longer launch range for Maverick?

[Kimi_uy]

Well, I think that with current gen HMCS which are being used in the latest A-10C builds make the whole process of "OMG so many switches to hit" a lot easier. From what I've read (-1) the HMCS is used as yet another SOI which u can point your head, and make yourself a SPI, slave all and kapooya. It's the perfect merge between Mk1 Eyeball and every other sensor.

The only thing I've got to say about using only the mav feed to lock on to, is that it requires you point your a/c whereas in the TGP you can search at every angle.

For a pop-up attack it's totally understandable.

[Yurgon]

TGPs are great in that scenario. What I'm telling you is that not all future wars will be fought against goat herding insurgents in AOs where the most lethal threats are SA-7, 23mm, and SA/AW. See Iran, Taiwan, DPRK, Crimea, etc.

 

I get the feeling that you think I don't understand the benefits and advantages offered by an ATP. I think the benefits are obvious... [...]

 

I guess we're talking about entirely different things, or going at it from very different perspectives. I agree with your post and there's no specific point I'd like to refute.

 

I'll be coming back on the perception problem momentarily.

 

I don't really understand this notion that A-10s should never ever ever be down low because the last 20 years has created unique situations that see the A-10 function in a permissive environment. [...]

 

First, thanks for the link you posted a bit later, very interesting read! :thumbup:

 

I like how we could easily quote it to support different points of view...

 

"The biggest problem with any new piece of equipment is that you are more likely to become either task-saturated or become channelized into what is happening with the pod. So your situational awareness is going to be much lower if you’re not careful. If you’re channelized on nothing but the TV screen, you’re more likely to hit another aircraft, or the ground, by becoming spatially disoriented."

 

"The pod brings higher situational awareness to your cockpit and, by extension, your flight."

 

:smartass:

 

My gripe with this whole discussion (starting at post #21 specifically) is that you propagate a very specific mission type which, as best I can tell, is BAI, and all your points are perfectly valid for such missions.

 

As soon as we start talking CAS and AFAC (and, depending on the situation, including CSAR), I don't see the point about the whole down low discussion and I specifically don't see the point about TGP prohibition.

 

IMO it's perfectly fine to tell people how to get a Mav on target by using the TGP. If you feel like stating that that teaches people bad habits, I think it would really help if you put that into context of BAI or provide much more context on why you preach this particular behavior so that we don't end up running in circles about stuff we all (mostly?) agree on.

[PFunk1606688187]

No, I think it teaches bad habits to approach the problem of precision with a weapon by stating that the TGP is what provides the precision.

 

The question was "So how do I get the MAV to lock quickly in a low level attack?" and my objection was to the notion that you typically use the TGP to do anything in that regime of flight or that its necessary in order to answer the question of accurate or quickly.

 

The real answer is "Learn to use the Maverick properly in coordination with other data, be it TGP generated SPI, general or specific coordinates in a steer point, visually via landmarks or marking device ie. smoke." Slewing the maverick is its own skill, something that needs to be known outside of using the TGP and if you have a coordinate even within a few hundred meters of a target there's no damned reason you need a TGP generated SPI underneath it to hit it accurately.

 

The point though is not to exclude the TGP, its to understand that it is "just another tool" and not to be seen as the gateway to capability with any given weapon. In the right context it adds a lot but by the same token even in a medium altitude environment its not required for anyone to be proficient and speedy in using any weapon they possess.

 

Even with a TGP in active use in a medium alt scenario that TGP picture can generate SA on the target in a way that lets you slew and fire multiple mavericks against multiple targets which is basically impossible to do if you want a SPI under every chassis you intend to engage. The TGP can augment an attack but the Maverick actually allows for better flexibility, which is lost if you can't do that without the TGP SPI.

 

Situational Awareness is not something that ameliorates someone's inability to use the weapon as designed. So the issue is that you might understand that, but most people who have to ask how to use a Maverick properly do not.

[Yurgon]

No, I think it teaches bad habits to approach the problem of precision with a weapon by stating that the TGP is what provides the precision.

 

The question was "So how do I get the MAV to lock quickly in a low level attack?" and my objection was to the notion that you typically use the TGP to do anything in that regime of flight or that its necessary in order to answer the question of accurate or quickly.

 

Oh, okay, now I get what this is all about.

 

TBH, I hadn't even realized that the post I had replied to read "low level". The poster described fiddling between TGP and Mav, and as I understand it my answer helped him solve his problem. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to use the TGP under these circumstances, but had I realized that he was specifically talking about low level attacks, I would probably have made an addendum of the kind you proposed.

 

If this is what we're talking about, I simply didn't realize that you were referring to a particular point I had made in response to a particular question; I thought this was a general statement on your end.

[karambiatos]

Mission builders, start limiting weapons and pods and stop layering dumb SAM's like the 80's and then give your players something interesting to overcome.

 

When you do this, players find it too hard, and dont want to play, because suddenly when they fly over a town, there just may be a manpad on a roof, or a AAA behind a building waiting for something to fly low, or heck, they may need to do the most blasphemous thing of all, teamwork.

[PFunk1606688187]

If this is what we're talking about, I simply didn't realize that you were referring to a particular point I had made in response to a particular question; I thought this was a general statement on your end.

 

At least misunderstandings lead to more informative debates in this case. ;)

 

When you do this, players find it too hard, and dont want to play, because suddenly when they fly over a town, there just may be a manpad on a roof, or a AAA behind a building waiting for something to fly low, or heck, they may need to do the most blasphemous thing of all, teamwork.

 

Maybe they should avoid overflight of towns and forests as much as possible. Its what I do. *shrug*

Edited February 13, 2015 by P*Funk

[Exorcet]

When you do this, players find it too hard, and dont want to play, because suddenly when they fly over a town, there just may be a manpad on a roof, or a AAA behind a building waiting for something to fly low, or heck, they may need to do the most blasphemous thing of all, teamwork.

Some players. Not all. There is no need to cater to the lowest common denominator. Also it works both ways I think. Along with sneaky enemy anti air, you get intelligent and communicative friendlies. Rather than necessarily being more difficult, it makes things less routine I guess.

 

I'm all for maximum realism even if it means high challenge. Though I think a big deterrent to implementing it in missions is DCS itself. The sim has improved a lot, but it has not been a uniform evolution. Some bits go all the way back to Lock On. Scripting and advanced AI options are very powerful tools that help get around this, but they also take a lot of time to use. A mission designer basically needs to hold the AI's hands the entire time. Even if that is done, it doesn't mean things will go as planned.

 

The AI needs to have its capabilities bumped. IADS shouldn't require a complex script to implement. Ideally it should be build in to DCS, requiring only that the correct units are on the map and that the mission designer links them together.

 

On teamwork, that might happen online. But offline, AI wingmen can be very hit and miss. At times it's like you're flying with people who don't even read the briefing. A-10's won't attack anything they can't see themselves, so even if your mission involves friendly ground forces pointing you directly at a target, your wingman will be oblivious until you fly right over it.

[Yurgon]

At least misunderstandings lead to more informative debates in this case. ;)

 

Haha, yeah, they do. :thumbup:

[Scarecrow]

Very interesting thread guys, I shall never miss use Force Correlate again:)

 

Also civil discourse despite differing opinion:thumbup:

[rcjonessnp175]

^^^^

 

What they said :D

 

In addition, at long enough ranges you won't even hit buildings with FC - in reality.

 

As well, SAMs in-game radiate all the time. They don't have to, and they can be made not to in a well-configured mission. They can also sit on reverse slopes, stay out of the open where you can easily find them, they can have 'support', AND enemy fighters (or the SAMs themselves) can drag you into them.

 

And then you'll get a real(er) taste of SEAD.

 

Another point of contention is the 'air to air' use of the AGM-65 ... yes you could do it, but it should at least have the advanced missile flight model, as well as be susceptible to flares and the sun.

 

Finally, the AGM-65H/K should be able to lock targets further out ... why? Because it has a higher resolution sensor, which means a target that is further away gives you a larger measurable blob (in pixels).

 

That's a lot of stuff to do for the AGM-65 alone.

 

 

So i see you experts saying were incorrect using the force correlate function in dcs world. Well when are you going to fix the simulation of the Mavericks so we can operate correctly? As i see it the ingame force correlate is the closest to the real world point operation of the maverick in relation to range lock. As in real life i have fired Similar systems. You can in real life lock on anything as long as their is sufficient contrast to background. Fix the mavericks in Dcs world until then in game force correlate is just fine in my opinion. We have handicaps forced on us in the sim for some reason. Hope to see them go away with dcs 2.0

[StrongHarm]

When you look at it objectively, we're all 200th hour pilots.. we know just enough to make us dangerous to ourselves. I like to stay as real as possible though.. it helps my immersion in the simulation. I will however adapt and overcome when the sim forces me to diverge from real. The 65k for instance, has twice the lethal radius of a 2000lb bomb of any type... so I use it in force correlate for snapkick to clear a large area of soft targets. I use the TGP for low level engagement every time.. and even if this is not realistic, consider my method before you fully judge it:

 

• 
  
• See a missile trail or other threat
  
• Take a quick mental picture of terrain features near threat
  
• Terrain mask and get 10nm separation (stand off.. good)
  
• Use the TAD to set a SPI near the terrain where threat was seen
  
• Peak over terrain in quick intervals with the TGP to find target (if possible)
  
• Lock target with TGP (if possible)
  
• Slave Mav to SOI
  
• Popup and snapkick
  

With the 65k you don't have to hit the target.. just be in the vicinity.. since it's twice as powerful as a 2000lb bomb in DCS. Besides.. in RL if there was a threat I'd be on the horn with command asking for support instead of risking my hawg. Hawgs don't spar with threats.. they deliver ordinance. If a hawg is tasked IRL with no support.. this is a zombie apocalypse scenario where everyone else has been eaten heheh. So, I'm sometimes forced (though I wish it weren't so) to adapt to realism deltas by employing unrealistic methods.

 

Unrealistic can sometimes be fun.. the zombie comment has me thinking.. is there anyone out there who could modify the soldier model to hold it's arms up and stumble? I'd like to see a co-op mission where you have 8 hawgs, and a 100k zombie horde 20 miles away headed toward your base. "The Hawging Dead"! Hey Grimes.. I bet you could do this (any relation to Rick?)!

 

EDIT: I forgot to mention.. this whole train of thought comes to me because I've been reading the Arisen series by Michael Stephen Fuchs. It's a 'more' realistic zombie scenario from the point of view of military special operators and pilots. THIS SERIES ROCKS!.. even if you think zombies are silly.

Edited May 13, 2015 by StrongHarm

[rcjonessnp175]

When you look at it objectively, we're all 200th hour pilots.. we know just enough to make us dangerous to ourselves. I like to stay as real as possible though.. it helps my immersion in the simulation. I will however adapt and overcome when the sim forces me to diverge from real. The 65k for instance, has twice the lethal radius of a 2000lb bomb of any type... so I use it in force correlate for snapkick to clear a large area of soft targets. I use the TGP for low level engagement every time.. and even if this is not realistic, consider my method before you fully judge it:

 

• 
  
• See a missile trail or other threat
  
• Take a quick mental picture of terrain features near threat
  
• Terrain mask and get 10nm separation (stand off.. good)
  
• Use the TAD to set a SPI near the terrain where threat was seen
  
• Peak over terrain in quick intervals with the TGP to find target (if possible)
  
• Lock target with TGP (if possible)
  
• Slave Mav to SOI
  
• Popup and snapkick
  

With the 65k you don't have to hit the target.. just be in the vicinity.. since it's twice as powerful as a 2000lb bomb in DCS. Besides.. in RL if there was a threat I'd be on the horn with command asking for support instead of risking my hawg. Hawgs don't spar with threats.. they deliver ordinance. If a hawg is tasked IRL with no support.. this is a zombie apocalypse scenario where everyone else has been eaten heheh. So, I'm sometimes forced (though I wish it weren't so) to adapt to realism deltas by employing unrealistic methods.

 

Unrealistic can sometimes be fun.. the zombie comment has me thinking.. is there anyone out there who could modify the soldier model to hold it's arms up and stumble? I'd like to see a co-op mission where you have 8 hawgs, and a 100k zombie horde 20 miles away headed toward your base. "The Hawging Dead"! Hey Grimes.. I bet you could do this (any relation to Rick?)!

 

EDIT: I forgot to mention.. this whole train of thought comes to me because I've been reading the Arisen series by Michael Stephen Fuchs. It's a 'more' realistic zombie scenario from the point of view of military special operators and pilots. THIS SERIES ROCKS!.. even if you think zombies are silly.

 

Well said

[marluk]

When you look at it objectively, we're all 200th hour pilots.. we know just enough to make us dangerous to ourselves. I like to stay as real as possible though.. it helps my immersion in the simulation. I will however adapt and overcome when the sim forces me to diverge from real...

 

Currently, I'm avoiding unrealistic threat flying high. But your procedure seems like more fun. I'll give a try your way next time.

[NeilWillis]

This whole debate is serious food for thought.

 

I think it may be time to ditch the TGP for a while, and learn to fight down and dirty. I feel a training session coming on...

 

Thanks for the excellent insight guys, kudos inbound!

[StrongHarm]

Although, as outlined above, I don't have an aversion to using the TGP to get the Mav on target.. even during low level threat engagement (if done right), there's the matter of spotting and engaging targets using other methods.

 

Here's a previous posts on the matter that goes a little deeper:

 

Spotting Targets:

1. MK1 Eyeball

2. TGP AG

3. TGP AA

4. Maverick Slave

 

General Notes - Be sure to utilize one of the best aspects of your Hawg.. the ability to fly slow. I like to get 8-10k, decrease my thrust to 70-75% to maintain between 180 and 200ks, and use my autopilot so I can focus on my MFDs or out the canopy. Remember to keep your eye on the TAD and maintain situational awareness.. always know where you are. Depending on the terrain and my separation, I'll use either a box pattern with Alt/Hdg autopilot or an slow circular orbit with alt autopilot.

 

1. MK1 Eyeball - You'd be surprised how much you can spot with your eyes. I like to zoom in and change my TrackIR to Precision Mode ( I use alt+F7, default is just F7 ). Look for dust plumes for moving targets. For non-moving targets look for an area where secondary fires are already burning from the battle. If you have stationary targets that are masked by terrain and haven't been engaged, they can be very difficult to find. In this case I just send in my wingman.. he has impeccable vision! If you do spot a target with your eye there are a number of ways that you can go about getting your TGP on it. Since I'm already viewing it with my eye, I'll usually just bring the aircraft about and use the Target Designation Cue. This is the box that's slaved to your TVV until you make HUD SPI and slew.. you can slew the TDC down to our target, then TMS ForLong to make it SPI. The other method I've used is to compare the terrain to the TAD, get a rough idea of distance with your eye (at 10k ft, objects even with your wingtip are about 10-12nm away.. use your wing as a ruler), slew the TGP diamond over to the approx area while watching the TAD. You can also hook your TAD cursor so you can get a hdg/dis to the spot. You can then create a markpoint and slave all to SPI:

*Make TAD SOI

*Change to Hook Cursor

*Change FOV to EXP1 or 2 (china forShort)

*Slew cursor around and you can see hdg/dis on lower right

*Create a markpoint then set it as SPI, slave all to SPI to view on TGP

 

 

2. TGP AG - Besides the obvious 'slew around till you hit paydirt' aspects, there are a few things I like to do:

*Hit CTRL+kpd0 then kpd6 to view only the right MFD

*Use coolie down to swap MFDs often and check your position on the TAD

*Change from BHOT to WHOT to CCD often to reveal targets by contrast

*Turn your gain all the way up (OSB 19/20?) then back 1 or 2 until the terrain isn't washed out. This will make objects jump out nicely.

*Refocus often (DMS Left Short)

*Change FOV wide/narrow often

 

3. TGP AA - I've had some success in finding objects using TGP AA mode. You'll notice that, unlike AG mode, AA RATES will automatically point out any obvious silhouette with an additional moving cross. The problem with that is it points to buildings, electric poles, etc, as well as aircraft and ground vehicles. To use this effectively you have to have a good standoff distance of 10+nm. Make sure the search area is within a 45deg cone from your nose. You can make an object SPI from this mode, and mark it, just like TGP.AG mode.

 

4. Maverick Slave - I've had little success using this method, atleast with MAV-Ds. Although the mav computer will lock on silhouettes, it's hard (since mav is WIP) to get a good visual description of what your mav is tracking unless you're very close (<5nm or <)

 

Hope these methods cut your training time. I'm looking forward to reading about other methods.

[GGTharos]

#4 is why you don't see longer range launches (well, you do, but they're quite rare) in RL. There are real test reports out there and other fun stuff, including criteria for target recognition and identification.

 

The average launch range is something on the order of 3-4nm IIRC.