As a sidenote, if you are looking for an in-depth telling of the bombing and attack history, check Iain Christie’s brilliant YouTube channel.
Part I: A “Method” issue
The first employment of aeroplanes as air-to-ground assets predates World War I. In 1911, an Italian crew literally chucked some grenades overboard and onto Turkish lines. Two years later, the British and Italian aviation industries designed the first purposely made bombers. The effect of these first aeroplanes was probably more psychological than anything else, but these actions set in motion a dramatic race towards the higher, faster, bigger.
For decades, scientists and engineers have put their efforts into the creation of systems capable of increasing the precision of ordnance delivery. But, alas, as long as bombs were freely let go from the sky, precision was a bit of a chimaera.
The problem, per sé, is simple: plenty of variables have to be considered to successfully score a hit. Bombs, in fact, tend to fall following a certain trajectory affected by the launching aircraft’s speed, altitude, dive angle, and more. Plus, factors such as wind and drag of the bomb itself. Even when every number is accounted for, the pilot still has to position the aircraft at a specific release spot, perhaps while taking fire from any direction. This requirement not only makes the attack pattern predictable, but the attack itself is more of an art than a mechanical operation.
Missing the target is a problem. Each attack has a cost in terms of matériel: bombs, fuel, and maintenance, and the assets tasked to re-execute the mission will not be able to perform other operations. Moreover, the attacking aircraft may return home unscathed, having achieved surprise. But if the target is still there, tomorrow or in the coming days or weeks, someone will have to go and try again. This time, the enemy may be waiting, and crews know that.
So, how can the situation be improved? Certainly, in many ways. For example, by improving the bombing techniques with the help of dedicated avionics.
The Human Factor
Habits are difficult to change. Curiously enough, sometimes innovations faced much more pushback than expected. The following passage from Sierra Hotel bluntly exposes a crucial problem affecting certain crews:
airplanes designed to drop nukes do not need to be especially accurate, since the large explosion compensates for aiming errors. However, in conventional warfare, with conventional bombs, bombing accuracy has to be very good. F–105 and F–4 pilots, never short on ego, thought they were pretty good at dropping bombs in combat. They were not.
In fact, data collected showed that a bomb should have fallen within 7m to destroy a truck, but the circular error probable (CEP), was 100m for both F-105 and F-4. Once all the parameters were accounted for, it turned out that the pilot had a 66ms window to drop onto the target and hit within the required 7 metres. Definitely not an easy task.
Part II: The Curious Case of Dive Toss
Fast-forward a few years from the tales just told, additional tools and techniques were introduced or refined. One of them was Dive Toss. However, this attack mode has indeed a peculiar story.
Dive bombing in the direct mode, where the bomb dropped when the pilot commanded it, was the manly man’s way to attack a target. Fighter pilots learned to depend foremost on themselves early in their flying careers.
Complicit to the initial struggle of DT were its initial issues and dependence on external factors. A faulty WRCS, acronym for Weapon Release Computer Set, issues with the INS, and others mentioned in articles such as “Let’s get serious about Dive Toss“, could induce serious accuracy problems. All of that affected how the system was perceived, especially by the “old farts”. However, things were slowly changing.
The reputation was that dive toss could drop better bombs than the best manual dive bomber. “Put your pipper on the target, punch the pickle button, and fly your ass over the target,” Dee repeated the mantra. “You’ll hit whatever you designated.”.
With typical fighter pilot reticence, I replied, “bullshit!”
[..] “Two’s off hot,” is my call.
I look back at the smoke from lead’s bombs and then watch as my pair impacts precisely on the southern edge of the smoke. It’s exactly where I had the pipper.
[..] I hear a chuckle from the backseat, where Lewis has been biting his tongue trying not to say, “I told you so.”.
We make five more passes from an orbit over the target area. Each time I try to screw up the dive toss, and each time the bombs hit exactly where the pipper was at the time I hit the pickle button.
Dive Toss: How it works
Keeping things easy, Dive Toss allows removing most of the manual component from the execution by using data provided by the avionics rather than parameters the pilot should follow. Different aircraft may follow a different procedure.
In the F-4E, the APQ-120 is used to lock the target’s position, thus capturing the slant range. The avionics provide information such as dive angle and speed. As the Phantom II travels, information is updated and computed to calculate the appropriate release moment as the pilot pulls and holds the release button. Inputs and variables set by the crew are minimal, and minor variations impacting the flight parameters usually have an insignificant effect on the delivery.
Vice versa, in a manual release, the fighter must be flown precisely until the release point, making the path more predictable. Every required parameter must be defined beforehand.
F-14 Tomcat: Similarities
For the F-14 crews, the described modus operandi will surely sound familiar. The Tomcat, in fact, follows a similar approach, using the TCS or Television Camera Set to offset the lack of a ground radar. This device, somewhat similar to the TISEO that the brilliant Heatblur’s F-4E will receive in the future, allows the F-14’s pilot to lock the camera onto a ground position. The next steps of the execution are similar: through the TCS, the radar captures the range, and the avionics provide attitude, speed and other information, enough to execute even complex deliveries such as low-level toss bombing.
As a sidenote, both the F-4 and the F-14 can execute self-lased or buddy-lased toss deliveries of laser-guided bombs, enhancing both precision and safety of the crew.
Conclusions
Although Dive Toss cannot ensure the precision of guided ordnance, it provides considerable benefits to air-to-ground operations in the form of consistency and flexibility. Manual deliveries require, in fact, precise adherence to pre-established parameters. Dive Toss and the usage of onboard computers alleviated the crew from such a massive constraint.
Two, if you’re ready, come 200 meters north of lead’s bombs. Cleared hot,”
[..] It doesn’t take a lot of correction to align the pipper where the FAC has indicated he wants the bombs. Socks calls, “Locked,” as he scrolls the range gate down onto the ground return in the radar scope. I give the system a second or two to settle, then push and hold the pickle button and start my pullout. The airplane shudders through the release of the twelve bombs, and as the nose comes above the horizon, I check turn quickly to the right, then reverse to the left turn to keep our formation wheel around the target. I look back over my left shoulder to see the bombs hit exactly where the pipper was. The dive toss works as advertised once again.
FlyAndWire 