Details of Air and Artillery Support

[John Kettler]

The ROF listed for the GAU-8 is well off, being too high. Max is 4200 rounds per minute, and I believe the low rate is 2400 rounds per minute. Can provide exact numbers if needed from pub on A-10 ammo lot acceptance firing trials. As for A-10 friendly fire, I recently read an account in which a guy actually survived an A-10 strafing as a grunt. Talk about lucky to be alive!

Some military acronyms decrypted.

MOUT = Military Operations in Urban Terrain

FIST = Fire Support Team

JDAM = Joint Direct Attack Munition (GPS guided bomb)

JTAC = Joint Tactical Air Controller (interservice

FAC)

SOL = S#@% out of Luck

Regards,

John Kettler

[ October 06, 2006, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Redwolf]

So what are the parameters you can set?

Sheaf? Number of volleys?

[Battlefront.com]

JTAC is also what pepole think of when they think FAC (Forward Air Controller). This is the officer responsible for bringing in air strikes. Often times he only administers the call from someone else, but ultimately everything in the air is his responsibility. This is similar to the artillery, which is controlled by the FIST (Fire Support Team), which is headed by the FSO (Fire Support Officer).

Note that you don't need to know all of these terms in the game. There are nice icons to tell you who does what

Steve

[ October 06, 2006, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

You don't set much directly. In real life the details are determined by the (grrr... away from my desk, can't remember the magic three letters!), who is the officer sitting back aways from the fighting. You specify what the target is, where it is, the boundaries of it, what you want to do to it, how long you want it to happen, and that's about it (again, I'm not at my desk). Your request is translated into a Fire Order that the artillery guys can understand,and away things go.

What this means is you have control over sheaf, number of vollies, type of munition, type of fuze, burst setting, etc. without having to specify all the little details. Much easier that way, which is why the US military does it this way too

Steve

[flamingknives]

Does this mean that Artillery control for the British module will be different since, AIUI, the reality is different.

Well, the FO is likely to be an artillery officer, so would give direct orders back down the line. At least, I think that's how it works. It may be different these days.

[Battlefront.com]

In theory we can change things for the Brits, or anybody else for that matter.

The way it works, as I understand it, is there are actually three levels of control within the US military. The highest level, the FSO (Fire Support Officer), is basically the head honcho for Fire Support (FIST) team. He is a very skilled individual and can micromange a Fire Order to death if he wants to. Having said that, the FSO can still be overridden by the FDC (yup, I'm home so I now remember the term ), which is the Fire Direction Control for the assigned artillery. It is the FDC's responsibility to determine which of the FISTs' requests (remember, there are many FIST teams potentially asking for support at one time) get carried out and in what order. This is usually done according to a plan. The FDC is also responsible for managing the ammo supply and can override whatever is called in if there is some reason to do so. For example,:

WP is apparently not held in great quantities, yet everybody wants WP as a spotting round since it is MUCH easier to observe. So the observer probably will request WP and will probably get HE, like it or not

The next level of control down is the Forward Observer (FO), who is a member of the FIST team. Usually there is one assigned to each maneuver platoon, such as a Rifle Platoon. This guy has a pretty good understanding of fire support, but is somewhat limited with the range of stuff he's allowed to improvise with. Usually if he is winging it he needs to run his requests through the FSO first before it is translated into a Fire Order. These guys are therefore better at calling in organic mortars instead of high tech gizmo rounds from higher leve Field Artillery.

The lowest level is everybody else. In theory anybody can call down some form or support. However, in this case they are basically just acting as eyes and ears. They generally don't get to do more than say what it is they want whacked, where, etc. They probably don't even select which Support Asset is used when the call is outside of the plan. So in the grunt's mind he might be picturing 155s raining down a curtain of death and instead find that a bunch of 60mm mortar ronds are hitting the target.

Officers fit somewhere in between the 2nd and 3rd levels, depending on their individual training. In other words, some are more qualified and therefore can act more like FOs, while others are less and aren't "trusted" to do much directing.

At least that's how I understand all this complicated stuff!!

What this boils down to is that the player's singular control system basically melts the role of FSO, FDC, and FO all into one. The FSO selects which asset to use, the FDC determines what stuff should be used, and the FO is the one determining the parameters. Depending on which of your units is making the call determines a whole host of things. So even though the controls are the same, you will want to use a FSO to direct Support Fire whenever possible, FOs next, and SGT Joeaverage last but not least.

Steve

[ October 06, 2006, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Scipio]

How about on-map artillery, mortars and everything else that's able to fire indirectly? How do they fit into the system, or shall I better ask: do they!?

[Battlefront.com]

Same system. However, due to the way things work on today's battlefield and the smaller focus don't expect a lot of indirect fire weapons in CM:SF. WW2 is a different story.

Steve

[imported_Wildman]

Steve,

Sorry if I missed an answer. Will the total number of aircraft strikes be solely the province of the scenario builder? If so, what kind of aircraft response times are build in.

Is it arrival times by the scenario designer like CMx1 or request time dependent like the current arty strikes.

Given that it might time 10-20 mintues from request of aircraft to bombs on target, will that fit into the current time frame your looking at for battle length?

[mav1]

Can we have different shadows on the map created by the aircraft to match the dimentions of the aircraft that is overhead?

[MikeyD]

As someone pointed out previously (maybe me ) there's not all that much low-level overflight of targets anymore. A hovering Apache firing a missile from 4 miles out wouldn't make much of a shadow on a 1 sq mile map. And forget about laser bombs dropped from 20,000 ft! Still, I've been lobbying for platform-specific shadows in CM since... last century! Shadows of slowly passing combat drones would be both cool and tactically useful info.

[Battlefront.com]

Air and Artillery Support, in terms of what and when it is available, is up to the Scenario Designer. In real life a commander can call up, out of the blue, and request either or both and perhaps get it on the fly. That's great for real life, it sucks for game balancing Nobody wants to play a game where the US player can simply stop when it finds a problem and hammer it from the air or from artillery. It isn't realistic either.

In real life there are reasons why artiller and/or air can or can not be used in a given circumstance. Maybe the only aircraft in the area are performing a mission for someone else, perhaps the artillery is being relocated. That sort of stuff. So when the US player finds that he wants these things and does not have the ability to use them, that means the Sceanrio Designer is simulating some of these types of situations.

As for the graphics... as MikeyD points out, there isn't much to show anyway, so it isn't worth our time to do stuff that you likely wouldn't notice when playing the game.

Steve

[imported_Wildman]

Cool, just as a guy that provides all that airpower and seeing the amount of "TNT Chucking" we do in support of Army green I want to see my efforts modelled in the game.

I want my Small Diameter Bomb!!!

Speaking of accuracy, how are you modelling that in the game with CEPs below the publicly acknowledged 10meters for JDAM and much smaller for LGBs?

[Battlefront.com]

Accuracy depends on who is spotting, what the target is, where it is, weather, and other stuff. If you have a JTAC with laser designator 150m away with clear LOS in bright daylight without much in the way of obstructions... well, you can pretty much count on the target getting a "fine how do you do"

Steve

[imported_Wildman]

That is true for Laser designation from aircraft or JTAC, but most of the CAS done right now is not against vehicles but against buildings and static emplacements.

the JTAC gives the 9-line with GPS coords and the JDAMs come in. None of this requires eyes on target or LOS.

Also, don't forget to model 20mm and 30mm aircraft strafing. Apperently that is rapidly becoming the most popular form of aircraft support in CENTCOM...at least that is what we are training for.

[Battlefront.com]

Wildman,

That is true for Laser designation from aircraft or JTAC, but most of the CAS done right now is not against vehicles but against buildings and static emplacements.

Well, don't forget Syria is a different setting I had heard that JDAMs in urban areas was falling out of favor. So that's what you're hearing too?

the JTAC gives the 9-line with GPS coords and the JDAMs come in. None of this requires eyes on target or LOS.

True, a lot of the munitions being fielded now are GPS guided. What I haven't figured out is what the proportion of munitions actually converted/fielded is. I suppose by now the US has burned through its earlier bombs or upgraded reserve stocks?

However, remember that the JTAC still needs to assess the target to get the 9-line and GPS coordinates. Especially in an area where digital maps can't be trusted as accurate. This doesn't mean that the JTAC needs to meaintain LOS to the target, just that he has to have it when he makes the call.

Of course, this isn't required. It just makes accuracy and the chance of mistakes pretty much nil.

Also, don't forget to model 20mm and 30mm aircraft strafing. Apperently that is rapidly becoming the most popular form of aircraft support in CENTCOM...at least that is what we are training for.

I've heard of that. It's got some sort of nickname, like "splashing" doesn't it? As I understand it the concept is to suppress the heck out of the target without taking out causing massive damage. That what you understand it to be?

BTW, I've heard that rockets fired from helos are just about useless for anything but suppression and general shakedown. In MOUT they aren't used that much simply because helos aren't used over MOUT areas so I don't know what their effect would be on a building.

Steve

[mav1]

I would love to see visual simulation of aircraft and I dont mind if it takes several months to do it.

[imported_Wildman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Wildman,

That is true for Laser designation from aircraft or JTAC, but most of the CAS done right now is not against vehicles but against buildings and static emplacements. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well, don't forget Syria is a different setting I had heard that JDAMs in urban areas was falling out of favor. So that's what you're hearing too?

</font>

[Sgt Joch]

Wildman, what is your job in the USAF? you seem to know alot about this stuff.

[imported_Wildman]

Aircraft/Munitions Maintenance Officer, currently at the 366th Fighter Wing at Mountain Home.

[Battlefront.com]

Wildman,

Aircraft/Munitions Maintenance Officer, currently at the 366th Fighter Wing at Mountain Home.

Awe, c'mon! You can tell us what you really do. You are the guy that washes the canopies and puts the Armorall on the tires, plus other detailing work, right? We're all friends here, we won't snicker too much if its that or making sure all the pilots put out their cigars before getting too close to the fuel truck. Be proud of who you are no matter if it is changing the blue lightbulbs on the runways, we'll still respect you!

(boy aren't I glad Wildman ain't within easy kicking range of my backside)

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

On a slightly more serious note..

Thanks for the info! I had heard JDAMs were out of favor, but I guess it was more like the 2000#ers they used to like to drop are not as common as they once were. I wonder how this would change in a full up, high intesity conventional conflict? Probably go back to the 2000# stuff I'd guess.

So here's a question that's always puzzled me... in an instance where a LBG or a GPS bomb can do the trick, and both are available to use, which one would the JTAC (or pilot in that case) choose to drop? The LBG because it is in theory the more difficult one to work with so take a good clean shot when one exists?

Steve

[imported_Wildman]

Steve,

Only some limp-wristed, liberal, computer geek from Maine would confuse my commanding presense as a mere crew chief. I am a powerpoint master and don't you forget it.

As for full-scale conflict, all I can tell you is my formor job in USFK 2000# JDAM were the weapons of choice. Often due to weather concerns I would think.

As for the current weapon in vogue, I really don't know. Depends on the threat enviroment and the weather I would guess. I can tell you that from your (a programmers) point of view it should be transparent.

The reason for that is the new "Effects based Planning", in other words....who cares if it is LGB or JDAM, its the same bomb body and there for the same effect. The CEP of both is less that 3m so they will both hit and kill the target...the deliver method is immaterial at the grunt's view of the fight.

[Battlefront.com]

Wildman,

I am a powerpoint master and don't you forget it.

Yes sir! Sorry SIR!

As for full-scale conflict, all I can tell you is my formor job in USFK 2000# JDAM were the weapons of choice. Often due to weather concerns I would think.

You mean the guidence was chosen due to weather, not the size of the bomb, right? That makes sense, of course. GPS is less prone to delivery mistakes. IIRC it is also cheaper, though I am sure you powerpoint types don't give a rat's ass about that

The reason for that is the new "Effects based Planning", in other words....who cares if it is LGB or JDAM, its the same bomb body and there for the same effect. The CEP of both is less that 3m so they will both hit and kill the target...the deliver method is immaterial at the grunt's view of the fight.

The effect is the same, granted. But my understanding from reading the highly entertaining (cough) and rather thin (cough, cough) field manuals on targeting there is quite a difference from the standpoint of calling in the actual strike itself.

My understanding is that if some lowly grunt gets on the net and requests that a certain target be whacked he can generally provide only minimally useful data to the pilot, via the JTAC. This means the pilot is going to have to get into the area himself and make some sort of visual contact with the target. If he has a LGB, and the conditions right, he can lase the target himself after confirming it with the ground observer. If the target is stationary then GPS could be used, but I'm not sure how an aircraft can get this information on the fly without lasing (I assume it can even do that). So in either case the pilot must make visual contact and then act accordingly.

This introduces the possibility of FUBAR, either through miscommunication or through some sort of Human error ("no you idiot, the OTHER building! Now what am I going to tell the Captain about the orphanage you just leveled, huh?").

The other method is for the JTAC to make visual contact with the target himself and lase it. If the aircraft has a LBG only then he's going to have to keep the lase on the target for it to do any good. If the bomb is instead GPS, and the target stationary, then he's all set. One lase, he has coordinates, and bingo... all set. Chance of a problem with GPS is minimal, chance of a problem with LBG depends on the JTAC keeping the lase on target.

The last method is for the JTAC to be the eyes and guide the pilot in himself without lasing the target himself. Since JTACs are trained at doing this, they are far more capable of getting the pilot on target and quicker than some run of the mill grunt. Once the pilot lases the target then it's the same as stated above.

So as I understand it there is no real difference from an accuracy and effect standpoint once the weapon is released/fired, but getting to that point has some significant variables which are relevant to the player.

Thoughts?

Steve

[MikeyD]

What procedures have to take place in order to drop a GPS bomb on something at short notice? How high up the food-chain do you have to go before you find someone in a unit who's able to discern and transmit a target's GPS coordinates?

I'd imagine those fancy Sryker variants with the roof mounted lasers can quickly compute range and elevation of a distant target then match it up to a map for proper coordinates. Or has the process been so simplified that a platoon commander with a laptop can figure out what coordinates to send? If a recon Stryker is needed then whacking a recon Stryker in the game might mean no more GPS precision attacks.