How can I improve accuracy of Mavericks ?

[Eugel]

Hi. I´m still learning the A-10 so I set up a little training mission to get a bit of routine with target acquisition and weapons handling.

One thing I´m having some problems with is that my mavericks always seem to hit random targets and not the ones I want.

 

I have set up a bunch of different vehicles in close proximity (a couple of tanks, fuel trucks and a pair of AA trucks)

So my procedure is this: 

I want to take out the AA threat from maximum range with the mavericks, so I acquire them from about 15 miles away with the TGP, set a SPI on one of the AA trucks, then slave the mavericks to that SPI. I then make the maverick screen SOI and as soon as I´m in range, I push TMS up to get a targeting lock with the maverick.

They will instantly lock on to something, but as the mavericks can´t zoom in enough, I don´t see what they lock on to. Most of the time, they hit one of the tanks but never the intended target.

 

Is there something I´m missing like a different tracking method ? Is it better to switch to narrow or wide tracking ? Does it matter if the TGP is using area or point tracking (I mostly use point) ? Or do I just need to get closer so I can slew the maverick around and see what it does ?

Thanks

Edited February 9, 2021 by Eugel

[sirPecka]

Are you using Mavericks in wide or narrow FOV?

Sent from my SpyPhone using Tapatalk

[Yurgon]

18 hours ago, Eugel said:

Is there something I´m missing like a different tracking method ?

 

No, the Mav is just fairly old, and while it's still considered a precision weapon, I think it wasn't meant to pick an individual target out of a tightly spaced group.

 

18 hours ago, Eugel said:

Is it better to switch to narrow or wide tracking ?

 

Narrow!

 

18 hours ago, Eugel said:

Does it matter if the TGP is using area or point tracking (I mostly use point) ?

 

Doesn't matter at all. The only difference is area track can't track moving targets. That's really all there is to the TGP's tracking modes. They have absolutely no impact on anything else.

 

18 hours ago, Eugel said:

Or do I just need to get closer so I can slew the maverick around and see what it does ?

 

That's what it'll come down to eventually. Personally I wouldn't actually slew it, but try and get a track on the intended target by pushing TMS Forward Short. If you see the Maverick display get offset to either side, the seeker probably tracks something that was not dead center, so it's tracking something other than your TGP target. Ideally, after slaving all to SPI, when you get the Mav to lock without any left/right/up/down offset, it's probably on the correct target that your TGP is looking at. So keep slaving to SPI and tracking until that happens. But depending on your target group, you may have to get too close for comfort, in which case a high altitude GBU might be a better choice.

 

Ultimately, though, the A-10 wasn't built to splash air defenses and fight its way through to the target. It was meant to kill as many Soviet tanks a possible in as short a time as possible, and if a Mav happened to destroy some supply trucks because they locked on to the wrong target, so be it.

[Eugel]

Great feedback, thanks.

 

Good to know I´m on the right track then.

I will have to do a few more practice runs, make sure I´m in narrow tracking mode and check at what range the mavericks will lock on correctly.

 

[Foka]

You can't pick up individual target with IIR Mav. If you REALLY need to do that use laser Mav or (of it's soft target like truck or ZSU) use APKWS.

[ldwater]

Yeah I found the IR mavs range to be really restrictive, especially since you'll get roughly the same range as the APKWS rockets.

 

Its a little easier if you can spot the target and make a SPI on your TPOD, then slew the mav window to your SPI, at least its roughly in the right area but even then it won't lock right away and you end up having the slew the mav a little till it finds something

 

The IR mavs are great for hard targets standing out (like big tanks) as they've got the punch to take them out.  They struggle at picking targets out in a group, even close up at about 5m its still very hit or miss if they'll go for the right target.  If they are bunched up you may get lucky from splash damage but again its unreliable.

 

For AA / AAA I would use MPP APKWS rockets, go in low (<100 ft) and when you get to within ~4 or 3m pull up, laze and shoot a rocket (1 will demolish most soft targets) with a bit of loft - then roll to the left or right making sure you keep low and the belly pointing to the target.  The laze continues on target while you get away from any potential ground fire.  After rounds hit (or miss) you can finish the roll, acquire a new target and start the a new pass.

[Yurgon]

2 hours ago, ldwater said:

Its a little easier if you can spot the target and make a SPI on your TPOD, then slew the mav window to your SPI, at least its roughly in the right area but even then it won't lock right away and you end up having the slew the mav a little till it finds something

 

I think OP is already ahead of you in this regard.

 

There are two ways to get the IR and CCD Mavericks to track a target with sufficient contrast. One way is to slew the seeker over the target until it tracks, like you describe. The other way is to hit TMS Forward Short in order to track whatever is right in the middle of the seeker. Combined with a TGP (the Hornet folks call it TPOD, the Hog drivers prefer "TGP") and the Slave All to SPI HOTAS command, the second of these ways is actually relatively precise - just not very precise, which is what I understood OP's question to be about.

 

2 hours ago, ldwater said:

For AA / AAA I would use MPP APKWS rockets, go in low (<100 ft) and when you get to within ~4 or 3m pull up, laze and shoot a rocket

 

If we're only talking AAA, as in Zu-23 on a truck or even Shilka, why go through all the trouble of an extremely low approach with the targets being obscured from view, and all the dangers of NOE flying, when you can just rifle APKWS at 5 NM from 10,000 feet up? The above plan seems to be tailored to a very specific set of threats and I wouldn't generalize too much regarding the exact tactics that are advisable in any given situation.

 

Also, if that approach was advisable, it would make a lot of sense to have another aircraft or a ground unit lase the target so that the attacking aircraft can get back to cover as quickly as possible and not hang around the threat's engagement range while trying to somehow evade, and keep the TGP line of sight unmasked at the same time. Of course in DCS that means fiddling with ground units, JTACs and triggers or flying MP; the latter is really cool with the proper bunch of people ("Two, laser on.", "Two's lasing", "Rifle, off west", "SPLASH! Two's laser off").

 

And sorry for being so nitpicky, but unless you meant for OP to actively be lazy, it's "to lase", not "to laze", with "s" as in "stimulation" 

 

Ultimately, we all have to find the ways that work best for us, and it's a game after all, so there's not really that much of right and wrong as in the real world, where it's about the difference between dead and alive. Even so, I think some methods and tactics are more successful and thus advisable than others.

[Eugel]

Well to be honest, I haven´t tried the APKWS yet.

Again, it´s really just target practice for me, so I´m not yet concerned with correct tactics.

Right now I´m trying to learn how to disable targets from as far away as possible and I figured that mavericks would be the way to go.

 

Did another run, and even with narrow tracking and from 5 miles away the IR mavericks still hit a random target, though they seem to hit the tanks quite reliably. They probably have a stronger IR signature than the trucks.

Or maybe I really just packed the targets too close together...

[jasonbirder]

The obvious answer is - is it possible to aproach from a slightly  different direction (without compromising yourself tactically) that means "your" target is somewhat isolated rather than cluttered/overlapped by other targets...

The other answer is...what about LMAVs...wondered for a while what the "point" of them was compared to regular mavs (what with them not being fire and forget) but had this problem and the LMAV is the obvious answer if you absolutely MUST hit the particular target and only that target.

[Caldera]

Eugel,

 

A mistake that I was making.  After firing a Maverick, you need to change FOV to narrow for each missile.  The default comes up as wide FOV.

 

I just about always use the TGP and start firing at maximum range and the hit rate is very high.

 

Be nice to have ARM or HARM capability for the A-10C.  Most SAMs have a longer range.

 

Caldera

[Yurgon]

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

Be nice to have ARM or HARM capability for the A-10C.  Most SAMs have a longer range.

 

I didn't know the A-10 had SEAD/DEAD in its job description.

 

But seriously, there are platforms that are much better suited for the task, and the entire Electronic Warfare aspect in DCS is not even scratching the surface from what I unterstand.

 

If you find yourself in a mission where you can't hit your target because it's too well protected, chances are the mission designer created a scenario that's either not very realistic, or is lacking the proper support assets to assist the player.

[QuiGon]

20 hours ago, Caldera said:

Be nice to have ARM or HARM capability for the A-10C.  Most SAMs have a longer range.

 

As Yurgon has pointed out already, the A-10 is not supposed to attack SAMs. That's a job for other aircraft.

Edited February 13, 2021 by QuiGon

[Caldera]

Hey,

 

OK,  I do get it.  I just said it would be nice. 

 

As an attack aircraft (air frame) the the A-10 is certainly capable of doing this role, if not actually better than others.

 

On several PVE multiplayer servers that I have tried you are right.  Players attacking SAMs is for the most part hit or miss, often miss.  There are too many and too effective.  They are a formidable defense for sure.  From what I can tell most planes with F on them mostly get wasted by the AI CAP with often seems excessive.  These are the low population servers,  I mostly just get disco'd from the high population servers so I have kind of stopped doing that.

 

As an A-10 pilot I can fly in circles doing nothing or challenge the SAMs for some action during the time that I have.  Simple as that...  And, just as likely get wasted by the AI CAP.

 

Sorry off topic.

 

Caldera

[QuiGon]

3 hours ago, Caldera said:

As an attack aircraft (air frame) the the A-10 is certainly capable of doing this role, if not actually better than others.

 

Only in DCS...

In real life it stays well away from this role.

Edited February 14, 2021 by QuiGon

[Eugel]

OK, the laser Maverick did the trick for me. Too bad you can only carry one per pylon. And I can only fire one in my initial attack run.

And I also tested the APKWS which also works fine but with less range.

Good to learn these things, gives me options. If the trucks stand tightly packed, I can make sure with the laser Maverick or shoot 3-4 IR Mavericks into the group and hope to take them out with splash damage.

[Chunk]

I usually save my Mavericks, whichever variety I’m carrying, for targets such as AAA and tanks. Trucks get hosed with the GAU-8, or if they’re tightly packed, they get treated to a cluster munition...

[ASAP]

Part of the problem is the slave all to SPI > tms fwd to lock something > rifle method. The slave all to SPI is not going to put the maverick gnats ass on the thing the TGP is looking at generally, based on maverick boresight it's going to be off slightly. TMS fwd is basically telling the maverick "find something" and the maverick will make a best guess.

If you can see the target over the rail try this, if you want to stare at your TGP all day, fly the viper.

-keep the maverick boresighted

-roll in and put the maverick reticle on the target

-once the dot in the center of the reticle is on the thing you want to kill look inside at your screens

-space stabilize with DMS FWD & HOLD (the target should be in the center of the screen at this point)

-go narrow field of view if you arent already

-slew on to the exact target you want

-get a good lock

-rifle

WAGS made a really good video introducing space stabilize that does pretty much exactly that if you want to see it in action. It works like a charm and its a lot faster than staring at your pod the whole time.

If you tip in and all your targets are bunched up so much you can't break them out, keep driving in until you can, or pick a different run in.

[Yurgon]

8 hours ago, ASAP said:

The slave all to SPI is not going to put the maverick gnats ass on the thing the TGP is looking at generally, based on maverick boresight it's going to be off slightly.

Is that a new problem?

As far as I can tell, Maverick boresight alignment was never necessary in DCS and the seeker will be pretty much exactly spot on when slaved to any SPI.

8 hours ago, ASAP said:

If you can see the target over the rail try this, if you want to stare at your TGP all day, fly the viper.

So you're saying we've got these targeting pods at a million dollars a piece that allow us to scan the target and pick a spot from well over ten miles away, and we should just ignore them and get into visual recognition range of the target, putting us at maybe 3 to 4 miles away by the time we can finally egress?

I'm not sure that's a good answer to OP's question.

Now don't get me wrong. We DCS pilots tend to stare inside the cockpit way too much; keeping the eyes outside of the pit and maintaining SA is all great. Rifling Mavericks against targets of opportunity without the TGP is a skill each A-10 pilot should have. Given the toys that we have, I'd just say "it depends" and the solution you proposed above is just one tool in the toolbox, but not the only one.

[WobblyFlops]

1 hour ago, Yurgon said:

As far as I can tell, Maverick boresight alignment was never necessary in DCS and the seeker will be pretty much exactly spot on when slaved to any SPI.

Unfortunately only the Viper has this procedure, the other jets are simplified in this regard. 

52 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

Given the toys that we have, I'd just say "it depends" and the solution you proposed above is just one tool in the toolbox, but not the only one.

 

Based on what I've found on the Internet from real Hog pilots, the technique described above is highly realistic. Using the TGP as a primary sensor for a Maverick engagement and relying mainly on the slave all to SPI seems to be a DCSism, many pilots explained that Mavs in DCS (especially older IR Mavs) are much, much better and reliable in game and can lock up the target much easier than in reality. (A well known Rhino pilot on Reddit said that IR-CCD Mavericks in DCS are closer to Ace Combat super missiles than real 65s)

 

In the Hog community it seems that the visual nature of Mavericks is highly emphasized, and I've seen that space stabilization and visual target acquisition is the go to procedure for locking up targets with the Mav. They use the slave all to SPI as a backup technique to overlay the TGP diamond on the Mav wagon wheel to absolutely ensure that they are attacking the proper target. Public data shows IR Mavs being employed at a fairly short range. (Exact figures can be found on the F-16.net and Hoggit but I'd rather not post hard numbers knowing how serious this forum takes real life data.)

[Yurgon]

2 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

Unfortunately only the Viper has this procedure, the other jets are simplified in this regard.

Well the boresight alignment is available in the DCS A-10C, it just isn't necessary because of the perfect alignment status right off the bat.

2 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

In the Hog community it seems that the visual nature of Mavericks is highly emphasized, and I've seen that space stabilization and visual target acquisition is the go to procedure for locking up targets with the Mav.

That's interesting! I've often heard hints in this direction, but I'm not aware of any first hand source, especially not from the past ten or so years. As far as I'm aware, A-10s didn't use many Mavericks in OIF and OEF and instead mostly employed JDAMs and LGBs, or simply dumb bombs and of course the gun in those theaters. It would definitely be interesting to hear from actual pilots, and maybe also get a comparison between old-timers who come from the A-10A and transitioned to the A-10C versus newcomers who were trained in the C model with TGPs available right from the start.

In any case, what Wags describes in the video for Space Stabilization mirrors my experience with Mavericks in the A-10C: The seeker loves to wander off in just about any conceivable direction, and it takes quite a bit of ground stabilization and fiddling in order to get it to track the target. So for almost 10 years, the most reliable way of getting the Maverick to do its job was to slave it to the SPI and then fine-tune it from there.

From a quick test, it seems Maverick Space Stabilize is still not a feature in DCS A-10C, and is only available in the DCS A-10C II Tank Killer. It's also worth noting that the feature was still two months from becoming available to us when this thread was started, so with this very late response we're looking at slightly different circumstances now.

So I'd say we now have an additional tool in the box, but it doesn't render slaving the Maverick to SPI obsolete.

If DCS mimicked the Mavs more realistically, maybe it would make more sense to use them the same way in DCS as they're apparently used in real life. Given what we have in DCS, it just makes a lot of sense to pick a target with the TGP and then get the Mav to track that same thing, provided that there is ample time and a sufficiently permissive environment.

[Frederf]

A-10 missile alignment has always been 100% perfect. You might have a tiny parallax though. The system for adjusting boresight calibration has been there for ~10y but not used because of perfection.

I don't find long-ish range Maverick use particularly difficult. The missile may track something other than what I wanted it to track but that doesn't mean I blow up the wrong thing it means I have to try the tracking step again. Blowing up the wrong thing involves the missile not tracking what it was asked to plus not recognizing that it tracked said wrong thing. As far as I'm aware DCS never jumps targets mid flight. Whatever you were tracking when the missile was released is what is tracked throughout.

I have noticed that expectations vary a lot. You ask the usual 20 questions when someone's having an issue and you discover they're failing to track because they're mashing TMS forward at 15-18 miles away because if the TGP can see it why can't the missile. The MLE scale showing the kinematic range and not the seeker tracking range (which may be less) may not be a distinction they're aware of. Trying to track in WFOV for example, not something the more experienced even think to ask half the time. And of course sometimes DCS is just being DCS and your AGM-65H can't track something because it's the wrong time of day but you can clearly see hard edges and good contrast on the image with your human eye.

I don't find putting the wagon wheel on the target through the HUD to be that just OK but it is viable and fast. The 6 missiles in 8 seconds attack is something everyone should try at some point just for the experience. But getting every last ounce of performance out of a single missile the TGP is better than the HUD.

[ASAP]

2 hours ago, Yurgon said:

So you're saying we've got these targeting pods at a million dollars a piece that allow us to scan the target and pick a spot from well over ten miles away, and we should just ignore them and get into visual recognition range of the target, putting us at maybe 3 to 4 miles away by the time we can finally egress?

Lots to unpack there. So that viper comment was intended as a joke... kind of...

No. You obviously shouldn't totally scoff the TGP but you also shouldn't rely on it. In fact your last paragraph pretty much captured what I was getting at. I'm saying the TGP is great for getting a close up view of your target area, but the strength of the A-10 and the CAS minded A-10 pilot is their ability to look outside at the bigger picture of the battle space. The entire design of the A-10 is built around that concept, thats why it operates between 180-300kts and flies low instead of 500kts in the bozosphere like everyone else. The TGP is a soda straw view of the fight. Relying solely on finding the target in the TGP and using the slave all to SPI method is a crutch which is great for people who are starting out but consider the following:

 - you've located a column of tanks, you get the lead tank in the TGP, TGP LOS SPI and slave all to SPI, you make your maverick attack. Now what? do you get back to the hold and waist time getting the TGP onto the next tank so you can repeat, or do you just call up the next maverick, roll in and kill the tank with the method I outlined earlier. 

- You're low altitude either avoiding a threat, or staying below weather, and you can't see the target your JTAC is talking you onto in your TGP because it's terrain masked. You pretty much have to pop to visually acquire the target and kill it with my method

- You're looking at a target array with multiple vehicles which are not immediatley next to eachother, or the vehicles are all moving. If you can look outside and see them how much does the TGP really buy you for a maverick attack other than a lot of unneccessary HOTAS actions?

As far as where you hold: you should absolutley be as high and close as the threat allows. If there is no significant threat in the area, yeah it might be a good idea to hold in a 3-5 mile wheel above the target because that will give you the highest SA and most flexibility to quickly point into the fight and kill stuff. Thats what Hawgs did in Afghanistan for 20 years.  If there's a threat that forces you to move your hold further away then you should move far enough to be safe from it in the hold, then you might have to rely on the TGP to see exact details, but you should still look outside, and at least be able to ID the target area visually. The A-10A didn't have targeting pods and were able to use the gun, mavericks and dumb bombs just fine. The TGP was added in so they could start using LGBs and JDAMs.

9 hours ago, Yurgon said:

Is that a new problem?

As far as I can tell, Maverick boresight alignment was never necessary in DCS and the seeker will be pretty much exactly spot on when slaved to any SPI.

Fair point, in sim land all the weapons are perfectly bore sighted to an unrealistic degree. The boresight issue is more of a realism issue. That said, the OP was still saying his mavericks were not hitting the intended target by simply slaving all and then just TMS fwd short to command track, so its enough of a problem here. The maverick is going to have to pick what target you think it wants to hit based on whats closest to the center of the field of view. In the OPs case it seems like it's picking the wrong target, in reality you'd have issues with the seeker bounding on trees/bushes/shadows close to the target as well.

9 hours ago, Yurgon said:

I'm not sure that's a good answer to OP's question.

I agree, the solution to the OPs question is the last scentence I wrote: "If you tip in and all your targets are bunched up so much you can't break them out, keep driving in until you can break them out, or pick a different run in where their is more apparent spacing."

 

On 2/8/2021 at 3:34 AM, Eugel said:

Is there something I´m missing like a different tracking method ? Is it better to switch to narrow or wide tracking ? Does it matter if the TGP is using area or point tracking (I mostly use point) ? Or do I just need to get closer so I can slew the maverick around and see what it does ?

The OP asked for different techniques or tracking methods. I was offering one. His issue sounds like trying to take a shot farther out than the seeker can reliably distinguish the targets, and relying on the HOTAS to get a lock when he needs to be more disciplined about picking his target in maverick window. He could also slave all to SPI to get the maverick looking into the target but he'd still have to then get close enough to analyze and interpret the scene, go to narrow field of view, slew the crosshairs onto the target, get a good bound, wait for a steady cross and rifle. The method of getting the maverick looking into the target area is technique, what you do after that to get a good lock on the correct target is procedure.

[Yurgon]

3 hours ago, ASAP said:

- you've located a column of tanks, you get the lead tank in the TGP, TGP LOS SPI and slave all to SPI, you make your maverick attack. Now what? do you get back to the hold and waist time getting the TGP onto the next tank so you can repeat, or do you just call up the next maverick, roll in and kill the tank with the method I outlined earlier. 

Oh I totally agree, in such a scenario it doesn't make much sense to break off the attack after one missile and go through all the hoops again.

3 hours ago, ASAP said:

- You're low altitude either avoiding a threat, or staying below weather, and you can't see the target your JTAC is talking you onto in your TGP because it's terrain masked. You pretty much have to pop to visually acquire the target and kill it with my method

I beg to differ. If the target is terrain masked, that applies to all sensors and MK1 eyeballs equally, doesn't it?

I think I wrote before that the TGP -> Maverick method works well in permissive environments with enough time to set it all up. When time is of the essence, or when the environment is non-permissive, a quick pop-up with a quick Maverick shot would be one way to deal with the situation, but now we're talking lots of fine points, like how far away are we, what's the collateral damage risk, how close are the friendlies, how urgently do they need the weapon effect, how important is target prioritization, and so on and so forth. From OP's description, I was under the impression that it was about permissive environments with a relaxed time-frame for the attack, and where the idea was to take out threats with Mavericks and then mop up the rest with whatever ordnance is available.

I'm sure we can come up with scenarios that favor one method over the other all day long.

4 hours ago, ASAP said:

- You're looking at a target array with multiple vehicles which are not immediatley next to eachother, or the vehicles are all moving. If you can look outside and see them how much does the TGP really buy you for a maverick attack other than a lot of unneccessary HOTAS actions?

Again, it all depends. I guess you're thinking in terms of killbox scenarios like Fulda Gap or Desert Storm, where you'll want to come home with an empty jet and the opportunity to get some tanks and vehicles painted next to the pit.

If we're talking CAS with very specific target requirements, it's quite possible that we know the target coords from 50 miles out and we can already get the TGP on it and do a talk-on from 15 to 20 miles away, build SA, cross-check and PID with the JTAC to make sure we're really looking at the right village and the right target, and we can provide a surprise attack where the first sign of trouble to the enemy will be the Maverick impact. In this scenario, I'd be much more comfortable working with the TGP first.

In DCS, I like to do things in a realistic fashion, and I'm always eager to learn. On the other hand, when a feature like the Maverick boresight works perfectly all the time, I have a hard time closing in to 5 miles for a Maverick track when I can set it up from 15 miles out and get it to track at up to 8 miles, knowing that I'll be exactly on the intended target.

4 hours ago, ASAP said:

I agree, the solution to the OPs question is the last scentence I wrote: "If you tip in and all your targets are bunched up so much you can't break them out, keep driving in until you can break them out, or pick a different run in where their is more apparent spacing."

Yeah, well, I think that was already sorted back in February. 

[ASAP]

First off, the beauty of a single seat fighter is the pilot has complete authority over what he does with it. Fly the way you want. I'm offering a technique.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what I was saying, or I triggered you with my quip I made about fast jets being TGP dependent (which was a joke). I am not at all saying throw caution into the wind and keep your TGP in standbye. I'm saying that reliance on the technique of using slave all to SPI to get your maverick into the target area is less flexible, more time consuming and at least in the case of the OP results in locking up random stuff other than your intended target. Especially if you make the assumption that the slave all to SPI has fixed all the aiming problems and TMS fwd short will immediatly lock up exactly the thing your TGP is on. Use the TGP for all its worth its great for target ID from the hold, and you should be using it. I'm not advocating for employing weapons with zero target SA. CDE and danger close considerations apply no matter what technique you use.

The point I'm making is flying the maverick reticle onto the target is a more flexible, and according to every Hawg driver I've talked to a much more realistic option. It can be accomplished with the TGP by flying the reticle onto the TGP diamond in the HUD, or a steer point, or the IR marker at night, it can be accomplished in HARS mode with the reticle depressed to 70 mils, it can be accomplished with the standbye HUD cranked to 70 mils. It works when your GPS degraded and your TGP has no clue where the jet, or the target is. It can be accomplished with your TGP looking at the next target you want to strafe after you rifle at the first, etc... The technique I'm talking about works in every single situation. The slave all to SPI method works most the time and its not wrong, its just more limited.

2 hours ago, Yurgon said:

I beg to differ. If the target is terrain masked, that applies to all sensors and MK1 eyeballs equally, doesn't it?

Not sure why you beg to differ, thats exactly what I said. My method works when you can't see the target from the hold. You get a target talk on from your JTAC and an enhanced target description, something like "Your target is a tank to the south of the fork in a Y shaped road with a building to the east" (obviously you'd get a lot more detail than just that). From the hold you can't see it with the MK1 eyeball, or the TGP. You'd pop up (climb), or come out from behind the ridge/mountain you were hiding behind and visually acquire the target, roll in and use my method to kill it with a maverick.

2 hours ago, Yurgon said:

When time is of the essence, or when the environment is non-permissive, a quick pop-up with a quick Maverick shot would be one way to deal with the situation, but now we're talking lots of fine points, like how far away are we, what's the collateral damage risk, how close are the friendlies, how urgently do they need the weapon effect, how important is target prioritization, and so on and so forth.

When would a CAS pilot not consider all those fine points? This is universally true of any attack using any munition or type of delivery. All these things go into planning and executing an attack. I agree.

2 hours ago, Yurgon said:

I guess you're thinking in terms of killbox scenarios like Fulda Gap or Desert Storm, where you'll want to come home with an empty jet and the opportunity to get some tanks and vehicles painted next to the pit.

If we're talking CAS with very specific target requirements, it's quite possible that we know the target coords from 50 miles out and we can already get the TGP on it and do a talk-on from 15 to 20 miles away, build SA, cross-check and PID with the JTAC to make sure we're really looking at the right village and the right target, and we can provide a surprise attack where the first sign of trouble to the enemy will be the Maverick impact. In this scenario, I'd be much more comfortable working with the TGP first.

I'm talking about kind of fighting the USAF has been doing for the last 20 years over Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. It would totally work in the Fulda gap as well. It applies equally to all levels of conflict, environments, and ROEs. Again, I'm just talking about a method to point a weapon at a target, nothing more.

I'd argue that in CAS in a counter insurgency environment the chances are far higher that you wont know your target until you get assigned to a troops in contact event that's already underway, and you have to show up and un-fornicate a really bad situation, with no prior planning or target development. If there are troops on the ground getting shot at, a JTAC isn't going to want you 20 miles away they'd want you over nugget where you can affect the fight faster. And again, yes you should be using your TGP, that's a given. Target correlation is important. 20 miles away your TGP isn't going to give you that much fidelity anyway.

3 hours ago, Yurgon said:

In DCS, I like to do things in a realistic fashion, and I'm always eager to learn. On the other hand, when a feature like the Maverick boresight works perfectly all the time, I have a hard time closing in to 5 miles for a Maverick track when I can set it up from 15 miles out and get it to track at up to 8 miles, knowing that I'll be exactly on the intended target.

From everything I've heard from the pilots I know, the technique I'm talking about is more realistic. Obviously you can believe that or say I'm full of it, your choice. If you're eager to learn new techniques, I've offered you a new one. Range and accuracy is the same for both, a maverick is a maverick regardless of how you point it. I never said anything about having to get closer to the target. If you have visually acquired the target, yes you have probably gotten closer. However, that's not a requirement for the technique I was recommending. The comment I made in my original post is that if you visually acquire the target, you don't need to screw around with your TGP in order to shoot a maverick at it. I never said you should always push in and get a visual to employ.

[jaylw314]

It's a little disingenuous to be comparing pilot technique in DCS vs real world for a large number of reasons.  A major one is that the typical mission in DCS is almost always fundamentally different from how the A-10 was actually used.  Most DCS pilots have never, ever performed CAS as it is intended.  The AI JTAC functionality in DCS just isn't up to snuff, and most scenarios and servers are not intended as such.  For the sake of gaming, we are generally hitting known targets from a distance because of some kind of AAA threat.  That's precisely not the way the A-10 has been used in the last 30 years AFAIK.