The Little Bighorn Attack

[VictorInThePacific]

This coalesced from some ideas that I have discussed previously and elsewhere, and in particular from a discussion that is current right now in the Matrix forum. It is similar to or the same as what Warhorse and Mack2, and perhaps others, are already doing. It is time to give this tactic a name.

 

At the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Custer's men were heavily outnumbered. Therefore, they were forced to assume a static defensive posture. Sitting Bull's forces drove their horses in circles around the defenders, who spent their ammunition ineffectively.

 

In a modern plane-on-ship engagement, the 30:1 speed ratio forces the ship to assume the role of static defender, regardless of actual force strength. The plane can drive in circles around the ship just inside SAM maximum range, and the ship will fire the SAMs. At this point, the plane can simply escape outside of SAM maximum range and repeat the process until all the SAMs are used up. Then the ship is meat.

 

What I described in the previous paragraph is what happens in Harpoon. If this is what happens in real life, well and good. If this is not what happens in real life, then it needs to be considered a flaw with Harpoon (a bug ?), and I wanted to raise it here rather than in a public forum. However, I think that this behaviour actually should happen in real life, because that plane could very easily be carrying nasty ordnance, and it is trying to get close enough to the ship to use it.

 

The tactic described above is pretty nasty, and pretty obvious. However, the Harpoon battlespace is 3-dimensional, even if we only see a 2-dimensional representation of it. The tactic can also be applied in the vertical dimension.

 

Many anti-ship missiles can be fired over-the-horizon: the launching platform (especially if a ship) does not ever need to have radar LOS to the target. On the other hand, many SAMs do require the launching platform to have radar LOS to the target, especially near the intercept. Radar LOS is affected by the geometry of the Earth: if the target is far enough away and low enough, the target will be outside the radar LOS. This becomes much more relevent as technology advances, because the fuel range of the SAMs increases, while planes become more able to safely fly at VL altitude.

 

In the Vertical Little Bighorn Attack, the plane drives in at VL altitude to fairly near the ship. 25 nm is the approximate ship-VL radar horizon, and 30 nm is a good working distance for this tactic. You should only do this with planes than can safely fly that low, such as the Su-30MK2. The plane pops up to low altitude. The ship can now see the plane and shoots some SAMs. The plane goes back to VL, where the ship can no longer see it. The missile loses tracking and whizzes by above the plane. Repeat the process until all the SAMs are used up.

 

There are 4 cases to consider.

 

1) The tactic described in the previous paragraph is the way it happens in real life and in Harpoon (I haven't actually tested it). Well and good.

2) It doesn't happen like that, either in real life or in Harpoon. Well and good, except that I am wrong again.

3) It happens like that in real life but not in Harpoon. That's a flaw in Harpoon.

4) It happens like that in Harpoon but not in real life. That's a flaw in Harpoon, and using this tactic would be a sleazy exploitation of a hole in the game.

 

I do think that the real life process should happen as I have described it, because the plane may very well be trying to do something damaging to the ship from low altitude that it can't do at VL. In particular, the Su-30MK2 is attempting to attack with YJ-91 ARMs, which have a minimum flight altitude of low. I believe that these missiles can't actually be launched from VL altitude (I could easily be wrong). On the other hand, the SAM computer should realize that the plane can always escape, so the SAMs should never be launched in this situation in real life.

 

So there are some serious questions here which I am hoping the experts can answer for me.

[CV32]

Hehe, "Vertical Little Bighorn Attack"? Okay.

 

Its a flaw in computer Harpoon, been around from the beginning, just like similar flaws in probably every other computer/simulation that ever existed.

 

I suppose it will stay there, in some version or another, until a true "AI" comes along. (But of course we run the risk of Skynet. )

 

Air launched anti-ship attacks don't happen like this in real life, because (1) the strikers lack the endurance to hang around and play "chicken" with the target; (2) most anti-ship attacks are successful because they surprise the target; (3) strikers are usually vulnerable to intercept by defensive counter-air (i.e. enemy fighters), and hanging around, advertising their presence tends to attract their attention; and (4) the brass frowns on pilots playing risky games with their multi-million dollar aircraft and their schedules.

 

These and myriad other real life factors are only accounted for in the most rudimentary way by Harpoon (and, I must add, most other games/simulations). Just the nature of the beast.

[Warhorse64]

Hmmm ... I'm fairly sure that I recall Tony telling us that once the SAM launches, it will track its target even if that target drops below the horizon from the launcher, which would handily (albeit unrealistically) negate this tactic. Tony ... ?

[eclipse_trb]

The game seems to launch when aircraft enter 3/4 range this is the case even if its air vs air or sam launch. The way I have tried to experiment is with picket ships. U put one or two medium range sam ships in an outer ring like you would find in real life and it will play havoc with this tactic because the player has a harder time gauging when he is entering sam range.

[CV32]

Hmmm ... I'm fairly sure that I recall Tony telling us that once the SAM launches, it will track its target even if that target drops below the horizon from the launcher, which would handily (albeit unrealistically) negate this tactic. Tony ... ?

 

Yes, that's true. If I recall correctly, we introduced that behavior somewhere along the way, maybe with a reduced hit percentage but I can't recall exactly. (I'm trying to keep in mind that VitP is playing with an old version of Harpoon Classic).

 

I guess the point I was making is that there will be always ways and tricks to defeat the computer AI.

 

Zooming to high altitude and afterburner was one way of defeating air-to-air missiles, for example. We got rid of that one too. I am sure a few still persist.

[VictorInThePacific]

(I'm trying to keep in mind that VitP is playing with an old version of Harpoon Classic).

 

Actually, having seen how different the 2 versions are, I am pretty careful to not base any suggestions or analysis on Harpoon Classic unless I explicitly state it and warn people.

 

I have only come up with the vertical version of the Little Bighorn Attack in the past 24 hours. It doesn't work well in HC because there are very few planes that can safely fly at VL, and SAM range is relatively short. I may try it out in that game if I have the chance.

 

Unfortunately, I can't access Harpoon Commander's Edition right now, otherwise I would have tested this.

 

Maybe someone can quickly create a scenario with an Arleigh Burke and a Flanker C, fly the the Flankler in to 30 nm at VL, pop up to low to provoke a SAM launch, then go back to VL to see if the plane survives?

[VictorInThePacific]

The game seems to launch when aircraft enter 3/4 range this is the case even if its air vs air or sam launch. The way I have tried to experiment is with picket ships. U put one or two medium range sam ships in an outer ring like you would find in real life and it will play havoc with this tactic because the player has a harder time gauging when he is entering sam range.

 

In the unit window, click on the plane and on the ship. The game will tell you the range. You can then set a course in the unit window, which was not possible in HC. The course command dialog will tell you how far you are moving along a particular leg.

 

Seems like this should work, unfortunately I cannot test it personally at present.

[CV32]

Maybe someone can quickly create a scenario with an Arleigh Burke and a Flanker C, fly the the Flankler in to 30 nm at VL, pop up to low to provoke a SAM launch, then go back to VL to see if the plane survives?

 

Don't need to test it. A SAM that cannot otherwise shoot at you at Vlow, can shoot at you at Low and then follow you down and attack you at Vlow. The only part I can't recall right now is whether we introduced a reduction in the pH.

[TonyE]

Don't need to test it. A SAM that cannot otherwise shoot at you at Vlow, can shoot at you at Low and then follow you down and attack you at Vlow. The only part I can't recall right now is whether we introduced a reduction in the pH.

 

No reduction in PH in that situation.

[VictorInThePacific]

a scenario with an Arleigh Burke and a Flanker C, fly the the Flanker in to 30 nm at VL, pop up to low to <launch its ordnance>, then go back to VL to see if the plane survives?

 

A SAM that cannot otherwise shoot at you at Vlow, can shoot at you at Low and then follow you down and attack you at Vlow.

 

Thanks, guys, for clarifying that.

 

I will still be including this as part of my attack plan; I will just be ensuring that the SAMs will be too busy with other targets to deal with my now-weaponless and fleeing Flanker.

 

For example, a bunch of Flankers are waiting ("parked") at VL at 30 nm, below the ship's radar horizon and perfectly safe. A wave of cruise missiles sweeps by at VL. The SAM batteries launch to the ship's control limit (20). The SAMs can't shoot for the next 30 s. The Flankers pop up to low and launch their ARMs, dropping back below the ship's radar horizon before any SAMs are available. Since the Flankers are never exposed while any SAMs are available, they are at all times completely invulnerable. I don't even need to use the fact that there will be plenty of higher-priority targets than some weaponless, retreating airplanes.

 

Speaking of priorities, can someone please tell me, when a SAM has a range of targets to choose from, how does it choose? Eg. biggest missile, closest missile, least time to intercept, least time to hit ship, ...

[VictorInThePacific]

I have been thinking about this a little bit more, and it seems to me, one day after having coined the name "Vertical Little Bighorn Attack", that I was being somewhat silly.

 

This is by no means a new tactic. This is simply a pop-up attack.

 

The concept of using terrain to defeat a target's defenses is completely standard for attack aircraft, even if the only available terrain is the curvature of the Earth.

_________________________________________________________________________

 

I do tend to be somewhat silly in the use of language, but I am not apologizing for that. For example, I will say, "Bring your airplanes in and park them in such-and-such a location." Now, obviously, I understand that you can't just "park" an airplane somewhere (with certain exceptions). However, we do know that, in real life, once a target has been identified, hopefully with as much information about it, such as the exact formation, location, course, and so forth, being known, then a whole bunch of people will sit down, work out a detailed attack plan, and tell the various assigned assets to fly on very specific paths to the target, arriving as close to the plan and schedule as possible, and attack in a coordinated way. In the case of a coordinated strike, there will very often be at least one assembly area as part of that plan. That assembly area may well be very close to the target.

 

How many Harpoon players want to bother themselves with all these details? Answer: zero, or close to zero. So I say, bring your airplanes in, and "park" them nearby until all your assets have arrived and are positioned where you want them. If you look at the Harpoon situation at any point during this process, it may look very unrealistic. But if you compare the overall result to real life ("against such-and-such a target, I brought such-and-such assets in, attacked in such-and-such a manner, and achieved such-and-such a result"), it hopefully will be very realistic. That is what we are trying to achieve.

 

One unrealistic aspect of "parking" a plane and "waiting" is that, as I understand it, in real life, a plane hardly ever flies with the maximum amount of fuel. Instead, it is given as much fuel as it will reasonably need for that particular mission. So loitering somewhere may well not be possible, unless that is built into the mission. However, to make this perfectly realistic in Harpoon, it will be necessary to work out detailed flight plans for all the assets involved, with various launch times, yada yada, and who will play the game then?

[CV32]

I have been thinking about this a little bit more, and it seems to me, one day after having coined the name "Vertical Little Bighorn Attack", that I was being somewhat silly. This is by no means a new tactic. This is simply a pop-up attack. The concept of using terrain to defeat a target's defenses is completely standard for attack aircraft, even if the only available terrain is the curvature of the Earth.

 

I do tend to be somewhat silly in the use of language, but I am not apologizing for that. For example, I will say, "Bring your airplanes in and park them in such-and-such a location." Now, obviously, I understand that you can't just "park" an airplane somewhere (with certain exceptions). However, we do know that, in real life, once a target has been identified, hopefully with as much information about it, such as the exact formation, location, course, and so forth, being known, then a whole bunch of people will sit down, work out a detailed attack plan, and tell the various assigned assets to fly on very specific paths to the target, arriving as close to the plan and schedule as possible, and attack in a coordinated way. In the case of a coordinated strike, there will very often be at least one assembly area as part of that plan. That assembly area may well be very close to the target.

 

How many Harpoon players want to bother themselves with all these details? Answer: zero, or close to zero. So I say, bring your airplanes in, and "park" them nearby until all your assets have arrived and are positioned where you want them. If you look at the Harpoon situation at any point during this process, it may look very unrealistic. But if you compare the overall result to real life ("against such-and-such a target, I brought such-and-such assets in, attacked in such-and-such a manner, and achieved such-and-such a result"), it hopefully will be very realistic. That is what we are trying to achieve.

 

One unrealistic aspect of "parking" a plane and "waiting" is that, as I understand it, in real life, a plane hardly ever flies with the maximum amount of fuel. Instead, it is given as much fuel as it will reasonably need for that particular mission. So loitering somewhere may well not be possible, unless that is built into the mission. However, to make this perfectly realistic in Harpoon, it will be necessary to work out detailed flight plans for all the assets involved, with various launch times, yada yada, and who will play the game then?

 

All well said.

[VictorInThePacific]

A SAM that cannot otherwise shoot at you at Vlow, can shoot at you at Low and then follow you down and attack you at Vlow.

a bunch of Flankers are waiting ("parked") at VL at 30 nm, below the ship's radar horizon and perfectly safe.

 

One more question to clarify this:

 

The Flanker is sitting there, below the ship's radar horizon, believing itself to be perfectly safe. However, a Sentry nearby can see the Flanker very well. So the Sentry asks the ship to fire a couple of SM-2s. The ship complies. Now that the SM-2s are in the air, they do not need to worry about the ship's radar horizon. So the Flanker is meat. Is this correct?

 

If it is correct, then what about the 100 sea-skimming cruise missiles that are approaching my fleet, all below the radar horizon of any of the ships, all clearly seen by the Sentry? Can the SM-2s shoot at them? How many? Who is controlling the SM-2s?

[CV32]

One more question to clarify this: The Flanker is sitting there, below the ship's radar horizon, believing itself to be perfectly safe. However, a Sentry nearby can see the Flanker very well. So the Sentry asks the ship to fire a couple of SM-2s. The ship complies. Now that the SM-2s are in the air, they do not need to worry about the ship's radar horizon. So the Flanker is meat. Is this correct?

 

Is it technically correct? No.

 

The SM-2 is semi-active radar guided in the terminal phase. It still needs the SPG-62 director aboard the ship to point its radar beam at the target in the final moments of the engagement.

 

If the target is not in the director's LOS, there can be no terminal guidance and therefore no successful intercept.

[Warhorse64]

A SAM that cannot otherwise shoot at you at Vlow, can shoot at you at Low and then follow you down and attack you at Vlow.

a bunch of Flankers are waiting ("parked") at VL at 30 nm, below the ship's radar horizon and perfectly safe.

 

One more question to clarify this:

 

The Flanker is sitting there, below the ship's radar horizon, believing itself to be perfectly safe. However, a Sentry nearby can see the Flanker very well. So the Sentry asks the ship to fire a couple of SM-2s. The ship complies. Now that the SM-2s are in the air, they do not need to worry about the ship's radar horizon. So the Flanker is meat. Is this correct?

 

If it is correct, then what about the 100 sea-skimming cruise missiles that are approaching my fleet, all below the radar horizon of any of the ships, all clearly seen by the Sentry? Can the SM-2s shoot at them? How many? Who is controlling the SM-2s?

 

I'm not positive, but I think (in game) the launcher needs to have LOS to the target in order to launch, but the SAM will continue to pursue thereafter even if the launcher loses LOS before impact.