I'm trying to replicate the F-16A vs. Su-27 engagement at the beginning of the war over Norway.
I maneuvered a group of F-16s behind one of the swarms of 8 Suchois. In the best case I downed two Su-27s and damaged another two with both F-16 shot down shortly after.
Splashing 4 of the attackers seems like a really lucky event
I think in the book the group of Su-27s was somehow separated - that should definitely change the odds a bit.
Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005 From: The Great White North! Status: offline
That's a bit of a tough one - the game has matured quite a bit since Joel and I played through that sequence and it is a much harder A2A fight. I think it was ~5 years ago but Joel wrote his experiences up in an AAR on Grogheads: http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=13262.0
Good article, the call back to the 1915 shell shortage suffered by the RA and Empire armies in WW1 is certainly appropriate. That said, the shell shortage was actually nothing of the kind and the real problem was a fuze shortage. When David Lloyd George became Minister of Munitions in May 1915 there were over 1-million unfilled 18-pounder and 4.2" howitzer shrapnel shells awaiting fuzes so that they could be filled.
It's worth noting that all Great War belligerents suffered ammunition shortages but it was exponentially worse in Britain (and inept, corrupt and bureaucratic Russia) than in Germany.
Making shrapnel shells was easy, any competent machine shop could do it and the consequences of poor quality control were unlikely to lead to catastrophic failure in the firing gun. On the other hand artillery fuzes are extremely complex, precision devices that required specialized tooling, assembly and effective quality inspection and testing regimes. Eventually precision industries like clock-making firms became the main source of supply for artillery fuzes. Also the use of Lydite (picric acid) filling complicated the problem of manufacturing high explosive shells as it is more sensitive and has a higher melting point than TNT used by the Germans. Lydite also was prone to cracking if improperly cooled and crack in an HE shell filling often result in a catastrophic failure and the destruction or damage of the firing piece. Over the course of the war hundreds of British guns would be destroyed by British ammunition bursting prematurely in the gun barrels. It is largely for these reasons that shrapnel remained the main ammunition fired by the RA until late 1916, long after the German and French artillery switched to primarily HE.
The fuze problem actually relates to the missiles because it demonstrates how the shortage of a single component in a complex system can freeze production and take considerable time to sort out unless government and industry plan war production before the shooting actually starts. It is easy to see how a shortage of something like gyroscopes could bottleneck missile production quite badly and that is just one small part of the weapon.
-C
< Message edited by Randomizer -- 4/15/2020 4:22:20 AM >
Serial production deliveries of the C+ began in April of 1986. Again, some problems with components supplied by subcontractors, as well as the other problems noted above, caused production/acceptance problems with this enhanced variant.
The monthly rate of production, each missile taking over two years to build, was about 30-34. That represents one medium sized engagement in CMO!
I´m curious. Why does it take two years to produce a Phoenix? It sounds like an insanely long time to build a "small" missile. I know it´s a big A2A missile but it´s small compared to other types of missiles.
What parts take so long to produce, and why does it take a year to replace a memory board?
I´m obviously missing something here, but I would never have thought it would take that long to build a Phoenix
Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005 From: The Great White North! Status: offline
Hay Schr75
Not 100% sure but the Phoenix was a pretty advanced missile for its day (1970s), considering it's capability compared to the AIM-7 - it's nearest US rival, it was probably pretty complex.. Computer manufacturing was in its infancy and I suspect the data link was a bit of black-magic to most at the time. Probably only a limited number of production facilities and they would be competing with NASA and other high end customers (like the USAF).
A year to change out a memory board sounds more like it had to go back to the manufacturing plant and get in line with new build missiles, whereas the improved system could be reprogramed on the spot.
It boggles the mind to thing how far we've come in 50 years with computing technology.
Interesting blog post. I imagine with Phoenixes in short supply and Sparrows hopeless, AMRAAM production has been accelerated. I wonder how quickly the F-14 could be configured to fire them? And the Sovs must be running out of planes by now...
One thing about missile inventories is you can make them easier than your enemy can produce pilots and airplanes. Its also why more sophisticated ASBM and cruise missiles can potentially change the game.
There are a few older posts on the forum around the missile attrition battle. There were some interesting resources in them.
Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005 From: The Great White North! Status: offline
Yeah, I was quite surprised at how well stocked the US was with some high end and expensive missiles. Most of the ones mentioned were the latest versions and it seemed more a matter of time to produce than intent to procure causing the shortage.
I think the Phoenix was an exception as it was so cutting edge when it first came out but by the time the F-14 was due to retire it was not supported as much as some of the others. I think it is a rare example of an aircraft and a missile being uniquely matched in the late Cold War, such as the MiG-31 and AA-9 Amos.
This is going to make some of the later scenarios in the battleset a bit more interesting and challenging.
ORIGINAL: Gunner98 The monthly rate of production, each missile taking over two years to build, was about 30-34. That represents one medium sized engagement in CMO!
I remember for one big scenario editor furball (between the US and Iraqi air forces, so the comparison was easy), more AAMs were fired in that one battle than in the entirety of the real Gulf War.
According to Missile Forecast, the AIM-54A production rate was 40/month for 10 years (1970 to 1980). When the 54C entered production, quality and production problems halted deliveries numerous times and a large number of missiles had to be rebuilt. Reading between the lines, it was the reprogrammable memory subsystems and electronics cooling systems that cause the problems. The background stated that at one time the USN in the mid-80s had fewer than 70 AIM-54Cs in inventory. The rest being fairly old 54As.
Might want to factor that into some scenarios. I also think that is why the two year number is feasible. Based on both production capacity and final throughput that factors in production halts, it seems reasonable.
I think way too little attention is paid to actual missile inventories when setting up scenarios. In real life, its the inventories of SM-2, 6, and 3 missiles I always wonder about. An Aegis equipped ship with VLS can deplete itself of missiles in a minutes-long engagement. How does it replenish? Where are the missile stocks? How fast can new missiles be brought in-theater? How fast can the US make new missiles.
Back in the day, you could knock bombers down faster than they replace aircraft and crews. But with better cruise missiles and potentially ASBMs in play, you have to rethink all of those questions. But its a good question to ask even in this mid-80s story.
< Message edited by thewood1 -- 4/17/2020 3:54:18 PM >
This is the missile forecast I mentioned. These forecasts are scattered all over the web. I have been slowly collecting them as I find them. They are outdated from a forecast standpoint, but contain really good info on missile development and deployment.
The AiM-54 issue is factored into my last scenario (NF-40 Tongs) and will be a main feature in my next one (NF-41 Tour de Force), as will many of the other missiles in the blog
There were a good number of SM-2 missiles available (the SM-2 MR/ER were the most common in 94) but ships need to get into a major port to be replenished. This has only featured in one of my scenarios so far (NF-10 Eisenhower moves North) where the CVBG starts quite spread out with a couple ships catching up from a port visit in Toulon and a bunch more are in Rota while the CVN and only two escorts heads north at speed. Those two ships have to call in at Brest to replen their depleted stocks - so juggling that and defending against an Oscar are the players main problem.
I don't know the distribution that the USN had but assume that Rota, Naples, Souda Bay and Faslane have stocks. In NF-41 60% of the available TLAMs are on a ship coming out of Norfolk and has a 4 day journey to be in useful range. Two other ships need to depart at a certain point to go to Norfolk (from the Norwegian Sea). Actually a lot of the scenario is based on logistics in general.
This is an excel file I started building a couple weeks ago. Just to take a look at modern missile inventories. It covers the important missile systems in the USN. Mostly SAMs, but a few SSM and AGM.
Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005 From: The Great White North! Status: offline
Very nice. It's not surprising but still interesting how far missile stocks have dropped in the past 26 years since '94. I've misplaced my link on how many SM-1 & SM-2s there were in the early 90's but 6-7,000 comes to mind.
The only source I found on inventories that far back is the Raytheon produced 5000 SM-2s of all varieties to global demand. It at least gives you a ballpark.
And yes, 1,000s.
Also, I use deagle a lot to track procurement, but most of the time, they don't have inventory or unit numbers, from the ones I have looked at.
< Message edited by thewood1 -- 4/17/2020 8:26:38 PM >
Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005 From: The Great White North! Status: offline
Northern Fury: H-Hour anniversary sale! Yes our book has been on the market for a year now and support has been fantastic. If you haven’t got a copy yet now is the time Ebook is- $1.99 on Amazon.com https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07R7BVQ31?ref_=pe_3052080_276849420 and £1.99 in the UK until 7 May.
Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005 From: The Great White North! Status: offline
Hay guys check out the cover art Adriana at the Slitherine Graphics department created for our upcoming Novella.
This is a side story about the Norwegian Coast Guard cutter Nordkapp - you may remember her from Northern Fury scenario #1: H-Hour, and if you've played NF #33: Into the Night, you would have met her again.
During our main story line she received a couple of mentions in H-Hour and will show up again in the later books, but only briefly.
We hope to have several of these Novellas to fill in gaps and side stories over the next few years.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Northern Fury - Check out the book based on CMANO scenarios 
RE: Northern Fury - Check out the book based on CMANO s... - 
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