Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime Strike Discussion

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime Strike Discussion Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime Str... - 6/27/2017 11:56:28 AM   
butch4343

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 3/26/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn


quote:

ORIGINAL: zaytsev


@mikeCK
What was altituide of your planes in the time of bomb release ? Maybe you were too low. See min-alt for bomb.

And, aside from hijacking thread



It's not about 'TOSS' delivery, but look at that beauty of LLLGB Gen3 release profile. ~1.6+nm from ~1000feet or so...
Well, platform is within (modern +80's) SAM envelope , but surely out of point defences.
eg. OSA with SHORAD doesn't stand a chance from this low-level attack.

Can we count on something of this updated with CMANO in near future, not just all LGB's capped at 10000+ feet,
of course, also for Eastern block (if you find data).
It would really help in below the horizon attacks.

Guys?



1) What exactly is the request?

2) Please post this on a separate thread. Thanks!



Sunburn,

I think the request is that if possible, that the almost blanket 10k minimum release height for PGMs be addressed, there is lots of evidence that the minimum release altitudes are not valid.

I know I have raised the issue a number of times over the last few years.

I understand the reason the devs have the 10000ft minimum ,as am sure it’s a huge amount of work to amend each entry and release height affects the range of a munition, however this applies to dumb as well guided munitions.

The devs have created something marvellous in CMNAO, and its continually improved, I have seen the lengths the devs will go to, to improve the accuracy of CMNAO as an example the improved aircraft evasion behaviour adding the vertical dimension, I have also watched as the Devs have added features to allow scenario designers to have the maximum flexibility, I.e. LUA scripting.

I am not a programmer, and I don’t profess to have knowledge of the mechanics of CMNAO, however is there a way the devs could improve the accuracy of this aspect of the simulator? I have thought of three ways:

1st you could amend all the release heights for PGMs to 200ft and live with the result, this I think would mean the player could attack at any altitude, but I reckon it would eat up a lot of the devs time to amend each entry.

2nd You could add a button within the Game Rules Tab, that allows the player/ scen designer to manually set the above, like is currently done with the AG Gun / Evasion/ SAM in surface role. I imagine the mechanics would need to be changed to allow the game to ignore the parameter that says “check if height=10000”

3rd You could add a column or 2 in the WRA page, max and minimum height, with the default option being “use DB entry” , that lets the player /designer select this. If that were to be introduced over all the units in the DB , it opens up a whole range of options, I.e. SA-6 which is optimised low to medium will only fire on targets under 10k feet, SA- 10 will engage targets 10-20k ft., thereby matching systems to targets much more accurately, or allowing players to do so. Again I presume this would be a major undertaking.

Now there will be people who will claim the above is not realist to have a PGM fly 4nm from 200ft, and they would be right, however its only as unrealistic as saying ever PGM released in game needs to be dropped at 10000ft and if it’s made optional, players/scen designers can opt in or out, therefore satisfying the second point on flexibility.
Sunburn just to point out there’s no intended criticism or sarcasm in any of the above and I’m happy re-post this in the mods section if you feel it’s better suited there.
I have added the below link, which is an open source , detailing joint laser designation procedures for the US armed forces, Appendix D list the delivery profiles for both LLGB (PAVEWAY3) and LGB (PAVEWAY 2)
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jp3_09_1.pdf

Regards

Butch
Post #: 1
RE: LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime... - 6/28/2017 12:04:37 AM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline 		For #1, I don't think that would eat up that much time if you replace every entry. I assume the developer have some way to mass modify entries.

However, the biggest issue with implementing lower altitude GBU releases is dealing with the DLZ issue. When released at low altitude, GBUs generally have very compressed ranges. For Paveway II class weapons (which will generally fall ballistic for most of the flight path, you can generally predict the release ranges will be identical to dumb bombs. Using the excellent Falcon 4.0 tool Weapon Delivery Planner - a level release from 1000' at 550 KTAS gives a bomb range of 1.1 NM - well short of the 4 NM in game. JDAM/Paveway III are a different ball game, since they employ proportional guidance, and can therefore trade kinetic energy into range. Using real tables for GBU-38 LARs from an A-10C, the 60° Impact range from 11,000' above a target from 310 KTAS is 3.2 NM. Trying the same thing in C:MANO results in a release range of 12 NM.

This is a result of C:MANO's simplified kinematic model for weapons, and is something I understand the developers are attempting to work around. (As stated by Sunburn here). As it currently sits, I think the current DLZs with the arbitrarily high minimum release altitudes is more realistic than allowing release at low altitude with the current DLZ. When the developers do decide to add a more complete weapon kinematic model, I suspect that the release altitudes will be lowered as well.

Furthermore, I don't think the current model is that limiting given how PGMs have been employed historically. There are a host of problems involved with low altitude PGM employment, and it's really only been done where the threat environment prohibited a medium/high-altitude delivery.

(in reply to butch4343)
Post #: 2
RE: LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime... - 6/28/2017 9:02:51 AM   
butch4343

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 3/26/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

For #1, I don't think that would eat up that much time if you replace every entry. I assume the developer have some way to mass modify entries.

However, the biggest issue with implementing lower altitude GBU releases is dealing with the DLZ issue. When released at low altitude, GBUs generally have very compressed ranges. For Paveway II class weapons (which will generally fall ballistic for most of the flight path, you can generally predict the release ranges will be identical to dumb bombs. Using the excellent Falcon 4.0 tool Weapon Delivery Planner - a level release from 1000' at 550 KTAS gives a bomb range of 1.1 NM - well short of the 4 NM in game. JDAM/Paveway III are a different ball game, since they employ proportional guidance, and can therefore trade kinetic energy into range. Using real tables for GBU-38 LARs from an A-10C, the 60° Impact range from 11,000' above a target from 310 KTAS is 3.2 NM. Trying the same thing in C:MANO results in a release range of 12 NM.

This is a result of C:MANO's simplified kinematic model for weapons, and is something I understand the developers are attempting to work around. (As stated by Sunburn here). As it currently sits, I think the current DLZs with the arbitrarily high minimum release altitudes is more realistic than allowing release at low altitude with the current DLZ. When the developers do decide to add a more complete weapon kinematic model, I suspect that the release altitudes will be lowered as well.

Furthermore, I don't think the current model is that limiting given how PGMs have been employed historically. There are a host of problems involved with low altitude PGM employment, and it's really only been done where the threat environment prohibited a medium/high-altitude delivery.


ExNusquam,

I understand the point you make regarding compressed ranges, the link I posted shows that the tactics approved and developed by all three US services and I suspect that much more widely by NATO airforces allowed for the employment of PGMs at low and very low altitudes, I concede that the docs I supplied have on average 2000ft release height however this gives a 3.2nm range for paveway II weapons, typical of a toss attack, and I would be happy acept that as a minimum. However it is by the grace of god that we havent had to send aircrew into high/medium threat areas in the past twenty years that has seen PGMs rather than the the weapons are not technically capable. In the real world if the cloud base is 9900 ft, then the aircrew have the option to drop to 9900ft and prosecute the target. As things stand in CMNAO the player has no such option.

You mentioned the DLZ, that again is a fair point and in an ideal world CMNAO would take that into account, however there are numerous things in CMNAO where the modeling is not as accurate as the real world , DESPITE the herculean efforts of the Devs to make it so, my point is that for example the the Kinematic torpedo ranges , can be set to either "realistic" or "Catalouge Ranges". With the PGMS thats not an option, there are purists out there who would like you check the altiutde/range of weapons and deliver at the correct range in an effort to get as close to real world conditions (Im probably one ), there are others for whom playabilty and enjoyment is more important, all am arguing for is the option and flexibilty for both to be catered for in CMNAO.

I like you am hopeful that the devs will at a future point refine the kinematic weapons model for air-launched weapons as the release heights are in my top three niggles with CMNAO and have been for years.


BTW as a favour , where might I find a copy of the FALCON 4.0 weapons planner you mentioned, I would'nt mind getting my hands on a copy?

Kind Regards

Butch

(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 3
RE: LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime... - 6/28/2017 12:38:25 PM   
zaytsev

 

Posts: 99
Joined: 6/16/2014
Status: offline 		Here you are, the link for the WDP

http://www.weapondeliveryplanner.nl/download/index.html

..but I'm not sure will it work standalone without *both* Falcon's installed. (original old Microprose version + new BMS addon)

GBU-38 JDAM Specifications
Performance
CEP: 9.60 meter
Max Launch Altitude: 13,700 meter (44,948 foot)
Max Range: 24,000 meter (13.0 nautical mile)
Weight: 230 kilogram (507 pound)

For GBU38 ... as you've said, inertia, kinetic enregy or simple, speed is ultimate factor for any glider range, so.. it is kinda,
let me say, unusual, to compare A10 and F16 in level flight , where in A10 case with speed of 310kts@10000ft, bomb is traveling more balistic approach
then in F16 case at 550kts@5000ft , .. with that 200kts difference , .. well you dont need any kind of planner to *imagine* difference ;)
So , ~10nm range for any GBU is good range.

Which reminds me an old case, in the initial testing of some glider, maybe even Paveway or JSOW, bomb has, upon release created so much lift that it
pitched up, returned and hit the wing and broke it off, well.. sh*t. Suicide bomb..er.

(in reply to butch4343)
Post #: 4
RE: LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime... - 6/28/2017 12:43:54 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline 		i don't really think you're going to get any real range out of a PGM without also modelling toss attacks. which is in the cards already probably somewhere.

PGMs releasing near the floor pretty much demands a ton of work on glide weapons for realistic modeling and while that would be cool we should probably wait for that instead of trying to bodge together an inaccurate modeling now with the current system.

just IMO

(in reply to zaytsev)
Post #: 5
RE: LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime... - 6/28/2017 9:55:36 PM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

I understand the point you make regarding compressed ranges, the link I posted shows that the tactics approved and developed by all three US services and I suspect that much more widely by NATO airforces allowed for the employment of PGMs at low and very low altitudes, I concede that the docs I supplied have on average 2000ft release height however this gives a 3.2nm range for paveway II weapons, typical of a toss attack, and I would be happy acept that as a minimum.

You're absolutely correct, and I agree that LGBs can be employed from lower altitudes in real life, and it would be nice to see that implemented in C:MANO. I just think that weapon ranges need to reflect launch aircraft speed and altitude before release altitudes are lowered.

quote:

In the real world if the cloud base is 9900 ft, then the aircrew have the option to drop to 9900ft and prosecute the target. As things stand in CMNAO the player has no such option.

As this bugs me as well, my work around has always been buddy-lasing, which has worked since day 1.

quote:

You mentioned the DLZ, that again is a fair point and in an ideal world CMNAO would take that into account, however there are numerous things in CMNAO where the modeling is not as accurate as the real world , DESPITE the herculean efforts of the Devs to make it so, my point is that for example the the Kinematic torpedo ranges , can be set to either "realistic" or "Catalouge Ranges".

I suppose DLZ was the incorrect term to use - kinematic range is the point I was trying to make. Torpedoes are a special case in that due to their low speed relative to the target, they generally have to be used at very compressed ranges if they want to stand a chance of hitting their targets. The weapons in command have exactly the same performance regardless of the torpedo doctrine setting. All that changes is when the unit decides to open fire (the reason it's a doctrine setting not a realism setting, like detailed gun fire control). PGM range is not something that should be an option, since the player already has control over most of the things that govern it, speed and altitude (we can't control impact angle for JDAM but that's way beyond the scope of the simulation).


quote:

For GBU38 ... as you've said, inertia, kinetic enregy or simple, speed is ultimate factor for any glider range, so.. it is kinda, let me say, unusual, to compare A10 and F16 in level flight , where in A10 case with speed of 310kts@10000ft, bomb is traveling more balistic approach then in F16 case at 550kts@5000ft , .. with that 200kts difference , .. well you dont need any kind of planner to *imagine* difference ;) So , ~10nm range for any GBU is good range.

I don't doubt that the GBU-38 can really go 13NM when tossed by a tactical jet going 600+KTAS from 30,000'. I chose the A-10 example since I had the LAR card available in front of me, and it shows a significant split between the current C:MANO model and what the weapons will do in real life.

quote:

which reminds me an old case, in the initial testing of some glider, maybe even Paveway or JSOW, bomb has, upon release created so much lift that it pitched up, returned and hit the wing and broke it off, well.. sh*t. Suicide bomb..er.

Dumb bombs and fuel tanks will do this on inadequately simulated tests. This has more to do with airflow patterns across the aircraft and how that interacts with the released weapon. There's a reason that stores testing takes as long as it does on modern aircraft.

quote:

i don't really think you're going to get any real range out of a PGM without also modelling toss attacks. which is in the cards already probably somewhere.

PGMs releasing near the floor pretty much demands a ton of work on glide weapons for realistic modeling and while that would be cool we should probably wait for that instead of trying to bodge together an inaccurate modeling now with the current system.

just IMO


I concur 100%.

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 6
RE: LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime... - 6/29/2017 6:57:43 AM   
zaytsev

 

Posts: 99
Joined: 6/16/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

quote:

i don't really think you're going to get any real range out of a PGM without also modelling toss attacks. which is in the cards already probably somewhere.

PGMs releasing near the floor pretty much demands a ton of work on glide weapons for realistic modeling and while that would be cool we should probably wait for that instead of trying to bodge together an inaccurate modeling now with the current system.

just IMO


I concur 100%.


Yep, here also. No problem at all.
DLZ's for dumb bombs exists from day1. It's just not finished with gbu/lgb's I guess, but will get there eventually for sure.

(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 7
RE: LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime... - 6/29/2017 11:02:09 AM   
butch4343

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 3/26/2015
Status: offline 		Ladies/Gents,

Thanks for the responses, I understand the points you folks raise, perhaps its that I look for the maximum of flexibility to try diffrent tactics ect.

zaytsev, thanks for the weapon planner


quote:

ORIGINAL: zaytsev


Which reminds me an old case, in the initial testing of some glider, maybe even Paveway or JSOW, bomb has, upon release created so much lift that it
pitched up, returned and hit the wing and broke it off, well.. sh*t. Suicide bomb..er.




Theres two cases that spring to mind, the first is the FB111, it was carrying out drop tests on the AGM-69 SRAM, it dropped as predicted , then was caught in the airflow and flipped up and back into the FB111s stabiliser, with predicatable results.

The second I recall was a USN A4, might have been a TA4, jettonsing a TER with three MK.82s attached, that one got caught in the airfow and went up and over the wing before hitting the tail.

Both shown to me in my trade training and annoyingly I cant find videos of either

Theres also the case of the F11F Tiger that shot itself down, because it outrun the 20mm rounds it fired at a ground target....

(in reply to zaytsev)
Post #: 8
RE: LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime... - 7/3/2017 8:22:53 PM   
DrRansom

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/14/2013
Status: offline 		On this topic, I'd like to see several different weapon release profiles, which can then be extended to smart bombs.

Off the top of my head, there are three release profiles for bombs:
1) Dive Bombing (shallow or steep) --> highest accuracy/ low stand-off, but exposes the target the most. An extension would give the bomb greater penetrating power.
2) Level bombing --> medium accuracy / medium stand-off, medium risk
3) Toss bombing --> low accuracy / high stand-off, lowest risk. Neutral to lower penetrating power for the bomb.

The model extension would include those delivery profiles, with an attendant range and accuracy change. A smart bomb would be treated as something with only a marginal change in accuracy for the three delivery profiles.

I think this might capture the different delivery profiles, but in a general way which covers the whole time period.



(in reply to butch4343)
Post #: 9
RE: LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime... - 7/6/2017 9:49:33 AM   
Sharana


Posts: 343
Joined: 2/3/2016
Status: offline 		The dive would be cool esp for cruise missiles. We saw what Tomahawks did to those aircraft shelters in Syria, yet in CMANO you can't penetrate hard structures like shelters, bunkers and ICBM sites witu cruise missiles.

(in reply to DrRansom)
Post #: 10
RE: LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime... - 7/6/2017 3:56:18 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sharana

The dive would be cool esp for cruise missiles. We saw what Tomahawks did to those aircraft shelters in Syria, yet in CMANO you can't penetrate hard structures like shelters, bunkers and ICBM sites witu cruise missiles.


Hmm not quite.

If you watch what goes on in Command you'll see percentage change for penetration but also a chance to kill the aircraft inside. Its not just destroy structure or not

If you look at the damage in pictures this is what happened in Syria. You see the structure still stands in many cases and many holes etc.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to Sharana)
Post #: 11
RE: LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime... - 7/6/2017 10:31:01 PM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
If you watch what goes on in Command you'll see percentage change for penetration but also a chance to kill the aircraft inside. Its not just destroy structure or not

Mike, I think you're underselling your model here - it's also highly dependent on warhead type. An early TLAM Blk II might not penetrate, but a JASSM (or even a newer TLAM) will be much more effective.

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 12
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> LGB release heights : Taken from the F111 Martitime Strike Discussion Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.281