CAS/FAC SOPs

**Kaiza** · 06-04-2009 01:13 PM

Hi, I havent seen anything written in the SOPs, and havent been in a TG game that incorporates FACs, but I was wondering whether you guys have any informal/formal SOPs for CAS? In particular lasing for LGBs? It would be great to have some swept up JTACs and Harriers conducting effective SEAD before the helos go in!

**MarineSeaknight** · 06-04-2009 06:10 PM

Our ArmA SOPs cover the basics of gameplay on the server, such as radio comms and fire discipline. Right now we don't have any specialized SOPs, such as urban combat, armored warfare, and close air support.

You're welcome to write one up yourself, or maybe when ArmA 2 launches here at TG I'll write one for CAS and FAC.

**cctoide** · 06-04-2009 09:16 PM

Sounds great. However, there aren't many missions with airplanes on the servers, and some people seem to hate them even when they're just sitting on the ground (I realize you don't mean just airplanes). This is understandable since the weapons capable of causing the biggest explosions are usually the biggest cause of grief in any game. Still, nothing really beats calling in an LGB strike and having the plane fly over you before a massive fireball takes out your target. I guess it could be done if on the server only restricted list of people had access to airplanes, though...

**WHOPPER JR** · 06-05-2009 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Kaiza

Hi, I havent seen anything written in the SOPs, and havent been in a TG game that incorporates FACs, but I was wondering whether you guys have any informal/formal SOPs for CAS? In particular lasing for LGBs? It would be great to have some swept up JTACs and Harriers conducting effective SEAD before the helos go in!

Holy-Abbreviating-Batman!

**Apocal** · 06-06-2009 04:49 AM

SOP - Standard Operating Procedure, an established way of doing anything.

TG- Tactical Gamer, obvious.

FAC - Forward Air Controller, the person responsible for directing the actions of any aircraft engaged in close air support.

CAS - Close Air Support, for TG purposes, aviation in direct support of ground forces.

LGB - Laser guided bombs, GBU-10, -12, or -16 in-game.

JTAC - Joint Terminal Attack Controller, the joint (gay) name for FACs.

SEAD - Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, keeping enemy air defenses, Shilkas, ZUs, Strela infantry, etc. from doing their job. What happens on TG is generally under the purview of DEAD, destruction of enemy air defenses though, as the enemy is too stupid to stop firing unless dead, regardless of how much HE you put on them.

**sparks50** · 06-06-2009 08:50 AM

Air support needs to be used under strict guidelines to be fun IMO.

Meaning ground calls in the target(s) or location to be bombed, and AIR should not be engaging on its own(its not fun to be walking to the objective on a "cleaned out" map as a soldier.)

**kneecaps** · 06-08-2009 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by sparks50

Air support needs to be used under strict guidelines to be fun IMO.

Meaning ground calls in the target(s) or location to be bombed, and AIR should not be engaging on its own(its not fun to be walking to the objective on a "cleaned out" map as a soldier.)

It is fun if your platoon or squad can't manuver and you call in CAS or fire. This way fire missions and CAS permit the infantry to do what they do best.

**Kaiza** · 06-08-2009 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Apocal

JTAC - Joint Terminal Attack Controller, the joint (gay) name for FACs.

Ha, yeah not as gay as the old name for JTACs: FAG "Forward Air Guide".

**Slick_nor** · 06-09-2009 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by sparks50

Air support needs to be used under strict guidelines to be fun IMO.

Meaning ground calls in the target(s) or location to be bombed, and AIR should not be engaging on its own(its not fun to be walking to the objective on a "cleaned out" map as a soldier.)

I am not familiar with Arma yet, as I am waiting to get the NA version, but can you actually get a lock on any target in a jet just by being close to them? If so doesn't it defeat the purpose of having laser targeting by ground forces?

Even PR manages to encourage teamplay between ground forces and jets with their lasing system, I won't say it's very realistic, but atleast you can't run around by yourself cleaning house.

**Lhowon** · 06-09-2009 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Slick_nor

I am not familiar with Arma yet, as I am waiting to get the NA version, but can you actually get a lock on any target in a jet just by being close to them? If so doesn't it defeat the purpose of having laser targeting by ground forces?

Even PR manages to encourage teamplay between ground forces and jets with their lasing system, I won't say it's very realistic, but atleast you can't run around by yourself cleaning house.

As I understand it jets can lock on to any vehicle with its engine on with certain missiles, but Laser Guided Bombs do not lock on to targets without a ground-based laser guiding them. I might be wrong though.

The problem is it is extremely easy to lock on to and hit targets with jets in ArmA (and ArmA 2) and the missiles are virtually guaranteed to hit. So a jet carrying say 4-8 anti-armour missiles can basically clear out an area of enemy vehicles in a matter of seconds.

My hope is that the very nice AA vehicles along with man-portable and static AA launchers added in ArmA 2 will mean that flying a jet won't be anywhere near as easy and risk-free as it sometimes can be in ArmA. Hopefully mission designers take this into account.

**Apocal** · 06-09-2009 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Lhowon

My hope is that the very nice AA vehicles along with man-portable and static AA launchers added in ArmA 2 will mean that flying a jet won't be anywhere near as easy and risk-free as it sometimes can be in ArmA. Hopefully mission designers take this into account.

We've had effective anti-air assets in ArmA since Day one. It's just most missions that include aircraft don't include much in the way of AA, for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad. Sometimes they want the Easy Mode win button that CAS in a squad level fight provides. Sometimes it's a legitimate issue getting enough air defenses in there to deter aircraft from lazy tactics, but not having them chop up infantry on the ground.

The biggest roadblock, I think is that realistically, CAS procedures take more time and effort than players are willing to expend. I can understand to an extent, when you are setting up a run, it's fun for the FAC and (probably) fun for the pilot, definitely not as much fun for the people in fireteams who probably only have a fuzzy idea of what is going on and why they aren't allowed to keep moving.

Add in the occassional friendly fire incident, generally the FAC lazing the ground in front of him instead of the target but sometimes also rounds/rockets ricocheting into friendlies because of a bad run-in heading, and I can definitely see why the general use of aircraft is "We're here, go there (far away) and kill stuff."

Originally Posted by Kaiza

Ha, yeah not as gay as the old name for JTACs: FAG "Forward Air Guide".

That was way before my time, you old bastard

**sparks50** · 06-09-2009 11:41 AM

Why wouldn't ground hear CAS requests and process?

**Apocal** · 06-09-2009 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by sparks50

Why wouldn't ground hear CAS requests and process?

Conducted over TS rather than SIDE, as per new TG SOPs.

**Kaiza** · 06-09-2009 02:04 PM

I think it worked well for us on Sunday night in the mission we played from about 2000 'till about 2230. Two things made it really successful:

1. Having disciplined Hind drivers that followed orders, (and did a great job).
2. Having the Platoon Commander that took operational/tactical control of the Hinds.

Any CAS was briefed to the squad leads, PC confirmed area was clear, and then issued orders to the Hinds. Its all logical stuff, and when carried out works well and maintains fun for all. It was great fun hiding in the middle of town while rockets flew overhead into a hot buidling from a nearby Hind.

As long as the aircraft operates in support of the troops, and not vice versa, CAS in ARMA works. When tactical control of the aircraft is given to the pilot, is when the fun stops and troops walk into towns of burning vehicles.

I also really like the use of Hinds for CAS. The fact they use radio guided missiles means the crew can't just cruise over hot areas lock/fire and forget, lock/fire forget etc like you can using the A-10 with Mavs. Engaging targets with guided weapons requires crew SA, coordination and skill. It is a much more calculated procedure, rather than something you would see in Tom Clancy's HAWX.

Big ups to Prowler and Mosely in Charlie Hind on Sunday. I dont think I have ever had a full squad in the back of a Hind at 90 deg angle of bank with missile warnings going off before- but it had me holding my breath.

**sparks50** · 06-09-2009 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Apocal

Conducted over TS rather than SIDE, as per new TG SOPs.

Sounds like a problem with the SOPs then IMO

Thread: CAS/FAC SOPs

Thread Tools

Display

CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Re: CAS/FAC SOPs

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions