BDA on surface action groups? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message


dnguyen528 -> BDA on surface action groups? (7/6/2021 4:07:38 PM)

With modern AShM, there is a good chance that the enemy is never actually seen. In the case of a BOL, you might not even know the actual location of the enemy SAG. Does anyone know how the modern navies plane to conduct BDA after an exhange?

I'm guessing through sonar frequency analysis or ELINT, you could guess who was missing (or hear their damage). But getting that close, catching them in a CZ, or having the enemy radiate after an attack all seem like low probability things. Other than that, I guess you have satelittes and spies who could catch a lucky glimpse or see something in dry dock.

Are there any other more obvious things in missing? Would a high altitude recon aircraft be tasked to go after a damaged SAG (and realistically be able to find it again?)





thewood1 -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/6/2021 7:16:34 PM)

Some LR missiles maintain a data feed so last missile in can send back BDA info. But I would think satellite and recon aircraft are still going to be primary, with drones coming in close behind.




dnguyen528 -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/8/2021 4:44:46 AM)

The video footage from the last seconds of one of those anti-shipping missile must be a wild ride!

In digging around, it looks like the navy equipped F14s with TARP pods for fast aircraft recon. Do you know if slower aircraft like p3s be risked in the BDA role? In a cold war gone hot scenario. Would a SAG be enough of a priority to for to be U2s be pulled off watching land sites?




Gunner98 -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/8/2021 10:14:04 AM)

A Cold War situation is much different than a modern war surface engagement would be, but the process is the same.

In either case, the equipment or method of obtaining the information is not as critical as the information itself. Collecting, classifying, processing and disseminating that information is difficult and it is complex. The system used is called ISR or ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance - ISTAR has Target Acquisition added). Here is a recent research paper on it: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R46389.pdf

BDA is a fundamental part of this system. The system is not new and has its foundations in World War Two.

In response to a question of pulling 'X' off of one task to go look at 'Y', the response is invariably - 'It depends.'





1nutworld -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/8/2021 2:06:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dnguyen528

The video footage from the last seconds of one of those anti-shipping missile must be a wild ride!



Yeah that would be some great footage to get a look at but it wouldn't last for very long



quote:

ORIGINAL: dnguyen528

In digging around, it looks like the navy equipped F14s with TARP pods for fast aircraft recon.



I still can't fathom the idea of taking an aircraft like the F-14 out of service, between the Long-Range A2A combat effectiveness and even recon using TARPS pod. That's one HELL of an asset.

TOTALLY Eliminated. Makes ZERO sense to me




Rory Noonan -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/8/2021 2:33:49 PM)

quote:




I still can't fathom the idea of taking an aircraft like the F-14 out of service, between the Long-Range A2A combat effectiveness and even recon using TARPS pod. That's one HELL of an asset.

TOTALLY Eliminated. Makes ZERO sense to me


It (mostly) made sense at the time. No relevant peer adversaries, AMRAAMs had begun to close the range gap between the AIM-7 and AIM-54 and the TARPS pod was being supplanted by ever more ubiquitous FLIR and targetting pods that did almost the same job.

Now after 20 years of counter-insurgency and force shaping to handle that, near-peer is back on the menu. The introduction of the new AN/ASG-34 IRST shows that the USN (and now RAAF) realize that having a good EO/IR sensor on a capable multi-role aircraft is a huge force multiplier.




1nutworld -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/8/2021 2:43:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rory Noonan

quote:




I still can't fathom the idea of taking an aircraft like the F-14 out of service, between the Long-Range A2A combat effectiveness and even recon using TARPS pod. That's one HELL of an asset.

TOTALLY Eliminated. Makes ZERO sense to me


It (mostly) made sense at the time. No relevant peer adversaries, AMRAAMs had begun to close the range gap between the AIM-7 and AIM-54 and the TARPS pod was being supplanted by ever more ubiquitous FLIR and targetting pods that did almost the same job.

Now after 20 years of counter-insurgency and force shaping to handle that, near-peer is back on the menu. The introduction of the new AN/ASG-34 IRST shows that the USN (and now RAAF) realize that having a good EO/IR sensor on a capable multi-role aircraft is a huge force multiplier.


I guess I just stand by the thinking that if I can kill you, before you can see me, I have the advantage. Works for Pilots, as well as snipers!





thewood1 -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/8/2021 3:31:49 PM)

Keep in mind the original role for the F-14 and the AIM-54. Long range shots to kill AShM bombers before they could launch or kill their Bear spotting planes. The F-14/AIM-54 combo was complex and limited in its multi-role capabilities. The investment went to a new Hornet and the F-35. If both live up to their advertisement, its a smart move. Especially as AIMs get longer-ranged and can be effective against more maneuverable enemy units. If they don't work, there's no turning back.

The development of 100+ range SAMs to protect ships also played a role.




Gunner98 -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/8/2021 4:06:20 PM)

That's a very good point - The F-14 was essentially designed and procured to be a life support system for the AiM-54. The benefit of it being a good all-around fighter platform was a bonus.

However it did not fit the Multi-role concept that was demanded by the US Congress/budget folks of the day. The USAF opted for the higher Block F-16s and F-15E, only the NORAD role and interoperability with the F-15E allowed the F-15C to continue.

The F-14 was also very expensive, requiring 40-60 hours of maintenance for every flight hour compared to 20 for F/A-18C/D or 10-15 for F/A-18E/F

And the AiM-54 was not much better, it took ~2 years to produce each missile and cost 1/2 Mil each (in the 1970s). The AMRAAM was a no-brainer for people who had to justify their budget and sustainability.

Since the missile it was designed for was going out of service, and the F-18s were so much cheaper and easier to maintain, the Tomcat was a shoe-in for the graveyard.

B




1nutworld -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/8/2021 6:22:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

The investment went to a new Hornet and the F-35. If both live up to their advertisement, its a smart move. Especially as AIMs get longer-ranged and can be effective against more maneuverable enemy units. If they don't work, there's no turning back.



So far they are not living up to that billing, so that big "IF" is getting bigger and bigger.

I don't recall who mentioned cost per flight hour of Tomcat and Phoenix being cost prohibitive, well the cost per hour of flight time of the F-35 seems pretty damn expensive from what I can tell. Maybe the newer and more "rangy" FA-18's are cost effective, but the F-35 sure doesn't seem to be.

Between the F-35 and the DDG-1000 and LCS ships, the planners and designers are NOT earning those paychecks. So, maybe the Tomcat and AIM-54 would be better off resurrected by the navy. A new Phoenix, if you will.




thewood1 -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/8/2021 7:21:09 PM)

If you look back at the beginning of the the F-14 in its development stage, it was just as big of a mess as the F-35. The F-14 was woefully underpowered and it took years to fix that. The radar had issues in staying operational. But especially the AIM-54 had problems. Go look at the history of AIM-54 quality and production lead times. Through most of the eighties, CAWs had very limited quantities of serviceable AIM-54s And even those were suspect.

People always forget the teething problems older systems had. They only read today's selected headlines.




thewood1 -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/8/2021 7:34:39 PM)

Here is an example from 1986.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-09-04-fi-13807-story.html

So the AIM-54 wasn't some miracle weapon. The only two fired in anger by the USN both failed on launch. Iran had some more success but on non-maneuvering aircraft at close less than 50 miles range.

edit: And here is the run down on replacing and upgrading the F-14.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-12/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-12.htm




1nutworld -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/8/2021 8:01:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Here is an example from 1986.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-09-04-fi-13807-story.html

So the AIM-54 wasn't some miracle weapon. The only two fired in anger by the USN both failed on launch. Iran had some more success but on non-maneuvering aircraft at close less than 50 miles range.

edit: And here is the run down on replacing and upgrading the F-14.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-12/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-12.htm



Truthfully, cool analysis.

I guess my thinking comes from playing scenarios in CMO, where if I CAN have the F-14 and the AIM-54, I will GLADLY take them, and splash the other guy from further away than he can launch at me. Maybe what I need to do is start looking at my effectiveness using the phoenix and see if it's "working" for me better than the AAMRAM or others in combat.

Using Desert Storm scenarios, for example, I know I'd rather try and use my Tomcats and AIM-54's as much as I can, so that when it comes time for a knife fight, by using my AIM-54's FIRST to knock out 3 or 4 other aircraft before they can even shoot at me, I'm in a much better place.




thewood1 -> RE: BDA on surface action groups? (7/8/2021 8:09:12 PM)

I don't think CMO accounts for the limitation of the multi-tracking on the AWG-9 for the F-14. It cycles through all the targets with the narrow beam radar. If you are maneuverable, you can slide around a lot not be where the AWG-9 expected on the next cycle to break the AWG-9 lock. That can seriously complicate the AIM-54's final intercept at very long range. That might make the F-14 slightly more effective than in real life.

But again, against a group of heavily loaded TU-16s, the F-14/AIM-54 should have a field day. But to get to that point in a more realistic scenario, I'd limit the number of AIM-54s in the CAW inventory and in the F-14 loadouts.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875