More MAVs? H, K and cool E2!
-
Are some other variants of Mavericks planned in BMS?
What about K? It has warhead from G but instead of IR it has new CCD sensor.
What about H? Warhead from B but it has new CCD sensor.
Are K and H variants BSGT capable IRL? And what are advantages of those new sensors? Better resolution? Less noise? Better magnification?
In DCS AFAIK H and K are also force correlate capable. Are they also IRL?And what about E2 Laser Maverick? There was one in DCS (undocumented feature) that was removed in one of the updates as ED had no premission to make it working in civilian version of DCS. It was a nice thing to have, i always liked them in DCS but can we have one in BMS?
From what i heard F-16 was first AC to employ this weapon.And is lower resolution of A variant properly modeled in BMS?
I used to use those weapons in 4.33 and enjoy them even more in 4.33.1, i hope that i will enjoy them even more in next updates.
And why penetrator warhead MAVs can be carried only on single launchers? Their weight is heavier than HEAT warhead ones but 3 penetrator MAVs are still lighter than single 2000lb bomb so definitelly pylon could survive 3 of them on triple launcher.
And why only STA 3&7 for LAU-88? STA 4&6 can handle bigger weight as they can carry 600 gal fuel tanks!
-
USAF stopped using LAU-88 years ago….so you should be only using LAU-117s unless you are going old school.
Why only on 3/7, suspect that was the requirement.
-
It is simple… there are in RL no combat missions without wingtanks… so you have no option where to put your mavs… would be glad if in next Update those weapon-parts also would get a litte more realistiv. No TER for mavs, 9X no more on wingtips and so on…
-
would be glad if in next Update those weapon-parts also would get a litte more realistiv. No TER for mavs, 9X no more on wingtips and so on…
It’s up to you to respect your vision of the reality
If BMS dev would impose theirs you wouldn’t be happy I can tell you. So let’s be glad that all have the choices to some extends.Don’t want triple ejectors on MAv, or want Mavs only with wingtank, easy enough to do: just load the jet as you see fit.
You shouldn’t try to restrict other ppl, with other views, other needs to adhere to your own visionRed Dog
Reality if for ppl who can't handle simulation -
USAF stopped using LAU-88 years ago
Viper started to be exported years ago. So don’t forget that USAF is not only operator of F-16.
Viper is still in production so every country that has some money can still order one with wiring for LAU-88 and also order the launchers.
I bet that many countries would be glad to have triple MAVs wartime.there are in RL no combat missions without wingtanks
Somebodys tactics should not be a limiting factor.
Everybody is free to develop own tactics in BMS. I am often flying without wingtanks, i using variants with CFT and internal ECM so i am able to carry more than 12k LBS of fuel without carrying wingtanks.Don’t want triple ejectors on MAv
MAVs are not fired by ejection bro
They are fired from rail. -
I’d be happier if MAV flyouts were closer to RL…but that could be for lack of info…otherwise I’m pretty impressed by the BMS implementation. And as RD says - you can load the jet any way you see fit, within your own vision of “reality”.
-
Yes, MAV implementation is quite impressive. Better than DCS IMO as it gives you things like dome covers for D and proper boresighting procedure. It also kills gyro when overusing it. In DCS you can have gyro on for as long as you want. Remember that BMS team does it all for free, and they still improving the sim unlike DCS-A10C module that been retarded instead of improving (Laser MAV avionics has been removed)!
-
Viper started to be exported years ago. So don’t forget that USAF is not only operator of F-16.
Viper is still in production so every country that has some money can still order one with wiring for LAU-88 and also order the launchers.
I bet that many countries would be glad to have triple MAVs wartime.Hence why I stated USAF
Which export countries actively use LAU-88 today with AGM-65 on F-16?
And why penetrator warhead MAVs can be carried only on single launchers? Their weight is heavier than HEAT warhead ones but 3 penetrator MAVs are still lighter than single 2000lb bomb so definitelly pylon could survive 3 of them on triple launcher.
The pylon might be able to take the weight….but can it take the extra drag and any flutter under all conditions…clearly not.
-
It is simple… there are in RL no combat missions without wingtanks…
thats just plain not true. There are not combat missions without wingtanks habitually, as its typical for fighters to cover 600 plus miles before getting to the combat zone.
Here in BMS though, we by default fly out of the worlds most forward deployed fighter bases and can fly less than 50 miles to get the enemy on a bad day. Add in that there exist SCLs which omit wing tanks and you dont have a good case to make here.
-
Yes, MAV implementation is quite impressive. Better than DCS IMO as it gives you things like dome covers for D and proper boresighting procedure. It also kills gyro when overusing it. In DCS you can have gyro on for as long as you want. Remember that BMS team does it all for free, and they still improving the sim unlike DCS-A10C module that been retarded instead of improving (Laser MAV avionics has been removed)!
I guess I’ll add one more request - the ability to load MAVs with/without dome covers. In RL I’ve never seen a MAV of any variety actually loaded with a dome cover. Or maybe more to the point I should say I’ve never seen a jet takeoff with dome covers in place. But I’d retain the sim’s ability to do so as practices may or may not vary between operators.
I’d also like to see a better thermal simulation - more realistic representation of heat signatures - in pod and weapons video.
-
It will depend on the launcher and number of missiles.
AGM-65’s on LAU-117s do not need a dome cover.
On the LAU-88A/A, the dome covers on other missiles must be retained for protection during priority missile launch.It is known by BMS that the track polarity contrast option is partially implemented. The real HOC/COH options do not change the background polarity image. Only the polarity of the pointing cross changes. White objects can be locked on only if the polarity is set to HOC.
Black objects can be only locked on if the polarity is set to COH. -
And why penetrator warhead MAVs can be carried only on single launchers? Their weight is heavier than HEAT warhead ones but 3 penetrator MAVs are still lighter than single 2000lb bomb so definitelly pylon could survive 3 of them on triple launcher.
Because aerodynamic forces of 3x penetrator missiles would brake the wing.
And why only STA 3&7 for LAU-88? STA 4&6 can handle bigger weight as they can carry 600 gal fuel tanks!
Because by default (meaning: except customer selects it and pays for it) stations 4/6 are not wired for specific weapons like Mav, Harm, Harpoon etc. HAF PXIII/IV are order to carry 4x Harm for example.
-
It will depend on the launcher and number of missiles.
AGM-65’s on LAU-117s do not need a dome cover.
On the LAU-88A/A, the dome covers on other missiles must be retained for protection during priority missile launch.It is known by BMS that the track polarity contrast option is partially implemented. The real HOC/COH options do not change the background polarity image. Only the polarity of the pointing cross changes. White objects can be locked on only if the polarity is set to HOC.
Black objects can be only locked on if the polarity is set to COH.Maybe that’s why…because I’ve never seen AGM-65s mounted on TERs…
I’m not really talking/thinking about track polarity - more about not seeing things like the exhaust plume from a tank, and the seeker not having to deal with that; effects of thermal crossover based on time of day/sun angle…stuff like that. A better representation of RW thermal imaging and seeker/tracker behavior.
-
Because aerodynamic forces of 3x penetrator missiles would brake the wing.
But penetrator missiles have exactly the same dimensions and shape so exactly the same drag as HEAT. Drag is not based on weight but on shape and size. A sheet of paper has high drag but very low weight
What about 2 penetrators?
-
But penetrator missiles have exactly the same dimensions and shape so exactly the same drag as HEAT. Drag is not based on weight but on shape and size. A sheet of paper has high drag but very low weight
What about 2 penetrators?
The extra weight will not only increase the force on the LAU-88 but for the same number of missiles should increase induced drag……so regardless it should be a more draggy loadout.
If the extra drag / force or flutter isn’t the reason then the fact that the E/G/G2/K is not rated on LAU-88 (on both A-10/F-16) means there was no requirement for it, so no one funded the testing.
If this means that much to you then try John Williams on F-16 net he might know.
-
A/B can be loaded and fly safely in the 3/7 stations using the 3-rack pylons, meaning 3 A/B missiles per wing.
G model is heavier than A/B, so if you try to load 3 of them in the 3-rack pylon the wing will brake at the point of exceeding some specific flight parameters (combination of fluttering, speed, G forces, what is loaded in the 2/8 & 4/6 stations, etc). The hosting MAU-12 weapon pylon is able to host the 3 missiles weight (you can load heavier weapons in total than 3x G mavericks) but the fluttering combinations (= aerodynamic forces) will produce a catastrophic failure.
For similar example just for your knowledge, catastrophic failure will happen if you load an A2000 missile (IRIS-T) to the 1/9 wingtip racks. So you now should be able to understand that what will happen vs what you can load is a very thick line, thus the manufacturer flight testing to create a huge -1-2 manual according to user country needs, and how much money want to spend in the testing / new weapons certification combinations.
-
Thanks a lot for explaining. But i ask again. Would it be possible to load 2 penetrators on LAU-88 without catastrophic failure?
I know that such variant was probably never tested but what you think about it?
It seems logical that 2 penetrators should not be worse than 3 HEATs if the LAU-88 itself would not beak as it was designed for lighter missiles than LAU-117.And why there are no dome covers on A and B variants even when loaded on LAU-88? It seems logical that when D needs to be protected from rocket motor heat and blast A and B should also have such protection.
Is there any reason why A and B can survive launch from LAU-88 without dome covers while D can not?And was any DEV considering AGM-65E2 Laser Maverick? I loved them in old DCS A-10C (secret hidden feature) and i definitely want them in BMS.
-
And why there are no dome covers on A and B variants even when loaded on LAU-88? It seems logical that when D needs to be protected from rocket motor heat and blast A and B should also have such protection.
Is there any reason why A and B can survive launch from LAU-88 without dome covers while D can not?It could be because the A/B are optical and the D is IR.
-
But i ask again. Would it be possible to load 2 penetrators on LAU-88 without catastrophic failure?
Nop.
BTW, just to clarify a bit further, catastrophic failure may happen to the weapon itself due to fluttering, not the wing necessary.
I know that such variant was probably never tested but what you think about it?
What do I think personally? That the missile (Maverick, all versions) due to max range and tactical usage, will give you under best conditions around 30 seconds max to acquire a target with the the TGP, handoff it to the first mav, move to the next missile, acquire a new close-by target, and fire both weapons. The whole process is possible from a VERY well trained player that knows all the RTFM details and switchology, nice weather that will allow to detect a target (the proper target), while flying the plane, communicating, maneuvering in a package, maintaining SA, and a dozen other aspects, all within enemy teritory. I personally think it would be too much to add another 2 missiles in this process of the 30-sec limit, a second flyby should be needed that would make you wanter why didn’t you use another (more powerful?) weapon and tactics.
-
It could be because the A/B are optical and the D is IR.
But both needs a clear vision. Neither can see good picture trough damaged dome.
