GBU 12 not reacting on lasing

[PFunk1606688187]

I mostly agree.

 

But I can't help thinking about different scenarios and evaluating the pros and cons.

 

Dropping on a steerpoint requires the target to be stationary. It also means you can't make any last moment adjustments or fine-tuning. It's not well suited for LGBs (unless someone else lases).

That's a question of the application of the weapon itself. My understanding is that Paveway IIs are not really designed for hitting moving targets. Our JDAMs are so laughably not a JDAM that we needn't even consider them for that job either.

 

Whats more when dropping on a moving target you would simply not use a SPI to do so because you're going to be dropping ballistically behind where the target will be at impact so at that point the question of even using a TGP SPI seems irrelevant. For lasing at that point you're looking at using the TGP point mode to follow the target as it moves and the guy dropping should probably be doing so in CCIP on a point ahead of the target.

 

I don't think our DCS systems though are really designed to make this an easy task, not in CCRP and with any of our GBUs. Modern JDAMs apparently have the ability to take target telemetry persistently from the attacking aircraft thus allowing the TGP's SPI to constantly guide the bomb when dealing with a moving target. For our weapons we're obviously dealing with a much cruder system.

 

I'd say it's a great tool to have at your disposal and can make life easier with certain target types, but personally I'm not yet convinced that I should make this my default attack style with CCRP.

My understanding is that in real life in CAS scenarios at least they always drop on a coordinate in the waypoint database. There is obviously a great question of style at work here but I honestly wonder what the cost of using a waypoint primarily is. if the target turns out to be not there, slew the TGP, drop a new SPI, bombs away. You can adapt to it on the fly. Using a BOC attack with a waypoint SPI is 100% reliable and lets you call an audible mid attack if you so choose. The opposite cannot be said. If your TGP loses LOS and you never took those coordinates into your database then you now have to look for the target again. You waste more time when the difference in making a waypoint is mere seconds with the handy HOTAS controls.

 

 

 

 

But you didn't (directly) answer one of my questions: How do you set the steerpoint?

 

My guess would be to create a markpoint using TGP and then set that markpoint as steerpoint. That would mean pushing a few more buttons while setting up for the attack, providing what you call peace of mind during the attack run. I think it's some sort of workload-trade. It means more button-pushing and more workload in the setup-stage and less of these during the attack run - although a well executed attack run shouldn't see people fiddling with and worrying about the TGP all the time anyway.

 

I still think we have different conditions in mind. I think of a straigh-in CCRP-attack from Angels 15 where there's not much risk of the TGP getting masked by anything. In that scenario, the advantages of the steerpoint-attack seem to fade away unless something unexpected happens.

Yes, its absolutely more button pushing at the set up planning phase and almost nothing during the attack. Thats exactly the point. You shouldn't be using a TGP to plan an attack when you're at risk of being shot out of the sky. You shouldn't have to be putting your head into the cockpit to validate a TGP SPI during an attack run because thats when you're likely to get shot out of the sky.

 

Mileage should vary based on permissibility of the threat environment but honestly with the missions I fly level bombing at Angel 16 is not the norm nor is it the most difficult way to fight so I wouldn't want to assume all my attacks follow that.

 

But you just said it "unless something unexpected happens" which is to me what you always plan for. You always have the "go to shit" plan. In my group's missions we have aggressor pilots who fly Mig-21s against us. For us every time we enter the AO we're looking at potentially having to bug out before all stores are expended, before the target is totally destroyed. For that scenario taking an extra 5 seconds to generate a steerpoint and slave to it means nothing compared to having to reset for another attack that takes several minutes depending on what the environment is like. If you're flying into and out of a sliver of safe airspace in an IADS to deliver stores then you're very much using the systems as best you can.

 

Just imagine you're ingressing to attack, you get a launch warning, you make evasive maneuvers to defeat the missile, now you've had your TGP LOS ruined, and thats as much a possibility at Angel 16 as it is in the weeds. Also my group runs persistent missions so we often attack targets, fail to destroy them, then catalog the coordinates in debriefing so that someone else can attack the same thing.

 

 

I think all that heads-down stuff is fairly natural for us sim-pilots. Without zoom, targets are very hard or impossible to spot on the ground. Many missions, including stock missions and campaigns, require very little SA. AI wingmen magically follow the player through clouds and valleys.

 

Being too much heads-down is a bad habit I'm only beginning to get rid off. Small tricks like dropping bombs on steerpoints rather than on TGP SPI can help with that, so thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter. :thumbup:

Absolutely. This is just my thought process after having a long education in how to not suck from playing missions that actually challenge your ability to survive and be effective simultaneously. There's also the factor of flying with other players. I never ever ever fly without a wingman when I play DCS now. That alters how you perceive the scenario. You have to constantly deal with the heads up heads down dynamic and you have to understand now just how you're seeing the target but how the other guy is too.

 

Take the basic Lead/Wingman interplay. When I'm running a flight I'm badgering my wingman in the pre-brief about not using the TGP. He may have one but I tell him he's not allowed to really use it unless I tell him to. I'm heads down more, he's heads up more. I have to catalog targets, assign them for him and for me, share that info with him using the systems and manage the 2 ship flight all throughout.

 

So, take a target we intend to engage via coordinate. I send him my SPI, tell him to catalog that was a waypoint of a given name and that that will be his target for the attack run. I may be planning a simultaneous attack or just a shooter/cover attack. In either case I'm concerned with doing 5 things at once. You have no idea how much more complicated things are with 2 airplanes that always have to be in mutual support.

 

So, lets say its a shooter/cover attack using Mavericks. We have an IP, a target waypoint, an egress direction, a formation to fly in and all the other goodies that are part of implicit contracts. If he's the shooter and I'm covering then I will be heads out, he will have the lead on being heads down if he has to. Even so, I may want to BDA the attack on the way out and as soon as the attack is complete the role reverses back to him being cover and me being lead. In the process of flying cover I may have to maneuver radically and obscure my TGP LOS. Staying in tactical formation is usually more work for the wingman and for the attack where I'm cover that means I'm following the other guy so its my job to stay where I need to be.

 

Do I need to worry about where my TGP is looking? No, I want to know it'll be looking there so that when I egress after the attack I can get where I need to be, find my wingman after the escape maneuver, have him rejoin on me, then just shuffle my flight path to get LOS to the target and BDA instantly rather than having to bugger with slewing. You make that into a shooter cover CCRP bomb attack I see no difference.

 

With bombs its actually worse because I need to fly a supporting flight path and that might involved radical maneuvers ahead of his attack to ensure I'm level, eyes out as he's going down the chute or over the target. Remember CCRP is not mandatory level bombing, its usable in almost every way CCIP is from a geometry perspective. Also when sharing data I want to ensure he has the point, I don't want to waste time resharing coordinates if he loses it. Also flying formation involves keeping eyes on the other airplane, watching for threats, watching 6 for Migs, etc. Having to validate a TGP LOS is just one more thing that detracts from my SA and when you're actually honestly worried about losing sight of your wingman or worried about flying the right path to the target eyes in the pit for even 1 second starts to feel unacceptably long.

 

Thats just a slice of why I think how I do. I also stress that someone from my group could come on here, say he thinks I'm full of it, and give it another way. I think thats fair, and I don't assume I'm always right but thats how I parse based on my experience.

 

 

The nice thing about the systems is that they're very flexible and you can go your own way. Even with the contracts my group flies with there's lots of variety in tactical style. What I did learn quickly is that when you fly realistically all those things like the UFC and the HOTAS controls become obviously beneficial in a way I never truly appreciated. Moving my UFC buttons to the Numpad and the Insert->Page Down buttons made it very easy to make adjustments mid flight.

Edited April 18, 2015 by P*Funk

[AdrianJ]

Well guys I would think one problem with laser guided weapons is over flying the target. The weapon is looking for the reflection of laser light if you over fly the target it won't receive the reflection any more. There should be completely no problem hitting a moving target, you don't have to release any differently than a normal dumb bomb. After all the laser guided bomb was developed to drop a bridge in Vietnam, before it was adopted by the Air Force it was demonstrated hitting moving tank targets. P*Funk, Yurgon is talking about a completely different theater of operation than the one your talking about. In your scenario you are operating above an active battlefield and air superiority hasn't been established yet. I would think laser guided bombs were an inappropriate weapon for this type of mission unless of course you have troops in contact who can provide the laser guidance. Yurgons scenario seems to me to be very much a Gulf War 1 mission, air superiority has been established but there is possibility of SAM systems still being operational. The whole target should be a waypoint discussion, my take on it yeah its probably good practice but definitely not mandatory.

 

Very interesting reading this thread.

[PFunk1606688187]

I'm not talking about mandatory for one. I'm talking about good habits that promote higher likelihood of success and efficiency.

 

In terms of theatre I think it makes little difference. Even in absolutely zero threat environments like Afghanistan my understanding was that pilots would drop on coordinates as a matter of course since it was a tool for guaranteeing you were hitting the right thing in CAS.

 

Ultimately air superiority has no bearing on it. If you're facing a zero threat environment, sure. Do whatever. Circle for 2 hours over the target, drop on your TGP LOS, whatever. However, threats are threats. Missiles can kill you. If you're on a mission where there are threats then the attack run itself is the most dangerous part of the mission and the one where your SA is most important and where being distracted by target coordinates, TGP, etc is a waste of your most valuable resource as a pilot.

 

In terms of weaponry, again I don't think thats a fair argument since the Paveway was used first in the Vietnam war, a war where enemy fighters were a factor and a war where surface to air threats were at their greatest in history til that point. Paveways were used first by my understanding as a way to improve hit probabilities for Thuds going deep into North Vietnam trying to hit stationary strategic targets. Deep strike missions though are generally outside the purview of the A-10. Mostly its a BAI aircraft and so more likely to be facing front line forces or forces near to the front line. For moving targets the Maverick is clearly the superior weapon. In this scenario melding TGP with Maverick via SPI is a much healthier choice.

 

But by all means, if you want to suggest that certain good habits are irrelevant because most DCS players operate with impunity over near zero threat airspace, well I can't argue with you. Most DCS pilots neither face realistic threats nor suffer the difficulties of managing a 2 ship formation.

 

All in all Paveways against moving targets is just a sub-optimal arrangement to begin with. The A-10 is poorly equipped as an aircraft to make it work in its favour barring being the FAC that's lasing the target for a faster aircraft dropping the bomb from much higher up.

[AdrianJ]

I'm just trying to learn things, I haven't said anyone’s right or wrong, I tried to give you the history of the laser guided bomb, and agreed with two different approaches to dropping them. I also think many people believe they can over fly the target and because the laser is firing the bomb still has guidance. The only reason I said it wasn't mandatory was in the sense that if your attacking a target and see another target, after completing the original attack just come around and attack the new target. Heads out of the cockpit the whole time, no need to add a waypoint. Like I said I'm just try to learn and think discussions like these are a great tool for doing that.

[Deezle]

Creating waypoints for targets seems like a lot of work when you just TMS right short and make a mark point instantly.

[Dejjvid]

P*Funk, with all due respect. You write long posts trying to convince people that waypoints are the way to go. In most cases I would say no. Mark points is way faster, and just as reliable.

 

Also there's no reason to be heads down more then a few seconds while attacking. Even if it's a shooter/cover you still need to scan outside. Going in on a target as a shooter and stare at screens is what gets you killed (no matter how good WM you have), in best case only reduces your SA to an unacceptable level.

[Mike5560]

I say it's situation dependent, and leave it at that.

[Catastrophy]

Not sure how well DCS handles lasing on ships since those aren't usual targets?

 

Test it on a ground vehicle to make sure you have everything set up right. You already said your TGP was your SPI, Auto lase set to on with a lase time of whatever (I use 7 seconds)...

 

Only thing I can think of is are you selecting the bombs manually or with the DMS? If you select the weapons manually you aren't using/activating the profile.

 

It handles fairly well, but make sure the aim point is really on point on the target or your bomb just goes splish 1 m off starboard. Running the length of the ship is probably best.

[PFunk1606688187]

P*Funk, with all due respect. You write long posts trying to convince people that waypoints are the way to go. In most cases I would say no. Mark points is way faster, and just as reliable.

This is a nomenclature issue. Waypoints are any points stored in the database, be they named points in the mission database or mark points. Either case its the same thing just cataloged separately. They function nearly the same. The difference is in firstly you can't name markpoints so in the heat of battle you may forget which is which and so when masked you can't correlate with the TGP to be certain if you're not attacking immediately and secondly when sending a point to a wingman he would create a mission waypoint rather than a markpoint from your SPI.

 

In either case, a waypoint is a waypoint. Specific scenarios dictate which type are more useful. The distinction in this discussion however is between using stored data that you can slave to versus a temporary and potentially spoiled line of sight SPI.

 

Also there's no reason to be heads down more then a few seconds while attacking. Even if it's a shooter/cover you still need to scan outside. Going in on a target as a shooter and stare at screens is what gets you killed (no matter how good WM you have), in best case only reduces your SA to an unacceptable level.

I don't know where I suggested the shooter should be heads down the whole time.

[Hansolo]

The difference is in firstly you can't name markpoints so in the heat of battle you may forget which is which and so when masked you can't correlate with the TGP to be certain if you're not attacking immediately and secondly when sending a point to a wingman he would create a mission waypoint rather than a markpoint from your SPI.

 

I may be misunderstanding you @P*Funk but I am quite certain that you can name a mark point. That's how I keep track of them. After TMS-right-short the newly mark point shows up on the CDU, I name it e.g. AAA-1 and press LSK R3. Then the name changes. I use a lot of mark point when scanning for targets and that is the only way I can keep track of them :-)

 

But again I may have been misunderstanding you :-)

 

Cheers

Hans

Edited April 21, 2015 by Hansolo
Spelling

[PFunk1606688187]

Naw its just me forgetting that you can rename them.

 

When creating any new waypoint, be it mark or mission waypoint, it should automatically bring the waypoint up on the CDU repeater so you can immediately rename them.

 

Annoyingly the manual doesn't state explicitly that you can rename mark points but talks instead only about creating new mission waypoints from them so even scanning the manual when replying to things leaves me making mistakes, ergo my signature. *points at the bottom of the post*

 

 

EDIT. I also just realized why I never thought to rename a mark point. It takes exactly the same amount of work to created a new mission waypoint from a mark point as it does to rename it, you just press a different OSB. So once the new name is in the scratch pad, where you press the OSB to rename the existing point I just press the create new mission waypoint OSB. At the end of the day its exactly the same number of button presses and just being in the habit of doing that meant that I'd never bothered with mark point renaming.

Edited April 21, 2015 by P*Funk

[Hansolo]

No problem @P*Funk. Just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something :)

 

Cheers

Hans

[PFunk1606688187]

Yep well thats the fun of sharing ideas. Every now and then you get to swallow your pride and learn something new.