighting non IR Mavs on the ground, you remove the covers with master arm on ?I think you mean laser Mavs - no, they aren’t in there…and they need to be. Laser Mav does not need to be boresighted…only IR and TV Mavs do. So in BMS I guess we need to boresight all of what we get.
-
Yep. Only LAU-88 require covers and only for IR MAVs.
Without covers the guidance system (the IR sensor) could get damaged by the rocket motor of launched missile. If you load 3 or 2 of them on LAU-88 the first one launched could damage the rest.
I gess that this is because rocket motor generates a lot of heat and this could simply blind the sensor permanently (much like night vision devices that can be permanently damaged when exposed to sunlight).
With LAU-117 you got single MAV on launcher, so there are no other MAVs on the same launcher that could get damaged.
And with B and A MAVs you got EO sensor within visible light spectrum so its not that much sensitive for heat.I do not fly carrier OPS. I fly F-16 only.
I am not even sure if real Hornets have boresight and TGP handoff functions.Mostly just fogged from the exhaust residue, I’d think….
Yes, but “handoff” is easier than with the Viper…far more automatic. The real trick to boresighting on deck is to use the HUD - find something you can see in the HUD - farther away the better - and synch everything to that. Problem still being, that in RL you’re still going to have to boresight the next missile airborne once selected and awake (dome blown). I hate those domes…I prefer LMAV. And so does the USN - Fly NAVY!
-
-
IRL there are some new generation TV ones that probably have BSGT function. They also have force correlate option.
I mean the ones with new CCD sensor. IIRC they are AGM-65K and H and you have them in DCS.In BMS the TV ones we have are old ones, the A and B that use old EO sensor based on vaccum tube just like first TV cameras.
They are old so they don’t have BSGT option.And in Hornet you don’t need dome covers as you do not have LAU-88.
Mostly just fogged from the exhaust residue, I’d think….
Really?
So why TV ones doesn’t have covers?
I think its about damage to the sensitive thermal camera and this can be the reason why only IR ones have covers.
As i explained before exhaust is preatty hot and strong thermal radiation could be bad for the sensor, just like strong light is bad for night vision.Yes, but “handoff” is easier than with the Viper…far more automatic.
You mean boresight?
Handoff in viper is preatty automatic. Only thing you have to do is to blow the covers. -
I’m surprised the TV ones wouldn’t have covers…seems to me like they’d be just as sensitive as the IR ones - and for similar reasons - if mounted on a triple rack. Unless they are just so old that they never had covers to begin with?..dunno. Never worked with those. But I should think they still would need to be boresighted unless their FOV is so wide that they just use the weapon as sensor…which means you need to get close to use one.
Boresight is about the same…but “handoff” seems more complex in BMS seeing as how many people seem to be having problems - you do have to blow the covers and lock the weapon after switching SOI. If you have a poor boresight then you’re going to have problems locking the weapon to obtain the “handoff”. Maybe it’s boresighting that’s easier…and maybe it’s just a better situation all around when using a single rail LAU-117 launcher? USN/USMC have never used triple racks for Mavs…they seem more and more like a PITA.
-
Don’t covers exist for EO (A/B) and CCD (H/K) Mavericks? I swear I’ve seen covers on a non-IR model. They wouldn’t bother to make them in visible-wavelength-clear materials if they were only supposed to go over IR sensors. Runway and low altitude debris/bugs are reasons to cover any seeker, not just exhausts. Maybe the material that the IR sensors are covered in is more delicate than the glass ones. I don’t know. I wouldn’t treat BMS as an ultimate authority on which configs of which models get covers. In BMS if you -88 rack multiple A or B missiles do they get covers or not?
I also have slight suspicions of A and B model missiles externally driven like with PRE or VIS and even more suspicious of A&B compatible with TGP MBC handoff.
-
I think you mean laser Mavs - no, they aren’t in there…and they need to be. Laser Mav does not need to be boresighted…only IR and TV Mavs do. So in BMS I guess we need to boresight all of what we get.
Yes I meant Laser Mavs, which I think are used by the Marines
-
Yes I meant Laser Mavs, which I think are used by the Marines
Affirmative…and the USN. In fact, I think the only USN platform that employs IR Mav these days is the P3 and/or P8, and the USN uses the F variant (so far…) which is maritime optimized.
-
AFAIK USAF uses AGM-65E2 for their A-10C. I hear that they have launched some of them in Afganistan.
They have also tested them on F-16 but AFAIK they never went into service on F-16.
They were even in old DCS World A-10C open beta versions and also in standalone, you just needed to know how to equip them
They removed them in later versions. -
They need to be there in BMS for Hornet and Harrier…both baseline E and E2, I should think. Fly Navy!
-
navy shills get out! reeeeeeee!
-
They need to be there in BMS for Hornet and Harrier…both baseline E and E2, I should think. Fly Navy!
I’d also like to have them…
…For Viper OFC.
If they have been tested on Viper there is probably option IRL. I don’t care if anybody bought this option… -
I’d also like to have them…
…For Viper OFC.
If they have been tested on Viper there is probably option IRL. I don’t care if anybody bought this option…+1. And Fly Navy!
-
I would fly Navy if we had (Super)Hornet with proper avionics.
Flying Hornet with F-16 avionics is something i can’t accept. -
I would fly Navy if we had (Super)Hornet with proper avionics.
Flying Hornet with F-16 avionics is something i can’t accept.…nothing to stop you from operating like an F-16N…which is pretty much what I practice under BMS. Fly Navy!
But I agree…I won’t touch the BMS Hornet. Or anything but the Viper in BMS, really.
-
One suggestion I’ve heard is to power up on the ramp. After launch, fly out x miles, then turn back to the ship and use the boat as your boresight target. Turn the Mavs off and continue the mission from there.
Since we’d been talking about this last week I’ve been wanting to test it, and it works well. What I did was power the TGP on deck set up AG mode with RDR in SEA and Mav ready to be powered.
Upon launch and once stabilized in my normal Maintain 350kt CAS at Mil climb, I powered the Mavs. When they timed in , I leveled off and set INS back to waypoint one. I then did the normal boresight procedure with the carrier as “target”. Then I turned back toward WP 2 and I was on my way.
I was very happy with the procedure. I didn’t have to fly ail over, I didn’t have to search for a suitable “target”, and even doing “lazy” turns I was only 1.5 minutes late on rendezvous ( and that was saving fuel). -
Just noticed in the 4.37.3 docs that the LMAV display looks WAY better than it was…hopefully the mech is improved as well. Fingers crossed…
-
@Stevie said in Some questions about Mavericks:
Just noticed in the 4.37.3 docs that the LMAV display looks WAY better than it was…hopefully the mech is improved as well. Fingers crossed…
Please let us know your discovers
-
@Lemmi22 - from what I see in the docs the display looks much more like a RL LMAV display, for one - the circle is more the correct size.