Multiple JTAC Waypoints needed?

[Rodeo]

Silly question/thought:

So recently I haven’t been creating multiple JTAC way/steerpoints but rather just create one JTAC labeled Waypoint and I just edit the coordinates. This helps streamline my entry process and declutter the HMCS. I understand irl a pilot would want all the data to help with AAR and debriefs but we do not have such requirements in DCS.

I don’t think I’m hampering myself but all the tutorials I’ve watched they all create multiple JTAC waypoint. I am assuming this is just to have a truer real life experience. 
 

Cheers

[Yurgon]

34 minutes ago, Rodeo said:

I am assuming this is just to have a truer real life experience. 

When we talk about the DCS AI JTAC, then yes.

When we talk about a human JTAC, it makes all the sense in the world to keep the previous target points or coordinates, as the JTAC and the flight can then very easily correlate threats:

"Hitman, Hawg 2, tally two T-72 tanks approaching TRP Coors from the west, ready to engage with Mavericks on your request!"

This assumes that target points are somehow named or at least enumerated; a quick and easy solution is to call them "target reference points" and either go TRP1, TRP2, TRP3 and so on, or give them ad hoc names, like TRP Coors, TRP Foster, TRP Budweiser or whatever both parties can easily use and recall.

I would make it a habit to always keep previous target points and learn how to deal with the clutter. It'll come in handy in certain missions and of course when working with actual humans in the MP environment.

[jaylw314]

You can always remove the waypoint clutter from waypoints by flipping the STEERPT switch on the AAP to MARK, then you will only have markpoints and your one current steerpoint with the default HMCS setup.  Given that many JTAC-coordinated CAS engagements are done by visual references, markpoints are pretty useful.  I think you can still enter and edit waypoints as well.

Of course, if you're like me and use markpoints liberally, you now have your HMCS cluttered by markpoints

 

[Rodeo]

Thanks guys.

I am flying only in SP but will eventually get into MP so it would be wise for me to practice good habits now then try to unlearn bad habits later. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Rodeo

[ASAP]

IRL JTACS will label 9 lines. A common technique is the number from their callsign followed by a letter. I.E. "Call ready gameplan, 9-Line 12A" 

The JTAC doesn't care how you put that information into your system (unless the gameplan is BOC), but JTACs will often reference previous 9-lines as a starting point for target correlation (I.E. I need you to slew sensors back to 9-Line 12A and from there scan east along the main MSR). If you don't put each 9-line into its own steer point you can't quickly reference back to it. Additionally, the target you strike during a 9-line might not be exactly at the grid passed in the 9-line. BLUF, as a best practice you should pocket each 9 line target into its own steer point.

IRL Stepping out the door the A-10 default mission load is waypoints 1-10 are empty target placeholders and they fill them in as needed, typically one per 9-line unless it's a multi-DPI 9-line

[ASAP]

On 12/13/2023 at 3:10 PM, Yurgon said:

"Hitman, Hawg 2, tally two T-72 tanks approaching TRP Coors from the west, ready to engage with Mavericks on your request!"

Just for a fun Friday 3.09-3 debate... I believe the more correct comm would be

"Hitman, Hawg 11, tally two Tanks approaching coors, call ready lines 4 and 6"

then the pilot would pass the elevation and grids they have for the target, the JTAC would provide a full 9 line, then instead of the pilot re-reading back line 4 and 6 the pilot would respond with "good readbacks" then the pilot would read back restrictions.

Alternatively, the pilot could just say "tally two tanks approaching Coors from the east, ready 9-line" and the JTAC could use say "label that target A" and pass Target A for lines 4 and 6, or the JTAC could say "From your tally" in the 9-line. I've heard fierce debates about whether a TRP or "from your tally" is "better", but they are both just techniques.

In either event, there still needs to be a full gameplan, 9-line, remarks restrictions. Target correlation is largely done already but the JTAC still needs to make sure that the pilots have a good line 8 an appropriate final attack heading, and ground commander coordination still has to happen.

 

I've seen videos from the early days of the 2nd Gulf War where pilots had fangs out and said "contact multiple armor pieces north of your position, we can be in with guns in 30 seconds" the JTAC said "approved" and the hawgs rolled in to shoot what they later found out they were marines. The JTAC and pilots had very different perceptions of the battle space, relative positions, who was where and what they were doing. That was before the 12 step CAS process  and the 9-line were as well defined and codified. And stuff like that is why those procedures are now in place. Regs are written in blood and all that... going fast is only good so long as its still correct and safe.

[Yurgon]

3 hours ago, ASAP said:

Just for a fun Friday 3.09-3 debate... I believe the more correct comm would be

"Hitman, Hawg 11, tally two Tanks approaching coors, call ready lines 4 and 6"

[...]

All great points!

I've heard from Rifle aka Hawg63 (former Canadian SOF JTAC) that he would sometimes shorten the workflow when he was satisfied that the pilots had built the proper SA and he had worked with them for a bit and had the warm and fuzzy feeling that everyone was on the same page. And I believe he was usually in the middle of it, so any targeting mistake would endanger him personally.

Until a JTAC has built the foundation and gathered the experience to be confident in taking shortcuts, I'm right there with you that the full process of passing 9-lines and readbacks should be followed.

And that leads me back to my original example.

"Hitman, Hawg 2, tally two T-72 tanks approaching TRP Coors from the west, ready to engage with Mavericks on your request!"

The idea was to provide an arbitrary scenario where naming targets or naming 9-lines would come in handy. Following up on this example, the JTAC would know where to look, would know that the pilots are confident to attack from their current position, that they think Mavericks would be the best possible weapon, and the JTAC could then punch out a 9-line in no time:

Hawg 2, Hitman, CAS Brief H04. Gameplan: Type 2, Bomb on target, Shooter-Shooter Maverick.

Hitman, Hawg 2 copies Shooter-Shooter Maverick, ready 9-line.

Hawg 2, Hitman, 9-line: 1-2-3 B8, Elevation 560 ft, Target is two by T-72 eastbound, Location 200 meters west of TRP Coors, No mark, Friendlies South 600, Egress right pull to B8. Read back 4, 6 and 8.

Hitman, Hawg 2, 560 feet, Target now passing TRP Coors eastbound, South 600.

Hawg 2, Hitman, Make your final attack heading 220 clockwise 300, report leaving IP.

Hitman, Hawg 2, leaving IP, in hot 260.

Hawg 2, Hitman, Cleared Hot!

[boom, boom]

Hawg 2, Hitman, BDA, both targets destroyed!

As long as we're ready to accept a relative line 6, as in "from your tally", "200 meters west of a reference point" and so on, I see no advantage in the flight passing lines 4 and 6 to the JTAC to then pass the same lines 4 and 6 back to the pilots. If the tanks were moving at any decent speed, a 6 digit grid would be outdated by the time the pilot passed it to the JTAC and would be all wrong by the time the JTAC passed it back to the pilot.

My point is, the proximity of the target to a known reference point could serve as lines 4 and 6 in a dynamic scenario. Now if this was the first engagement with that particular flight, I would do a lot more to correlate the targets and obtain PID. But in that case the whole point of referencing a previous 9-line would be moot anyways.

Also note how the pilot in this example assists the JTAC with correlation by reading back the current position of the targets ("Target now passing TRP Coors eastbound") instead of just reading back "200 meters west of TRP Coors".

Finally, I'll have to note that all of this is my armchair take on JTACing and there's every chance this is not doctrinally in line with JP 3-09.3 or JFIRE. But in the DCS context I think it'll be just fine.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Yurgon

[ASAP]

7 hours ago, Yurgon said:

Until a JTAC has built the foundation and gathered the experience to be confident in taking shortcuts, I'm right there with you that the full process of passing 9-lines and readbacks should be followed.

Absolutely, It is a CAS team. The more a JTAC works with a specific unit or pilot in particular and gets his warm fuzzy the more trust he can have which would lead him to give a clearance when with other pilots he may want to exercise more control.

7 hours ago, Yurgon said:

The idea was to provide an arbitrary scenario where naming targets or naming 9-lines would come in handy. Following up on this example, the JTAC would know where to look, would know that the pilots are confident to attack from their current position, that they think Mavericks would be the best possible weapon, and the JTAC could then punch out a 9-line in no time:

Your example was great for illustrating the use of TRPs, I 100% am getting needlessly pedantic just for fun . Nothing you said at any point was wrong

 

7 hours ago, Yurgon said:

Hawg 2, Hitman, CAS Brief H04. Gameplan: Type 2, Bomb on target, Shooter-Shooter Maverick.

Hitman, Hawg 2 copies Shooter-Shooter Maverick, ready 9-line.

Hawg 2, Hitman, 9-line: 1-2-3 B8, Elevation 560 ft, Target is two by T-72 eastbound, Location 200 meters west of TRP Coors, No mark, Friendlies South 600, Egress right pull to B8. Read back 4, 6 and 8.

Hitman, Hawg 2, 560 feet, Target now passing TRP Coors eastbound, South 600.

Hawg 2, Hitman, Make your final attack heading 220 clockwise 300, report leaving IP.

Hitman, Hawg 2, leaving IP, in hot 260.

Hawg 2, Hitman, Cleared Hot!

[boom, boom]

Hawg 2, Hitman, BDA, both targets destroyed!

Couple of thoughts,  a lot of this varies service to service and is more philisophical here:

"Shooter-shooter mavericks" is the specific tactic that formation will use. I know the marines like to try and micromanage and dictate specific tactics for the formation. That works fine for Marines working with Marine/Navy aircraft. Marine JTACS have a really good grasp on F-18 and Harrier tactics naturally. For the other services (and per the JPUB 3.09-3) it's up to the pilot to decide their own attack tactics... Based on every conversation I've had with A-10 guys about this topic, they take a dim view of the over controlling type, let the flight lead decide the tactics to maximize weapons effects and keep themselves safe. The JTAC requests an effect (Kill this thing, stop this convoy, destroy this building, kill man HVI inside the building, etc) The pilot and JTAC work together to come up with the best weaponeering to achieve that intent. The pilots are in a better position to decide on how they are going to prosecute a target. Same for the "right pull back to B8, just "Egress B8" The flight lead may want his wingman off in the opposite direction for survivability/deconfliction/setting up for a guns reattack if necessary, etc...

 

From what I've seen from real world experience comm flow would sound more like:
 

HN - "Hawg, call ready game plan/9-line 15A"

HG11 - "Hawg's ready 15A"

HN - "Type 2, BOT, 1-2-3 B8, 560 ft, two by T-72 , From your talley, No mark, Friendlies South 600, Egress B8. go with readbacks, call ready remarks restrictions"

   ("elevation" is omitted unless 1-3 aren't verbalized. Line 8 readback is required for NATO but US forces leave it out)

HG11 - "Hawg reads back: 560Ft, my talley, Ready remarks/restrictions"

HN  - "FAH North to south or reciprical, Keep all effects west of Coors, ground commanders intent is to neutralize the tanks, mavericks approved (or best weaponeering)"

HG11 - "North to south or reciprical, All effects west of coors"

HN - "Hawg push immediate, call in with direction, expect clearance on final"

 

At this point Hawg and the JTAC have done target correlation and have done all the stuff they need with the JTAC to make an attack, but the flight lead needs to tell the wingman the attack gameplan. On their interflight freq it would sound something like....

"fighter-to-fighter: Wedge, shooters, mavericks, in north, off left. sort west" (There's 69 different ways to solve that tactical problem, this is just the simplest I could think of)

"2"

"1's ready, 6.9 wings dry (fuel state)

"2's ready, 7.2"

 

On strike freq-

HG11 - "Hawg flight, IP inbound"

HG11 - "Hawg 1's in from the north"

HN - "Cleared hot 1"

HG12 - "Hawg 2's in from the north"

HN- "Cleared hot 2"

HG11 - "Hawg flight has 2x good effects, both tanks neutralized, ready next tasking"

 

9 hours ago, Yurgon said:

As long as we're ready to accept a relative line 6, as in "from your tally", "200 meters west of a reference point" and so on, I see no advantage in the flight passing lines 4 and 6 to the JTAC to then pass the same lines 4 and 6 back to the pilots. If the tanks were moving at any decent speed, a 6 digit grid would be outdated by the time the pilot passed it to the JTAC and would be all wrong by the time the JTAC passed it back to the pilot.

 

 

Passing line 4 and 6 probably wouldn't make sense for a mover like that I 100% agree, especially if they are hot on friendlies. It would be more of a stationary-ish target. But its 3.09-3 procedure for aircrew to pass 4, 6 if they find something to the JTAC so they can gen up the 9 line. For instance, if the JTAC told HG flight to scan north along an MSR for enemy positions. The JTAC receives the info he needs to plot it, he can then 1) do some battle tracking and make sure those are in fact bad guys, 2) He can get a good line 8 and pass the 9-line to the pilot. Since the pilot provided the original lines 4 and 6 it would be a waste of time to re-read them back so he just says good readback, everyone has verified they are on the same page and have the same info. 

Also in a scenario like where they are worried about a mover that needs to be taken out quickly the JTACS could give a pre-planned 9-line. something like...

"9-line Z: 1-3 from the overhead, from your talley, Vehicle borne IED, From your talley, No mark, line 8 will be updated, back to the overhead, best ordinance, don't point at or overfly friendlies"

Later in the sortie when HG sees a dump truck full of explosives bareling toward friendlies...

HG - "Talley VBIED, 1Km south closing"

HN - "9-line Z, Line 8 1Km south closing, push immediate"

HG - "Hawg 11, Talley, Visual, in with guns"

[Yurgon]

31 minutes ago, ASAP said:

"Shooter-shooter mavericks" is the specific tactic that formation will use.

Oh yeah, I'm aware there's always the question how much the JTAC should micromanage and how much freedom should be given to the flight to choose the best tactics and tools on their own.

If time isn't critical down to a few seconds, I always see this as a dialogue where the pilot could recommend "Hawg 2 prefers Shooter-Cover, Dash 1 can rifle times two" and then the JTAC can roll with it, or insist on Shooter-Shooter for reasons that don't need to be debated then and there. The whole thing is a team effort and everyone should do their best to accommodate the others. When there's a chance for a debrief later on, pilots and JTACs can pass extremely valuable points to the other side; in DCS I've learned so much from working with others and getting a good debrief on my mistakes, or where they'd have preferred a certain tactic or a certain keyword. I imagine it's not that different out in the real world.

38 minutes ago, ASAP said:

Same for the "right pull back to B8, just "Egress B8"

Maybe there's a flight holding south of the target and a right pull was the JTAC's way to ensure deconfliction. After all, the JTAC owns the airspace.

But again, you're right and I agree that the JTAC should give as few restrictions as possible and as many as necessary. Anything that's not actually necessary, leave it up to the pilots.

40 minutes ago, ASAP said:

From what I've seen from real world experience comm flow would sound more like: [...]

Some really great examples, thanks!

41 minutes ago, ASAP said:

FAH North to south or reciprical

Now we're really down in the weeds, but with a flight holding east of the target (B8 in use in my example suggests keyhole is in effect and Point Echo is close to TRP Coors, since "1, 2, 3 B8" was given in my example), a FAH north to south or reciprocal would require the flight to maneuver several miles either northwest or southwest until they could turn onto their final attack cone and have enough distance to call IN, acquire a track and get cleared hot. With A-10s in particular, that would delay the attack by some 2 minutes or thereabout.

Plus, I've heard repeatedly that friendlies should never be overflown during the run-in, and the attack cone (and anything behind that cone) should be well clear of friendlies in case of weapon malfunction or accidental weapon releases. With friendlies 600 meters south of the target, the FAH should be pretty much anything except north to south or reciprocal, is my understanding.

48 minutes ago, ASAP said:

in north, off left. sort west [...] Hawg 1's in from the north

Again down in the weeds.

I understand "in north" to mean "in to the north", or does it mean "in from the north"? Personally as a flight lead I always verbalize "in to the direction, off to the direction, sort to the direction" so there's no ambiguity whatsoever. I've also made it a habit to put all 3 directions as "to" instead of mixing "in from ..., off to..., sort to..." which requires mentally flipping "from" and "to" within the same part of the F2F brief.

Anyway, when you describe in from the north, then a left turn and then a sort to the west, the flight would have to overfly the target right after the attack to sort on the opposite side of it. That's probably not what you had in mind...

53 minutes ago, ASAP said:

It would be more of a stationary-ish target. But its 3.09-3 procedure for aircrew to pass 4, 6 if they find something to the JTAC so they can gen up the 9 line. [...]

That's a great example! I've never thought about this one before, but it makes all the sense in the world. I'll try to remember this and add it to the toolbox for when such a situation comes up.

[ASAP]

1 hour ago, Yurgon said:

 

If time isn't critical down to a few seconds, I always see this as a dialogue where the pilot could recommend "Hawg 2 prefers Shooter-Cover, Dash 1 can rifle times two" and then the JTAC can roll with it, or insist on Shooter-Shooter for reasons that don't need to be debated then and there. The whole thing is a team effort and everyone should do their best to accommodate the others. When there's a chance for a debrief later on, pilots and JTACs can pass extremely valuable points to the other side; in DCS I've learned so much from working with others and getting a good debrief on my mistakes, or where they'd have preferred a certain tactic or a certain keyword. I imagine it's not that different out in the real world.

In most cases its the tactics employed by the fighters isn't really a conversation that needs to take place. If there are multiple targets the flight lead will figure out how to make that happen in the best manner. If he wants two to cover and the flight lead wants to two target strafe or rifle two and take out everything on his own then so be it. There's definitly a conversation about what the ground commander's intent is and asking the flight to meet it (i.e. Ground commander wants those two DPIs struck simultaneously, we want bombs on the building and we want you to be ready for guns on any squirters), but The pilot certainly doesn't need to ask for permission from the JTAC to manage his flight as he sees fit.

The Flight lead should let the JTAC know what's going to happen if it's going to cause confusion with relation to who he's clearing and when. (i.e. It will be 2 followed by 1, or 1 will be in from the north, 2 in from the south so the JTAC knows where to look. The JTAC isn't leading the flight and its not his call to make, nor is he really in a position to be able to do so. It's the JTACS job to make sure the flight lead understands the intent, and its the flight leads job to meet that intent. cover shooter, shooter cover, shooters, shooter eyeball, is all fairly transparent to the JTAC. If the intent is maximize firepower on the target then obviously that's going to drive shooter shooter, but maybe 2 just doesn't have the level of SA he needs to roll in and strafe danger close.

1 hour ago, Yurgon said:

Maybe there's a flight holding south of the target and a right pull was the JTAC's way to ensure deconfliction. After all, the JTAC owns the airspace.

I don't disagree, but the managing of the stack shouldn't be passed in the 9-line that should be done prior. The JTAC will manage the stack prior to that and sector the flights  ("hawg sector north of TRP A, Viper sector south") in which case an egress of "Off target back to your sector" would be fine. or give them altitude blocks. Or the attacked would be preceeded with something like "Viper confirm clear to the east/west/whatever?" "vipers clear" "hawg push immediate"

1 hour ago, Yurgon said:

Now we're really down in the weeds, but with a flight holding east of the target (B8 in use in my example suggests keyhole is in effect and Point Echo is close to TRP Coors, since "1, 2, 3 B8" was given in my example), a FAH north to south or reciprocal would require the flight to maneuver several miles either northwest or southwest until they could turn onto their final attack cone and have enough distance to call IN, acquire a track and get cleared hot. With A-10s in particular, that would delay the attack by some 2 minutes or thereabout.

Plus, I've heard repeatedly that friendlies should never be overflown during the run-in, and the attack cone (and anything behind that cone) should be well clear of friendlies in case of weapon malfunction or accidental weapon releases. With friendlies 600 meters south of the target, the FAH should be pretty much anything except north to south or reciprocal, is my understanding.

Ok, you win this round, with line 8 of 200 S N-S or reciprical is dumb. With the target moving west to east and the flight holding B8 I had it in my mind that friendlies were E 200M not south and I didn't pay attention to what I typed, Lol. E-W or reciprical, or Over my right/left shoulder, or All FAH don't overfly or point at friendlies are all better options, N-S would be bad. I wasn't really paying attention to that when I wrote the example. There's lots of ways to do it differently.

To the second point. I disagree. If I'm holding 8 miles to the east, attacking out of the north or south is just as easy and isn't going to significantly extend the timeline. In fact the geometry works waaaay easier. It would delay my roll in maybe 30 seconds (N-S also means I could roll in between the 045 and 315 radial), but there are a lot of advantages to approaching it the target for a 90 degree roll in (namely, I can see the target over the rail right up until I roll in on it. better yet, my wingman can watch the whole thing over the rail and back me up. If I was going to roll in from the east I'd have to manuever the formation closer to my base position which is going to take roughly the same amount of time, or I make it a lot harder for myself and to see the target and for my wingman to provide any meaningful support.

1 hour ago, Yurgon said:

understand "in north" to mean "in to the north", or does it mean "in from the north"? Personally as a flight lead I always verbalize "in to the direction, off to the direction, sort to the direction" so there's no ambiguity whatsoever. I've also made it a habit to put all 3 directions as "to" instead of mixing "in from ..., off to..., sort to..." which requires mentally flipping "from" and "to" within the same part of the F2F brief.

Anyway, when you describe in from the north, then  left turn and then a sort to the west, the flight would have to overfly the target right after the attack to sort on the opposite side of it. That's probably not what you had in mind...

In the context of the fighter to fighter where you use FROTIES (formation, role, ordinance, timing, ingress direction, egress direction, sort) the ingress direction is the direction you are coming in FROM, egress direction is the direction you are going off TO. That's the only time I would omit the from and to (although I'd often also just say it), because in that context it is understood by the wingman. Any other time, like when talking to a JTAC it would be "HAWG11 IN FROM THE NORTH"

So the F-t-F would be in FROM the north, off left TO the east. All these assumptions work because that's the way pilots train and that's what their standards dictate.

You are misunderstanding the meaning of the term SORT. Sort is telling 2 where he is shooting in relation to my target during the attack. Sort west means, shoot the next thing to the west of what I shoot. In this case with two vehicles that would mean that 1 shoots the eastern vehicle, and the wingman should shoot the vehicle to the west (again, in my mind when I wrote this friendlies are East-200 meters.... I forgot I wrote they were south 200,  so I'd want my impacts closer than my wingman's, becasue the assumption is always that his SA isn't as high as mine. 

 

 

Side note, I find these conversations fun, thanks for chucking spears

Edited December 16, 2023 by ASAP

[shagrat]

Am 16.12.2023 um 06:41 schrieb ASAP:

You are misunderstanding the meaning of the term SORT. Sort is telling 2 where he is shooting in relation to my target during the attack. Sort west means, shoot the next thing to the west of what I shoot. In this case with two vehicles that would mean that 1 shoots the eastern vehicle, and the wingman should shoot the vehicle to the west

Thanks! This is a very useful brevity code. If I've seen it somewhere, before, it definitely slipped my mind.

Great conversation, by the way, I am learning a lot.

[Yurgon]

On 12/16/2023 at 6:41 AM, ASAP said:

In most cases its the tactics employed by the fighters isn't really a conversation that needs to take place. If there are multiple targets the flight lead will figure out how to make that happen in the best manner. [...]

Yes, like I said I mostly agree that the flight should be given as much liberty as possible.

On the other hand, I can certainly imagine a scenario where, say, a series of gun runs is requested, which would then be followed up by actions on the ground, in which case "shooter-shooter guns, 30 seconds" might be what the ground force commanders intends to use, the JTAC relays, and the pilot complies with (unless there are good reasons for the pilot not to comply).

It's my understanding that neither side can order the other to do something, they can only request, acknowledge, deny or clear actions, but never order them. Which is why it makes the most sense not to micromanage one another and instead leave every bit of the execution that isn't strictly necessary to the other side (to the flight lead, in this discussion). My point is that when the JTAC asks for a specific tactic or formation, that'll probably happen out of such a necessity, and unless the flight lead has very good reasons to deny the request, they should just follow through, or at least recommend a preferred action instead.

On 12/16/2023 at 6:41 AM, ASAP said:

[...] but maybe 2 just doesn't have the level of SA he needs to roll in and strafe danger close.

Yeah, that's a great example why the flight lead might deny a shooter-shooter.

I think we're at least 95% in agreement here anyway.

On 12/16/2023 at 6:41 AM, ASAP said:

I don't disagree, but the managing of the stack shouldn't be passed in the 9-line that should be done prior.

Oh yeah of course!

Again I'm just saying when the JTAC feels that a specific type or direction of egress is called for, they can certainly request it to ensure safety of flight throughout the entire vul period.

On 12/16/2023 at 6:41 AM, ASAP said:

To the second point. I disagree. If I'm holding 8 miles to the east, attacking out of the north or south is just as easy and isn't going to significantly extend the timeline. In fact the geometry works waaaay easier.

Then we have to agree to disagree.

Holding 8 miles east of the target, a flight with good SA could engage the target with Mavericks in a manner of seconds (I assume that a tracking range of, say, 5 miles would be realistic and in DCS we enjoy a bit more liberty with the D model consistently tracking at 7 miles and beyond).

I understand that unguided weapons are typically employed from an offset attack with about a 90° turn into the target using Z-diagrams.

I also understand that slaving Mavericks to the TGP apparently is more of a DCS-ism and not a procedure that pilots routinely train to, at least according to info I've gathered here on the forum over the course of years.

It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to fly offset from the target for several miles, then turn hot onto a short final at circa 45° to 90° offset from the direct line from IP to target. And yeah, a final attack heading given as cardinal direction allows for a 90° cone which would allow for a faster turn onto final. But why accept this delay when the attacking aircraft could just track the target from maximum range in a straight run-in, making good use of the aircraft's sensors and weapons?

On 12/16/2023 at 6:41 AM, ASAP said:

In the context of the fighter to fighter where you use FROTIES (formation, role, ordinance, timing, ingress direction, egress direction, sort) the ingress direction is the direction you are coming in FROM, egress direction is the direction you are going off TO.

It's always hard to find good info in this level of detail. But all the sources I could find (which all come from the DCS- or BMS-context) say the same you just told me. Looks like I'll have to revisit my personal procedure and probably rewrite a chapter or two in our squad's documents.

On 12/16/2023 at 6:41 AM, ASAP said:

Sort is telling 2 where he is shooting in relation to my target during the attack.

Holy cow, you're right! Again, it's kinda hard to find good references, and again all the ones I checked say the same. In my defense, I didn't write the part in our squad's SOP that got me the wrong understanding.

Thanks for clearing that up! And that's the cool thing about these kinds of discussions, there's always so much more to learn.

On 12/16/2023 at 6:41 AM, ASAP said:

Side note, I find these conversations fun, thanks for chucking spears

Likewise. 

[ASAP]

3 hours ago, Yurgon said:

On the other hand, I can certainly imagine a scenario where, say, a series of gun runs is requested, which would then be followed up by actions on the ground, in which case "shooter-shooter guns, 30 seconds" might be what the ground force commanders intends to use, the JTAC relays, and the pilot complies with (unless there are good reasons for the pilot not to comply).

I guess my gripe is mostly a matter of wording. A JTAC would just say "we're looking for guns from both aircraft" vs giving them what is essentially a fighter to fighter. In essence we don't disagree. 

3 hours ago, Yurgon said:

Then we have to agree to disagree.

Holding 8 miles east of the target, a flight with good SA could engage the target with Mavericks in a manner of seconds (I assume that a tracking range of, say, 5 miles would be realistic and in DCS we enjoy a bit more liberty with the D model consistently tracking at 7 miles and beyond).

 

Couple of other thoughts on that:

First off, I said N-S or reciprocal because in my head friendlies were to the east, and rolling in parallel to the front line is usually preferable for weapon fall lines and a quick egress back to good guy land. Like you pointed out, what I wrote was friendlies were south which would make my whole point wrong. 

Mavericks are actually pretty stupid smart weapons. sun angle, direction of travel and roads, obstructions all play a huge role in finding the right attack direction in real life that would probably trump a lot of this. 

Lastly, N-S or reciprocal allows for more attack options like 1 in north, 2 in south both off east without 2 ever having to go way further out into bad guy land to the west. 

 

What's the right answer? It depends. but I wouldn't auto discount one of the other. There's probably a good reason to do either or.

 

Big thing I'd add to the wishlist for DCS: comm options that allow you to pass a FROTIES brief to the AI wingman. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by ASAP

[Yurgon]

1 hour ago, ASAP said:

Big thing I'd add to the wishlist for DCS: comm options that allow you to pass a FROTIES brief to the AI wingman. 

Would be nice to have, but my personal preference would be a halfway decent ATC, then a halfway decent JTAC, and then much further down the line the option for a fighter-to-fighter brief. The latter is like the icing on the cake, whereas ATC is absolutely essential for a flight sim and I'm a bit curious why that is taking so long (not saying it's not an enormous undertaking - but I'd give the Apache back and wait for it for another 10 years if we could get a decent ATC instead. And I LOVE the Apache).

The current implementation of JTAC comms is also not that great and in several regards outright wrong (no correlation/PID whatsoever, no routing and safety of flight, no AO update, JTAC passing laser code to the CAS flight instead of the other way around, to name just a few items).

With F2F briefs, it would be cool if the AI could pass them to players when the AI leads a flight, and then the other way around when the player leads a flight. But this kind of thing usually makes the most sense in MP and for the time being I'm quite happy seeing it only there, or in hand-crafted, well-scripted missions with prerecorded voice-overs.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Yurgon

[shagrat]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Yurgon:

The current implementation of JTAC comms is also not that great and in several regards outright wrong (no correlation/PID whatsoever, no routing and safety of flight, no AO update, JTAC passing laser code to the CAS flight instead of the other way around, to name just a few items).

The Laser Code implementation is a real problem in Multiplayer, as it more or less makes it impossible to use more than one  AI JTAC in an area, or actually use the laser codes on bombs, as ALL bombs and TGP are required to set 1688.

I know we have lua scripts using different codes, but that doesn't solve the basic issue, that you have a code set on the individual GBU-12/10/16 etc. and the aircraft tells the JTAC what code to lase, IRL.

[buur]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb shagrat:

The Laser Code implementation is a real problem in Multiplayer, as it more or less makes it impossible to use more than one  AI JTAC in an area, or actually use the laser codes on bombs, as ALL bombs and TGP are required to set 1688.

I know we have lua scripts using different codes, but that doesn't solve the basic issue, that you have a code set on the individual GBU-12/10/16 etc. and the aircraft tells the JTAC what code to lase, IRL.

I know you  can nowadays change the laser code in SP. This is not possible in MP?

[shagrat]

vor einer Stunde schrieb buur:

I know you  can nowadays change the laser code in SP. This is not possible in MP?

On the bombs, but not the JTAC.

IRL the code is fixed on GBU-12/10/16 etc. It is dialed in at the bomb and can't be changed from inside the cockpit. 

More and more modules simulate this real life limitation, by allowing adjustments to laser codes on loadout only on the ground.

Now, if you have multiple aircraft armed with LGBs they will deconflict the laser codes between aircraft or flight according to the mission.

Now in DCS the AI JTAC will always use 1688 as his laser code, whereas IRL he will get the code from the aircraft he is working and adjust his laser code accordingly. The only way to do this, currently, is to either script a "laser point" with a frequency with out using the AI JTAC or manually with Combined Arms and have a player do the JTAC role.

If we could get an F-menu-option to tell the JTAC our bombs' laser codes, it would be fine. It could simply read the available codes from the loadout and let us select the appropriate one for the JTAC, just as an idea.

Edited December 18, 2023 by shagrat

[buur]

vor einer Stunde schrieb shagrat:

On the bombs, but not the JTAC.

IRL the code is fixed on GBU-12/10/16 etc. It is dialed in at the bomb and can't be changed from inside the cockpit. 

More and more modules simulate this real life limitation, by allowing adjustments to laser codes on loadout only on the ground.

Now, if you have multiple aircraft armed with LGBs they will deconflict the laser codes between aircraft or flight according to the mission.

Now in DCS the AI JTAC will always use 1688 as his laser code, whereas IRL he will get the code from the aircraft he is working and adjust his laser code accordingly. The only way to do this, currently, is to either script a "laser point" with a frequency with out using the AI JTAC or manually with Combined Arms and have a player do the JTAC role.

If we could get an F-menu-option to tell the JTAC our bombs' laser codes, it would be fine. It could simply read the available codes from the loadout and let us select the appropriate one for the JTAC, just as an idea.

 

You can change the laser code the JTAC is using. Unfortunately only in ME (go to JTACs mark options, switch to laser than it is possible).
This gives me the hope that the functionality you describe will in in two weeks in DCS

[Yurgon]

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

[...] or manually with Combined Arms and have a player do the JTAC role.

Having done exactly this numerous times, I don't really see any incentive to use the AI JTAC in multiplayer.

Scripting a laser that's triggered by the F10 radio menu is about as immersive as the AI JTAC, when you contrast either option to a human player acting as JTAC.

And of course there's always the workaround that a mission tells players "Set laser code 1521!" and then all the players set the exact same laser code and the AI JTAC will be set to use that same code as well. There won't be any need to deconflict different weapons with the AI JTAC anyway, and TBH, deconflicting laser guided weapons by laser code is something that I believe I have never, ever needed in years of DCS multiplayer. It's still a good habit to set different laser codes on different aircraft, but in terms of immersion, having the same code on all aircraft is not that bad IMO.

[ASAP]

4 hours ago, Yurgon said:

It's still a good habit to set different laser codes on different aircraft, but in terms of immersion, having the same code on all aircraft is not that bad IMO.

Having different laser codes makes it easier to be more deliberate about using laser spot search and track. That way you know who's laser you are locked on.

[shagrat]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Yurgon:

Having done exactly this numerous times, I don't really see any incentive to use the AI JTAC in multiplayer.

Scripting a laser that's triggered by the F10 radio menu is about as immersive as the AI JTAC, when you contrast either option to a human player acting as JTAC.

And of course there's always the workaround that a mission tells players "Set laser code 1521!" and then all the players set the exact same laser code and the AI JTAC will be set to use that same code as well. There won't be any need to deconflict different weapons with the AI JTAC anyway, and TBH, deconflicting laser guided weapons by laser code is something that I believe I have never, ever needed in years of DCS multiplayer. It's still a good habit to set different laser codes on different aircraft, but in terms of immersion, having the same code on all aircraft is not that bad IMO.

Well we do set different laser codes on the AH-64D per aircraft, so we can shoot laser guided Hellfires all the time.

It's mostly because of this unrealistic restriction and the JTAC not being flexible, that I almost never used it.

In the AV-8B or F-15E you need to set the bombs laser code on the ground.

Take two of those aircraft and set bombs codes to 1688 and 1687 on the ground to keep it simple. Now, the mission pops a task and the message from the AI JTAC (that I would really love to use more often) says "Marked by laser 1588" because that's what the Mission designer scripted/set... Ooops.

That's where I would love to be able to communicate a different laser code for the JTAC to set his equipment.

[Yurgon]

3 hours ago, ASAP said:

Having different laser codes makes it easier to be more deliberate about using laser spot search and track. That way you know who's laser you are locked on.

Absolutely. I'm just referring to the use of the in-game, AI JTAC. I use LSS so rarely, for me it would be far from a deal breaker if all aircraft were on the same laser code. And I don't think I've ever been in an engagement where LSS and target illumination by different sources would have happend sufficiently close to one another in both time and space to actually matter.

2 hours ago, shagrat said:

Well we do set different laser codes on the AH-64D per aircraft, so we can shoot laser guided Hellfires all the time.

If we ever use a JTAC, we definitely need to stop lobbing missile at everything we see.

2 hours ago, shagrat said:

Take two of those aircraft and set bombs codes to 1688 and 1687 on the ground to keep it simple [...]

These are not Apaches and it would be much less likely for two engagements to happen simultaneously in the same area. In our Hornet missions I think we all kept the preset laser code, whichever that might have been, and very rarely ran into any issues.

2 hours ago, shagrat said:

That's where I would love to be able to communicate a different laser code for the JTAC to set his equipment.

Yeah, would be nice. But like I said, the mission can tell the players which code to set. You as the mission designer know ahead of time whether or not an AI JTAC will be used, you define the JTAC's laser code and you can make sure all players respect that. And of course players can choose to ignore the JTAC and self lase or buddy lase, because all this tedious button-pressing with ground-lase is a bit annoying and it's hard to get it right ("IN", "CONTACT", "LASER ON"... I know how I'd execute it with human players, but I don't recall how the DCS JTAC does it).

Option 1, use the DCS JTAC and simply ignore any ground lase request.
Option 2, set the DCS JTAC to not use lasing.
Option 3, set all laser guided weapons to the same code.

If you really want to use the DCS JTAC, the laser code issue is a very minor obstacle.

[shagrat]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb Yurgon:

you define the JTAC's laser code and you can make sure all players respect that.

Depends on the equipment/TGP and range of codes it can use. I think that Eastern jets use a different range of codes than western.

In the end there are of course workarounds, even now, but I would love to see ED changing the JTAC to realistically adjust HIS Laser designator to the code on the bomb we drop. 

[Rodeo]

Well an update-- I have now committed the process to muscle memory the last few weeks and I feel like I am a much better person for it.  

 

Secondly, the conversation following the solution is AMAZING; glad my ignorance spurred such insight.  The topic title should be changed .  Personally I have worked stateside with some of the best JTACs the USAF produced but we were not focused on their primary jobs but helping them through their pipeline training on integrating into SOF Teams.  Of course as the civilian in the company I stuck to my areas of expertise however  I wish I had discovered DCS then I would have had a few specific questions for those guys.

Edited January 10 by Rodeo