[RELEASED] New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

[RELEASED] New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> [RELEASED] New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

[RELEASED] New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 3/20/2014 1:17:38 AM

Yokes

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline

Continuing the theme lately of "something different", here is a set of three scenarios that looks at the debate surrounding the US Navy and the F-35.

The purpose of these scenarios is to look at three possible futures for US naval aviation:
- The current plan, which will likely end up (due to budget constraints) to a smaller number of aircraft carriers equipped with a mix of Super Hornets and F-35Cs.
- An all-Super Hornet fleet with the current number of carriers.
- An all-F-35B fleet using only "mini-carriers" (think Wasp-class LHDs).

Each scenario has the same situation: you must evacuate the US Embassy in a country that just had the military take over the government. The setup in each scenario is exactly the same except for the carrier and air wings. It's a chance to evaluate the merits of each of the above proposals in a (hopefully) fair manner.

I tried to make a fair (equal budget) balance of forces in the three scenarios. I am using a very rough ratio of one F-35 costing twice as much as a single Super Hornet. The "baseline" scenario also assumes that the US Navy will not be able to afford its current fleet of 11 carriers, so the number of aircraft is slightly reduced to represent the overall decrease in capability. I am also estimating (more like guessing) that a single Ford-class carrier with a full airwing costs about the same as three Wasp-class LHDs each with a squadron of F-35Bs. I welcome well-reasoned arguments against these assumptions.

I hope folks try these out and share their results. I am interested in if anyone finds this interesting/enlightening.

Yokes

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 8/13/2015 9:26:15 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 3/20/2014 2:39:47 AM

VFA41_Lion

Posts: 228
Joined: 1/30/2014
Status: offline

Colour me interested. I'll give 'er a shot.

_____________________________

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 2

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 3/25/2014 8:28:22 PM

Flankerk

Posts: 417
Joined: 6/21/2006
Status: offline

Tried twice as F-35 which is very tough indeed, did feel slightly overwhelmed at times!
I think the first time the LHD was hit by two waves of multiple missiles and sunk, second I came up with a plan to hit the airbases, whoops, should have read the orders better.
Nice message on that to be fair.
The F-35's do a good job, but way too many targets.
Worth bearing in mind that in my invalid attack on the base, I fired every TLAM I had at the one base, I think less than fifty got through.
Struggling to find a technique that works for the F-35 which may be the point mind.

What did others find with different Orbat's?

(in reply to VFA41_Lion)

Post #: 3

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 3/26/2014 3:34:52 PM

Yokes

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline

Flankerk,

I was able to squeak out a minor win with the F-35s, but it is really tricky. Carrying only 2 BVR and 2 WVR missiles is a real handicap. The mediocre stealth is also very evident. (The VHF radars pick them out easily, and the IRST-equipped fighters have no problem spotting them at useful ranges.)

Have you tried the Super Hornet version? I found the differences between the two scenarios striking.

Yokes

(in reply to Flankerk)

Post #: 4

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 3/28/2014 2:49:38 PM

keeferon01

Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

Love the frenetic pace of the scenarios, managed a win twice using just super hornets.
With the F-35s nope , got my ass kicked lol.
Thank you I love your scenarios always fun.

_____________________________

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 5

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 3/30/2014 1:12:18 AM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

Got my butt kicked twice in the baseline mix, just too much for that small air group to handle.

Question: If there are fewer airframes available, would you reduce the size of the airgroup or reduce the number of air groups to keep the ones you deploy more capable? The one depicted here might just be able to squeeze a win after running it through half a dozen times but wow...

Good fun

B

(in reply to keeferon01)

Post #: 6

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 3/30/2014 6:24:21 PM

keeferon01

Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

I personally think just the Marines will use them on carriers , at 200 million a piece maybe 4 or 5 squadrons .

_____________________________

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 7

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 3/31/2014 3:33:12 PM

Yokes

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Got my butt kicked twice in the baseline mix, just too much for that small air group to handle.

Question: If there are fewer airframes available, would you reduce the size of the airgroup or reduce the number of air groups to keep the ones you deploy more capable? The one depicted here might just be able to squeeze a win after running it through half a dozen times but wow...

Good fun

B

Gunner,

In real life I expect them to reduce the number of air groups. I wanted to "penalize" the US for the fact that those fewer air groups can not be in multiple places at the same time. The goal of the series is to highlight the compromises that must be made due to the budgetary constraints and fighter procurement environment the US is currently facing.

I am open to the idea that I created an unrealistic scenario. Are there too many enemy fighters? I tried to simulate an enemy force with a small number of high-end and lots of low-end fighters.

I welcome any balancing/realism suggestions.

Yokes

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 8

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 3/31/2014 9:38:14 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yokes

Gunner,

In real life I expect them to reduce the number of air groups. I wanted to "penalize" the US for the fact that those fewer air groups can not be in multiple places at the same time. The goal of the series is to highlight the compromises that must be made due to the budgetary constraints and fighter procurement environment the US is currently facing.

I am open to the idea that I created an unrealistic scenario. Are there too many enemy fighters? I tried to simulate an enemy force with a small number of high-end and lots of low-end fighters.

I welcome any balancing/realism suggestions.

Yokes

Yokes

Have been thinking on this and am not sure how much the USN can actually reduce the number of CVW's any further:

During the later part of cold war, there were 13 CV's, one always in refit leaving 12 available for deployment and there were 12 CVW's. This number allowed for 4x CVBG's constantly deployed, 1 in the North Atlantic, 1 in the Med, 1 in the IO and one in the West Pac, generally the remainder were 1 in Japan, 1-2 at Perl, 1-2 on the West coast, 2-3 at Norfolk, 1 in transit and 1 in workups.
A 2:1 ratio of non-deployed/deployed is fairly standard and it works for long periods of peacetime, thus allowing for a surge when and where you need them, like the 6 that went to play during the 2 Gulf wars.

On a quick Wiki search (because I just don't know) there are 10 CV's, 9 CVW's and 9 CSG's. So 1 in refit and only 3 deployed - I'm not sure if that number is right but I suspect that there is a Gap in either the Atlantic of West Pac (or both) from the cold war days, or they are creative with the transit and training groups.

So:
Question 1: will the USN reduce its CVs by 1/3rd, down to 7 CV's & 6 CVW's with only 2 deployed at a time? Unlikely, not with the Ford just coming off the rails and the Nimitz good for at least another 10 years, it looks like its likely going back up to 11 decks.
Question 2: will the USN have active CSG's without a CVW? Unlikely what would be the point? you need the CVW for workups, training and transit (just in case), and when the Flat Top is in port, the CVW is training and getting itself sorted out.
Question 3: What is the irreducible minimum of deployed CV's to exercise US Foreign policy? Don't know and I don't pay taxes in the states so am not qualified to comment - but I am sure that there are big brains doing just that sort of thinking and spending the billions (or is it trillions yet) to make it happen.

I am sure that reducing 1 CSG would save some serious shekels but would have serious political, monetary and foreign policy risk

Therefore, the solution to a shortage or A/C due to budgets - I think, is how you have depicted it. A smaller CVW.

My problem is that it is too small to do the job, not just to gain air superiority, but to support the mission with SEAD and ECM, and to actually get in there and move some mud.

So perhaps its not the scenario that needs adjusting - maybe it our expectations of what a CVW will be able to do.

Just my $.02 Cdn on the subject.

B

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 9

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 5/31/2014 10:04:15 AM

dillonkbase

Posts: 177
Joined: 5/2/2009
Status: offline

SO I played the baseline a few times... I did okay, the dragons that got away crept back up at the end and ruined my plans but the initial firefight went fine.

The fact that you can't launch the osprey rescue on your own is annoying.. it happens at just the same time as the second strike on you task force which seems a little cheap. especially since I was ready thirty minutes earlier.

But as for the use of the F35 and the Hornet... I would like to see the baseline build in reverse, sending the STEALTH planes in to penetrate and attack the infrastructure, with SDB and having superbugs with AA's to pick the enemy off from BVR... Especially since you can reload bugs in 30 minutes with 6 AAMs while it takes an hour for the 35's. Especially since the enemy depicted would definitely know the location of a CVN(Subs and Sats not modeled)

Finnaly... if we have SDB's whey are we still flying around with APAM cluster bombs in the future... we cant strap something better on?

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 10

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 9/30/2014 3:40:37 AM

VFA41_Lion

Posts: 228
Joined: 1/30/2014
Status: offline

I've been trying the baseline scenario. I refuse to give up until I've cleared a path, dammit D:

Personally I do wish TF1 was grouped with the CTF, because the CTF fires on the missile attack but they are too far away to get there in time. :(

_____________________________

(in reply to dillonkbase)

Post #: 11

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 10/1/2014 3:42:18 AM

VFA41_Lion

Posts: 228
Joined: 1/30/2014
Status: offline

Wowwwwwwwza.

Baseline scenario:

SIDE: BlueFor
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
214x RGM-109E Tomahawk Blk IV TACTOM
32x RIM-174A ERAM SM-6MR Blk I
154x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
8x AGM-84K SLAMER-ATA
95x RIM-162A ESSM
11x 127mm/62 HECVT
2x 20mm/100 Mk15 Phalanx Blk 1B Burst [300 rnds]
4x 20mm/85 Mk15 Phalanx Blk 1 Burst [300 rnds]
23x Mk214 Sea Gnat Chaff [Seduction]
80x RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Blk IIIB
8x RIM-7P Sea Sparrow
11x RIM-116B RAM Blk I
9x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
1x AN/ALE-50
8x AGM-88E AARGM
2x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Dual Spectral]
12x AGM-154C JSOW [BROACH]
16x AGM-154A JSOW [145 x BLU-97/B Dual Purpose]

SIDE: OpFor
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
15x JF-17 Thunder
10x Su-27S Flanker B
4x Radar (Back Net [P-80])
5x J-10B Vigorous Dragon
3x Radar (China YLC-2)
2x SA-11 Gadfly [9A38] TELAR
1x SA-11 Gadfly [9A39] LLV
1x Vehicle (Grill Pan [9S32-1])
1x SA-12b Giant [9A85] LLV
4x SA-12a Gladiator [9A83] TELAR
2x SA-12a Gladiator [9A84] LLV
2x SA-12b Giant [9A82] TELAR
6x H-6G Badger
1x A-50 Mainstay A
1x Vehicle (HT-233 [HQ-9])
6x HQ-9A TEL
1x Type 054A++ Jiangkai II [576 Huangshi]
1x Radar (TRS 22XX)
2x SA-22 Greyhound [KAMAZ-6560 8x8] TELAR
4x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
16x C-803 [YJ-83]
16x YJ-18 [3M54E Klub Copy]
11x YJ-18 [3M54E Klub Copy, Rocket Boosted Penetrator]
80x PL-12
116x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
48x HQ-9B
88x HQ-16A
33x SA-11 Gadfly [9M38M1]
24x SA-12a Gladiator [9M83]
15x AA-11 Archer [R-73]
29x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH]
15x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27RE, LR SARH]
24x HQ-10 [FL-3000N]
19x 76mm/60 China H/PJ-26 Frag Burst [2 rnds]
15x 30mm China H/PJ-12 [Type 730, 240 rnds]
12x PJ-10 Brahmos
24x AS-17 Krypton A [Kh-31A, ASM]
12x AS-4 Kitchen A Mod 3 [Kh-22N ASM]
8x HQ-9A
14x Generic Chaff Rocket
4x PL-5e [Deriv. AA-2]
2x 30mm Type 30-1 x 2 Burst [30 rnds]
2x Generic Flare Rocket [Single Spectral]
5x SA-22 Greyhound [57E6]

SIDE: SOF
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------

EXPENDITURES:
------------------

I'm gonna call this one a draw. The LHD was hit early on and disabled an elevator, and even though it had 2, the Ospreys just kept cycling, waiting for runway or elevator to become available.

Opening move was to launch a massive barrage of tomahawks at all the radars. All the central radars and a couple of the ones to the west/east were knocked out (eventually.)
For just three ships, Task Force 1 has a crazy amount of AA missiles. They helped tremendously in taking out wave after wave of AS missiles.
The F-35s were launched any time they had AMRAAMs and helped defend TF1, though with such a small payload, i would have preferred if they were the ones carrying bombs and the F-18s carrying A2A missiles. I eventually whittled down OpForia's fighters to the point where I started launching JSOWs at the mobile SAMs, though by that time there was only 15 minutes until end of scenario.

I just kept hammering the area around the Embassy with tomahawks. As soon as the radars went down, SAM systems started emitting... and were summarily Tomahawked. And my god, the anti-ship missiles just kept coming and coming D: 91 missiles aimed at TF1... most of them shot down. :p I thought the LHD was toast, but it eventually put out all the fires and stopped leaks. It was sitting at 79% damaged when the scenario ran out of time.

If the LHD's elevator wasn't hit, I reckon I could have done a successful escort mission... but its veryyy difficult and requires a lot of luck.

< Message edited by VFA41_Lion -- 10/1/2014 4:44:22 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to VFA41_Lion)

Post #: 12

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 7/10/2016 9:17:00 PM

Showtime 100_MatrixForum

Posts: 29
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

It'd be interesting to remake this now that we have more precise costs for the F-35C (estimated $110 million in full rate, currently $129 million including engine in LRIP 8). This crash report suggests that an F/A-18C's cost in 2015 USD is $77.4 million, and a healthy pile of speculation on my part is that a Super Hornet probably costs about $10 million more than an 18C.

We also have new data with which to compare the lifecycle costs of the F-35A and the F/A-18F thanks to the Danish type selection report, which suggests that the lifecycle cost of an F/A-18F is moderately (5-6%) higher than that of the F-35A because it requires two crew (more expensive training, more support required) and has a shorter flight life (6,000 hours vs the F-35A's 8,000 hours).

Because I'm well off the deep end of winging it here, let's say that an F-35C's lifetime cost is greater than the F-35A's, and that the difference is proportionate to their flyaway costs. That suggests that the lifetime cost of an F-35C is 12-13% higher than that of an F/A-18F, which means that (by the Danish numbers), the 24 F/A-18Fs you get in the Super Hornet scenario are the lifecycle cost equivalent of 21.26 F-35Cs, which I'll round down to 21 on the grounds that .26 of an aircraft is not a useful thing to buy.

Again, since this is a seat-of-the-pants not at all rigorous conversion, let's assume that an F/A-18E has a lifecycle cost 10% lower than the F/A-18F thanks to only having one crew member. That means that the 36 F/A-18Es you get in the Hornet-only scenario have around the same lifecycle cost as 28.7 F-35Cs, rounded down to 28.

Here's what you get in the circa 2014 baseline scenario:

3x E-2D
8x F/A-18E
8x F/A-18F
3x EA-18G
16x F-35C

Here's what converting the Hornet only scenario with today's prices gives you:

3x E-2D => unchanged
36x F/A-18E => 28x F-35C
24x F/A-18F => 21x F-35C
6x EA-18G => unchanged (USN wants to keep Growlers)

In light of that guesswork, here's a link to download an updated version of the scenario with 2016 lifecycle costs used to convert the Super Hornet-only scenario to an F-35C-only (except for EA-18Gs) scenario. The loadouts are still WIP; lemme know what changes you'd like to see made (and Yokes should, of course, feel free to let me know if he'd like me to take my modified version down!).

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Showtime 100 -- 7/10/2016 9:20:29 PM >

(in reply to VFA41_Lion)

Post #: 13

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 7/11/2016 12:23:33 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

That is a great analysis. That alone makes me want to check out the scenario.

(in reply to Showtime 100_MatrixForum)

Post #: 14

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 7/11/2016 4:28:52 PM

Yokes

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline

Hi Showtime,

No need to take it down so long as you make it clear it is a modification.

I appreciate the analysis you did to come up with appropriate force balances. Personally, I don't trust the Danish numbers since it is clear they had made their decision for F-35s and used the analysis to justify it. (Instead of the other way around.)

The state of military procurement in the western world (and especially the USA) is deplorable.

Yokes

(in reply to Showtime 100_MatrixForum)

Post #: 15

RE: New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate - 7/12/2016 12:38:55 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

We complain about defense procurement a lot. But take a hard look at other, non-Western countries...oh wait, you can't. Because they are mostly hidden. At least in the US and UK you get budget reports and there is a little transparency. Not excusing the US procurement process, but we like to complain loudest about the transparent processes because we can't see the others.

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 16

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> [RELEASED] New set of scenarios: US Naval Air Power Debate

Page: [1]