Flying below the radar

[Ekaton]

I've just played scenario Yankee Station and loved it. Flying below the radar coverage really did the trick and I was able to get most of the targets with no losses. It made me think about utilizing the strategy in different situations and so I'd like to ask people here who know more than I do:

1. Was flying below the radar really utilized during the Vietnam War? I know that bombings took place at a low altitude but I've never really read about how they were getting to their targets.
2.Was it ever SAC strategy above Russia to bomb targets from a very low altitude? I was playing the "Wargasm" scenario recently and lost quite some planes to the SAs when I tried to drop actual bombs instead of Hound Dogs.
3. Is this still used today by attack planes? I know that you can cover behind hills and in the canyons, but is flying at say 500 ft to avoid radar still utilized today in any way, or are jammers ruling the skies? What about third world conflicts with air forces that don't have them, would such tactic make any sense in the world today?

[Randomizer]

2.Was it ever SAC strategy above Russia to bomb targets from a very low altitude? I was playing the "Wargasm" scenario recently and lost quite some planes to the SAs when I tried to drop actual bombs instead of Hound Dogs.

Cannot speak with confidence on Vietnam but...

The advent of the SAM forced SAC to adopt a low-altitude approach to attacking targets in the Soviet Union with nuclear gravity bombs. By 1962, the strike profile for the B-47 fleet was high-speed low altitude and bombers regularly flew the Oil Burner training routes in the Western USA at `150 feet AGL. They would then use a lob-toss bombing flight profile (referred to as Low Altitude Bombing System - LABS; not yet modeled in CMANO) to throw the bomb (likely a Mk-6 or Mk-7) on a ballistic trajectory that would deliver it to the target and allow the bomber time to escape, again at low altitude and high speed. This involved a steep, maximum-power climb transitioning to an inverted half-loop after bomb release, reversing direction (a function of the half-loop) and then power diving back to the deck.

These mission profiles effectively destroyed the B-47 force in a few years as the G-Forces imposed were considerable and the planes were never designed for Immelmann turns at 400+ knots.

The B-52's were also intended to use a low-altitude attack profile but were defensively better equipped with DECM and decoys that the B-47's could not use. This allowed (in theory) the B-52's to ingress low and fast using the Hound Dogs on nearby PVO bases to deal with the interceptors and the on-board electronics and decoys to defeat the target defensive SAMs. Casualties for the first wave of bombers were anticipated to be in the 50% range even if the attack profile minimized the time that the bomber would be exposed to defensive fire.

As far as I know, lob-toss bombing is still a viable attack profile.

-C.

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: Ekaton

I've just played scenario Yankee Station and loved it. Flying below the radar coverage really did the trick and I was able to get most of the targets with no losses. It made me think about utilizing the strategy in different situations and so I'd like to ask people here who know more than I do:

1. Was flying below the radar really utilized during the Vietnam War? I know that bombings took place at a low altitude but I've never really read about how they were getting to their targets.
2.Was it ever SAC strategy above Russia to bomb targets from a very low altitude? I was playing the "Wargasm" scenario recently and lost quite some planes to the SAs when I tried to drop actual bombs instead of Hound Dogs.
3. Is this still used today by attack planes? I know that you can cover behind hills and in the canyons, but is flying at say 500 ft to avoid radar still utilized today in any way, or are jammers ruling the skies? What about third world conflicts with air forces that don't have them, would such tactic make any sense in the world today?

1. Not really sure about Vietnam. From what I can gather, most organised strikes flew ingress at medium level to avoid AAA, which was very common--particularly over the north--and extremely well camouflaged.

2. Indeed it was. The FB-111 was SACs low level penetrator, specifically employed for this purpose.

3. Even for countries with good jamming capabilities, low level penetrations can be an advantage. With jamming the enemy may be clued in to the fact that something is going to happen, not so with low level penetration if it's done well. For countries without much in the way of jamming capability, it's much more relevant. In my own time in the Australian Navy, we drilled for low level attacks a lot but never seemed that worried about high altitude stand off attack (which when you consider the capability of our neighbours, is not surprising).

[Ogier]

1. Light to medium AAA was the biggest killer. Therefore aircraft flew generally high enough to avoid most AAA. I think "Medium Altitude" was at least for some time defined as above effective AAA range.

Radar (EW, GCI and SAM) was countered by more and more sophisticated jamming, chaff and ARMs, not so much by underflying it. At least in the context of strike missions. So they were brute-forcing it, rather than rely on stealth. Usually the NV were well aware a strike was inbound even before US planes entered their airspace. Form up, refueling and ingress of strikes happened quite visible and from predictable directions. And NV had a quite effective EW system, while some aspects of the US air campaigns were probably a bit too scripted at times.

The evolution of air combat tactics and electronic warfare during the US involvement in Vietnam is a fascinating topic. A very good intro can be had by reading Michel's classic "Clashes: Air Combat Over North Vietnam"

[Ekaton]

Thank you for your answers!

Could anyone of you recommend a book which would be a good start on Cold War aerial warfare?

[thewood1]

I just finished Osprey's SA-2 New Vanguard book. While a little superficial, it gives a good outline of the cat and mouse radar and anti-radar developments during the Vietnam War and the Yom Kippur War. There are a couple good ECM books around, but the Osprey book is lighter and easier to digest.

The book 617 about the Tornado squadrons and the operations is also a good book that outlines low-level flying and its advantages. There is a lot of not useful stuff around the good stories, but it gives a good sense of the danger of the missions and the sophistication of the avionics.

[Ogier]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

...There are a couple good ECM books around,...

Do you have one or two you'd especially recommend?

I'd be in the mood for some good ECM book.

[thewood1]

I would actually start with the Osprey book and work up from there. It will be simplistic for some well versed in ECM technology, but it is a great starter to see what the important stuff is about.

As to more advanced books...anything by Dr. Alfred Price is approachable, yet more detailed. After that, there are a bunch of histories of electronic warfare in Vietnam that are good stories. There are also a series of actual course books you can find on Amazon. I would start with the Price books.

[peterc100248]

Penetration tactics designed to avoid SAMs and minimize AAA started in Vietnam. The Navy used such tactics with the A6 Intruders. The strike formation went in at very low level, high speed, spread out, and at night. The USAF used the same tactics with the F-111. There is an excellent older movie that was done quite accurately entitled "Flight of the Intruder" that should be required viewing for CMANO strategists. You can get it on DVD from Amazon. I highly recommend it.

Low level penetration is still a very effective tactic. Part of the rationale behind the B1B bomber was that it provided a very comfortable, high speed ride at very low levels. I was the victim of a little "pranking" by a Dyess AFB-based B1B late one afternoon about sunset. I was on a lonely stretch of road north of the Davis Mountains in West Texas in my old pea-green 1963 VW Beetle. I was about the only car on the road in a 30 mile stretch of highway. Cruising along on my way home, the hairs on the back of my neck started standing straight up. I looked out my drivers side window and about 1/4 mile away was a B1B running about 500 Kts at what looked to be less that 100 feet. They went right over me - causing the little Beetle to almost die of fright! I glanced to my right and the plane was gently wagging its wings. I was probably the butt of the joke for days after in the ready room.

Jamming is not the panacea we think. The problem is like playing with rattlesnakes. You hope your jamming is working, but you never really know one way or another unless they strike. The best idea in war is for the enemy to not know you're there - never see or hear you until it's too late.

[Ogier]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

...anything by Dr. Alfred Price is approachable,... ...There are also a series of actual course books you can find on Amazon...

Ah, thanks for reminding me about Price. I read his EW stuff years ago, I think. Maybe I should revisit him. For quite some time I have the EW-series from David Adamy on my watchlist. They're awfully expensive though...

[Ekaton]

Thanks for your answers regarding Vietnam. In my case I was bombing the enemy low and slow and escaping if possible above clouds which were very low and in case those were higher, through routes previously determined by recon as rather safe. This way, and by ambushing enemy planes with superior numbers I managed to finish the mission with no casualties.

Of course it might have been a bit gamey now that I think of it. First of all, I don't think that we have camouflaged AAA positions yet, at least not as far as I know, and AAA sites can be quite accurately noticed by recon planes. I think that only once or twice my planes were actually fired upon on the way to or from the target by AAA guns I didn't know were there. Charlie could have obviously moved his equipment meaning that my recon was useless but I don't think he did it in the game.

The other thing is that this seems overly dangerous. I don't really know what the loss tolerance was at the time and what danger was acceptable for the US planners, but for today standards I think this has put them in too much danger. On the other hand, to think about the alternative, it was the only way besides jamming to accomplish the mission as SAMs were too damn close. Another time I played this scenario with jamming and only getting to low altitude before the bombing for accuracy reasons, and lost several planes to the enemy. This time I've lost none with careful recon of the approaches.

[Rory Noonan]

I am constantly shocked when I read stats about how many us aircraft were lost over Vietnam. I also think the average Joe does not equate Vietnam with being much of an air war, but it really had a lot going on. MiGs intercepting strike packages, the development of SEAD, the debut of modern OECM. Far more to it than just close air support and dust off.

[jarraya]

Think low level attacks on the British fleet during the Falklands war. Very effective. Had the Argentines had better bombs, many more British ships would have ended up in the bottom of Falkland Sound.

[Amnectrus]

I've recently read a couple books about the Gulf War. One of them is Strike Eagle: Flying the F-15E in the Gulf War by William L. Smallwood. It's about the two squadrons of F-15Es that saw combat in Desert Storm, the 335th TFS (Chiefs) and the 336th TFS (Rockets). Their mission during the early part of the air campaign was deep interdiction, hitting fixed Scud sites, fuel storage tanks, runways and aircraft shelters, etc. This was before the Iraqi air defenses had been fully neutralized, so most of the missions were at night and all were at very low level, specifically to avoid radar. As an example, CMANO gives the mast height of a Spoon Rest radar installation as 30 m. From that height, the radar horizon to a plane flying at even 1000 ft is 51 nm. At 500 kts, that's over 6 minutes flying time. But the radar horizon to a plane flying at 200 ft is only 30 nm, which is just over 3.5 minutes flying time. (Here's a radar horizon calculator that I've found handy.) And that's assuming a plane is flying directly toward a radar. If you're trying instead to get around radars to penetrate deep into enemy territory, it's much easier to get around a 30 nm circle than a 51 nm circle. One thing I really wish the game would show is enemy radar ranges vs your currently selected unit, but as it is now, you have to do the height calculations manually and visualize the reduced radar ranges in your head.

Another important factor in flying low is against airborne radars. Most early fighter radars (up to the mid to late 1960s) were not very good at picking up low flying targets. The F-4J (1966) and MiG-23 (1970) were the first fighters to be equipped with look-down/shoot-down radars. The difference in altitude between the planes is also important, but flying low will generally reduce detection ranges, and may hide you entirely from some radars.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Amnectrus

I've recently read a couple books about the Gulf War. One of them is Strike Eagle: Flying the F-15E in the Gulf War by William L. Smallwood. It's about the two squadrons of F-15Es that saw combat in Desert Storm, the 335th TFS (Chiefs) and the 336th TFS (Rockets). Their mission during the early part of the air campaign was deep interdiction, hitting fixed Scud sites, fuel storage tanks, runways and aircraft shelters, etc. This was before the Iraqi air defenses had been fully neutralized, so most of the missions were at night and all were at very low level, specifically to avoid radar. As an example, CMANO gives the mast height of a Spoon Rest radar installation as 30 m. From that height, the radar horizon to a plane flying at even 1000 ft is 51 nm. At 500 kts, that's over 6 minutes flying time. But the radar horizon to a plane flying at 200 ft is only 30 nm, which is just over 3.5 minutes flying time. (Here's a radar horizon calculator that I've found handy.) And that's assuming a plane is flying directly toward a radar. If you're trying instead to get around radars to penetrate deep into enemy territory, it's much easier to get around a 30 nm circle than a 51 nm circle. One thing I really wish the game would show is enemy radar ranges vs your currently selected unit, but as it is now, you have to do the height calculations manually and visualize the reduced radar ranges in your head.

Another important factor in flying low is against airborne radars. Most early fighter radars (up to the mid to late 1960s) were not very good at picking up low flying targets. The F-4J (1966) and MiG-23 (1970) were the first fighters to be equipped with look-down/shoot-down radars. The difference in altitude between the planes is also important, but flying low will generally reduce detection ranges, and may hide you entirely from some radars.

The game does show estimated ranges. These are the circles with the dotted lines.

Mike

[Amnectrus]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

The game does show estimated ranges. These are the circles with the dotted lines.

Mike

I meant the estimated range relative to the unit you currently have selected. Like, if I have an F-15E at 200 ft, it would be cool if Command could draw the radar range circles around surface radars at the distance of what their radar horizon would be against a target at 200 ft.

Extending that thought, there's all sorts of cool things that could potentially be done to visualize radar performance, like drawing the range circles taking into account the RCS of your currently selected unit and the estimated tracking ability of the radar, or drawing them with terrain radar shadows, or making them shorter based on jamming effects, etc. Might be prohibitive in terms of CPU processing power, but it would be a really cool way to get a better mental picture of what various radars are and aren't capable of in different settings and against different units.

[ComDev]

Great thread [8D]

[peterc100248]

I'm sorry I cannot lay my hands om the link at the moment, but if you search on "falcom BMS" on YouTube there are some great videos of a modern heads-up presentation of ground and air threats as the pilot sees them - pretty accurate, I might add. The threat is in the form of a half bubble that represents the lethal threat area. This video comes from a modern rework of the old Microprose flight simulator "Falcon 4". The code was released and numerous groups picked it up. Falcon BMS is Benchmark Sims version - and arguably the best. I'll try and find a link to the video. I think their system demands are a bit higher than CMANO.

The video is a 3D view of a multi-player strike.

Here is the BMS website. Interesting.

http://www.bmsforum.org/forum/content.php?s=628a6b1aa2f712bcebe9acfce6dc7c08

[Amnectrus]

I'm on mobile right now so can't do much in the way of looking online, but what you're describing sounds kinda similar to [TacView](http://tacview.strasoftware.com/product/about/en). I've seen a couple posts either here or on the Baloogan forum about using TacView for CMANO but AFAIK it's not directly compatible.

I would really dearly love if CMANO would enable full 3D visualization though, even if it's somewhat crude with 2D unit counters and such. I believe they're using NASA World Wind as their underlying visualization system. I'm a bit of a map nerd, and I discovered and used World Wind way way back in the day before Google Earth. World Wind was the first software I know of that integrated satellite imagery and digital heightmaps to make a complete 3D globe, straight out of Snowcrash. Then Google Earth (directly inspired by Snowcrash, incidentally) came along with a better interface and more frequent data updates and kinda ate its lunch in the personal-use sector, but World Wind is an open source Java app and I assume much better suited to commercial use if you need to do a lot of customization.

Anyway, can you imagine if you could tilt the view in CMANO and it would show you a full 3D bubble around the radars and missile ranges, and the actual scan boxes of aircraft radars, the dead-space cone in the "baffles" of subs, the arcs of high flying missiles, etc.? That would be magical. A lot of programming work as well I'm sure , but super cool.

[thewood1]

I really hope the devs don't invest a lot in 3d graphics. They were next to worthless in Fleet Command and just consumed cycles for devs.