Better JTACs

[Sandman1330]

For a long time, I thought the JTAC system is DCS was quite well done. In fact, in a lot of ways, I think it still is - there is a lot of good, proper use of CAS procedures as outlined in the JFIRE, with properly formatted 9-lines, and when working, proper brevity with marking, etc.

 

However, as I've started building some missions, I'm beginning to realize how absolutely difficult and frustrating it is to get JTACs to do what I want.

 

What I'd love to see is JTACs be more intelligent. When I do my attack team check-in, he should be using kit and procedures that work with the ordinance and kit that I'm carrying. If I tell him that I'm equipped with Laser Mavs and no targeting pod (since the Harrier doesn't self lase mavericks anyway), he shouldn't respond with no mark or marked with WP. (Yes, I'm using JTAC units that are capable of designating (predator)). Likewise, they often seem to default to Type 3 controls, where type 1 and type 2 are far more common (and more useful to high flyers, as finding their own targets for type 3 can be difficult, especially without a TGP). Again, this is something that a JTAC would cue upon during the attack team check-in. No TGP, likely no type 3 controls unless they are well away from friendly positions (like hitting artillery positions).

 

Other things they seem to fail to cue in on are threats. They'll call out all the threats, and then give me an attack heading that puts me right into the WEZ of the threat. A real JTAC would consider threats to the aircraft, as well as the danger templates for the munitions in use, when assigning attack headings. To take this even further, maybe he could dictate whether it's a low level pop-up attack or a high level attack, again based on the munitions I'm carrying and the threat environment.

 

Also, the ability to request things from the JTAC - for example, after receiving a 9-line, if I get WP as a mark but I want laser, I should have the option to request that through the menus. Or things like a friendly mark, or a request to change the priority of targets, etc. Allow a little bit more back and forth.

 

Another great addition would be realistic prioritization of targets. Perhaps they would cue you onto the major air defences first (if, again, in your check-in you identify that you have the munitions and kit to do it). Or, cue you onto the enemy groups that are doing the most damage to friendly forces first. A real time assessment of where your munitions are needed at that moment would add realism, rather than just picking random targets.

 

Overall, just a general smartening-up of the system would be great. I don't think it's been overhauled in some time, so perhaps this could get put into the (already long) cue of things to be addressed?

 

In the shorter term, maybe more ability to control the JTACs defaults in the ME. If I use FAC-assign group, I can tell him which mark to use and what priority to engage targets, but not if I just leave him to pick targets on his own. Also, if I do use the FAC command, maybe some priority of engagement in the ME (air defence first, then tanks, then IFV, then arty, etc) without having to use the assign group command. This way we could set up scenarios that are more dynamic and less scripted.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Sandman1330

[QuiGon]

Very good points! I just messed around with the JTAC in a custom mission yesterday and it can indeed be frustrating to get him to do certain things. Your proposals would be a great addition.

 

+1

[Sandman1330]

With the upcoming AGM-65E update for the Hornet, I’d just like to bump this back up as I think the reliance on JTACs to lase for us is going to cause frustration given the current limitations of JTACs... Anyone else have thoughts?

[Frederf]

JTAC will use type 3 if there's no line of sight between them and the target or it's just too far away. I've never seen a reasonable distance, clear line of sight JTAC that used type 3 in DCS.

 

A real controller is a thinking, deciding person which I doubt could really be programmed. Having preferences for marking would be great. The concept of controller weapon designation and code-matching with airborne equipment is an absolute necessity.

[Sandman1330]

JTAC will use type 3 if there's no line of sight between them and the target or it's just too far away. I've never seen a reasonable distance, clear line of sight JTAC that used type 3 in DCS.

 

A real controller is a thinking, deciding person which I doubt could really be programmed. Having preferences for marking would be great. The concept of controller weapon designation and code-matching with airborne equipment is an absolute necessity.

 

I’m not convinced it’s that cut and dry. Even using predators orbiting high above the target, I still too often get type 3 controls.

 

And then there’s the many bugs where JTACs don’t answer, or stop answering halfway through a control... or they clear me hot on a target they are lasing, then call abort for no permission when I fire. Just generally wonky behaviour as well...

Edited November 7, 2018 by Sandman1330

[Buckeye]

This will be a prerequisite (along with many other core aspects of DCS) for the success of a Dynamic Campaign. Agree on all points, solid ask.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Looney]

So better yet, switch over to human JTACs, that's where the fun really begins!

[Eldur]

+20%

 

Just posted the things I noticed in another thread...

 

It's bit of a pain to set JTACs up...

 

Had the same issue with "no mark, 1688" and the ME told me the distance should be under 10km. Well, at least from the first waypoint on it was under 8km and the second is similar. But the ME takes into account the initial WP which was too far away, so I had to move the drone up to an airstart close enough. Would totally appreciate if this was fixed somehow. Want them to take off and go there and be able to lase from higher distances which probably would be possible with the real things. Right now we have to mess around with invisible and immortal to make them even work properly because of the ridiculously low range that's been accepted by the ME...

 

Also, I'd like to provide them the same callsigns the ground bases JTACs use, but the ME limits those units to the few default callsigns for airborne units.

 

And I couldn't find out how to set their laser code... I was planning to have multiple JTACs up there with different codes and try out if I can call more than one to activate their lasers at the same time on different targets.

 

There also comes the problem that they won't tell me their exact target and I can't choose except for making them shift through until I might get the right one. In my mission there's "SAM, Zeus, SA-8" reported... I'd prefer if he'd at least designate the most dangerous ones first, which are the SA-8.

[Capn kamikaze]

One thing we need, but I don't think it can be done except by using 3rd party mods, is to be able to change the laser code in the mission editor, so you can have several JTACS lasing for different aircraft in the same area.

[Frederf]

Not the editor but on the fly. If a real JTAC is dealing with several airplanes, helicopters, artillery then it is he who must change his laser code to the weapon without any sort of planning. Controller doesn't have a setting but changes minute to minute based on the demands of who he is supporting. If controller has any preference it is for his code when he marks for others. "TAC will mark code 1112."

 

"Rhino 4, flight of two, type Phantom, load is four times GBU-16, two weapons code 1532, wingman two weapons code 1533."

[LeCuvier]

I'd like to see an improvement in the FAC's logic for sequence in target selection. What I mean:

I have a group of 4 targets, 2 MBT's rather close together and 2 IFV's also close together, but a few of hundert m away from the MBT's. Quite often the FAC marks an IFV first and then an MBT. So If I fire two successive missiles after the "cleared hot", the second missile has to make a fairly sharp turn when the FAC shifts the mark, and this increases the probability of miss.

In my opinion, the FAC should always shift the mark to the closest one of the remaining targets.