Ground attack doctrine
-
I’m an old hand ( original Falcon 4 box and hard map and manual still in my drawer and still remember the thrill of the mod which made the Arm switch operable), who was never any good at it. I’m now starting from scratch, inspired by and daunted by books like Vipers in the Storm which show just how professional and precise real fighter pilots are.
It’s striking me, as I tackle training missions like TFR, pop ups and then IAMS that US/NATO ground attack doctrine has totally changed from low level to stand off. I remember low level Tornados being lost in the First Gulf War and noted the switch to high level in Rosenkrantz’ book. My question with regard to BMS is: Are anti aircraft systems now so good that nobody bothers with nap of the earth stuff?
-
I’m an old hand ( original Falcon 4 box and hard map and manual still in my drawer and still remember the thrill of the mod which made the Arm switch operable), who was never any good at it. I’m now starting from scratch, inspired by and daunted by books like Vipers in the Storm which show just how professional and precise real fighter pilots are.
It’s striking me, as I tackle training missions like TFR, pop ups and then IAMS that US/NATO ground attack doctrine has totally changed from low level to stand off. I remember low level Tornados being lost in the First Gulf War and noted the switch to high level in Rosenkrantz’ book. My question with regard to BMS is: Are anti aircraft systems now so good that nobody bothers with nap of the earth stuff?
This is the question that needs to be answered before tasking a strike or any flight.
In BMS, there is no general rule. The main risk at low altitude is ManPAD (Man Portable Air Defense), namely SA-7 and SA-14, and SHORAD (Short Range Air Defense), as SA-9 and SA-13, not to mention short range AAA. Other SAMs can reach you too but they tell you they fired - and if they don’t, you still have better chances to avoid them nap-of-the-Earth generally (SA-10).
Thus, it depends on what you are expecting. You can choose to face the risk of ManPAD but you’ll need the visual spot, either yours or friendly.
And that’s still ne guarantee you’ll avoid it.
If you have no choice about laser/visually striking or TGP/visually checking an area in spite of overcast weather, or if you’re hiding from an area denial SAM, you’ll probably expose to these threats.
You rarely have enough intelligence to safely frag regular missions nap-of-the-Earth, which is why I designed specific situations in Lorik’s Balkans Gate Unlocked campaign and in both of Lorik’s Korea campaigns (signature).
-
Broadly speaking, modern doctrine is that the low altitude environment is not survivable. Which is why modern weapons have exceedingly long stand-off ranges and small RCS. There is even a song complaining about it…
-
Danster, firstly, welcome back. Lorik and Blu are spot on, and I can add"inside BMS" examples. In my current campaign it’s gotten to the point where SAM’s are suppressed or out of missiles, but every time I go below 6k I’m dealing with MANPADS. But, as Lorik says, you have to decide with the tactical situation. For example, let’s say the Maverick TE was a mission. In that situation, you have to go NOE
-
isn’t it common practice as of 4th and 5th gens + to use the high wheel or a figure 8 pattern?
-
I think that this article it is worth a reading
Enviado desde mi K5000 mediante Tapatalk
-
Yes.
Coupled with advances in ECCM(which I don’t think BMS really simulates), low level has no real benefits over standoff.
-
What happens in BMS with manpads or other IR missiles in a badweather environment in which the IR sensors I guess they are blind ?
-
What happens in BMS with manpads or other IR missiles in a badweather environment in which the IR sensors I guess they are blind ?
That makes no difference
-
I think that this article it is worth a reading
Interesting article. Maybe the wheel will turn and the world’s air forces will go low again. Big problem is though, there will be fresh complaints about BMS scenery…
-
Broadly speaking, modern doctrine is that the low altitude environment is not survivable. Which is why modern weapons have exceedingly long stand-off ranges and small RCS. There is even a song complaining about it…
“There was a time viper pilots were gods, lasing LGB’s with their targeting pods… It was fairly tasking, not to overflow your cup… But if you weren’t on your game, you could still screw it up” brilliant, on my favorites lists for song lyric lines ever.
-
What happens in BMS with manpads or other IR missiles in a badweather environment in which the IR sensors I guess they are blind ?
@JOKER_duke:That makes no difference
Does it happens so in the real world ? I think that in low or null visibility conditions, IR sensors are not effective
-
What happens in BMS with manpads or other IR missiles in a badweather environment in which the IR sensors I guess they are blind ?
Does it happens so in the real world ? I think that in low or null visibility conditions, IR sensors are not effective
correct, but this is not modelled in BMS yet.
-
That’s one of the problems of Falcon 4.0 environment right now : flying low is dangerous in real life but it’s close to suicidal in Falcon 4.0, because MANPADS simply are too efficient.
-
… yet.
-
That’s one of the problems of Falcon 4.0 environment right now : flying low is dangerous in real life but it’s close to suicidal in Falcon 4.0, because MANPADS simply are too efficient.
Modelling surprise is hard.
… yet.
As long as there is new releases coming out, there is hope for virtually any aspect of the sim to be improved. Hence my use of ‘yet’.
-
Modelling surprise is hard.
Notice I don’t deny it, and I don’t blame the BMS team in any way either. I think all honest people agree they have done a tremendous job keeping Falcon alive and well.
It’s simply some of the few things of the Falcon 4.0 battle environment I wish might be addressed someday.