Advanced Topics - Strike Planning

[CV32]

I thought I would repost a primer on strike planning for HCCE (now HCE) that I did at HarpGamer back in November 2005. Hope new players find it helpful:

"These are my personal comments on Strike Planning.

I like to borrow from the USAF's Targeting Guide, which is far more complex than necessary than required by HCCE, but it contains helpful principles and guidance. For example, for the purposes of this exercise, I assume that we have already determined what target we want to hit and what objectives we hope to achieve by hitting that particular target.

Let's assume, as well, for the sake of our assessment, that our target is a point target, such as a bridge, protected by SAMs.

1. Weaponeering

The first step might be weaponeering, that is, an assessment of the types and quantities of weapons estimated to achieve a desired level of damage to the target. This takes into account the vulnerability of the target, weapons effects/reliability and delivery accuracy, as well as damage criteria.

Large bridges in the Harpoon Classic Commander's Edition (HCDB) have 800 damage points (DP). This includes the "Generic Large Bridge" and those bridges bearing specific names (e.g. Baghdad Rail Bridge). The "Generic Small Bridge" has 400 DP. At first glance, these values might seem a bit high for a "simple" point target like a bridge. However, bridges are remarkably tough targets. Think about the substantial engineering effort that must go into the design and construction of a bridge: it will be expected to stand up to the considerable abuse of both heavy traffic and the natural elements for a very long time. Another factor is that bridges (like airfields, in some respects) can often be readily repaired if the damage is not immediately catastrophic. (You usually have to drop multiple spans to take it out for an appreciable period of time). The DP values in the HCDB therefore try to take into account both factors. (Admittedly, it's a little abstract, but I think it works pretty well, especially since the AI cannot actively conduct repairs and thereby regain DP).

If you're still not convinced, consider a couple of classic real life examples from Vietnam: the Paul Doumer Bridge over the Red River in Hanoi, and the Ham Rung ("Dragon's Jaw") near Thanh Hoa. The Paul Doumer bridge northeast of Hanoi served no fewer than four separate rail lines, and had a total of 18 large concrete piers that supported its length of just over a mile. Prior to 1972, despite countless attempts, and a huge expenditure of sorties, munitions and lives, the Paul Doumer was only dropped for a few weeks at a time before being quickly repaired. The first major strike against the bridge on 11 August 1967 saw the bridge absorb 94 tons of bombs in direct hits and near misses. Three of the bridge spans had been dropped into the river. Remarkably, however, the bridge was back in operation only 53 days after the strike. The next major attempt to drop the bridge came on 25 October 1967, this time with 63 tons of bombs. Again the bridge was knocked out, but less than a month later, the bridge was once again back in operation. On 14 December and 18 December 1967, another 90 tons of bombs were dropped. Still, the Paul Doumer Bridge remained, though badly shaken. Worse, the Dragon's Jaw bridge was never dropped. During the 1967-68 air campaign, 177 fighter-bombers were sent out and dropped 380 tons of bombs on the bridge before the bombings in the north were halted by Washington. It wasn't until mid 1972 that the Paul Doumer and Dragon's Jaw bridges were both finally put of commission. We'll return to the example of the Paul Doumer Bridge later as part of our discussion.

So, what do we need to take out a 400 DP bridge ?

Target vulnerability takes into account the susceptibility of a target to terminal effects or specific damage mechanisms of a munition. Given the robust nature of the target (typically constructed of concrete and steel), we'll need weapon characteristics that produce damage effects including penetration, blast, overpressure, etc. This means either a small number of weapons with very high DP or a very large number of weapons with smaller DP.

What about delivery accuracy ? A bridge (regardless of how large) is in many respects a tough target to actually achieve a decent hit, let alone inflict sufficient damage. The desired mean point of impact (DMPI) is (or are) relatively small. This means we are going to want a significant degree of precision, and force preservation dictates that we will want to achieve this precision with the least expenditure of munitions possible. Therefore, it looks more likely at this point that we will be opting for a small number of weapons with very high DP.

We also need to consider damage criteria, that is, what kind of a kill we desire (at a minimum) to achieve. Victory conditions in a given scenario may come into play here, in addition to other factors, but I usually look to achieve at least 33% damage in any given strike. In the case of a bridge, however, this might not be sufficient to achieve even a Mobility Kill (M-Kill), and in fact, we might need 75% or more to achieve a Catastrophic Kill (K-Kill).

Other factors that ordinarily come into play include hit probability (pH), kill probability (pK) and weapon reliability. In terms of HCCE, all of these are in large part determined by the weapon's PH value. In other words, if the given weapon found in the HCDB can hit the target, it will inflict the equivalent DP factor.

Let's go back to our Paul Doumer Bridge example for a bit. On 11 August 1967 the Paul Doumer Bridge was attacked by a flight of 26 F-105D Thunderchiefs (not including their escorts and other supporting aircraft, which I will mention again later), each carrying a pair of 3,000 lb iron bombs. That's over fifty in all. Three spans were dropped under this awesome bombardment, but it still wasn't enough to put the bridge out of action. What finally took it out ? The laser guided bomb (LGB). Though admittedly the damage to the Paul Doumer Bridge was cumulative, several strikes in mid 1972 settled the issue once and for all. On 10 May 1972, 16 F-4D Phantoms attacked the Paul Doumer bridge, 12 of them carrying a pair of the new 2000 lb LGBs. The next day, four more F-4Ds again attacked with LGBs, this time dropping several spans. After several more attacks with LGBs, the bridge wasn't rebuilt until after the ceasefire in 1973. (The troublesome Dragon's Jaw bridge followed two days later, in even more summary fashion. It took some specially built 3,000 lb LGBs, but resulted in one end of the bridge being lifted off its abutment and tossed into the river).

There are numerous precision guided munitions that might fit the bill for our 400 DP "Small Bridge Target", depending on the player's order of battle. Most of these are built around a 2,000 lb bomb (often the US Mk 84) or a similar heavy warhead. Smaller warheads or those designed to maximize penetration often lack sufficient brute blast force to destroy a bridge.

Some examples of laser guided bombs from the HCDB include:

(1) the US GBU-10 Paveway I/II series (especially those with DP 72)
(2) the French BGL-1000 (DP 67)
(3) the Russian KAB series (ranging from DP 65 for the 750 kg KAB-750L up to DP 100 for the 1,000 kg KAB-1500L)

There are also a range of guided bombs and missiles with standoff capability (permitting the launch aircraft to avoid the lethal envelope of enemy point defences, which we will discuss later). Again, these often center on a 2,000 lb or similar weight warhead, and include:

(1) the GBU-15(V)1/2 or its rocket powered cousin, the AGM-130A (with DP 72 and 71, respectively)
(2) the US/Israeli AGM-142A Have Nap (DP 68)
(3) the Hakim PGM-2000 used by the United Arab Emirates (DP 72)
(4) the Israeli SPICE Mk 84 (DP 72)
(5) the Russian AS-14 Kedge (TV guided Kh-29T or laser guided Kh-29L) (DP 63)

For really long range standoff, stealth and accuracy (all of which comes at an expensive price tag, of course), you might opt for a cruise missile, such as either of:

(1) the US AGM-158A JASSM or the TLAM-C series (both with DP 76)
(2) the European Storm Shadow or Taurus KEPD350 (both with DP 67)

Some simple math comes into play here. If our bridge target has 400 DP, we're going to need a minimum of four or five 2,000 lb class weapons to inflict the kind of catastrophic damage (a K-Kill) that we are looking for. So, now we know what weapons might be available to kill our bridge target. But how many aircraft we will need to deliver them ?

2. Force Application

We must now use the information generated by the weaponeering phase to determine the best force necessary to meet our operational objectives. We assume we have good intelligence about the target (haha, big assumption, huh) and a recommendation for a weapon system. Now our operations and intelligence staff (which, in HCCE terms, refer to the left and right sides of your brain) must merge their planning efforts.

A first step in this phase might be to prepare a tentative force assignment, that is, a "mission package".

Again, our example of the Paul Doumer Bridge provides some useful historical guidance. The first major strike on the bridge, conducted on 11 August 1967, comprised the following mission package:

- 26 F-105D Thunderchiefs, each carrying a pair of 3,000 lb iron bombs
- two F-105D Thunderchief "Wild Weasel" aircraft, each protected by two wingmen and all armed with anti-personnel bombs
- four F-4C Phantoms conducting flak suppression near the target
- more F-4Cs flying high altitude MiGCAP
- several EB-66 Destroyer "College Eye" aircraft orbiting high over the strike force, jamming enemy radar and alerting the MiGCAP of the approach of any hostile fighter aircraft
- pairs of RF-4C Phantoms to fly in over the target area and conduct bomb damage assessment (BDA) after the strike
- KC-135 tankers to provide refueling of the Thunderchiefs and Phantoms as they came off the target

All of the usual elements of a mission package are represented here: the strike aircraft, the fighter escort, the SEAD (suppression of enemy air defences) escort, the airborne early warning and electronic warfare support, the reconnaissance aircraft, and the refuelers. How many of each might we need for our own bridge target ?

While the Paul Doumer Bridge attack called for a flight of 26 strike aircraft and a total of 52 very large bombs, keep in mind that they were dealing with a very robust target and were using unguided munitions dropped from relatively unsophisticated aircraft. Large margins were introduced to boost chance of success. Should we do the same in our own example ? Of course. It is almost always best, should conditions permit, to choose more than one target and weapon combination. This allows planners to have greater flexibility. Personally, I like to use a factor of at least 1.5 to 3, dependent on the difficulty of the target, as well as my own capabilities and those of my adversary.

This means we are going to need three to six strike aircraft, each carrying a pair of bombs (most modern types are comfortable carrying a pair of 2,000 lb class weapons).

How about escorts ? For the offensive counter-air mission (i.e. dealing with enemy interceptors inside enemy airspace), I like to use a factor of 1-2. This means that every strike aircraft will have at least one, and preferably two, fighter escorts. Again, this depends on factors like the number of enemy fighters I am likely to encounter, and the distance from friendly airspace to the target. The capability of my strike aircraft to carry their own defensive air-to-air missiles also comes into play here, since many modern strike/attack aircraft are quite capable of defending themselves. Beyond visual range (BVR) capable air-to-air weapons (e.g. AIM-120 AMRAAM) are preferable.

For the SEAD mission (i.e. dealing with enemy SAM/AAA defences), I go back to the 1.5 to 3 factor. Why ? Because I may have to fight my way to the target, hitting SAM and AAA installations on the way, as well as dealing with point defences that might be situated near the bridge. Also, SEAD is often a "make or break" factor when it comes to a strike mission. Enemy fighters can often be diverted, distracted, or avoided, but flying a strike package into the teeth of a defensive SAM envelope is often suicidal. Also, while cluster bombs served well enough during the Vietnam war, to suppress 37mm, 57mm and 85mm flak batteries, they are less than adequate in today's battle environment. Modern "double-digit" SAMs like the SA-10 often require generous applications of sophisticated anti-radar missiles (like the AGM-88 HARM or ALARM) to suppress the supporting radar systems, and wherever possible, this should be followed by precision delivery of a heavier weapon, like an LGB, to physically destroy the site.

Airborne early warning (AEW) and jamming support go hand in hand with the SEAD escort. In the case of electronic warfare (EW), sometimes the SEAD escorts are also the jamming platforms, as is the case with aircraft like the EA-6B Prowler and EA-18G Growler. It is usually not possible, however, to provide 1.5 to 3 times as many jamming aircraft as there are strike aircraft; the EW aircraft are simply too rare and too valuable. Therefore, the bulk of the SEAD aircraft are usually made up of ARM (anti-radar missile) capable strike aircraft like the F-16C/D, F/A-18E or Tornado, rather than specializing jamming platforms like the Prowler or Growler.

AEW aircraft (like the E-3 Sentry or E-2 Hawkeye) are even more scarce, and generally unable to take on the kind of risks that EW and SEAD aircraft are capable of. They might have to remain outside hostile airspace, require their own heavy fighter escort, and might not be able to provide a constant radar surveillance umbrella over the mission package. In most cases, I will simply push my AEW asset as close to enemy airspace and/or the target as I dare, without endangering the asset or expending too much extra support. In most cases, I can extract some degree of advantage from the AEW coverage for the bulk of the ingress and egress phases of the strike mission.

Bomb damage assessment (BDA) requirements are not something that is modeled very well in HCCE, at least not with fixed installation targets like a bridge. You know the results of your strike as soon as it is carried out, and the damage is expressed as a percentage value. If your target were a mobile one, like a ship or a SAM launcher, you would only know the results of your strike as long as you had firm contact with that target.

BDA is performed by reconnaissance aircraft after the strike is over, but often it is useful to conduct reconnaissance of the target prior to the arrival of your mission package. In terms of HCCE, this is especially true when trying to determine the extent of the enemy's air defences in proximity to the target or along your intended route. Mobile SAM launchers, AAA guns and manportable air defence systems (MANPADS) are invisible to the player until and unless discovered by the appropriate sensors. Conducting pre-strike reconnaissance might serve to reveal these dangers, but it might also alert them. Your call …

Finally, whether your mission package will require in-flight tanking support will be entirely dependent on the capabilities of your aircraft and the range from their home base to the target and back. If your aircraft have "long legs", you might get away with a minimum of aerial tanker support. As with AEW aircraft, tankers are quite valuable, vulnerable and need to be protected. If you're really lucky, you have aircraft that are capable of carrying both "buddy stores" and defensive air-to-air missiles. Some major considerations to remember in the context of HCCE: (1) your tankers can only refuel single aircraft or a group of aircraft, and can do so one time only; and (2) be sure to allow for more than just simple Point A to Point B distance calculations, and keep in mind that your mission package might need to do some "bobbing and weaving" on both the ingress and egress.

3. Execution Planning

Once we have determined the size and composition of our mission package, its time to prepare the actual tasking, construction and subsequent execution of your mission. This includes how you will employ your aircraft and what tactics you will use. This inevitably leads into an area that is much more expansive than intended here, but I will say the following:

I don't assemble all of my mission package components into a single group (even if they are all located at the same base), and I will usually split them up according to their various roles (strike, escort, etc.). If there are sufficient numbers, I will also split up the strike and escort elements into smaller groups to add more flexibility.

If I can afford it, I will often assemble a separate offensive counter-air mission (a sweep and escort, essentially) and send it ahead of the strike mission package in order to determine, disrupt and divert enemy air defences.

Wherever possible, I will have my mission package approach the target from a direction other than direct path, and do the same on the egress.

I am sure other people around here have more to add, but I hope this helps."

[darknite]

Great guide, Brad!

My comments:

- Pre-Strike Recon:  This is vital with HCE when dealing with ground point targets.  With the addition of separate AD units a sweep from a good ESM recon bird helps you pinpoint their defenses and plan your ingress/egress routes as well as the level of SEAD assets you'll need to consider.  These passes won't reveal many, if any, passive AD units but these have limited range which shouldn't effect your approach to target.

- Weaponeering:  I look at several things on a strike loadout.
     o A/C Range:  How much latitude do I have for the approach route, how much use of mil/ab will I have, do I need tanking and where?
     o Damage:  More is better.  Remember that multiple weapons at lower values are good too as long as their ph makes them viable.  The damage should also match the target if needed - ie 11 pt Mavericks are fine for a flight meant to suppress AAA but not for taking out runways.
     o Weapon Range:  Again greater is better - usually.
     o Flight Profile:  All weapons have a flight profile to take into account.  Some have instantaneous profiles like iron bombs, CBUS and LGBs.  Some come in fast and high, others slow and low.  Know what this profile is to make sure you utilize the weapons in an optimal manner, which may influence you ingress route to avoid sites that might destroy inbound weapons.

- Force Application
     o I usually block things into 1, 2 or 4 ship elements for more granular control.
     o Defense suppression can often have two components - long range ARM flights and close-in CBU/AArm flights.  The first deals with Area SAMs while the second accompanies the inbound strike package to deal with point defenses.
     o Keep a tanker reserve.  Hold one flight (1 or more) of tankers available for emergencies and keep them well back from the fight to handle a/c that run into unforseen fuel issues.
     o Jamming is better in HCE as far as limiting detection range.  I like to load my tactical jamming a/c with decoys when available.
     o AEWs are handy but not essential.  Slow AEWs like the E-2 are much more of a liability unless strong fighter cover is available.  Using your EW and fighter a/c correctly mostly negates the need for one over a strike area.

- Execution/Planning
     o If time permits run a dedicated fighter sweep mission into the target area well ahead of launching an air strike to test the interceptor response and thin out their ranks.  This is functionally a separate mission, often with fighters you will use later during your ground attack.
     o The devil is in the details when it comes to smoothly coordinating your strikes.  Launch your slowest a/c first so you're not strung out waiting for assets to arrive when you get to the strike AO.  Same goes for stand off weapons if you're looking for TOT.
     o When possible tank BEFORE the strike.  Tanking afterwards may be complicated as the enemy loves to pursue when it can.
     o I like to run a fighter sweep in toward the target followed by the strike a/c.
     o Leave a 'backstop' flight of fighters as a reserve and to cover your withdrawl.
     o The quieter and lower the better.  Your inbound strike a/c should have radars off and go as low and fast as possible.  Because of HCE's sensor model you do not need to be inside an attacking SAM's radar horizon for it to engage as long as it can get a fix on you via another radar or ESM.  Keep those SAMs off of you for as long as possible.
     o Have a flight of fighters go ACTIVE off-axis to draw off and misdirect the site's fighter cover.
     o Egress at Mil speed if you can afford to.  This dissuades the AI from trying to intercept you if it determines it can't afford the fuel.
     o Use ALL of your ordnance.  Don't hold back unless it's really a milk run.  You want your target DEAD.

DN

[CV32]

Lots of really good, detailed suggestions and tips in there, DN. Thank you. [8D]

[SireChaos]

A comment on multi-role fighters that I´ve already made some time earlier:
 
Multi-role fighters (such as the F/A-18 Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagle) are particularly useful as strike package and escorts, because you can scale the strike/escort ratio by simply alternating loadouts, and because you do not have to worry about differences in airspeed and endurance between strike package and escorts.
There are also a few cases of a dedicated strike aircraft and dedicated fighter being essentially the same aircraft with essentially the same speed and endurance, which gives you the latter advantage, but not the former; examples (off the top of my head) would be F-15C/F-15E, different Tornado variants, MiG-23/MiG-27, and even Tu-22M/Tu-22MP.
 
Also, when splitting strike packages and escorts into small groups, multi-role aircraft or the "twin aircraft" pairs I mentioned make it possible to create mixed strike and escort groups, of say 2 strike aircraft and 1-4 escorts, without drawbacks in range or speed for the group. This avoids the risk of having the enemy catch one of your strike groups without escorts.

[Shark7]

And yet another players planning and execution.

I tend to do everything in groups of 2 or 4 first off.

AEW assets up first. These are screened by 1 or 2 groups of 4 to draw out enemy air assets. This is followed by a fighter sweep, again of 1 or 2 groups of 4 to penetrate into enemy defenses and clear out the remaining cap.

I'll also send out 1 or 2 EW units to jam radars. Usually with fighters handy to keep em safe.

Next comes the SEAD units (if available), again in 1 or 2 groups of 4 to suppress the SAMs. This group will usually have 1 or 2 single elements of recon aircraft that will overfly the target in an attempt to get the AI to 'light up' their defensive network, giving my SEAD groups good targets to fire on. The Recon a/c will be fighters loaded with ferry for extra fuel if no real recon assets are available to me.

Next comes the actual strike package. For me this usually consists of another 2 groups of 4 interceptors to perform a final fighter sweep, 2 to 4 groups of 2 strike craft with cluster munitions or rockets to help supress the AAA at target, and finally the actual strike package, the A/C always in groups of 4. Once the AAA is peeled back, I'll send the attackers in and let the weapons fly. If I can use LR standoff weapons, I'll leave out the AAA supressors and conduct the attack from well outsidce AAA range.

I'll often fly another 1 or 2 recon planes over to make sure I got all targets at the area.

Anyway, this usually works for me.

[jomni]

This write-up is quite useful for the Hornet Leader game. [;)]

[BlindOldUmp]

Looking at your point regarding Timing

ORIGINAL: darknite
Great guide, Brad!

My comments:
- Execution/Planning
    o If time permits run a dedicated fighter sweep mission into the target area well ahead of launching an air strike to test the interceptor response and thin out their ranks.  This is functionally a separate mission, often with fighters you will use later during your ground attack.
    o The devil is in the details when it comes to smoothly coordinating your strikes.  Launch your slowest a/c first so you're not strung out waiting for assets to arrive when you get to the strike AO.  Same goes for stand off weapons if you're looking for TOT.
    o When possible tank BEFORE the strike.  Tanking afterwards may be complicated as the enemy loves to pursue when it can.
    o I like to run a fighter sweep in toward the target followed by the strike a/c.
    o Leave a 'backstop' flight of fighters as a reserve and to cover your withdrawl.
    o The quieter and lower the better.  Your inbound strike a/c should have radars off and go as low and fast as possible.  Because of HCE's sensor model you do not need to be inside an attacking SAM's radar horizon for it to engage as long as it can get a fix on you via another radar or ESM.  Keep those SAMs off of you for as long as possible.
    o Have a flight of fighters go ACTIVE off-axis to draw off and misdirect the site's fighter cover.
    o Egress at Mil speed if you can afford to.  This dissuades the AI from trying to intercept you if it determines it can't afford the fuel.
DN

REALLY NICE Notes CV32 & DN !! [&o][&o]

Being somewhat slow I still look for some form of mission planing tool. Doesn't have to be directly integrated (though that would be REALLY nice!!) - a separate Strike Planner similar to the Scenario Editor that just tells me to Ready all this then launch these platforms at this point, those then and lastly these once I've decided what I want to kill first. I can then program the Staff Assistant to notify me to go to Base ABC & XYZ to Launch or Ready or ...... I'm currently using large legal pads and looking up speeds etc from the database displays. Then I - If needed - can tell the Staff Assistant. Mostly I just write it down. If I had another screen I would use Notepad but right now I have a big desk and only one monitor. Besides - I'm old and actually trained with pencil & paper instead of computers. I like to lead with TFR equipped AC. That way the OpFor thinks that the pop-ups they are getting, which are from my 2nd wave, which is at low instead of Very low to avoid the inevitable attrition of Pilot Error, or the fighters, is the time of the raid & they are behind and off axis when SEAD hits. If I'm really low on assets the SEAD might be all I send so that my next strike cycle might get through. I like Shark7's note about "bait" for the SEAD. Rabbit might not though.

It's not always Time that prevents a fighter sweep. Sometimes you just don't have the assets for the coordinated strike you REALLY want. That - as SireChaos mentions, is the purpose for multi-role fighters. Though 105's give a real good account of themselves. Gun Equipped Phantoms if you have them

Keep the parts to your strike as close together as possible. You want the enemy still shaking off the loss of its radars etc when your real strike hits. It never hurts to keep some fighters low either. If you have enough. If you can rise up to bite the enemy when he has turned to attack your Strike you might get a better result. It's worked for me before anyway.

Tanking is a really Timing Nightmare but well worth it. If tony can get those tankers to act more like real life it will make it easier but of course - If it were easy it wouldn't be half the fun

[CV32]

Some further comments re SEAD/DEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences/Destruction of Enemy Air Defences) tactics:

-> Never shoot an ARM (anti-radiation missile) at a target for which you do not have a precise fix on its position. Your missile will almost certainly miss its target. (I realize that in real life, some sophisticated ARMs are capable of neat stuff like 'prebriefed' or 'reactionary' launch, but here you need a precise fix).

-> Be as generous as possible in your ARM allocations. You need to account for misses, shootdowns and the relatively low DP of most ARMs.

-> Aim for the highest priority threat, i.e. the enemy SAM/AAA asset that is most dangerous to your primary strike objectives. There is little point in wasting precious ARMs against short ranged air defenses if you don't need to fly through their engagement envelopes to reach your objective.

-> Many SAM systems or sites have multiple radars. Make sure you kill ALL the threatening radars associated with the site. (HCE doesn't model knocking out just the fire control radars). Merely damaging them may not be sufficient.

-> If you have them at your disposal, take advantage of the use of decoys (e.g. TALD/ITALD) to soak up enemy SAMs and allow for better penetration of your ARMs and follow-up attacks.

-> Be aware of the threat of non-radar guided AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) and MANPADS (manportable air defense systems, i.e. shoulder fired SAMs). They don't need radars to attack you, and can be difficult to detect until its too late.