First light. Light rain falling. An Argentinean DDG (Destroyer?) is sitting 3.0nm off the coast of the falklands. A Tornado (don't ask, just accept its there) is coming in at NOE (90m high) from over the land to attack her. The Tornado plans to approach to within 5.0nm and make a lob-toss attack using 2 Mk82 general purpose dumb bombs.

 

My first task was to determine detection ranges for each. This ended up being interesting. The Tornado is flying at NOE (90m) and can detect the Hercules DDG (small target) at 16.0nm. However due to 4.2.5.2 land mass effects the range is halved to 8.0nm.

 

4.2.5.4 rain effects shows that light rain reduces Pd by 10% and a 25% range deduction. So the Tornado can expect to pick up the Hercules at 8.0nm x .75 = 6.0nm.

 

For the Hercules, its most powerful radar can detect the Tornado (Medium target) at 124nm. Land effect halves this to 62.0nm and finally rain @75% to 46.5nm. I found it interesting the aircraft is a larger target size than the destroyer ship. Anyone like to comment?

 

The Tornado is travelling at full military power and 650kts (2.7nm per 30 second turn). This is also the highest speed it can travel at NOE due to 3.3.4.1.

 

The Tornado enters the game area at a range of 50.0nm. 3 minutes later the range has closed to 17.5nm. The Tornado is not able to detect the Destroyer yet but the Destroyer has a 90% chance of detecting the inbound plane, and does.

 

Two and a half minutes later and the range is 4.0nm. The Tornados radar had a 60% chance to detect the Hercules last turn and failed. There was no visual sighting opportunity.

 

This engagement (30 second) turn.

Distance closes to 2.7nm.

 

Hercules fires its 114mm guns at the Tornado and has a 10% chance of hitting (no modifiers and 10% is the lowest chance anyway). The 114mm misses. Given the range is now less than 3.0nm the Tornado is effectively over the sea.

 

Air attack is not possible since the Tornado has not sighted the Destroyer.

 

Detect phase and the Tornado has another 60% chance to detect and ... does. Question though: could the Tornado perform a lob toss attack without the radar picking up the destroyer? 4.5.2 visual sighting means the Tornado did have a visual on the Destroyer if that matters.

 

2nd Move and the distance closes to 1.4nm.

 

2nd fire and the Destroyer fires 114mm and this time has a 35% chance of hitting (misses).

2nd fire and the Tornado does its lob/toss thing. Minimum engagement range is 1.0nm so its close! 6.3.4.1.4 says "... only one air to ground weapon can be lofted in each attack". Does this mean only 1 of the Mk 82 bombs can be lofted? Or does the rule mean only one TYPE can be used? Or only 1 "stick" at a time?

 

The lob-toss calc is low altitude dive bomb against a small target of .33 multiplied by 0.15 for the lob-toss (wow, thats a huge negative modifier!!!) giving a 5% chance of a hit. Then rain reduces the Pd by 10% which would make it negative 5% to hit or i'll go with 1%.

 

At this point the Tornado is facing 180 degrees away from the destroyer and trying to get away as fast as he can. I didnt bother rolling to see if he hit with his two bombs.

 

 

 

Closing comments

4.2.4.5 = TF = Terrain following radar. These allow planes to fly at NOE without restrictions.

3.3.4.1 = Very low altitude is sea level up to 30m. While NOE is 30m up to 100m.

I cannot find any benefits anyway to having a TF radar. Can anyone else? Or does "without restrictions" mean no rolls are required on the page 3-8 "Very Low/NOE Crash table"? And i think i found my own answer in the 3rd paragraph of 3.3.4.1.3 ... chance plane will crash unless equiped with terrain following radar".

Or is it 3.3.4.2 "... low altitued ... over land ... naked eye (visability 25% or more) ... or TF radar". Which just means a plane with TF can fly at low altitude in any conditions (ie night time)?

 

If a ship for example has two kinds of SS radar, can it make 2 detection rolls using the capabilities of each radar to detect a single target?

 

I've always wondered whats the better aircraft, the Tornado or F-15. I thought the F-15 would be the better air to air fighter (and it is, depending on types i have it as 4.0 for the F-15 and 3.0 for the Tornado). But which is the better in the ground attack role??? From using H4.1 i would say the F-15 is better because whereas the Tornado can only use Mk 81 & 82 "dumb bombs" the F-15 can use a variety of guided weapons (I'm thinking AGM-65) which have a better chance of hitting and much longer engagement ranges. Both aircraft have the best bombsite of advanced. But whereas the Tornado has to use some form of bombing table the F-15 has the option of using guided weapons.

An advantage the Tornado has is its Terrain Following radar, which really helps (can fly at NOE over land which halves radar range against you) when you need to approach so close to a target to deliver your bombs.

I checked out the AGM-65 to hit chance against the same small target and found the chance was 33 less 10 for rain. Is this 33-10 = 23% or 33 x 0.9 = 30% though?

The F-15 radar has longer range. Both have 3G countermeasures, which makes sense when you consider both are expected to infiltrate enemy airspace to attack ground targets.

Hi KC,

 

Just a few answers/comments so far:

 

First, are you using radar data from either High Tide Data Annex or the Smarter Radar article (data is one in the same). It is the most up to date compilation of radar and it takes into consideration the differing radar cross sections of, for example, both Large Ships and Large Aircraft. If you do not have High Tide, pull the smarter radar doc from here Smarter Radar

 

Second: Which resource are you pulling the data for your Tornado and Hercules DD? I looked at the Tornado GR.4 from High Tide and its "Tornado Nose Radar". The "TNR" has both AI and SS/TF capabilities. In SS/TF it will detect a small surface platform at 51nm. 4.2.5.2 Land Mass Effect only effect, to my understanding of it, only surface radar that have a land mass on the radar "line of sight" of both the radar and the contact (i.e. radar -----> contact -----> land mass). Air Radar should not have that restriction.

 

Rain would reduce the range by 25% and the pD by 10%. Tonado Nose Radar Range vs Small Surface Contact = 51nm *.75 = 38.25nm or just 38nm.

 

You appear to correct with the max speed during NOE flight.

 

More to follow tonight or over the next few days.

 

Game On,

 

Pete

I found it interesting the aircraft is a larger target size than the destroyer ship. Anyone like to comment?

I think is a representation of the "embedding" of the ship in the sea, radar must discriminate between the ship signal and the clutter effect of wawes and the continuos of the sea surface.

The aircraft, on opposite, is a clear target flying, without entouring elements with clutter effect.

I found it interesting the aircraft is a larger target size than the destroyer ship. Anyone like to comment?

I think is a representation of the "embedding" of the ship in the sea, radar must discriminate between the ship signal and the clutter effect of wawes and the continuos of the sea surface.

The aircraft, on opposite, is a clear target flying, without entouring elements with clutter effect.

 

 

Please see Page 1 of Smarter (and Simpler) Radar in Harpoon4, page one, column 1 bottom: "what we are changing"

 

"First, we're changing the standard RCS sizes. We were overrating the signatures, and we're also (finally) recognizing that a large ship and a large aircraft do not have the same radar cross-section (Hint: ships are bigger - much bigger)....From now on, we'll calculate air search radar ranges using a standard air target. Surface search radar ranges will be calculated using the standard surface target."

 

The previous RCS method was apparently too generic. Not any more.

 

Fianlly the radar performance ratings in the High Tide Data Annex are the most up to date and are repeated in the Smarter Radar article for those not having High Tide...yet. I posted the link to the article on the clash of arms website in an earlier post to this thread.

Also depends on which Data Annex you are using and for which year the scenario takes place for which weapons are available. You mentioned Mk 82 series which were only used on German and Italian Tornadoes.

 

For example:

 

UK Tornado GR.1. In Service: June 1982

Initial weapons: AIM-9L, Sky Shadow ECM pod, BOZ-107 decoy pod, Mk 13/18 1000 lb bomb, BL.755 cluster bomb

Others: WE177B/C nuclear bomb (later in 1982, retired Mar 98); JP.233 (Apr 85, retired 98); ALARM (Jan 93); TIALD, Paveway II (UK) (1993); GP.1 recon pod (late 94); GBU-24 Paveway III (BLU-109, Sep 95)

 

UK Tornado GR.1B. In Service: 1994-00

As GR.1 plus Sea Eagle antishipping missiles (retired 1998)

 

UK Tornado GR.4

Waaaay too many weapons and dates to list, but plenty of precision guided weapons such as Brimstone, Storm Shadow cruise missiles.

I worked up a Tornado GR.4 (from H4.1 Data Annex, Radar from Smarter Radar) and the Type 42 DDG ARA Hercules (from SAW2, Radar from Smarter Radar).

 

GR.4 loaded out with 8x Mk83, 1x Sky Shadow ECM Pod (Defensive Jamming, no effect against AS Radar), and BOZ 107 Chaff and IR Flare Dispenser.

 

The Radar Line of Sight for a small platform to an aircraft at VLow/NOE is 22nm.

 

Still getting hung up on the cumulative effects of VLow/NOE Flight, Light Rain, and Land Mass Effects.

 

In Smarter Radar, I see that the Type 42's Radar 965M (max air detection range 174nm) would be reduced to 10% of max air range, or 17.4nm. Smarter Radar shows no effect to the Tornado Nose Radar in Surface Search, vs the small Type 42; detection out to 51nm.

 

In 4.2.5.4 Rain Effects, I see Light Rain reduces the pD by 10% and reduces the range by 25%. Does that reduce the Radar 965M to 4.35nm? Does it reduce the Tornado Nose Radar to 38.3nm? Since I still like to roll for detection it would be 80% for Tactical Turn Detection and 50% for Engagement Turn Detection.

 

Would 4.2.5.2 Land Mass Effects then halve that to the Radar 965M to 2.2nm? I do not think the Land Mass Effects would effect the Tornado.

 

Pete

Poking around here I found the answer for the effects of the Tornados VLow/NOE flight and Land Mass Effects on the Type 42's Radar 965M. Per Dave Schueler in Msg #588 on Consimworld's Harpoon 4 Folder and repeated here a number of years ago (2005).

 

The Radar 965M's detection range of 174nm vs a large air target such as the Tornado GR.4 would be *10% or 17.4nm, then halved for the Land Mass Effects (GR.4 is coming out to the destroyer from landside) to 8.7nm. Would I be correct in assuming then Light Rain would bring on a 25% reduction in range and a 10% reduction in the chance of detection? So a final Radar 965M vs the VLow/NOE GR.4 coming out from land and in light rain would be 6.5nm?

 

The GR.4 does not have any ESM other that RWR which will only detect targeting radar, not Air Search. The Type 42 has 2nd Generation ESM so it should be able to passively detect the Tornado Nose Radar out to 27nm, so it may know tonados are out there.

Wow, never conducted a lob-toss attack before and kinda know why.

 

First light. Light rain falling. An Argentinean DDG (Destroyer?) is sitting 3.0nm off the coast of the falklands. A Tornado (don't ask, just accept its there) is coming in at NOE (90m high) from over the land to attack her. The Tornado plans to approach to within 5.0nm and make a lob-toss attack using 2 Mk82 general purpose dumb bombs.

 

My Tornado GR.4, although it carried 8x Mk83 it does appear to be limited to releasing only a single bomb in the Lob Toss Attack rule.

 

My first task was to determine detection ranges for each. This ended up being interesting. The Tornado is flying at NOE (90m) and can detect the Hercules DDG (small target) at 16.0nm. However due to 4.2.5.2 land mass effects the range is halved to 8.0nm.

 

4.2.5.4 rain effects shows that light rain reduces Pd by 10% and a 25% range deduction. So the Tornado can expect to pick up the Hercules at 8.0nm x .75 = 6.0nm.

 

For the Hercules, its most powerful radar can detect the Tornado (Medium target) at 124nm. Land effect halves this to 62.0nm and finally rain @75% to 46.5nm. I found it interesting the aircraft is a larger target size than the destroyer ship. Anyone like to comment?

 

I will offer my ranges based upon Smarter Radar and the evironmental effects. Tornado would be able to attempt detection of the "small" Type 42 destroyer at 38.3nm and the Type 42 could only attempt to detect the "large" Tornado at 6.5nm. My caluclations are spelled out in a message above this one.

 

The Tornado is travelling at full military power and 650kts (2.7nm per 30 second turn). This is also the highest speed it can travel at NOE due to 3.3.4.1.

 

It would actually be 2.7nm per each Engagement Turn Movement Phase (1st and 2nd).

 

The Tornado enters the game area at a range of 50.0nm. 3 minutes later the range has closed to 17.5nm. The Tornado is not able to detect the Destroyer yet but the Destroyer has a 90% chance of detecting the inbound plane, and does.

 

My Tornado is undetected, even failing in its attempts to detect the destroyer. My clock began at 1500 and a distance of 50nm. The destroyer was detected at 1504.0. The range at that point was 9.4nm.

 

At 1504.5 the range was 4.0nm. In the 1st fire Phase, the Tornado conducted a lob toss of 1x Mk83. Using Dive Bomb Low Altitude Chart, and cross referencing the Advanced Bomb Sight and Small Target, the Ph is as you calculated 33%. The lob toss Ph is then modified by *.15 reducing the pH to 5%, Not Good. The rain effect the Pd of radar, not the Ph of the attack. Laser Guided Bombs are not negatively modified in Lob Toss, only restriction is that the launcher cannot self-designate.

 

Since there was rain, the GR.4's FLIR cannot provide for passive Terrain Following so my Experienced Pilot had to successfully roll on the unmodified VLow/NOE Crash Table.

 

I'll see if I can try again later with the GR.4 coming in at Low. It will definitely increase the detection chances of the Type 42's Radar 965M and make it a little more dicey for the Tornado. Perhaps he'll bring some friends this time.

 

4.2.4.5 = TF = Terrain following radar. These allow planes to fly at NOE without restrictions.

3.3.4.1 = Very low altitude is sea level up to 30m. While NOE is 30m up to 100m.

I cannot find any benefits anyway to having a TF radar. Can anyone else? Or does "without restrictions" mean no rolls are required on the page 3-8 "Very Low/NOE Crash table"? And i think i found my own answer in the 3rd paragraph of 3.3.4.1.3 ... chance plane will crash unless equiped with terrain following radar".

Or is it 3.3.4.2 "... low altitued ... over land ... naked eye (visability 25% or more) ... or TF radar". Which just means a plane with TF can fly at low altitude in any conditions (ie night time)?

 

No rolling on the crash table. I'll look for more benefits and comment later.

 

If a ship for example has two kinds of SS radar, can it make 2 detection rolls using the capabilities of each radar to detect a single target?

 

Yes, but the other AS radar on the Type 42 is blah.

 

 

 

Pete

A little digital motivation

 

It was a german Tornado i used from H4.1. And yeahhhhh, with some further reading i've found the Tornado has quite a selection of weapon outfits.

 

Lob-toss is hardly worth it if you can only "throw" one bomb at a time ... you need to do 6 or more approach and throws just to drop your load. I read in a mag about a plane doing this in an African war ... i hope i can find it to confirm.

 

I will need to be more specific where i am getting my info from, you guys have way more access to data than me & i need to be clear where mine is coming from.

 

I still think hte Tornado is a good looking aircraft.

Lob-toss is hardly worth it if you can only "throw" one bomb at a time ... you need to do 6 or more approach and throws just to drop your load. I read in a mag about a plane doing this in an African war ... i hope i can find it to confirm.

 

I can't see why you couldn't lob toss more than one bomb at a time if they are coming off individual pylons, i.e. one bomb from one wing and one from the other.

 

However, multiple bombs coming off the same pylon might mutually interfere with one another?

I posted a request for some elaboration over on the Yahoo Admiralty Trilogy Group and Mr. Brooks Rowlett offered something to the effect of that the profile was designed for nuclear weapon delivery, and in in the conventional mode the chance of the bombs colliding and imapcting their trajectory is too great.

 

All I do know is that will be my first and only attempt at Lob-Toss in H4.1.

... the profile was designed for nuclear weapon delivery ...

 

Yes. No one wants to be anywhere nearby when one of those puppies goes off.

 

... and in the conventional mode the chance of the bombs colliding and imapcting their trajectory is too great.

 

I can see why this would be an SOP, but I'd say it could be done if the bombs were being released from widely spaced pylons, e.g. on either wing.

 

All I do know is that will be my first and only attempt at Lob-Toss in H4.1.

 

Hehe. True, there are more effective means of delivery.

"I read in a mag about a plane doing this in an African war ..."

 

Yip kcdusk you're right, the toss bombing technique was employed by the South African Air Force's Mirage F.1AZ and Buccaneer S.Mk.50.

 

According to one of the pilots that flew in the bush war Col. Dick Lord who wrote a book about his experiences with the Mirage F.1AZ called "Vlamgatte" (loosely translated as Flaming Ass due to obvious reasons...) toss bombing was conducted with a MER on the center station loaded with four Mk82 500lb LDGP Bombs or CB470 Cluster Bombs. Whether the Buccs actually tossed bombs from the bombay is another question.

 

Thought you might find this interesting.