F-111 maritime strike use

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by mikeCK »

Well, all i proved is that I am still incapable of attacking multiple targets without using "manual attack". My F-111s got right on top of the ships and then stated circling while being shot at only one dropped bombs. Weapons were free and all ships were on the target list. Figured the AI would sort out which planes attack which ships. Error on my end somewhere. But, they all got to the target unharmed since the SAMS were taking out my HARMs.

Dimitris
Posts: 14771
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by Dimitris »

ORIGINAL: mikeCK
Well, all i proved is that I am still incapable of attacking multiple targets without using "manual attack". My F-111s got right on top of the ships and then stated circling while being shot at only one dropped bombs. Weapons were free and all ships were on the target list. Figured the AI would sort out which planes attack which ships. Error on my end somewhere. But, they all got to the target unharmed since the SAMS were taking out my HARMs.

Manually enforced an altitude from which they could not drop....?

(If you try manual allocation it should tell you why it cannot drop at the specific moment)
butch4343
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:09 pm

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by butch4343 »

CIK,
I take your point that the toss attack isn’t modelled in CMNAO that’s why I suggested the GBU-24 attack, with a 2000ft release height it’s a pretty close match to the release height for a toss attack.
Junk SARH SAMs is a bit of a stretch, the RN had 23 surface ships, 9 (40%) of those were equipped with either sea wolf or sea dart , SAM systems less than 10 years old. Granted the older Sea Slug (1st Gen late 1950s SAM) was useless, but only the two county class were equipped with those. Seacat equipped 11 of the smaller surface units, this was again a short range system designed to replace the 40mm bofors gun system on surface ships. Sea Dart scored 4 hits out 5 in the medium arena, and two out of 19 for the low level targets, Ill caveat this by saying numerous sea darts were fired ballistically, in order to provide a distraction for attack pilots, if you take them out , then although not a great score, it delivered more than was expected of it. Seawolf did well however was too few in number. Not sure if you were aware but it was a Sea dart that knocked down and Iraqi Silkworm in 1991 that was targeted on the USS Missouri.
The real reason the RN suffered horrible losses in ships, especially at sea, was that the RN due to the lack of AEW coverage, this contributed significantly to losses, as it forced the TF Cmdr, to push single/ double units out ahead of the main group of warships along likely threat vectors, the natural argentine tactic was to bomb the first warship they came across and that’s totally understandable. That led to the loss of the radar pickets.
You are correct blowpipe scored few kills, but I haven’t seen anything that says they were fired from TF ships, the RAF and Army had Rapier once they landed, and the SAS/SBS had access to stinger, BTW the SAS lost their only qualified Stinger instructor in a crash at the start of the war, so it was very much on the job training when the SAS fired stingers.
List of major surface ships (Less carriers and amphibs)

Destroyers
1 Type 82 Class (Sea Dart) 1973
5 Type 42 Class (Sea Dart) 1975
Cruisers
2 County Class (Sea Slug) 1962
Frigates
2 Type 22 ( Sea Wolf) 1979
7 Type 21 (Seacat) 1974
4 Leander Class (Seacat/Seawolf) 1963
2 Rothesay Class (Seacat) 1958

23 surface ships

Regards

Butch
MikeJ271
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:48 pm

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by MikeJ271 »

Many moons ago, a former RN Senior Weapons Officer told me that the ships' surface-to-air systems and other protection were so ineffective and unable to engage while they were in Falkland Sound and San Carlos Water, he himself was reduced to firing away at Argentinian aircraft with a GPMG strapped to the railings with a webbing belt.
Cik
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:22 am

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by Cik »

ORIGINAL: butch4343

CIK,
I take your point that the toss attack isn’t modelled in CMNAO that’s why I suggested the GBU-24 attack, with a 2000ft release height it’s a pretty close match to the release height for a toss attack.
Junk SARH SAMs is a bit of a stretch, the RN had 23 surface ships, 9 (40%) of those were equipped with either sea wolf or sea dart , SAM systems less than 10 years old. Granted the older Sea Slug (1st Gen late 1950s SAM) was useless, but only the two county class were equipped with those. Seacat equipped 11 of the smaller surface units, this was again a short range system designed to replace the 40mm bofors gun system on surface ships. Sea Dart scored 4 hits out 5 in the medium arena, and two out of 19 for the low level targets, Ill caveat this by saying numerous sea darts were fired ballistically, in order to provide a distraction for attack pilots, if you take them out , then although not a great score, it delivered more than was expected of it. Seawolf did well however was too few in number. Not sure if you were aware but it was a Sea dart that knocked down and Iraqi Silkworm in 1991 that was targeted on the USS Missouri.
The real reason the RN suffered horrible losses in ships, especially at sea, was that the RN due to the lack of AEW coverage, this contributed significantly to losses, as it forced the TF Cmdr, to push single/ double units out ahead of the main group of warships along likely threat vectors, the natural argentine tactic was to bomb the first warship they came across and that’s totally understandable. That led to the loss of the radar pickets.
You are correct blowpipe scored few kills, but I haven’t seen anything that says they were fired from TF ships, the RAF and Army had Rapier once they landed, and the SAS/SBS had access to stinger, BTW the SAS lost their only qualified Stinger instructor in a crash at the start of the war, so it was very much on the job training when the SAS fired stingers.
List of major surface ships (Less carriers and amphibs)

Destroyers
1 Type 82 Class (Sea Dart) 1973
5 Type 42 Class (Sea Dart) 1975
Cruisers
2 County Class (Sea Slug) 1962
Frigates
2 Type 22 ( Sea Wolf) 1979
7 Type 21 (Seacat) 1974
4 Leander Class (Seacat/Seawolf) 1963
2 Rothesay Class (Seacat) 1958

23 surface ships

Regards

Butch


thanks for the history lesson (that sounds snide but I'm not being sarcastic, i don't know very much about the falklands war)

i don't mean that the systems themselves were junk (for the time period) but understandably mid-late 70's developed radar SAMs will have a great deal of problems with ground clutter rejection due to insufficient computer processing power. this enabled the argentines to ingress at low altitude against ships with at least some hope of success. a russian destroyer in '89 is going to have way less problems with that as it's both later and they are equipped differently with more focus on IR SAMs which don't suffer most of the problems you get with semi-active radar missile launchers.
on the silkworm: it's impressive that such an old system could do that but styxes don't sea-skim (AFAIK) so the argentine attackers did have that advantage.
butch4343
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:09 pm

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by butch4343 »

ORIGINAL: Cik

ORIGINAL: butch4343

CIK,
I take your point that the toss attack isn’t modelled in CMNAO that’s why I suggested the GBU-24 attack, with a 2000ft release height it’s a pretty close match to the release height for a toss attack.
Junk SARH SAMs is a bit of a stretch, the RN had 23 surface ships, 9 (40%) of those were equipped with either sea wolf or sea dart , SAM systems less than 10 years old. Granted the older Sea Slug (1st Gen late 1950s SAM) was useless, but only the two county class were equipped with those. Seacat equipped 11 of the smaller surface units, this was again a short range system designed to replace the 40mm bofors gun system on surface ships. Sea Dart scored 4 hits out 5 in the medium arena, and two out of 19 for the low level targets, Ill caveat this by saying numerous sea darts were fired ballistically, in order to provide a distraction for attack pilots, if you take them out , then although not a great score, it delivered more than was expected of it. Seawolf did well however was too few in number. Not sure if you were aware but it was a Sea dart that knocked down and Iraqi Silkworm in 1991 that was targeted on the USS Missouri.
The real reason the RN suffered horrible losses in ships, especially at sea, was that the RN due to the lack of AEW coverage, this contributed significantly to losses, as it forced the TF Cmdr, to push single/ double units out ahead of the main group of warships along likely threat vectors, the natural argentine tactic was to bomb the first warship they came across and that’s totally understandable. That led to the loss of the radar pickets.
You are correct blowpipe scored few kills, but I haven’t seen anything that says they were fired from TF ships, the RAF and Army had Rapier once they landed, and the SAS/SBS had access to stinger, BTW the SAS lost their only qualified Stinger instructor in a crash at the start of the war, so it was very much on the job training when the SAS fired stingers.
List of major surface ships (Less carriers and amphibs)

Destroyers
1 Type 82 Class (Sea Dart) 1973
5 Type 42 Class (Sea Dart) 1975
Cruisers
2 County Class (Sea Slug) 1962
Frigates
2 Type 22 ( Sea Wolf) 1979
7 Type 21 (Seacat) 1974
4 Leander Class (Seacat/Seawolf) 1963
2 Rothesay Class (Seacat) 1958

23 surface ships

Regards

Butch


thanks for the history lesson (that sounds snide but I'm not being sarcastic, i don't know very much about the falklands war)

i don't mean that the systems themselves were junk (for the time period) but understandably mid-late 70's developed radar SAMs will have a great deal of problems with ground clutter rejection due to insufficient computer processing power. this enabled the argentines to ingress at low altitude against ships with at least some hope of success. a russian destroyer in '89 is going to have way less problems with that as it's both later and they are equipped differently with more focus on IR SAMs which don't suffer most of the problems you get with semi-active radar missile launchers.
on the silkworm: it's impressive that such an old system could do that but styxes don't sea-skim (AFAIK) so the argentine attackers did have that advantage.


No sarcasim taken mate, another little known fact was that experimental laser dazzling devices were deployed with the task force, the objective being to shine them in the eyes of attacking pilots. The official line is that they were never used by the RN. Another thing the Falklands did do was really kick start the CIWS market, the US had introduced Phalanx, there was the Anglo-Dutch Goalkeeper system and there was a similar Sov CIWS an AK-630 mount IRRC.

I didnt realise the Sovs swung away from radar guided SAMs in the late 80s TBH, thats interesting.


Butch
Cik
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:22 am

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by Cik »

not swung away from necessarily, just that the russians traditionally had more IR/short range radar launchers than the west did. the udaloy as an example had a bunch of SA-9 and were later retrofitted with navelized SA-15 etc. which are probably more capable at attacking low-flying planes than the RN in 82.
User avatar
Panther Bait
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by Panther Bait »

In fairness, it should also be noted the Argentine pilots came in really low. They were forced so low that several of the bombs didn't have time to arm before hitting the ships. That was probably a tricky BDU problem for the UK.

Mike
When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by mikeCK »

ORIGINAL: Sunburn
ORIGINAL: mikeCK
Well, all i proved is that I am still incapable of attacking multiple targets without using "manual attack". My F-111s got right on top of the ships and then stated circling while being shot at only one dropped bombs. Weapons were free and all ships were on the target list. Figured the AI would sort out which planes attack which ships. Error on my end somewhere. But, they all got to the target unharmed since the SAMS were taking out my HARMs.

Manually enforced an altitude from which they could not drop....?

(If you try manual allocation it should tell you why it cannot drop at the specific moment)

No, I DIDNT use manual. I let the AI do it. Likely though that I had "weapons hold all units" though when they were ready to drop. I had been cycling it because my Ships were firing at things I wanted my AC to handle
zaytsev
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:03 am

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by 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 [8D]

Image

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?
Dimitris
Posts: 14771
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by Dimitris »

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 [8D]

Image

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!
zaytsev
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:03 am

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by zaytsev »

@Hey.. Sunburn

HA! My bad. I was under impression that this was not updated. I've looked at the database.. and stood corrected. Gen3 lgb's really
have release altituide 2000ft. What can I say :) , good work....

..even I could bet that release of these bombs can be lower then 1000ft, 2000ft~650m is fairly high, but dont ask me for profile [8D]

e.g. KAB-500S-E have release altituide ~500m (but this bomb is not in db)/


But one thing, please, when you'll have time. Please update 'Ruskies' some more.
When I play with then western block. This game is turning into a duck shoot.
No offence intended.

Okay than, this my humble request, Give Ruskies a 'credit' for an update or two.

Thanks
Dimitris
Posts: 14771
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by Dimitris »

zaytsev < The DB3000 already has the KAB-500S bomb, and AFAIK the S-E is the export version (with unknown differences from the domestic model).

If you have any information on modern Russian hardware which has not been incorporated in the DBs already, please submit it on the DB3000 requests thread.

Thanks!
Zaslon
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:52 am

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by Zaslon »

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

zaytsev < The DB3000 already has the KAB-500S bomb, and AFAIK the S-E is the export version (with unknown differences from the domestic model).

If you have any information on modern Russian hardware which has not been incorporated in the DBs already, please submit it on the DB3000 requests thread.

Thanks!
Yeap. 10 times higher in DB3K!
Bias about Russian hardware is crystal clear. Devs should be more careful with the data.
Added request in the proper thread.
Image
Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China
butch4343
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:09 pm

RE: F-111 maritime strike use

Post by butch4343 »

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

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 [8D]

Image

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,

Ive started a new thread on this mate.

Regards

Butch

Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”