Where on the roadmap do DLZ's fall?

I expected dynamic launch zones to come out a few months after the initial JDAMS release, but it looks like a whole slew of things came first, including Viper development. Is this still on the roadmap? It was supposed to be before TGP so I'm not sure if it fell off or is now in phase 2, or is coming sooner. I believe they'd have to get the bomb heading and impact angle sorted to implement this, so I realize it's a pretty big task.

What is exactly the JDAM DLZ? Is about entering heading and angle for the bomb to impact?

If that is the case... Where is the added value for us in the SIM? I mean, it is cool and I want to have it but i guess there some really important needed combat system that should come before that... you know like the holy trinity: A2G, TWS, TPOD modes and symbology...

Just for your interest i read that engineers in charge of weapons development were right now hard at work with the MITM datalink for the Walleye and later SLAM and SLAM-ER

What is exactly the JDAM DLZ? Is about entering heading and angle for the bomb to impact?

 

If that is the case... Where is the added value for us in the SIM? I mean, it is cool and I want to have it but i guess there some really important needed combat system that should come before that... you know like the holy trinity: A2G, TWS, TPOD modes and symbology...

 

Just for your interest i read that engineers in charge of weapons development were right now hard at work with the MITM datalink for the Walleye and later SLAM and SLAM-ER

The added benefit would be for the JSOW A. It‘s bomblets get thrown out into the direction of the Jsows flightpath. Since the impact zone of the bomblets has not the same length and width, it is important to have a certain flight direction of the jsow, if you have to attack targets that are lined up in a row.

If the targets are lined up with a 90degree offset to your flightpath, you have to fly around the target to attack them properly. By that you have to possibly fly too deep into enemy territory, or expose yourself to aa.

Same goes for jdams and jsows of you have to attack a target between buildings, or mountains

For that we could either use a the flight direction, or a top down attack.

What is exactly the JDAM DLZ? Is about entering heading and angle for the bomb to impact?

The DLZ is the Dynamic Launch Zone, an area shown on the HSI inside of which you can drop your JDAM with it reaching the target based on it's programmed parameters, or in short: inside this zone you can drop your JDAMs and they will hit stuff.

The added benefit would be for the JSOW A. It‘s bomblets get thrown out into the direction of the Jsows flightpath. Since the impact zone of the bomblets has not the same length and width, it is important to have a certain flight direction of the jsow, if you have to attack targets that are lined up in a row.

If the targets are lined up with a 90degree offset to your flightpath, you have to fly around the target to attack them properly. By that you have to possibly fly too deep into enemy territory, or expose yourself to aa.

 

Same goes for jdams and jsows of you have to attack a target between buildings, or mountains

For that we could either use a the flight direction, or a top down attack.

I see, that is interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

I would like to see more dynamic launch zones for all weapons, where you definitely do not want to launch as soon you get the release authorization. But so that there is 10% dynamic zone at the theoretical calculated release point, and you definitely want to fly much closer to do the release to increase the possibility of correct launch parameters.

This, because the winds are not constant, there is various different moisture levels etc that can easily eat up that 10-15% theoretical range for launch.

The added benefit would be for the JSOW A. It‘s bomblets get thrown out into the direction of the Jsows flightpath. Since the impact zone of the bomblets has not the same length and width, it is important to have a certain flight direction of the jsow, if you have to attack targets that are lined up in a row.

If the targets are lined up with a 90degree offset to your flightpath, you have to fly around the target to attack them properly. By that you have to possibly fly too deep into enemy territory, or expose yourself to aa.

 

Same goes for jdams and jsows of you have to attack a target between buildings, or mountains

For that we could either use a the flight direction, or a top down attack.

We also need to wait for the Terminal delivery options ot be implemented for that, since they're just for show now and they don't do anything. But I agree, once we have them, the DLZ you need to change to take them into account.

I expected dynamic launch zones to come out a few months after the initial JDAMS release, but it looks like a whole slew of things came first, including Viper development. Is this still on the roadmap? It was supposed to be before TGP so I'm not sure if it fell off or is now in phase 2, or is coming sooner. I believe they'd have to get the bomb heading and impact angle sorted to implement this, so I realize it's a pretty big task.

Are you referring to the information displayed on the HSI after setting a target for your JDAM? Inner and outer rings (DLZ). These are implemented currently within DCS for the Hornet, but as of yet do not have further tools in regards to programming the JDAM for a specific attack heading, angle of attack, etc. But the rings do adjust depending on your aircraft altitude, speed and angle of attack.

Cheers,

Don

Assume by dynamic launch zone you guys are talking about LAR HSI symbology? The two lines from from 15 degrees off AC nose on in range LAR circle and converging toward the min range circle? Not that it matters but fwiw all the terminology is based off launch acceptable region (LAR), so IZLAR- in zone LAR, PPIZLAR for pre-planned, or the max range circle we have now is in range LAR (IRLAR), but anyway, enough acronyms

There’s a ton of JDAM stuff not implemented, and we aren’t going to get all of it. That said, why the big desire for dynamic LARs? They aren’t even displayed unless you have terminal heading specified or target is within 15 degrees of AC nose. In the latter case, the IRLAR circle we currently have works fine. Dynamic LAR are useful for pre-planned high off boresight release, or when you’ve set I mpact conditions or especially both where release/terminal conditions require an s-turn(s); or a quantity releases where release is only valid in LAR intersection, but until damage models are changed/improved impact conditions are pretty meaningless. If we get a real quantity release manager that would change things but until then?

Personally, of the yet to be implemented jdam features, I’ll take auto loft with HUD pull up (and asl) and HSI loft initiation cues (because tossing jdams over a mounting ridge from 7 miles away is fun), or HSI display of multiple PP targets (without planning tools it would be nice to visualize proximity). That might require finishing mission data and jdam display page though. Or easy to implement stuff like named PP targets (useful for keeping track). we don’t get the dynamic TOT calculation that factors in time of fall, or the reverse that displays ground speed cue for PP targets.

Quantity release that allow true single pass multiple release without playing hotas like a guitar would be very cool, but otherwise a lot of the more advanced stuff is really of marginal utility for DCS. Just in terms of HSI symbology - Terminal trajectory tails on targets, offset points, the various “bearing to” lines would only be useful in a manufactured situation like JTAC requesting offset target and terminal trajectory conditions, because it doesn’t make any difference in weapon effect. But even in their partially implemented state, jdams are very effective, able to accomplish nearly every mission a fully implemented weapon and interface would allow.

Conversely, we have MAYBE 20% of the Apg-73- our most important sensor, and it seems like we are close to a massive improvement on the AA side (AG a bit longer)- twiz, raid scan, bump acq., all of the functionality related to L&S and undesignate button like cycling l&s through ranked trackfiles, L&s/dt2 swap, or functions that help you pick up MSI or other tracks your struggling to acquire like spotlight (or exp mode). Given some of the recent bugs maybe scan centering at least in RWS is close? Of course could just be a bug, but eventually it will be very useful not to be stuck with 140 azimuth sweep, struggling to maintain contact as aspect increases when you want some lateral separation or anything other than head on intercept.

Assume by dynamic launch zone you guys are talking about LAR HSI symbology? The two lines from from 15 degrees off AC nose on in range LAR circle and converging toward the min range circle? Not that it matters but fwiw all the terminology is based off launch acceptable region (LAR), so IZLAR- in zone LAR, PPIZLAR for pre-planned, or the max range circle we have now is in range LAR (IRLAR), but anyway, enough acronyms

 

There’s a ton of JDAM stuff not implemented, and we aren’t going to get all of it. That said, why the big desire for dynamic LARs? They aren’t even displayed unless you have terminal heading specified or target is within 15 degrees of AC nose. In the latter case, the IRLAR circle we currently have works fine. Dynamic LAR are useful for pre-planned high off boresight release, or when you’ve set I mpact conditions or especially both where release/terminal conditions require an s-turn(s); or a quantity releases where release is only valid in LAR intersection, but until damage models are changed/improved impact conditions are pretty meaningless. If we get a real quantity release manager that would change things but until then?

 

Personally, of the yet to be implemented jdam features, I’ll take auto loft with HUD pull up (and asl) and HSI loft initiation cues (because tossing jdams over a mounting ridge from 7 miles away is fun), or HSI display of multiple PP targets (without planning tools it would be nice to visualize proximity). That might require finishing mission data and jdam display page though. Or easy to implement stuff like named PP targets (useful for keeping track). we don’t get the dynamic TOT calculation that factors in time of fall, or the reverse that displays ground speed cue for PP targets.

 

Quantity release that allow true single pass multiple release without playing hotas like a guitar would be very cool, but otherwise a lot of the more advanced stuff is really of marginal utility for DCS. Just in terms of HSI symbology - Terminal trajectory tails on targets, offset points, the various “bearing to” lines would only be useful in a manufactured situation like JTAC requesting offset target and terminal trajectory conditions, because it doesn’t make any difference in weapon effect. But even in their partially implemented state, jdams are very effective, able to accomplish nearly every mission a fully implemented weapon and interface would allow.

 

Conversely, we have MAYBE 20% of the Apg-73- our most important sensor, and it seems like we are close to a massive improvement on the AA side (AG a bit longer)- twiz, raid scan, bump acq., all of the functionality related to L&S and undesignate button like cycling l&s through ranked trackfiles, L&s/dt2 swap, or functions that help you pick up MSI or other tracks your struggling to acquire like spotlight (or exp mode). Given some of the recent bugs maybe scan centering at least in RWS is close? Of course could just be a bug, but eventually it will be very useful not to be stuck with 140 azimuth sweep, struggling to maintain contact as aspect increases when you want some lateral separation or anything other than head on intercept.

It's a little more involved than that, but yes. The impact heading and angle need to be finished first, or the concentric circles are the correct symbology.

Here is a video of the WIP JF17 from Deka Ironworks. At about 4:12 in you can see the pilot enter the azimuth and impact angle, and the symbology in the HSI reacts accordingly. My understanding is this is exactly how it works in the Hornet.

I’m not totally sure what you’re addressing or disagreeing with, if anything.

My post was already getting stupidly long, it’s also hard to tell exactly what the symbology is in that video. But yes, hornet pilot may enter Terminal Impact Heading, Terminal Impact Angle and/or Minimum Impact Velocity. All of here are shown on mission data format page, but HSI is different, and only directly displays terminal impact heading.

Regardless of whether target is displayed as a triangle or diamond (PP vs TOO more), terminal impact heading is shown by a short line from the target market. However, the purpose of izlar is dynamic calculation of acceptable release point where the weapon will have a high probability of achieving the terminal attack parameters. If there are no terminal parameters, then izlar is irrelevant - thus irlar (the max range circle we currently have) is displayed. If terminal heading is specified, irlar gives way to izlar. Hopefully this makes sense, if no impact heading is specified, the LAR is a circle (unless wind parameters are input, in which case it becomes more egg shaped depending on wind velocity).

FWIW, you can decipher whether other parameters are specified by how the izlar behaves. Minimum impact velocity number can be set very high. I don’t know how ED intends to handle this, nor do I feel comfortable being precise, but suffice to say double digit Mach equivalent FPS values can be specified (for hardened targets). As you can imagine, very high values have a substantial effect on IZLAR.

My point was that dynamic launch zones, to use the terminology of OP, are irrelevant if terminal impact parameters are not set (or no quantity release). As terminal parameters don’t work currently, and would have no effect on weapon effect under the current damage model, it does not seem like a very high priority relative to other things that bear directly on lethality and survivability.

My prior post was a bit rambling, but does that make more sense?

I’m not totally sure what you’re addressing or disagreeing with, if anything.

 

My post was already getting stupidly long, it’s also hard to tell exactly what the symbology is in that video. But yes, hornet pilot may enter Terminal Impact Heading, Terminal Impact Angle and/or Minimum Impact Velocity. All of here are shown on mission data format page, but HSI is different, and only directly displays terminal impact heading.

 

Regardless of whether target is displayed as a triangle or diamond (PP vs TOO more), terminal impact heading is shown by a short line from the target market. However, the purpose of izlar is dynamic calculation of acceptable release point where the weapon will have a high probability of achieving the terminal attack parameters. If there are no terminal parameters, then izlar is irrelevant - thus irlar (the max range circle we currently have) is displayed. If terminal heading is specified, irlar gives way to izlar. Hopefully this makes sense, if no impact heading is specified, the LAR is a circle (unless wind parameters are input, in which case it becomes more egg shaped depending on wind velocity).

 

FWIW, you can decipher whether other parameters are specified by how the izlar behaves. Minimum impact velocity number can be set very high. I don’t know how ED intends to handle this, nor do I feel comfortable being precise, but suffice to say double digit Mach equivalent FPS values can be specified (for hardened targets). As you can imagine, very high values have a substantial effect on IZLAR.

 

My point was that dynamic launch zones, to use the terminology of OP, are irrelevant if terminal impact parameters are not set (or no quantity release). As terminal parameters don’t work currently, and would have no effect on weapon effect under the current damage model, it does not seem like a very high priority relative to other things that bear directly on lethality and survivability.

 

My prior post was a bit rambling, but does that make more sense?

Just got back around to this, sorry for the delay.

IZLAR is always displayed, regardless of terminal attack params, in MAN mode, if the current priority target is within 15deg of the nose. The current symbology isn't strictly correct. This is because the circle only applies to a defined heading to target. I.e., if you fly to the left side of the circle far enough, release won't be possible as the circle will dynamically shrink past your aircraft. That circle is just supposed to be IN RANGE representation in general, not IN ZONE, which is the only place release is possible. It's basically like RMAX for a missile. You shouldn't actually drop there, and the system I believe prohibits dropping if IN ZONE isn't possible (except in FD mode which I suspect won't be modeled and is very edge case). Thus, the IZLAR shows where you actually must fly with respect to current heading to target assuming +/- 15 deg. deflection from the target itself.

IZLAR is even more important in quantity release, PP Mode wherein bombs have different targets when AUTO/LOFT is selected. In AUTO/LOFT with a quantity selected, the IZLAR displayed is the overlap of the IZLAR for all the selected targets and represents an area where all 4 bombs could be dropped simultaneously and still hit their targets. If no such overlap is possible with the selected targets, then no symbology is displayed and AUTO release is not possible. In this mode, the range circles are not displayed at all, and IZLAR is only displayed when the aircraft is +/- 15 deg of azimuth for priority target and within +/-10deg LOS for each terminal attack heading, should one be selected on any or all targets.

Bottom line: I agree, AUTO/LOFT would be a great addition and I'd like to see it next, and AUTO/LOFT will use IZLARs always. I'm assuming they'll model all this, as otherwise I'm not sure what the point of adding AUTO/LOFT in would be.