Mild air support annoyance.

[Apocal]

When directing a multi-aircraft strike with one JTAC, it is irritating when aircraft break off due to being unable to find a target and -- due to the one strike restriction in place -- cannot be brought back into play. As for solutions:

 

1) Aircraft in a multi-aircraft strike will not break off as long as at least one aircraft spots something, i.e. all or nothing. Either they all break off due to failure to spot targets or they all stick around to continue hunting.

 

2) A special status like "HOLDING" enabling them to be either re-directed by the original JTAC or snapped up by another available JTAC.

 

3) Remove the one strike restriction.

 

4) Allow unassigned aircraft to seamlessly join a strike already in progress.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Apocal

[General Jack Ripper]

It is a minor annoyance, but I had always expected aircraft on an "area target" order to continue spotting attempts until they spot something to attack. Instead of making one or two passes then heading off as if they had something better to do.

Granted, in the face of enemy AA assets aircraft couldn't be expected to stick around for long, but if there is no antiaircraft threat, then there is nothing stopping aircraft from loitering overhead waiting to drop bombs and shoot stuff.

[agusto]

It is a minor annoyance, but I had always expected aircraft on an "area target" order to continue spotting attempts until they spot something to attack. Instead of making one or two passes then heading off as if they had something better to do.

Granted, in the face of enemy AA assets aircraft couldn't be expected to stick around for long, but if there is no antiaircraft threat, then there is nothing stopping aircraft from loitering overhead waiting to drop bombs and shoot stuff.

 

I can only speak from my experience as virtual pilot (i have been a fan of all sorts of combat flight sims since i was in my early teens), but loitering over the target area to wait for targets to pop up is usually only an options if the AA threat is litterally non-existent. Circling over for example a city for 30 minutes and observing the area is something that can be done in Afgahnistan, where most of the times the insurgents dont have anything better than 50 year old DShKs to engage aircraft, but in a high threat environment where every (russian) mech infantry platoon has at least 1 MANPAD and there is a chance of more MANPADs or AA vehicles beeing in the area, no pilot in his right mind would stay in the area longer than absolutely necessary. The typical time for an egagement cycle in such an environment would usually be less than 3-4 minutes, and that is already dangerously long. Ideally you remain hidden until some one on the ground like a JTAC assigns you a target, then you make one pass to ID the target, followed by a second one to engage it, and then you leave the area as fast and as low as you can. When the Radar Warning Receiver starts beeping frantically, you see the smoke trail of a heat seaking missile rising from the groud or "coulds" of tracers hurtling towards you, it' s already too late to run away and you are in serious trouble because there is a good chance of something nasty ending up in your cockpit within the next few of seconds. So i disagree with Apocals suggestions number 1) and 2). I cant maken a statement on number 3) because i dont know enough about the workload a single JTAC team can handle, but i tend to agree with number 4).

 

EDIT: @Slim: the longer you stay in the area, the likelier beeing targetted and fired upon becomes. The pilots have something better to do than loitering overhead, namely staying alive. When you are in an aircraft and you make a pass over the battlefield, everyone is almost immedeatly going to be aware of your presence. The noise of the engines can be heard from kilometeres away and from the ground your plane will appear as dark spot on the otherwise bright sky. You cant really remain hidden from the enemy unless something obstructs LOS.

 

EDIT2: This is slightly Off-Topic but IMO still interesting with regard to what CAS looks like from the gound:

 

Video 1: Taliban vs AH-1 Cobra helicopter - the Talibans perspective!

 

Video2: AH-64 Apache hunting Taliban - again, from the Talibans perspective.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=40f_1370959875

Edited March 23, 2015 by agusto

[Apocal]

I can only speak from my experience as virtual pilot (i have been a fan of all sorts of combat flight sims since i was in my early teens), but loitering over the target area to wait for targets to pop up is usually only an options if the AA threat is litterally non-existent. Circling over for example a city for 30 minutes and observing the area is something that can be done in Afgahnistan, where most of the times the insurgents dont have anything better than 50 year old DShKs to engage aircraft, but in a high threat environment where every (russian) mech infantry platoon has at least 1 MANPAD and there is a chance of more MANPADs or AA vehicles beeing in the area, no pilot in his right mind would stay in the area longer than absolutely necessary.

 

The Iraqis had MANPADS available. Our aircraft just flew above the effective range of MANPADS and AAA, over their own "backfield" so it was never a real concern.

[agusto]

But doing that was only an option because the Iraqis mid to long range air defence had already been surpressed. Air defence sites were among the first targets coalition aircraft attacked during the war. In fact Supression of Enemy Air Defense had already been a goal of coalition aircraft even before the war offically started. Wikipedia quotes a NewStatesman article saying:

 

"In September, the amount of ordnance used in the southern no-fly zone increased sharply to 54.6 tonnes. It declined in October to 17.7 tonnes before rising again to 33.6 tonnes in November and 53.2 tonnes in December. The spikes were getting taller and taller."

 

"In the early hours of 5 September [2002], for example, more than a hundred allied aircraft attacked the H-3 airfield, the main air defence site in western Iraq. Located at the furthest extreme of the southern no-fly zone, far away from the areas that needed to be patrolled to prevent attacks on the Shias, it was destroyed not because it was a threat to the patrols, but to allow allied special forces operating from Jordan to enter Iraq undetected."

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/150737

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion

 

I hope this source is not to Kettlarian, but usually Wikipedia isnt too bad in this regard.

 

The premise for CMBS is though that neither side has clear air superiority, so we can assume that there are russian MiGs patroling the skies over eastern Ukraine and that there are S-300 sites or similar capable weapon systems all over the place.

Edited March 23, 2015 by agusto

[Apocal]

The premise for CMBS is though that neither side has clear air superiority, so we can assume that there are russian MiGs patroling the skies over eastern Ukraine and that there are S-300 sites or similar capable weapon systems all over the place.

 

That is pretty much contradicted by the Reaper being unable to be shot down on Observe missions by on-map SAMs or AAA.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Apocal

[agusto]

Actually in cant see why the Reaper beeing invulnerable to MANPADS and AAA contradicts the presence of MiGs or S-300s. But the inability to shoot down some drones is a problem. I think though the invulnerability of certain drones is rather a bug than intended. For example the russian Zala-T drone (the small, hand launched one) cant be shot down either, neither by AAA nor rifle fire.

Edited March 23, 2015 by agusto

[Apocal]

Actually in cant see why the Reaper beeing invulnerable to MANPADS and AAA contradicts the presence of MiGs or S-300s. But the inability to shoot down some drones is a problem. I think though the invulnerability of certain drones is rather a bug than intended. For example the russian Zala-T drone (the small, hand launched one) cant be shot down either, neither by AAA nor rifle fire.

 

The only reason MANPADS or AAA can't shoot down a Reaper is due to it flying at high altitude. Other than that, it is completely defenseless, no flares, no warning systems and typically flies at helicopter speeds. If it is flying at high altitude without any sort of defensive system whatsoever, what are those theoretical MiGs and S-300s doing again? And it isn't a bug that the Reaper is invulnerable during Observe missions, they put it in the manual. When it performs Strike missions it can definitely be shot down. Also -- as far as I can tell -- the Zala can be shot down by AAA, it is just most players facing them choose the side (US Army) without any AAA available in quick battles.

 

edit: Yeah, I just shot down all three Russian UAVs using the Tunguska. Spotted the Zala surprisingly fast as well, within two minutes. That is a shorter time than my Ravens generally last against air defenses.

 

Anyway, this is all sidebar to the real issue; aircraft breaking off attacks and not being able to get back into play.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Apocal

[agusto]

The only reason MANPADS or AAA can't shoot down a Reaper is due to it flying at high altitude. Other than that, it is completely defenseless, no flares, no warning systems and typically flies at helicopter speeds. If it is flying at high altitude without any sort of defensive system whatsoever, what are those theoretical MiGs and S-300s doing again? And it isn't a bug that the Reaper is invulnerable during Observe missions, they put it in the manual. When it performs Strike missions it can definitely be shot down. Also -- as far as I can tell -- the Zala can be shot down by AAA, it is just most players facing them choose the side (US Army) without any AAA available in quick battles.

 

edit: Yeah, I just shot down all three Russian UAVs using the Tunguska. Spotted the Zala surprisingly fast as well, within two minutes. That is a shorter time than my Ravens generally last against air defenses.

 

Anyway, this is all sidebar to the real issue; aircraft breaking off attacks and not being able to get back into play.

 

Ok, i wasnt aware that micro UAVs can be shot down, i just hasnt happened to me yet. Still i disagree with you on the 3 other points you brought forward in your last post. Firstly, i do not think that this is a diversion from the topic. You suggested that aircraft should stay in the engagement area for prolonged periods of time or should loiter over the battlefield, waiting for someone to call an airstrike, and i am argueing why i do not think that this would be particularily feasable. IMO that is perfectly on topic. Secondly, to answear your question where the MiGs and S-300s are, let me quote page 14 of the CMBS manual:

 

"Note: Cursory research will show that many of the fixed wing aircraft and UAVs present in Black Sea are easily capable of exceeding the maximum engagement altitude for the AA platforms currently present

in the game, being able to essentially fly above their maximum range. For our simulation purposes we have assumed that the airspace is hotly contested on the frontlines, with the constant threat of fighter aircraft

combat patrols and long range / high altitude SAM systems making high altitude attacks on ground targets an untenable proposition. Aircraft in Black Sea are assumed to be operating at lower altitudes in order to avoid the above mentioned threats, thus bringing them within range of the AA systems in the game. However, aircraft are only vulnerable to AA fire at certain moments in their mission when they are closest to the battlefield, typically just before and after attacking a target."

 

Thridly, regarding the Reaper, it does not necessarily fly at high altitudes, for the same reason as jets and helicopters in CMBS dont do that, it just flies at the maximum distance to the target its sensors allow - which is horizontal and not vertical.

[General Jack Ripper]

I can only speak from my experience as virtual pilot (i have been a fan of all sorts of combat flight sims since i was in my early teens), but loitering over the target area to wait for targets to pop up is usually only an options if the AA threat is litterally non-existent.

 

Oddly enough, that's exactly what I had already said:

 

Granted, in the face of enemy AA assets aircraft couldn't be expected to stick around for long, but if there is no antiaircraft threat, then there is nothing stopping aircraft from loitering overhead waiting to drop bombs and shoot stuff.

 

See? I may be crazy, but I'm not dumb.

 

I wasn't commenting on CMBS specifically, I was commenting on the general behavior of aircraft CAS as modeled in the game. When you call in helicopters to attack an 'area target' they tend to loiter for a while, make several observation passes, and don't quit the area unless they're shot at, or can't spot anything. I merely expressed a desire for fast moving aircraft to exhibit the same behavior, that would provide more incentive to use them in the game to interdict areas of enemy operation, rather than using them exclusively on point targets, which seems to be all they're good for at the moment.

Edited March 23, 2015 by SLIM

[Apocal]

Ok, i wasnt aware that micro UAVs can be shot down, i just hasnt happened to me yet. Still i disagree with you on the 3 other points you brought forward in your last post. Firstly, i do not think that this is a diversion from the topic. You suggested that aircraft should stay in the engagement area for prolonged periods of time or should loiter over the battlefield, waiting for someone to call an airstrike, and i am argueing why i do not think that this would be particularily feasable. IMO that is perfectly on topic.

 

There is already a 2-3 minute re-attack time per air asset, the aircraft aren't over the battlefield for anything but around 10-15 seconds (judging by on-map engagements). Obviously they are flying back to an IP before attacking again. I'd like it if they held at the IP rather than deciding (at random) to stop attacking so I need to either cancel an already running strike or let them sit idle in the stack. I'm not asking that they strike the target and yank back around for another attack 30 seconds after another.

 

Thridly, regarding the Reaper, it does not necessarily fly at high altitudes, for the same reason as jets and helicopters in CMBS dont do that, it just flies at the maximum distance to the target its sensors allow - which is horizontal and not vertical.

 

In-game Reapers spot moving men reliably, that's inconsistent with them being at maximum distance. On the other hand, if such space safe exists for Reapers utilizing their sensor range, why not also the fixed-wing aircraft delivering (relative to the defenses simulated) standoff weapons from even further out?

[agusto]

 On the other hand, if such space safe exists for Reapers utilizing their sensor range, why not also the fixed-wing aircraft delivering (relative to the defenses simulated) standoff weapons from even further out?

 

Bombs, even laser or GPS guided bombs, are prone to ballistic flight paths which are a basically a function of speed, mass, altitude, air resistance and gravity, which forces the pilot to follow certain flight patterns to hit a target. Missiles are launched in the direction the aircraft flies and are often guided by the aircrafts forward looking sensor systems until they strike the target, so you cant just fire and turn away. Launching at stand-off range and then turning around before the enemy can fire back is simply not always an option.

Edited March 24, 2015 by agusto

[John Kettler]

agusto,

 

If my CAS was mild, I'd be upset, too! It seems like the matter you raised needs work--as does your understanding, evidently of missiles as I understand them. I know of no missiles guided by onboard FLIR. If you've got an example of same, I'd love to see it. There are IR guided fire and forget IR missiles, and there are laser guided missiles, but in neither case does the FLIR per se guide the missile. Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd not use my name the way you did. The term was created by my self-appointed enemies and is used as an insult.

 

I think the first vid you posted contains an important object lesson: Don't mess with an attack helo unless you can be certain of either killing it or driving it off, preferably with major damage as well. Cool keyhole position for the Dushka firing single shot, but I think it's dumb to have no vertical protection at all for the gunner. In the second vid, I thought the terrain with the village, the many hairpin turn filled road, the hills, road cut and such made for a really cool map. Am not used to thinking of Afghanistan as that lush, and these guys were much better off than their fellows in the usual treeless situation we're used to seeing. I wanted to throttle that camera operator when he was looking at the MRAPs. The wigwagging of the camera practically made me hurl. Naturally, the vid shows another guy with a camera tripod!

 

I think your comment regarding how the Reaper operates doesn't really reflect battlefield realities. All you have to do is look at the ongoing huge insurgent complaint, be it Taliban or ISIS, about how the US wages cowardly war from drones high in the sky. If our drones were down low there as you appear to be arguing they might well be in CMBS, they'd be shot down and quickly. Oblique views of the target are nowhere nearly as useful as overheads, either. Additionally, I suggest you go look at the design threats for Tunguska, Pantsir, Tor and a bunch of other ADS. Drones explicitly figure in every one of those as being a target which must be defended against. This is trivial to prove. The Russians, if they have the means, aren't about to let the US use its drones, for they know full well what kind of mayhem a drone can cause. Which might be why their ADS are specced to defeat them!

 

Apocal,

 

If the air or SAM threat is so severe as to make CAS (which, compared to Reaper, is fast, nimble, has SA and an array of defenses) loiter and such infeasible, then I absolutely agree Reaper is far less viable. I think maybe the Army needs to find some good wing shooters with full choke shotguns to deal with Zala--if the operators cooperate by flying it low enough and close enough to do so. Pull! Some time ago, someone posted a vid showing an RC plane on the deck and running at speed right in front of a slew of MGs at one of the shoot 'em up shows. It took a bunch of runs through enormous amounts of fire perpendicular to its flight path before the plane was hit and downed. Most of the hits in the largely foam bird did nothing. The one that downed it tore off the vertical stabilizer and rudder, making the plane uncontrollable. splat!

 

SLIM,

 

From the little I've seen of things like A-10 CAS vids, the planes very much are being used vs smallish targets, rather than covering a zone. I can see a situation in which, for example, friendlies are in deep trouble, so CAS (preferably an A-10 loaded for bear) comes in and stays there a long time to keep OPFOR at bay, keeping their heads down. Indeed, the A-10's unique engine sound causes exactly that response among the Taliban. Orbiting, say, a crash site to protect the pilot is one thing vs small arms and another vs MANPADS and worse. Perhaps, the willingness of the pilot to stick around as you ask might be tied to the usual soft factors which affect troop performance? After all, they give medals to pilots who do things like that.  I don't know whether you can get the CAS planes, as currently implemented, to be able to do what would better be characterized as Battlefield Interdiction, rather than CAS. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Apocal]

Bombs, even laser or GPS guided bombs, are prone to ballistic flight paths which are a basically a function of speed, mass, altitude, air resistance and gravity, which forces the pilot to follow certain flight patterns to hit a target. Missiles are launched in the direction the aircraft flies and are often guided by the aircrafts forward looking sensor systems until they strike the target, so you cant just fire and turn away. Launching at stand-off range and then turning around before the enemy can fire back is simply not always an option.

 

Even a ballistic JDAM goes further than a large UAV can pick out a moving man on their sensors. And the laser Maverick isn't simulated in-game.

[cool breeze]

It does seem entirely fair to me to use the fact that the reaper is invulnerable during observe missions to say anything about the safety of higher altitude flights.  It seems to me that there is a pretty wide range of levels of conflict where there are enough fighters and S300s around to keep the ground attack aircrafts from not hugging the ground, while also not having enough fighters and S300s to be bothering hunting very drone with fighters or sending a giant missile at every UAV/Goose.   I found it surprisingly hard to track down and destroy the drones playing DCS, and I cant imagine doing it over a hot battlefield, too many more important things going on.

 

Oh and John K, he didn't say FLIR, you did.  He said forward looking sensors.  I think that's a catch all phrase that covers about everything besides radar warning system, since everything else on the plane looks forward. 

Edited March 24, 2015 by cool breeze

[Nerdwing]

Thinking about it, shouldnt SDB's be being chucked from WAYYYY out there as well?  Especially the glide/powered versions in the works?

[John Kettler]

cool breeze,

 

That is a fair point. When you've spent over a decade involved in FLIR related matters to one degree or another, the expression "forward looking" becomes intimately associated with "FLIR." I shall have to watch out for that tendency of mine. 

 

Apocal,

 

The AGM-65E2 series LG Maverick ought to be in the game, for it is one of premier CAS weapons in the inventory. LG Maverick is now back in production. USAF is now converting some of its AGM-65F IIR guided models to AGM-65E2, so this isn't something peculiar just to the Marines. I believe that if the Kh-25 is in, so ought to be the Maverick. Carlo Copp agrees.

The Kh-25M / AS-10 Karen was designed around the model of interchangeable homing seekers, making it a defacto equivalent to the ubiquitous US Hughes (now Raytheon) AGM-65 Maverick missile.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Apocal]

USAF is now converting some of its AGM-65F IIR guided models to AGM-65E2, so this isn't something peculiar just to the Marines.

 

Dude, you gotta read your links more closely:

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy weapon budgets. In early November, the Marine Aviation Plan 2015 explains:

 

“To address the operational need for a TACAIR forward-firing missile, 500 legacy AGM-65F Infrared (IR) Mavericks will be purchased from the USAF and converted into modernized AGM-65E2 Laser Mavericks. These conversions will nearly double the current inventory of Laser Mavericks. The AGM-65E2 seeker provides F/A-18F and AV-8B with increased self-designation capability, greater chance of laser spot re-acquisition if lost due to obscurants, and a more accurate laser spot scan than the AGM-65E seeker.”

 

Its the Navy/Marine Corps buying part of the USAF's stock and converting for Navy/Marine Corps use.