From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Term for a bombing technique?
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 16:36:35 GMT

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <vb15@umail.umd.edu> wrote:

>Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>> Dive toss was particularly effective;  the crew dipped the nose a bit to
>> acquire the target on the sight reticle ( while the rear-seater locked the
>> radar onto the ground target, obtaining range ).  Pressing the bomb button
>> and pulling up, the computer would determine when to release the bombs.
>> The bombs would be tossed a few miles in a long arc - and the crew could evade
>> the dangerous area over the target.  It was the most accurate mode we had
>> - and the safest for the crew.
>
>It would be interesting to know the standard for accuracy over several
>miles.
>if the plane is moving at 400 knots, it covers a mile every 8 seconds or
>so.  If you releasing several miles away you have to acquire the target
>at 6-8 miles. you need to know range, airspeed, altitude, attitude and
>wind at the moment of release to solve for the impact point. A very
>small error in any term can produce large errors in impact.

Dweezil is generally accurate (and since his sig tells me he worked
Dive Toss maintenance at Korat, he knows something of the system.)
But, the description of the delivery method is a bit off.

In a Dive Toss delivery in an F-4E, the aircraft rolled into a typical
dive bomb pass and as soon as the nose of the aircraft was below the
horizon the WSO would place the range gate over the ground return on
the radar (five mile boresight view) and lock onto the ground
establishing a radar range through the pipper.

The pilot would then depress the pickle button when the pipper was on
the target. You would then initiate a wings level pull-out and the
computer would release the weapons at the appropriate time to hit the
target. The cliche that described the required maneuver was "you must
fly your ass over the target."

Despite the name Dive Toss, the bombs weren't lofted, weren't released
above the horizon in the pull out and certainly didn't fly several
miles.

The advantage of DT was that the pilot did not have to achieve
specific release parameters of dive angle, G-load, airspeed, altitude
and wind correction offset for an accurate combat weapons delivery.
The DT system compensated for varying dive angles, airspeeds, etc.
giving the crew much greater flexibility in a high threat environment.
But, despite what Dweezil suggests, the F-4 crew still had to go all
the way to the target.

The factors that Dr. Brautigan lists were handled by the radar for
range, the INS platform for attitude and wind drift, and the central
air data computer for airpeed, g-load and pressure altitude. When
maintained properly (and the guys at Korat were the undisputed
champs), the system provided better weapons delivery than even the
most skilled manual dive bomb pilot could achieve.



 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Term for a bombing technique?
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 23:19:30 GMT

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <vb15@umail.umd.edu> wrote:

>
>I don't disagree, since I know manual delivery was incredibly inaccurate
>im still interested in how far from the target they had to set the
>range, in both techniques.

Manual dive bomb can be incredibly accurate. Qualification level for
low-angle (10 degree) was 105 feet and for dive bomb (30-45 degree)
was 140 feet circular error.

The problem is that in a combat situation you usually don't have
accurate landmarks to provide the proper offsets to give you a precise
roll-in point. You also seldom have accurate wind aloft readings and
you may or may not be able to attain the exact release altitude and
airspeed--particularly if the target is surrounded by a large group of
people fighting for their lives.

I don't understand the query "how far from the target they had to set
the range"? We are talking about delivery of conventional weapons when
discussing Dive Toss, not nukes. Range was "set" in Dive Toss by the
WSO locking on to the ground return with the radar in boresight. The
range was then continually calculated to the point under the pipper.

Nuclear deliveries, whether loft, LADD, VTIP or laydown, are another
set of parameters.


 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Term for a bombing technique?
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:42:26 GMT

"PosterBoy" <brauck@bigfoot.com> wrote:


>  SHAPE drops:
>   I have been following the thread with interest.
>   I am very curious.  Please help.
>   How many of the posters (and others who have just been reading) have
>actually dropped shape-simulations from other than high-altitude?
>    In what years?  (mine were '54).

As you already know, I've dropped a few shapes as well as a thousand
or so "beer cans."

In the F-105 we did VTIP, the "over the shoulder" Immelman delivery
strictly for orientation. The qualification criteria, IIRC was 2500
feet, but since the weapon would have been a B-28 or B-43 at 1.1 MT,
it would have been adequate.

The current delivery method that we seriously trained in was LADD
(Low-Angle Drogue Delivery) in either radar or visual modes and
Laydown, also radar or visual. The LADD involved a pull-up prior to
the target either by timing from a known landmark or at a preset radar
range. The 105 radar also could do "blind offset" using a nearby radar
return to drop on a non-radar reflecting target. Laydown, as the name
implies, involved flying directly over the target at low altitude and
releasing the weapon--this would be extremely accurate, but would
result in a ground burst which was usually less desirable.

In the F-4 we did all of the same deliveries except for the VTIP. With
shapes in Laydown the CEP was under 200 feet.


 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Term for a bombing technique?
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:36:11 GMT

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <vb15@umail.umd.edu> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:

>> Manual dive bomb can be incredibly accurate. Qualification level for
>> low-angle (10 degree) was 105 feet and for dive bomb (30-45 degree)
>> was 140 feet circular error.
>
>in practice conditions?  and are these an average error?

These are controlled range conditions, although once through initial
qualification (the criteria scores are average for six consecutive
sorties with two bombs per event per sortie), then all deliveries were
required to be "tactical" which meant either pop-ups or curvilinear
approaches.

>If your target is a 30 foot wide bridge and you approach it
>perpendicularly you are not going to get a lot of hits with 140 foot
>averac circular error.

You're telling me? But, in a tactical situation you will be dropping
multiple bombs on the pass and ideally your attack axis is at an angle
to the bridge. Still, you are absolutely correct, which is why PGMs
are so nice.

>> I don't understand the query "how far from the target they had to set
>> the range"? We are talking about delivery of conventional weapons when
>> discussing Dive Toss, not nukes. Range was "set" in Dive Toss by the
>> WSO locking on to the ground return with the radar in boresight.
>
>not clear to me.  Are you describing something being a good radar target
>at 10 miles?
>no problem with a scud missle in a open desert.  How about a gun
>emplacement?

No, I'm describing a radar slaved to boresight--the line through the
2-mil gunsight pipper. You only see the azimuth line stationary on the
scope and a rough line across the azimuth at impact with the ground
(remember this is a conventional dive delivery). When you are wings
level there is nothing on the scope because you are looking level
toward the horizon. When you roll into the dive as the pipper goes
below the horizon you get a ground return--any ground return, not the
target. When you lock onto the ground, the system now has range to
whatever is under the pipper. The pilot "freezes" the solution into
the computer when he depresses the pickle button. At any point after
that the bombs will come off when the computer says they will hit the
target.

The target is visually acquired, not by radar. The radar is merely the
ranging device.


 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Term for a bombing technique?
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:43:45 GMT

maury@remove_this.istar.ca (Maury Markowitz) wrote:

>  LW Ju-87 pilots regularily got hits on the tops of tanks.  Then again they
>did try a lot, and the -87 was considered to be the most accurate dive bomber
>ever.

The Stuka had the advantage of being aerodynamically dirty enough that
it could achieve very high dive angles without letting the airspeed
get out of hand. At relatively low controlled airspeeds the sight
picture could be very precise and the release altitude would let you
get quite close to your work.


 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Term for a bombing technique?
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 15:38:43 GMT

Dweezil Dwarftosser <wcsys@usa.net> wrote:

>FYI - from late 1969 through 1973, the 388th TFW at Korat used Dive Toss
>almost to the exclusion of any other bomb mode, attaining an unsurpassed
>record for accuracy with the mode.
>
--SNIP--
>
>Dive Toss was used extensively against AAA gun emplacements; any other mode
>was close to suicide.

True enough. But, while I was doing the Hunter-Killer mission out of
Korat during Linebacker I/II, I was forced to discontinue using Dive
Toss for CBU deliveries against SA-2 sites because of the min range
problem. After twice coming off sites in the Hanoi area with multiple
missiles airborne and heavy 23/37/57 fire only to find the CBU-52
still aboard.

My operation reverted to strictly manual, sequence single, visual dive
bomb.


 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: F-16 vs SA-6
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 15:46:36 GMT

Andrey Shvetsov <gamma@orc.ru> wrote:

>Ed,
>
>Was CBU/iron bomb delivery still believed viable way to attack a missile
>site after Warpac practice became to park at least a couple of Shilkas
>alongside TELs? I would think that attacking with iron weapons would be
>too risky if quality AAAcover is available.

I still only know one way to kill something. That's to precisely
deliver hot iron on it. Stand-off slinging of ARMs is great, but if
you really want to kill it you need more than a grenade sized warhead.


I mentioned in the scenario defending against MANPADS, but the same
applies to guns. During LB II, the ZPU was more common in the Hanoi
area than the ZSU-23-4, but there were always more than enough guns to
go around.

Today many GPS-oriented systems as well as PGM variations allow for
some level of lob, toss or loft to stand off a bit.

>Besides, this scenario supposes that there is only one isolated battery
>(no silent pickets), and exact location is determined in advance (no
>decoys). These things complicate matters a lot.

Ain't no doubt about it. Air defense doesn't deploy on grid in a
parking lot. They hide, they mutually support, they decoy and they do
their damndest to survive. Hate it when they're like that!


 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)