More MAVs? H, K and cool E2!
-
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.