How can I improve accuracy of Mavericks ?

[Yurgon]

23 hours ago, ASAP said:

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what I was saying [...]

I probably am. When I read through all your comments, what I understand is that you basically say "do whatever you like", followed by "and you should really do it exactly the way I told you to".

23 hours ago, ASAP said:

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

I'm not sure where you get this reliance aspect from. Using the TGP and slaving the Mav is just one way. If you got the impression that I'm advocating to use this particular way all the time in all situations, I must have chosen my words very poorly. I think we probably agree on how to best use Mavericks some 95 % or so.

However, I am indeed advocating being able to reliably use the TGP to slave the Maverick. It's a tool in the toolbox, and I do believe that there are situations where this will come in very handy. The way missions are built in DCS, it's actually a pretty standard technique.

It's also worth noting that Space Stabilize was introduced to the DCS A-10C II in April 2021, some 10 years after the DCS A-10C was first released. The DCS Warthog crowd had to work without Space Stabilize for a decade, so we either had to use ground stabilize, which I find to be pretty wonky at best, or work around it with the TGP and then slaving the Maverick.

In essence, Space Stabilize is a great new feature, and we really should all learn to use it. It's too bad that the feature is not available for the legacy DCS A-10C (at least it didn't seem to be when I tested it yesterday), though, so anyone who didn't upgrade doesn't have access to it.

On 10/24/2021 at 4:47 AM, ASAP said:

Not sure why you beg to differ, thats exactly what I said.

I was referring to the whole setup you provided; the "finer points" I mentioned weren't meant as "in this scenario, a pilot has to keep all that in mind" as if there was any scenario where a pilot didn't have to keep it all in mind.

What I meant was that it all depends on the answers to the questions above. Depending on the answers, a Maverick popup attack might be the best way to tackle the problem, or maybe it's not. The scenario you provided in a quick sentence simply doesn't always require a Maverick popup attack, is what I'm saying.

On 10/24/2021 at 4:47 AM, ASAP said:

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.

Well, here I am guilty of making assumptions.

In my scenario, I was quite simply pointing out that it's possible that a CAS flight might have all relevant information 50 miles from the target. I'm not saying that's what usually happened during CAS taskings in the past 20 years. It's just that when that's the situation, and a Maverick is to be used, then I would prefer to put the TGP on target from much farther out than the Mav, and get a good look. And with the TGP on target, and the near-perfect boresight alignment in DCS, why shouldn't a pilot slave the Maverick to the SPI?

On 10/24/2021 at 4:47 AM, ASAP said:

I never said anything about having to get closer to the target.

Well, I am. 

With the TGP, a pilot should be able to identify a target from quite a lot further away than with the Maverick, and finding targets from farther out should also be a lot easier with the TGP, especially because of its massively more relaxed gimbal limits compared to the Maverick.

Now whether it makes sense to put the TGP on target or slew the Maverick without the TGP, whether the increased range of the TGP is even necessary or a pilot acquires a target visually without ever putting the TGP on it -- that all depends. There are scenarios where TGP -> Slave Maverick makes sense; in DCS probably more than in real life. I'm not saying that putting the Mav on target without the TGP is in any way bad, or that it shouldn't be used. I'm not saying that at all. There are scenarios for both methods, and what I understand is that you keep saying "maybe, but use Space Stabilize anyway".

[WobblyFlops]

3 hours ago, Yurgon said:

I probably am. When I read through all your comments, what I understand is that you basically say "do whatever you like", followed by "and you should really do it exactly the way I told you to".

This boils down to the age old debate when it comes to working around the simplifications and inaccuracies in DCS. Do you use the real life technique knowing that it's realistic, or do you use an in game technique that's highly unrealistic but much more effective? Obviously it's not that extreme but generally, to be truly effective in a metagamed scenario in DCS, you can easily abuse the AI, abuse the fact that you can get much more data on threats and countermeasures effectiveness than real pilots, and you have a fairly primitive netcode/technical simulation side of things where highly nonsensical things tend to happen. (Like the AI tracking you through a mountain and opening fire immediately when you pop up, or laser accurate BMP-s hunting helos with impunity, better than an SA-19)

 

So, if you know that a realistic technique is suboptimal you have to make a choice; do you still use a realistic way of employment and accept that in game, you're at a disadvantage compared to competitive metagamers or do you metagame yourself? Obviously these differences in this topic aren't as extreme as the ones in air to air engagements (no one uses realistic timelines and competitive 'BVR' in DCS has absolutely nothing to do with reality, you have to set up specific constraints to simulate real tactics instead of abusing netcode and the in game missile guidance logic for example) but ultimately it boils down to your preferance. Obviously this is a complex topic, there are a lot of things that aren't publically available, so making your own TTPs based on a lot of experimental data and practice is still required and that will fundamentally closer to the metagamed solutions in the vast majority of cases.

 

3 hours ago, Yurgon said:

And with the TGP on target, and the near-perfect boresight alignment in DCS, why shouldn't a pilot slave the Maverick to the SPI?

Because this is a heavy simplification that won't necessarily work in reality that way. So, you choose; realism or metagamed tactics? Maveric employment is one of the topics where a lot more realistic approach can be approximated a little bit better because there is some real life data (and tactics) to base this on. So the choice here exists. If you compare that to ECM use for example, or CMS profiles, those are classified topics so you're forced to rely on fundamentally unrealistic DCSisms as your approach.

3 hours ago, Yurgon said:

With the TGP, a pilot should be able to identify a target from quite a lot further away than with the Maverick

IR Mavs are short range weapons. Getting a lock 6-9 nm out is highly unrealistic, more than 3-4 times the publically described range (for the D in this example). If you're doing CAS or in general there are more realistic ROE requirements in play and we're not talking about SCAR missions, you won't even get to VID based on the TGP and you certainly won't get to legally clear yourself hot without a JTAC.

 

I cannot emphasize this enough. Getting closer to the target with a Maverick run is highly realistic, based on publically available data. I've never heard of any pilot ever saying anything nice about non laser Mavericks. Even if we get the ROE related things out of the way, the idea that you can get to utilize the TGP standoff distance with the Mavs is highly questionable. If there are shadows near the target it drops lock. If the target drives in front of a background object that makes the contrast less distinctive, it drops lock. It drives through an area of similar brightness and the they overlap, guess what? Drops lock.  If the machine spirit doesn't favour you, it won't even acquire the target in the first place without trying a few times to begin with (but it may end up locking the shadows near the target or whatever else). If the reworked FLIR/optical rendering gets a realistic implementation at all, people will tear their hair out.

[Eugel]

31 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

IR Mavs are short range weapons.

This was basically my initial problem or misunderstanding of the Maverick. I always thought of it as a long range missile and used it as such. That lead to some frustration because I didn´t get the results i had hoped for.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Eugel

[Caldera]

Thanks for the insight Jay.

Most likely the only typical DCS vs RL scenario that my be more similar would have been armor busting missions in IRAQ?

Caldera

[jaylw314]

6 hours ago, Caldera said:

Thanks for the insight Jay.

Most likely the only typical DCS vs RL scenario that my be more similar would have been armor busting missions in IRAQ?

Caldera

Perhaps, but most of the A-10's would not have been equipped with the Litening pod by then.  I assume it would be like the guys who fly the FC3 A-10A--get close, use your eyeballs and your AGM-65's as a poor man's TGP, and pray nobody shoots at you.

It's worth noting since 2003 no A-10 has been shot down in combat, and the A-10C was deployed a few years after.  Compare that to the number of A-10's that go down in flames on PvE servers daily, and that'll suggest how differently it's flown in DCS 

[tanker82]

I am having issues tracking targets under 5 miles with the AGM-65D's and after 3 fired cannot track any Targets. Seems to be random both with the A-10C and the A-10CII

[tanker82]

Here is a video: