The Last Piece of the Puzzle – An Introduction to the Next Study

This is a quick introduction to the next big topic I want to cover. Yes, I know I still need to post the TWR and performance data about the F-16/JF-17/FA-18, but after seeing how “meh” certain aspects of the JF-17 are, I lost interest—again—in the modern-era DCS.
So, *drum rolls* the next big topic is… low-level dead reckoning and pilotage Navigation! DR going forward and for simplicity’s sake.

Why this topic? Well, I covered Air-to-Air for the past 6 years, Air-to-Ground less in-depth and mostly in my book/manual and from a fairly modern perspective. The topics discussed included the familiar 9-line CAS briefing, killboxes, delivery techniques, et cetera. Before moving to signature old-school ground pounding, I think seeing how to get there is essential. Besides the act of dropping bombs itself, DR provides several advantages we will see in a moment.
So, “proper” navigation has been in limbo for a long time. This is odd, considering that chronometers, maps, and compasses were the go-to navigation methods well into the ’90s and until GPS-backed devices became widespread. Actually, DR and pilotage are still very common and great tools for backup and augmenting awareness.

Here are some observations:

1. DR is a primary means of navigation for aircraft without an INS;
2. hard to nail precise TOT, acronym for Time-On-Target;
3. From a gaming perspective, INS do not increase players’ situational awareness;
4. on top of that, they do not actively help to improve the pilots’ skills.

Let’s discuss the mentioned points.
The first one is immediate. From the first days of navigation through the warbirds era to the Korean, Vietnam, and the end of the Cold War, map, compass, and chronometer navigation has been a fundamental tool. In DCS, without DR, these aircraft can cheat through the kneeboard or the F10 map, or attempt some form of pilotage, which is quite challenging at 200 ft AGL.
Also, not many Cold War-era aircraft have an INS. Although INS/CAINS such as the AN/ASN-63 and -92 equip the Phantom and the Tomcat, they are not very precise over time.

The second point moves the focus to the avionics. For example, the F-14’s CAP has a Time-On-Target function to a hooked waypoint, but it is a bit clunky to use and depends on the INS’s status. Most other aircraft lack such a function entirely.

The third point refers to the planning phase. Many players punch the waypoints’ coordinates in and call it a day. This behaviour expedites casual sorties, of course, but can create several issues during low-level operations. DR and Pilotage, in fact, require planning on a map, which comes with a number of indirect benefits. For example, crews become more aware of terrain masking, both as a resource and as a potential avenue for threats. Planned reference points can be used to quickly rejoin or assess the fighter’s position in extremis. They also become more aware of the distances involved and the separation between friendlies and bandits.

Finally, flying on course and at speed requires a good deal of practice for pilots. This is a great way to improve fine motor skills and learn to issue precise and minute adjustments and corrections—all valuable skills during precise bombings, AAR, adverse weather, and even aerobatics. For example, consider something as simple as a direct attack with an F-4E-45MC. Although the process is simple, the Phantom II’s pilot is required to fly following certain parameters such as the mentioned speed and altitude, but also the pitch angle.
Lastly, these skills are applicable across modules and, for example, will come in handy when Heatblur’s A-6E Intruder sees the virtual skies of DCS.

All said so far sounds nice, but, as everything in life, it has a cost.
In primis, Time. 1960s US Navy documentation recommends 2 hours of map planning per flying hour. This is hardly doable in DCS for obvious reasons.
DCS lacks the tools to enable detailed navigation. The in-game maps, especially the older ones, are very different from the real ones. Also, manual logs, parameter calculations such as the WCA can take time. For this reason, I started making my own tools, which I will discuss in another video.
Next, resources. There aren’t many documents applicable to the game around, most cover civilian techniques. The basic concepts are fine, but there is a “slight” difference between cruising at 3,000 ft and 180 kts versus 520 kts at 150 ft.
At the moment, I am using both US Navy and RAF documents.
Effort and practice. As with every new skill, it needs time invested and lots of errors analysed to improve and finally become capable of using it.

Lastly, a personal note. This is one of those topics I find very interesting, but it takes a lot of time to study, learn, and practice enough to be confident about it. The latter is a fundamental requisite before I start sharing more about it. My only doubt is how interesting this topic can be to you, the viewers. For instance, the 14-part Intercept Geometry study required hundreds of hours to complete, not to mention all the corollary articles. Yet, it is the least popular topic. For this reason, if there is no interest, I will save time and share a rough version with those interested in my multiplayer campaign, which will require DR, pilotage, and NAVAIDs.

I am looking forward to your feedback!