Weapon Usage Policy

[firestick22]

Anyone know of a guide that lays out tactics for when to use what weapon?

 

I've probably shot off a couple of billion dollars in mavericks already and I know that's not the way to go.

 

I try to take out surface to air threats with mavs, drop cluster bombs on groups of trucks and troops, use dumb bombs on bridges and stuff and plink as many tanks with the gun as I can. But is there a reference somewhere that lays out detailed tactics?

 

How do the RL pilots do it?

[Eddie]

How do the RL pilots do it?

 

They use the best suited weapon for the given target that they have available. There is no book that tells you to use weapon X in situation Y, it's all down to judgement.

 

With that said, things to consider are things such as probability of injury to friendlies (tables are available for this) , risk of employing each weapons and the probability of kill.

 

Additionally, when working with a JTAC the pilot doesn't choose the ordnance, the JTAC does. Obviously if the pilots thinks that what the JTAC is asking for is not appropriate for the target, they can and will advise the JTAC (and any JTAC worth his salt will listen) the choice lies with the JTAC.

 

So put simply, what you're after doesn't exist because life just isn't that simple.

[gazcrowbar]

As this video shows at 4:50 onwards sometimes certain weapons are chosen by the pilots over others - regardless of what the JTAC wishes:

 

 

Although the reporters prescence may have been a factor too.

Edited October 7, 2011 by gazcrowbar

[WildBillKelsoe]

Anyone know of a guide that lays out tactics for when to use what weapon?

 

I've probably shot off a couple of billion dollars in mavericks already and I know that's not the way to go.

 

I try to take out surface to air threats with mavs, drop cluster bombs on groups of trucks and troops, use dumb bombs on bridges and stuff and plink as many tanks with the gun as I can. But is there a reference somewhere that lays out detailed tactics?

 

How do the RL pilots do it?

 

Multifactorial.

For instance, taking out alzarqawi with a 500 lb bomb seemed cheaper to uncle sam than using the mk82, but the trick is, he was needed to raise Bush's votes, so, in turn, use an expensive GBU-38 for a GBU-12...

 

Factors include:

- Available munitions at supply points

- Target importance

- Costs for employing the weapon and whether the weapon derives additional costs, for example, the GBU-38 demands the extra cost of a satellite beaking the AO for precision, which adds dollars to the usual tax payer.

 

But in desert storm, economic conditions were far greater, and weapons were still field tested, thats why, you see alot of youtube vids of tanks as blips getting engaged with the Maverick.

 

I doubt uncle sam will dispense a maverick now for a lousy T-72..

[711Hancer]

 

I doubt uncle sam will dispense a maverick now for a lousy T-72..

 

yea true.

 

on the other hand as far as I know, amraams are a fortune compared to mk82s or mavericks.

[Eddie]

Although the reporters prescence may have been a factor too.

 

Very much so. The JTAC will always have the final say, a weapon cannot be employed without the "clear hot".

 

And as for economics, that's for politicians to be concerned with, the weapons employed by air forces are up the air force concerned.

 

While RoE and political policy very much has an impact on the weapons that may be available in theatre. All we had for Libya, for example, were Brimstone, PWIV, EPWII and a VERY small number of PWIII (although that was decided by military commanders based on the political policy), what is loaded onto jets is up to the mission planners and what is dropped is down to the guys on the ground and/or in the air.

 

I doubt uncle sam will dispense a maverick now for a lousy T-72..

 

 

Noc, as for not using AGMs etc against T-72s, I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. In fact we'd launched in excess of 100 Brimstone at targets in Libya by the time I came home in June, as well as just shy of 100 Paveway IVs amogst others. Most of those were employed against vehicles ranging from MBTs to pickup trucks. There is no doubt the US does the same.

 

Hell, the Army fire £60,000 Javelin anti-tank missiles at insurgents in tree lines/buildings. Cost is irrelevant.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Eddie

[gazcrowbar]

I watched a recent programme about chopper pilots in Afghanistan("Fighting on the Frontline"). It showed lots of footage of taliban being shot by Apaches using missiles and not the gun.

 

Not sure exactly why these were used, guessing to maintain distance, but it shows again that price is of no concern; even if you have cheap weapons to use.

Edited October 7, 2011 by gazcrowbar

[Paco]

To be technical....JTACs .ask for effects and the pilot selects the best weapon for said effects giving due consideration for collateral damage. Ultimately the supported Ground Commander is final say in a doctrinal CAS discussion, with the JTAC giving the "cleared hot" call.

[WildFire]

Yeah they always had us cutting corners in our shop trying to get cheaper parts and fix stuff without ordering new expensive parts, the theory we always had was everyone in the military scrimps so the SOF and aviation forces have an unlimited budget. No fact behind that just always what we assumed, I did see a lot of very expensive ordinance go off the deck that never came back, hardly ever did our 18's or 14's use dumb bombs. In fact thinking back now the only dumb bombs I can remember seeing was **EDIT** rockeyes(rockeyes are dumb right?), and Mk-84s and they hardly ever let those go in combat.

 

From what I have seen though that is definitely true, is cost is not an issue. The military and the politicians right off war costs on the backs of taxpayer debt. We'll be paying for Afghanistan for 30 years after its finally over. So yeah they have a blank check. The only good that comes from the cost of using a lot guided, or GPS munitions is that the collateral damage is low, so that pretty much justifies the cost across the board.

 

So really as its been said above, they use whatever is loaded on the plane and whatever gets the job done with the least amount of civilians dead in the newspapers. And in the case of the USAF you can assume your command has assured youll have some pretty nice bombs loaded at all times.

Edited October 7, 2011 by WildFire

[kylania]

The other thing to remember is that current day loadouts have no application to the fictional encounters you'll have in DCS. It's setup as a 'hordes of armor' style battle instead of 'infantry in a tree line' type battle.

 

The country side in A-stan isn't covered in SAMs and we're not being tasked with blowing up a bridge before an armored column gets to it anymore. So take current loadouts with a grain of salt compared to in game concerns.

[BigBlue]

I've been meaning to ask if others think dropping anti-armor cluster bombs on T-72's is a waste of(simulated) tax payer dollars.

[159th_Viper]

I've been meaning to ask if others think dropping anti-armor cluster bombs on T-72's is a waste of(simulated) tax payer dollars.

 

In-SIM?

 

There are at present no Anti-Armour CBU's in-SIM.

 

IRL?

 

Drop them - I'm sure they have a limited shelf-life once assembled. Any load-toads here that can confirm?

[Paco]

"do we really need smart bombs to kill these dumb bastards?"

[Torment]

A little doctrine to poke your eyes out with:

In a CAS scenario, a JTAC can control exactly how and what type of ordinance is used for each attack (Type 1/2 control). For this type he'll control each individual attack with the term "cleared hot". For type 3, he'll use the term "cleared to engage" which may include restrictions including what ordinance to use.

But...a JTAC is not required to employ ordinance in all situations.

 

1. Air interdiction tasking - A designated authority, such as an AOC/ASOC can task an A-10 to "target" an objective. The pilot may release ordinance if:

-The CDE has been met and is in accordance with the GFC directive

-A PID has been established that the target is hostile

Both must hold true for the duration of the attack

 

2. JFACC tasking - The big man says drop the bomb, the above restrictions may or may not have been met. Drop the bomb.

 

3. Self Defense - Never restricted. However, must be proportionate to the threat (the common saying is you can't drop a nuke on a guy with an AK-47). May be used in the defense of self, or friendly/civilian forces on the ground.

 

4. ECAS - There's also emergency CAS with non-JTAC qualified personnel. All in the JFIRE.

 

AINT is kinda sorta in this sim but there's not a FLOT and FSCL established to differentiate between INT and CAS. No aircraft is going to be given a blanket authority to just "go out there and F S up". It's almost always going to be "mother, may I?".

 

As far as which weapons is employed...Eddie is correct, there is no book telling you to use weapon X in situation Y. There is a book that says you could use weapon X against target Y.

 

In the real world, the SPINS will dictate a Standard Conventional Loadout for each aircraft that will be employed in theatre. This will be determined based on the perceived threats and targets of the battlefield. By no means set in stone but it gives the GFC a good idea if he calls an asset (A-10) for support he has a good idea what it's capable of.

[Guest Fury_007]

To me: ultimately it should be the pilots choice to overrule the jtac because in the end the pilot is the person who has to live with killing friendlies because a controller requested a gbu instead of a gun run.

[WildFire]

Well in the military sometimes you dont have that choice. Its not unheard of to be given an order that may harm civilians. In that situation you are advised to inform command there will be casualties. If command still orders the strike your SOL. But in that situation when it comes to blame the area commander takes the responsibility. If the pilot did everything in his power to prevent loss of life then he cannot be held accountable. He is only following his training.

[cichlidfan]

To me: ultimately it should be the pilots choice to overrule the jtac because in the end the pilot is the person who has to live with killing friendlies because a controller requested a gbu instead of a gun run.

 

I believe that ultimately it is, and should be the JTAC (or whatever controller is involved), because they are supposed to be in a position to better assess the situation than the pilot. Then there is the issue of a given pilot not having the entire picture.

 

I am sure it does not always work out correctly but you have to have a system.

 

Of course, there is also that annoying chain-of-command thing. From what I understand, they take it rather seriously.:D

[WildBillKelsoe]

EDIT: sniped!

Edited October 8, 2011 by WildBillKelsoe

[Harzach]

I think some folks might be getting a little too real and forgetting to have fun. The whole point of a sim such as this is that you can drop as many of whatever bombs or missiles you want. Get into dogfights with 40 Hinds if it tickles you the right way.

Enjoy the sim how you want to, but there is such a thing as over thinking, kids.

 

Well, for some people, the whole point of a sim is to SIMulate an experience that they otherwise would never have. Some people want their simming to be as "real" as possible. For them, that's what is fun.

[MagnumHB]

The other thing to remember is that current day loadouts have no application to the fictional encounters you'll have in DCS. It's setup as a 'hordes of armor' style battle instead of 'infantry in a tree line' type battle.

That depends on the mission builder, of course. I for one would not complain if there were in fact more missions based on recent CAS actions.

[Paco]

To be technical....JTACs .ask for effects and the pilot selects the best weapon for said effects giving due consideration for collateral damage. Ultimately the supported Ground Commander is final say in a doctrinal CAS discussion, with the JTAC giving the "cleared hot" call.

 

To be more specific the JTAC will request a weapon and if the pilot has heartburn or a better idea, there is usually a quick conversation as to the best course of action. More than once I've had a pilot correct me or suggest a better fuzing option. It's all about commander's intent, that's why it's important to relay commander's intent to the aircrew during the situation update.....if there is time. Again, if it's a TIC with enemy danger, then conservations tend to be short, very short.

 

Don't read too much into this, most situations are pretty clear cut and with SCL's there's not much guess work.

 

Judgement and knowledge of tactics/weapons employment factor into weapon selection, as do the quality of enemy air defenses. We are used to wheeling up over the target and employing ordnance....do that in a North Korean force on force scenario and you'll be shot down.

 

I knew this thread would digress....for now enjoy the game and know the cost of the bombs here came with the game purchase.

[Guest Fury_007]

Well in the military sometimes you dont have that choice. Its not unheard of to be given an order that may harm civilians. In that situation you are advised to inform command there will be casualties. If command still orders the strike your SOL. But in that situation when it comes to blame the area commander takes the responsibility. If the pilot did everything in his power to prevent loss of life then he cannot be held accountable. He is only following his training.

 

I did 5 years in the Army. I am very aware of how it works... Air Force, not so much, although probably similar. I'm pretty sure the CO back at the airfield would be very, if not more, cautious than the pilot. If I were the CO, and my pilot told me he...... Disregard. This is just going to go back and forth.

 

BTW, I use and like your wildfire loadouts! 115% awesomeness.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Fury_007
Typo - damn phone

[kylania]

That depends on the mission builder, of course. I for one would not complain if there were in fact more missions based on recent CAS actions.

 

Oh, indeed! More missions in general would be great. heh

[Depth]

I think some folks might be getting a little too real and forgetting to have fun. The whole point of a sim such as this is that you can drop as many of whatever bombs or missiles you want. Get into dogfights with 40 Hinds if it tickles you the right way.

Enjoy the sim how you want to, but there is such a thing as over thinking, kids.

You've got it backwards. The point of a sim is that you can not drop as many of whatever bombs or missiles you want or your simulated commanding officer would have your wings on a plate. You're talking about games such as Top Gun or HAWX, where you get 100 Sidewinders and 50 HARMs to fire before needing to land and rearm. Kid.

[Laud]

I for one would not complain if there were in fact more missions based on recent CAS actions.

 

I'm actually reading "7/9 Fire Strike" by Paul 'Bommer' Grahame, and I have to say DCS is atm no way capable to simulate (talking about the ME) such dynamic battle situations. Unfortunately...

 

This will maybe appear, once we've got that ArmA - DCS mix simulation, where you have humans on the ground talking to you instead of AI.

 

P.S.: Get that book! It's an awsome read! (at least for those who haven't been fighting on the ground IRL)