Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
#3935133 - 04/06/14 02:13 AM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: Deacon211]  
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,674
EinsteinEP Offline
Just a Noob
EinsteinEP  Offline
Just a Noob
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,674
Tucson, AZ
Originally Posted By: Deacon211
Correct me if I'm wrong also, but that accuracy is largely range independent providing you are giving that weapon enough energy to make the corrections it needs to?


GPS-aided systems like the GPS JDAM blend inputs in from a GPS receiver and onboard inertial navigation system (if you've worked in "the business" you've heard the term GAINS before). These systems can have some time-history errors, but, in a good system, these are corrected by the GPS signals, so the GPS errors of 5m will be the theoretical best. Guidance errors, control system errors, etc. will only add on top of that. Weapon performance numbers (e.g., CEP) are usually given for a specific release condition or envelope, which, of course, assumes that there is enough "smash" at release for the weapon to do it's little dance on the way to the target.

Originally Posted By: Deacon211
Is that LGB number self-lased or ground lased? An LGB can be very accurate, provided that the laser spot is small...

The publicly-available sources don't caveat how the target is designated to get that performance. Once would assume worst-case, but can't confirm...

Just like GPS-aided weapons, even if the laser spot was held perfectly still on the target, the weapon itself will contribute some error. It just can't possibly do any better than the accuracy of its sensor inputs.


Shoot to Kill.
Play to Have Fun.
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#3935306 - 04/06/14 06:27 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Thanks Einstein.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm actually asking a more specific question. Let's put it in context of the original question.

If I am an A-10 pilot and I drop a Mk-82 in a 45 degree dive from 10,000 ft and the threat drives me up to releasing at 15,000 ft, all other things being equal, my bomb accuracy will be decreased because of the advertised mil dispersion of the entire bombing system.

If I do the same with an LGB, I would assume the same will happen to a lesser degree, provided I'm lasing the target myself due to the increasing dispersion of the laser spot. If I have a FAC designate for me, on the other hand, the error will remain more or less constant with the increased altitude, because the bomb will guide itself to the target bounded by the available accuracy of the weapon.

(Actually, I would assume that the advertised numbers for the LGB are BEST case, but that may be too many years working with defense contractors in DC talking wink )

Now, if I performed the same experiment with the JDAM, I would actually expect that the error would remain largely constant, since the weapon isn't affected by the limitations of the designator.

This is all disregarding any effects from smoke, cloud, or haze and disregarding any increased difficulties that the launching aircraft might have in acquiring the target as the slant range increases. We're just talking about the limitations of the weapon itself as the fight gets driven higher by threat.

Is there anything I'm missing in my interpretation?

Of course this is all mostly notional. If the threat was preventing CAS aircraft from employing their favored ranges, the aircraft would still attempt to utilize a higher (or lower if there was a capable mid-high altitude threat) attack and just have to deal with the consequences.

But it does relate to the original question of whether CAS is dead in the modern threat environment. I still think that CAS is viable in many circumstances...subject to some limitations depending on the threat and how effectively the CAS provider can neutralize or circumvent it.


Deacon

#3935367 - 04/06/14 10:32 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,468
HomeFries Offline
Air Dominance Project
HomeFries  Offline
Air Dominance Project
Member

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,468
Deacon,

What you say is very true, though the degradation of laser precision is minimal due to slant range. Other things (like the things you suggested) have much more of an effect on laser accuracy and precision, and any degradation due to slant range is still well within the CEP of the LGB when dropped within parameters.

GPS guided munitions have a fairly consistent CEP because it's based on something independent of the weather or the platform, although you can get degraded GPS if you're dropping in fairly steep valleys where you can't get that 4-5 satellite fix. In that case, a laser may be better, all things being equal.

The other big consideration is the Nav accuracy of the platform. Once you put in a lat/long and drop the JDAM, that's where it goes. And that position is only as good as your data source. If you get PTW coordinates prior to launch and the target is still there, you can be confident of the aimpoint accuracy within inches. However, a target of opportunity or a target that has relocated requires an updated position that is at best as accurate as the launch platform, and even then the offset from the platform's position may add additional error to the GPS aimpoint. Take the example of the DCS A-10C, where you see guys lock up a target with the TGP, set it as SPI, and drop a JDAM. The JDAM will often land long or short (usually long), especially if the target isn't locked at its base. This is because the elevation of the target becomes a factor, and given the lat/long of where the TGP is aimed the DTED elevation is assumed. Likewise, if the TGP locks onto a higher point on the target, slant range will dictate a lat/long behind the target. This is why it pays to lase the target to solidify the position before dropping JDAM. Even if the target is a radar contact, there is often some offset depending on the type of target that is being lit up. Point is that this is all in addition to the JDAM CEP. In contrast, lasing a target will get the actual slant range, and as long as you keep a good fix on the target and have good conditions, the CEP of the LGB will be the only variable in the accuracy equation.



-Home Fries

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty."
- Robert A. Heinlein

The average naval aviator, despite the sometimes swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy, and caring. These feelings just don't involve anyone else.

#3935379 - 04/06/14 10:56 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Interesting. Most of my laser designator experience was either with the MULE as a FAC or on the receiving end with the laser spot tracker in the ARBS. I did have those few experiences of losing lock or getting some spillover, but I don't really know the geometry of those circumstances since the Hornet was "somewhere" lasing and that's about all I saw of him.

So, it sounds like that confirms that CAS can be restricted to some fairly high altitudes and still be effective. The ability to acquire the target becomes the biggest challenge, that offset by capable targeting pods and GPS equipped airplanes somewhat.

#3935675 - 04/07/14 03:50 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,444
GrayGhost Online content
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Online Content
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,444
Deacon211, you might be interested in this: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_psts/kuz.pdf

I suspect that self-lasing depends heavily on the type of target in terms of spillover (think attacking a bridge support), but is not an issue if attacking a tank on the ground for example. That's if you're doing a relatively high-altitude attack, so the lasing angle will be very steep.


--
44th VFW
#3935710 - 04/07/14 04:26 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,468
HomeFries Offline
Air Dominance Project
HomeFries  Offline
Air Dominance Project
Member

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,468
Multi-mode bombs would be great for the Navy and Marine Corps, where you wouldn't have to store as many different kinds of munitions in limited shipboard space.


-Home Fries

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty."
- Robert A. Heinlein

The average naval aviator, despite the sometimes swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy, and caring. These feelings just don't involve anyone else.

#3936111 - 04/08/14 10:30 AM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: HomeFries]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
Deacon211, you might be interested in this: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_psts/kuz.pdf

I suspect that self-lasing depends heavily on the type of target in terms of spillover (think attacking a bridge support), but is not an issue if attacking a tank on the ground for example. That's if you're doing a relatively high-altitude attack, so the lasing angle will be very steep.


Multi mode bombs would be outstanding!

I think that's very true. But in the two examples that I was thinking of specifically the target was actually a tank in the R-2507 out by Yuma. In one case we had the Laser Spot Tracker up on the tank as well to record the hit. About five seconds before the missile (I think it was) impacted, you could see the LST jump about 100m or so long and that's where the missile hit, although we are talking about two separate seekers jumping off the target.

Like I said, I don't know where the Hornet was, but he was probably farther away with a lower angle than we were when we fired/dropped which may have had something to do with it. Who knows? Back in those days, PGMs were not particularly plentiful, so every squadron got to drop a few of each for familiarization. We had mostly successful results, with a few going off into the rough. Without knowing the details, it's hard to say that it was definitely spillover and not a designator issue, or a bomb/missile that had been sitting in storage too long.

If I was more motivated, I'd go try to find out the beam width of the Hornet's designator. This way, we could figure out the size of the laser spot...from this designator at least.

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Multi-mode bombs would be great for the Navy and Marine Corps, where you wouldn't have to store as many different kinds of munitions in limited shipboard space.


Absolutely! On the LHDs, I think we had maybe a couple hundred Mk-82s on board and probably less than fifty Mavericks and LGBs. I'm certain, PGMs are more plentiful now, but there is only so much room onboard.

Were/are you Tomcat or Hornet, HF?

#3936273 - 04/08/14 04:01 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: Deacon211]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,468
HomeFries Offline
Air Dominance Project
HomeFries  Offline
Air Dominance Project
Member

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,468
Originally Posted By: Deacon211
Were/are you Tomcat or Hornet, HF?

Believe it or not, P-3! I got into strike as a battle group TLAM officer for my disassociated sea tour, then enjoyed it so much I became a mission planning/weaponeering/targeteering instructor for my shore tour before I got out.


-Home Fries

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty."
- Robert A. Heinlein

The average naval aviator, despite the sometimes swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy, and caring. These feelings just don't involve anyone else.

#3936356 - 04/08/14 05:16 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Cool man!

I had a lot of P-3 buddies when I was instructing in Kingsville. Good bunch of guys.

#3940441 - 04/16/14 10:12 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 672
SUBS_17 Offline
Member
SUBS_17  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 672
Originally Posted By: RANSs9
I am a fan of what the A10 stands for. Single role, austere / affordable design focusing on important tactical areas i.e. what will help the grunts on the ground. (Please note in this respect my thinking has been polluted by the writings of Boyd and Sprey.) The fact that it has put the nose out of USAF hierarchy is just a bonus. But....and it's a big BUT I can't see how it could effectively operate until a reliable method for evading low level IR missiles is invented.

How did I come to this conclusion....braces himself for hysterical laughter....DCS A10 A&C. Okay okay it's a game, it's impossible to fly co-operatively with the AI, in the real world I am sure there are all sorts of systems we are unaware of. But if the effectiveness of just one SA 10 is remotely accurate then its' combination of mobility, passive tracking and aiming coupled with IR missiles able to engage almost down to ground level, make employing the A10 almost suicidal.

I read recently that if the balloon had gone up during the Cold War then the attrition rate of A10's in Germany (that would have been Andy Bush and his mates) was predicted to be eerrhhh very high. With modern day double digit SAM's especially short range low level I'd worry it would be total carnage.

Am I being too pessimistic about the role of CAS as typified by the A10 in the modern battlefield against peers. Are people being too sentimental about the hog and the days of low and slow are over? Is there anyway to counter a launched low altitude IR missile ?

TIM


The important thing in CAS is to have really good situation awareness in order to survive. So long as you stay above the SAM/AAA threat you can avoid being hit while still destroying ground targets. Most SAMs/AAA standout in a convoy and can easily be picked off with a maverick from high alt/max range. If the threats are static then in the A-10C you have the advantage of the targeting pod to locate the threats. You can also use the RWR and set countermeasures to automatic and it is a big help since it increases your chances by dispensing chaff/flares quicker than you using the buttons after spotting the missiles. Its been proven by Operation Desert storm that a cold war conflict would have resulted in a NATO victory over soviet era tactics.

For CAS in DCS you can now have people on the ground as JTACs calling in the airstrikes and lasing for GBUs. Another sim which you can fly CAS is ARMA 2 and 3 where people on the ground can ground lase tgts for GBUs. Arma 3 still needs more improvements on the visual distance of which you can see objects in order to make it more practical so as far as sims are concerned DCS is the better sim. BTW I've flown many CAS missions with SA13s as threats and still rtb because I've avoided the SAMs lethal range.

For MP so long as your team has a good briefing and knows the location of the threats or those that spot missile launches/platforms call it in and let everyone know then you stand a better chance of a successful mission and everyone getting back in one piece.



"Trust me I know what I'm doing" Detective Sledge Hammer
#3940563 - 04/17/14 10:34 AM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: SUBS_17]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
MigBuster Offline
Member
MigBuster  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
UK
Originally Posted By: RANSs9
I am a fan of what the A10 stands for. Single role, austere / affordable design focusing on important tactical areas i.e. what will help the grunts on the ground. (Please note in this respect my thinking has been polluted by the writings of Boyd and Sprey.) The fact that it has put the nose out of USAF hierarchy is just a bonus. But....and it's a big BUT I can't see how it could effectively operate until a reliable method for evading low level IR missiles is invented.

How did I come to this conclusion....braces himself for hysterical laughter....DCS A10 A&C. Okay okay it's a game, it's impossible to fly co-operatively with the AI, in the real world I am sure there are all sorts of systems we are unaware of. But if the effectiveness of just one SA 10 is remotely accurate then its' combination of mobility, passive tracking and aiming coupled with IR missiles able to engage almost down to ground level, make employing the A10 almost suicidal.

I read recently that if the balloon had gone up during the Cold War then the attrition rate of A10's in Germany (that would have been Andy Bush and his mates) was predicted to be eerrhhh very high. With modern day double digit SAM's especially short range low level I'd worry it would be total carnage.

Am I being too pessimistic about the role of CAS as typified by the A10 in the modern battlefield against peers. Are people being too sentimental about the hog and the days of low and slow are over? Is there anyway to counter a launched low altitude IR missile ?

TIM


Any cold war scenario that didn't go nuclear would be attrition on the ground and in the air - so forget about air superiority or a load of exported crap acting as sitting ducks in a flat desert!

The Soviet tactics combined with sheer numbers of ground and air equipment that Iraq certainly never possessed, and the terrain meant it would be nothing more than a bloody nightmare - however A-10s would still have had to venture in against MiGs etc, and the latest SAMs and take their chances.

Today the A-10C has an IR missile detection system - and the real thing can use IR towed decoys by all accounts but there is no guarantee against modern MANPADs. Flying low and slow is fine until you fly over any half decent AAA like Shilka - (AAA is the most lethal threat to low flying aircraft) or get spotted by an enemy fighter. It can still only operate safely in a permissive environment IMO after the Air and long range SAM threat (SA-20 etc) is dealt with by other assets.
In 1991 A-10As tried to stay above 12,000ft because of the threats, but in OEF they could get away with flying lower due to a totally different environment.


'Crashing and Burning since 1987'
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Andy Bush, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Mid-Air Collision in Denver, No Injuries
by Arthonon. 05/14/21 12:59 AM
Hey, Bitcoin, Elon doesn't like you.
by Mr_Blastman. 05/13/21 02:34 AM
I'll be damned !!
by NoFlyBoy. 05/11/21 07:13 PM
RM Jet Suit Boarding
by Red2112. 05/08/21 02:07 PM
Idiot for the day
by rwatson. 05/07/21 10:55 AM
The cost of Epic free games
by Blade_RJ. 05/06/21 08:28 PM
That mettalic smell you feel is actually yours !
by Blade_RJ. 05/06/21 05:15 PM
Shiny American Rocket, cheaper by the dozen
by Nixer. 05/06/21 12:48 AM
House of the Dragon
by PanzerMeyer. 05/05/21 05:45 PM
Some funny Facebook observations
by PanzerMeyer. 05/05/21 11:53 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0