JTAC modernization?

[ShuRugal]

The current implementation of the JTAC feels rather dated, given some of the newer changes and module releases.  The JTAC feels very restrictive when trying to use it in anything more than a very tightly pre-planned (from the mission editor) manner.

I have run into multiple situations where the JTAC/AFAC wants me to do something i flat out cannot do.  For example, when carrying both radar and laser hellfires, JTAC will request radar hellfires to kill a specific target.  I've had situations where the bombs on my jet have one laser code set on the ground, and JTAC has another programmed in the mission editor.  JTAC will often offer me a target which makes no sense given the mission or threat picture, such as asking me to kill a T-90 when there are active Tunguskas or TORs between me and the tank.  Or, alternately, asking me to kill a SAM which is nowhere near the target I am wanting to kill.

 

I think there are three major QOL changes that would help make the built-in JTAC feel a lot more useful in the current state of DCS:

1: Ability to select targets from a list in the JTAC Menu.  Have the JTAC offer me a list targets he can see, the same way George does, and I choose the target.

2: Ability to tell the JTAC what weapon I will use instead, in the event that his default request is not appropriate for the situation.

3: Ability to tell the JTAC what laser code he should use, so that if my bombs/missiles are hardcoded, I can tell him that.

[upyr1]

According to another thread laser guided weapons are hardcoded on the ground 

[ShuRugal]

9 hours ago, upyr1 said:

According to another thread laser guided weapons are hardcoded on the ground 

Yes, that's exactly the problem.  The DCS JTAC doesn't care what your laser codes are, he wants you to use his.  That's both impossible and unrealistic.

[sirrah]

Although I'm not saying the jtac part of DCS is perfect (you guys mentioned some fair points), but imho, it's pretty much the best and most extended part of DCS' current ATC system (apart from the SC comms of course).

I'd much rather see ED improve other ATC parts first. Starting with proper airfield communications (ground, tower, departure).

 

I know, all in good time, and just my 2 cents

[ShuRugal]

16 hours ago, sirrah said:

Although I'm not saying the jtac part of DCS is perfect (you guys mentioned some fair points), but imho, it's pretty much the best and most extended part of DCS' current ATC system (apart from the SC comms of course).

except for when it flat out refuses to work.  I finally gave up and will just use CTLD until Eagle implements something better.

[SharpeXB]

It would be worth replicating how it works IRL. Some of the DLC campaigns have good implementations of this procedure which I assume are realistic. For example I think it’s always the pilots discretion on which weapon to use. The Maple Flag A-10 course makes a point of this. If the JTAC asks for a certain weapon that’s not appropriate or presents a risk to friendlies, it’s up to the pilot.

[Mad_Shell]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

It would be worth replicating how it works IRL. Some of the DLC campaigns have good implementations of this procedure which I assume are realistic. For example I think it’s always the pilots discretion on which weapon to use. The Maple Flag A-10 course makes a point of this. If the JTAC asks for a certain weapon that’s not appropriate or presents a risk to friendlies, it’s up to the pilot.

No, in the NATO procedure the JTAC has full responsibility of what weapons to use. Of course there is a discussion with the pilot(s), but final decision is made by the JTAC.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Mad_Shell said:

No, in the NATO procedure the JTAC has full responsibility of what weapons to use. Of course there is a discussion with the pilot(s), but final decision is made by the JTAC.

Ok cool, yeah it would be good to get that into the system. Maybe Maple Flag has a sorta work around since you can’t actually make that request in the game. They put a scenario in where you need to change the weapon due to the conditions. 

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It would be worth replicating how it works IRL. Some of the DLC campaigns have good implementations of this procedure which I assume are realistic. For example I think it’s always the pilots discretion on which weapon to use. The Maple Flag A-10 course makes a point of this. If the JTAC asks for a certain weapon that’s not appropriate or presents a risk to friendlies, it’s up to the pilot.

I'm not sure that is the case, the job of the JTAC/FAC is to act as the eyes on the ground and reduce the odds of friendly fire. 

While we're at it I'd also like to see some imporvments for Airbone facs

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I'm not sure that is the case, the job of the JTAC/FAC is to act as the eyes on the ground and reduce the odds of friendly fire. 

While we're at it I'd also like to see some imporvments for Airbone facs

The situation on the ground could change requiring you to select a different weapon. Let’s say you’re engaging a moving target. Anyways that’s the goal of a particular Maple Flag Mission. How realistically that’s handled in campaign I’m not enough of an expert to say. 

Edited December 25, 2023 by SharpeXB

[upyr1]

13 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The situation on the ground could change requiring you to select a different weapon. Let’s say you’re engaging a moving target. Anyways that’s the goal of a particular Maple Flag Mission. How realistically that’s handled in campaign I’m not enough of an expert to say. 

 

we'll have to see if a FAC can chime in. 

[drspankle]

On 12/25/2023 at 5:14 PM, Mad_Shell said:

No, in the NATO procedure the JTAC has full responsibility of what weapons to use. Of course there is a discussion with the pilot(s), but final decision is made by the JTAC.

Not correct, and my job is flying contract CAS providing NATO JTAC training and currency.  The JTAC requests a weapon and asks if we concur for correct weapon-to-target matching.  If we don't concur we don't drop. You own your bombs and you alone are responsible for their employment.  The final decision rests with the pilot.

Dr Spankle

[tezak]

I would add to the list the ability for the Jtac to callout sam o AAA launch in the vicinity against the player

[drspankle]

On 12/23/2023 at 4:58 AM, ShuRugal said:

I think there are three major QOL changes that would help make the built-in JTAC feel a lot more useful in the current state of DCS:

1: Ability to select targets from a list in the JTAC Menu.  Have the JTAC offer me a list targets he can see, the same way George does, and I choose the target.

2: Ability to tell the JTAC what weapon I will use instead, in the event that his default request is not appropriate for the situation.

3: Ability to tell the JTAC what laser code he should use, so that if my bombs/missiles are hardcoded, I can tell him that.

Point 1 wouldn't be realistic as the JTAC is responding to the Ground Commander's intent, not his own playbook.  It may be that, in prosecuting this, he has more than one tgt within his AOR that he wishes hit but, if this were the case, he'd employ a Type 3 Control and let you strike the various targets as you see fit within his parameters for the safety of friendly forces etc.

Point 2 - definitely.  The weapon choice rests with the pilot.  

Point 3 - Absolutely.  

Dr Spankle

1 minute ago, tezak said:

I would add to the list the ability for the Jtac to callout sam o AAA launch in the vicinity against the player

Absolutely - and the presence of any other friendly air users, artillery activity/mortars etc too.  Granted, in MP this would be difficult but in a scripted Campaign it could be done.

Dr Spankle

[SickSidewinder9]

6 hours ago, drspankle said:

Not correct, and my job is flying contract CAS providing NATO JTAC training and currency.  The JTAC requests a weapon and asks if we concur for correct weapon-to-target matching.  If we don't concur we don't drop. You own your bombs and you alone are responsible for their employment.  The final decision rests with the pilot.

Dr Spankle

Common sense alone would dictate that.  Although this is primarily the US military we're talking about so HAH!  Even disregarding common sense, a pilot or WSO in the USAF is an officer and a JTAC/TACP on the ground is usually an enlisted MOS.  If an officer is calling in an airstrike themselves something has really gone badly on the ground.

What this means at the most basic sense is that usually the person actually pressing the weapon release button outranks the person asking for said weapon.  Maybe some exceptions for different guns on the AC-130 but the weapons deployment would still at some level be controlled by an officer in the plane with the enlisted men loading and firing the gun and that officer may even have some kind of electronic authorize switch that is able to override the trigger on the guns.

No idea on that last point, though.  It just seems plausible.  Sorry I don't have any sources to cite, but I bet if you looked at an official Airforce careers website you'd clearly see that pilots and WSOs are officer MOSs and TACP or CCT are enlisted MOSs.

[drspankle]

Yup - although on my last exercise one of the JTACs was a Major so he may well outrank some aircrew. Even then though, the person who signs for that aircraft has ultimate authority over the weapons it carries.

Dr Spankle

[Thamiel]

On 12/23/2023 at 5:58 AM, ShuRugal said:

I think there are three major QOL changes that would help make the built-in JTAC feel a lot more useful in the current state of DCS:

1: Ability to select targets from a list in the JTAC Menu.  Have the JTAC offer me a list targets he can see, the same way George does, and I choose the target.

2: Ability to tell the JTAC what weapon I will use instead, in the event that his default request is not appropriate for the situation.

To my understanding, that would be a major shift of the JTAC role, normally a facilitator of air strikes on behalf of his CO. A pure CAS pilot has no authority to determine which target to attack or which weapon to use, although he may give some suggestions as to what he is capable of and what may be effective in a certain situation. Even in the FAC(A) role, targets (and times) are still chosen by the ground commander.

[ShuRugal]

6 hours ago, Thamiel said:

To my understanding, that would be a major shift of the JTAC role, normally a facilitator of air strikes on behalf of his CO. A pure CAS pilot has no authority to determine which target to attack or which weapon to use, although he may give some suggestions as to what he is capable of and what may be effective in a certain situation. Even in the FAC(A) role, targets (and times) are still chosen by the ground commander.

The problem is the way that is currently implemented in DCS does not give much room for missions to unfold dynamically.  The DCS JTAC/AFAC routine is firmly stuck in a 2011 single-player-limited-scope-missions mindset.

With the current implementation, it is very difficult for a mission designer to put together a complex mission which allows multiple paths to completing the objectives, to include a varying number of multiplayer slots filled using varying platforms.

 

For example:  I've been working on a SEAD mission designed to give my squadron a workout with layered air defenses in support of a ground offensive.

• the base ground scenario has REDFOR defenders with entrenched ATGM vehicles in a position which the BLUFOR armor units must take in order to complete the mission.  The Red ATGMs are sufficient in number and ambush position to at least mutual-kill the Blue armor.
• The Red ATGM units are defending an SA-5 battery, which is the "story objective" of the mission.
• The SA-5 site is defended by an SA-10 battery.
• SHORAD is provided by half a dozen SA-19's salted in mutually-supportive positions
• all positions have at least 1-2 Igla MANPADS (about a full battalion's worth, scattered around the other units)

In the mission, I currently have provided slots for the AH-64, Ka-50, F-15E, F-16, and F/A-18.

The ultimate objective is to allow the Blue armor units to sweep and seize the SA-5 and SA-10 positions.  To this end, players will almost certainly need to suppress the SA-5 and SA-10 so that they can engage and destroy enough BTRs to allow the blue armor to succeed.

But beyond silencing the -5 and the -10, how the players choose to prosecute the mission is going to be variable, dependent upon the choice of platform and skill level.

In some iterations, I am seeing players choose to kill only the -5 and -10, then to remain above the reach of the -19s and drop JDAM and PAVEWAY munitions into the red armor positions.  In others, the players need to also take out some or all of the Tunguskas so that they don't snipe the helicopters.  Going even deeper into the weeds requires taking out at least SOME of the MANPADs, because nothing in DCS can survive making a low-level strafe or bombing pass on 36 Iglas in a five mile radius.

 

So, the JTAC/AFAC needs to be flexible with the needs of the air support.  The "ground commander" in real life is not going to instruct air units to attack positions they will die before defeating (well, not unless he's Russian), but also will probably not want to waste time killing every single SAM in the theatre (as DCS players are wont to do).

 

With the current implementation of the DCS JTAC logic, getting this flexibility is a positively Sisyphean task.  It's hard enough to get the damn thing to actually talk to players when it only has one group its assigned to target.  Getting it to switch between groups on the fly has proved to be an absolute fucking nightmare.

[Thamiel]

5 minutes ago, ShuRugal said:

So, the JTAC/AFAC needs to be flexible with the needs of the air support.  The "ground commander" in real life is not going to instruct air units to attack positions they will die before defeating (well, not unless he's Russian), but also will probably not want to waste time killing every single SAM in the theatre (as DCS players are wont to do).

Again, the JTAC is a facilitator trying to match the needs of the ground CO and the airborne capabilities he is stuck with. But before he spents time looking for it, he should determine if a solution is possible, if it is probable and what the costs will be. Otherwise, he works a semi-decidable problem for a long time getting frustrated with his failures while his CO (and the guys in the trenches) are waiting and most likely getting hammered as troops are in contact.

If you roll out big momma as an objective, with every angle of attack covered as much as possible, even an professional JTAC might be overwhelmed with the SA and tactical implications involved as this situation unfolds. That is why he is not required to make strategic decisions. A JTAC does not command a battle of this magnitude.

Doesn't mean that in DCS there is no need for a shift of command authority to airborne forces as DCS is a flight simulator after all. There may be even a RL based solution to that as it occurs to me that a JFO capable ground unit might fit that role quite nicely.

[ShuRugal]

11 hours ago, Thamiel said:

Again, the JTAC is a facilitator trying to match the needs of the ground CO and the airborne capabilities he is stuck with. But before he spents time looking for it, he should determine if a solution is possible, if it is probable and what the costs will be. Otherwise, he works a semi-decidable problem for a long time getting frustrated with his failures while his CO (and the guys in the trenches) are waiting and most likely getting hammered as troops are in contact.

If you roll out big momma as an objective, with every angle of attack covered as much as possible, even an professional JTAC might be overwhelmed with the SA and tactical implications involved as this situation unfolds. That is why he is not required to make strategic decisions. A JTAC does not command a battle of this magnitude.

Doesn't mean that in DCS there is no need for a shift of command authority to airborne forces as DCS is a flight simulator after all. There may be even a RL based solution to that as it occurs to me that a JFO capable ground unit might fit that role quite nicely.

Look, I don't give a crap whose responsibility you frame it as, there is currently no capability within the DCS JTAC/AFAC for ANYONE, be that a player in a jet or a player in the Mission Commander slot, to give it new target priorities in an organic and dynamic manner.

 

That's.  Not.  Realistic.  It doesn't matter who would ultimately be making the call and telling the FAC/TAC crews to redirect the air power to a different target, that is a thing which DOES happen, and which the current DCS JTAC/AFAC routine doesn't support.

 

That's a problem which needs to be addressed.  You want to get your panties in a twist over it not being realistic for the pilot to be the one to make the call?  Fine, you write your missions so only the game master slot can do it.

[Thamiel]

6 hours ago, ShuRugal said:

That's.  Not.  Realistic.  It doesn't matter who would ultimately be making the call and telling the FAC/TAC crews to redirect the air power to a different target, that is a thing which DOES happen, and which the current DCS JTAC/AFAC routine doesn't support.

That's a problem which needs to be addressed. [...]

But you realize that DCS is ultimatively a flight simulator and not a military planning tool? Clearly those are different demands.

[drspankle]

Ultimately you're only going to get the sort of dynamic reactive behaviour from a JTAC that we'd all like if there's an actual trained human performing the role.  Outside of that, we have our awesome computer game (free computer game at that) which does a pretty good job.  The same goes for AWACS and ATC - the AI can only be so good and it will never replicate what a human can do in the role.

Happy New Year all!

Dr Spankle

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, drspankle said:

the AI can only be so good and it will never replicate what a human can do in the role.

Check out what AI ATC (payware Plug-In) can do in that other big civy sim. It’s not far-fetched to imagine AI you can talk to and they behave entirely human. AI will be doing all our jobs eventually

Edited December 31, 2023 by SharpeXB

[ShuRugal]

13 hours ago, Thamiel said:

But you realize that DCS is ultimatively a flight simulator and not a military planning tool? Clearly those are different demands.

what even is your point anymore?

I have presented a clear use case where it makes sense for a player, in some kind of role or another, to be able to command the JTAC to change targeting parameters.  You're arguing with me purely for the sake of being contrary.

[Thamiel]

8 hours ago, ShuRugal said:

You're arguing with me purely for the sake of being contrary.

You may choose to believe that.

Based on the proposition, the headline "JTAC modernization" is a misnomer. It should read "alteration" instead. The AI-JTAC was never meant to to give the pilot full control about what to lase or attack. It was solely implemented to give those aircraft a possibility to drop their LGBs on target which do not sport a LANTIRN on their own. In that role, it is useful.

Personally, I believe its not even possible to extend its functionality to that of an onboard Petrovich/George WSO without breaking basic simulation rules like that of the LOS. For instance, Target visibility and target aspect are ramnifications devaluing your proposal because in general the ground unit is less mobile and has a much closer horizon than the aerial asset. Correct me if I am wrong, but it occurs to me what you really want is a local TGP available without having to mount it on your wing.

Your case study only proves that in DCS you can mount an oppositional ground force too strong to be overcome by aerial forces alone. I dont see this as a disadvantage in terms of game balancing. As a side node: my community aced such an objective some months ago just by swarming it with 100+ TALDs - also not a very realistic tactic, but fun it was.