Airstrikes packages or single weapons?

[YankeeDog]

For a ground combat tactical game like CMx2, how much real difference is there between the various supersonic fighter/attack craft, that generally deliver ordnance from fairly high altitude (F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s, and F-22s)?

Only thing I can really see mattering in CMx2 is the different loadout capacities (both in terms of weight and # of hardpoints). In the end, a 1000-lb. JDAM dropped by any of these aircraft if going to have exactly the same in-game effect.

Or perhaps CMx2 is going to abstractly represent AA defenses, maybe by a % chance that an air mission is delayed or scrubbed due to SAM threat? In this case, there could be a substantial difference, especially when comparing the much more Stealthy F-22 to older airframes.

The AC-130s, A-10s, and Attack Helicopters are a different matter, of course, since they have very different capabilities from the (usually) high-flying, fast-movers.

Just curious is there's any reason why I, as the player, really care whether the 4x1000lb. JDAMs I have available to me are carried on F-22s, or F-16s. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

Only thing I can really see mattering in CMx2 is the different loadout capacities

Bingo. That's the main difference that players will notice for fixed wing aircraft (AC-130 excepted). It does matter what the aircraft is in terms of the chance of being delayed/removed from play due to simulated anti-air activity. So yes, a F-22A has a lower chance of being disuaded from attacking on time than something like a F-16.

Rotary aircraft and AC-130s are totally different beasts in terms of what they can deliver for support. Mostly cannon and rocket fire (guided and unguided) instead of bombs.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Thanks for the answers.

I look forward to more details about how the abstracted AA modeling will work -- is it just a single, overall threat level that the secnario designer sets, or will the secenario designer be able to set the different threat levels from different kinds of AA assets?

There a big difference between long range-high altitude (primarily SAM) AA capability, and short-range, low altitude stuff, like MANPADS and light AAA. The former can take out just about anything, but is also a high priority, target that probably won't last long against the USAF. The latter is virtually impossible to eliminate entirely, and while it can't touch the high flyers, it's an ever present worry for the low and slow stuff. . . it would be cool to be able to set different levels for each.

Cheers,

YD

[Beastttt]

will there be Wild Weasles to take out the active sensor AA(long to medium range)

[Battlefront.com]

Air activity is highly abstracted, so that's what you're going to get. This is not CM:Airwar

Steve

[Homo ferricus]

hmmm, it could be interesting to have AA assets on the actual 3D battlefield, making it possible to have missions like "take out the AA, then call in air support to take out [insert target here]" type missions. Admittedly these are more SF-esque (ya we've already been over that), but i think that AA in the field will add some more possible limitations to the extent of firepower the US forces can use, alongside with collateral damage and stuff like that, that will help stop the US player from obliterating anything that might be a possible candidate to likely become a threat, maybe.

but understandably, the time to model this probably won't be worth it for a first release.

[Battlefront.com]

but understandably, the time to model this probably won't be worth it for a first release.

You got that right

The important thing is to simulate US airpower in a way that is not unrealistically certain and effective. One of the variables, especially for rotary aircraft, is ground fire. That ground fire often comes from places outside of the immediate area of the player's focus (i.e. the small slice of the battlefield) so we absolutely *must* put in some abstracted system no matter what. We even had something like that in CMx1. Unlike CMx1, airpower in CM:SF's day is usually projected from thousands of meters, even dozens of KMs, away from the 3D battlefield of the player. Why build a very time consuming, labor intensive part of the simulation that would only be realistically used extremely infrequently while an abstracted system would be the norm?

Steve

[imported_Wildman]

Steve,

Actually right now in OIF/OEF ground strafe is a HUGE factor. The F-15Es I'm launching to an undisclosed location had to be trained up on nighttime 30 degree strafe profiles.

Here is a list of AF munitions being used from that effects will need to be modeled as they are the ones currently being dropped....(I'll have to get to CENTAFs email to verify it however)

GBU-12

GBU-38

30mm

20mm

GBU-10

Mk-82

GBU-39 (Small diameter Bomb...this is a BIG one for CENTCOM right now)

GBU-31v1 and v2 (AF and Navy/MC versions)

For Syria the GBU-31v3 (penetrators would be used too)

But bottom line effects they are

2000# HE/FRAG

500# HE/FRAG

250# HE/FRAG

30mm

20mm

I can help with loadouts if you need it from the Dash-1s.

[YankeeDog]

Wildman,

Thanks for posting. It's great to get this stuff "from the horse's mouth" so to speak. . .

I, for one, would be very interested in hearing more about F-15Es and other fast movers on strafing runs (I think it's called "splashing", or something like that?)

I'm guessing this new tactic is being implemented to partially replace the use of Attack Helicopters as close-in aerial gunfire support, since the Helicopters have proven to be rather vulnerable when they loiter too close to ground combat.

Wildman, if you have the knowledge and can share, what's your assessment of the vulnerability of fast movers like F-15Es when making these stafing runs? How "Low and Slow" do they have to get to be effective at this sort of thing?

I imagine in Iraq at this point, it's rare to see anything more dangerous than RPGs and 7.62mm stuff flying upward. . . but in a CM:SF-type scenario, you'd expect a lot more shoulder-launched SAMs, 12.7mm, 23mm, and possibly even 37mm, which have much more reach. Certainly not enough to be much of a threat to jets on high-altitude bombing runs, but I'd be curious to know how long an F-15E has to dip into the MANPADS envelope, in order to make an effective strafing run. . .

Thanks for anything you can share. Might be best to start a new thread, if you can give us anything substantial.

Cheers,

YD

[Battlefront.com]

Wildman,

Thanks for the info!

Yup, well aware that cannon fire is being used more and more. That's because things that make with the BIG BOOM are bad PR in a war against Insurgents. Not the same thing when going against a conventional force. Meaning, you won't see a F-15 doing a strafing run on a T-72 moving across country when there is a perfectly good bomb or missile stuck on the aircraft's wing.

Your list of things that go BOOM looks right to me, though missing tank busting stuff like Mavericks, Hellfire, and other things which might not be applicable to the aircraft you are working with.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

I concur with Steve. In a conventional scenario in Syria, no need to risk aircraft in gun runs when all kinds of death and destruction can be delivered from 10K and up.

Risking a fastmover in a MANPAD/SAM threat envelope will not be done (on purpose), unless that threat is mitigated with a suppression package, called SEAD (suppression of enemy air defense). At CAX, this used to be practised extensively and required close coordination between the FO, FAC, the pilot, and the manuever commander who would be moving ground units to take advantage of the effects of the bombs.

Usually it went like this:

-Enemy company position with dug in BMPs/T-72/infantry (in the form of trenches and tire stacks) is observed, usually around 3K out. Enemy ATGMS pin down friendly forces. The controllers (coyotes) would "kill" any ground unit that moves forward without effective suppression- (to include M-1 tanks, just to make it more difficult).

-Company FIST moves to get eyes on and quickly develops a package, consisting of CAS, rotory wing CAS (or CIFS for us old timers), artillery, and 81s. Company commander sets a time on target-TOT, (or time to target-TTT) based upon how much time it is going to take him to get his maneuver platoons to a dismount point to assault the objective.

-Based on this timeline, the FO coordinates artillery to conduct a SEAD mission, with the designated time on target. Same with 81s FO. FOs coordinate with FAC on when marks with WP are to be fired. Marks need to land 30 seconds prior to bombs dropping.

-The FAC coordinates with the fast movers and helos, lining up attack headings that deconflict with manuever forces as well as the trajectories of the artillery and mortars (usually this is done by a simple stay above/stay below altitude based on the fire missions max ord, the highest point the rounds will fly through the air).

Package is set, jets are hitting thier IPs (initiating points), helos are heading into thier attack positions, the artillery and 81s are doing their gun bunny stuff. The grunts are baking in their AAVs, anxious to get out and kill something.

The effects should look like this:

-Air packages inbound. All tubes ready to fire. Manuever forces ready to push.

-Arty fires a suppression mission.

CAS package (Dash-1, followed by Dash-2) drops bombs on target under SEAD protection. To do this successfully, the SEAD mission has to have effect on target. If a re-attack with bombs is necessary, then a new SEAD package is necessary.

-Bombs on target, maneuver forces push, artillery continues to fire another suppression mission.

-Cobras fly to attack positions (off set with the ground maneuver), and engage with Hellfire, TOWs, rockets, and then guns.

-Cobras egress and artillery continues. Maneuver units continue to push.

-When maneuver forces reach danger close for 155mm artillery, artillery ceases and 81s fire suppression mission on objective.

-When maneuver forces reach danger close for 81s, they cease/shift deep and then it is a company/platoon/squad/fireteam fight to close the last 300m or so. Using all company assets, (againt the coyotes will not let Marines move forward unless they have effective suppression from machineguns/60mm mortars/SMAWs), the squads assault to kill the enemy and clear the trenches.

Prior to OIF, CAX at 29 Palms consisted of doing variations of this for 30 days, all live-fire. It was graduated from the platoon all the way to the Bn TF level (or BLT) and was some of the best live-fire training I have ever done. And its hard to do at first. Actual conventional combat, using laser guided munitions, not having to worry about perfect SEAD packages, no coyotes telling you that you do not have effective suppression, etc...turned out to be much easier than CAX.

Nowadays, the training at 29 Palms is called Mojave Viper and is tailored for COIN in Al Anbar. I imagine that after OIF, the Marine Corps will find a way to bring back the traditional CAX, with the best parts of Mojave Viper weaved into the training.

And with all that, I dont think this has any impact on CM and I am not sure you could coordinate supporting arms to this level anyways in the game.

[ January 03, 2007, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Imperial Grunt ]

[imported_Wildman]

Imperial Grunt it correct and it all depends on threat levels.

From a strictly CAS perspective the AF and Army are moving into "Kill boxes". They desigante a kill area and the ATO assigns forces to that area as needed (with the ability to divert to other kill boxes). The kill boxes are color coded at the HQ that determines the level of control needed for weapons employment. Green for Strict Danger Close, Purple for Arty & Air deconflict, or Blue for AF interdiction.

Grunts description is much more what we would see in Syria I believe...against actual military forces. In a more insurgent arena (like OIF/OEF) you will see less and less of the full packages.

Currently you get a "vul" (vulnerablity) time that you must be in the area for with a variety of weapons. You are then on-call CAS for a specific area. These include "show of force" (imagine a lowish-level high-speed zing over a neighbor hood to impress people), to weapons empolyment.

The strafe is becoming important (I guess for it supressive factor and relative accuracy with limited potential for mistakes. As far as I know they are not breaking the 10K altitude barrier, but that out of my area of expertise. I can say that with the advent of the SDB there may be less need for that given its smaller payload and accuracy.

[MikeyD]

Imperial Grunt got me thinking. Will there be any AI-imposed coordination between airpower and tube artillery?

I mean nothing fancy, just no chance of 'simultaneous' strike. Making sure aircraft are out of the immediate area while the shells are flying. All our mortars, artillery and iron bombs landing on target together would be 'way cool' but I'm not entirely sure that its tactically possible - unless you've got B-52s safely circling miles above the path of the incoming artillery shells.

[imported_Wildman]

Steve,

You mentioned Maverick (F-16, A-10, F-18, AV-8), but what about CBUs?

Obviously with the Isreali issue when they used CBU-58 (Anti-personnel) and CBU-87s (Combined munitions) there are significant dud issues (on the order of 10% out of the 255 bomblets for 87s). In the game will there be a potential for casualities if you move through the area as there would be UXOs to manhoover around.

Also what about CBU-97 (Anti-tank) 10 fully automated topdown penetrators could make for a quick game.

Also what about bomber support, Right now B-1s are deployed and when I sent BUFFs they were carrying 12 GBU-31v1s and 27 Mk117 (750lb HE/FRAG). That is a lot of airpower in one frame...now imagine a cell of 3 in a low-threat arena. Will heavy bomber weapons sets be supported and how do you propose to balance that firpower out in the game?

[hellfish]

We still use Mk117s? Wow...

[Battlefront.com]

CBUs, as far as I know, fell out of favor early on in OIF I. Primary reason was the dud rate. Area dennial is supposed to be for the other guy, not friendly forces. But due to the lack of trust in self destruction it turned out none of the friendlies were too keen on moving in later on. Also, long term concerns about CBUs becomming bad PR for nation building purposes make it tough to justify their use. At least that is what I've seen here and there in this and that report or first hand account. Same for artillery delivered FASCAM.

I do remember an early invasion FASCAM incident that wound up getting special attention in an AAR. Someone thought a bunch of Iraqi armor and infantry were going to move from their current positions and come through a particular area (agricultural fields of some sort). So they laid down a whole bunch of FASCAM and the Iraqis never managed to show up (they were too scared or decimated, don't remember which, to move). Problem was, this was also a great route of advance for friendly forces, which now was simply too risky. Then some farmer went out and met Allah a tad bit early, which rightly pissed off the locals since they could see no reason for the bomblets being there in the first place.

No heavy bombers. My understanding is that they would not be used in sudden, on the fly tactical requests. Even if they were to do so, tactically speaking the other fixed wing aircraft practically are the same. There is no scenario I can picture that would be any fun with the sort of volume of destruction a bomber provides.

Steve

[c3k]

"No scenario...that would be any fun..."(with massed heavy bomber raids) WTF? Steve, sure you've made some good games, but are you out of your mind? C'mon. How much fun would it be to set up a friggin' bunch of Syrians - in a field - and then watch as the bombs rain out of the bellies of several squadrons of bombers?

Sure, it's not balanced, but it would a cool demo...

Do it: I dare you.

Thanks,

Ken

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There is no scenario I can picture that would be any fun with the sort of volume of destruction a bomber provides.

Steve

BDA is a valid mission for US infantrymen.

[MikeyD]

In Afghanistan B52s were famous for loitering for hours and dropping the occasional 2000 lb. laser bomb in support of advancing troops. But in the game pretty much anything should be able drop individual 2000 lb bombs for you. No real need for the big Boys to loiter up there.

I wonder what proportion of weapons loadouts will be 'smart' and what proportion will be 'dumb' bombs. Doesn't an F15 carry a heavier bomb load than a B24 Liberator?

[imported_Wildman]

F-15Es are now carrying

20mm, 2 GBU-38, 2 GBU-12, 4 GBU-39s.

Normally you would be right about the use of heavy bombers, however, in the low threat enviroment the bomber is one of the preferred aircraft platforms (from an AF standpoint..the Army always wants A-10s). Its substantial loiter time and high-bomb load, coupled withe the inherent accuracy of GPS munitions make it a great on-call CAS aircraft.

I would seriously reconsider the use of Heavy Bombers in game from a realistic standpoint anyway...it could be used in one of two ways.

1. A large one-time pass of munitions

2. A small numbers dropped every 10-15 minutes

The only CBUs I see being used are the 97 with its AT assets...if you need info let me know.

[ January 04, 2007, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Wildman ]

[imported_Wildman]

Speaking of aircraft and larger loadouts.

How will CM:SF handle the varied ways to drop munitions.

Example 1:

Fighter aircraft with Laser Designation drops one bomb...then has to orbit and reapproach to drop a second bomb...several minutes inbetween.

Example 2: GPS weapons.

JDAMs are designed to be dropped with seperate DMPIs in a single pass...so 4 JDAMs hit four seperate targets on the field...or 12 JDAMs from B-52s and 24 JDAM (2000#) from B-2. Will we be able to do this in-game?

I ask this because on the reliance of the US military on rapid deliver of firepower from long range (aircraft or artillery)...in amounts well above what we are used to seeing in WWII. I personnally cannot imagine a CMSF scenario where airpower is NOT involved, day or night.

Just a few questions out there in my tiny head.

[Battlefront.com]

Hmm.... well, I see the big boys being used for more strategic missions in the CM:SF setting, not for "dinky little CAS missions". Some Special Forces guy finds the parking lot of a Syrian Mech Division and a couple of loitering B-1s or B-52s swoop in to make a few craters. A Stryker JTAC wanting to get rid of a pesky bunker would likely get a F-15 or something similar. At least that is the way I expect they would be used.

We can probably put some sort of delay between drops of laser guided munitions that are let loose one at a time. The thought of a scenario where more than a few JDAMs are dropped doesn't sound like much fun. I mean, I know far bigger bombs are dropped in far greater amounts with far greater precision than in WWII, but a scenario that is mostly about calling in air or artillery to win the battle is going to be boring if you experience it more than one or twice. Therefore, we are catering air and artillery support to those situations where the grunts have to do quite a bit on their own for one reason or another. (which I maintain will be the norm for an all out conventional offensive)

Steve

[imported_Wildman]

True. In an all out offensive the AF would try to focus on longer range interdiction and battlefield prep.

Even fighter aircraft carry multiple JDAMs anymore and would be able to hit multiple targets in one pass...seperated by quite a distance, you could probably hit all four corners of a map with one F-15E.

[hellfish]

I think a good metric for it would be OIF1 vice OEF1 - did B-52s and B-2s loiter above Iraq for on-call CAS to Army or Marine company sized elements? Keep in mind, Syria has more effective ADA assets than Iraq did (and we had 12 years to bomb Iraq's ADA into oblivion).

[imported_Wildman]

Yes, they did...OIF they launched Day 1 from Fairford, UK for CALCM strikes followed by JDAMs from the wings.