Harrier CAS page update

If ED's JTAC is modeled for SADL specifically, then no, Harrier shouldn't be able to receive digital CAS briefs.

 

If ED's JTAC is modeled for generic datalink, there's no real reason to omit Harrier's ATHS.

 

In either case, Harriers within a flight should be able to share CAS information digitally.

I have understood for some reason that the units datalinks would be more generic ones already, or at least to be converted to such. Don't know where I have got that kind impression.

Possible for how we don't anymore just have A-10C as flyable module but as well Hornet and Viper and all needs to start getting things done.

Again I see this as lack of ground units capabilities, and why I wish to see more different kind units on ground for various countries and eras, as this would open up the possibility for some new third party studios to start providing not maps or aircrafts but ground units. Just like there is now the discussion about possibility for IADS module and capabilities.

IMHO the ground units (whole warfare) in DCS is untapped potential for major simulation evolvements.

Like we completely have no AI basic features to dynamically and autonomously call air support when needed.

What does need resolving is when the Target points are deleted in the CAS menu that it also deletes from the EHSD menu.

Also When important from the F10 map its an issue currently and unusable in large MP missions, you end up importin other players points.

Need to go down the Heatblur / Viggen method where you can cycle other players or your own waypoints to import.

Thanks.

Well, I'll say that the goal is that the procedures are used even in combat. There are reasons for them, often written in blood.

Like Klarsnow said many pages back, Type 2 BOC has been bread and butter for many years now, even in combat. More often than not using procedures at all, I'm familiar with less extreme normalizations of deviance, such as shortcuts taken for poor reasons ("Lines 1-3 N/A" is a USMC pet peeve).

Obviously there are situations in extremis like you're saying, but I wouldn't characterize those as the rule. Your first posts here implied you'd never drop on something you can't confirm visually and must have your head outside the cockpit or it wasn't CAS, which isn't really representative of a lot of our versions of "what really happens" and is why a lot of folks have chimed in.

So we should then scratch over the ATHS capability in Harrier for being a "Digital CAS" supported aircraft?

I thought the question was related to DCS not real world. I wasn't arguing with you.

:flowers:

Obviously there are situations in extremis like you're saying, but I wouldn't characterize those as the rule. Your first posts here implied you'd never drop on something you can't confirm visually and must have your head outside the cockpit or it wasn't CAS, which isn't really representative of a lot of our versions of "what really happens" and is why a lot of folks have chimed in.

Yeah sorry for that, should have meant that someone else than pilot has visual. But when you are having a CAS around you, they can react quickly to situation that would escalate badly for troops on ground. So when pilot does have eyes on the ground and in direct radio communication to ground, lots of things are worked in few seconds instead minutes.

That was as well the idea for the ROVER so on ground someone has the idea what the pilot saw at distance when staying as overhead observer, and later system was improved so you could draw on the video that pilot sees what you are drawing and you have direct radio communication as well with for a pilot.

In those scenarios you don't anymore care at all about proper 9-line process etc as you get so quickly on "the same page" what is happening and what is required.

And that is something that happens as well in CAS that it becomes very dynamic and you trust the people to do their jobs well, and it works when you have the understanding what is going on.

It is just impossible to do safely when you have a pilot that has zero situational awareness, for what you totally need that 9-line call information as other is working with "just by feeling" and eyes shut.

And when you get a pilot communication worked out that they understand what happens, they can follow your situation on the ground, they can react to things that you don't even realize.

It is same thing with everything where different people needs to work together to build a complex process how to help each others out.

And this is one of those reasons why a A-10 is so loved by the soldiers on the ground as the pilot has totally different understanding than a F-35 pilot that is flying at distance and observing situation just through the camera.

Very huge challenge in these things is that troops on ground usually has no idea what is happening or where they are. It really requires good concentration and adaptiveness that one can scan the surroundings, identify visual landmarks, come up with only the relative information to be told for a another over radio. In heat of combat it is challenge for people even realize that what is going on.

So when you take a map, the same map that the pilot has on his kneeboard (or digital moving map system) and you can layout your own ground troops positions on it, and you can talk over a radio the information that is required to get another person understand what they should see.

And when you work with people who gets good at it through the training, it is very fluent, fast and effective. It literally can take just a couple seconds to split out a enemy position and what kind target there is.

With artillery, mortars and other indirect fire it is easy when your position is known, why you report them at advance to support elements. So that you can easily call out positions where fire is required without starting to give any own calculations, as they do that at their side.

This is as well why I loved a IR laser designators as with NVG's you can so easily direct fire in many ways. Same thing was with a smoke grenades, super simple and effective, very old school but you get the job done in many cases.

Accidents happens, no matter how carefully things are planned and designed to be. All it takes that one number is wrong, one step is skipped, one check was left out etc.

This is one of those things I dislike in DCS and seriously hope improvements, where F10 kind map access is removed by default, no units shown on the map by any proper accuracy etc.

And get the ground units to have proper basic communications methods for AI. So that you can contact the ground units and they would tell you.

People would hate it at first, because so many wants to just get things go boom, and feel that they are some super pilots up in the air.

For them the Harrier CAS page is system they really would love, as it helps a lot to get information. And even more people will love when they get JHMCS/Scoprio helmets with A-G designation capabilities and all.

A lot of what you're describing are the sorts of bad habits and deficiencies born out of low-intensity conflict that it used to be part of my job to study and help correct.

Worrying about the ground unit not knowing where they were, or thinking that they had less situational awareness than supporting arms, would have been incredulous enough for us not to be major considerations.

It gets pretty dynamic when you ramp up the complexity beyond one isolated patrol/outpost, one section of aircraft, and a drone. Include adjacent maneuver units, multiple forms of indirect fires, and both rotary and fixed wing (or multiple sections of each) in the same objective area, and achieving that level of combined arms requires stricter adherence to standardized procedures and techniques for fires integration/synchronization to be efficient, not inadvertently get in the way of the rest of the team, and mitigate tactical risks.

At that level, I suspect we aren't even really talking about the same thing, since the airplanes and their CAS are only one tool in the fires toolbox (albeit an important one). I don't want to misrepresent your position, but it seems like you're coming at it from the reactionary angle of doing whatever works when you've ended up in a really bad situation (how did we get here to begin with?) and need to get out of that bad situation as quickly as possible (the A-10 in your example is great for that).

Our angle was more proactive. Our concerns were keeping the entire toolbox shooting simultaneously, when and where they were requested to achieve a common mission. Anything that wasn't in service of this goal or prevented other fires contributors from doing their jobs (the A-10 in your example is great at this too) was cut out of the fire support machine.

With this in mind, I see the CAS page's value as ensuring those weapons are going where they need to go, when they need to be there, while not shutting down other fires, and without the pilot needing to stare down into the objective area prior to beginning an attack.

Is it possible to get CAS data using the editor? So instead of forexample using the F10 map, or engaging JTAC with the radio, having a trigger which sends you the CAS info? I have tried using the editor to create a markpoint which works but it does not send the data (probably because you only have Mark to group, coalition or all....and not to player).