ASAP

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.

Real world each tube covers a 40 degree field of view, obviously overlapping in the middle. It would probably be pretty difficult to make it look right and give the user the same ability to look under the NVGs due to VR FOV limits and all though... Anyway, a picture is worth a thousand words, so here's a photo of what the NVGs look like on a pilot. This isn't an A-10 helmet, and it has something other than the HOBBIT on it, but bracket and NVGs themselves look the same. The second picture is the HMCS. when wearing NVGs with the HMCS on, the NVGs are even further from your eye because there has to be room for the monocle to fit between the goggles and your eye.

That is incorrect. The NVGs sit about 1/2-3/4 of an inch in front of the eyes. Pilots have to look under the NVG tubes to see anything inside the cockpit. It's like flying with bifocals. The NVGs are only good for seeing outside the jet. Everything inside the jet is an unreadable blur. The NVGS cannot be closer to the eye than the HMCS monocle, assuming you are using HMCS. Granted, that's not the way DCS represents it, and you can't really simulate looking beneath the NVGS to look inside. On the NVGS everything is unrealistically in focus in the game.

on the light pannel there is a two position switch on the left side for the cockpit annunciator lights, set it to DIM should take care of it.

I can't remember the exact reason, but that is in fact how it's supposed to work. I suspect its because those pylons are very close together and they don't want to simultaneously release them for fear of bombs colliding in flight

Lol, exactly! Air brief the wingman on what Bingo actually means. I wonder what the fighter-to-fighter brief would sound like... "Fighter to fighter: Shooter/POW, Guns, 1's in North, off right to west, 2 snap homeplate and eject. 1's ready"

I would agree with that, and I'm sure in reality there is chatter during long droning missions. There's probably a balance that could be struck. I can't remember which campaign it was I was playing but there was a whole conversation about the wingman's upcoming wedding and how hard it is to be a military spouse. As I'm fenced in to go take out a column of tanks pouring through a mountain pass. like, could we at least talk tactics or something? LOL

I think another reason is that as more percision weapons were used you could get away with carrying less bombs. when carrying dumb bombs pilots would prefer to ripple more bombs because 1 bomb alone probably wont get desired weapons effects. With LGBs you can be a lot more confident that your 1 bomb is going to shack the target, so you don't have to bring fully loaded TERs anymore. Mission sets where collateral damage are a concern also drove the use of more percision guided munitions and ground commanders had a much lower appetite for dumb bombs.

Ha! This is the absolute furthest thing from realism. Comm discipline and brevity is a real thing. The only realistic response to the constant monologuing on the radio would be an emphatic "2, SHUT THE F*** UP!" The only things a wingman should say to say are: "2", "2's Tally", "2's IN", "1, break flare".

I know when you hit load all it disables all the HOTAS and MFCD buttons for a short time. I don't if its the DSMS loading specifically that is causing that. Either way, as long as all the functionality comes back after the load is complete there isnt an issue.

This is the correct real world functionality. Try it when the TERs are on 4 and 8 and it should work just fine.

can you manually go into the inventory page and load it individually?

FENCE IN for mavericks and then china hat aft short until the top left of the maverick screen either says station 3 or 9. unless you have lau-88s you should only have to china hat aft once to switch pylons.

In the real aircraft the pilots have to boresight the HMCS after turning the system on. In the monocle they have a big X and they have to match it up over a circle on the HUD and TMS forward short. If they implemented a system like that in the SIM it coulc solve a lot of these errors and tell the system exactly where the users eyes are.

I think I see what you are saying. If I'm understanding you correctly though, it's not a bug. This is the proper function of the system. Anytime you create a markpoint, the CDU will go to the waypoint page (Which is not the same as the steer point page, which I think you are confusing it with) and show you the information for the mark. While you will still be able to cycle your steerpoints with the +/- rocker switch, the waypoint page will be continuously displayed on the CDU until you change it. If you want to get back to the steerpoint page from the waypoint page you'll have to reselect it by moving the right nob away from, and then back to the steerpoint option (or push Function, 0 on the UFC) That is how the system behaves no matter what position the left STEER PT dial is set to. The STEER PT dial is selecting which database you want to to cycle through when you cycle your steerpoints. MISSION will be steerpoints 1-50, the last mark you took, then mark Z, then the remaining 2071 non editable steerpoints. MARK will allow you to cycle through only the markpoints you've taken FLT PLN will allow you to cycle through only your selected flight plan waypoints. Regardless of what database you are looking at, you can go to the waypoint page (the bottom left LSK from the STEERPOINT page) to look at any waypoint. When you are on the waypoint page it will not change as you cycle steerpoints. It allows you to select which waypoint you are looking at and edit it (assuming it's 1-50). This is the page your CDU is jumping to any time you take a mark. I hope that helps, If that isn't whats happening then there might be something wrong, and I might have misunderstood what you're saying the problem is.

Looks pretty much spot on. The only point I'd make about realism (take it or leave it) is that position lights should stay flash until your runway final check, and then go steady "Steady = ready (for takeoff)". The taxi light isn't used during the day normally. I know other aircraft use their taxi light to indicate to their crew chief that they are ready for taxi though. So if you want to use the taxi light while taxiing I'd recommend moving it to the last thing you do before you start taxiing. Think of that as your way of visually signaling to the crew chief that he needs to start marshalling you out of chocks. That's generally saved for airplanes where the crew chief doesn't have any intercomm to talk to the pilot though (I'm specifically thinking T-6/T-38 but there might be others)

I don't know, that's a good point. You are correct everything should work as soon as you have the APU and Generator on. I think the point of testing the lights it after engine start is so you are just focused on getting the APU and engines started during that time. None of the additional lights are important for starting the engines, so the checklist doesn't have you bother testing them until later. Additionally, during the engine start process you are also monitoring the AC generators coming on line at 52% RPM for each respective generator, and you are making sure there is a good left generator crossover when the L. GEN takes the electrical load from the APU at that point. As soon as both engines are up and running you also turn off the L GEN switch momentarily to make sure you get a good R. GEN crossover, and THEN you test the lights. I guess the guy who wrote the checklist thought it made more sense to test the lights after you've fully checked the integrity of your electrical system... That's mostly conjecture on my part. You'd functionally get the same results and see the same things if you tested the lights after the APU/APU GEN start.