longer launch range for Maverick?

No, its still targeting a point on a contrast image.

A point in the center. What's the difference between a non-moving SAM site and a building besides size? Obviously I have never used/studied these missiles outside of the sim so I don't know their capabilities in and out

A point in the center. What's the difference between a non-moving SAM site and a building besides size? Obviously I have never used/studied these missiles outside of the sim so I don't know their capabilities in and out

No Correlate track is tracking the entire image and giving guidance commands to ensure the image expands out equally in all directions, it is the weapon's terminal guidance phase with is used when the weapon gets too close to the target for a centroid track to be held. All force correlate does is quite literally force the use of correlate track at launch.

Depending on launch distance the Maverick has CEP of over 100 metres when employed in force correlate (1 mil in fact, you can do the angle maths to calculate the distance based on a given range). In short, it will not hit a small point target, and it flat out should not work the way most DCS players employ it.

What he said. ^

Consider all the above then look at the fact that DCS players use that mode to fire at point targets from distances greater than they can in point track mode when point track can already fire regularly at greater ranges than might be practical in real life.

Anyone using Force Correlate to snipe SAM systems at 13nm is trollin'.

^^^^

What they said :D

In addition, at long enough ranges you won't even hit buildings with FC - in reality.

As well, SAMs in-game radiate all the time. They don't have to, and they can be made not to in a well-configured mission. They can also sit on reverse slopes, stay out of the open where you can easily find them, they can have 'support', AND enemy fighters (or the SAMs themselves) can drag you into them.

And then you'll get a real(er) taste of SEAD.

Another point of contention is the 'air to air' use of the AGM-65 ... yes you could do it, but it should at least have the advanced missile flight model, as well as be susceptible to flares and the sun.

Finally, the AGM-65H/K should be able to lock targets further out ... why? Because it has a higher resolution sensor, which means a target that is further away gives you a larger measurable blob (in pixels).

That's a lot of stuff to do for the AGM-65 alone.

Me, I always slew them onto the target.

Oh you guys and your targeting pods.

Yeah, it's an invention of a time known as the modern age. You might want to try it sometime, it's almost as awesome as sliced bread. :D

This has its place but if you ever have to deal with a more realistic SEAD situation (a non-out-of-the-box setup for the SAMs in game), you'll find the TGP utterly useless and the stuff that PFunk is preaching will be the way to conduct business :)

Yeah, it's an invention of a time known as the modern age. You might want to try it sometime, it's almost as awesome as sliced bread. :D

This has its place but if you ever have to deal with a more realistic SEAD situation (a non-out-of-the-box setup for the SAMs in game), you'll find the TGP utterly useless and the stuff that PFunk is preaching will be the way to conduct business :)

One of my favorite missions, though not SEAD, was a night run with a couple mavs and a couple TERs of mk82s. Use the mav to find and designate, then, hopefully, drop a couple of -82s on 'em. When the irons are gone, use the mavs. It's fun, even if I had the targets mostly apc or truck types.

This has its place but if you ever have to deal with a more realistic SEAD situation (a non-out-of-the-box setup for the SAMs in game), you'll find the TGP utterly useless and the stuff that PFunk is preaching will be the way to conduct business :)

Need more context.

It sounds to me as if P*Funk and you are saying the TGP is bad because it makes people stupid (or slow?). If so, elaborate. If not, elaborate.

The TGP can look at targets using multiple zoom levels, can do so at pretty much any angle that doesn't get obstructed by the aircraft or its loadout, can be slaved to a steerpoint, features multiple sensors, is an integral part of "our" A-10C and is ideally suited to find, identify and track targets within its limits of operation -- which, as far as I can tell, are much broader than the AGM-65's limits of operation.

If you're trying to say "Hey guys, don't forget that it's useful to learn to use the Mav without help from the TGP", just say so. :smartass:

And just so we're on the same page, I think it's absolutely useful to be able to use Mavericks without the TGP, and I can imagine situations where this would be faster even when the TGP is available.

However, it sounds to me as if you're actively discouraging people from using the TGP -- and if that's the case, I think your (P*Funk's, mostly) reasoning is superficial and hasn't convinced me yet.

Actually, it sounds like those guys telling us that the only way to truly fly the Ka-50 is to turn off all stability augmentation systems because they're only getting in the way of flying the aircraft. Maybe that's true. But for me to follow that path, it'll take a hell of a lot more convincing than the occasional "don't use it because you don't need it" reminder.

Basically, I'm questioning the logic of the argument. To me, it sounds as if the argument is this: "The TGP is great, but if it gets damaged, you're out of commission -- unless you know how to use Mavs without TGP. Because of this, you should never use the TGP. Unless you could totally complete each and every mission without it. But if you could, why would you use it in the first place?"

That's kinda like saying "You don't need AWACS because if you don't have situational awareness without it, you'll be dead anyway." :music_whistling:

The argument is that when operating in a high-threat environment that drives the A-10 down into the low-level regime, the TGP will be ineffective and therefore you should be proficient at employing the Maverick without sensor cueing.

If you're trying to say "Hey guys, don't forget that it's useful to learn to use the Mav without help from the TGP", just say so. :smartass:

 

And just so we're on the same page, I think it's absolutely useful to be able to use Mavericks without the TGP, and I can imagine situations where this would be faster even when the TGP is available.

Yep, pretty much that :)

However, it sounds to me as if you're actively discouraging people from using the TGP -- and if that's the case, I think your (P*Funk's, mostly) reasoning is superficial and hasn't convinced me yet.

It isn't superficial. All these doodads make the average flight sim pilot ignore contact flying, and that's bad. (And keep the flight augmentation in the Ka-50 on. Really).

I'm still learning the A-10C, so just my sense of things...seems to me you should be proficient w/out the TGP before learning it's usefulness.

Basics are the foundation of proper flying techniques, especially when getting shot at and in close contact at the FLOAT. If you don't know how to use the A/C, how can one be proficient with the A/C and all the goodies that are added on.

Easier said than done though...isn't it.

Good Day!

DrDetroit

The argument is that when operating in a high-threat environment that drives the A-10 down into the low-level regime, the TGP will be ineffective and therefore you should be proficient at employing the Maverick without sensor cueing.

And then, you're very nearly flying old school, like the A-10A. This is why I'm thankful for my prior LOMAC/FC2 time. It prepares you for when your TGP, MFD and PAC all get shot out and you have to get a bit more hands-on with the bad guys, and how to operate low level, using eyeballs to acquire targets.

That said, the TGP and especially the PAC are awesome and I use them constantly. More tools for the toolbox. They directly lead to me getting more GAU-8 kills and fewer times getting shredded by those pesky damn BMP's. "Hey, wait, I no longer need to get within their guns range to detect and ID the target? My Pk on gun runs is higher, so there's one less bad guy to shoot my engines full of lead as I egress?" Awesomesauce! Survivability goes way up. I am certainly more effective with the -10C than I ever was in LOMAC/FC2 with the -10A, but it's nice to be able to adapt when things aren't going your way after you dive to the deck away from those MiG-29's.

Survivability goes way up. How many times have I found strelas or AAA with the TGP prior to coming in for a dive attack. Now sometimes I like not bothering with a TGP so much for a little challenge on a quick mission, when a JTAC passes all the neaby threats with his eagle eyes...but if Im taking time from a cold start and a long flight Its a real buzzkill to eat a missile and be forced to eject knowing I couldve done more. -pull out survival radio, "2, engage air defences, at smoke trail, with maverick, youre now Sandy 1!"

Anyway about the topic. I recently discovered that mavericks can be launched (force correlate) before the range caret appears on the screen. Killed an SA-6 from 14.5 nm away. Lol ok I guess Ill take it. That was at 22000ft at 300kt TAS with both H and K.

Didn't know that could be done, goddamn will I ever learn all I need to learn.

I also wasn't aware of the TMS up short function of the Mavericks, will try this out tonight!

:thumbup:

Just hop intothe A10A if you want to try some MAV training. I used that before the C and it really helped with getting proficient without the TGP.

It isn't superficial. All these doodads make the average flight sim pilot ignore contact flying, and that's bad.

I'm not familiar with the term "contact flying", what do you mean by that?

I guess the idea is to not get out of touch with the world around and to not loose situational awareness because of spending all day heads down in the cockpit.

If that's the case, yeah, I agree that relying on the TGP too much can make pilots get used to some pretty bad habits.

I sort of disagree about the "if you find yourself forced down low to hide from SAMs, the TGP will be useless" argument, though. After following this forum for a couple of years, I'm under the impression that when that happens, either the pilot made a series of terrible mistakes or the mission is badly designed (unless it's a training scenario to train this specific skill just in case, or it's a cold war gone hot kind of scenario that never happened in RL).

So, yeah, there is surely a point to be made for being able to employ Mavs without the TGP, but I don't believe in the "this teaches pilots bad habits and therefore shouldn't be done" mantra that AFAICT is being preached by some people around here.

(And keep the flight augmentation in the Ka-50 on. Really).

That we can definitely agree upon. :)

I'm not familiar with the term "contact flying", what do you mean by that?

 

I guess the idea is to not get out of touch with the world around and to not loose situational awareness because of spending all day heads down in the cockpit.

 

If that's the case, yeah, I agree that relying on the TGP too much can make pilots get used to some pretty bad habits.

More or less. It's also a set of flying techniques based on keeping your head out of the cockpit.

So, yeah, there is surely a point to be made for being able to employ Mavs without the TGP, but I don't believe in the "this teaches pilots bad habits and therefore shouldn't be done" mantra that AFAICT is being preached by some people around here.

It's correct though. Most people have their eyes glued inside the pit or to the HuD.

Any high-threat scenario will force the A-10 to operate as intended and designed: at low altitude using terrain masking. If you think you can unmask, slew the TGP around looking for a target, point track it, slave all, roll-in, center the wagon wheel, switch SOI, command track, respect the 30-30-30 rules, and RIFLE before you get murdered by MANPADS and AAA, well...

Let's just say that's not how it's done. You get two slews while looking at the Mav page, and if you haven't locked something up and RIFLE'd, you come off dry and remask immediately.

You always strive to reduce the number of switch movements when employing weapons, thats why the A-10C got DSMS with preset weapon profiles. The last thing you want to be doing is making 6-9 switch changes between the time you pop to the time you SEM. Thats basic stuff.

This has nothing to do with the pilot "messing up" or missions that are "poorly designed". It's simply a tactical reality.

Also, why do we have the same conversation about Force Correlate over and over? The fact that DCS allows FC to be effective against point targets at all, let alone from ludicrous range, is wholesale incorrect. If you have any desire to simulate realistic employment of the Maverick, don't use FC for anything other than large targets like warehouses and bridges. It's almost as bad as the people who use the Mav as an air-to-air missile. Just no.

It's correct though. Most people have their eyes glued inside the pit or to the HuD.

I guess we mostly agree and are arguing about some fine points rather than having a major disagreement. ;)

Any high-threat scenario will force the A-10 to operate as intended and designed: [...]

A discussion that has been had over and over again as well. For this to work you need several conditions to be met. I'm not saying any of these conditions or the combination of some or all of them are necessarily wrong or unrealistic. But seeing how A-10s have been used ever since the 90s, you should put an emphasis on these conditions and not take it for granted that the rest of the world knows exactly what you mean and also agrees with you.

For example, according to many accounts in "Warthog - Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War" by William A. Smallwood, the scenario you describe had been turned upside down by the realities of the situation at hand and the A-10 pilots were forced to use the Maverick seekers much the same way that TGPs are used today. In that regard, the TGP is a blessing, a tool that makes them sooo much more efficient. And as far as I can tell, this basic way of using the A-10 has never been returned to the cold war type scenario where they were forced to use terrain cover in order to improve their survivability, pop off a quick missile or two and then hope they could RTB and repeat the whole thing.

Major components of the "down low" discussion seem to me like they revolve around a scenario that's not been the focus of A-10 deployment ever since the 80s, which is also why I believe that "modern" missions that force the player into such a situation either have a very specific focus, or they are indeed badly designed.

All I'm going to say to that is that they train a lot of 'down and low' scenarios IRL.

Major components of the "down low" discussion seem to me like they revolve around a scenario that's not been the focus of A-10 deployment ever since the 80s, which is also why I believe that "modern" missions that force the player into such a situation either have a very specific focus, or they are indeed badly designed.

For example, according to many accounts in "Warthog - Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War" by William A. Smallwood, the scenario you describe had been turned upside down by the realities of the situation at hand and the A-10 pilots were forced to use the Maverick seekers much the same way that TGPs are used today. In that regard, the TGP is a blessing, a tool that makes them sooo much more efficient. And as far as I can tell, this basic way of using the A-10 has never been returned to the cold war type scenario where they were forced to use terrain cover in order to improve their survivability, pop off a quick missile or two and then hope they could RTB and repeat the whole thing.

 

Major components of the "down low" discussion seem to me like they revolve around a scenario that's not been the focus of A-10 deployment ever since the 80s, which is also why I believe that "modern" missions that force the player into such a situation either have a very specific focus, or they are indeed badly designed.

During ODS, cyber took town the IADS and SEAD was very effective at mitigating the radar SAM threat. The result was a medium-threat environment best dealt with by flying at medium-altitude to avoid optically guided AAA and the IR SAM MEZ.

TGPs are great in that scenario. What I'm telling you is that not all future wars will be fought against goat herding insurgents in AOs where the most lethal threats are SA-7, 23mm, and SA/AW. See Iran, Taiwan, DPRK, Crimea, etc.

I get the feeling that you think I don't understand the benefits and advantages offered by an ATP. I think the benefits are obvious...when employed from medium-altitude in a permissive environment. But it should be pretty easy to deduce what tactical problems are encountered when employing the TGP from low-altitude in a high-threat environment. Sensor masking, achieving and maintaining target LOS, excessive heads-down time, excessive switchology, etc, are all limiting factors.

Low-altitude tactical navigation, low-altitude tactical formation, and surface attack (tactical) are core A-10 competencies, and training revolves around operating in contested, degraded, and operationally restricted (CDO) environments against near-peer adversaries. So clearly, DoD and USAF think we might need to be ready to fight a "real" war.

I don't really understand this notion that A-10s should never ever ever be down low because the last 20 years has created unique situations that see the A-10 function in a permissive environment. Nobody is going onto the other parts of these boards to tell the virtual fighter jocks that its so stupid of them to try and engage in these A2A duels when its obvious that Su-27s have never fought F-15s and instead should purely focus on shooting down Georgian CAS aircraft as per real life.

If things in the Crimea go hot tomorrow what do you think those A-10s that just got deployed to Spag are going to do?

Did it ever occur to anyone around here that everyone keeps making fundamentally unrealistic scenarios most of the time?

Picks Russia as REDFOR. Deploys its forces like a crumbling ex-Warsaw Pact ally. :megalol:

Did it ever occur to anyone around here that everyone keeps making fundamentally unrealistic scenarios most of the time?

This.

The way the simulation behaves renders the players to create strike missions, use TGP and every standoff, heads down high technology device there is.

Mission builders, start limiting weapons and pods and stop layering dumb SAM's like the 80's and then give your players something interesting to overcome.

This is a pretty relevant article. Its an interview with A-10A pilots who deployed to Iraq in '03 using the TGP on one of their Maverick pylons.

Clearly whats most important is that this article validates the term soda straw as used by real pilots.

http://www.sponauer.com/a-10litening/index.html

Your eyeball is still your best tool, and even with this pod, using it is still like looking through a soda straw.

Short but informative interview.