Close Air Support II: A Chat with Real and Virtual Controllers

Many topics discussed on this website have nothing to do with my background or expertise. However, many sources exist and are freely available, such as books and interviews. Sometimes, a more personal approach is necessary. This is one of such cases: in the quest of making DCS’ 2021 F-14B work in as an effective air-to-ground asset in a modern setting, I needed some help. For that reasons, I asked a simple question to my fellow (virtual and non) Controllers of the 132nd Virtual Wing, 23rd Squadron: “how would you control an F-14 Tomcat with LANTIRN pod, with dumb bombs or carrying GBUs but with no self-lasing capability?”.

Along to them, I also asked Rifle, former Canadian JTAC, and SkillyJ, an American Joint Fires Observer (JFO). The combination of LANTIRN and TID, in fact, does not provide the same features and performance of the various A-10C, F/A-18C, F-16 and so on. Therefore, the popular procedures (such as a 9-line and delivery at stand-off range) are not applicable in the same manner of the F-14 and the other mentioned aircraft.

From a few experiences I’ve had with controlling Tomcats here, I understand it to be very limited for CAS (compared to other airframes). Part of it is the pod (I regard “the pod” and “it’s display” as same entity)- it’s next to impossible to ID a ground target unless slant range is short.
The other part is navigation-inability to get a fix on LATLONG points such as IPs, targets and event POINT ECHO makes target correlation difficult at best. Lengthy correlation for target and preferring Type-1 attacks to positively ensure that the jet is heading for the target area and not for friendlies, or type-3 on targets that are far away and clearly distinguishable from friendlies by some terrain features were my solutions but it’s not always possible ofc.

132nd.AssafB

What makes it difficult to control them is the significant INS drift, the often high speeds it needs to fly combined with limited TGP capabilities. I think I would use tighter restrictions compared to other FW. For example smoke between target and friendlies and restricting the effects to a cardinal direction from the smoke, or visual marks on the target, or even a dry pass if the situation allows for it.
If it carries GBUs, ground lasing would help as well.

132nd.Professor

Smoke is your best friend with the F14. Bracket the target with smoke. Also, Visual ID/Correlation works better than the TGP, using a dry pass for my own piece of mind and as a talk on tool works wonders.

132nd.Keppler

So speaking from the RL exp. except for the helos, I work the CAS with mainly two platforms: the F-16s and Su-22s. You can already tell the difference. The F-16s will “see” things from the stand-off, the Su-22 is more or less like the Tomcat with no pod, all analogue fast attack jet. All sensors they have are the binos and unaided eye of a pilot. So we use them mainly for low-level attack runs which are the most direct method of attack, often involving overflying the target. Usually, they’re ingressing from far out like 15-20nm flying over the treetops. In the terminal phase of the attack, they pop-up and have seconds to acquire and line-up with the tgt then make all the calls and get the clearance to drop. All is reliant on a good ETD and old paper maps they bring with them to the cockpit. The correlation happens when they orbit over a safe IP where we talk about how to get from the IP to target and then how the target’s vicinity looks like and what the target is. That’s the old school flying, the tall objects are used to guide the aircraft in, such as chimneys or antennas, we also use linear features like railroads, rivers, long lakes and u name it to guide them into the target area. So I basically sit for some time and calculate times of flight on each leg and turns, times of flight for artillery rounds if I call for fires and so on.
Those are the most satisfying controls when all headings and timings match up, the SEAD lands on time and the smoke builds up tall enough to mark the target and then finally the bombs hit the target.
So maybe that’s the niche for the Tomcats? If you can’t do the stand-off correlation, then maybe the low-level will be your environment? Of course, the BOC with ground-borne laser designation is another story, definitely will work for the F-14s but it’s not nearly as finesse as the LL runs.

(Active JTAC)

Visual talk on for me with the aircraft already overhead, at the end of my career I could get eye balls onto tgt before any prep for laser designation and marking.
Correlation I’m actually doing a video on it at this time. Because you need the pilots eye ball they would need to be overhead. When performing a talk on you always go big to small. I’ve been lucky enough to have been in the back seat of Alpha jets and F-18s to appreciate the bird eye view perspective. Its more important to understand the cockpit and radio a pilot has to work with.

Talk on:
JTAC “In the target area look for a large lake shaped like the letter P, the stem of the P points south.
Pilot “Contact the P shaped lake”
JTAC “Bottom of the stem is reference point”
Pilot “Contact reference point”
JTAC “From reference point go north along the west side of the lack to the most
Northern tip of the west side of the lack”
Pilot “Contact North west point of lake”
JTAC “The northern and southern points are your unit of measure (The distance
between the two points)”
Pilot “Contact unit of measure”
JTAC “From the northern point, 2 units of measure west look for a T
intersection, stem facing west”
Pilot “Contact T intersection, stem west”
JTAC “In the north west corner of the intersection tell me what you see”
Pilot “I have what appears to be two vehicles facing north, they are side by side
stacked east-west”
JTAC “those two vehicles are your target”
Pilot “tally target”

The most important thing for the controller (JTAC or FAC(A)) is going to be assessing the current situation of the local battlespace, the weapons available, sensors available, and making a judgement from that on how you want to employ the aircraft. I don’t think employing the Tomcat is any different from any other fixed wing or rotary wing asset, in that regard.
For example, if the Tomcat has already given me his Check In Brief and I know he has a LANTIRN and LGB’s, I know I can quickly and easily designate with my own Laser and have his LST pick up the target well before he gets to requesting Cleared Hot. Then I have the option of designating for them, or having them self-designate.
However, this method might not always be available due to SAM threats, enemy Air, or even friendly aircraft operating in the same killbox. I might also not want to reveal my position by using a laser, which an opponent could use to track back to me (laser pointers at night, for example, are very much a double-edged sword).

I also don’t find the lack of GPS and subsequent INS drift on the Tomcat to be a particular detractor either. In the real world, GPS jamming/spoofing is to be expected (if you read any defense news, you’ll see it’s very prevalent), so manual INS updates and fixes are required, and a good RIO in DCS should be doing them regularly. TACAN fixes, radar fixes, etc, can keep the Tomcat’s position updated and reasonably accurate, enough that if I give them a target point I can reliably expect them to be within a few miles of error. That’s more than enough for a high altitude drop or toss bombing with an LGB to be on target and guided by a laser for the last 15-20 seconds of its flight.
In the end, the experience and skill of the pilot and the controller are always the greatest factor. The more experienced they are, the more complex your engagements can be, and the more safely you can deliver weapons on target.

[About non-LANTIRN delivery], most of that comes with the assessment of capabilities between the JTAC/FAC(A) and the supporting aircraft, as I mentioned above. Smoke, visual reference talk on, at night laser pointer with NVG’s, an offset from a known point, etc, can all be used. I don’t think there’s one “best” option.

RIFLE (JTAC – YouTube Channel)

What about the F-4E?

Back to 2026, Heatblur’s F-4E is the best module in DCS quality-wise, and the F-14B(U) is coming soon.
After focusing the Phantom’s air-to-air capabilities for a couple of years, I am slowly approaching the air-to-ground side. Noting the similarities between the F-4E-45MC’s CAS capabilities and the Su-22 described by one of the JTAC I chat with five years ago, I decided to proceed following a similar route. The lack of the flexible CCIP can be offset by Dive Toss, requiring a low-level ingress followed by pop-up. The CAS brief’s lines 1-3 and the related offset could be used to control the pop-up direction and therefore the FAH (usually circa ±60° of the ingress heading – see the US AF-based calculator available in my Low-Level Tools). Maps, compass, and talk-on, should provide safety, precision and deconfliction.

So, after these preliminary considerations, I got in touch with RIFLE again, and he suggested the following video which almost exactly how I imagined the execution flow.

This is not the only way to perform CAS with the F-4: another possibility discussed in RIFLE’s Discord is, for example, orbiting at higher altitudes and use talk-on to precisely identify the target before the Dive Toss execution.

Going forward, I will dive deeper into the F-4E as an air-to-ground asset in a dedicated series.