ASAP

There aren't any tricks for this because the HUD is just not intended for this kind of target. For something this size and incapable of maneuvering you should just get behind it and use the AMIL to blast it. There's no reason you can't easily be within the 0-1 aspect for an AMIL shot. It's such a big target that it should be fairly simple to shoot it while it's max performing it's turn at 1.3 Gs and 25 degrees of bank. Also, the funnel is meant for a shot from 1-6 AA. In this screenshot here you're more like a 8-8 aspect aspect and you should actually be using the MRGS. Additionally, unless you are flying around over their home base it's unlikely to every see a bomber like that at your altitude in an A-10. The funnel is meant specifically for fighter or helo type aircraft.

Of all the systems on the jet this one has the lowest fidelity of how it's actually modeled. None of the CMSP or CMSC is actually accurately simulated, and there are a ton of differences between the real system and the way it's modeled in DCS.

The ACES II seat is also in the A-10 which has the same sheep skin seat. When you are sitting in a single seat fighter for 8+ hours during a combat sortie it really starts to matter what you are sitting on. I've also heard one of the reasons is because if they had a big cushy foam pad, the foam would compress during the ejection and you'd effectively be getting hit from below by the seat which could cause injuries.

From what I've observed in the actual sim the trim is realistic in DCS

Asymmetric thrust would cause a big yaw moment and result in an uncoordinated jet which is slipping or skidding. that will also create a smaller a rolling moment, but doesn't sound like what the OP is describing. Based on what the OP is describing, it sounds to me like it's not an A-10 related issue. It sounds a lot more like some kind of a control setup issue with run away trim. There is no aerodynamic reason that the A-10 would go from rolling strongly to the right, and then switch to a strong left hand roll and then reverse back to right. Having spent a lot of time in the A-10 sim the jet requires very little (if any) roll trim. A few clicks after takeoff to compensate for weapons loadout, and after that you never really need to touch it again. You have to trim elevator with any speed changes or as you burn down gas, but you trim the other axis very seldom.

That's either a random failure or a bug, definitely not an ops limit of the aircraft.

When you say the HUD wigged out, did you lose the flight path marker and all you had was the altitude airspeed and pitch ladders?

EGI going nuts probably is it switching over to HARS mode, which is what I'd expect if the EGI dies. Either its a random failure or maybe you have a key bound to the EGI switch that cycled?

The wing tanks should feed equally from both sides unless you have an issue and the pilot isn't monitoring it or correcting it. Even then, the wing tanks are very close to the center line of the aircraft so there isn't a lot of asymmetry in fuel distribution. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have to adjust roll trim at all. but it is very easy to get it pretty much set for your given conditions and until you do something to unbalance the jet (i.e. drop a weapon) there isn't any dramatic need need to adjust based on changing flight conditions. a click or two, maybe. Obviously it's not the same as an autopilot and you can't just fall asleep at the flight controls. But you should certainly be able to look down at your knee board for a couple of seconds without the aircraft making a significant excursion. There's no reason for run away roll trim issues though like the OP is describing. Relative wind wouldn't be a big deal, the jet can crab just fine. Jet aircraft don't have the same forces from a prop acting on the aircraft that have to be constantly adjusted for out. Everything I've heard is that the is pretty stable and easy to fly. It does have a tendency to dutch roll, but the Yaw and Pitch SAS compensate for that on their own.

I'm a real pilot. Pilots constantly have to adjust elevator trim anytime there is a change to airspeed. Rudder and roll trim on the other hand rarely have to get messed with. Most small aircraft don't have roll trim at all because it's not something that dynamically changes in flight. As long as you don't change the symmetry (or asymmetry) of the stores/fuel in the wings there shouldn't be a need to roll trim continuously in flight.

What is your loadout as well. This could have an impact on the flight characteristics of the aircraft.

whats the turn/slip indicator showing? Rudder trim is oft forgotten. some load outs could create a lot of yaw moment. If you try to fix it with roll trim you'll get a very unstable aircraft

Potentially not a bug. release cue and the distance numeric can be up that high. The LAR looks weird because you are very low. How does it look for you from 15,000 feet?

Having different laser codes makes it easier to be more deliberate about using laser spot search and track. That way you know who's laser you are locked on.

If you want to fly an exact ground track without deviating off the "black line" you can use TO TO waypoints. In practice though they are not often used. My understanding is that the setting is generally left to FROM-TO in most cases.

I guess my gripe is mostly a matter of wording. A JTAC would just say "we're looking for guns from both aircraft" vs giving them what is essentially a fighter to fighter. In essence we don't disagree. Couple of other thoughts on that: First off, I said N-S or reciprocal because in my head friendlies were to the east, and rolling in parallel to the front line is usually preferable for weapon fall lines and a quick egress back to good guy land. Like you pointed out, what I wrote was friendlies were south which would make my whole point wrong. Mavericks are actually pretty stupid smart weapons. sun angle, direction of travel and roads, obstructions all play a huge role in finding the right attack direction in real life that would probably trump a lot of this. Lastly, N-S or reciprocal allows for more attack options like 1 in north, 2 in south both off east without 2 ever having to go way further out into bad guy land to the west. What's the right answer? It depends. but I wouldn't auto discount one of the other. There's probably a good reason to do either or. Big thing I'd add to the wishlist for DCS: comm options that allow you to pass a FROTIES brief to the AI wingman.

In most cases its the tactics employed by the fighters isn't really a conversation that needs to take place. If there are multiple targets the flight lead will figure out how to make that happen in the best manner. If he wants two to cover and the flight lead wants to two target strafe or rifle two and take out everything on his own then so be it. There's definitly a conversation about what the ground commander's intent is and asking the flight to meet it (i.e. Ground commander wants those two DPIs struck simultaneously, we want bombs on the building and we want you to be ready for guns on any squirters), but The pilot certainly doesn't need to ask for permission from the JTAC to manage his flight as he sees fit. The Flight lead should let the JTAC know what's going to happen if it's going to cause confusion with relation to who he's clearing and when. (i.e. It will be 2 followed by 1, or 1 will be in from the north, 2 in from the south so the JTAC knows where to look. The JTAC isn't leading the flight and its not his call to make, nor is he really in a position to be able to do so. It's the JTACS job to make sure the flight lead understands the intent, and its the flight leads job to meet that intent. cover shooter, shooter cover, shooters, shooter eyeball, is all fairly transparent to the JTAC. If the intent is maximize firepower on the target then obviously that's going to drive shooter shooter, but maybe 2 just doesn't have the level of SA he needs to roll in and strafe danger close. I don't disagree, but the managing of the stack shouldn't be passed in the 9-line that should be done prior. The JTAC will manage the stack prior to that and sector the flights ("hawg sector north of TRP A, Viper sector south") in which case an egress of "Off target back to your sector" would be fine. or give them altitude blocks. Or the attacked would be preceeded with something like "Viper confirm clear to the east/west/whatever?" "vipers clear" "hawg push immediate" Ok, you win this round, with line 8 of 200 S N-S or reciprical is dumb. With the target moving west to east and the flight holding B8 I had it in my mind that friendlies were E 200M not south and I didn't pay attention to what I typed, Lol. E-W or reciprical, or Over my right/left shoulder, or All FAH don't overfly or point at friendlies are all better options, N-S would be bad. I wasn't really paying attention to that when I wrote the example. There's lots of ways to do it differently. To the second point. I disagree. If I'm holding 8 miles to the east, attacking out of the north or south is just as easy and isn't going to significantly extend the timeline. In fact the geometry works waaaay easier. It would delay my roll in maybe 30 seconds (N-S also means I could roll in between the 045 and 315 radial), but there are a lot of advantages to approaching it the target for a 90 degree roll in (namely, I can see the target over the rail right up until I roll in on it. better yet, my wingman can watch the whole thing over the rail and back me up. If I was going to roll in from the east I'd have to manuever the formation closer to my base position which is going to take roughly the same amount of time, or I make it a lot harder for myself and to see the target and for my wingman to provide any meaningful support. In the context of the fighter to fighter where you use FROTIES (formation, role, ordinance, timing, ingress direction, egress direction, sort) the ingress direction is the direction you are coming in FROM, egress direction is the direction you are going off TO. That's the only time I would omit the from and to (although I'd often also just say it), because in that context it is understood by the wingman. Any other time, like when talking to a JTAC it would be "HAWG11 IN FROM THE NORTH" So the F-t-F would be in FROM the north, off left TO the east. All these assumptions work because that's the way pilots train and that's what their standards dictate. You are misunderstanding the meaning of the term SORT. Sort is telling 2 where he is shooting in relation to my target during the attack. Sort west means, shoot the next thing to the west of what I shoot. In this case with two vehicles that would mean that 1 shoots the eastern vehicle, and the wingman should shoot the vehicle to the west (again, in my mind when I wrote this friendlies are East-200 meters.... I forgot I wrote they were south 200, so I'd want my impacts closer than my wingman's, becasue the assumption is always that his SA isn't as high as mine. Side note, I find these conversations fun, thanks for chucking spears

Absolutely, It is a CAS team. The more a JTAC works with a specific unit or pilot in particular and gets his warm fuzzy the more trust he can have which would lead him to give a clearance when with other pilots he may want to exercise more control. Your example was great for illustrating the use of TRPs, I 100% am getting needlessly pedantic just for fun . Nothing you said at any point was wrong Couple of thoughts, a lot of this varies service to service and is more philisophical here: "Shooter-shooter mavericks" is the specific tactic that formation will use. I know the marines like to try and micromanage and dictate specific tactics for the formation. That works fine for Marines working with Marine/Navy aircraft. Marine JTACS have a really good grasp on F-18 and Harrier tactics naturally. For the other services (and per the JPUB 3.09-3) it's up to the pilot to decide their own attack tactics... Based on every conversation I've had with A-10 guys about this topic, they take a dim view of the over controlling type, let the flight lead decide the tactics to maximize weapons effects and keep themselves safe. The JTAC requests an effect (Kill this thing, stop this convoy, destroy this building, kill man HVI inside the building, etc) The pilot and JTAC work together to come up with the best weaponeering to achieve that intent. The pilots are in a better position to decide on how they are going to prosecute a target. Same for the "right pull back to B8, just "Egress B8" The flight lead may want his wingman off in the opposite direction for survivability/deconfliction/setting up for a guns reattack if necessary, etc... From what I've seen from real world experience comm flow would sound more like: HN - "Hawg, call ready game plan/9-line 15A" HG11 - "Hawg's ready 15A" HN - "Type 2, BOT, 1-2-3 B8, 560 ft, two by T-72 , From your talley, No mark, Friendlies South 600, Egress B8. go with readbacks, call ready remarks restrictions" ("elevation" is omitted unless 1-3 aren't verbalized. Line 8 readback is required for NATO but US forces leave it out) HG11 - "Hawg reads back: 560Ft, my talley, Ready remarks/restrictions" HN - "FAH North to south or reciprical, Keep all effects west of Coors, ground commanders intent is to neutralize the tanks, mavericks approved (or best weaponeering)" HG11 - "North to south or reciprical, All effects west of coors" HN - "Hawg push immediate, call in with direction, expect clearance on final" At this point Hawg and the JTAC have done target correlation and have done all the stuff they need with the JTAC to make an attack, but the flight lead needs to tell the wingman the attack gameplan. On their interflight freq it would sound something like.... "fighter-to-fighter: Wedge, shooters, mavericks, in north, off left. sort west" (There's 69 different ways to solve that tactical problem, this is just the simplest I could think of) "2" "1's ready, 6.9 wings dry (fuel state) "2's ready, 7.2" On strike freq- HG11 - "Hawg flight, IP inbound" HG11 - "Hawg 1's in from the north" HN - "Cleared hot 1" HG12 - "Hawg 2's in from the north" HN- "Cleared hot 2" HG11 - "Hawg flight has 2x good effects, both tanks neutralized, ready next tasking" Passing line 4 and 6 probably wouldn't make sense for a mover like that I 100% agree, especially if they are hot on friendlies. It would be more of a stationary-ish target. But its 3.09-3 procedure for aircrew to pass 4, 6 if they find something to the JTAC so they can gen up the 9 line. For instance, if the JTAC told HG flight to scan north along an MSR for enemy positions. The JTAC receives the info he needs to plot it, he can then 1) do some battle tracking and make sure those are in fact bad guys, 2) He can get a good line 8 and pass the 9-line to the pilot. Since the pilot provided the original lines 4 and 6 it would be a waste of time to re-read them back so he just says good readback, everyone has verified they are on the same page and have the same info. Also in a scenario like where they are worried about a mover that needs to be taken out quickly the JTACS could give a pre-planned 9-line. something like... "9-line Z: 1-3 from the overhead, from your talley, Vehicle borne IED, From your talley, No mark, line 8 will be updated, back to the overhead, best ordinance, don't point at or overfly friendlies" Later in the sortie when HG sees a dump truck full of explosives bareling toward friendlies... HG - "Talley VBIED, 1Km south closing" HN - "9-line Z, Line 8 1Km south closing, push immediate" HG - "Hawg 11, Talley, Visual, in with guns"

Just for a fun Friday 3.09-3 debate... I believe the more correct comm would be "Hitman, Hawg 11, tally two Tanks approaching coors, call ready lines 4 and 6" then the pilot would pass the elevation and grids they have for the target, the JTAC would provide a full 9 line, then instead of the pilot re-reading back line 4 and 6 the pilot would respond with "good readbacks" then the pilot would read back restrictions. Alternatively, the pilot could just say "tally two tanks approaching Coors from the east, ready 9-line" and the JTAC could use say "label that target A" and pass Target A for lines 4 and 6, or the JTAC could say "From your tally" in the 9-line. I've heard fierce debates about whether a TRP or "from your tally" is "better", but they are both just techniques. In either event, there still needs to be a full gameplan, 9-line, remarks restrictions. Target correlation is largely done already but the JTAC still needs to make sure that the pilots have a good line 8 an appropriate final attack heading, and ground commander coordination still has to happen. I've seen videos from the early days of the 2nd Gulf War where pilots had fangs out and said "contact multiple armor pieces north of your position, we can be in with guns in 30 seconds" the JTAC said "approved" and the hawgs rolled in to shoot what they later found out they were marines. The JTAC and pilots had very different perceptions of the battle space, relative positions, who was where and what they were doing. That was before the 12 step CAS process and the 9-line were as well defined and codified. And stuff like that is why those procedures are now in place. Regs are written in blood and all that... going fast is only good so long as its still correct and safe.

IRL JTACS will label 9 lines. A common technique is the number from their callsign followed by a letter. I.E. "Call ready gameplan, 9-Line 12A" The JTAC doesn't care how you put that information into your system (unless the gameplan is BOC), but JTACs will often reference previous 9-lines as a starting point for target correlation (I.E. I need you to slew sensors back to 9-Line 12A and from there scan east along the main MSR). If you don't put each 9-line into its own steer point you can't quickly reference back to it. Additionally, the target you strike during a 9-line might not be exactly at the grid passed in the 9-line. BLUF, as a best practice you should pocket each 9 line target into its own steer point. IRL Stepping out the door the A-10 default mission load is waypoints 1-10 are empty target placeholders and they fill them in as needed, typically one per 9-line unless it's a multi-DPI 9-line

the panoramic NVGs have been tested and to the best of my knowledge I think they were approved for use in the A-10C. But they are heavy, and from what I've heard the benefit they provide doesn't really justify the extra weight/neck pain that comes with them, much less the cost. I don't think they are being widely used in any fighters, if at all.

They can focus close up. But that’s not where a pilot needs NVGs to be able to see better. They have lights in the cockpit. Outside is dark so they are focused to look outside that’s where the targets and the terrain that will kill them is.

I could very possibly be wrong about this, someone please correct me if I am, but I think every US fighter (F-35 being the obvious exception) uses the same helmet, and at least very similar NVG setup. At least while google searching the images I posted above they all looked to be set up the same way

You could still see it the whole time no matter where your eyes are looking. It might be doable, it just seems to me like you might not have enough screen area at the bottom of the VR headset to make it look accurate and convincing. It would be a really cool because it would present a real world problem that you no longer have any peripheral view of the horizon which can be really disorienting.

Do you mean on the HMCS monocle? I wouldn't say they "rest on" the monocle, The NVG bracket should be supporting all the load of the NVGs. But they would be adjusted to nearly be touching if not lightly making contact with them.