|
BeirutDude -> RE: beta release for testing: Taiwan A2AD, 2022 (6/22/2020 11:00:27 PM)
|
quote:
B1 and LRASM. I understand the limitation mentioned by Knighthawk and you, at the meantime i am wondering, in reality how would USN and USAAF conduct naval strike in such high end war-fighting? Would F/A-18+SLAMER be a viable option? from the scenario we see it is extremely risky for f/a-18 getting into 150nm range of Taiwan strait. Or maybe throwing sea-based Tomahawk from remote? i doubt what that can achieve. or maybe they are waiting for a hypersonic ansi-ship weapon to be available?
Right now, unless there is something out there that is not open source, it is a problem and major U.S. deficiency! That is why I suggested that carrier aircraft might deploy to Philippine or Naha Air Force Base. Unsinkable carriers! Just like the PRC South China Sea Islands. Two can play at that game.
quote:
3, wrt the carriers, an interesting news is USS Nimitz joined the party lately in west pacific so at the moment there are 3*CV+1*LHA. How would these asset be deployed? currently i am deploying them 1000nm away of Chinese coast, so it is out of df-21d range but not df-26d, this will reduce the exposure to some degree, and its up the player whether to move closer or not. wrt the risks of being caught together in a single ASBM raid, i wonder wouldn't the concentration of Ticonderoga provide better anti-ballistic capability? (i thought the Burkes has such capability as well) In reality, if the USN really needs 3 carriers in one theatre, what would be the formation?
So someone with better knowledge than I can correct me, but I think even the newest SAMs aren't that capable against a ballistic warhead on terminal flight. Worst the DF-21D warhead is reported to be maneuverable to it the target. I suspect the USN's best chances against a DF-21D IF it really is as capable as reported (a big if IMHO, but works that way in the game) would be radical maneuvering (like against the Kamikazes) and electronic warfare to get inside the comms links for the maneuvers
quote:
4, i think you are totally right with df-26d's position. the problem i have is just that in build 1147.1 whenever the shooting range is longer than 1000nm, the missile will go to the wrong direction. this is a registered bug to be fixed in next release. so for now i have to stick them to the coast line just to test how it works.
and about using B-2 to hunt down those tel: in reality according to some analysis, total df-21 number is around 100~400, df-26d number is around 100~150 (not sure the number of the D variant). so my number in the game (48*df-21d and 24*df-26d) can be considered as those that survive the B-2 strike, reasonable?
Yeah sounds reasonable to me. Remember some of those DF-21D Brigades are watching teh South China Sea and Sea of Japan so not really oriented for this theater but could stil be used here.
quote:
5, or maybe just leave the carriers out of the fight and use the airbases only? then the question is how do we evacuate those carrier-based a/c to land-based airbases first of all, given the distance, i am assuming PLA has the capability to more or less paralyze those airbases in Okinawa, with SLBM salvo first and then cruise missiles.
I'm not sure about that. PRC Missiles are hitting the Home Islands, Guam, The Ryukyus, Taiwan and I assume some are deployed watching India and Russia. I have to wonder just how many missiles the PRC has. Then conventional strikes can only do so much damage. In Okinawa three bases have to be hit, plus the USMC Brigade stationed there. I'm interested, I might do an experiment see what kind of damage a missile brigade could actually do. Then even with the damage, at east in my day, there were airfield reconstruction teams to bring the air field back into operation. Quickcrete can fill crater damage very quickly. I'd be careful overestimating PRC missile numbers and the damage they can actually do.
quote:
secondly, operating majority of the assets from airbases in Ryukyu or Honshu, towards the Taiwan theatre in the south, would mean there is a huge flank exposed to the PLAAF, hence i dont feel it is a very good idea. They can be used in a limited way Iwo Jima and Guam are relatively safe as they are out of the range of SLBM. It is hard to assess how much damage PLA can do to these places. But i think their capacity will be limited too, because US side wound not want to concentrate too many a/c in one place just to avoid the risk, which is why we see the B-1 super long range exercise in the first place.
Overall your points are well taken but I still think you overestimate the SRBM/SLBM capability. There are so many instances of a "game changing" weapons system that didn't prove to be as decisive as everyone through when actually used. "The Bomber will always get through," was the phrase from the 1930s but the Germans still fought to May, 1945! And once again there are only so many B-1Bs, they aren't supermen. Also have you factored in the Patriot and THAAD batteries? Maybe I need to take a closer look at PRC SRBM/IRBM numbers. Can they hit all of these targets and multiple times?
quote:
Then the Philippines. If Clark AB is considered, I think those islets in the south china sea will have to be considered too, which will make thing too complicated. And as you said in reality things could go either way, so if the situation becomes clearer in the future i will add them (which i think is literally a game changer)
Agreed on all points. I used the Philippines for my South China Sea scenario which is why I thought of them.
quote:
But during the simulation i do realize safeguarding the carrier group is such a burden, in the end what it can do is, for example maintaining aaw to protect the forward tanker tracks, so the land based a/c can safely refuel and set out to offensive actions. the carrier group sometimes can be too busy protecting itself to conduct any offensive with its own a/c. i guess it would be an interesting thing for people to explore in their own process of playing
That was a question during the cold war as well. Would CVBGs spend so much time just trying to stay alive from the Soviet threat. Fortunately we never found out. One thing that always fascinated me was how were the Soviet Backfires and Badgers from the Crimea getting into the Med without major attrition from NATO land based aircraft in Turkey, Greece and Italy before they ever got to the Carriers? Nobody ever answered that one for me!
quote:
6, about Hickam KC-10, noted and i will move them to iwo jima and guam, and delete the kc-135 there.
I think you will find them more useful there.
quote:
7, as to satellite, tried to add all the US satellite last week but the game kept crashing. do you think it is a good idea to simply remove all satellites from both sides, the reason being in reality there are many ways to counter satellite recon but it is difficult to simulate any in the game. In terms of impact to the balance of game, China side cannot use sat to locate US carrier, US side cannot use sat to locate ships in the taiwan strait, nor to locate ASBM brigades (i didn't know that can be done!). seems not hurting the balance too much?
yeah, I've really wondered at the use of satellites in the game. I had one scenario against Russia were I eliminated them all because the weather was too bad. I did some sensitivity tests and some birds are better than others, but I can't remember which ones now. [8|]
quote:
8, JSDF of course should be considered, i doubt if there will be any effective nuclear blackmail from China, for many reasons. In terms of air force, it really boils down to the number of a/c especially 5th gen a/c, no matter who is operating it. In terms of navy, i am imagining JMSDF mainly operating in east of Japan, either conducting ASW or providing ballistic missile defense to home islands, so they sort of canceled out each other with Chinese long-range land attack towards Japan.
Well its your scenario and anything I said was just a suggestion, right. Personally I would at least give them some interesting units, like Kaga and integrate with the U.S. since we operate so closely.
quote:
love to hear comments from you, thanks
Good work on your scenario, a lot of work went into it. You've given me some ideas as well!
|
|
|
|
