|
Fido81 -> RE: CSG-21 in the Eastern Mediterranean, 2021 (7/17/2021 12:50:23 AM)
|
BeirutDude -
First of all, thanks for sharing your thoughts!
The CSG-21 (including the carrier air wing) and Russian OOBs are accurate to the sources I've been able to find (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Carrier_Strike_Group_21, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41276/russian-mig-31s-armed-with-anti-ship-ballistic-missiles-join-tu-22m3-bombers-in-syria). I haven't seen any OOBs reference UK land-based aircraft, and I don't know what civilian air traffic patterns look like, so they're very much unrealistic.
1. The Wikipedia OOB doesn't suggest USS The Sullivans deployed with any aircraft. It doesn't look like there's always helicopters attached to the ship, and I haven't found a source for a detachment sailing with them on this deployment.
2. The driving force behind the creation of the scenario was that I wanted to see how the UK CSG concept as deployed would perform against a realistic set of targets and threats. I tried to limit land-based aircraft to those whose absence I thought would handicap the player because CSG-21 had no equivalent, AND where it might be necessary to maintain balance. The Airseeker is a great platform, but the Merlin Crowsnest has an equally good ELINT sensor, and both types of F-35 have better ELINT equipment. I'm also personally interested in how spacecraft integrate into the modern battlespace, and thought having satellite downlinks would be a more tactically interesting proposition than another strategic aircraft. Between 16 operational airframes of 3 types and downlinks from 5 satellites, I think the player is in a very healthy spot in terms of ELINT capabilities.
3. No Sentry AEW.1s for similar reasons as 2. - the strike group has its own organic AEW assets. For better or for worse, they'll be what the UK brings to blue water conflicts for the next decade+, and I made the scenario in part to see how well they do their job. If I gave the player a Sentry, I don't believe they'd use a Crowsnest, for no other reason than I wouldn't! [:D]
You make a fair point about the Syrian/Russian/Iranian IADS, and I'll think about it. I worry both about scenario creep, and about what equipment the CSG has to counter them (I don't like the idea of telling the player to fight a battle they can't win). If I decide not to add them, I'll put in the briefing that the Syrian IADS is descoped from the scenario, which will hopefully make players feel comfortable sending the P-8 over inland Syria for ISTAR. Did you feel like you had enough of the weapons you needed?
You know you're free to switch from sustained air operations to surge air operations, right? And also from Fighter/ASW quick turnaround to all aircraft quick turnaround? My impression is that for strikes against a terrorist organization that lacks weapons to threaten a 5th generation fighter over a several day period, sustained air operations without quick turnaround is the most realistic tempo. At the same time, if a player got surprised...or was simply an aggressive commander...I would want them to be able to dial up the heat appropriately.
|
|
|
|
