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...

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...

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.

I apologize in advance for not doing the legwork on my comments...

 

Have you looked at Dash-1 classifying the target and radioing which blob is the Straight Flush to Dash-2 which then launches GBU-12D from Med Altitude (closer to 4nm range) and turns sufficiently post launch to keep weapon within 270 degree cone? Based on what you said on IRC this still isn't a good situation since Dash-2 becomes vulnerable to the SA-6b.

 

So I'm thinking there may be a small window to launch in your setup, perhaps turn in the 1st movement phase on the engagement turn of GBU launch. What I don't like about that is that your attack run isn't then pointed at the target. Hmm

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.

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

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.

From some reading today in the Airwar in the South Atlantic book referenced in the Military history "Books" thread. The first Sea Harrier laydown bombing runs on the airfield at Port Stanley, the approach under the Argentine radar was at an altitude of 50 feet! or 15.25m. They had to then climb to 170 feet or 52m in order to actually make the attack.

 

This puts some true perspective on my generic air attacks. Having read through my posts I only have been stating Low or VLow altitudes, but I believe my planning factor was on the high end of the VLow altitude bar.

 

The is no apparent benefit from flying lower than the max altitude of a desired range band, beyond possible effecting the Radar LOS numbers, but WOW, it really puts the British concerns and respect of the "unknown" of these early raids into perspective.

I expect that their low altitude tactics were as much a function of their training as it was the tactical situation in the Falklands, if not more. Going into Desert Storm, I believe some 80 percent of US/NATO strike training was in the low level environment. That seemed to change with the Balkans conflicts.

 

You gotta have respect for the guys who flew in the weeds. Dropping an LGB accurately is very tough at low level. And some guy with a MANPADS or even an AK could really make it a bad day ...

I'll double check, but I believe that these guys were dropping iron bombs.

 

Nevertheless their skill and courage must be admired. Also, like you mentioned, this was what the British pilots trained for in their NATO-WP mission which I believe the term was airfield suppression. An more recent example would have been the RAF attacks on Iraqi airfields in DS/DS. They came in low and paid "appropriately" in the face of the Iraqi airfield defenses.

I'll double check, but I believe that these guys were dropping iron bombs. 

 

Yes, that's true. (I was referring to the thread generally). And, IIRC, the GR.3's and Sea Harriers liberally applied cluster bombs (likely BL755's) and rockets.

 

Correction: There are reports of Harriers delivering LGBs against Argentine positions near Stanley on 13 and 14 June. Are these mentioned in your book ?