Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye

 
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 >> After Action Report >> Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:26:03 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline 		This scenario was awesome.... I really enjoyed it, one of my favorites. I didn’t take many (any!) screen grabs, so this isn't so much a good AAR as just a massive thank you to the guys for building and releasing these!

I was able to nuke both Soviet bases, and only lost 4 each Buccaneers and Phantom. Oh, four FF/DDG... I stumbled right over a Victor.

General scheme:

- Figure out how far in I could fly and remain unseen on radar. I actually put a few dozen ref points in the map, labeled "25000", "6000", etc, based on the location and radar horizon of Soviet land-based radars. As long as I was at or below the noted altitude, before I hit that ring of ref points, all good.

- Keep my carrier hidden as long as possible. Tactics generally based on an article I saw on this forum, about USS Midway (I think) operating in the 80s undetected well within dangerous range of Vladivostok or Petro. Passive EMCON, keep all aircraft below radar coverage until well away from the carrier, etc.

- Split off the oilers and let the combat ships run in as fast as possible (27 kts) as close as possible, before launching. With a 6-hour mission window I could run 100nm closer to the targets before launching strikes, which allowed my Phantoms to escort the strikes further into hostile territory.

- Find the thinnest section of SAM coverage and flow the entire strike package through that area. The SAM belt looked most vulnerable along the Norwegian border, so I chose that for ingress.
Post #: 1
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:26:38 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 2
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:27:22 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Situational Awareness Missions:

- Set up an AEW support mission about 100nm east of the carrier's initial position and assigned one of the Gannets. Launched, stayed low and passive, then lit up the radar and climbed to altitude when on station. This was located well within Soviet land-based radar coverage, and as it turned out also within coverage of several groups of surface ships to the east of Ark Royal.

- After the AEW Gannet picked up surface ship emissions I launched another Gannet on an ELINT sniffer mission, staying below 12000 feet and running in from Ark Royal’s current position, through the expected launch area, to the “Strike Hold” position.

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 3
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:29:40 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Decoy Mission #1:

I set all my Phantoms to “Quick Turnaround”. Since I wasn’t expecting to launch the strikes for ~4 hours I anticipated I could use them once for an offensive counter-air mission, then get them re-armed and ready to launch with the strike mission. I’d have an opportunity to wear down the Soviet interceptor force and to get any potential Soviet recon units looking for the carrier in the wrong area.

I launched the first four Phantoms about 10 minutes after the Gannet AEW mission so they’d get to the patrol area slightly ahead. I launched 4 more 15 minutes later, and 4 more 15 minutes after that. Same plan as the Gannet, stay low until at the patrol area then climb to 45000 feet and activate radars. A total of 12 in the air since I was expecting a rather brisk Soviet interceptor response.

They didn’t disappoint. A series of Tu-128 Fiddlers and Yak-28 Firebars came sprinting out and were (largely) dispatched. For the most part I kept the Phantoms to Sparrow missiles only, which slightly out-ranged the AA-3 and AA-5 armament on the interceptors. Occasionally a Soviet would close into the merge, and the results were usually not great for them. The AIM-9D is tail-chase only, but the Phantom is a bit more nimble than the lumbering twin-engine Soviet beasts, and they were able to take care of them too. As the Phantoms went Winchester in AIM-7s they headed back to base, again via a low-altitude waypoint and a good bit of micro-managing to keep the carrier undetected.

All in all the kill ratio was about 12-1 or so… I did lose one Phantom, while taking out roughly a dozen of the interceptors. A decent bit of attrition on the Soviet interceptor force, a bit of misdirection for any potential patrol/search forces, and a bit of bonus intelligence: it didn’t look like the Sovs were using any airborne radar.

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 4
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:31:54 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Strike Planning:

I had a total of 14 available Buccaneers
- 4 armed with a single WE.177 as the primary mission aircraft
- 8 armed with 4 each AS.37 Martel ARMs, for SEAD support
- 2 configured as tankers (and set to Quick Turnaround)

I also had a total of 12 available Phantoms (the twelve Mission 1 aircraft, less one lost, plus one “Reserve (Available)” aircraft that was readied in time for the later mission)

I would ingress (and likely egress) via the thin spot in the SAM belt, adjacent to Norway/Finland. Based on my reading of the intelligence, I could keep everyone at minimum altitude and the SA-2 and SA-5 sites wouldn’t be a concern (beyond cueing for other assets), the SA-3s would be the worry. The plan I concocted was pretty simple.
- 2 SEAD Bucs for the early warning radars and SA-3 battalion along the border
- 5 Bucs (2 nuke, 3 SEAD) and 2 Phantom escorts for each target
- 8 Phantoms sent back to the north at low altitude, to then climb and push toward the Kola in full view of all and sundry at high altitude, lights and whistles blazing, to try to pull interceptors out of position.

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 5
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:32:37 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Decoy Mission #2:

I launched the eight decoy Phantoms to the northeast area, following same exact plan as before: low altitude until likely detected by the Soviet surface forces to the east, and then climb to 45000 feet and light radars. Once all eight were gathered in the patrol area, I started moving that area south to give this force the look of an incoming raid. As hoped, the Soviets began vectoring interceptors toward the perceived threat

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 6
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:34:39 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Strike Hold and Tanker Missions:

I set up a 6000-foot altitude Support mission ('Strike Hold') off the north cape of Norway, about 150 miles outside land-based radar coverage. I launched the 12 strike Buccaneers to orbit at that location until all forces were gathered. From the launch point the strike planes had plenty of legs to reach the targets and egress safely at min altitude/mil-power.

The two tankers were set to orbit at 12000 feet (Support mission 'Tanker') 30 miles further from Soviet territory. Overall Side Doctrine was set to “Never” refuel, the tankers were put on a Support mission with “Always except Tankers-Refueling Tankers.” The final launch was two pairs of Phantoms, the last four fighters, intended to serve as strike escorts. These were launched to orbit the same ref points as the tankers (Escort Hold) at the same altitude. The pairs were set with “Always” refuel Group Doctrine.

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 7
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:36:00 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline 		The Push:

The first step in pushing the strike forward was refueling the Phantoms; I manually directed one pair to each tanker to top off. This would give them the legs, barely, to stay with the bombers at least to the Initial Point. They would then egress and hit the tankers again on the way out... the tankers having just enough time to RTB, quick-turn, and launch back to the same support orbit to meet the returning fighters.

I unassigned the strike aircraft from the Strike Hold mission one at a time, and manually plotted individual courses to various targets. All were set to low level (1000 feet) and cruise, then min altitude and military power once they were within 75 miles of the Soviet border. I timed the flow so that the Phantoms were in the middle of the stream... overall sequence was SEAD Buccaneers (led by the two hitting border sites), then the two pairs of Phantoms, then the four nuclear-armed Bucs.

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 8
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:37:25 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Ingress, Strike, and Egress:

From there, it was straightforward. As the SEAD aircraft approached their targets, I’d climb them to 800 feet AGL. This gave them a bit more distance to detect targets while keeping them below the minimum engagement envelope of the SA-2/-5s and any interceptors that came calling. This was generally very effective, and in only a couple cases did an SA-3 site get a shot off before an AS.37 was near impact.

Due to the extreme low-altitude penetration (ie late detection) and the decoy mission pulling a lot of them out of position, most of the interceptors weren’t in good situation to interfere. The few that got into position were dealt with well by my minimal escort. AIM-7 shots would force them to disengage, which usually bought enough time for the Buccaneers to continue on toward their targets. And as it turned out there wasn’t an interceptor on the Soviet side that had a minimum engagement altitude lower than 1500 AGL. So all that time spent on the decoy missions, while a heck of a lot of fun, wasn’t needed.

Long story short... the SEAD was effective, the fighter escorts as effective as they had to be, and both Soviet airbases were vaporized. The air defenses at the southern location were much stronger, with four SA-3 sites ringing the target. If I were to do it over again, I would have split the six penetrating SEAD aircraft 4-2 in favor of Olenengorsk, rather than sending 3 to each target area. My only aerial losses were one Buccaneer to an SA-3, three more to blast from the nukes, and 4 Phantoms on the decoy/CAP missions.

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 9
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:39:09 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline 		The Blemish:

All that said... while the Air Operations officer is to be commended, the ASW officer has been sacked. If seppuku were fashionable among the British he'd be a candidate. About as the strike package was forming up in the hold area, the Gannet on AEW patrol passed in a missile warning, then a Goblin detection. There were multiple ASCMs heading toward the CVBG from the northeast, and apparently a surfaced SSGN. I micromanaged the hell out of SAM launches and I was able to deal with all but a couple of the missiles (SS-N-9s, I learned later). Unfortunately one of the leakers took out HMS Glamorgan, and another got either Danae or Berwick.

I had a reasonable helicopter ASW screen up, but limited numbers of sonobuoys and the task group’s high speed meant that they weren’t able to be terribly effective. The speed also made the ships’ organic sensors almost worthless. I had stumbled right on top of a Victor II as it turns out. While the helicopters did eventually detect and kill the sub, in the meantime it also sunk Sheffield and whichever frigate (Danae or Berwick) the ASCM’s didn’t get. All told four of the five escorting destroyers and frigates, and roughly 1200 RN sailors, ended up on the bottom of the Barents Sea.

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 10
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:41:18 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Impressions and Comments:

The Soviets were really doomed in this situation by a lack of low-altitude air defense capability. One gun-armed interceptor model, or missiles that could engage closer to the ground, would have made all the difference in the world.

If I were to do it again there are a couple things I’d tweak:

- ASW patrols further in front of my fast-moving CV task force. I had the forward helo screen about 15nm out, but with dipping sonars and a limited number of active-only sonobuoys, it was too easy for the Victor to slip through.

- As noted above, I’d put more SEAD on the Olenegorsk strike. The SA-3’s are more heavily concentrated there than around Severomorsk, at least when approaching from the west.

- I would put four less Phantoms on the second northern decoy mission and assign them to the strike escort mission (one more pair for each strike). My decoys were effective pulling the initial wave of Soviet interceptors out of position; the escorts I did have were able to eliminate a lot of the next wave, or push them off the track long enough that the Bucs could continue to the target. But there were enough interceptors that if any of them could have engaged at low level, the strike would have been slaughtered.

I really enjoyed the scenario, mass air operations are fun, and running the various decoys and feints made it a blast. Thanks again!

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 11
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:43:16 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 12
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:44:01 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 13
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:44:45 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 14
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/23/2016 4:45:25 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline 		I figured a couple early-1970s shots of Ark Royal's flight deck might make up for the lack of screen grabs. :-)

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 15
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 12/24/2016 10:27:55 AM   
.Sirius


Posts: 1404
Joined: 1/18/2013
Status: offline 		Hi thanks for the great AAR on the Scenario :)

_____________________________

Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 16
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 2/1/2017 2:39:03 AM   
Eggstor

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 1/24/2016
Status: offline 		Very nicely done, both on the scenario and on the AAR. My effort wasn't nearly as "clean" from an air standpoint, but the fact that I didn't attempt an escort mission after kicking in the radar door early (during the first fighter sweep) and didn't run the task force in nearly as far before launching early had a lot to do with that. I ended up losing all my strike Buccaneers, mostly from air-to-air missiles fired when the terrain forced them above 1500 feet ASL, but the Soviets took care of Orlenegorsk for me while what survived of that SEAD raid was trying to clear out the SA-3 sites.

The surviving northern nuclear Buccaneer led a charmed life, dragging a Flagon halfway across the Kola peninsula, outrunning a couple of heat-seeking SAMs when I had to directly overfly a SA-2 site to keep it below 1000 feet ASL, and pretty much emptying out a SA-3 site (its SEAD escort and its wingman were all shot down long before that point) before finally dropping its bomb to obliterate Severomorsk and running out of luck on the way back.

The decoy mission, though I only lost 1 Phantom, was quite hairy. I should have known from the previous mission that the Fiddler has long legs, but I put the Gannett a bit too close for comfort. A couple of mad dashes for the deck along with some heroic Phantom flying/firing saved its day. Also, I mismanaged the fuel on one group so bad that it flew right over one of the SAGs on the way back. Fortunately, the potshot that was taken missed, and the Soviets were never the wiser on where I I was sailing the Ark Royal.

As for the subs, perhaps it was because the fleet cruised to a launch point further out rather than sprinting in close, but I didn't find any, and more importantly, none appear to have found me.

(in reply to .Sirius)
Post #: 17
RE: Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye - 2/1/2017 5:15:48 AM   
magi

 

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline 		very nice indeed.... well managed..... good read thank you....

(in reply to Eggstor)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> After Action Report >> Northern Inferno 10 - An Eye for an Eye Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.672