I have used the mav and yes it struggles with low speed launches. But no way is it so weak that it plops down at anything less than 4km even with a super low speed launch.
Try with harrier?
I can later, but am not at home rn
1 Like
Tag me when u do!
Hovering harrier.
580m altitude
65D
5.40km range
1 Like
It’s a bit difficult to use Mavericks when you’re completely stationary as they tend to dip before they loft. launching them at an angle usually fixes this issue. Even then, I find that they struggle to even stay in the air.
Maybe I’m using it wrong, but this is how I did it
Looking at the first shot closely, the reason why it fell that short is because it lost LOS when it dipped
damn… average (sucessfull )engagement distance would appear to be… 1 km.
@Alpharius11348
u were right.
but not exactly.
the mavericks are messed up. the FM seems to be wrong. as well as the guidance logic. they tilt downwards too much and dont retain enough speed at all.
yeah they should go much further than they do in game
there is an accepted bug report on their time to target but its been sitting a while so dont expect a fix anytime soon
im gonna hop on now and test low alt range against a moving target
3 Likes
launched from 150m Ralt on a consistently slow moving target at 3.4km slant range barely hit
launched from 75m Ralt on a consistently slow moving target at 3.3km slant range, was around 300m short
both launched from hover with a slight manual loft
1 Like
If I’m reading that correctly, the range for a maverick missile launched at 0 knots airspeed and sea level altitude should be a max of ~11km?
That should be proof enough to change the missile’s performance pretty drastically. Wonder if it just has the drag profile of a fridge in game.
I think so. There was a bug report made on it a half a year ago.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/RUUZn9rqeGYA
Probably one of the main reasons why they aren’t fixing it is because the planes that have them will need to be looked at for balancing.
But hey if there was a document saying that the drag is much worse, I wouldn’t be surprised if gaijin implements it the next day.
1 Like
Yeah in this case it is obvious mavs have been hard locked to subsonic speeds by gaijin (ahistorically and inaccurately).
1 Like
I think part of the reason too why it hasn’t been actioned on is that it is only 1 datapoint I could find. The document I found for this report was the only publically available one that included a time to target figure, but sadly only for one test. So it’s not exactly easy to tune the missile to reality just based on that.
There’s entire graphs however for time to target in the AV-8B tacman, but although unclassified it is export restricted so I can’t use it. But it too shows in-game performance is a bit too low as well. I did some random launches to compare, and interestingly enough one lined up really almost perfectly with the graphs, but 3 others didn’t. Seems that the longer the range, or rather the more the maverick is forced fly at low altitude (higher drag environments) the more it deviates from its real performance. However TOF differences aren’t that drastic according to the graphs, however impact velocity is significantly underperforming.
I think it’s actually the lofting that is probably incorrectly modelled. It instead of staying at high altittude, it drops to lower altitudes too much, lowering it’s speed but also lowering the flight range to be more direct, which in turn decreases its TOF. Instead it should probably maintain altitude more, taking a longer path, but keeping speed, so that TOF is roughly maintained, but slightly faster still, whilst the missile has more energy left for more range/maneuvering targets. Drag I think is just overal a bit too high as well probably, judging from the real life test in the bug report.
Tests results compared to graphs:
Spoiler
Pretty rough graph reading, so the figures compared to real life (in orange) aren’t exact. Tacman has graphs for M0.7 and M0.9, so launch speeds above that should actually result into a more favorable outcome.
-
AGM-65G no.1
– v_launch = 849 kph (M0.72)
– altitidue = 2559 m
– range = 14.4 km
– tof = 60 s (+9%, +5s)
– v_impact = M0.48 (-23% at least) -
AGM-65G no.2
– v_launch = 1079 kph (M0.91)
– altitidue = 2475m
– range = 11 km
– tof = 36 s (pretty much spot on)
– v_impact = M0.7 (pretty much spot on) -
AGM-65G no.3
– v_launch = 865 kph (M0.76)
– altitidue = 5601 m
– range = 22.3 km
– tof = 94 s (+7%, +6s)
– v_impact = M0.49 (-21% at least) -
AGM-65G no.4
– v_launch = 1082 kph (M0.91)
– altitidue = 2673 m
– range = 16.8 km
– tof = 72.4 s (+11%, +7s)
– v_impact = M0.45 (-27% at least)
– note: I actually launched this one for 20km, but it didn’t reach the target, according to the graph it should have around 19km range here.
that seems to be in line with how they messed up hellfire flight path, in that they input motor stats and decided on drag but either motor was too weak or there was too much drag. But instead of addressing that they just flattened flight profile until time to target was roughly correct.
1 Like