Finalizing airspace #15
Comments
|
Kola test v2.1_j.zip
Extending the SEAD/DEAD range slightly (20nm) east to allow for more depth, i´d imagine this range will be used quite allot for strike training as well. This then also covers Tarnaby airport site which can be used as a potential target, it is covered by mountains and valleys, allowing for potential low altitude training.
|
|
There is no airport at that location ( close to Hemavan ) but it does still present a potentially good target area. |
|
• Bodo, I was given taxi instructions but I had no airfield chart. We need a chart showing the taxiway letters even if they don’t show on the actual map. Each HAS needs a number and a map, merge the two.
|
|
Apologies for my unavailability to join the extra test events for Kola, I've mostly had standard times available this past month. Instead, to get to experience the area I have checked out the Kola test mission in SP at other times, in between when times allow. Cutter and I have had a look at the proposed range geometry and we have some suggestions which will greatly improve the utilization of the designated areas, and increase the number of scenarios for the RW TRP which we can add. In total, they may appear as minor details, but the range border changes were selected carefully and will have a huge impact on our utilization of the ranges. Depending on our flight mode (high level tactics or low level tactics), the available terrain features in the range plays a huge role. More so than fixed wing airframes, I would wager (but not conclude :-)) . The Kola 2.1 test miz is the base version for suggested changes to the RW ranges. Blue A/C and their routes outline the original range geometries, whereas the DRAW objects and red A/C outline the suggested changes.
RW Range 1It was sifted ~7 km to the west to:
RW R1 was also increased in width towards the west by ~5 km, to incorporate more of the coastline and terrain with roads and villages. In total, it extends almost 12 km further west than originally. The mountainous terrain in the middle can be useful for lessons on tactical terrain movement, whereas the coastal areas with roads will be useful for lessons on movement to contact. RW Range 2This range was increased in witdth to the west by ~7 km to incorporate a valley which was previously in RW R1, and further south into the A-G range (in otherwise mountainous and uninhabited areas) to fully incorporate a valley from Moldjord through Storjord and further south. The former valley has approaches from the north and east, such that it can be useful for scenarios to coordinate time on target from multiple angles, e.g., in flight escort scenarios. The latter valley will be useful for drills on reaction to contact (not the lesson itself, but continuation training on proficiency). RW Range 3This was increased in size to the south by ~5.5 km, in order to incorporate islands in the south-west area of the range, and Jektvika in the south-center. Additionally, it was slightly modified to the east to incorporate a valley lead suitable for ingress. |
|
Linking feedback here as well, to increase chances it doesn't get lost: |
|
@132nd-Erro The RW ranges will only be for RW in any case, so it should not be a problem to have RW 1 and 2 active at the same time, which should give plenty of space and maneuver for the AH-64s for various training objectives? (in addition to RW range 3 further south) Basicly, how the RW ranges are seperated are less of a concern and something the 656th can decide on what you prefer. The outer bounds of the entire RW training area have an impact on other things, so that is something we need to balance and figure out a good way to meet. |
|
@132ndNeck Yeah we can do this if you don't want overlap with R5. Based on your input I redrew some of the RW range borders. I merged the old RW range 1 with a fraction of the old RW range 2, then re-drew a new RW range 2 to the east based on your suggestion. There might be red units here, but not in danger of ENBO traffic. The departure cone continues eastwards north of the range border. There will be live fire in RW range 1 and 2, but oriented longitudinally and/or towards the south in R1 but possibly to the north in R2 if we simulate an assault on the city from the south. Altitude restrictions can be defined by default (e.g., 3000 ft), but we would like to have the ability to request GND-UNL in the three ranges for certain situations/scenarios. |
|
GND-UNL for RW Ranges 1 & 2, as well as the extension of RW Range 2 to north of Rognan city, as well as any life fire northbound and above 3000 FT AMSL are regarded to be highly problematic by 176th for RW Ranges inside the TMA. The dreaded Basic CAS Range north of the field up to UNL already denies to ATCOs a usable radar pattern in the North. Rotor-wing life fire combat activity shooting northbound towards the southern radar pattern and intermediate-to-final approach procedures RWY25, combined with red ground units shooting upwards above 3000 FT at other blue ENBO traffic overflying the RW Ranges cannot earnestly be a thing. 176th ATCOs will work (with slight modifications) with the lower limits of the real TMA airspace "D non-CTR" as minimum vectoring altitudes in LotATC. If you look at those altitudes in the chart below, you will see where RW Ranges inside the TMA's southern part can have top levels of max. 3000 FT, 4000 FT and 6000 FT AMSL (500 FT below TMA airspace "D non-CTR").
With the Basic A-G Range in the southwestern corner of the TMA up to UNL impeding the southern radar pattern and the intermediate-to-final approach procedures RWY07, I would like to request on behalf of 176th that the northern boundary of Basic A-G Range is adjusted to extend along the northern boundary of RW Range 1, not futher to the North. The TMA boundaries in the .miz are quite off, here are the correct real world TMA coords as they will most likely shortly be requested by the ENBO TMA Project team:
|
|
Keep in mind the there will not be live fires northbound every event, nor will the CAS range to the north be activated every event. Will there be radar vectoring and radar patterns every event? Whereas I am not a 176th controller, I would imagine different situations and scenarios of range activations and block assignments creates a challenging variation in the control, rather than a blocker for performing control? I am open to suggestions of other suitable areas for helicopters to operate, but they must be within the specified range and offer the terrain features (coastline, fjords, valleys) for us to practice our low level tactics. Up until yesterday, I forgot to consider an urban area inside the ranges, and Neck's proposal to incorporate the eastern part included Rognan. Given the EA state of Kola, we don't know where the next (somewhat dense) urban area will be, but from the current map layout it seems to be Mo i Rana roughly 58 nm to the south, inside the A-G range. To access this area, we would require a FARP somewhere and would operate isolated from the rest of the wing, much like we do today. |
|
Some intermediate ENBO TMA Project Results as of 2024-06-04:
|
|
Version 2.3 available:
|
|
@132ndNeck that looks great, thank you very much. As a final and minor request to this version, if possible, is to extend R2 slightly to the east so that the southern valley from the lake is included (marked with yellow highlighter to the S-E of the first image), which can serve as an attack route for different scenarios. Suggestion is to either extend the northern border point to the east. Or move both north and south border points to the east, but not as far east. |
|
Did a brief test flight while checking some SOP stuff, ranges are good but the location of HAMMERHEAD was too tight to serve as a spawn location. It does not facilitate ground or hover taxi per SOP when multiple flights are starting up, but instead it forces air taxi (which is not always possible depending on loadout). The location of GUNSLINGER allows for all modes of taxi and flights do not interfere with each other when taxiing. |
|
Sad to see that none of the request I made with 108th training requirements in mind made it into the latest version of the TRMA.miz v2.3
|
|
I don't see a need to create a specific BFM zone and move the carrier. The ranges at sea should be able to create drones and sea units or be empty, depending on the training requirements. Also, I know that step 2 is deciding the tanker track locations. I think we should try to plan their locations a little bit. I did some testing:
The size is large, but it will ensure no tanker enters a range (especially the A2A ranges) In summation:
|
|
Looking at where the carrier is, the Carrier Air Wing will be 122NM from Bodo (at the furthest) and the Western side of most ranges. It will take longer to get elsewhere. At the moment that would take Hornets 15 minutes cruising at M0.70 not taking into account the climb or CASE III departure. So probably 30-40 minutes just to get to the ranges and back. In the Gulf map, the carrier was approx 100-120 miles from the SEAD ranges and we were always minimum time over there or going back for gas then again to the range. Longest sorties were to there. Looking at the Kola map that would be standard. We need a few Hornets at Bodo parked together, spoke to Evo and think 2 x Hornets at G01,G02, 2 x Hornets G06,G07 and a four-ship at G10,G12,G13,G14 would cover our options for getting to the ranges to have more time there. Regarding the RedAir at Bodo. Are they used that often to take all that space? Can they go on the North side until new bases open up? Agree with Shadoga about the SW AAR area, also need one to east of the SEAD/DEAD range but outside the Drone range Shadoga suggested. |
|
Sorry if I am late in the process, but would it be possible to carve out an extra area for A/G the east of Bodo?
|
After testing the "Basic A/G Range" on June 16th event, I concur with this proposal in principle. The current basic A/G range is nice (cf. dedicated thread later) but is mostly over the water. This kind of landscape is not representative of the general situation, and having a basic range over land would be a nice addition. Now regarding current "Basic A/G Range", a closer study shows that it is too small, especially because all the targets are located on the SE part of the range. From this simple remark, I suggest slightly increasing the range to the S and the E in order to have enough space to create patterns from any direction. See attached picture and .cf file for a proposal.
|
Ahh I see the proposed corridor from Bodo to and from the east in the earlier drawing. Makes sense to keep this clear. My main point is to have an over-land range with hopefully some white peak mountains with some valleys very close by and to be able to fly through, use for masking, tight low level maneuvering and enjoy (also for the added visuals during sorties). Will check the east of the southern A/G range. |
|
Jokkmokki airbase is much more developed than other road bases with runway and taxiway infrastructures, it has buildings as well.
Range 23, all SAM sites worked. The SA-6 sites didn't lock me up until I was within 5NM of them. SA-15 I didn't get close too before being locked up. FLOT is in a good position and where I descended though cloud it was where it met a river and high ground on the northern banks, could use the NW-SE river as a reference for the FLOT line as it is very easy to see. N65 34 67 E020 05 24 could be a good area for searching for vehicles on dirt track roads. |
|
Bumping this #15 (comment) |
Like this? |
|
Looks great, thank you |
|
Small remark regarding current layout: closest alternate airfield from ENBO is inside a training range (Scenario range C). |
Yes, both Evenes and Andøya should be outside any active ranges. |
|
Andoya is just inside the current Range 21 boundary, but that should not constitute any problem. |
|
Can we add a large oceanic range to the north of the A/A drone range? The type 52C shot down aircraft at 70nm. It would be nice to have a large range (100 x 100 nm) to the north to practice against these difficult units. Thanks |
Yes, I planned for this, but did not get the time before I left for vacation. But absolutelly. A "blue ocean" scenario range is intended north of the already established ranges. Can be combined with a red CVN as required. |
Yes, good point. And happy to add the CTR boundaries if you have the coordinates at hand. Will implement when I am back from vacation. |
|
ENAN Andoya CTR GND-A2500 FT AMSL ENEV Evenes CTR GND-A2500 FT AMSL ENDU Bardufoss CTR GND-A4500 FT AMSL ENTC Tromso CTR GND-A4500 FT AMSL ENNA Banak CTR GND-A3500 FT AMSL ENKR Kirkenes CTR GND-A2500 FT AMSL ENAT Alta CTR GND-A3500 FT AMSL So far for the Norwegian TWR CTRs that might appear sooner or later or never in the Kola Map. Going to start searching next for the CTR coordinates of the Swedish and Finnish bases already implemented or announced. |
|
Found something: ESNQ Kiruna CTR GND-A3100 FT AMSL EFRO Rovaniemi CTR GND-A2000 FT AMSL So, for the time, I recommend we implement at least ENNA, ESNQ & EFRO CTRs in the .miz because these aerodromes already exist in the Kola Map, plus add ENAN and ENEV CTRs for future reference. |
|
Found this regarding planned airbases for Kola: So it should not hurt to implement ENDU Bardufoss, ENTC Tromso and ENKR Kirkenes CTRs as well, in order to show where they will be located and to prevent placement of any other training installations or vehicles there. |
|
Did we already put A-10's on Kiruna and Jokkmokk? If not, could we request 3 hogs on both locations? Would love to try R22, but it is a long ride from Bodo. |
We have now conducted three test events with feedback( #14 ) and recived initial inputs to ranges and airspace prior to the Kola map beeing released ( #1 ).
Before any other work can be done on the TRMA we need to finalize and decide on the airspace and ranges to be used. This is important to have thought out before starting to add threat sites, targets, tankers, AWACS, frequencies, , scripts, aircraft on the actual map we will use. It is important that we are thinking on the wing as a whole when making the ranges/airspace, and that we think about the complete .miz when suggesting changes. So when providing feedback and suggestions, please make sure to recommend suggestions that take this into account.
This is the first thing we need to decide on before moving forward with work on the training map. My goal is to have the layout decided in advance of @132nd.Entropy return on the 20th June after his vacation. That way I will be able to start providing scripting requests to @132nd.Entropy and we can move forward woth the map. So aiming for a decision around the 16th of June, which will give a few days to create scripting requests and start setting up the .miz.
Process:
Current suggestion:
Mission file
.miz file for testing:
https://cloud.132virtualwing.org/s/wa5A98stRjrdrpb
NOTE:
Design pilosophy
Here are the thoughts behind the ranges and airspace suggested.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: