Steve Davies Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 I was recently updating an article I wrote on pointy nose weaponeering a few years back. I interviewed the RAF equivalent of a FWIC IWSO for the article, and he talked in some depth about teaching his studs to manually calculate fusing, impact angles, penetration depths, impact speed etc. Of course, theere are also computers that can do all this stuff, but I suppose that the RAF wants to make sure that its FWIC studs don't forget how to do it the old fashioned way. Anyway, it got me to thinking about some stuff I was told about the mission planning software used by USAF strike pilots and WSOs. I was told that you could input, say, a command bunker into the computer, tell it how many floors it has and on which floor you wanted the bomb to detonate, and it would come up with all the numbers for the flying and delivery profiles to make that happen. This was several years back, so I am assuming that the computers have only become smarter. Plus, with Paveway III and IV, and JDAM now allowing impact angles to be selected from the cockpit, it struck me (as an outsider) that even the mechanics of employing these weapons has been massively simplified. So, my question to you guys that drop bombs or blow stuff up on the ground is: Are you all pretty much reliant on computers to do the weaponeering for you? Or, do you keep your hand in at calculating things the old fashioned way? I can understand that the old heads might have these skills so engrained that they will never be lost to them, but are the young guys coming into the communities experts on Falconview, but not that skilled at manually calculating the desired data? You could ask, 'does it matter?', but my *assumption* is that it probably does and will... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rainman A-10 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Anyway, it got me to thinking about some stuff I was told about the mission planning software used by USAF strike pilots and WSOs. I was told that you could input, say, a command bunker into the computer, tell it how many floors it has and on which floor you wanted the bomb to detonate, and it would come up with all the numbers for the flying and delivery profiles to make that happen. Guess what I'm going to say... The programs are classified. How they work is classified. Whoever talked to you about them was walking on thin ice. I would not expect anyone here to elaborate for you. So, my question to you guys that drop bombs or blow stuff up on the ground is: Are you all pretty much reliant on computers to do the weaponeering for you? Or, do you keep your hand in at calculating things the old fashioned way? You could ask, 'does it matter?', but my *assumption* is that it probably does and will... The Trough is only division that hand cranks mils today and they only have to hand crank about 10% of their mils. There used to be an instructor from the Trough that would teach hand cranking mils to the other bomb dropping platforms (like the AIM-120 class for non-shooters) but I don't know if that happens anymore either. I doubt it. The -34-2 ballistic tables are no longer published, haven't been for a long time. Copies ar kept in the Arc of the Covenant and passed on to each new generation...or used to be. I don't think any of the students have to hand crank JMEMS anymore but I don't know for sure. Maybe the BUFF guys still do, they were as interested in that as the Hog guys were in hand cranking mils. The computers work better and with fewer errors than a pencil and a slide rule. The biggest problem with not teaching guys how to hand crank mils is guys will not have appreciation for things like wind effects on ballistic trajectory and weapons guidance. I have heard many pilots from many different airframes say things that are just plain wrong. Not many fighter pilots know why 1.69 x TOF x wind is important anymore. Maybe the bomber guys still do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Weaponeering doesn't really make a difference when the JTAC knows exactly what kind of weapon he wants and when he wants it. Like when he'd like me to "mark the target with 20mm" or hit a moving truck with a GBU-39. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share Posted June 4, 2007 Guess what I'm going to say... No need. That was the reason I didn't ask about the software. The Trough is only division that hand cranks mils today and they only have to hand crank about 10% of their mils. There used to be an instructor from the Trough that would teach hand cranking mils to the other bomb dropping platforms (like the AIM-120 class for non-shooters) but I don't know if that happens anymore either. Thanks. Is 'The Trough' the A-10 FWIC? The biggest problem with not teaching guys how to hand crank mils is guys will not have appreciation for things like wind effects on ballistic trajectory and weapons guidance. I have heard many pilots from many different airframes say things that are just plain wrong. Not many fighter pilots know why 1.69 x TOF x wind is important anymore. Maybe the bomber guys still do. That's what my assumption was leading me to conclude. I talked to some guys about GBU-12 performance in OIF and one particular unit (actually a rainbow) was having issues with dropping short because guys were not taking wind into account. I just thought that in the days prior to software solutions and LGBs that such a basic error would have been caught at the weaponeering stage. Thanks for the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share Posted June 4, 2007 Weaponeering doesn't really make a difference when the JTAC knows exactly what kind of weapon he wants and when he wants it. Like when he'd like me to "mark the target with 20mm" or hit a moving truck with a GBU-39. I understand that in KI/CAS and TST work that's not an issue, but for a more traditional OCA mission it must be an important part of the mission planning process, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rainman A-10 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 I just thought that in the days prior to software solutions and LGBs that such a basic error would have been caught at the weaponeering stage. It is. Guys just ignore it. Seems kind of stupid to go through all the effort required by all the people involved with fighting your way to the target and then miss because of something as simple as a wind correction, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rainman A-10 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 I understand that in KI/CAS and TST work that's not an issue, but for a more traditional OCA mission it must be an important part of the mission planning process, no? JTACs can request a weapon but the CAS pilot's job is to help him select the best one. They don't care what you use to "make it stop" when their asses are really in a crack. It is typically when they're bored that you get a stupid request. No way I would drop any kind of GBU on a mover if I had a Maverick or bullets left in the gun. "Because the JTAC told me to" is a shitty excuse 99.69% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share Posted June 4, 2007 JTACs can request a weapon but the CAS pilot's job is to help him select the best one. They don't care what you use to "make it stop" when their asses are really in a crack. It is typically when they're bored that you get a stupid request. No way I would drop any kind of GBU on a mover if I had a Maverick or bullets left in the gun. Too bad you can't share some of your experiences with the masses. It is. Guys just ignore it. Seems kind of stupid to go through all the effort required by all the people involved with fighting your way to the target and then miss because of something as simple as a wind correction, doesn't it? Yes, that was pretty much what I thought (although I kept it to myself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 There used to be an instructor from the Trough that would teach hand cranking mils to the other bomb dropping platforms (like the AIM-120 class for non-shooters) but I don't know if that happens anymore either. I doubt it. We do. I don't think any of the students have to hand crank JMEMS anymore but I don't know for sure. Maybe the BUFF guys still do, they were as interested in that as the Hog guys were in hand cranking mils. We do. I guess I am one of the last dinosaurs, but I think all WUGs should have the opportunity to hand-crank (sts), the numbers. Perhaps that is why the Gunships and Hogs will still be shooting when the EMP bomb goes off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbar Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 (edited) The B-1 community also still does some manual calculations as a backup though I'm not sure how in-depth the Bone WS gets. As an aside, in a previous life as an intel puke I had two weeks of learning to do it manually (sts) and it was a major pain. I don't think you could even do manual weaponeering for a bomber full of JDAMs or SDBs; it would simply take too damned long. Also, here's an article from Air Force magazine saying the Japanese can't even do it with a computer ( http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=19057). PBAR Edited June 5, 2007 by pbar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Weaver Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Our WIC grads in the BUFF are typically the knowledge base for JMEM calculations. It's really the only way to translate a desired Pd into a loadout. Our 3-3 has simplified JDAM/WCMD weaponeering matrices to be used in an CAS/INT/TST role. Also, applying a few fuzing rules of thumb makes dynamic targeting simpler with the GBU-31/FMU-152 (joint programmable fuze) combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rumblefish_2 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 We have the software back in the vault that can crank out every calculation imaginable, but since we rarely do GP deliveries, a quick look at the squadron WAG can give you most of the numbers you need. That's not to say that our squadron weapons officer doesn't love to bust out the four colored markers and standard-issue dip can and show the young punks how it used to be done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted June 5, 2007 Author Share Posted June 5, 2007 Thanks, fellas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 I understand that in KI/CAS and TST work that's not an issue, but for a more traditional OCA mission it must be an important part of the mission planning process, no? You actually completely missed the sarcasm of my post -- JTACs sometimes make some really retarded weaponeering requests. Marking the target with the gun is a really stupid idea (I know it's not a big deal in the Hog, but a strafe is a relatively high-performance maneuver for an F-15E) as is hitting a mover with a GPS-guided weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted June 5, 2007 Author Share Posted June 5, 2007 You actually completely missed the sarcasm of my post -- JTACs sometimes make some really retarded weaponeering requests. Marking the target with the gun is a really stupid idea (I know it's not a big deal in the Hog, but a strafe is a relatively high-performance maneuver for an F-15E) as is hitting a mover with a GPS-guided weapon. Yeah, I missed it. The 20mm reference was obvious, but I actually thought that hitting movers with GBU-38/GBU-39 was an art the F-15E community might have mastered; hence the idiot reply. Thanks for clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Why is it a really stupid idea to mark with gun? Not ideal, but it works. With the F-15E's upcanted gun and the limited effective range of the 20mm, strafe is one of the riskier attacks that the airplane can do. It is exactly the opposite of the A-10, where it is the easiest weapon to use in any situation. It's not something that I would use in a threat environment just to MARK a target. To kill something...sure, gladly, any day. But, if I'm not sure where the target is before the pass, I'm sure as f*ck not going to stick my nose downhill and try and ID it through the pipper while I'm screaming at the dirt at 480 KCAS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rainman A-10 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 With the F-15E's upcanted gun and the limited effective range of the 20mm, strafe is one of the riskier attacks that the airplane can do. It is exactly the opposite of the A-10, where it is the easiest weapon to use in any situation. It's not something that I would use in a threat environment just to MARK a target. To kill something...sure, gladly, any day. But, if I'm not sure where the target is before the pass, I'm sure as f*ck not going to stick my nose downhill and try and ID it through the pipper while I'm screaming at the dirt at 480 KCAS. Mark with these... or this... Kill with this... Or these... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted June 6, 2007 Author Share Posted June 6, 2007 Mark with Gotta love the OV-10. Anyone here read Forward Air Controller Vietnam by Marshall Harrison? The best Vietnam FAC book out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Trust me, Rainman, if they'd let us throw rockets on the two "unused" wing pylons on the F-15E (1 and 9 for the technically inclined), I'd be ALL for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coach Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 JTACs don't do weaponeering, they are there to protect friendlies from the weapons effects. Only B-1s let the JTACs do their weaponeering. I like this place. coach How did I end up being a SNAP? coach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rainman A-10 Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 JTACs don't do weaponeering, they are there to protect friendlies from the weapons effects. Only B-1s let the JTACs do their weaponeering. I like this place. coach How did I end up being a SNAP? coach Uh-oh...you guys thought I was bad? HA! Coach is a SNAP. That's awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now