My initial idea was to see the effect of various different units carrying out an attack against an airfield. In my mind I viewed the airfield as an isolated not-well equipped one somewhere in Africa (think the book/movie “Wild Geese”).

 

Then I decided that the airfield consisted of a few different things, and I planned to have each of my attack craft deal with different layers of the airfield. So I rolled what I wanted to do up into a single planned attack against the same airfield in this AAR.

 

I’ve drawn up a map of an airfield on graph paper. Each square is 50 yards. There is a runway 2km long, single radar (single square) control tower (single square), 2 x hardened aircraft shelters 100 x 150 yards) a maintenance shed 200 feet square, 3x 50 yard square magazine buildings, 2 x AAA units (20mm boffers) a Crotale SAM unit and a parked up APC.

 

The Page 6-18 “Miss Magnitude Table” is calculated in yards so that’s why my map unit of measure ended up being yards.

 

I decided the first thing to be dealt with was the first layer of the airfield, specifically the SAM and 3xAA boffors. Two F-15’s raced in at low altitude and fired 2 AGM-65’s each from a range of 12 miles. 4x 3rd generation missiles roared in to attack the very small targets. Using Aircraft Bombing Tables at 6-12 each missile had a 70% chance to hit and destroy. Each of the 4 missiles found their targets before any of them could return fire themselves (Crotale SAM had the longest range of 5.5nm but by my calcs didn’t have enough time to fire between picking up the incoming AGS and the fire order). 2 of the 4 missiles were fired against the Crotale SAM because that was seen as the largest threat. And firing two was some insurance in case of a miss.

 

Next a B-52 bomber howled over at medium altitude dropping 51 x 750kg bombs against the runway (medium target size per 6.3.5.3.2). This works out to be 8 sticks of 6 individual bombs, and a final stick of 3. Using the same Aircraft Bombing Tables at 6-12 the chance to hit was 5% (computing guidance at medium altitude) plus 8% (for the 8 sticks) giving 13%.

 

Referencing the 13% against stick size of 6 on page 6-14 shows theres a 57% chance of 1 bomb finding the target, 18% for 2 bombs and 3% for 1 bomb to hit the airfield. Because 8 of these sticks were dropped, my understanding is I can roll 8 times using these numbers. Rolls of 90, 80, 55 (1 hit), 12 (2 hits) and 30 (1 hit) means that 4 bombs so far have hit the runway.

 

I am not sure how to determine if “cuts” have occurred as per 6.3.5.3.2. I may need to check Annex G5.

 

Finally, the B-52 also had a final stick of 3 bombs to drop however all missed.

 

Despite not knowing the result of the cuts to the runway, with the AA gear destroyed 2x Apache attack helicopters came in to rake what was left of the airfield. The choppers couldn’t do much against the runway itself regardless of the result of the B-52, so they will confine their attacks to destroying the radar which is seen as more important than the control tower. Destroying the control tower halves landing and take off rates. But destroying the radar halves the landing rate only but there are no landings possible at all if visibility is down to 1.0nm (so in my mind no landings at night).

 

I have not played out the Apache attacks yet. But I am pretty sure they will use the bottom right hand side details on page 6-12 of the Aircraft Bombing Tables. They will try and take out the radar and magazines.

 

I also need to finish the B-52 bombing run using 6.3.5.2 misses against land targets to see where the B-52 misses landed on my graph pad map. Perhaps some other targets will be hit. This could change the targets of the attack choppers (and finally my map in yards will be useful!).

 

Going forward, the next time I do something similar to this I would give the airfield a better radar than the bog standard one it had, to ensure it does pick up the incoming aircraft and I can play through the rules of a SAM verse F-15 or similar.

 

And maybe make sure one AA gun remains unaffected to see how it deals with aircraft also.

 

Sorry for so many rules references but I do so because I am still new to the rules and maybe someone will pick me up on something. Or maybe another newbie will come along and they can see how or why I am doing what I have done.

Hi KC,

 

Quite an attack. While I do not have my rules with me, I would only bring up a questions

 

About the F-15's attacking the croatale missile battery. Was the missile battery detected prior to launching the mavericks? Perhaps you gamed a ground spotter with eyes on?

 

Medium altitude for B-52's just seems "low" for them at first read. I have never employed B-52's in H4 so I could be way way off on this. I imagine them well up in the air, with them being long gone by the time the bombs they dropped hit the target.

 

There are a few most likely flawed examples here in the three H4 subfolders of my attempts to engage low to moderate air defenses in the 2005-2007 time frame as well as the French air strike on an airfield from just a few months back.

 

Good Gaming,

 

Pete

Yeah, i thought medium was too low an altitude for the B52s also. I cant remember my reasoning but i will get the write up out and see what i was thinking.

 

The air crews had a fully detailed plan of the airfield (i assumed some team on the ground had recc'ed it out). There were no "lasers" or infra red though. I just assumed the incoming F15s knew where the SAM was and fired to hit it - i'm wondering now if i have done this right? How does a F15 flying in "see" a small target??? Its not like they would have allot of time.

 

I am not sure how to determine if “cuts” have occurred as per 6.3.5.3.2. I may need to check Annex G5. - i will do this today.

 

All in all this was a pretty simple scenario because in the end there was no opposition. But it gave me a chance to work the bombing tables. I hope to rachet up the difficulty very soon.

How does a F15 flying in "see" a small target??? Its not like they would have allot of time.

 

4.5.2 Sighting From Aircraft to the Surface: Takes a little tweaking to pigeon hole ground units or installations

4.5.3 Seeing Aircraft form the Surface or Air

4.5.5 Effects of Weather and Light

4.5.6 Visiaiblity Variations

4.5.8 Identifying Visual Contacts

4.6 Infrared Sensors

4.6.2 Airborne Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR)

4.8 Laser Sensors

 

 

 

Then

6.3.5 Air Attacks on Land Targets

6.3.5.3 Attacks on Airfields

6.3.5.3.3 General Attacks (and the General Attack Table on Page 6-20)

6.4.1.2 Surface-to-Air Missiles

The General Attack Table on Page 6-20 lists many if not all of the ground targets that one would find on or around an airfield. Lets take a crotale "platoon". Global Security states "A typical platoon consists of one Acquisition and Co-ordination Unit (ACU) and two to three firing units, with a battery having two platoons. The system cannot operate on the move, but takes less than 5 minutes to become operational once it has stopped." global security crotale.

 

So that would be a 3-4 vehicles. I'd venture that per the General Attack Table each vehicle of this platoon would be APC/Mobile SAM Launcher; 5 Damage Points, Light Armor, Small Size, and Destroyed on a Critical Hit result.

 

A High Tide F-15E is Medium/Medium and has among its sensors FLIR, LANTIRN Nav and Targeting Pod which provide terrain following radar and LRMTS, and up up 6x AGM-65 Maverick missiles.

 

Lets say a pair of F-15E's are at 660kts (FMP) and Low Altitude. The Crotale has a 9.7nm detection range against a Large Target. That calculates to 6.1nm versus the medium size/signatured Strike Eagle. The AN/AAQ-14 LANTIRN Navigational and Targeting Pod found in Annex G2 Electronic Air Ornance, see globalsecurity - LANTIRN. I'd venture a guess that it would be a 3rd Generation pod, much like the AAQ-13.

 

FLIR (4.6), it can search for targets in a 12 degree field of view and track/classify in a 3 degree FOV. It has been explained to me that the sensor itself can slew around independent of the aircraft up to 270 degrees. As a 3rd Generation sensor it has an 80% chance to detect a small (Crotale) target at out to 8nm per Tactical Turn, a 50% chance per engagement turn. There can be some degradation due to rain/fog.

 

You may want to take a look at one aircraft act as the spotter/designator and the other conduct the attack since the there is not much of an envelope between when the Crotale can detect versus when the F-15E's can detect. Another option to explore would be for the F-15's to fly above the Max Altitude (Medium)

 

See here for some more discussion on taking down an air defense site and use of a bow-tie pattern for the designator.

you wrote "LANTIRN Nav and Targeting Pod which provide terrain following radar" ... how do you get terrain following from that? From the books/source material or "your equipment knowledge" background?

 

Interesting link you provide ... more thoughts to follow.

you wrote "LANTIRN Nav and Targeting Pod which provide terrain following radar" ... how do you get terrain following from that? From the books/source material or "your equipment knowledge" background?

 

Actually, that's almost a direct quote from the 'Sensors' line of the F-15E description on page B-25 of the H4.1 Data Annexes book:

 

"Senors: APG-70 radar, FLIR, RWR. Can carry LANTIRN Nav and Targeting pods providing terrain-following radar and LRMTS."

Actually, that's almost a direct quote from the 'Sensors' line of the F-15E description on page B-25 of the H4.1 Data Annexes book:

 

Correct!

LANTIRN provides the aircraft with terrain following (not terrain avoidance) capability.

For me, an aircraft with FLIR haves not "per se" NOE capability, no difference for the pilot between visual flight with Mk I eyeball and visual flight with FLIR, the same speed, the same manual control, the same probability of navigational error and crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LANTIRN

I think some years after implementation, LANTIRN navigation and TF pod is discontinuated, modern AESA and PESA radars, like RB2E, APG-77, APG-79, APG-80 ABR, APG-81, have real and simultaneous search and TF capability,without additional antennas or radars (Tornado, F-111, A-6, Su-24 Fencer-D are among the first few aircraft with real TF capability, and they've separate radars and antennas for the TF radar and for the (bigger) search and tracking radar. Terrain following radar contours the ground obstacles, links the aircraft to one predeterminated height over the ground. Terrain avoidance radar only climb the aircraft when it find a ground obstacle, requires manual input to return to NOE flight. One of the first planes with Terrain Avoidance radar was the old faithfull F-105D).

LANTIRN provides the aircraft with terrain following (not terrain avoidance) capability. For me, an aircraft with FLIR haves not "per se" NOE capability, no difference for the pilot between visual flight with Mk I eyeball and visual flight with FLIR, the same speed, the same manual control, the same probability of navigational error and crash.

 

The LANTIRN system's AAQ-13 navigation pod has both a terrain following radar and the FLIR.

Well, now with a better idea of the targeting capbilities of the F-15E as revealed in the APG-70 thread, I got that "plinking" feeling today after running two strikes of just the F-15E vs Crotale portion of your strike. Presuming it was a "pre-planned" mission, the F-15E's had a graphic on the target area at between 37-40nm.

 

Actually gaming from 10nm out (IP Ingress), the LANTIRN was cued by the APG-70 and lazed the target at 8.3nm. The Crotale acquired the strike inside 9.1nm, but cannot engage until max 5.5nm. F-15E's launched in the reation fire phase of the first Engagement Turn. This may not be legal per the rules, pretty certain that it is not, but in the spirit of a pre-planned mission I allowed it...plus it was aweful warm in my car during lunch today Post launch movement of the F-15E's was turning left to skirt the outside of the Croate envelope yet shallow enough of a turn to maintain the target in the aircrafts Forward Arc (270 degrees) believing that is all it takes to allow the targeting pod to maintain LOS.

 

Both run-thoughs had a crotale vehicle eating an AGM-65E. I would randomly roll to see if I in fact got a launcher (.80) or the CCU (.20).

 

Will like to try this with a somewhat less-capable strike aircraft, or have some F-16C/D do the anti-air suppression mission while the Strike Eagles go after a more significant target.

 

Comments please.