Maverick issue
-
NB - 2 points -
1. a triple rack is not found in a RL combat situation
2. you cannot uncage 2 on the same triple rack as the racket motor from the first launch with “blind” the sensors on the second one on the same rack.You may well find that movers coming towards you or adjacent to your line of flight are easier to lock than those going away from you - they throw up a “dust” cloud that obscures the target lock.
MAVs are not an easy option in 4.33 as they are not in RL - use them for “surgical” stand off strikes with “hand off” mode - the 4.32 days of 6 for 6 in a single pass are long gone !!!
Ironman
Depends which F-16.
-
This post is deleted! -
Blu3wolf - do tell.
-
HAF jets have TERs for the mavs.
-
TERs are for bomb, launchers are for MAVs
MAVs are fired from the rail, not by ejection.
Triple launcher for MAV is LAU-88. -
LMAVs work best for tanks IRL…wish we had those in BMS.
Why don’t we? Wouldn’t it be as simple as just changing the sensor type in the editor?
EDIT: And now that I think of it, wouldn’t the same method be relatively easy to use to implement the APKWS in BMS?
-
And for bonus points Im sure you can remind me, the proper designation for the mounting piece to the LAU-117/A which is common with the LAU-88/A and LAU-88 A/A ?
You knew what I meant by TER.
-
Why don’t we? Wouldn’t it be as simple as just changing the sensor type in the editor?
EDIT: And now that I think of it, wouldn’t the same method be relatively easy to use to implement the APKWS in BMS?
What I don’t know (not being that BMS savvy yet) is if that sensor type is even implemented, but it would be a fairly easy hack for the devs to base it similar to an LGB…I think. Other than the symbology…which would have to be coded to look like an LMAV.
But now that we can buddy lase LMAVs would be pretty cool to have in our virtual arsenal.
-
And for bonus points Im sure you can remind me, the proper designation for the mounting piece to the LAU-117/A which is common with the LAU-88/A and LAU-88 A/A ?
You knew what I meant by TER.
…sounds to me like BMS shouldn’t allow loading triple MAVs at all, from this - given “The newest Mavericks are not compatible with the LAU-88”:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/lau-88.htm
-
AGM-65A, B and D are far from being “newest Mavericks”.
A and B are old, they have EO system that predates CCD and CMOS. They used vaccum tubes much early TV cameras.
D is newer, it allows for boresight, it has IIR sensor, but its still not newest.
Well, even G is not the newest, its quite modern but not newest.When they say newest, they probably mean K variant. It has CCD seeker, but its penetrator one so it cannot be carried on 88s.
New HEAT one are probably H, they have CCD seeker, in DCS-A-10C they can be carried on 88s, not sure if they can be IRL.
Those 2 variants mentioned above do not exist in BMS. -
I’m still all for eliminating triple MAV carriage…seeing as it causes such confusion, and nobody does it anymore.
-
The LAU-88 doesn’t support any mode but BORE but the LAU-88A does. As far as “the newest Mavericks” aren’t they all the 300 lb class warheads? Those simply aren’t compatible physically. I’m not aware (read: completely ignorant) if any 125 lb. class warhead Maverick is or is not compatible with the LAU-88A regardless of newness.
As far as BMS is concerned using the triple rail doesn’t change much. There isn’t really anything you can do in BMS where the 88 railed Mavericks will screw up but the 117 railed Mavericks won’t.
-
I’m still all for eliminating triple MAV carriage…seeing as it causes such confusion, and nobody does it anymore.
When i am taking MAVs in BMS i usually use them against armor or other mobile targets. It makes no sense for me to take LAU117 because i would need whole squadron of F-16 to eliminate a single tank battalion with Mavericks on LAU-117.
Penetrator Mavericks makes no sense too. Because when i want penetrator i take bombs. They are much more powerful.Advantage of Mavericks is that they are fire and forget and can simultanously guide on different moving targets. Structures are static so i take JDAMs for them, they have better warheads, they are drop and forget and can guide simultanously on different targets too (structures won’t run away no need for moving target tracking capability). So penetrator mavericks has no true advantages over JDAMs… While HEAT ones has, but when engaging tanks you need LAU-88A because there are many tanks to kill!
MAVs are good anti tank weapon, i am not sure why they use damn penetrators. Penetrators are not a good weapons, they can be carried only on LAU-117 and the optical system (that is advantage when you attack moving targets) becomes disadvantage (because it has limited effective lock on range), JDAMs have no such limitations and seems to be better against static targets.
and nobody does it anymore.
Nobody (beside idiots and suicidiers) use MiG-21 anymore So remove MiG-21 from BMS!
MiG-19 is even worse, remove it from BMS too!!!
What about old rump ASSpect AA missiles? Remove them! Nobody uses them anymore!So many things to remove…
…So wouldn’t it be easier to uninstall enteire BMS and Falcon 4 from your computer? -
Nobody (beside idiots and suicidiers) use MiG-21 anymore So remove MiG-21 from BMS!
MiG-19 is even worse, remove it from BMS too!!!
What about old rump ASSpect AA missiles? Remove them! Nobody uses them anymore!I don’t agree with Stevie’s argument, but this isn’t what he’s saying. He’s saying that no operator of the F-16 in current times mounts them on the triple launcher mount. To that end, the MiG-21 and 19 are still fielded by some air forces, thus their inclusion.
-
HAF jets have TERs for the mavs.
HAF jets are certified to carry the LAU88 A/A. So are the F16 CG’s
On the other hand HAF uses the AGM-65G for its F16’s so you will only see LAU 117’s -
If you don’t want to use 88’s then just load a single maverick. What’s the problem?
-
If you don’t want to use 88’s then just load a single maverick. What’s the problem?
AGM-65G’s can be loaded only onto the LAU117.