pmaidhof

In Annex B of H4.1, the F/A-18C/D lists among its sensors: "...FLIR and Laser Spot tracker can be carried in a pod." It is not listed in as ordnance. What type is it? In Annex G2, an AAS-38A/B is described as "FLIR for F/A-18" but does not list the spot tracker, could it be inferred?

Thanks Brad, Any reason why, other that it being a ground based radar in H4.1 , it would not be included in the data annexes if it is such an intregal part of such a common and venable weapon system? Might it be in the High Tide annex? I did not have it handy last night.

Does anyone have H4.1 equivelent stats on this Russian Air Surveillance Radar. On chat last night we were throwing around various websites and stats but there generally was no unit of measure for the altitude. Brad: Any in your "notes"?

cross post from Admiralty Trilogy Yahoo site from Paul K. - clears a lot up. "Maybe I can help clarify things a little bit. There are two different components in this system that are the cause of some of this confusion. There is the sensor itself and the sensor mount. When the description is talking about the 12 / 3 degree views that is a description of the sensor. When the description talks about 270 degree frontal arc that is the sensor mount, here's how it works. The 12 degree / 3 degree description is the Field of View (FOV) of the sensor. In wide FOV it can see 12 degrees (6 degrees either side of what its pointed at). It also has a narrow FOV, a "zoom" if you will, that will see only 3 degrees (1.5 degrees either side of what it is pointed at). This is a 4 X zoom feature. That is a great capability but if you stopped there you would be stuck with always having to point the aircraft at the intended target. To overcome this you bolt it to a mount that can be rotated or slewed around to look off axis. In this particular case the mount the sensor is on can slew through the frontal 270 degree arc (i.e. 135 degrees either side of centerline). Okay so what does that mean? It means that you can train the sensor anywhere within 135 degrees either side of the nose of your aircraft but you are only going to see 12 degrees of that 270 degree arc when in wide FOV or 3 degrees of that 270 degree arc when you are in narrow FOV. There is no difference between a FLIR and a IRST in terms of the technology of the IR sensor, it is all dependent on the design of the mount. (Third generation IRST systems have an imaging capability because they added a camera lens side by side with the IR sensor) One other critical design feature of the mount, beyond the 270 degree azimuth, is the elevation limits for the sensor. To function effectively as an Air to Air sensor it must be able to look above and below the aircraft's flight path. (The FLIR in my S-3 could easily pick up air contacts but could not be slewed "up" so if the air contact was above our altitude we would have had to roll the aircraft to see it.) Without knowing more detail about the Litening II POD's design limitations its hard to say how effective it is as an IRST. Its FOV, even in wide FOV, is much less than the description of a standard IRST. Although I confess I don't know enough about IRST technology to know how it searches the +/- 60 degree arc. it would seem that as an IRST the Litening II pod is limited by a "soda straw" effect. [in the S-3 the FLIR could scan side to side until the operator saw an IR significant "blob" at which point they could take over manual control - not sure if these system do that or something else.] The other factor that needs to be looked at when discussing pods designed for ground targeting being used for air to air work is the pod placement on the aircraft. Anywhere you mount it on the aircraft is going to provide significant "blind zones" where the aircraft fuselage blocks out any hope of seeing the target. For this pod I would say that it meets the requirements for: 4.6.2 Airborne FLIR, 4.6.3 IRST (with limitations from FOV, blind zones etc.), 4.8.2 Laser Designator and 4.8.3 LRMTS."

It's huge. I would have thought that it would have been addressed in the latest errata, which is dated later than the issue of the SITREP. Either way, I know it know. Good Gaming.

In the April 2003 issue of The Naval Sitrep If directed versus land targets: In further reading about H4.1 attacks on land targets by naval and air platforms, I came across the short article titled "Land Attack Missiles in Harpoon" and its accompanying Land Target Attack Table (Page 24). Increases the GPS guided munitions to a much more appropriate pH (IMHO).

A response from PeterG (another trusted and respected H4 warrior) on Admiralty Trilogy "I don't have the SITREP article with me at the moment, but yes this would replace the H4.1 rule. PG" > In further reading about H4.1 attacks on land targets by naval and > air platforms, I came across the short article titled "Land Attack > Missiles in Harpoon" and its accompanying Land Target Attack Table > (Page 24). > > That article followed another article on tomahawk cruise missiles in > Harpoon. The Land Target Attack Table seems to encompass more that > just cruise missiles since in includes stats for SALH 1-3Gen, EO 1- > 3Gen, etc. > > After discussing here in an earlier message the procedure for > employing a GPS guided JDAM against a small ground target, the > criteria for launching such a weapon and how the results are > computed was confirmed. I was stunned to find out the poor range of > results being returned on the Low or Medium Altitude Dive Bomb > Tables (23-33% and 12-18% respectively). It just didn't seem > appropriate for a GPS guided weapon. > > If I'm understanding this correctly wouldn't the GPS guided JDAM > have a pH of 65% versus a small ground target on the SITREP's Land > Target Attack Table? > > A pH of 65% seems much more appropriate for this weapon than the > <=33% calculated on the dive bomb tables. > > I apologize in advance for belaboring this point.

You're the best...

Also a response from DaveS (msg#3688) on the Admiralty Trilogy Yahoo Group. (In the case of a pair of Litening II pod equipped AV-8B II+ dropping 2nd Gen SALH-guided GBU-12D's on a small ground target. Is it true that the designator capable of effectively designating the target provided that the designating aircraft keeps the target within its 270 degree frontal arc (per 6.3.4.2.2)? i.e. the designator is not restricted to the 12/3 degree detecting/classifying field of view and theoretically the "optic" lens can "slew" side to side within the 270 degree frontal arc of the designating aircraft? "In the case you are talking about, I would say yes. I know that for early SALH there were some different limitations (for early SALH, the designator plane could not be dropping the bombs) and if you were using the Soviet/Russian aircraft listed in the rule you would have the arc limitations listed in the rule." Thanks to DaveS for responding quickly and completely to my questions, however tetious.

Is the "accuracy bonus" discussed in 6.3.4.2.4 that a weapon, such as JDAM, is resolved on the Dive Bomb Table (Low or Medium depending upon the altitude it is launched)? Per DaveS (msg #3689) on the Admiralty Trilogy Yahoo Group: "If a GPS guided weapon is used against a nonmoving target it gets the bonus and you would use the Low or Medium altitude dive bombing tables as appropriate. If the target is moving and the weapon does not have terminal guidance, treat it as a dumb bomb (if it does have terminal guidance, treat it as a PGM)." Short answer: yes, the GPS accuracy bonus is resolving it on the respective dive bomb tables.

Request that the intent of this message should be a sticky. In order for all messages in a particular section to be displayed, select "from the beginning". Is there any way that "from the beginning" could be the default? Thanks

Some initial thought: JDAM has twice the range 8.0nm than the GBU-12D (4.0nm) benefits the aircraft actually launching. Drawback, launching aircraft needs to be above VLow and Low altitude bands. (per 6.3.4.2.4) JDAMs launched from Medium altitude are resolved on the Medium Altitude Dive Bomb Table. Also must have advanced or computing bombsight. Better guidance I/GPS versus SALH for the Paveway. pH from AV-8B II+ (computing) at medium versus a "small" target = only 12%. From High or VHigh pH goes up to 23% due to computing at the Low Altitude Dive Bomb Table. Still seems weak - launching aircraft is vunerable further out at that altitude, will add comments later if warranted. As Tony mentioned on the chat, JDAM is still detection and classification limits as the range of the weapon system itself is greater than the GBU-12D.

First attempt...not good. RQ-2A Pioneer scoping out an SA-6b battery in anticipation of a TLAM strike. Straight Flush detects VSmall at 18km (9.7nm). This puts the RQ-2A well within the 5nm needed for its 2nd Generation, even 8nm if we were to consider it 3rd Gen. RQ-2A is flying at 15,000 feet (Med). Pioneer start point is 18.5km (10nm) on a course of 90 degrees. 0800.0 – Tactical Turn Plot: RQ-2A Course 090 Speed 65kts (6km or 3.25nm) Move: RQ moves from 18.5 (10nm) to 12.5km (6.8nm) Planned Fire: none Detection: Straight Flush rolls 96 – No. Reaction Fire: none 0803.0 Plot: RQ course 090, speed 65kts Move: RQ moves from 12.5km (6.8nm) to 6.5 (3.5nm) Planned Fire: none Detection: Straight Flush rolls 74 – Yes. RQ rolls 72 – Yes. Engagement Turns invoked 0803.5 (per 2.2.5) 2nd Fire: 2x SA-6b launched 2nd AA Res: none 0804.0 1st Move: 2x SA-6 move 12.8km (6.9nm) reaching the RQ. RQ moves 500m to 6.0km (3.2nm) 1st Fire: none 1st AA Res: Gainful ATA 4.0. - RQ DATA 0.5 - RQ VSmall RCS 1.0 = +2.5 ACP = 55%. 06, 99. One hit - that’s all she wrote, “My screen is blue” says the remote operator.

OK, Lead begins roughly 14km (yes km because of the need for fidelity in so far as the ground targets, just about every range involved in this scenario has been converted onto a "cheat sheet" for easy reference). Dash-2 begins roughly 41km from the target area. Both are in the VLow altitude band and moving at 580kts (2.4nm or 4.5km per ET Movement Phase). 0800.0 1st Move: Lead begins a bow tie "course by turning to the North. Dash-2 closes with the target area, ending up 36.5km from the objective. 1st Fire: none 1st AA Res: none Detection: Lead detects a number of the objective at the target area. 2nd Move: With some "blobs" Lead heads for the 7km (<4nm) "line" to attempt to classify the "blobs". Dash-2 ends at 32km out. 2nd Fire: none 2nd AA Res: none 0800.5 1st Move: Lead ends approximately 7.3km out. Dash-2 ends 27.5km out. 1st Fire: none 1st AA Res: none Detection: Straight Flush classified 2nd Move: Lead assumes a bowtie course running perpendicular to the bombing run. Dash-2 ends 23km out 2nd Fire: none 2nd AA Res: none Roll for aircraft VLOW/NOE Crash: Lead (5% for speed +2% for turning more than 30 degrees) - 32, Dash-2 (5%) - 16. 0801.0 1st Move: Lead continues, keeping the target within its 270 degree frontal arc. Dash-2 ends 18.5km out 1st Fire: None 1st AA Res: none Detection: Lead maintains contact with Straight Flush 2nd Move: Lead continues between 6-7km out. Dash-2 ends 14km out. 2nd Fire: none 2nd AA Res: none 0801.5 1st Move: Lead heading South along the 6km N-S line. Dash-2 ends 9.5km out. 1st Fire: none 1st AA Res: none: Detection: Lead maintains contact. 2nd Move: Lead continues, Dash-2 ends 5km (=2.7nm, limit of Straight Flush ability to detect objects at VLow) 2nd Fire: Lead designates the target with Litening II Pod's laser designator capability. 2nd AA Res: none Roll for aircraft VLOW/NOE Crash: Lead - 87, Dash-2 - 24. 0802.0 1st Move: Lead continues. Dash-2 climbs to Low altitude band while moving from 5km to 0.5km (due to target actual location, Dash-2 is closer to 0.95km) 1st Fire: 1x GBU-12D launched. 1st AA Res: none Detection: Straight Flush detects Dash-2 2nd Move Phase: Lead Continues. Dash-2 descends to VLow when it moves 4.5km on a heading of 215 degrees. Distance from closest SA-6b launcher is 3.9km (approximately 2.1nm for those of you following at home). Dash-2 also accomplished the feat of entering and exiting the ZU-23 engagement area without the ZU having an opportunity to fire. GBU-12D travelling at 528kts (4.1km/ET Move Phase) reaches the target. 2nd Fire Phase: 2 SA-6b TEL launch 1x missile each. 2nd AA Res: GBU-12D has a 70% pH and rolls a 65. (rolled a 92 last night ) Its 17 damage points destroy the Straight Flush, causing the missile to go "erratic" (a term from my days as a Heavy Anti Tank Platoon Commander when a TOW missile would launch but go "erratic" due to one or both of the guidance wires having become unserviceable). Last evening on a roll of 92, the GBU-12D missed and Dash-2 had to take evasive action to avoid the SAM's and line itself up for a second attack run. With the Harrier dropping to VLow, outside of the Straight Flush's range to detect objects at that altitude, and before the missiles have an opportunity to leave the rail - does that mean the AV-8B has successfully made it's getaway? Also, these pilots are "Experienced" per 6.3.7 and thereby "0%" modifier to the % chance of crash per Tacical Turn in VLow/NOE flight. However 3.3.4.1.3 states that as conventional aircraft, the two AV-8B's will have to roll at the end of each Engagement Turn in which they fly in the VLow/NOE band. These rolls were backfitted into the above narrative, thank goodness that neither crashed and burned. Thanks in advance for any comments... please, please.

Very interesting attack tonight with a crazy ending. Will post full details tomorrow. Good noght for now...

RQ-2A Pioneer Size/Signature: VSmall Sensors: DS-12 EO/IR "2nd Generation FLIR (Day/Night)". Frequency: C-band/UHF, Line of Sight: yes, Satellite: no, GPS:yes Speed: 65kts Range: 100nm Ceiling: 15,000 feet Fuel: 11USG Endurance 5.0 hours I'm going with 2nd Generation FLIR until someone points me to a reference. Home-brewed counter art. I have two mounted and ready to go. Ooh-rah!

I got word back from someone close to the Admiratly that the pioneer numbers look good and should work, so I will be employing these in the very near future. Any comments on the generation FLIR to be used and it's suseptability to damage would be greatly appreciated.

The following is the answer that Mr. Brooks A. Rowlett posted on the Admiralty Trilogy yahoo group in response to my question of whether there is any limitation to the effectiveness of sighting with FLIR when flying in the VLow altitude band. On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:28 PM, Pete Maidhof wrote: > I guess the idea came from limitations of AS radar vs VLow > a/c to the effect of 10% of the max range. The limitations on AS radar are from ground clutter reflecting radar signals back into the radar set. This clutter acts as random energy into the receiver and can be viewed as in effect increasing the noise level of the radar, thus requiring a much stronger target signal to distinguish from the noise. Since the principle of operation is totally different, this is not an effect on FLIR. Infrared light is still much shorter wavelength than the radio waves of radar. This allows infrared receivers to have much better resolution than radars, which ultimately allows you to funnel the infrared signal into a signal processor of much greater capacity at certain frequencies - a screen that displays an image for human eyes feeding a human brain. The greater resolution of the output of the signal and the magnificent pattern recognition ability of the human allow much lower signal-to-noise ratio thresholds for discrimination of targets from clutter (background). There SHOULD perhaps be a WEATHER restriction on FLIR. It should have a reduction at altitude over water when there is a lot of humidity above the surface, or during fog. One of the myths in public perception of IR sensors is that they see through clouds. In fact, water vapor and water droplets are very powerful absorbers of IR radiation. What IR excels at is seeing through dust and smoke - battlefield haze. FLIR should also perhaps have a POSITIVE modifier at VH altitudes due to how little water vapor is in the atmosphere at that height. - Brooks A. Rowlett Thank you Brooks.

While it does not appear in Annex B, here is what I have gleened from the manufacturer and fas.org. They give roughly the same info: Size/Signature: VSmall (my idea) Sensor: CCD (Day only) or FLIR (Day/Night) (would need to assign a generation) Ceiling: 15,000 feet Speed: 65kts Cruise, 110kts "dash" Range:100km Fuel: 11 USG Would you like to add anything to that?

Miami Herald March 30, 2006 U.S. Defends Its Naval Exercise Amid talk by President Hugo Chávez of a planned attack, the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela said a naval exercise in the Caribbean was no cause for concern. By Associated Press CARACAS (AP) -- The U.S. ambassador to Venezuela downplayed the planned deployment of a U.S. aircraft carrier for naval exercises in the Caribbean amid claims by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez that his nation must prepare for a possible U.S. invasion. The Doral-based U.S. Southern Command this week announced that the USS George Washington -- along with a destroyer, cruiser, frigate and a 60-plane air wing -- would conduct military exercises from early April to late May with other Caribbean countries to enhance maritime security. ''It's not the first time that the U.S. government has had naval exercises in the Caribbean and it won't be the last,'' U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield told reporters Tuesday. ''Eventually, I'm sure we can have a little dialogue to eliminate any confusion, any suspicions about this activity,'' he said. Brownfield added that he had advised the Venezuelan government, including the Defense Ministry, of the plans on Monday. The Southern Command said that Carrier Strike Group Ten with roughly 6,500 sailors will focus on unconventional threats such as human trafficking and drug trafficking during the exercises. ''The deployment will focus on enhancing military-tomilitary relationships with regional partner nations, improving operational readiness, and fostering good will,'' the statement said. Chávez has repeatedly claimed the U.S. is considering a military attack to oust his leftist government. U.S. officials deny that accusation, but accuse Chávez of being a destabilizing force in the region.

Tony, Yes, Lead lazing the target for Dash-2 was the focal point of my last run through but as events unfolded, Lead was not able to detect the Straight Flush (50% chance at 8nm, max) so he ran interference while Dash-2 had to detect, classify and launch. The bow-tie route "designator" will be my next attempt. Any thoughts on FLIR such as Litening II pod being able to detect/classify from VLow? I do not see it prohibited but have to think that it would be degraded somewhat. Any comments on that would be appreciated.

Naval Aviator friend today spoke of Lead spotting in a bow-tie pattern while Dash-2 goes on the "gun run". The bow-tie being an elongated figure eight run in a way that when going into a turn the pilot would always be turning toward the target area. Targeting Pod would be able to continually maintain target within the aircraft's 270 degree frontal arc. That being said, he discouraged the use of harriers and GBU's in this case, in favor of more capable fixed wing F/A-18 - EA-6B combo's or GPS-guided stand off such as TLAM. I agree, but in the spirit of this test, the show must go on.

Finding the AV-8B II+ self or buddy-employing the the GBU-12D versus the SA-6b Battery problematic due to the AV-8B's rate of closure (2.4nm/phase) on the target/the Litenting II detection range (8nm)/Litenting II classification range/sequence of play. Here is a simplistic run through disregarding enemy reactions. 0800.0 1st Move Phase - 8nm out 1st Fire Phase - none 1st AA Res Phase - none Detection Phase - detect a target blob. 2nd Move Phase - 5.6nm out 2nd Fire Phase - none 2nd AA Res Phase - none 0800.5 1st Move Phase - 3.2nm out 1st Fire Phase - none 1st AA Res Phase - none Detection - classifies target as Straight Flush Radar 2nd Move Phase - 0.8nm out, climbing to Low Altitude 2nd Fire Phase - Harrier launches 1x GBU-12D (can be launched from Low at 50% range or 2nm) 2nd AA Res Phase - none 0801.0 1st Move Phase - Harrier overflies the target, offset just to the right (or left), GBU-12D reaches the target 1st fire Phase - none 1st AA Res Phase - GBU-12D (17DP) vs APC (5DP) target destroyed, or is it? Doesn't the aircraft overflying the target break its LOS. The Litening II must keep the target within the front 270 degrees of the aircraft. Aircraft could break left or right keeping target within its frontal 270 degrees. I'll have to plot that out. Although it defeats the purpose of a LGB, at 75% visibility, pilot should be able to spot the target visually at 5.25nm +/- any sigma (I've been using a sigma of 2) and drop iron bombs. Other counter intuative methods may be decelerating a bit but that seems to fly in the face of getting in and out as quickly as possible. Comments please...

I actually got my hands on an early 1990's copy of Janes Land-Based Air Defence thru a local library and unfortunately it apparently does not provide much more detail on the SA-6, SA-8, and SA-9 than what can already be found through various online sources. There are some brief discussions within as to how many launchers make up a t/o battery and launcher counts per country, and maybe a brief description on when a system was first employed or other notable usage, and what the result was. So in the end, not exactly what I was looking for.

This thread will be used to follow my feeble attempts to determine acceptable employment of this weapon system versus a an enemy air defense site consisting of 4x SA-6b TEL's, 1x Straight Flush Radar, 1x BTR-60 PU, and 2x ZU-23 AAA. The attacking force is rightly or wrongly 2x AV-8B II+ equipped with a Litening II pod and 2x GBU-12D, and have a general azimuth towards the radar. An attack limitation discovered so far is the aircraft's rapid approach towards the targets versus its ability to detect and classify these targets before their speed overtakes the target area. My first solution, which I began last night, has the section of Harriers split into Dash-2 trailing Lead by 1,000m. Lead would approach the target area, detecting and eventually classifying the desired target, the Straight Flush Radar, while peeling off so as not to overfly the target area. Dash-2 would launch the GBU's onto Lead's designated target. Where I had to stop last night, I had Lead flying into a ZU-23's engagement area, and Dash-2 being tracked by the Straight Flush due to the latter's requirement to be at Medium atlitude to launch the GBU's, which are inbound. One interesting note is that the GBU-12D apparently flies slower than the Harriers when on their attack run. more to follow...