scott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ (Scott Silvey) (07/17/90)
From: scott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ (Scott Silvey) What is this missile, what are it's capabilities, what are it's intended targets, and how old is it? Which of the services uses it and how common is it? I've heard of the Maverick (AGM-65), but I know nothing about this one. Also, about the Maverick, does anyone know how accurate the "smart" ones are (the ones that track IR emissions)? Can they hit a tank moving at 40+ knots? I assume they won't track on a tank that is parked with it's engine off and cool, is this correct? If so, how does the pilot know whether or not the missile will lock on and hit a potential target he is aiming at? For the "TV" guided versions, how does this system work and how involved is the pilot in the guidance procedure? For the laser designated versions, how does the pilot keep a target designated? I guess there are a number of laser-designator systems around, so I'm asking about how this is generally done. Does the pilot have to guide the laser beam by hand using some sort of joystick or does a computer manage to keep the spot tracking the target despite aircraft movement? Thanks, Scott
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) (07/18/90)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) In article <1990Jul17.031957.22887@cbnews.att.com> scott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ (Scott Silvey) writes: >What is this missile, what are it's capabilities, what are it's > intended targets, and how old is it? > Which of the services uses it and how common is it? Others, no doubt, can give a more complete description, but here is what I have heard ... It is apparently a glide bomb with a 2000lb warhead. The program was funded by the Air Force. It was intended to to be used against hardened targets. Possibly it could be used against ships. Another net poster said the weapon program is about 5 year old. Seeker was either TV (with a data link) or imaging IR. World Naval Weapon Systems mentions it in passing as a "cancelled program", so maybe it is not deployed at all. Probably, it will be succeeded by the Modular Stand Off Weapon (MSOW) or Advanced Interdiction Weapon System (AIWS), both of which are under development. Here are some more questions for you ordnance gurus out in netland: Since it's a glide bomb, it does not give much standoff capability. Was there any option to power the thing like the Skipper? Was the warhead just a Mk84 bomb? Or was the warhead some special penetrating design? Another stand off weapon (the Condor) was cancelled partly due to the high cost of making the data link jam resistant. Was the AGM-130 data link (for the TV seeker) supposed to be jam resistant? -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696
ted@cs.utexas.edu (Ted Woodward) (07/24/90)
From: ted@cs.utexas.edu (Ted Woodward) In article <1990Jul18.040616.13646@cbnews.att.com> tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) writes: > >In article <1990Jul17.031957.22887@cbnews.att.com> scott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ (Scott Silvey) writes: >>What is this missile, what are it's capabilities, what are it's >> intended targets, and how old is it? >> Which of the services uses it and how common is it? > >Others, no doubt, can give a more complete description, but here is >what I have heard ... I'll try. I've got a copy of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, 1985-86 here, and here's what it says about the AGM 130: (Reprinted without permission) Rockwell has received a contract to develop and test a rocket powered version of the GBU-15, designated AGM-130, which is intended to give USAF tactical combat aircraft improved standoff capability. Two versions are proposed: AGM-130A. With Mk 84 bomb as standard unitary warhead. AGM-130B. With multiple warhead, carrying BLY-97 combined effects bomblets or BLU-106 BKEP runway cratering submunitions in an SUU-54 or alternative dispenser. One or two solid propellant rockets, mounted under the missile, boost it to near Mach 1 speed, giving a maximum range of about 13nm (24 km; 15 miles) after release at low altitude. The FY 1986 Department of Defense budget proposals include a request for 97 AGM-130s. (end quote) The GBU-15 is a glide bomb, with either a Mk 84 for its warhead, cluster munitions, or other warheads. Guidance is either TV or imaging infrared (IIR). >Here are some more questions for you ordnance gurus out in netland: Well, I'm not an ordinance guru, but here goes... >Since it's a glide bomb, it does not give much standoff capability. >Was there any option to power the thing like the Skipper? According to Jane's, it's a powered GBU-15. >Was the warhead just a Mk84 bomb? >Or was the warhead some special penetrating design? A version is a Mk 84, B version isn't. >Another stand off weapon (the Condor) was cancelled partly due to the >high cost of making the data link jam resistant. Was the AGM-130 data >link (for the TV seeker) supposed to be jam resistant? I have no idea. -- Ted Woodward (ted@cs.utexas.edu) Greetings, Royal Ugly Dudes!
cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (07/24/90)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) >From article <1990Jul17.031957.22887@cbnews.att.com>, by scott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ (Scott Silvey): > > For the laser designated versions, how does the pilot keep a target > designated? I guess there are a number of laser-designator systems > around, so I'm asking about how this is generally done. Does the > pilot have to guide the laser beam by hand using some sort of > joystick or does a computer manage to keep the spot tracking the > target despite aircraft movement? > >From _Air War Vietnam_ by Drew Middleton: "A new family of "smart bombs" had been introduced in Southeast Asia since the bombing halt of 1968. These weapons consisted of Electro- Optical Guided Bombs (EOGBs) and Laser Guided Bombs (LGBs) in the 2,000 pound and 3,000 pound class. The EOGB was a contrast weapon, similar in concept to the Walleye first used in 1967 by the Navy. The EOGB, however, was a 2000 pound bomb with a small TV camera attached to the nose which transmitted a picture of what it was viewing to a scope in the attack aircraft. The pilot would point the aircraft at the target area thereby allowing the WSO in the rear cockpit of the F-4 to find the target on the scope, refine the contrast aiming point and designate the target to the weapon. Once this was accomplished, the pilot would release the bomb and quickly depart the target area, leaving the EOGB to guide itself toward the designated aim point. Target weather and cloud cover was a factor when delivering EOGBs, but if the weapon could see the target when it was released from the aircraft it would usually impact the aim point. "The LGB was somewhat different. A laser sensor was mated to the nose of a 2,000 or a 3,000 pound bomb which enabled it to guide itself toward a target illuminated with low power laser energy. The problem of illuminating the target with this laser energy was solved by attaching a pod beneath the fighter aircraft. This pod contained an optical viewing system and laser emitting capability, both operated by the WSO in the backseat of the fighter. With this system, the pilot could point his aircraft toward the target while his WSO optically located the precise target aim point and illuminated it with his laser equipment. The pilot would then release his bombs and depart the target leaving the LGB to guide itself to the target. An advantage of this system was that more than one aircraft at a time could drop LGBs on the same target, with all weapons using the same illumination point to guide on. Both the EOGB and the LGB resulted in less aircrew exposure and greater accuracy than conventional weapons. A disadvantage was that the target had to be continuously illuminated by the laser for the LGB to be effective. If clouds obstructed the view of the illuminating pod the LGB would become an unguided bomb and probably miss the target." Anyway, that's how they were used in North Viet Nam to drop the Dragon and other bridges. I think current hardware works about the same way.
root@uunet.UU.NET (Superuser) (07/24/90)
From: edat!root@uunet.UU.NET (Superuser) In article <1990Jul17.031957.22887@cbnews.att.com> scott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ (Scott Silvey) writes: > > >From: scott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ (Scott Silvey) > >Also, about the Maverick, does anyone know how accurate the "smart" > ones are (the ones that track IR emissions)? They're pretty good, depending on the target. > Can they hit a tank moving at 40+ knots? Yes, it probably could, especially at night with IR, or daytime across a desert with the camera. > I assume they won't track on a tank that is parked with it's engine > off and cool, is this correct? The camera could in a middle of a field in daytime could. In the bushes, probably not. At night the IR might pick it up in the bushes, depending on how long hes been cool, and the surrounding temperatures. In winter time you stand a good chance, a heater might be enough. The camera and IR work off of contrast. That is the target versus its surroundings. Therefore there are no absolutes as to when it will or when it won't. In the afternoon, shadows get long and a camera version could mistake the shadow for the target and bury it nose next to it. If a tank is rear vented exhaust and you approach head, you may never see the target to even lock on. That's why pilots need so much training. > If so, how does the pilot know whether or not the missile will lock on > and hit a potential target he is aiming at? >For the "TV" guided versions, how does this system work and how > involved is the pilot in the guidance procedure? Depends on what your flying. Different airplanes have different target acquisition systems. Generally speaking, they all provide an image (camera, IR, I hear even Radar now) to pilot and cross hairs. The Pilot triggers, holds, then has a fine tuner to put the target in the box. Triggers the fine, releases the trigger, and lock is iniitiated. His HUD gives him a count down, and at optimum firing point, he pickles and missle a way. I understand 16Cs have software to compute optimum and will automaticaly fire. This has caused more than one pilot a bit of swearing, but it does work. > >For the laser designated versions, how does the pilot keep a target > designated? I guess there are a number of laser-designator systems > around, so I'm asking about how this is generally done. Does the > pilot have to guide the laser beam by hand using some sort of > joystick or does a computer manage to keep the spot tracking the > target despite aircraft movement? Mavericks are fire and forget. I think about all that is necessary is he keep the belly of the plane towards the target, but I may be wrong. Some systems require that, others have top and bottom mounted designators that can handle inverted flight, others the missle itself has everything it needs to do the designation. Just remember, everything depends on what the mission, and conditions hence its all shades of gray. "I speak only for myself and for as long as I can, regardless of what Florida politicians and legislators think" Brian Douglass Electronic Data Technologies 1085 Palms Airport Drive Las Vegas, NV 89119-3715 Voice: 702-361-1510 X311 FAX #: 702-361-2545 uunet!edat!brian