[Why do HMCS alignment sometimes fail?]

A trackfile/short video might be useful.

[No BVR Fight with AMRAAMs in DCS]

1 hour ago, Night Raid said:

We are a group of DCS pilots involved in Air to Air Combat. Our expertise includes experience in real jets like Tornado and Eurofighter, as flight instructors and as weapons instructors but most of all we are experienced DCS pilots in PvP and PvE.
We don't want to participate in the endless discussion "is it real or not real". As well, we will not talk about technical data, because we don’t know or are not allowed to do so.
We want to talk about the principles and the philosophy of an AIM120 used in DCS. 
From our point of view there are two principles here, which are violated in DCS and thus give the BVR fight with AMRAAMs completely wrong fundamentals. 

First:
The Missile warns you when it's time to turn away! Whether I take a max range shot or fire the missile just before its active range, if the target flies an abort at the first warning of the active missile radar (max G turn to zero aspect angle) it will kinematically deflect the missile. This always works unless the target cannot make a high-performance abort for some reason (G’s available, speed, etc.).
This makes it unnecessary to know distances when to react against an AIM 120 shooter at the latest. You make sure you have enough energy available for a high-performance maneuver and watch your RWR. This is enough to defend 100% of any AIM 120 Shot that is not active from the rail.
This makes the fight very simple against an AIM 120. Of course, there could be situations where the target of an AIM 120 would be warned in time, but there must be situations where this is not the case. But there is none! Who would want such a weapon?

Second:
There are ways to defeat an AIM 120 in DCS very safely, without abort, outside but and also inside the kinematic no escape zone. Skilled pilots can do this with just about any missile that is not fired in dog fight range. 
An AIM 120 should have a very high Pk (probability of kill), if there are no energy problems from the side of the missile.
But it does not, on the contrary. Against an experienced DCS pilot, a 5 NM head on shot is a low Pk shot! Who would want such a weapon?

This leads to the following BVR Fight principles:
- Don't shoot long range or medium range to kill. Rarely is a target that stupid. The missile is easy to defeat.
- Do not fly too high and too fast. The advantages you have in terms of missile range do not matter. The disadvantages you have, because you can't maneuver optimally, do.
- Distances do not matter. Pay attention to your RWR. Abort when you see an M.
- There are no high pk shots outside of 4 NM.
- Learn how to use a 3D maneuver to safely defeat a missile even inside the no escape zone.

Is that what you guys want? Missiles worked better 2 years ago in terms of BVR fights principles than they do now. Forget for a moment, the notch gates and all the little bits and bites. Look at the big picture.

The AMRAAM is a medium range missile. But it doesn't make sense in DCS to use it medium range.
We would like to have an AIM 120 which makes sense to fight BVR with. 

It doesn't matter if this corresponds to your view of a realistic simulation.

If you want to have an easy way for everyone, give the Flankers and Migs a change in DCS and support the great Dog Fight Videos, then please solve this by using Jammers.

Check six
GTAG 

 

Many a times I thought of writing something on similar notes. I am glad I didn't do that. I would never have managed to explain it all the way you have done it. Hats off for that.

In a contest between mildly skilled pilots, the most widely used BVR missile has literally come down to a visual engagement choice of weapon. The BVR engagement of AMRAAM instead of starting from MELD and gradually shrinking down to MAR starts of with jugglery and non-realistic ultra low-level maneuvers to sneak through the valleys, sometimes with the 100 accurately modeled RWR notches; disregarding every potential of the missile and every fundamental of the engagement, here you are at 100 feet AGL at less than 5 NM and now firing a ton load of steel at each other to have some high Pk shots. 

The current state needs to be looked into, I believe. Where defensive maneuvering definitely needs serious skill to be executed, but while disregarding every other fundamental principle of BVR engagement, it must not ensure 100% survivability in every given circumstances.

[Stored Heading]

5 hours ago, ruddy122 said:

With the latest Open Beta update in DCS how does Stored Heading work in F-16C?

Is it faster than doing a Normal Alignment?

Thanks

Lucky

 

[VRP & VIP]

7 hours ago, sirrah said:

But, and please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not yet completely familiar with the Viper, can't one set the DED to automatically switch to next steerpoint when arriving at one, so the pilot isn't bothered by that?

Also, if INS drift makes using steerpoints for the attack phase not accurate, wouldn't VIP and VRP suffer from that same drift (as you set positions in reference to a steerpoint)

1. You can do that but the feature isn't very well optimized for the A-G attack profiles. The proximity and step up logic will cause steer points to change at occasion where you won't wish it to do that. Probably, suitable only for ML or HL navigation profiles only.
2. Yes, the initial positioning will be affected by that but then the slewing option is available for the same purpose. Acquire the point visually, slew the existing symbols to the exact location and TMS Fwd. All inherent errors of INS/GPS are now corrected for all points in concern.
 

 

7 hours ago, sirrah said:

I can only imagine VIP/VRP really being useful if a situation occurs where something happens that wasn't pre-planned. Like troops behind enemy lines spotting a high value target that needs to be taken out asap.

But in pre-planned attacks, wouldn't it just be easier to do all this with steerpoints? 

1. Like I said in my previous post, they are PRIMARILY Non-Visual Bombing Modes and caters for any scenarios in which direct visual contact isn't assured n all cases and situation may develop into any other variation. Any other utilization would be extrapolation and further uses of the tool.
2. Yes, an ideal attack will always have a target as a steer point with exact co-ordinates and elevation data and a lovely weather/outside factors to execute the planned profile.

[JHMCS roll alignment]

7 minutes ago, SeaBass80 said:

Does anybody here fly the F-18? Are the roll alignment marks in its JHMCS alignment procedure also not roll-stabilized?

I believe I misunderstood you at the first instance. Have gone through the discussion and Track file once again for more deliberate understanding. The HMCS display must stabilize in the HUD FOV during Az/El and Roll alignment modes as soon as they are mode-selected. If they are behaving in any other way (as shown in your trackfile), it's likely because of some error. 

[VRP & VIP]

38 minutes ago, SeaBass80 said:

My understanding is that the relative IP-to-target distance and bearing could be accurately determined even in the 80s from aerial reconaissance photography. The precise targeting did not come from a foolproof, super accurate on-board GPS but from semi-reliable INS guidance. If you fly low-level under terrain masking conditions, you simply cannot visually identify the target first - you identify the known IP in the approach path, fine-adjust your steerpoint, mark it by TMS-up, and the guidance computer will then tell you exactly where the actual target is. You could use a bridge in one valley as a visual IP, and based on these coordinates pop up for an attack on a warehouse in an adjacent valley. So for the VIP case I guess this is a very useful tool. It's just looks unnecessary in the DCS F-16 as here the INS/GPS guidance is always perfect, as far as I can see.

This is a good example of the feature. What most tend to forget in the discussion of the VRP/VIP is the fact that they both are primarily NON-VISUAL bombing modes in lesser accurate co-ordinate scenarios when direct visual contact with one point (RP/TGT) can't be established either because of night, IMC conditions, camouflage etc. whereas the other point (TGT/IP) has better probability to be acquired because of distinct features or has more accurate co-ordinates available.

If this is not the case and you are attacking in an ideal world of accurate co-ordinates and lovely weather, target steerpoint can also be used as a primary option. In this case the only benefit of VRP/VIP will offer is to avoid changing steer points in a time compressed environment and additional cues available in HUD/HMCS before starting the actual attack sequence for better SA. (As explained by TheBigTatanka above in his Para 3)
 

11 hours ago, TheBigTatanka said:

If you look at the Korean or Norwegian F-16 employment manual online, you will see a huge section on pop up planning and execution.

Sure, you could put a Steerpoint on a target and sort of guess how much to turn, how high to pop, when to pull down, etc.... But it would seem that as late as the early 2000s, the bread and butter of F-16 surface attack involved being able to execute these complex pop attacks from low level with dumb bombs. And it looks like mission planning those attacks was a big part of the core competencies of the community.

The VIP/VRP gives you the exact points to fly to match the exact parameters of your pre-planned attack. Maybe you do this to avoid threats, or to avoid the fragmentation from your wingman's bombs by deconflicting with time, altitude, or geography in the pop.

Think about flying at 500 feet at 500+ knots in a tactical formation and then attacking a defended target. You don't want to be reaching up to the ICP to cycle Steerpoints and checking to see if the sensors slaved to the target. VIP/VRP is a tool to have all that complex attack stuff tied to one STPT.

Now.... How much has anyone used this stuff in the last 15-20 years? I don't know. Flying in circles over the desert doing unopposed CAS with JDAM and GBU-39 probably hasn't done much for these skills related to conducting CAS in a major combat operation. Neat thing about DCS, is we can see how useful the tools are in any scenario we want.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

 

[JHMCS roll alignment]

I just saw your track file and then tried HMCS alignment on ground, then in straight and level flight and later during turn. It works fine for me, the way I believe it's supposed to do. Try doing the alignment by actually putting in a turn instead of tilting your head too much while the aircraft is still straight. You are putting a error by yourself by that head tilt.
 

[PDLT Questions]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

TLL and TLA are being updated for PDLT, FCR and TGP

thanks

That would really be great as after all Locator is inherently a part of the PDLT for it's optimum utilization. Thanks for the update!

[PDLT Questions]

This will probably answer most of your questions. Broadly, i will try to cover all in the thread up till now

1. FCR going STT through PDLT - Yes, Take FCR cursor on t and do TMS Fwd. Remember a single target can't be a PDLT and FCR Target at the same time. So as soon as you command FCR lock, PDLT will be lost.

2. AMRAAM through PDLT - No, 120C needs FCR lock.

3. Wingman to engage PDLT - Only if he targets him with his FCR
Remember, PDLT is a Link 16 function and can't be replaced with scenarios which needs FCR targeting.

4. PDLT lost case - Some extrapolation time i suppose will be there. But if situation gets prolonged (say around 10-15 seconds) PDLT will be lost. it will not ideally be reacquired once the contact come up again rather to be done manually again.

[ACES LFE 22-1 (22 Vs 18 PvP Event Powered by Fox3.MS)]

Pilot Roster - Last updated on 03-03-2022/1330Z

Blue Force

SEAD F-16 x 4

[NMS]MonoFteros

[NMS]Kingsgate

2 x GTAG

SWEEP F-15 x 2

[TaktLwG66]Brainiac

[TaktLwG66]PeeJott

SWEEP F-18 x 2

[PTF]Kula

[PTF]Wake

SWEEP F-16 x 4

[NMS]Vetis

[NMS]Aeolus

2 x GTAG

ESCORT F-18/F-16 x 4

2 x GTAG - F-16

1 x TopHatters - F-18

[PTF]Shaheen

STRIKE F-18 x 4

4 x TopHatters

STRIKE M2000C x 2

[PTF]Predator

eeValDeeVal

ATC + GCI x 2

2 x Free Slot

 

Red Force

JF-17 x 4

[PTF]Falcon

[PTF]Zeus

[PTF]Spark

[PTF]Nitto

Su-33 x 4

[100th]Breakshot

[100th]Rich

[100th]Frostie

[100th]BlackPixxel

SU-27 x 2

[51st]Roofies

[51st]Stinger

J-11 x 2

[PTF]Magnet

1 x Free Slot

Mig-29S x 2

[51st]Teknetnium

[51st]Yambo

Mig-21 x 4

[PTF]Sheikh

[PTF]Fascar

2 x Free Slot

ATC + GCI x 2

[51st]Shamansky

1 x Free Slot

[STT with single TMS UP in CRM mode]

Great. Thanks..!

[STT with single TMS UP in CRM mode]

SAM mode is exactly for what it says, situational awareness. It'll still scan for radar hits in the narrow AZ instead of only displaying the targeted aircraft as it would in STT. If you want to target multiple aircraft you need to use TWS.

 

 

To explain this a bit further:

STT focuses the radar energy solely on the target, with SAM mode it will focus the energy shortly on the target then do a sweep and focus back on the target and then repeat that, you can observe this with the radar position indicators (the blue bars, whats the actual term for these?). STT and SAM are modes within RWS.

TWS is an entirely different radar mode, as the name says it builds target tracks where it does predictive math based on the last known position, velocity and heading, but keep in mind that it will only get new updated and accurate information when the radar actually sweeps over the contact again and gets a return.

 

Thanks a lot for the deliberation.

 

So, what i understand up till now; Early release Viper is limited to target/lock and subsequently do a valid BVR launch only one contact in SAM mode instead of 4 I guess in actual. Correct me if anything wrong in this statement.

 

Goalposts; i think, the term for the blue Az bars.

[STT with single TMS UP in CRM mode]

Does your "narrow AZ" look like this? If so its not in STT, it is in SAM mode.

 

Yes. Its pretty much same.

But the cursor is unable to move and I cant target multiple contacts without that.

I guess, single TMS Up should not narrow down the Az and lock the cursor.

Is it early release limitation or some input problem at my end?

[STT with single TMS UP in CRM mode]

There are conditions at which SAM will automatically transition to STT like jamming or fade without input from the pilot. Otherwise there are conditions where the search portion of SAM are temporarily suspended which will look a lot like STT (close range, coast, RAID). You should know this temporary condition because the FCR cursors are displaced above the bug (as they always are in AUTO SAM).

 

What were the conditions of the track, was the target very close, jamming, near the vertical or horizontal limits?

 

I have tried it under various own and target conditions and at multiple ranges but the result is always same. it directly goes into STT mode as if getting a twice TMS Up command. The FCR remains in STT and with no obviously no cursor and narrow Az. Similarly a single TMS Aft rejects the target altogether as if getting a twice TMS Aft command.

[STT with single TMS UP in CRM mode]

I am encountering this problem of Radar going to STT mode with single TMS UP command. I guess it should do that with twice TMS UP only.

Anybody with similar problem or troubleshoot?

 

Thanks.

[[CORRECT AS IS] no acm radar mode with missile override]

I second that MRM does not mean ACM modes.

DGFT means ACM modes.

Beware: there is a current defect, that when having a locked target, switching to DGFT and subsequently to ACM will drop that target. That is not correct and was reported already.

 

Rightly said. Where MO may not mean compulsorily ACM mode as it is personal preference in reality and is a DTC selectable option as well.

Having said that, MO must remember its last selection of ACM (if manually selected once) and must not return to CRM every time. Presently, it is returning to CRM mode if you cycle through any other mode and back to MO.

 

ED..! Suggest to take a look into it.

Thanks.

[DED shows "TCN ON" and dobber doesn't change it]

Well today I proved it is not related to the INS alignment because I did a Stored Heading Align three times, and I had a glitched TACAN the first time but not the other two times. I do have a track file and the TACAN glitch happens in the first few minutes. It's a huge file though, is there a way to cut it down and post it here?

 

TCN has nothing to do specifically with the INS alignment procedure.

Check your key bindings for the C&I knob. TCN ON will be written if your C&I knob is moving to BACK UP position (it should be at UFC position) due multiple key bindings or inadvertent selection.

Hope that will solve your problem.

[Wingman and Datalink]

any idea what will be possible once the DL-DED page is working properly? For example on the flight management DL page there are 8 entries that can be set. For me that sounds like you can have up to 7 planes plus yourself beeing blue on the Datalink. But the manual also says, that "2, 3, or 4" appear over a target symbol when one of you wingmen is locking a target...as if more than 4 planes in a flight is not possible. I know that not more than 4 elements can be in one group in ME, but i hope that once the DL-DED page is functional there is no group limitation anymore...

 

TLDR: will it be possible to have up to 8 Vipers in an advanced DL-Network (blue contacts on HSD with numbers from 1 to 8 and lock lines)?

 

May be wrong but as per my knowledge, In Viper, 1-4 are flight members and you can see all the info from them. 5-8 are team members where you can just see limited info of locked target , but no lock or shot lines. Next are donors, you can only see their own position. No targeting info from donors. All this is to avoid unnecessary clutter on your HSD.

[HOBO switch]

If you have knowledge of how it is working in real F-16 report that as a bug in the bugs section. Viper is still in early access so a work in progress.

 

I am 100% positive it goes to ACM mode in both dogfight and MO modes.

Oh thanks. Will surely report this in that section.

[HOBO switch]

No HOBO that I see. HOTAS CZ is a feature of some F-16, not sure about this one. So far CZ isn't even possible through the OSB yet.

 

 

MO initialize to CRM is typical but in reality it's a DTC option to whatever you want. You should be able to MO, set any FCR config you want then it will be that way next entry.

 

Just checked. It reverts back to CRM at 10 scale despite last selection of ACM. I guess have to live with it like that.

[HOBO switch]

No HOBO that I see. HOTAS CZ is a feature of some F-16, not sure about this one. So far CZ isn't even possible through the OSB yet.

 

 

MO initialize to CRM is typical but in reality it's a DTC option to whatever you want. You should be able to MO, set any FCR config you want then it will be that way next entry.

 

Thanks. Will give it a try because I remember it reverts back to CRM despite last selection of ACM.

but will confirm after checking.

[HOBO switch]

Hi. I am new to DCS. Would appreciate if somebody can guide me on following aspects of F-16 C module.

 

Firstly, Is HOBO (Hands on black out) provision available?

 

Secondly, Is cursor zeroize HOTAS feature available to take out any slews of the TGP or FCR?

 

Lastly, is Missile Override always defaults to CRM mode instead of ACM or am I doing something wrong? It goes to ACM with dogfight selection, but reverts to CRM with selection of missile override.

 

Thanks!