Airstrikes packages or single weapons?

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Wildman:

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

Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles? Were those used for frontline CAS?

[imported_Wildman]

Here is one link from Global Security that shows total number of munitions used by US in OIF by 2003. I'm trying to find my OIF lessons learned and determine the classification...that one had it broken down by aircraft types and numbers of munitions dropped....something like 40% of all air munitions were dropped by heavy bombers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military//library/report/2003/uscentaf_oif_report_30apr2003.pdf

[imported_Wildman]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wildman:

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

Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles? Were those used for frontline CAS? </font>

[c3k]

Hmmm,

If memory serves, the B-2 just tested the ability to drop 84 bombs (SDB's I think), each independently targeted with significant slant range.

I mention this to argue that there doesn't need to be repeated bombing runs, ala WWII, in order to have a single aircraft hit multiple targets, close or far from each other, nearly simultaneously.

The "B" series aircraft have been heavily modified and trained to conduct tactical missions.

Thanks,

Ken

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Wildman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wildman:

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

Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles? Were those used for frontline CAS? </font>

[MikeyD]

Oh, I just thought. All this talk about B52s. Didn't Rumsfeld zero-out funding for the B52 last year (2006)? I thought I had heard that. So orbiting B52s 'might' turn out to be inappropriate for CMSF's 'very near future' timeline.

Unless i'm mistaken about all this

[imported_Wildman]

They are projected to be in service until 2040, although I'll see if I can find anything. They are the only airforce CALCM shooters for one and they also will be a primary JASSM shooter.

B52 will go into a fairly extensive threat enviroment, also you assume that the IADS will be operational for the entire span of the war.

The first priority of the AF will be Air Superiority and that includes reduction of the IADS. Will there be certain areas at first, sure. But most of the long range SAM (2,3,5) are fixed emplacements that receive a TLAM or CALCM in short order.

Its a role reversal, but bomber are here to stay in today's limited (and by limited I mean against less than the Chinese) warfare scenario.

[hellfish]

B-1s can't launch CALCMs? Wasn't that what they were designed to do from the outset?

[MikeyD]

I googled 'B52 retirement' and found I was a bit off in my recollection. As of March 2006 there was (is?) a plan to halve the B52 fleet from 94 to 56, not entirely kill it. This 'accelerated retirement' appears to have something to do with industry plans to sell a new 'long range strike platform' to the Pentagon for 2016 deployment. Obviously, 94 fully capable B52s still on the flight line through 2040 might impede that goal. Gotta love the military-industrial complex.

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The thought of a scenario where more than a few JDAMs are dropped doesn't sound like much fun.

I understand this - but you could say the same thing about 14" naval artillery in CMBO etc. And yet, there they were waiting to be purchased.

[Homo ferricus]

Originally posted by acrashb:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The thought of a scenario where more than a few JDAMs are dropped doesn't sound like much fun.

I understand this - but you could say the same thing about 14" naval artillery in CMBO etc. And yet, there they were waiting to be purchased. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Well, this line of thinking is rather silly. You could make a scenario that gives one side 10 battalions worth of 155mm Howitzers. The fact that you can doesn't mean we shouldn't be including 155mm Howitzers.

The more correct analogy is to compare apples to apples. In CMBO did you have the ability to call in B-17s? Nope.

As I said, and there seems to be agreement, that in a major conventional environment the bombers would be dedicated to tasks much larger than anything a lowly company plus sized force would come upon AND still be involved with during a 40 minute or so period.

In short, I see no reason to include heavy bombers. If you have a strong desire to simulate the effects of this, simply give the US player a lot of fighter support. Same effect.

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

Hmmm, first, yes, the game result of having the U.S. given a lot of fighter support should equate to the same effect as dedicated bomber support. So, no argument from me on that design perspective.

The analogy you give regarding B-17's is a bit off. Perhaps you could come up with one using cars and/or beer?

In WWII, CAS was in its infancy. The idea of a B-17 supporting a small infantry force is a great big apple. The idea of a B-52 on call to support modern U.S. ground forces is a huge orange. The mission exists, and is executed on a regular basis - especially in a non-insurgent open combat scenario. Hence YOUR analogy is apples to oranges.

The AF has finally separated airframes from dedicated missions. You need to bomb a dam AND support a ground drive? Well, send the F-22/F-35 to hit the dam, and orbit a bomber with a loadout of 84 GPS guided (with real-time retargeting) bombs to support the ground pounders.

The airframe and bomb loadout would be assigned based on priorities: if the ground attack is important, it WILL be supported by the best means available. Not by some preconcieved notion that bombers are too important to waste on ground support.

In most modern combats, the deepstrike missions have been carried out to the exclusion of CAS, because the was little/no ground combat until AFTER the deepstrike operational goals had been achieved.

The obvious example of "bomb trucks" being made available to ground units would be the campaign in Afghanistan.

The above meant to fill in a possible misperception of modern USAF doctrine and capabilities, not to change the game vision. (Unless I can carpet bomb something!! Woot.)

Regards,

Ken

[rudel.dietrich]

Does the US really use that many guided munitions for group support?

I figured most of that would be Mavericks and conventional 'Iron' bombs and submuntions bombs

When we were in Afghanistan we called in quite a number of Nato airstrikers and the controllers who were with us told us 90% of what was being dropped was non-guided.

In fact most of it was just a slight improvment in what was avaliable in WW2.

Unguided rockets and 'Iron'bombs.

The few times we needed something pinpoint, we got Maverkicks since the targets usualy did not need the full power of a bomb.

Out of everything I saw dropped I would venture to say that only 5% of it was laser of GPS guided.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, I figured someone would show that the B-17 vs. B-1 was not a good comparison. Looking at it the way you did, sure... I agree and I knew that when I wrote it. I was looking at it the other way around. The B-17 wasn't included in CMx1 because it wasn't relevant to company level combat. As I've already described, B-1s and the like are irrelevant to CM type company level combat in CM:SF as well. Therefore, neither should be included. I'll also say that there WERE some people arguing for us to put in at least medium bombers (B-24s) into CMBO because they were used tactically a few times (not very successfully either).

As always, CM is all about supporting the bulk of factors that go into tactical ground combat, not every single last possibility that may or may not exist. This philosophy is just as alive and well today as it was back in 1997 when we started working on CMBO.

The airframe and bomb loadout would be assigned based on priorities: if the ground attack is important, it WILL be supported by the best means available. Not by some preconcieved notion that bombers are too important to waste on ground support.

Heh... the stuff I read would disagree with that as a blanket statement. The AF still has a strong streak of "tactical ground support is a waste of our time" running through it.

In a small country that is bordered by friendly bases, there is really no "deep strike" in the technical sense. All airframes can effectively get to any point and hit whatever it is they are instructed to hit. This would certainly be the case in Syria. In that sense there is no technical difference between a F-22 armed with a particular type of bomb attacking a particular type of target and a B-1 armed with the identical bomb and attacking the same type of weapon. Differences, however, do exist. The main one being scope and scale.

Any tactical situation that you can think up that would require a dozen JDAMs to be dropped within a 5-10 minute period is not a tactical situation that CM:SF is designed to support. Since the most likely airframe that would be assigned such a mission would be a loitering bomber, it makes no sense for us to include such bombers. On the other hand, a scenario that requires a couple of JDAMs could be interesting here and there, and in that case the most likely airframe to be assigned such a mission would be a loitering, or specifically assigned, fighter NOT a bomber. And even if a bomber was assigned, what would the practical difference be in CM terms? None what so ever. So once again we come to the point that there is no reason to include an airframe that isn't relevant to CM's setting.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'll also say that there WERE some people arguing for us to put in at least medium bombers (B-24s)

Really?

Say, about directing of airstrikes on target, what are the different methods used if any? There's a youtube of Dutch commandos marking the target with .50 fire for a pair of USA F-18s. would something similar be possible? If yes, in what way would that differ from say a laser designated target or a mere radioed in target?

[Battlefront.com]

Elmar,

No, we are not having something like this. Too difficult to code meaningfully. In real life targets are marked in all sorts of ways, including colored smoke, tracer fire, landmarks, etc. If a unit has specialized equipment there are various bonuses that apply, otherwise it's more or less dicated by who is doing the spotting and what the LOS status is.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

btw

Some info on B-1Bs, amongst others, providing CAS in Afghanistan. They are flying CAS way more then I expected.

here

[imported_Wildman]

Steve is right in the perspective of modeling airpower effects in CMSF. (only appropriate as its his game).

From a ground pounder's percpective its irrelevent on the airframe used to deliver the weapon. (something the AF has been preaching to the Army by the way.) As long as a bomb falls at the right time who cares who dropped it. You could simulate a full B52 drop by using 6 F-16s in the scenario (For JDAM). At that point all we are missing is the "B-52" monikor on the drop down menu.

[Battlefront.com]

Wildman is correct. In theory we could simply have the player select "JDAM" and the target with zero mention of who is dropping the bomb itself. As he said, from the ground pounder's point of view it is irrelevant. "I have an enemy target and I want it gone. Make it so!". However, anonymous payloads is a lot less interesting, from an atmospheric standpoint, then seeing which airframe is coming to your aid. That's why we don't have you select "Cannon Fire" and instead have you select "A-10"

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Looking forward to see how CAS is going to look in the game.

Any chance of FAE munitions as well?

[hellfish]

What if we don't buy CAS at all? Make it an ever present thing, but then have units that can call on it faster and more efficiently than others?

In other words, instead of "buying" an F-16 for your mission, you'll have a base % chance to have air available (maybe scenario designers can adjust the base % chance?). This base reflects the relative availability at the time, and can be modified. Random modifiers like time of day, weather, etc. The base value can determine aircraft, distance from the battlefield (time on target delays) and ordnance loadouts.

Then scalable modifiers like target (you might not get air if you only want to drop on a militia squad, you might get priority air if you target a series of dug in T-72s behind a reverse slope - and then you might not get any air if there isn't any useful ordnance on any of the on-call birds) and skill of the requesting unit (a FAC would give you a big bonus, a PL or Company CO requesting air might not be any help at all).

You can throw in some other factors as well, I'm sure, like skill of unit, command delays (FACs who can talk to aircraft directly vs. line officers who have to go the S3 Air and the whole chain of command).

Sorry, I'm really more of a visual person so I might not be explaining this well. I make lists when I can't use MS Paint to get my point across...

1. Mission is designed. Blufor player gets a "2" on a list of 1-10 for his air priority.

2. Player starts said mission. During the prebattle phase, the game sees that the air priority is "2" and references that with its internal table. The game decides that the following air support is available:

1 x F-16C w/6 500lb iron bombs. 10 minute TOT.

1 x F-15E w/4 GBU-10 LGBs. 20 minute TOT.

1 x A-10C w/6 AGM-65D. 12 minute TOT

(Note: "1" on the air priority list means minimal support, a "10" would be something like carte blanche - anything and everything the player would want would be available to him with relatively fast response times).

3. The mission begins and the player identifies a reinforced concrete structure with at least a platoon sized enemy element inside. Player, lacking a FAC, uses his company commander to call for air support.

4. The game cross references some info:

A. Requesting unit's link to higher HQ (basic commo link with relevant HQ element)

B. Requesting unit's experience (proper procedures, doesn't need to be talked through the process)

C. Target analysis (heavy building in urban zone - % chance mission is denied due to ROE constraints in urban areas)

D. Building's identified occupants (3 squads, no armor - better than targeting a single sniper, not as good as targeting a company sized element)

E. Random air availability check (% chance that any air asset has been committed elsewhere since the mission began)

F. Air asset ordnance check (can the aircraft available affect the target?)

G. Weather/Time of Day check

All of those are go/no-go checks. If any of those checks are no go, the mission is denied. If they all get "Go" codes, the game selects the aircraft with the optimal ordnance and begins the mission.

The player gets a TOT for the air asset (i.e. "Fast mover inbound. Time on target one zero mikes, out.") so he knows his mission is approved, on the way, and can clear out of the danger zone if need be.

[ January 08, 2007, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: fytinghellfish ]

[Imperial Grunt]

I would love TOTs to be included in CAS for the game. That would allow a simulation with good combined arms.

Hearing the radio traffic of the A/C and FAC would be cool too.

[Battlefront.com]

We thought about having air, and artillery, be assigned by formula instead of Scenario Designer and felt it wasn't a good idea. First, it makes things far more difficult for the Scenario Designer to have something that powerful be kept out of his hands. Second, the length of time of a battle pretty much dicates that either you have the support or effectively you don't. In real life this would mean waiting around for something to free up.

As for all the checks and cross checks with various unit types and what not... that's pretty much in there already. Check back in the Air/Artillery Support thread and I went into it in some detail there.

Unfortunately, no radio chatter. Too much effort for something that, while cool, is a distraction for us.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Don't know whether you saw it on the news or not, but the U.S. apparently used an AC-130H or AC-130U in precision (daylight?) strikes against AQ targets in Somalia on Monday.

Regards,

John Kettler