Wags states that they will be posting more video in the next week as they activate the various systems, probably the radar and targeting pod stuff most likely. Hornet to be up for pre-sale (not stated when) and to be released in the next few months in beta most likely. ED also opened up a whole new section on the forums and re-opened some of the old threads that had been made inactive while it was under development.

https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=557

Nice...!

Just curious, I couldnt find the wags post about the next week video, did he mention that on live stream or something...?

It's in the second video on this post. Sorry, should have made that clear.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3173022&postcount=1

**fingers crossed!!**

Yay!...another module for the non combat static training simulator to fly over Las Vegas and Normandy, such realism, such immersion, can't wait.

#salesonly

At least it's an aircraft that is multi-role, carrier-capable, and thus, a lot of things to do for "training."

Well you can always play the other map, which offers more realistic real world scenarios. Did you complain about Falcon 4's map choice? Because F-16s have never been in combat over North Korea either. I understand complaining about the DCS shortcomings but this forum seems to be taking it to a new level of nitpicking as of late.

You mean these map choices?

How many of those actually work, it looks like half of them are WIP's and the rest of them have technical problems judging from the posts.

I once installed a non-korea theater into BMS but wasn't impressed, but that was around 5 or 6 years ago so things may have changed.

Anyway, this is the DCS forum, not the BMS forum. Let's keep things about DCS in here.

The F-18 should be interesting, but I hope they support it well.

I'm still waiting on 2.5, (whatever that turns out to be) I just don't see any reason to plug another module into a broken undeveloped engine with no dynamic campaign, spend countless hours learning to fly it, then have nothing to do with that knowledge other than fly scripted training missions, the novelty wears off very quickly.

DCS World is a hand me down training sim, there's more to life than pushing buttons.

Well, v2.5 isn't going to do anything about the lack of a dynamic campaign.

How can you be so sure? Are they unwilling, or incapable of providing a DC system?

Both unwilling and incapable.

Back on topic, from the few F-18C videos I've seen (especially the one with Wags) I'd say we're a few months off from early access. Lord knows how much longer beta will take; let alone the actually finished release.

As opposed to how many maps ED has in the pipeline?


Not really able to help you without you being specific. Israel and Balkans theatres are awesome. Still some bugs here and there, and as with everything Falcon, there is a little dance needed to get stuff to work.


I'm not the one who first brought F-16s in this thread.



Pushing buttons can be fun... as long as there is purpose to the button pushing!



Yeah, ED aren't interested at all with giving the customer what that customer wants, even after asking the customer what he wants and the customer giving a clear reply. Then again, ED is struggling enough just getting "regular" stuff out the door, heavens help them if they decide to tackle a DC!!



Both.



True! Even then, who know what state the alpha or beta will be in and how fast progress and fixes will come, and how many steps backwards they'll take before inching forwards. Still, all we can do now is speculate. Time for ED to step forward and show us what they can do. Time to get the game face on!!

ED seems to be fairly competent and reasonable with their early access modules. At least for the planes. Typically they're in for only 4 months and they're fairly polished. Maybe the F-18 will take longer due to the many avionics, but I'd think it will be similar. The main issue seems to be some 3rd party modules as well as the terrian DLC.

Say what?? Is this true for the L-39? Any of the WWII aircraft (Spit, Bf109, Dora)? So are they only struggling with World?


The main issue is DCS World. Maybe the reason 3rd parties are struggling because World keeps changing and changing and changing across three fronts. As to the F-18, I sure hope you are correct!!

I don't get why you guys haunt this forum, you clearly hate dcs, why not move on and play something else?

I cant see any posts directly saying that hate DCS, but it might have missed that

At a guess I would say that most here like DCS and care what happens to it
But sadly the pure retarded decsions that ED seems to make do warrant some negative comments

Or one could take the same view as you and say if you dont like to read comments that are negative ...... dont read them or reply to them

Are we really going down this road again? Must I do this for each and every user in this place?

TL;DR - I don't "haunt" this forum, I also post in numerous other places, your assumption that I hate DCS is wrong, and I do play something else.

new F-18 video
https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/

Cool - I was waiting for one of the MFDs to switch to the AG radar page...

On landing couldn't see any IFLOLS - I wonder if it will be in a popup window?

I would bet all of my money that the first FA 18 version is an AA only version and those we will have a long time only this version.
Even the Harrier version comes without an AG RADAR, for some reason.... ED has no one who can manage the engine to simulate how “real” RADAR would act, even an AA RADAR.
I really believe that what we have right now is something like a "visual tracker". That would explain why ED has so much problems to get the AA missiles work like they should and even now all AI can "look" with the “RADAR” through the mountains. And it would explain why it is so easy to flare and chaff each missile, even the chaff or the flare are miles away from the AC and it would also explain why the ARRAAM has so a wide detection range if the missile goes Pitbull but only on foes, which can only be if the missile know/can see who is who. A Missile Radar can't do that like in this game.
But we will see.

Interesting prediction.... only time will tell, I guess!

I suspect you're right with the AA radar first - however don't forget that the Viggen has AG radar as well as the upcoming community A-4E Skyhawk so it is doable (however I understand that they are using different approaches for the AG radar).

A-A and Dumb bombs are the initial plan I think, the lead systems designer has been chatting about the F-18 quite a bit on the forum.

Nate

Every time I read "soon" in the title of this thread I chuckle a little bit.

Does anyone have any solid or even semi-solid ideas when the Hornet development actually started? 2 years ago? 5?

A tad optimistic, we never learn

Nate

AMRAAMs have no IFF. They'll happily go after your buddy - it might not be the easiest thing to accomplish, but there are situations where it happens. It also doesn't have a 'wide detection range' ... it's 6-7nm which is half of its published radar range. AI cheats, and that's all there is to that.
Countermeasures work with a specific statistical scheme and have nothing to do with whatever you said.

As for programmers, ED has plenty of capable people when it comes to simulating onboard devices. The only question from there on, is how far are you going to go (ie time and effort) to deepen the simulation of said device?

It's unfortunate the same can't be said for planning, communicating and integration. Perhaps the company is balanced all wrong....what's the point in have capable people for 'simulating onboard devices' when there's incompetence everywhere else?

indeed... kind of flight planning menu before flight is really needed for MP GUI.

back to hornet, does active radar missile code get renewed in Fa18c build DCS?

it has to have 2nd stage guidance right?


@GrayGhost

There is no information on this right now. Just that Wags said that they have someone working on missiles.

And how long has this "someone" been working on missiles, I wonder?

1. Wags has already stated in the video link I posted and in several other different statements that the AN/APG-73 is being modeled in full and will be part of the entire package for the Hornet. Also, the entire package including the targeting pod along with most of the available weapons that are currently in the simulation will already be available and work properly including the AGM-88 HARM. He should be releasing another video soon and has stated that the following videos will go into depth on the rest of the Hornet systems. He said that they will be adding some new weapons not currently available in the simulation like the JSOW and some others. We've all been waiting for a good multi-role aircraft for a long time and it will be a huge letdown for the community if this turns out to not be the case.

2. The AV-8B NA is a non-radar aircraft. According to Razbam, they have stated that they will probably incorporate the AN/APG-65 radar into the module at some point but no promises and it would no longer be a AV-8B NA but the AV-8B. It's based on the same code for the Hornet and according to them they would need to use ED's source code.

3. The missile performance has nothing to do with the current radar tracking systems on the FC-3 aircraft. It's already been addressed on the forums. They did hire a missile specialist last year around the end of the summer. The AI and radar can not see through the mountains. I don't know where you're developing that idea from. I've spoofed plenty of AI and human pilots by flying around the other side of a hilltop often enough to know this. The terrain will mask your location just as in real life. Same thing with missiles. I've trashed plenty of missiles by using the terrain. The biggest problem is that the FC-3 aircraft like the F-15C use a simplified control setup that was originally based on Flanker. So it works but it's not as realistic as the Hornet will be. But the radar does function close enough to work. They consulted a real F-15C pilot for their big update they did back awhile ago and he said it was close enough for the FC-3 version.

4. Flare and chaff work just like they do in real life in the simulation. Some problems with over performance of chaff and flare have been addressed. I can tell you from direct experience that I use chaff and flare extensively and I can see missiles tracking me and then exploding a few hundred yards behind me. I've also had semi-active missiles track and kill me and I've done the same to people on Blue Flag. Using chaff is less effective on semi because of the tracking plane directing the missile. This has been beaten to death on the forums and the consensus is that it's modeled pretty closely to real life. The main problems exist due to missile performance but that's the performance of it's tracking and energy state. Has nothing to do with what you stated.

5. This is completely untrue. AIM-120C's can kill friend or foe. It's all based on who you lock and fire on. We see it happen all the time. I don't know where you're getting your information from but we use IFF all the time to know who to fire on. The same thing is modeled for the AI so they don't fire on friendlies. I also don't know what you mean by "wide detection range". They've discussed and published the information they use for the missile detection cone and tracking performance. The main problem is the ability for the missile to maintain energy state, maneuverability and tracking for long flights for certain missiles. Again this has been talked about a lot and the engineer was hired to work on this. They have stated that we will see a lot of the performance issues addressed in 2.5. But again, I fly Blue Flag a lot and there are plenty of realistic engagements and I never see complaints like this.

You can always claim fully-modeled if your audience doesn't know what fully-modeled looks like and are trained to fight anyone who might.

Shots fired!!
Hahahahaha!!


I'm sure Wags has never been wrong before and everything he says comes into fruition..... eventually.


Please, please, please let it be DCS A-10C quality.... please, please, please for the love of all things good and holy, don't drop the ball on this one!


"Close enough" as compared to what? You do realize that such a vague term can mean anything.... Wildly out of whack can still be considered "close enough" of previous iterations were even more erroneous....


Are you sure? Or is it just "close enough"?


LOL!! IFF in a combat engagement? Really? I'm sure Mr. Eagle Driver also said this was "close enough"!

I'm sorry but this is a truly silly comment. Name one other combat ready simulation that has anywhere near the fidelity of the A-10C in DCS. And don't say P3D because you need the TAC PAC and that's not even close to the same combat level. And it's already been stated that the Hornet will be of the same level of fidelity. So adding in the new maps and all............well, I think you get my point.

Really? Really??!!


And again, counting the chickens before the eggs even hatch.... well, I think you missed the point.

Go ahead and name one. And I'm obviously talking about consumer level computer simulations and not military contract grade ones.

IFF only tells who NOT to fire on.
Unless the simulation at hand is somewhat low grade such as DCS Mirage 2000C in which you will get a IFF friendly on a coalition.side.BLUE Su-25 dangling around.

I think that people understood what I meant. IFF stands for "Interrogate Friend Or Foe" so a non cooperative contact is enemy obviously.

You're kidding me, right?

There is no misunderstanding as to your position.

Never a truer statement.

No, no, really, no.

Do I really, really, REALLY have to? Tell you what, I'll give you three guesses to see if you can name one! Go on!


Oh, is that what "IFF" means? I was always wondering about that!! I thought all this time someone's caps lock got stuck and also added in an extra "F"...

Um, so why do we need AWACS again? Why do we need stuff that can VID targets? Why do fighter pilots have brevity for "heads up a$$h0le, you're locked on a friendly"??

On an unrelated note, experienced fighter pilot *Striker* was court martialled and found guilty of firing on and killing a US Navy F/A-18 jet and it's pilot. During his cross examination, this was what Lt. Cmdr. Admiral MSgt. 1st Class Col. *Striker* had to say: "but we use IFF all the time to know who to fire on and the target was non coopertative so he was obviously the enemy." Investigators found out that the F/A-18's IFF malfunctioned earlier in its mission, and that Lt. Cmdr. Admiral MSgt. 1st Class Col. *Striker* ignored numerous "buddy spike" calls.

What strikes me as hilarious is that Eddie is a "Registered Lunatic" and even he sees the downward spiral here....

I think that we all know that the simulation you're talking about Ice is BMS. And that is a 20 year old pile of vomit compared to DCS when it comes to high fidelity cockpits (I'm not talking about the campaign because it's a work of art). I also know that the only reason you post on this forum is to slam DCS anything. Probably because you're so enamored with BMS that you'll do anything to get people to want to come over to that. But I have news for you. When the Hornet comes out it will be one of the last nails in the coffin for F4. And when they eventually release a F-16 some time down the road it will truly be the end of it. So go ahead and gloat all you want. Your F4 days are numbered.

Compared to the -1, NASA's eagle documents and his own flying experience.



They're close enough, could be better.



There's at least one combat example of 'Mr Eagle driver' using IFF in combat. Though to then it's an entire ID matrix, but it was the particular device that we call IFF that made things happen. Of course in this case, it was an incorrect IFF response, but nevertheless - IFF in combat. Yup. Missiles had just flown and were about to fly again.

I posted this before but everyone knows that flies any of the FC3 stuff that the systems are simplified and based on Flanker. So from what I've read over the years the radar on the F-15C is based on the code from Flanker series. It's not ideal like GrayGhost says but it works. They spent a lot of time with real pilots to develop some of the flight models and they know that the radar system coding is out of date and needs revamping. ED has stated that everything moving forward will be full modeled systems, hence the Hornet radar coding. "Close enough" to be functional in the simulation, not ideal but it works. In all honesty, I don't like the radar system on the F-15C the way it's currently modeled. But it doesn't stop people from enjoying it in the SP or MP environment.

In the interest of fostering a better direction in this forum, I have decided to delete some of my previous comments. I'm hoping that we can have a better direction going forward as I want to continue to contribute to this forum.

And your next post will tell all of us exactly why you say it's an "old pile of vomit", right? I look forward to this.


I don't have to "slam DCS anything"... ED gives me all the material I need, all I really need to do is point it out and bring it to light. As for people going over to BMS, I don't really care if they do or don't mate. There's enough pilots and virtual squadrons in BMS and if anyone does go over to BMS after reading my thoughts here, then it's really for THEM and not for me. The BMS devs won't get any money whether 0 people "come over" or 1,000,000 people "come over, so makes no difference to them and makes no difference to me.... aside from the warm-and-fuzzy when I know someone would enjoy their flight simming time.


Even if the Hornet is DCS A10C level or better, unfortunately, you'll have to wake up and smell the roses sometime and still realize that the campaign engine, the one you say is a "work of art," does not exist in DCS.... so how is that a "nail in the coffin for F4"?? Talk to me about that again when ED does a DC. As for releasing an F-16, talk to me again in 2027 and see where we are with that one. Please, please, please, we need to stop people from doing a David_OC here and stop living in the future. I could win the lottery next week but that doesn't mean I can buy my Ferrari today.

What the Hornet brings to the table is multi-role capability and carrier ops, both of which exist very little in DCS today. Combining the two into the Hornet means there's a bit more flexibility to mission creation and there's more things to do and to practice on (carrier quals!!), but it still does not remove the fact that the DCS environment is lacking in very many ways.


And you call BMS a "pile of vomit"? That's rich!!


See Frederf's excellent burn response above.


Again, see Frederf's excellent burn response above. As for DCS haters, you obviously don't know my position regarding DCS in this forum.... there is a "need" for people who speak the truth and keep things real and in perspective here to balance out all the Kool-Aid drinkers that insist on on anything that tarnishes their perfect view of DCS.


Ah! You feel one part of the elephant and you're sure you know the entire animal, do you, Mr. Blind Man? Maybe you should first see what I'm like and my contributions to the BMS community before making any judgements? But no, I'm sure you're happy enough to make up your mind about me based on your very, very narrow view.... just like your view of DCS!

Yes, but I'm sure MSFS 98 was "close enough" at the time, then FSX was "close enough," then XP11 is "close enough." So which one is it, really? How close is "close enough"? When your baseline is 0%, 20% can be "close enough" which was MSFS 98 probably back in the day and we get incrementally closer and closer....



Link?



Not sure what you're saying here, GG, but yes, IFF (and the classified versions of it) is one of the ways to establish ID but a positive or negative IFF response probably weighs very little in terms of target classification. Might be best to ask Mr. Eagle Driver how much weight he would give to IFF vs. other methods of ID-ing a target. In any case, this isn't what *Striker* was talking about though.

I invite you to grab said documents, whatever you can find (most are out there), and examine this for yourself. You can decide if it's 'close enough' for you. I know it's lengthy and not exactly easy, but that's what a bunch of us did to check.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFX-U0gZRfE
Around the 23 mark if you want to watch the whole thing, 29 for the IFF bit. There are write-ups too, but I'll let you do all that googling yourself. You've for the engagement and pilots names so you should be set.




The 'classified versions of it' has nothing to do with it. But speaking of that - the F-15's AAI has three symbols for IFF: Friendly, Unknown, ENEMY. It may or may not combine other data sources, hard to know as that's contained in a secret classified supplement to the -34. In any case, IFF itself these days transmits enough data to ensure a positive friendly ID so that you know what NOT to shoot at.
Few in flight simulation hesitate to launch a missile at a bandit with their buddy in the HuD regardless of IFF anyway, so what exactly are you driving at? Are you saying that IFF simulation isn't as deep as it could be in DCS? We know, and for the most part it's not exactly a huge issue - just a thing that could be improved.

Interesting topic about IFF. When you are talking IFF, the first point is what mode? The mode dictates what type of information is available for establishing whether a contact is friendly, hostile, or unknown. I will tell you, only in very limited circumstances is IFF used for engagement. The military always tries to use different sensors before engaging targets. There's been too many friendly fire accidents that have been the result of IFF failures. Think about it this way, what happens if you have an environment heavy with radar and jamming, do you really want to shoot a potentially hostile aircraft when it could be the aircraft isn't capable of different IFF modes or if their IFF transponder isn't functioning. This has happened. As pointed out some of this topic is classified, but it's not rocket science if you really think about the topic.

Before I am skewered, I work on Patriot development and engineering and I also led the re-design of CVN-78 cybersecurity capability for Ship Self Defense System (SSDS). I have been working in radars (search and engagement), IFF, and sensors for 10 years and military systems for a total of 18 years.

As for the debate, I've been flying F4 since December 98'. IMO, it's the best simulator available. And it has nothing to do with IFF. It gives me the feeling of being in a real world where my bombs make a difference. I would love to have feeling with DCS. But I don't. I do love the feeling of speed and the accuracy of several systems and as a learning platform, it truly is great. I am truly excited For F/A-18C. I remember flying iF-18 back in 97 I believe and Jane's. TBH as far as fun factor, I thought iF-18 was better... but maybe because it was truly one of my first sims (EF-2000 was my first). If I was running DCS, I would be working on a DC now in parallel with F-18. If my resources was such that I couldn't do this, I would alert the customer base and say we are using much of the profits from F-18 to develop a DC with the understanding this will be a multi-year effort. At the same time, I would reach out to different branches of service and discuss my plans. I worked for years in live training of the US military, they could really use a powerful DC to automate much of what is done by hand; my guess is there would be significant interest.

Just my thoughts.

I wasn't asking if it is "close enough FOR ME," I'm asking if it's "close enough" compared to what? Sure, there's official documents and personal experience, but we are talking in terms of flight simulation on the computer and as I cited above, a primitive implementation (due to HW capabilities at the time) could be termed "close enough" but as we can see, "close enough" gets closer and closer as time goes on. What exactly is "close enough for the FC-3 version"? Does that mean it's still not as accurate as "close enough for a DCS version"?

The point I am trying to make here is that vague terms have no real use here, especially without landmarks to compare with or baselines to establish from.


LOL... I didn't know Discovery Channel's Dogfights were credible sources of information now. Entertainment, sure, but is this what simulation research is now?

20:13 - pilot calls out on radio to ask if anyone's in AB... where's the IFF there? The target could've well been an F-15 but the pilot fails to answer due to being task-saturated.
23:05 - "With the help of AWACS and other assets in the area, and through a collective means..." where's the IFF there?
24:25 - AWACS reports bogeys... if AWACS with it's big and powerful radar reports BOGEYS and not bandit or friendly, where's the IFF there?
25:20 - "We were all trying to ... identify friendlies to prevent a fratricide..." shouldn't this be much, much easier with IFF? Where is it?

29:10 - "I go shoot an AIM-7... lights up as a diamond on my scope" --- is this your "source" for the IFF bit? Seems more like proof AGAINST using IFF and proof FOR using other ID methods.
30:40 - "Rico works to gain visual identification, Underhill keeps the bogey locked up on radar, poised for a missile shot if Rico confirms target is hostile." Where is IFF?
31:08 - "Underhill's F-15 is still ID-ing the bogey as a friendly... Rico closes head on with the mystery plane, eyes outside the cockpit." "I was commited to the merge and to get as close as possible to establish the ID." I think this is talking about the radar's ability to ID radar returns and compare it against "known" friendly or hostile aircraft... how similar do you think a MiG-29's return would be compared to an F-15? Why do you think Rico is still committed to VID and to merging if the radar already ID'ed the target as friendly? The show states that the pilots were advised against merging with MiG-29s at 23:45, so why was this pilot keen on doing exactly what he was advised NOT to do?



I'm not the one trying to prove that IFF is useful or even used in combat identification and engagement. I'm not doing your research for you and if there **IS** definite proof of IFF being used, I would've expected you to have cited **THAT** instead of linking me to a Discovery Channel video.



Ah, just like 29:10 in the video above where it ID'ed the MiG as friendly? Or at 31:08 where it did it again? How many Eagle drivers would be dead now if they took a FRIENDLY designation as gospel? Still, this isn't what *Striker* said above as he said he used IFF to know who to shoot at, not who **NOT** to shoot at.



Just debunking *Striker*'s silly statement above. If people decide to play SPAMRAAM and Air Quake, this doesn't mean we can't discuss real-world usage and the accuracy or errors we do in our hobby.

Thank you! There has been similar discussion about IFF in the BMS forums which talks about what you've stated above.... so thankfully I won't have to dig that up and post it here as well.

Once again - why don't you grab the docs and establish yourself a baseline ... then you won't have vague terms and you'll be able to talk about the subject instead of waffling on about vague terms.



As I said further down ... you have the pilot's names, the incident, you can google to find something more credible.



IFF is quite obviously part of the this entire ID chain and engagement. There's no argument against using IFF here - that's in your head
You may as well asked why the ignored the AWACS declaration - so I guess this is an argument against AWACS?




No, no, /I/ am not doing your research for /you/. Research which you have obviously not done. I gave you a starting point. Want to learn something? Follow it up. Don't bother throwing that #%&*$# argument at me. That fight isn't even a needed reference; IFF equipment is mounted on just about every relevant aircraft out there. That it's not used in combat is nothing but some form of fantasy of yours.



Who cares? IMHO even Eddie should have known better than to chime in here, but I understand why he did. In a game, your IFF has pretty good chances to be perfect and I doubt you'll ever see a realistic representation of what happened in this particular engagement anyway.



Why are you discussing it with people who just don't play the style you're envisioning? It's certainly not productive.

I feel less guilty now for asking AWACS to indetify a contact in BMS. Thanks a lot!

I am not the one making the claim and thus the burden of proof is not on me. I asked you to cite a source and you've linked the video... if you want something more credible, feel free to do the legwork.



Hahahaha.... please tell me where is IFF mentioned there. Exact time in the video, if you please. There is NO argument for using IFF. There's at least 7 instances over a 10-minute period there where IFF could've been used.... but there is no mention of it. There is mention of what appears to be the radar's ability to ID a locked target, but that is not IFF and as I pointed out, it was wrong on at least two occasions.

As for the AWACS call, which one are you talking about exactly? The targets they were prosecuting were BOGEYS so the call was not ignored but rather treated as such.



Pfft! I just demolished your "research," why should I go and do more? Especially when the "starting point" already disproves YOUR point and proves MINE.
Just because IFF equipment is used in every aircraft does NOT mean it's used in combat and even if it were, it does not hold much reliability or trustworthyness over other forms of ID.

Now if IFF is used in combat, it should be very easy for you to bring me proof, shouldn't it? If IFF is used in combat, why does this fighter pilot risk his neck for a VISUAL IDENTIFICATION against a fighter that has better manuverability than an F-15?

Want to learn something? Learn how the holes in your argument can mean that you're wrong. Learn how to put forward better, hole-free evidences.



Hahahahahaha... yeah. Who cares if you're wrong? Not you, certainly!

And where/when did I talk about playstyle? I could not care less about how you or *Striker* or anyone plays the game, any game. But when you play it wrong, you play it WRONG and you're not doing anyone any favors by pretending otherwise.

With respect, blackshark, I wonder why you say I "will destroy this forum"? How is it "unacceptable"?

Is what I am saying about DCS or, as in this discussion, real world tactics wrong? If so, then it should be very easy to post counter-arguments. However, if the issue is the truth being a threat to the fragile illusions that people hold around themselves, well, I'm sure there's some place out there where others like themselves congregate. If I am wrong, then I would love others to come forth and prove it to me. Note that I say "I would LOVE," because that means I am getting better because something that is wrong in my thought process has been set right.

As for playing the game in years... do you have to step in dog poo again and again in order to remind yourself NOT to step on dog poo? Is your authority dependent on when you've last stepped on dog poo?

As Force10 has said, you are free to counter my arguments and as I said above, I welcome it. Personal sniping only means you've no argument to put forth and instead are throwing your toys out of the pram and starting a tantrum. Good luck!



Hahahahaha!! You are funny. I just took apart a video citing precise timestamps.... how is that not criticism?
If you get annoyed with being wrong, that's on you, bud. Good luck over on the ED forums!



Blind man and the elephant all over again.

What tantrum Ice? Or is that a personal snipe, which according to you would suggest you have no argument to put forth

Ah yes... of course... I sniped him as well and as you can read above, I had absolutely no argument put forth on anything, just a personal snipe...
Let's just pick and choose which parts of a post to read, then, shall we?

Glad to help rid yourself of the guilt

I know this isn't necessarily an IFF discussion. But I thought it might be interesting to share what is happening in the long run with engaging air targets. We all know of AWACS and there's been the lengthy discussion of IFF. Going forward, the USA and some other countries are moving towards any sensor - any shooter philosophy. One of the programs I have been working since the start is Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS). This system will take in the future any sensor (aircraft, ship, aerostat, and ground based sensors) and determine what the best engagement system to use in the form of Air Defense Operations Center (ADOC). The goal is to maximize the capability of the sensors to show a total air picture and determine what engagement system to use. I have been working on the Patriot and JLENS side of the of things with (cybersecurity) Northrop Grumman. NG is developing IBCS via Integrated Air Missile Defense (IAMD). At some point if all goes well, you will have a surveillance radar pick up an aircraft, JLENS' engagement radar (JLENS has 2 different radars - I designed the networking for JLENS) maintain tracking (lock the target), and have an F-22 engage or a Patriot launcher engage or a SLAMRAAM (SAM version of AIM-120) or THAAD. I specifically said Patriot launcher because Patriot is no longer a combination of launcher, ECS, and radar; it can be but the concept of IBCS and radar on the net breaks Patriot into 3 distinctive pieces functioning independently of each other.

Not sure if anyone was interested, but I thought I would share.

Isn't that one of the primary functions of AWACS? So why feel guilty when you're asking them to do their job? Why feel guilty if it keeps you alive? On the other hand, some people just spam "Declare!" calls like the airspace is all about them....


Thanks for sharing! Always cool to hear from somebody "on the inside," so thank you for your info! I do find it interesting about the F-22/F-35 and how it's supposed to kill things BVR and dogfighting is a thing of the past... but then I think about the Vietnam war where things were supposed to be all about missiles but then the F4s were forced to VID their targets and thus dogfighting was still done. I guess we will see.... but whether this new tech gets tested in a real war or not, I'm excited about having these new toys in some form in a combat flight simulation.

But BVR in Vietnam was Aim7E Sparrow, a for the time pretty new thing.
AIM-120C-7 and 15 brazillion other sensors of today should be able to improve the ID situation from 1960-late.
Or as you say, spam "Declare" like DBond
(rumors say DBond has no Q nor 2 key readable on the keyboard!)

True, true, but then again, while there are advancements in missile and sensor technology, I'm sure everything else has also had improvements so this new AIM-120 and a bazillion other sensors may just be "zeroed out" in light of other improvements such as stealth, and then we're back where we started.

I've only flown with DBond a few times... so no comment!!

There is no question that these forums are overrun by DCS fanboys. I don't know what that means, but I know it is not an endearing term. The failure to view DCS in an objective way, that they can do "no wrong", has been a very big problem here.

I personally think the air combat and missile behavior in BMS is far more realistic and much less sterile, at least in SP mode, although I'm not an F-16 fan, and it's free. The characteristics of the plane seem to follow what you would expect compared with other planes, although if the edges of the flight envelope are a bit rough and not fully refined.

I think the MiG-15 initially had a very high kill ratio against most likely the Sabre, so if avionics and other support is removed from the equation, you going to have a very diificult time, not simply point and shoot.

Had it not been for the graphics and the appearance of the cockpits, I probably would have spent the last 10 years playing BMS, not DCS.

U.S Ace = 8 kills. German Ace = 350 kills. Quality versus quantity. Somebody should do development, leave the mass production to somebody else.

First post! Welcome to the mad house!


It **IS** the DCS sub-forum so it's only natural for them to come here. I'm not sure why others would look down on the term "fanboy." If it were "fanboi," I'd see how it's not a nice term and honestly, it fits with a few members here, but "fanboy," I see no problems with.


It's not really the failure, but more like the unwillingness. They prefer to

If the idea is to have a more optimal result, what's the difference.

Sorry, you lost me there....

What? Ice has no comment Could this be a first?!

Well played Faulkner, well played.......

I'm sort of trying to agree with your overall sentiment Mr. ice, when you indicate that some things that come from DCS aren't fundamentally virtuous and trustworthy.

"wags" always seems to be at large.

Every DCS update: "It is now easier to purchase things through the Module Manager", or "DCS Mirage now available on Steam" (despite being a good module). Every plane flies like every other plane, or requires a really expensive stick to notice any difference. Two decades later, and I have a cupboard full of things that have propellers. Don't forget: "Screenshot contest next week, good luck to everyone", and Bonus points that can't be used for anything.

If nobody says anything, unless Eagle Dynamics has an assassination squad, no matter what the reason, nothing will ever improve or change. I don't know who's fault it is. I think it is partly the individuals in this community that are at fault. Again, I'm not a big F-16 fan, it's a bit different from the Falcon guys.

Ow... that just felt weird in my brain when I read "Mr. ice"... Just "Ice" will do, and if you write "- Ice" it will be more appreciated.
Also, I wonder if bisher still has that "well played" sentiment after that post, Faulkner. Comedy gold right there!

You are echoing a lot of the sentiments expressed by myself and others in this forum. There are glaring holes in DCS yet they insist on fixing the things that aren't priority. PFM on the Su-33? Really? Now? How many years after FC3 got released? Were the guys who were working on that bored, but incapable of assisting on the priority projects such as 2.5 or Hornet or Nevada? After 5 years of this (more for some members!!), it just gets sad. You also hit the nail on the head re: bonus points.

Unfortunately, it seems like ED has no intention of listening.... not even to it's own polls on it's own forums. Kudos to SimHQ and moderators here for allowing a place for the "other side" to be expressed.... that way any flight simmer, whether new to the hobby or just someone who feels that something's not quite right with the Kool Aid, can come here and read and express themselves and verify their suspicions or gut feelings. Whether that pushes them away from DCS or pushes them back to DCS is not a concern of mine, but at least they now have the ability to make a more informed decision considering both good and bad points of DCS and ED.



Hahahahaha!! To be fair, I did say DCS is an awesome wallpaper generator featuring combat aircraft....

About the BVR ID subject, first of all we must understand that technology evolves and it greatly evolved since the 1970's (Vietnam) up to nowadays.
The range at where ID and killing have been taken has also being increased. For example in the past we killed with swords and spears then will killed with rudimentary rifles which while having a short range by todays standards the range is nonetheless much greater than swords or spears. Now well kill with Assault Rifles (longer range).

And the same happens with military aviation. Today we have a set of sensors that we didn't have during the Vietnam era and more importantly with the F-22/F-35, the information that all these sensors generate can be "merged" - the so called Sensor fusion" - which allows the building of a bigger picture and thus IDing a target a very long ranges. So even if you manage to jam one or another of these sensors the remaining and combined sensors can still build a "bigger picture" and thus ID the target at long ranges.
Examples of such sensors which are found on the F-22 and specially on the F-35 are:
ESM -> Detects and geolocates the enemy radar source (even if they are airborne radars)
EO/IR Sensors -> With very narrow fields of view ("Zoom") you can VID a target even if this same target is located at very long ranges. Such sensors can be cued by other sensors such as Radar, IRST or ESM. By the way, in Falcon BMS and Jane's F/A-18 I often use the FLIR to VID targets at long ranges.
Datalink -> Receiving target data directly from other aircraft (wingmen for example) or AWACS.
Radar -> Most interesting, the F-22 and F-35 have ISAR (Inverted Synthetic Aperture Radar) modes which basically draws a picture of the detected target (by the radar) and then search and compares the target image signature with a database. This is NOT the (often not reliable) old NCTR methods which scans the target aircraft air intakes/engine fan blades.

And once again, note that in aircraft like the F-35 or F-22 those sensors are all combined to generate each target/contact.

Regarding the AWACS in BMS, DCS or any other sim, what's the problem (realistic-wise) in using the "Declare" command??
Like Ice said, this is basically what AWACS do and are for...

That NCTR method is reliable enough to allow certain fighters (ie. F-15) to include it as part of their EID chain. It has been supplemented or replaced since, but there's no ISAR involved AFAIK - radar doesn't have the resolution to draw you any kind of reliable image or an aircraft at range, but maybe my knowledge is out-dated.



Actually AWACS is 'just part' of the ID Matrix, just like IFF is. As pointed out above, the moment that IFF said 'friendly', AWACS' 'hostile' declaration was ignored in favor of a VID. Likewise, AWACS was of no help (and should have been) in the RL blue-on-blue incident where a pair of eagles shot down a pair of UH-60's. No EID, VID, AWACS, etc. helped those guys out at all unfortunately.

So, we're back to 'but in game the AWACS (IFF, labels, whatever) knows this perfectly, so why not use it that way?'

No, it is not that reliable specially against aircraft equipped with Diverterless Supersonic Inlets (DSI) which are found on some of the most modern fighter aircraft, namely the F-35, F-22 and also others like the Rafale (if I'm not mistaken) since you cannot get a reading on the jet engine fan blades since these are hidden by the DSI and as such it's very hard to obtain a NCTR reading using these older methods.

About ISAR I have read that for example the F-22's APG-77 radar can perform target recognition using ISAR so it's safe to assume that the F-35 APG-81 radar can also perform it or that ISAR can be used as a NCTR "tool".





Yes, that "matrix" is called netcentric-warfare.

It's been a while since VID is not required/mandatory in order to engage hostile aircraft at BVR distance. For example during Desert Storm if an aircraft received "hostile" confirmation from 2 of the 3 following methods:
1- AWACS
2- NCTR
3- IFF
Then the aircraft was authorized to engage at BVR. And if I recall correctly, in 1991 only the F-15C was equipped with NCTR and thus it was the only aircraft that could engage enemy aircraft in BVR without any actual AWACS confirmation (if it got "hostile/foe" confirmation from both NTCR and IFF).
All other aircraft (which at that time weren't equipped with NCTR) needed to have AWACS and IFF confirmation in order to engage at BVR. Note the importance of AWACS confirmation (or "Declare" in our sims/games)!

Anyway and once again, things have GREATLY evolved since 1991 and since that F15 vs Blackhawk incident.

And be assure that the times where VID with the "old Mk.1 eyeball" was required during WARTIME are long gone.
Again, you don't need to VID using the pilot's "Mk.1 eyeball" anymore (for example due to EO/IR sensors or again other means/sensors).

However and returning to the sims/games, namely DCS or BMS we need to realise that these sims/games models aircraft from the 1990's or the first decade of 2000 which means that we are either talking about aircraft that pre-date the modern concept of netcentric warfare (which is still being implemented as we speak, BTW) or implements/models the very first steps towards the netcentric warfare. I'm talking namely about BMS and DCS A-10C and as such AWACS call/declare is essential as it was for those real aircraft/pilots counterparts of that (quite recent) era.

What part of the video is this, GrayGhost? At 24:25, AWACS calls out the popup contacts as bogeys (unidentifed), 25:40, AWACS IDs them as bandits (hostile)... but that enemy was killed. At 28:00, AWACS tells them there's another contact... but the video does not say if AWACS calls out bogey or bandits but the narrator says "bogey" at 28:20... there's nothing about AWACS ID'ing this as bandit and this was the target that IFF declared "friendly." At 29:55, there's a second bogey and again, nothing about AWACS ID'ing the second target. Underhill's F-15 is the one that is ID'ing it as "friendly" and this is the one that Rico VIDs as MiG-29. So where is this instance of IFF "friendly but AWACS "hostile" ID that you speak of?

As we can see, even though IFF is part of the ID Matrix, even a "positive friendly ID" can be a "false positive" and pilots would rather risk their LIVES and VID a target than trust IFF.... does that not give you a clue as to how much weight is given to that form of identification?

Also, instead of saying "AWACS 'hostile' declaration was ignored," would the better assumption not be --- given conflicting ID callouts, the pilot chose to verify ID... note that I say "verify" and not "ignore"... by using the MK 1 eyeball?



In BMS, there can be a lot of blue-on-blue incidents... and when the airwaves are saturated, it can be difficult to get a "Declare" call in. However, if you lock up a target and tell your wingman to attack the target and the target is friendly, the wingman will say "no".... so "but in game the AWACS (or wingman!) knows this perfectly so why not use it that way?" Just use your wingman to ID the target for you, right?

Like I said before --- "If people decide to play SPAMRAAM and Air Quake, this doesn't mean we can't discuss real-world usage and the accuracy or errors we do in our hobby."

Ok, that's a total non-issue. You're not even in the same era, never mind trying to NCTR a stealth fighter with radar.



I just don't believe it has anything to do with ISAR, at least not against airborne targets. That's all. All the research I've read indicates that ISAR images are not clear enough for this purpose - there are proposed methods of cleaning them up, but it's all based on lab data. But again, that could still be out-dated. It still won't help you vs F-22's and 35's (in the 'too late' sense).




Yes, I know. What I don't know is what was implemented to deal with the BlackHawk incident. This wasn't exactly a technology failure IIRC.



There's nothing essential about a declare when your IFF is perfect and the mission contains only friends and foes. You could sort of construct an environment in DCS where you need to check more (And it is represented for the fighters that lack an interrogator as well) but for those that have it, there are no issues whatsoever.

To illustrate a simple case, take the MiG-21's IFF. This is old-school stuff. If you have a bandit between you and your buddy (or your buddy is generally inside the IFF radio beam, and close enough in range), that bandit may light up as a friend. But not in-game. So I come back to 'when you have the IFF device in game, it functions perfectly'. I don't recall what they did with this in BMS any more - I know that F-16's didn't always have an interrogator ... but even in BMS, knowledge is perfect.

Irrelevant semantics If it wasn't ignored, he'd just have launched - that you want to differentiate because he followed a verification process doesn't make the wording inaccurate. Unfortunately all the information that used to be out there, no longer is. There used to be a wealth of information on various sites, including dtic.mil, but it has been getting whittled down for a while now. So much is gone that it isn't even funny - so all we're left with is a 'dogfights' video. I won't be spending time to dig this stuff up for a forum tiff. When/if this stuff somehow becomes of importance, I'll look into it again




Are you suggesting that people shouldn't use what works? Because you'll tell them they're doing it wrong?



Yes, fine, discuss all you all like. You've got no grounds to tell people they're 'doing it wrong' though. That's like me telling people that not landing their eagle with a 21uAoA approach and using aerobraking and all the other fun real-world techniques means they're doing it wrong ... and maybe they are, but so what? You don't get hot brakes in game and if the aircraft isn't broken (or even if it is) no one's yelling at you.

A bit of a weird reply if you ask me. Why shouldn't you accommodate for such feature in a sim? Specially in a sim like DCS which is supposed to be a MODULAR (and thus upgradable) sim?
If I recall correctly someone tried to make a F-35 for DCS in the past. And if I'm also not mistaken someone is making one (or at least someone was making one) for BMS.

I'm also sure that's a matter of time until someone decides to make for example a Rafale for DCS (this if DCS "lives" enough, that is)?





Oh yes it does. Just read here:
https://cddis.nasa.gov/metsovo/docs/Karakassiliotis_ISAR_Part_I_Introduction_31_8_09.pdf

The document above is about NCTR techniques (3 techniques) and you'll find that one of them is precisely ISAR.

I do agree with you at 100% that "this won't help vs F-22's and 35's (in the 'too late' sense)".
However it could be interesting against other "non-stealth" aircraft equipped with DSIs such as and again the Rafale.

Ah, ok - sorry, I misunderstood the context. For DCS that's easy - you simply don't add the aircraft to the NCTR list or add it as 'UNK'. The end result is that NCTR will not provide a classification. The NCTR method itself is not relevant (nor are various methods represented, AFAIK)



Ok - I have read the paper but what it's telling me is that ISAR NCTR is very expensive in many ways. It's one thing to say it's been researched (or is being researched) and another to claim that it is actively being used for NCTR. There is a lot going in favor of combined JEM/HRR or HRR based NCTR alone, based on that very paper.

Quite interesting how you cherry pick which parts to reply to. Twice now you've claimed something, I ask for a time reference in the video, then you start talking about something else. How about you try proving the points you've started claiming?



Maybe if you stopped your selective reading, you'll realize what exactly I'm suggesting. After all, I've only said it twice.



Hahahahahaha!!! That's really rich coming from you, GG!! Hahahahahaha!!



What was that about irrelevant semantics again? If some people would just grow a pair....

I've gotten a hostile/bandit response from BMS AWACS that turned out to be a friendly. I got a spidey sense bad feeling about it and closed for VID.

Also bandit doesn't imply permission to kill it. Hostile does. And outlaw isn't the same as the other two "bad guy" IDs. BMS has at least 5 different categories of contact while DCS has 2.

Yes, I agree with this.
Although it's somehow an "oversimplification", it's one that I like and in the end it does what it's supposed to do - To model how things should work IRL. However I have my doubts that ED is capable of accepting such as nice, simple and interesting solution. Something tells me that in this case ED would overcomplicate





Don't forget that many things what were research, expensive and overcomplicated yesterday are now and today reality, feasible and even affordable.
And also such, also don't forget that paper is from 2009 (8 years ago or almost a decade and many things have evolved ever since)

If you still aren't convinced here's another source:
http://www.airdominance.nl/index.php/aircraft-f35.html

Where you can read the following:


I hope this helps.

I thought "bandit" meant "bad guy, but leave him alone for now" while "hostile" meant "he's actively doing bad things now so get rid of him!".... So when you ask AWACS to declare and he says "bandit," that means he's the enemy and do what you will with that info...

I'm not impressed until the tech can differentiate between "scoundrel" and "ruffian".

Ooooo, flippant, charming.

I'm not fully versed in bandit/hostile. I assume an enemy cargo or recon plane would be "bandit" while something with the means or intention to do harm is "hostile." While the two words don't-carry/carry the engagement permission built in I don't think they're used exclusively to carry that meaning. "Bandit 360 40 miles 1000. Cleared to engage" and "Hostile, 180 70 miles 20,000 do not engage" both sound plausible.

Looks like sense of humor is in short supply in this sub-forum.

That wasn't even aimed at you.

Don't worry, Jayhawk... I found it funny!

If 'Striker' is still around, can I ask that he alters the title of this thread? The .....To Be Released Soon indicates that ED will release this in the next 5-10 years.

(Based on the definitions held within ED's exclusive thesaurus/dictionary)


On a serious note, have ED ever indicated that 2.5 will be released before the F/A18C?...............because if it isn't I'm going to start warming both barrels up right now. It would make approximately minus 14000% sense for 2.5 not to be highest priority.

IRL, 'Bogey' is used when air traffic is sighted and it's unknown whether it is friendly, or enemy. 'Bandit' is used when it has been identified as enemy.

"Bogey" is "unknown," I think you are referring to "Tally"... so you can have Tally bogey or Tally bandit.

What's the reference? According to the current Army Aircrew Coordination program's standard terminology 'Tally' is only for enemy (bandit, or ground vehicle). You would say 'Contact' for a bogey (unknown) , or any neutral object (wires, towers, etc). 'Visual' is for known friendly objects. This standard terminology is in the back of Army aircraft Aircrew Training Manuals.

I've worked with Airfirce before, and they seem to speak the same language.

But yes, as I said, 'Bogey' is unknown.

Reference wikipedia (see Jayhawk's post above) and a few BMS documents (AFTTP3-1.1 and APP-07E)

TALLY - Sighting of a target, bandit, bogey, landmark or enemy position; opposite of NO JOY.
CONTACT - 1) Sensor contact at the stated position. 2) Acknowledges sighting of a specific reference point. 3) Individual radar returns within a "GROUP or ARM".

So it seems like TALLY is when you see the target with the MK 1 eyeball, CONTACT is when it's just a blip on the radar.

Not sure I would go with Wikipedia as my first choice of reference...

Are the BMS documents actual AF docs, or derived?

This is a better reference: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

If you look at page 145 you will see the reference I'm using: CONTACT Acknowledges sighting of a specified reference point (either visually or via sensor).

Either way, in the sim world, I think someone would know what you're talking about. The radios aren't nearly as congested, so plain language doesn't hurt either.

Sorry if this hijacked this thread.

Edit: The reason I said it's a better reference, is because nothing is done unilaterally (single service) anymore.

Edit2: A bit dated, and not as concise, but there is a similar definition in this manual (.pdf page 50, manual page 38): http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/t0302060.pdf

LOL... it's just first on the list since Jayhawk posted it earlier.

Take a look at this APP_7(D) document and it basically says the same for TALLY and CONTACT. As far as the BMS docs, well, I don't have the knowledge to determine if a document is "actual" or "derived," so I'll leave that up to you to find out if you want to.

As for your reference (jp3_09 doc), do you have a page ref? What I found in p.145 says more or less the same as above.



True... the sim allows for a more relaxed approach for brevity..... but once you get used to brevity, wow... plain language just...... takes....... so........... long! With brevity, 3-5 seconds of listening, then back to building SA. Plain language can easily double that time, then SA drops to your knees...

Hostile -- confirmed enemy, includes permission to directive to engage
Bandit -- confirmed enemy, does not include permission or directive to engage
Outlaw -- meets enemy point of origin criteria
Bogey -- not having satisfied other ID criteria
Neutral -- obvious
Friendly -- obvious
There are more depending on what you consider to belong in this category of proword.

Funny, ever since Jayhawk's joke the objective fact that BMS is superior to DCS in the sophistication of its AWACS ID categories feel deflated. I mean, we all know the objective information; it's inescapable. But after the humorous interjection of a few other silly words it feels like maybe DCS is better. I mean they are all silly words so who's to say that BMS is better because it has more silly words? Surely that wasn't the intent of the humor.

I've referenced copes of Joint Brevity from 1997, 2001, 2003, 2005 as well as AFTTP 3-1.1 (2001) and they're consistent enough on these to my satisfaction. Tally/visual isn't really in the same vein as the ID prowords. It's "I see it". You wouldn't use those words in the same grammar as the others, i.e. verb vs. noun. "The bogey flew over me" makes sense while "The tally flew over me" does not. "I tallied the four-ship south." vs. "I bogied the four-ship south."

It looks similar, but does not differentiate between sensor and mk 1 eyeball as you put it.

Anyway, long story short, you tally an enemy, contact something neutral, and visual friendlies. Therefore, you don't tally a bogey. That was all I was getting at.



Yes, it was as you said, page 145 of the .pdf, page III-78 of the pub, figure III-20.

Absolutely correct. I never said they were interchangeable, only that tally, contact, and visual were used with specific other brevity words, as seen in the JP 3-09.

If the call was 'Bandits, 10 o'clock, 4 ships, 1 mile level', you would answer with 'Tally'. If the call was 'Bogey, 1 o'clock, 2 miles level', you would answer with 'Contact'. If the call was '4 Hornets, 3 o'clock, 2 miles, high', you would answer with 'Visual', assuming you know that they are friendly.

TALLY - Sighting of a target, bandit, bogey, landmark or enemy position; opposite of NO JOY.
CONTACT - 1) Sensor contact at the stated position. 2) Acknowledges sighting of a specific reference point. 3) Individual radar returns within a "GROUP or ARM".

It totally does. Tally is SIGHTING... aka MK 1 eyeball. Contact is SENSOR CONTACT... aka a radar return. How much more differentiation do you need?


Again, wrong as per definition above. You can TALLY a bogey... you can even TALLY a landmark...

Not per the JP 3-09, which is both more current, and more correct.

How does a document for JTAC and FAC(A) override a document specifically for brevity?

Hint: it doesn't.
Futher proof? The word "bogey" never even appears in your JP 3_09

The main reason is that it's newer. The second reason is that all of these things that we're talking about are encompassed under a large umbrella within the military called 'Fires'. Aircraft exist to support the ground force. It's important that aircrew and ground force members speak the same language. The JP I referenced is from 2014. That brevity pub is from 2007. Brevity and terms within the Fires realm have had a major overhaul since then in order to further define terms.

This is why the definitions I gave are more specific. The terms have been further defined over time, which is a natural occurrence.

I don't know heloguy. Ice's hint is pretty damning, followed by further proof to his hint. Again pretty damning

It doesn't need to. From the APP-7, a Bogey is defined as an unidentified aircraft. It is neither labeled Friendly, or Enemy. It is merely a specific reference point in space.

From the JP 3-09:

VISUAL Sighting of a FRIENDLY aircraft or ground position. Opposite of BLIND.

CONTACT Acknowledges sighting of a specified reference point (either visually or via sensor).

TALLY Sighting of a target, nonfriendly aircraft, or enemy position. Opposite of NO JOY.

Again, you can believe who you want, I'm merely telling you as a pilot in the military what is understood.

Not really. In fact, not at all.

sorry heloguy. I was being sarcastic We need a sarcastic emoji

I agree with you on this one, at least to tally and visual. My personal stance is tally/visual are brothers and contact is a cousin. Thinking of tally/visual/contact as brothers requires a realignment of my thinking. I would no problem "contact the road" but thinking it's in the same bag as tally/visual is weird to me. I would agree that reporting seeing a smoke marker would be a contact (as DCS 9-line script has it). You tally a bogey, visual your wingman, and contact a smoke mark. Apparently "tally the mark" is also acceptable. I could see the push to "contact bogey" but in quite recent examples I've seen "tally bogey" is also fine.

On matters of authoritative document, the service-specific documents are built upon the joint publications. I doubt you'd find a substantial disagreement between modern documents. Each service branch will rewrite the JP in their own format and may add or clarify. The JP for Joint Fires and CAS are authoritative in their own contexts. There's nothing wrong with a service or even a squadron developing brevity on their own, just that they won't be assured of joint interoperability with it.

The APP-7(E) [2010] supersedes the APP-7(D) [2007], just as JP 3-09 (12 2014) supersedes the JP 3-09 (11 2014). The JPs, however, do not change the fact that the APP-7 has defined these terms for "general use."

Your definitions may be more specific --- in a CAS situation. That is why your document does not have terms for BOGEY, OUTLAW, DECLARE, or other airforce-specific brevity words, because these are irrelevant in a CAS environment. Now while aircraft exist to support ground forces, your examples above (bandit, bogey) are in an air-to-air context, not CAS.

I can definitely see it not being natural. I was only recently (4 years ago) corrected on this terminology when conversing with an instructor pilot whose primary duty was as a gunship. The real truth is, not everyone uses the terms correctly, but in the right context, it's understood most of the time. The only time I could see it being an issue that the air-to-air and air-to-ground terms were not completely coincidental would be when all assets are talking on the same net as the JTAC, which can/does happen. For example, if the JTAC asked an aircraft if he had eyes on a point on the ground, and the aircraft responded with 'Tally', while at the same time, an aircraft on the same net called out a bandit for the SA of all in the stack, with a subsequent 'Tally' from someone else in the stack, it could be confusing for the JTAC as to who said what without further clarification, keeping in mind that most aircraft do use their callsigns when answering, and the aforementioned situation would be quite rare in today's fight, but it is a consideration.

I don't think responding with 'Tally' to a bogey is a big deal, it's definitely understood among all players the difference between a bogey, and a bandit. However, if you are more concise, if things get busy, and multiple categories of traffic are being called out, it's much easier to know which traffic another aircraft is talking about if they lead with the correct term.



True, units do take their own liberties, especially as different personalities take jobs in standardization. If a unit's SOP differs from Joint doctrine, It then becomes a question of which hat the aviator is going to wear during a mission, and hopefully he/she choose the right one when it matters.

I agree that both documents exist in parallel veins, although I will definitely track down the newest version of the APP-7, as I am relatively sure the newest version isn't available via Google search (most likely neither is the JP).

Both documents agree that Contact can mean acquiring of a reference point visually, or via sensor. The reference question that seems to remain is whether or not a bogey is 'Tally', or 'Contact'.

Oh, I agree with you here 100%. I used to swap tally/visual all the time, but more and more use of the terms makes usage more natural.
Tally is when I see an airborne contact.... hostile, unknown, or friendly, I call tally... most of the time I can't tell friendly anyway unless it's Lead and he's trailing smoke
Contact is for when working with radar and sorting out targets... or being "talked on" to a ground target

For Lead or anyone else I'm sure is friendly, Visual. So sometimes, "Two is TALLY aircraft, my 2 o'clock, Angels 22... Lead, pop smoke.... ah, Two is VISUAL on Lead."



Again, TALLY bogey and TALLY bandit are both correct. TALLY MiG-29 and TALLY Emirates 747 is valid. So is TALLY red car on the parking lot (landmark) and TALLY AAA site (enemy position).

Having said that, I guess CONTACT bogey and CONTACT bandit are both correct too, provided that this is done through a sensor (radar, TGP, FLIR, etc.). CONTACT red car on the parking lot is also correct.

I think the distinction of CONTACT and TALLY with reference to airborne targets carry with it the indication of the user's range or distance to the target. Anything called out as CONTACT means "I've found it" (via sensor) but is still a good distance away whereas TALLY means "I can see it" (MK 1 eyeball) and is thus in closer range. I do agree with you that interchanging these terms IN ERROR will still result in a roughly-understood message, but we are talking about correct usage here.



APP-7(E) seems to be available on scribd with an account or here or feel free to download and install BMS to get the documents. I don't really see the need, though, as the terms remain unchanged between (D) and (E) versions.



Visual acquisition of a REFERENCE POINT, sure. So you can call CONTACT on that big lake... and you can TALLY on that big lake... both visual.
Sensor contact is different. You can call CONTACT on the bogey at bullseye 130, 40 miles, 22,000 and this bogey is 40nm from your aircraft. You can call CONTACT on the same bogey once he's close enough to make out on the TGP (20 miles? 30?). You call TALLY on the bogey when you're WVR and you spot him with the MK 1 eyeball. Otherwise, you can have CONTACT on the bogey as your radar and TGP are still tied to him, but you are NO JOY as far as getting your eyes on him.

When Lead has TALLY on the bogey but Two cannot get TALLY, Lead may ask Two to CONTACT on the big lake at their 2 o'clock (REFERENCE POINT) and then ask him to look about 5 miles north from there to get TALLY on the bogey. Two then calls out TALLY when he sees the bogey.

When Lead has TALLY on the SAM site but Two cannot get TALLY, Lead may ask Two to CONTACT on the big lake at their 2 o'clock (REFERENCE POINT) and then ask him to look about 5 miles north from there to get TALLY on the SAM site. Two then calls out TALLY when he sees the SAM site.

When Lead has CONTACT on the SAM site via his TGP but Two cannot get CONTACT, Lead may ask Two to CONTACT on the big lake at their 2 o'clock (REFERENCE POINT) and then ask him to look about 5 miles north from there to get CONTACT on the SAM site. Two then calls out CONTACT when he sees the SAM site via his TGP.



Again, this is all spelled out in the APP-7 document.

Tally Ho is "I see my ex girlfriend".

If it were my squadron I would push heavily toward tally being used exclusively with enemy status. "I tally bandit to the south." "Looks to be an airliner to the west. You see 'im?" "Yeah I tally." That kind of exchange has bad news written all over it.

Wasn't talking about swapping tally and visual, but correctly using the word CONTACT.



That's fine in the sim world, but IRL it's not, especially when related to known friendly contacts. Tally is for targets, non-friendly aircraft, or enemy positions only. If you want to play a sim that way, again, I'm sure everyone will understand what you mean.



This is correct.



Again, this is in question. In fact, the pub I reference below uses the word 'CONTACT' to describe a bogey. The ATP 1-02.1 is now used by all services, and oddly enough specifically states that a bogey is an unidentified air CONTACT. The pub (and most of the previous references) state that contact is used to describe visual (mk1 eyeball) and sensor acquisition from air-to-surface. Air-to-air doesn't seem to make the distinction, and only references radar.



Sure, if it's a known enemy, or non-friendly aircraft.



Correct, well done.



This is not referenced anywhere.



An unidentified aircraft, vehicle, thing, etc is in fact a reference point.



This is correct.


I did a little research through work for what is used to define interservice brevity currently. The APP-7 was not in the inventory, so I had to go with something more local. While I can't provide a copy of the most current document, I was able to peruse it. I also found an old copy, which I linked below.

Here is a link to the aforementioned pub: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm1-02-1.pdf

The newer version is actually the ATP 1-02.1, and was released last year. I was able to get a copy to read, and noted only a couple of differences from the 2005 version I linked. TALLY is no longer associated with landmarks. As I stated above, it is only used with targets, non-friendly aircraft, or enemy positions. CONTACT adds the phrase "either visually or via sensor" to the second definition (I think this is in one of the previous references).

The class I received a couple of years ago on the subject mirrors the new manual.

I agree.

best post in this thread by far

Sorry about that... was replying to both Frederf's post and yours and he was talking about tally/visual.


Yeah, I didn't mean KNOWN friendly... it could well be friendly (or Lead!!) but until certain, I call TALLY. Sorry for the confusion, I guess I wrote it that way as it was leading to my next sentence (Lead and smoke).


It's only in question because you refuse to accept the APP-7 document... in which the (D) version is 2007 but you link me to a document that is dated 2005... interestingly, the FM 1-02.1 that you link defines CONTACT ***exactly*** as I've written above and ***exactly*** as written on the APP-7(D). It also doesn't "describe a bogey," it just says "sensor contact" or "radar return" which can be bogey/bandit/friendly/etc.


A BOGEY is an air CONTACT whose identity is unknown (FM 1-02.1) or an unidentified aircraft (APP-07). A BOGEY may be acquired via sensors/radar or visually (FM 1.02.1). TALLY is sighting a target or non-friendly aircraft (FM 1-02.1). We agree on those definitions, right? Therefore, you can TALLY (see) a BOGEY (unidentified or non-friendly aircraft) and once you figure out (identify) that he's actually your Lead, you then call VISUAL.


I fail to see where it says "air-to-surface." It says sensor contact or visual acquisition but doesn't seem to care whether the sensor platform or the individual is airborne or ground-based.


Thank you. Maybe now you can drop the patronizing tone?


Hence the first two words being "I think."


Source?


And a BOGEY is non-friendly... until proven otherwise.

Just used an airliner as an extreme example, the airliner being a "target" and not necessarily an enemy....

This is because there is most likely a newer version, with updated definitions in it. I've searched at work, but haven't found it, most likely since it's a NATO pub. I've only been able to find the ATP 1-02.1 (the successor to the FM1-02.1).



I explained at the close of my post that a newer version exists, that it was released last year, and I have had a chance to check the differences with the terms that have been discussed.



I explained in my earlier post, the definition was changed as of last year in the updated ATP 1-02.1.



I was referring to the use of the word CONTACT in the definition of a bogey. It does not say sensor in that definition. In fact, it says 'Radar or visual air contact whose identity is unknown'.



You fail to see it because it's in the newer pub as I described. The newer ATP 1-02.1 places a A/A or S/A or A/S in front of each definition of a term.



Unfortunately, reference point is not defined in any of the pubs.



This is an interpretation. I'm curious to hear now what the current interpretation is in the USAF.

Just ain't the case, ice.

standardized phraseology people

It didn't match your CAS version so you rejected it.... however, it now meshes more closesly with the other stuff you've linked so maybe you'll open your mind up? It may well be replaced by newer publications, but I can only really go with what's available.



And none of the differences really changes what I've posted before. You can still TALLY a BOGEY.


You can still TALLY a BOGEY.


And radar is not a sensor? Tell me, what is a sensor then?


Er, no. The FM 1-02.1 puts [A/A] or whatever as appropriate. So does the APP-7. So if A/S defines CONTACT as a visual/sensor acquisition from an A-S platform, then what do you call a visual/sensor acquisition from an A-A platform?


Interesting how you call me out on something that is not referenced, but yet you do the same thing.


If it is a FRIENDLY, then it's FRIENDLY. If it isn't friendly and you don't know if it's hostile or neutral or friendly, what do you call it?

Which one?


Indeed, Longbow, but apparently, different groups "standardize" differently And different people accept different "standards."