Comment évaluer et fixer le "Risk level"

[spiryth]

Question peut être basique mais je cherche des info et je suis un peu sec.
J'avoue que quand je rédige mes brief, je fais ça "a bisto de nas" J'aimerai que ça change
Comment, par quels critères objectifs, on quantifie ce "risk level" au briefing ?

J'ai bien des idées de critères mais c'est empirique sur mon expérience de simu :
- risque d'avoir de l'opposition AA
- et si opposition AA probable, face à quoi on se trouve Fox 3 shooter ? Fox 2 ? Fox 1
- risque d'intervenir sous menace SAM connue (on évite mais...c'est pas toujours possible)
- risque de "découvrir" des SAM mobiles
- ...

Si vous avez des pistes, ça m’intéresse.

[Mongoose]

Salut Spiryth,

Le risk level englobe l’analyse de beaucoup de choses. C’est aussi très dépendant des capacités des matériels et systèmes à ta disposition mais également du niveau de compétence de tes pilotes.

Je dois avoir des choses là dessus. Il faut que je prenne le temps d’exhumer...

Sinon comme ça rapidement, un exemple où l’on voit poindre les grands principes; ça t’aidera à mieux évaluer et définir tes actions :

« Planning a tactical mission was a complex process that had to consider multiple factors to ensure success. When organizing a tactical plan, a flight leader considered the enemy's total complement of threats and balanced his aircraft and crewmember capabilities with desired weapons effects. Sometimes this balance was not perfect, but the main goal was to max'imize accuracy and survivability. Hauling iron bombs for long sortie durations, only to miss the desired objective of total target destruction, was a definition of combat futility. There was no single, best solution to any tactical situation, and pilots developing plans for a given situation approached the problem from differing perspectives. The most important concepts in developing a tactical plan were building in unpre- dictability and denying the enemy any intelligence as to where, when, or how the attackers would appear.
Aircrews considered thirteen tactical factors in planning combat missions :

Air Targeting Order (Am) Mission Objectives
Enemy Defenses
Terrain
Weather and Meteorological Factors
Target type / Vulnerability
Rules of Engagement (ROE)/SpeCial Instructions (SPINS) Force Requirements
Navigation
Formations
Munitions
Release Parameters
Fuel Considerations
Command and Control.

While each factor may appear to be discrete, all interrelated to various degrees. Depending on the mission, some were more significant than others. The following are generic mission planning considerations related to each of the thirteen factors listed above.
...

... Enemy defenses drove tactics and represented a key planning factor. This was surely the case during Desert Storm where the enemy threat dictated medium-altitude weapons delivery. There were three basic types of threats: AAA, SAMs, and aircraft. Each had a variety of tracking systems that used radar, infrared, optics, or a combination of the three. Although diversified and capable of autonomous operation, the Iraqis had the KARI system, which was designed to- coordinate their defenses. The threat posed by these systems was the reason why destroying Iraq’s integrated air defense system was an early priority of the Coalition air campaign. Aviators sought to minimize exposure to high-priority threats,
be unpredictable, deal with threats through a see-and-avoid concept, and use the best available resources to suppress enemy air defenses. Minimizing exposure to known threats was done by flying around, over, or under the known threat envelopes. Unpredictability was used to limit the enemy’s ability to anticipate tactics. Different penetration formations, navigational routes, attack axis, delivery parameters, and multiship tactics were also used to create confusion. Finally,see-and-avoid procedures and the use of radar warning receivers in combination with a “heads out of the cockpit” navigation technique increased the chance of proper recognition and response to enemy threats. Although radar warning receivers aided in detecting and avoiding threats, visual detection was the real basis of timely and effective reaction.
Terrain was a planning consideration that dominated low-altitude tactics. In training before the Gulf War,aircrews usually planned to use terrain features to counter enemy defenses and as navigational aids to and from the target. However. in Desert Storm, the nature of the enemy threat dictated that few low-altitude missions were flown.
Meteomfogy was a crucial factor often overlooked during mission planning. During Desert Storm, target acquisition and navigation were both adversely affected by poor weather. Aircrews planned for the worst anticipated weather conditions and had backup options available when real weather differed from forecasted weather. Some weather conditions may not have hindered bombing, yet enhanced the enemy’s defenses. For example, flight under an overcast was more predictable, established a known maximum altitude, and made visual acquisition easier. Weather also played a significant role in missions involving use of infrared sensing equipment...
... »

A+

[akulax]

Hello Mongoose, de retour?! Si ca t'interesse on va voler plus regulierement avec les Griffons...

[spiryth]

Merci Mongoose
Si tu remets la main sur tes docs fait moi signe

[Mongoose]

Salut Akulax,

Non malheureusement je ne peux pas encore reprendre les vols