Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

F-111 maritime strike use

 
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 >> F-111 maritime strike use Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
F-111 maritime strike use - 6/19/2017 8:25:59 PM   
mikeCK

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline
I'm playing a scenario in 1989 and having a difficult time taking out a Soviet surface fleet. In thinking of making use of some F-111's stationed in range. I know they can carry 4 AGM-84 Harpoons each or several HARMs each as well as various dumb and guided bombs. Was thinking of loading 4 with Harms (which seem to get destroyed by SAMs easily and follow up with the other 4 loaded with ordinance.

I'm debating 1 of 3 options for the 4 F-111s:

1. Come in as low as possible, pop up and use Paveway laser guided bombs.
2. Come in as low as possible and drop retarded iron bombs or cluster bombs
Or

3. Use harpoons and risk having them shot down.

If anyone has had experience using F-111 for maritime strikes, what do you think is best? Or is this a disaster waiting to happen. I will be att king2 destroyers and a frigate with some tenders present. The strike package will be supported by a navy EA-6B prowler.
Post #: 1
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/19/2017 8:28:06 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline
i would never attempt to bomb a ship if the year is greater than 1945

try to coordinate the TOT of a mass launch of HARMs and harpoons is your best bet. if you think that the harpoons are too easy to shoot down, you can probably hold your fire until you are a little closer which should help give them more targets (have to pick between planes + missiles + HARMs and OODA limitations might make it slightly harder)

approach as low as possible to exploit horizon problems for the ships. high is a no-go as it conveys no advantage in this situation.

if the destroyers + frigate are well defended for point defense, it may be better to "front-load" ARMs. consider taking 6 HARMs instead of 4/4 mix. while HARMs are a pretty garbage ASHM (fragmentation warhead) it's much faster and will likely generate far more hits. since every hit is at least one useful radar dead, hits are good and enable any follow-on strikes to be successful.

if not then 4/4 is likely fine.

out of interest what sort of destroyers are we talking? depending on what ships they are their point defense may be low to nonexistent in which case 8 harpoon-carrying aircraft will do the job.

< Message edited by Cik -- 6/19/2017 8:34:14 PM >

(in reply to mikeCK)
Post #: 2
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/19/2017 9:17:10 PM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 1102
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline
If the fleet's defenses can stop HARMS, they can stop Harpoons, and they definitely can stop direct bombing attempts.

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 3
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/19/2017 11:45:00 PM   
AlphaSierra

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/13/2017
Status: offline
One could presumably shoot tomahawks at them until they are out of bullets.

_____________________________

I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way. -John Paul Jones

(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 4
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 12:53:20 AM   
mikeCK

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline
Well keep in mind that I would be coming in on the deck as fast as I can and drop cluster munitions or retarded bombs. Biggest ship is a frigate and a destroyer and the rest are corvette types. Not the preferred method of attack but if I'm going to be short on anti-**** muscles I think it could work. Their radar so would not be able to pick me up until one extremely close and moving that fast they wouldn't have much time. Worth a shot anyway. I know the Navy used a Ė six intruders dropping it rock I cluster bombs to take out a number of Libyan ships in 1986 but of course they were just fast patrol boats.

The key I guess would be keeping 20 feet off the deck and moving in just sub sonic

(in reply to AlphaSierra)
Post #: 5
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 1:45:46 AM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1266
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
Love the idea, here's what I'd try a combination of HARMs and Harpoons. It's always better to shoot off missiles and have them be shot down than lose aircraft. Forcing the enemy to exhaust his inventory of SAMs in self defense is frequently a perfectly good tactic.

(in reply to mikeCK)
Post #: 6
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 3:55:52 AM   
Sniper31


Posts: 132
Joined: 9/15/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

Love the idea, here's what I'd try a combination of HARMs and Harpoons. It's always better to shoot off missiles and have them be shot down than lose aircraft. Forcing the enemy to exhaust his inventory of SAMs in self defense is frequently a perfectly good tactic.

quote:

Love the idea, here's what I'd try a combination of HARMs and Harpoons. It's always better to shoot off missiles and have them be shot down than lose aircraft. Forcing the enemy to exhaust his inventory of SAMs in self defense is frequently a perfectly good tactic.


This, yes....and THEN follow up with you low level, on the deck Aardvark strike in the hopes that he has no SAM's left in the proverbial tank ;)

_____________________________

"I say again, expend ALL remaining in my perimeter!" - Platoon

"This is JB27, on target...fire for effect.." - Me

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 7
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 11:14:40 AM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1266
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikeCK
I know the Navy used [..] six intruders dropping [..] Rockeye cluster bombs to take out a number of Libyan ships in 1986 but of course they were just fast patrol boats.


The key there is that they were just patrol boats with little if any air defense. Dropping cluster bombs on things that can shoot at you on your ingress and egress, is a whole different business!

(in reply to mikeCK)
Post #: 8
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 11:23:37 AM   
Rory Noonan

 

Posts: 2648
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Well keep in mind that I would be coming in on the deck as fast as I can and drop cluster munitions or retarded bombs. Biggest ship is a frigate and a destroyer and the rest are corvette types. Not the preferred method of attack but if I'm going to be short on anti-**** muscles I think it could work. Their radar so would not be able to pick me up until one extremely close and moving that fast they wouldn't have much time. Worth a shot anyway. I know the Navy used a Ė six intruders dropping it rock I cluster bombs to take out a number of Libyan ships in 1986 but of course they were just fast patrol boats.

The key I guess would be keeping 20 feet off the deck and moving in just sub sonic


I worked out how much time the enemy would have if your F-111s were moving at 850kts at an altitude of 500ft, and the enemy was a Sovremenny destroyer. You would be over the radar horizon for nearly 3 minutes. Well and truly enough time for them to OODA and start shooting down your F-111s.

I am a big fan of fast low level dumb bomb strikes. I don't think this situation works well for it though.

(in reply to mikeCK)
Post #: 9
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 12:11:41 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline
^ yeah, bombing anything with PD is suicide.

even if you commit the aardvarks and "waste" the missiles hoping for a golden BB, it's still a better trade than wasting several aardvarks on a mission with near-zero chance of success.
if the ships are really so important that they are worth destroying, it is worth expending the ASHM/ARM to destroy them. otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about this scenario.

(in reply to Rory Noonan)
Post #: 10
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 2:29:01 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3093
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
I like to stream in Harpoons and hold back HARMs until the ship formation begins lighting up against Harpoons. This gives you lots of FCRs to target and gives the AI a tough choice between going after sea-skimming ASMs or high-speed ARMs. Usually it enables lots of ARM hits which then aids the remaining Harpoons to get to target.

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 11
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 2:53:29 PM   
Gneckes

 

Posts: 212
Joined: 6/22/2015
Status: offline
That does seem like the best way to do it, but I guess the timing for the HARMs is crucial.

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 12
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 4:15:51 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1266
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
Stimulating them to light up their FCRs is smart, because if you can take a few of the FCRs out as they do it, your next salvo of ASCMs is more likely to be successful.

quote:

I like to stream in Harpoons and hold back HARMs until the ship formation begins lighting up against Harpoons. This gives you lots of FCRs to target and gives the AI a tough choice between going after sea-skimming ASMs or high-speed ARMs. Usually it enables lots of ARM hits which then aids the remaining Harpoons to get to target.

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 13
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 4:55:56 PM   
BrianinMinnie

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline
Is Toss Bombing simulated in the game? could you High speed, low level dash in, lift your nose, toss 16 dumb bombs, then turn back down to the dirt before catching a face full of sams?
Maybe have a wingman firing ARMs at the same time to keep the radars head down?
I realize this was a nuke tactic from the old days but could you pull it off with Modern Iron bombs?

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 14
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 5:40:30 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline
it isn't simulated, and it would be arguably useless anyway. toss bombing doesn't have the range to throw over the horizon, so you'd end up in the SAM WEZ well before you entered throw range.

(in reply to BrianinMinnie)
Post #: 15
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 6:19:33 PM   
mikeCK

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline
Well guys, I appreciate the input. I think I'm going to give it a shot and see. I have a strike package set up with an E/F-111, 4 F-16s with HARM missles, an F-18 with TALD in support and 8 F-111s. The overall issues is that in the scantily, I only have one carrier and there are ALOT of enemy ships broken down into 3 flotillas. I really have to save my harpoons so I'd rather not use them on frigates, corvettes or patrol boats.

So the plan is to have the F-18 fire off the TALD Package south of the targets while the strike package (except for the EF-111) approach low on the deck. As the radars light up, the F-16s will fire Harms. Hopefully I can time it right so that the F-111s are coming over the horizon as the Harms are coming in. I have armed the F-111s with 500 lb retarded bombs and cluster bombs. One pass.

Again, not the preferred way to attack but I have limited ammo and most of the ships are patrol boats. The Frigate concerns me but it's only one and without VLS, I'm not sure it can get missiles off fast enough. EF-111 should help as well.

It's the "First Salvo" scenario from "The war that Never was" with the F-111s edited in. I'm attacking that flotilla of "OSHA" (so?) patrol craft and the nearby fleet containing a Krivak and Sovremmeny I believe. I won't be targeting those two and since they are behind by 10 NM or so, maybe they can be avoided.

It's scenarios like this when I wish the US had a supersonic ASM

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 16
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 6:32:34 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline
i really would avoid using bombs against ships unless those ships are entirely disarmed and you are bombing with LGBs from angels 18+

even then, it's marginal.

(in reply to mikeCK)
Post #: 17
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/20/2017 9:02:13 PM   
CCIP-subsim


Posts: 695
Joined: 11/10/2015
Status: offline
Now, to be fair - there's a lot of ASuW done by platforms slower and heftier than the F-111, and bombs dumber than LGBs - but it's usually against low-tech opposition where the occasional MANPADS are about the most dangerous threat faced. I don't doubt the F-111 would be excellent in that role, but I wouldn't suggest it as a primary ship-killer.

I do also remember that with Northern Inferno, I'd used Buccaneers in a sort of similar fashion - where I'd first make an attack against corvettes/destroyers with ARMs/ASMs to disable their defences and sensors (even temporarily), and then have bomb-armed aircraft and swoop in and do a low-altitude delivery of some bombs to finish the job before the ships could do even the most basic repairs. It actually mostly worked.

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 18
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/21/2017 2:53:37 PM   
butch4343

 

Posts: 302
Joined: 3/26/2015
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrianinMinnie

Is Toss Bombing simulated in the game? could you High speed, low level dash in, lift your nose, toss 16 dumb bombs, then turn back down to the dirt before catching a face full of sams?
Maybe have a wingman firing ARMs at the same time to keep the radars head down?
I realize this was a nuke tactic from the old days but could you pull it off with Modern Iron bombs?




Currently the best way to simulate this would be to use GBU-24 Paveway 3 (A specialist low level version of Paveway) weapons, that should have a load out in the Database , the minimum release height is 2000ft, (Which is wrong like most PGM heights in CMANO) , RAF practice was to pitch up to 30 deg, and let the computer release the bombs at somewhere around 1500-1700 ft, this worked for both land attack using unguided bombs and paveway deliveries.

RAF buccaneers trained in low level toss deliveries with Paveway 1 , leading me to suspect that the tactics of the 70-80s Buccaneer strikes would have been a mix of ARM Martel, TV Martel and LGB/Pave Spike equipped flights attacking from multiple directions simoultaneously


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cik

it isn't simulated, and it would be arguably useless anyway. toss bombing doesn't have the range to throw over the horizon, so you'd end up in the SAM WEZ well before you entered throw range.



Low level attacks seemed to work well for the Argentinians in 1982

Butch

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 19
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/21/2017 3:28:02 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline
worked well due to the RN being thousands of miles from base, spread thin and with relatively old hardware not suited to the operational environment as far as i know.

i'd have to look at what ships he's trying to bomb but if they have a few SA-9/13 a piece + guns of whatever type low-level is likely suicide. toss attacks with LGBs would work ~slightly better (depending on defenses) but we don't have the capability in-sim and he's not using LGBs anyway. the best options are:

low level attack with harpoons backed up by HARMs
repeated HARM attacks until enemy stops radiating and then use high-altitude LGB attacks
torpedoes

you can use mk82/84-laden aardvarks to clean up non-defended targets on the sea if you want but i'd never make low level attacks against anything defended by radar/IR SAMs. in particular the difference between soviet ship defense capabilities and what the brits fielded in the falklands is pretty large i think. what did the RN have at the time? unless i'm wrong it would be pretty junk SARH radar SAMs and blowpipes (also pretty junk) what results is a hole in their defenses low level (due to radar / IR clutter) the soviets will likely not have that problem as their newer SA-9/13 should not have a great deal of problems attacking targets running low. in order to release bombs at low level at a target you have to fly pretty much right over it and i really doubt they would survive doing so.

< Message edited by Cik -- 6/21/2017 3:44:45 PM >

(in reply to butch4343)
Post #: 20
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/22/2017 2:36:22 AM   
mikeCK

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 21
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/22/2017 7:08:10 AM   
Dimitris


Posts: 12659
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

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)

_____________________________


(in reply to mikeCK)
Post #: 22
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/22/2017 9:13:54 AM   
butch4343

 

Posts: 302
Joined: 3/26/2015
Status: offline
CIK,
I take your point that the toss attack isnít modelled in CMNAO thatís why I suggested the GBU-24 attack, with a 2000ft release height itís 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 thatís totally understandable. That led to the loss of the radar pickets.
You are correct blowpipe scored few kills, but I havenít 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

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 23
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/22/2017 11:36:44 AM   
MikeJ271

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to butch4343)
Post #: 24
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/22/2017 12:20:14 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: butch4343

CIK,
I take your point that the toss attack isnít modelled in CMNAO thatís why I suggested the GBU-24 attack, with a 2000ft release height itís 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 thatís totally understandable. That led to the loss of the radar pickets.
You are correct blowpipe scored few kills, but I havenít 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.

(in reply to butch4343)
Post #: 25
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/22/2017 12:38:59 PM   
butch4343

 

Posts: 302
Joined: 3/26/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cik


quote:

ORIGINAL: butch4343

CIK,
I take your point that the toss attack isnít modelled in CMNAO thatís why I suggested the GBU-24 attack, with a 2000ft release height itís 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 thatís totally understandable. That led to the loss of the radar pickets.
You are correct blowpipe scored few kills, but I havenít 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

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 26
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/22/2017 2:04:24 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 664
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to butch4343)
Post #: 27
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/22/2017 2:52:41 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 28
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/23/2017 5:16:09 AM   
mikeCK

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

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

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 6/23/2017 5:20:25 AM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 29
RE: F-111 maritime strike use - 6/23/2017 11:26:39 AM   
zaytsev

 

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

@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?

(in reply to mikeCK)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> F-111 maritime strike use Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.199