AGM-65G

[Vitormouraa]

So we will ONLY have the E & F versions??? And that's it? Can we successfully use the IR F Mav against ground targets and not just ships? We gotta have a MAV that WE can launch against ground targets without the aid of a FAC..please tell me all this rant about historical correctness did not just remove a weapon for ground based targets or targets of opportunity using the Force Correlate

 

Where did you get that from?

 

F is essentially a D missile with the warhead and propulsion of the E, same seeker as the D, optimized for sea strike roles, it aims at the waterline of the ship as Chicken said before.

 

G is a penetrator version (670 lbs), optimized to track bigger targets using the force correlate, which the D does not have this feature. Only K and H models had, and they are CCD Mavs.

[Alphamale]

The AGM-65F can still be used on ground targets. IIRC it just also has a ship attack mode.

 

And can I choose a random target with it...not just vehicles?

[Vitormouraa]

Theoretically, the F (and all infrared Mavs) should be able to track ANYTHING (provided the targets are small enough), as long as you have a difference in contrast. But in DCS the Mavs lock onto objects, instead of contrast.

[Alphamale]

Where did you get that from?

 

F is essentially a D missile with the warhead and propulsion of the E, same seeker as the D, optimized for sea strike roles, it aims at the waterline of the ship as Chicken said before.

 

G is a penetrator version (670 lbs), optimized to track bigger targets using the force correlate, which the D does not have this feature. Only K and H models had, and they are CCD Mavs.

 

My question was NOT about how it performs against ships ..it was specifically how can I deploy it without "on the ground/air" guidance..."optimized for sea strikes" does not really imbue me with confidence that it can be a go to A2G weapon for independent strikes against targets of opportunity on LAND

[QuiGon]

My question was NOT about how it performs against ships ..it was specifically how can I deploy it without "on the ground/air" guidance..."optimized for sea strikes" does not really imbue me with confidence that it can be a go to A2G weapon for independent strikes against targets of opportunity on LAND

It retains the the capabilities of the D-variant against land targets with additional optimization for sea targets.

[ChickenSim]

The weapon locks onto the image contrast of a heat source, like how any other IIR Maverick works.

 

Don't shoot the messenger just because you've grown accustomed to using Force Correlate as an unrealistic crutch. I didn't code Mavericks to treat Force Correlate like an easy button.

[Alphamale]

It retains the the capabilities of the D-variant against land targets with additional optimization for sea targets.

 

Does that specifically mean that it can also lock onto targets of opportunity like small buildings as Wags demonstrated with Force Correlate? If so, fine... otherwise, not finding ANY evidence that the G variant was ever used by the USN, is not equivalent to saying that it was NEVER used and therefore must be dropped from the arsenal

[Alphamale]

The weapon locks onto the image contrast of a heat source, like how any other IIR Maverick works.

 

Don't shoot the messenger just because you've grown accustomed to using Force Correlate as an unrealistic crutch. I didn't code Mavericks to treat Force Correlate like an easy button.

 

How did you stray here...I haven't even used the FC yet (not even sure if it's working)...but if there's a mission that calls for me to put a MAV through a window in building, I'd like to be able to go to the F variant knowing that this missile can do it, not just lock onto tanks....

[ChickenSim]

I'm sorry to report that that's not how Force Correlate is supposed to work. That's the easy button I'm describing. It's improperly modeled to be far too capable and should probably be the real target for your ire, not its absence.

[Alphamale]

I'm sorry to report that that's not how Force Correlate is supposed to work. That's the easy button I'm describing. It's improperly modeled to be far too capable and should probably be the real target for your ire, not its absence.

 

You're being defensive and overly critical of my posts...why? Because I don't agree with your sense of realism? If you don't like what I feel is real for me, don't come off as the movie critic

[Vitormouraa]

Please, if you don't have anything to add to the discussion about "why the G was on the Hornet" (which was the original topic of this thread), don't post unrelated and unnecessary questions. We've answered your questions already, yes the F can lock them up.

 

If you're not satisfied with the answers provided in this thread, create your own and let's not pollute this thread with more unrelated questions.

[Deano87]

You're being defensive and overly critical of my posts...why? Because I don't agree with your sense of realism? If you don't like what I feel is real for me, don't come off as the movie critic

 

The point is this : the loss of force correlate isn't as big of a deal as your'e making out. It doesn't work anywhere near as well IRL as modelled in DCS currently (for the A-10C etc) and people (at least Hog pilots asked) rarely if ever use it. Also if you want to place a Maverick onto a specific spot you have the E which will go exactly where your pointing the laser.

[Eldur]

Reopened with new info from the latest Mini-Update:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3704424&postcount=93

 

I was looking so forward to FC...

 

Just wondering what happened here:

 

ED cant share their documents for a number of reasons, I was told that they have access to documents showing the G available though.

 

But I guess they have good reasons. And after all with that in mind:

 

The point is this : the loss of force correlate isn't as big of a deal as your'e making out. It doesn't work anywhere near as well IRL as modelled in DCS currently (for the A-10C etc) and people (at least Hog pilots asked) rarely if ever use it. Also if you want to place a Maverick onto a specific spot you have the E which will go exactly where your pointing the laser.

 

... this won't be a big issue at all

 

Just having very bad memories and nightmares of the A-10C-borne AGM-65D&G not being able to lock up a Strela, Shilka, Tor and other units at more than 1.3ish nm which made me switch over to FC to max out range (even above the ~6.5nm usual range). Just need a laser... so let's wait for the A-Tee-Flir and all is good.

[Nero.ger]

well maybe IF ed fixes the issue with your maverick locking the lamppost instead of the BIG TANK next to it.

its a gamble sometimes what the missle will lock, the objects you see or something so small that its not even a pixel wide.

 

also some of the bigger objects get locked in wired places, like commande centers get locked at the antenna instead of the ground bunker

[ChickenSim]

Put simply I don't think anyone here can tell you how ED intends to model the F or whether some quirk of how DCS targeting works will allow you to designate a non-vehicle target or not.

 

Modeled properly, the F should be able to be slewed to a target designation or a target of opportunity and manually locked onto the target position based on its IR significance. How the missile calculates whether an IR signature is significant enough for a good lock or how ED intends to model what constitutes a bad lock is up in the air.

[Kev2go]

Well im pleased ED is honest and in addition to to the fact they are so committed to authentic load-outs

[Fonz_408]

All I care about is that the F can talk to the POD.. and im really really looking forward to the Ground POD

[The_Pharoah]

The E/F should be sufficient for what we need with the Hornet. What we do need though is proper SEAD weapons like the HARM or something.

[kaoqumba]

F/A18C is only equipped with AGM65E/F. The ED team corrected this in time to make bumblebees more authentic!

Edited November 29, 2018 by kaoqumba

[VFA41_Lion]

why would you ever need to put a Maverick through a window in DCS? Its not like we're playing in the Frostbyte engine here.

[backspace340]

I'm all for reality, but to be honest I'd rather you'd waited until we have the HARM or some of the longer range stand off weapons before you got them to remove the G. Losing force correlate has basically halved the useful range of the self-guided Mavs and will make the Hornet a lot less useful when long range SAMs are around.

[Alphamale]

why would you ever need to put a Maverick through a window in DCS? Its not like we're playing in the Frostbyte engine here.

 

Well, it's probably being used to describe a degree of accuracy but I was just quoting Wags in his video of the introduced MAV...maybe you could ask him

 

https://youtu.be/xHyUR9n7PSI

[Alphamale]

I'm all for reality, but to be honest I'd rather you'd waited until we have the HARM or some of the longer range stand off weapons before you got them to remove the G. Losing force correlate has basically halved the useful range of the self-guided Mavs and will make the Hornet a lot less useful when long range SAMs are around.

 

Yes, and while some say that the lasing option (using 65E) can be as accurate as the G with the F/C, they are overlooking that you cannot take out four targets without having to wait until impact of the first target before you lock up the second..In other words, you can't take out small groups of tanks with just one pass, even if you were using the ATFLIR...you need F&F missiles...I'm not even talking about F/C usage either

[kaoqumba]

Congrats ED for taking a step back.

 

That's the kind of attitude I like to see. Coherence. Keeping things like this as realistic as possible!

 

I agree with you very much.

[ChickenSim]

Yes, and while some say that the lasing option (using 65E) can be as accurate as the G with the F/C, they are overlooking that you cannot take out four targets without having to wait until impact of the first target before you lock up the second..In other words, you can't take out small groups of tanks with just one pass, even if you were using the ATFLIR...you need F&F missiles...I'm not even talking about F/C usage either

Taking out four targets in a single pass with fire and forget missiles is, unfortunately, another thing the aircraft shouldn't really be capable of doing. This is an arcade trick shot that's only viable in DCS due to its current system of locking onto objects/entities rather than an image, and Force Correlate locking onto ground coordinates instead of using image/scene expansion.

 

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it, because it's perfectly viable in the sim right now, but expecting that capability as a necessary feature is going to leave you disappointed down the road when the IR environment is redone, Force Correlate inaccuracies are modeled, and the damage model is improved.

 

In this hypothetical future, even with Gs your reliable locking ranges are going to be cut down and half your weapons are going to be missing their targets if F/C is used. You're going to want to withhold your shot as long as possible (as long as the threat will allow you) in order to ensure the highest likelihood of hitting and subsequently damaging your target.

 

I'm not trying to be a dick or a gatekeeper of realism or anything. I'm just trying to help manage expectations if you do lose the ability to slick off four missiles in one pass for one reason or another. Anything after 1 is already a bonus.