The following is half walk through, introductory moves of a scenario being tested.

 

A pair of AV-8B II+'s (section) were patrolling 75nm west of Larak Island@ Medium Altitude, around 5,000', when it's 3rd Generation RWR detects a radar emitting from the island. While the section leader reports in to the Expeditionary Strike Group, they have detected the radar by ESM as well.

 

The section is vectored into conduct a SEAD mission with the 2x AGM-65E Mavericks carried by each Harrier along with Litening II pods.

 

The section descends to Low altitude about 70nm out. The Harriers accelerate to 580kts and at 23nm descend further to VLow. These pilots are veterans and pass their NOE Crash Rolls throughout the mission.

 

At 14nm the harriers begin sighting attempts. The scenario dictates 75% visibility. Spotting a small targets, the launchers and the radar, can begin at 14nm...but...the fact that they are considered moving less than 5kts and camouflaged, the range is halved, then the 75% visibility is applied dropping the sighting range beginning at 5.25nm (a Sigma of 2 was rolled each detection turn) effective putting off a realistic chance for a couple more turns. Just a note, the Opfor can begin to spot small aircraftat 3nm, the fact that the Harriers are flying VLow, the Straight Flush cannot detect them until 2.7nm.

 

At 8nm the 3rd Generation Litening II pod can begin IR detection. I assumed that IR ignores visibility, etc (but not some types of precipitation). In actually it is at 7.2nm that 5 IR Blobs appear (they will be classified at 4nm and must be tracked within a 3 degree FOV).

 

At 4.8nm visual spotting occurs.

 

QUESTION: 4.5.8 Identifying Visual Contacts does not discuss identifying at VLOW, I can understand it being more difficult - opinions?

 

At 4nm the Litening II restricts its FOV and identifies the Straight Flush and one ZU-23 while climbing to Low Altitude.

 

Lead launches 2x AGM-65E's at the Straight Flush while Dash-2 designates the target. After the fact I understand now that only one PGM launches per Engagement Turn Fire Phase. Immediately after launch the section breaks left 20 degrees to avoid flying into the AAA Engagement Envelope and keeping the designated targets within the 135 degrees of the designator's heading.

 

The AGM-65E's have a 70% pH, one miss, one hit delivering 27DP's to destroy the 5DP APC (Straight Flush)

 

One last QUESTION is the action of the SAM's in the 15 second pulse which includes: the Harriers ascending into the Low altitude Band thus being detected by the Straight Flush; and the PGM destroying the radar. I would think that they would have been getting their targeting guidance when suddenly there would have been a tremendous explosion followed by static as the two attackers winged away.

 

Comment please.

Here is the blow by blow of the above described airstrike replayed last night. General Situation remained the same. Comment please.

 

0800 Tactical Turn

Begins turn 70nm out, at 460kts and 5,000’

Plotting Phase: Increase speed to 580kts and descend to 400’ (Low).

Movement Phase: 41nm out, at 580kts and 400’ (Low)

Planned Fire Phase: None

Detection Phase: US – No, Iran – No

Reaction fire Phase – None

 

0803 Tactical Turn

Begins turn 41nm out, at 580kts and 400’ (Low)

Plotting Phase: Maintain speed of 580kts and descend to 90’ (VLow) no closer than 23nm.

Movement Phase: NOE DR, 12nm out, at 580kts and 90’ (VLow)

Planned Fire Phase: None

Detection Phase: US – No, Iran – No

Reaction fire Phase – None

 

0806 Engagement Turn

Begins 12nm out, at 580kts and 90’ (VLow) (2.4nm/phase)

1st Movement Phase: NOE DR, 9.6nm out, 580kts, 90’ (Vlow)

1st Fire Phase: none

1st Air Attack Resolution Phase: none

Detection Phase: US Visual – 14nmx50%x75%=5.25nm Sigma 2, D10, =6.25nm – No. Iran - No

2nd Movement Phase: NOE DR, 7.2nm out, 580kts, 90’ (Vlow)

2nd Fire Phase: none

2nd Air Attack Resolution Phase: none

 

0806.5 Engagement Turn

Begins 7.2nm out, 464kts, 90’ (Vlow) (1.9nm/phase) speed per 3.3.2.1 Speed Change.

1st Movement Phase: NOE DR, 5.3nm out, 464kts, 90’ (Vlow)

1st Fire Phase: none

1st Air Attack Resolution Phase: none

Detection Phase: US Visual – 14nmx50%x75%=5.25nm Sigma 2, D10, =6.25nm – Yes. Litening II Pod (3rd Generation) detects “blobs” representing sites 1,4,5,6,7. Iran - No

2nd Movement Phase: 3.8nm out, decelerate to 348kts (1.5nm/phase) climb to 400’ (Low)

2nd Fire Phase: none

2nd Air Attack Resolution Phase: none

 

0807 Engagement Turn

Begins 3.8 out, at 348kts and 400’ (VLow) (2.4nm/phase)

1st Movement Phase: Decelerate to 232kts, (1.0nm/phase) 2.8nm out, 400’ (Low)

1st Fire Phase: none

1st Air Attack Resolution Phase: none

Detection Phase: US IR defines field of view to 3 degrees, classifies Straght Flush Radar – No. Iran – Visually detects the attacking aircraft.

2nd Movement Phase: 1.8nm out, 232kts, 400’ (Low)

2nd Fire Phase: 2x AGM-65E, Dash-2 is designating the target / cannot launch SA-6b due to minimum range of 2nm, 1x ZU-23 fires on 51-100% column (5%).

2nd Air Attack Resolution Phase: ZU-23 misses

 

0807.5 Engagement Turn

Begins 1.8 out, at 232kts and 400’ (Low)

1st Movement Phase: accelerate maximum allowable to 464kts, Turn Left 120 degrees move 1.9nm (Low), Missiles reach Straight Flush

1st Fire Phase: 4x SA-6b’s are firec

1st Air Attack Resolution Phase: Both AGM-65E’s strike the target with 54DP’s obliterating the 5DP vehicle.

 

Since the SAM's were not to move until the 0807.5 2nd movement Phase I presumed that the SAM’s go stupid due to loss of radar guidance, and probably don’t even leave the rails?

Very nice, Pete. I enjoyed your account of this engagement.

Brad,

 

This was the replayed to ensure that the sequencing within the H4.1 Sequence of playwas correct. I therefore replayed it with all new die rolls etc.

 

Any questions or comments regarding the SAM's inability to engage due to guidance radar detruction, the easing off of the throttle as not to overfly the target before engagement, or any other procedure or tactics would be appreciated because I believe that I may finally have the basics down.

 

If so, I will finally be able to begin in earnest the take down of this scenario.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Pete

regarding the SAM's inability to engage due to guidance radar detruction

5.3.5 Semi Active Radar Homing (SARH) ...If the radar line of sight is lost or is the illuminator is destroyed, the missile(s) will miss the target...

I think the lingo is: "they go stupid".

How about now, ZU's should have been pushed farther forward. I believe that I wanted to keep within 800-1000m of the Straight Flush.

In case you are thinking man, pmaidhof is all screwed up - the map terrain feature(s) and ground weapon's positions were incorrectly scaled at basically 1:50,000 while the narrative was correctly written in nm. Also the original was on one inch square grapha paper so the movement of the aircraft and missiles were correctly measured - the graph did not appear on the image.

 

I'll need to pay more attention to the "simple" things going forward.

 

Thanks for the chat and constructive discussion.

This H4 scenario/engagement brings home to me again how deficient our computer Harpoon models are in dealing with missile vs SAM site engagements. IMHO, only the most modern and sophisticated SAM systems have any chance of taking down incoming missiles like your Mavericks. The H4 time sequence is certainly better at showing just how little time they (the SAM sites) really have in reacting to such threats.

 

I wonder, Pete, if you could plug in a few other weapons into your calculations and run the numbers to see what results we get. I am thinking in particular of the GBU-12D Paveway II LGB and the 1,000 lb GBU-32 JDAM.

if you could plug in a few other weapons into your calculations and run the numbers to see what results we get. I am thinking in particular of the GBU-12D Paveway II LGB and the 1,000 lb GBU-32 JDAM.

Will do, as long as you want to see basically from IP inbound. Mission planning, crunching fuel costs etc would tak all the fun out of it.

 

I travel tomorrow so unless I bring my books, I pack tonight and unfortunately it has a low priority, it will be early next week.

I'm only interested in IP onward, i.e. the terminal phase of the engagement, so that's fine. Whenever you get a chance. Have a good trip, Pete.

In addition, I will also swap out the long-in-tooth SA-6b for either SA-11 Gadfly or SA-17 Grizzly. I read on fas.org that Gadfly replaced Gainful (but apparently still uses Straight Flush) and Grizzly replaced Gadfly, with a Snow Drift radar. I'll have to check the Annex S to see if it includes Grizzly and Snow Drift data.

 

Should be an interesting exercise.

OK, that should be interesting, for sure. (I am most interested in the SA-6 scenario, though, and perhaps the SA-3, as these are widely proliferated).

 

Btw, offhand, I am not sure if the SA-6 Gainful has ever served with Iran. Does that matter for your scenario ?

 

I have H4 information for the SA-11 Gadfly and SA-17 Grizzly systems, if you need it.

SA-6 and SA-3 - Will do.

 

Iran having SA-6's - don't know but the scenario that this is based on, from HNR03, has the Iranians in possession of quite a few.

 

I have the H4.1 data annex and they, SA-11 and SA-17, are both in Annex S. If you have something more timely, please send it off line.

 

Should have the first run through soon.