[NOT A BUG] TGP TGT designation without LTD/R?

[Jak525]

You can designate a Target point even without the Laser Target Designator/Ranger on/armed. I am pretty sure this should be impossible... the targeting pod needs to briefly shoot a laser out to actually know how far the point out is that the FLIR is looking at. Hence the "Ranger" part of the LT Designator and Ranger.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Jak525

[Keakaha]

The aircraft knows its own attitude and altitude, it knows where in the world it is and it knows where the tgp is looking so I don't think its impossible, this is similar to how the A10C/litening functions.

[AvroLanc]

It can use an angle tracking / rates solution without a valid laser. Similar to the ARBS / DMT in the harrier. Although I'm sure the laser would be more accurate.

 

Being WIP it's not entirely clear that this is indeed what's happening. I think we're missing some symbology.

[Jak525]

Well yes, but it's missing a key factor: where the line of sight from the TGP to the ground ends. That differs whether or not a hill is there, or a house, etc. Hence, where the laser comes in to determine that.

[viper2097]

I'm pretty sure that it needs a laser for correct coordiantes.

Take a look at the A10.

When you only slew the podm you get coordinates. If you then activate the laser, these coordinates are corrected.

 

Its just WIP I would guess...

[Keakaha]

Well yes, but it's missing a key factor: where the line of sight from the TGP to the ground ends. That differs whether or not a hill is there, or a house, etc. Hence, where the laser comes in to determine that.

 

Yes that's the difference the laser makes, an accurate designation, doesn't mean it should be impossible to create one, it just wont be as accurate, as far as I can tell we cant do that yet in the hornet or If we even will be able to in the future(the functionality stopped working in the A10C IRC).

[AvroLanc]

Well yes, but it's missing a key factor: where the line of sight from the TGP to the ground ends. That differs whether or not a hill is there, or a house, etc. Hence, where the laser comes in to determine that.

 

Rates tracking works by tracking a scene and then using the rate of change of line of sight to determine the slant range. Obviously it’s less accurate than laser range.

 

And yes it’s debatable whether or not the coordinates generated would be sufficient enough for JDAM.

[NineLine]

Range indication is not working currently in this version of the TGP if that is what you are asking, still WIP.

[Harlikwin]

To clarify for folks, the pod uses angle rate tracking to get range without the laser.

[Harlikwin]

Rates tracking works by tracking a scene and then using the rate of change of line of sight to determine the slant range. Obviously it’s less accurate than laser range.

 

And yes it’s debatable whether or not the coordinates generated would be sufficient enough for JDAM.

 

We have another fun thread on that.

 

It depends on the range.

[cofcorpse]

To clarify for folks, the pod uses angle rate tracking to get range without the laser.

 

Are you sure it's the only way to measure distance?

[Harlikwin]

Are you sure it's the only way to measure distance?

 

 

To my knowledge, the three methods to do this are in order of accuracy:

 

1. INS, pointing at target and LRF range

2. INS, pointing at target and angle rate ranging

3. INS, pointing at target and inferring tgt coords from DTED data

 

Broadly speaking the TPOD making absolute coordinates for use with JDAM's has the following problems to solve.

 

IRL your plane doesn't actually know where it is in XYZ space with pinpoint accuracy, even with GPS, any errors in own-plane position show up in downrage coordinates.

 

IRL, pointing error in TPOD's is a thing, and since this is an angular error it rapidly scales with range to target, its not a huge problem at close range, but it gets worse and worse at longer ranges.

 

Ranging:

LRF: IRL LRF's aren't perfect either even under ideal conditions you have some x % ranging error, which as you guessed it is worse at longer range

 

Angle Rate: Worse than LRF, and mainly bad at low angle rate change angles (read that as things far away and things you are flying directly towards)

 

DTED: The map resolution accuracy can vary greatly depending on which DTED level your map data is from. Which can vary by 900m between posts for level 0 to 90m or 30m for levels 1 and 2.

 

Add to that the fact the JDAM has its own internal errors (same problem as the plane) with its own known position it makes the additional error of TPOD based coordinates an issue which is why absolute coordinates (PP) are preferred, and if using the TPOD its best to generate coordinates as close in as you can.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Harlikwin

[theinmigrant]

All of these stuff in this thread makes me wonder how in hell do they do to drop jdams in any other than PP coordinates IRL???

[Mars Exulte]

All of these stuff in this thread makes me wonder how in hell do they do to drop jdams in any other than PP coordinates IRL???

 

Very carefully

[theinmigrant]

Very carefully

 

Im serious.

 

If there are so many problems with a targeting pod then I guess a JDAM CEP is much much higher than 30ft.

[Mars Exulte]

Like they said, it depends on range. You're not going to use it for standoff attacks against a heavily defended peer-technology opponent, but for the stuff it's usually used for (bombing jihadis in afghanistan and syria) that can't fight back (much) they can afford to get close enough for high accuracy attacks. It's basically just trigonometry at that point (speed + altitude + gps/ins coords + angle to target area = close enough).

 

For long range or precision strikes, they have weapons specifically for that. JDAMs are basically Dumb Bombs of Smiting +2. Better than eyeball guidance, but it's not a laser guided death ray, either, at least not at range.

[Harlikwin]

I think part of the issue is how DCSers are using the TPOD.

 

Most of those errors are fairly small if you are close enough. Thats the point, you aren't generating good coordinates from 40nm out IRL.

 

If you are doing strike you have solid "real coords" and use PP

 

If you are doing CAS, you have a guy on the ground sending you coords. (with some of the same issues ironically enough).

 

If you are randomly flying around in GAW and see a random tank sitting in the middle of a field that isn't moving cuz they forgot that airpower exists. THATS when you use the TPOD.

 

But its DCS, so the "easy" way wins every time and using the TPOD is easier than punching in coordinates.

[Harlikwin]

Im serious.

 

If there are so many problems with a targeting pod then I guess a JDAM CEP is much much higher than 30ft.

 

Well, part of the problem is what people do in DCS isn't whats done IRL. And if gen 1JDAM's were the final voice of accuracy there wouldn't have been Gen2 jdams with terminal seekers.

 

You should be dropping JDAM's on buildings like power plants, not on random T72's.

[Harlikwin]

Like they said, it depends on range. You're not going to use it for standoff attacks against a heavily defended peer-technology opponent, but for the stuff it's usually used for (bombing jihadis in afghanistan and syria) that can't fight back (much) they can afford to get close enough for high accuracy attacks. It's basically just trigonometry at that point (speed + altitude + gps/ins coords + angle to target area = close enough).

 

For long range or precision strikes, they have weapons specifically for that. JDAMs are basically Dumb Bombs of Smiting +2. Better than eyeball guidance, but it's not a laser guided death ray, either, at least not at range.

 

+1 for DCS permissive environment bombing simulator!

 

On that note, when is the IADS system coming! :thumbup: