according to that document.GBU-49/50 use MAU-210E/B,
and
“The field of
view and field of regard are the same value for the EP2. The (FOV) is 36° (with a +10, -4 degree tolerance)
relative to the velocity vector”
“In-Range guidance restricts the usage of laser guidance until the weapon is within the expected laser acquisition
range (16,000 feet slant-range) of the GPS target coordinate.”
Actually, the only diagram I ever seen about relationship between designator distance and laser acquisition range is in AV-8B tactical manual about AGM-65E and MULE
Hm the 16k feet figure is the same as I’ve seen for the regular Paveway II (in F-16C manual), so likely the seeker hasn’t been changed (much). 16k ft (4876m) is also actually impossible in game, so at least that confirms it as well. What document is this, is it public?
Also the brochure from Raytheon (I think from 2008 or something, also linked above by tripod) mentions MAU-169 for EGBU, but maybe MAU-210 is the actual correct name since MAU-169 doesn’t contain a GPS module unless that for some reason had the same name too).
I supppose a lot of this information is purposely obfuscated due to classification. But if we can just assume 16k ft nominal acquisition range, which is enough for the 8-10s recommended guiding time + the 2-3s control activation delay assuming ~300 m/s or even mach 1 speed for the bomb and a LTD-tgt slant range of usual 7-10km judged from real life footage (probably higher in actual SPAA/SAM contested areas) means that in-game performance is about underperforming by a factor of 2-3x, which can be explained by lower than normal reflection values, higher than average humidity and some other minor factors assumed by the example used by the NATO paper, and thus the devs.
@Gunjob would it be possible to pass this report (listed in main post) to the devs as suggestion for consideration/rework perhaps?
From EPII manual leaked from Saudi Arabian Airforce, Can’t be use to create any issue apparently.
Its useless insisting on probing this issue, laser designation is a very complex problem, related to laser energy, angle, visibility, reflectivity and a host of other factors, gaijin has no incentive or ability to solve this problem.
The AGM-65E is capable of acquiring laser at 7nm while designator is 8nm away in certain condition,and in game the maximum range is 5nm.
The Paveway IIs got wrong FOV and the the maxium laser acquisition range is 4000ft less than nominal laser acquisition range in manual
Just like manpad thing,they have their own theory,they nerf PAVEWAYIIs to shit,and they don’t care what we think.
Well my report doesn’t necessarily want that, since WT seems to already just copy the NATO graph I found, or it’s at least eerily similar, likely not a coincidence. It’s already a huge simplification in that as a host of variables are kept constant this way, but given that was their choice I at least suggest increasing detection ranges by argueing that reflectivity values are too low. Don’t care really as long as the numbers in general go up, since they make up the numbers mostly anyway. Paveway IIs in the past had 7km seeker range, likely being more correct to real life performance than now, not sure if back then they also had the laser range drop-off mechanic in place, or if that happened only after the nerf. Right now Paveways are essentially just useless when used from 10-12km away or more, they don’t have enough time to maneuver unless the drop was already perfect.
I sure hope that isn’t the case, but you’re probably right. Hence why I would really like if it was possible to request reasoning/sources from the developers why things are as they are. Manpads issues got so blown up that they did show us why current implementation is what it is, though I don’t think we will ever get such a post for laser mechanics.
The difference in designation (should be MAU-169x/B & -209x/B, or WGU-53/B) denotes which supplier (Raytheon, or Lockheed) built the CCG in question, they are otherwise similar, though depending on the configuration, the designation of the AUR will change. Many of the subvariants only differ in what types and standard PRFs (Designator Codes) they can demodulate e.g. US, NATO, Export etc. and combinations thereof, and thus to which clients they can be released to.
As per This source the EGBU series uses the MAU-169K/B CCG, the use of the MAU-209/B would make it a DMLGB (WGU-53/B or MAU-209D/B a Paveway Plus series) and thus a GBU-12F, not a GBU-49(V)x/B ( 500lb class E-GBU )
Yeah that’s great. Though do you know where they got the value for the GBU-24 / Paveway III series? It’s like 6km now, but what I found would be potentially more: Community Bug Reporting System
Also LJDAM is likely incorrect too. GBU-54 manual mentions optimal acquisition range of 4km (or 4.5km maybe) at up to 5nm slant-range designation range from 20k ft altitude. With 4.8km max acquisition range you can’t achieve that in-game, because laser energy will drop off when designating from any futher, probably resulting in around 2km acquisition range from 5nm. But I can’t use the manual either probably for reporting probably.
Note too that GBU-24/GBU-54 should actually limit their ability for early laser acquisition based on the time-to-go for LJDAM, up to 4.5km to the GPS coordinate (same for DMLGBU, like Paveway IV) and for Paveway III it depends on their chosen flight trajectory. But since this isn’t modelled, they should get their “unlimited” (not as in infinite, but rather not program limited) laser acquisition range instead.
Also lmfao during testing GBU-24 on the dev I realised they took away the IOG guidance from it. MFW the LLLGB can not do low level bombing anymore.
Granted the old implementation was incorrect too, but it was more correct than now, especially since they dont even have the scanning seeker modelled. I guess you win some, you lose some with Gaijin.
At least they make Paveway I/IIs playable.
Maybe,they would add GPS guidance to GBU-24 to fix it.
That is Gaijin. At least they are doing something positive,unlike that RWR mess.
Considering we already have the EGBU-24, with GPS guidance, I doubt they will give GPS guidance to the base Paveway III. I made a report for the base model, but I have little hope in it getting fixed to historical levels (they would need to model several trajectories and add a scanning laser seeker, which is completely new, to the game just for this bomb). Then again adding scanning seekers could be expanded to a whole lot other seekers in-game that should do it.
I hope they at least consider adding back the old IOG with the higher drift value, because with the increased laser seeker range it’s actually somewhat useful now. Before when it only had a 3.6km range, I would’ve preferred to have no IOG with heavy drift, but that’s different now.
That report technically says nothing about the Paveway III other than the lower limit (being not worse than Paveway II). I contacted the guy who reported that to ask about it some time ago too, he said he didn’t know either, so tge value probably isn’t in those sources.
Probably another case of Gaijin making something up. I wonder too for instance where the laser seeker range for the Russian bombs came from, because they also didn’t use the Paveway stats but rather got a slight better one, similarly now a lot got buffed to 5km from 4km.
Anyway, the only numbers i could find on the LLLGB / Paveway III was a 250-300% sensitivity/acquisition range increases over the Paveway II seeker. I’ve reported it but i feel Gaijin wouldn’t want to change it to something that high anyway.
I think I got where they got this number from now. I was plotting some of the datapoints I gathered from past tests to see the in-game laser drop off mechanic. Here in case you are interested:
Spoiler
Long story short, I tried estimating the maximal real life acquisition range of the LJDAM based on the LJDAM manual, and I got roughly 6150m in my estimated model. Since my model isn’t perfect, but close, I think with the real in-game model it would probably end up being that very same 6132.25m Gaijin now is using for the Paveway III. Though, this all might just be one huge coincidence but I don’t believe that. Now idk how this exactly meant that the LJDAM got the same seeker performance as the Paveway II and the Paveway III that of the LJDAM (Paveway III itself should be even better from what I could find).
From manuals we know that LJDAM/EPII start processing the laser energy at 4.5 km range because software limit.and 16,000ft is the “nominal” laser acquisition range, not max range.
the “maximum” acquisition range of EP2/LJDAM is perhaps 6km as you calculated.Gaijin double counted the distance effect
One with similar problem is maverick.in some conditions the laser maverick is capable of acquire laser at 7nm onboard the designator plane.but the “nominal” range is 8 or 9km.
It’s probably due to the fact that they use a Blended GPS / INS profile, since penetration is proportional to terminal velocity so the store will attempt to retain energy for as long as possible to ensure that the target is sufficiently damaged should it be armored. And so even if it does pick up the designator’s signal at an extended range, it won’t snap to the Laser spot but smoothly adjust once it reaches the terminal stage of flight and so is more likely to have excess energy to spare.
I only technically know that it should be around 6km in-game for LJDAM to meet the criteria listed in the manual (at least 4km against moving targets, achievable from up to 5nm designation range). This gives me a “max range” of around 6km using in-game logic, meaning where the LTD-TGT/LGW-TGT ratio is 1.
AFAIK nothing like that is listed in the EPII manual so I can’t say that it should be the same for Paveway II’s seeker. Considering LJDAM is much more modern than the Paveway II, it is possible that the Paveway II seeker is slightly worse. But again, no way to know without a mention of designation range (and technically preferably other stats such as reflectivity and tgt-seeker angle, but WT doesn’t model that from what I gathered from testing).
In-game values are also not technically maximum values. With the current 16k ft figure in-game, I was able to achieve a 7.9km laser acquisition when designating from 1.7km myself, which is pretty useless to know until buddy lasing becomes a thing. Reflectivity isn’t modelled either, everything is the same and probably based on 10% reflectivity (olive drab paint).
Updated curve from in-game testing, I decided to name the in-game “max ranges” stat the “nominal acquisition ranges”, but that may be a misnomer too:
Spoiler
Note that the curve diverges from in-game data for LTD-TGT/LGW-TGT ratios exceeding ~5.
In-game data? The curve in my previous comment is universal for any laser guided weapon and laser designator combo in this game, with it you can estimate roughly the acquisition range of a laser guided weapon for all the designation ranges you might be interested in, given you know the nominal acquisition range stat (either through datamines or the missile spreadsheet) you can translate the numbers back into meters, or whatever your preferred range measurement is.
