Future Carriers

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Future Carriers

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 >> Future Carriers

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Future Carriers - 11/2/2018 2:11:06 AM

Cpt Black

Posts: 17
Joined: 10/17/2018
Status: offline

I'm beginning work on a future scenario that will use the JFK, F-35C, latest Super-Hornets and Helos etc.

The JFK seems to include a "standard" carrier magazine. There are still things in there like Penguins for SH-60Bs and quite bit of other obsolete ordinance. I've made some decisions on what my hypothetical magazine should carry. For instance, while the most advanced F/A-18's in the DB have loadouts for Harpoon II+, the political reality seems to be that there is virtually no chance the US will buy them, so they are out, while the SLAMER is in and I highly doubt they'd carry both (seems like needless duplication, but you never know about pork-barrel politics). A few decisions have been made this way, and I think I'm doing OK until.... bombs.

Certainly in a 2025 scenario SDBs will most certainly be available. But do I really need or would I really use 4 different flavors of Mk 82, 83, and 84? Just because the loadouts are there would I really carry them all?

If you were a quartermaster loading out your carrier magazine with bombs in 2025 based on the CMANO database and didn't know where it was going, (the scenario is a routine cruise when hostilities break out), what would you reasonably put in there? So, don't ask me the target, I don't know

Kind of keep in the back of your mind that you can't, you know, carry everything.

I don't want a scenario where one may as well click the unlimited magazine button, but the standard carrier load for the JFK seems to be based on carrying current aircraft and not the future aircraft it will carry. The being said, however, the F-35C has no loadouts that include dumb bombs! The standard magazine includes 3800 of them

One would assume that the number of unguided weapons would be decreased drastically (the F-18 can still carry them) and the number of guided weapons would increase somewhat.

Please share your ideas about the contents of a future carrier loadout.

Post #: 1

RE: Future Carriers - 11/2/2018 3:14:01 AM

Gunner98

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

An interesting issue

I think you're right on the Harpoon II+, SLAM-ER works and is in production.

I wouldn't use the older PGMs (1x and 2x series) just a mix of the 3x and 5x series. A quick look at the magazine and there seems to be about 100x Mk82, 240x Mk83 and 380x Mk84 based PGMs, so the same numbers with a mix of the two more modern versions should work. Since the SDB is replacing the Mk82s and are about half the size, a couple hundred would be good.

I wouldn't use any HARMs either, just AARGMs, and no laser based Mavericks, just IR ones.

Some CBUs but no mines unless there is a specific mission.

As a general rule (at least in the Cold War) a carrier was supposed to operate for 72 hrs before a replen, so (not counting dumb bombs), enough munitions for:

-5-6 land strike (per AC)

-1-2 ASuW strike

-2-3 A2A

-1 SEAD

-1 FLEX (JSOW for instance)

This gives you enough to run about 2-3 missions a day for most of your AC and still have plenty left over.

The inclusion of dumb bombs is a bit of an oddity because they are the base unit for all of the PGMs but don't count down as the PGM units are used. You should keep them anyway just for flex (maybe not 3800 of them)

B

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to Cpt Black)

Post #: 2

RE: Future Carriers - 11/3/2018 2:47:27 AM

Cpt Black

Posts: 17
Joined: 10/17/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

An interesting issue

I think you're right on the Harpoon II+, SLAM-ER works and is in production.

I wouldn't use the older PGMs (1x and 2x series) just a mix of the 3x and 5x series. A quick look at the magazine and there seems to be about 100x Mk82, 240x Mk83 and 380x Mk84 based PGMs, so the same numbers with a mix of the two more modern versions should work. Since the SDB is replacing the Mk82s and are about half the size, a couple hundred would be good.

I wouldn't use any HARMs either, just AARGMs, and no laser based Mavericks, just IR ones.

Some CBUs but no mines unless there is a specific mission.

As a general rule (at least in the Cold War) a carrier was supposed to operate for 72 hrs before a replen, so (not counting dumb bombs), enough munitions for:

-5-6 land strike (per AC)

-1-2 ASuW strike

-2-3 A2A

-1 SEAD

-1 FLEX (JSOW for instance)

This gives you enough to run about 2-3 missions a day for most of your AC and still have plenty left over.

The inclusion of dumb bombs is a bit of an oddity because they are the base unit for all of the PGMs but don't count down as the PGM units are used. You should keep them anyway just for flex (maybe not 3800 of them)

B

Thanks! It definitely looks different so far. Because I've removed so many entries completely and consolidated munitions like you suggest, the numbers look kind of enormous in some cases. Squadrons at 2-3 A2A a day adds up to a tremendous amount of AMRAAMS, for instance. I have one squadron of advanced Lightnings that could go through 96 in a single A2A mission if external loads are used.

I'll post the preliminary results when I do a sanity check on it. Still researching what each munition costs as I think that does have to be considered as well. For instance I already know that an LJDAM costs 40k more than a JDAM so my idea of just using just LJDAMs would never get past the bean-counters.

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 3

RE: Future Carriers - 11/3/2018 9:48:09 AM

Gunner98

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

quote:

Squadrons at 2-3 A2A a day adds up to a tremendous amount

What I meant was 2-3 over three days - which would reduce the numbers considerably. For instance, the standard load of Aim-54 was 96, that was enough to give the 24 F-14s one standard loadout each until they replenished. There were enough Aim-7 for another loadout plus a bit.

B

< Message edited by Gunner98 -- 11/3/2018 9:49:17 AM >

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to Cpt Black)

Post #: 4

RE: Future Carriers - 11/3/2018 3:00:01 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

If you were a quartermaster loading out your carrier magazine with bombs in 2025 based on the CMANO database and didn't know where it was going, (the scenario is a routine cruise when hostilities break out), what would you reasonably put in there?

Answer: Lots and lots of Mk. 82, Mk. 83 and Mk. 84 bombs, and lots of BLU-109s. You can build LGBs or JDAMS on the carrier so long as you have the bombs and the guidance kits. It's easier to bring more guidance kits via COD or UNREP than it is to bring lots of big heavy bombs. I'd also bring as many AMRAAMs and heaters as I could bring. Other, more specialized munitions, that I couldn't build at sea, I'd bring in more limited quantities but so long as the COD or UNREP came, I could replenish them.

The good news is that there's lots of space in a CVN's magazine, so you don't really need to worry that much about storage space. I once estimated that a carrier, using a fairly high sortie rate, could go for a whole 6 month deployment, dropping bombs continuously without replenishing its magazines. They're all good for space. If there's an inventory issue, it's probably with newer or more specialized munitions like SLAMs, Harpoons, HARM/AARGM, SDB, LRASM, Mavericks, torpedoes, etc.

If there's something missing in a carrier magazine in Command, I just add it in the scenario editor. It's not necessarily a bad assumption to assume that however many specialized munitions you'd need for a given mission, they'd have brought out to the CVN via UNREP. Tweaking the loadouts on carriers is one way to guarantee I'm absorbed for an afternoon on my computer.

(in reply to Cpt Black)

Post #: 5

RE: Future Carriers - 11/4/2018 6:42:25 PM

Cpt Black

Posts: 17
Joined: 10/17/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

quote:

If you were a quartermaster loading out your carrier magazine with bombs in 2025 based on the CMANO database and didn't know where it was going, (the scenario is a routine cruise when hostilities break out), what would you reasonably put in there?

Answer: Lots and lots of Mk. 82, Mk. 83 and Mk. 84 bombs, and lots of BLU-109s. You can build LGBs or JDAMS on the carrier so long as you have the bombs and the guidance kits. It's easier to bring more guidance kits via COD or UNREP than it is to bring lots of big heavy bombs. I'd also bring as many AMRAAMs and heaters as I could bring. Other, more specialized munitions, that I couldn't build at sea, I'd bring in more limited quantities but so long as the COD or UNREP came, I could replenish them.

The good news is that there's lots of space in a CVN's magazine, so you don't really need to worry that much about storage space. I once estimated that a carrier, using a fairly high sortie rate, could go for a whole 6 month deployment, dropping bombs continuously without replenishing its magazines. They're all good for space. If there's an inventory issue, it's probably with newer or more specialized munitions like SLAMs, Harpoons, HARM/AARGM, SDB, LRASM, Mavericks, torpedoes, etc.

If there's something missing in a carrier magazine in Command, I just add it in the scenario editor. It's not necessarily a bad assumption to assume that however many specialized munitions you'd need for a given mission, they'd have brought out to the CVN via UNREP. Tweaking the loadouts on carriers is one way to guarantee I'm absorbed for an afternoon on my computer.

Well one thing I have done is remove every Mk82 kit. All of them. Every aircraft can carry the SDB II. Research shows it costs about the same as a JDAM kit and my mythical quartermaster loves the idea of not having to build Mk-82s all the time. The only capability lost is the ability to put a Mk82 through a window with laser guidance, but that still exists for Mk83 and Mk84. All Paveway II kits are gone as well.

I'm also trying to be realistic in the cost of these things. Research is eye-opening in some cases. A JSOW C1 costs about $50k more than a JSOW C, but the Navy isn't buying the older model anymore and the Air Force is out of the JSOW project completely. Like I said above an LJDAM kit costs 40k more than a JDAM and it isn't replacing JDAM so you would only have a limited number of them.

Same for the penetrators. At first look it seems counterproductive to have both BLU 109 and Blu 116 penetrators in inventory, but it turns out that the BLU-116 is a very specialized, low rate item (less than 40 per year through 2021) and 109s are fairly common.

Another interesting note is that JASSMs aren't even available as a loadout on any of these aircraft. At least the CMANO database thinks the Navy is going to LRASM only. Doing the research on that now.

I'll post the whole thing for comment soon.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 6

RE: Future Carriers - 11/4/2018 9:30:46 PM

Cpt Black

Posts: 17
Joined: 10/17/2018
Status: offline

Hmm, not only are LRASMs going to be a standard thing if things proceed as they are now, but the Tomahawk MMT is just a interim for a Mk 41 version of the LRASM (which has already been test fired). No real info out there on a sub launched version that I can find but one would think ... These are supposed to carry us into Hypervelocity stuff.

The NSM purchased for the LCS is the same. Apparently almost all of the Harpoons left in inventory have exceeded their shelf-life and the Navy doesn't want to restart production just for LCS which makes sense. Apparently most US Harpoon launchers out there today are going to sea empty, not because we've used them all but they've exceeded their "shoot by" date! Tomahawks have a 30 year shelf life and Raytheon even provides a warranty for the first 15 years.

All this is to say including enough LRASSM for couple of strikes seems plausible.

(in reply to Cpt Black)

Post #: 7

RE: Future Carriers - 11/5/2018 12:16:17 AM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Black
Well one thing I have done is remove every Mk82 kit. All of them.

I'm not sure I'd do that. I'm not against SDB II at all, they're awesome, but I'm not sure what the production rate for them is either. I suspect in the future, though, you're right, SDB I/II will be the preferred choice to a Mk-82, though. Whether they can produce them in the numbers necessary to completely replace the Mk-82 is another question. I also suspect that in some cases the Mk-82 will be preferred to SDB precisely because it is a less precise warhead, and has a greater blast/fragmentation effect.

A lot of magazine inventory has as much to do with what is available as what is preferred.

quote:

I'm also trying to be realistic in the cost of these things. Research is eye-opening in some cases. A JSOW C1 costs about $50k more than a JSOW C, but the Navy isn't buying the older model anymore and the Air Force is out of the JSOW project completely. Like I said above an LJDAM kit costs 40k more than a JDAM and it isn't replacing JDAM so you would only have a limited number of them.

Yeah... Navy loves JSOW... USAF prefers JASSM. A lot of these things have to do with the way that different missions are target sets tend to get divvied up. In the end, when there's an actual shooting war, things seldom get divided so neatly as they do in the plans, and even in the plans there's overlap. For example, can you tell me with a straight face that the Navy and the Air Force both don't need to be able to strike self propelled artillery pieces? Of course they do! The differences in preferred ordinance can sometimes lead to differences in tactics and doctrine between the Navy and Air Force, which are sometimes interesting.

quote:

Same for the penetrators. At first look it seems counterproductive to have both BLU 109 and Blu 116 penetrators in inventory, but it turns out that the BLU-116 is a very specialized, low rate item (less than 40 per year through 2021) and 109s are fairly common.

BLU-109s aren't going anywhere.

quote:

Another interesting note is that JASSMs aren't even available as a loadout on any of these aircraft. At least the CMANO database thinks the Navy is going to LRASM only. Doing the research on that now.

Yeah... JASSM is an Air Force thing. They're sort of like the iPhone of cruise missiles. Expensive, exquisite, programmable black boxes that can do everything you want them to do with beautiful elegance, but they're expensive...

(in reply to Cpt Black)

Post #: 8

RE: Future Carriers - 11/6/2018 5:44:42 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

Not sure how indicative this is, but I thought it was interesting that on the Peleliu there was this photo of them loading ammunition pallets:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/5568212060/

Notice it's lots of bomb bodies.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 9

RE: Future Carriers - 11/8/2018 6:54:58 AM

Cpt Black

Posts: 17
Joined: 10/17/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

Not sure how indicative this is, but I thought it was interesting that on the Peleliu there was this photo of them loading ammunition pallets:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/5568212060/

Notice it's lots of bomb bodies.

Yeah, but like it was said above, CMANO doesn't decrement the base bombs when you use a guided one anyway, so I've just started thinking about the guidance packages as "kits".

Anyway, here is what I've come up with. Essentially the JFK is carrying 12 F-35C (Blk2), 12 F-35C (Blk3), 24 F/A-18E/F, 5 F/A-18G plus helos, tankers, AEW etc.

4/10000 A/N37U [AN/SLQ-53] Helicopter-Towed Mechanical Cable Cutter Mine Sweep
24/24 ADM-141C ITALD [Active RF]
48/200 ADM-160C MALD-J [Stand-In OECM]
48/10000 AGM-65F Maverick IR
48/10000 AGM-84K SLAMER-ATA
96/10000 AGM-88E AARGM
64/10000 AGM-114M Hellfire II
48/48 AGM-154A JSOW [145 x BLU-97/B Dual Purpose]
72/10000 AGM-154C-1 JSOW [BROACH]
48/48 AGM-158C LRASM
200/200 AIM-9X Sidewinder
480/10000 AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
4/10000 AN/ALQ-220 OASIS Helicopter-Towed Magnetic & Acoustic Multi-Influence Mine Sweep
16/16 AN/ALQ-XXX NGJ ECM Pod
4/10000 AN/AQS-20A Helicopter-Towed Minehunting Sonar
4/4 AN/ASD-12 SHARP Pod [EO + IR + SAR]
24/36 AN/ASQ-228 Terminator II ATFLIR [FLIR + LRMTS, 40k ft]
12/12 AN/AWW-13 Datalink Pod
40/40 CBU-59/B APAM [717 x BLU-77/B Dual-Purpose Bomblets]
20/20 GBU-24D/B Paveway III LGB [BLU-116/B]
20/20 GBU-24E/B Paveway III GPS/LGB [BLU-109A/B]
200/10000 GBU-31(V)2/B JDAM [Mk84]
40/40 GBU-31(V)4/B JDAM [BLU-109A/B]
200/200 GBU-32(V)2/B JDAM [Mk83]
600/10000 GBU-53/B SDB-II
20/20 GBU-54(V)2/B LJDAM [Mk82]
48/10000 GBU-56(V)2/B LJDAM [Mk84]
80/10000 GBU-56(V)4/B LJDAM [BLU-109A/B]
4/10000 Generic Buddy Store
140/140 HYDRA APKWS II 70mm Rocket [WGU-59/B]
40/80 Mk54 LHT Mod 0
48/200 Mk63 Quickstrike [Mk83]
1000/2500 Mk82 500lb LDGP
400/800 Mk83 1000lb LDGP
200/500 Mk84 2000lb LDGP
20/20 Seafox I [Killer Vehicle] ROV

Some explanations here. Just made no sense to have all those helicopters capable of mine sweeping and no gear, so I included enough equipment for the S models (Don't think the CO would give up his LAMPS for that).

CMANO makes you use Generic Buddy Stores to load out MQ-25s so I included 10 just in case you really need to still use F/A-18s in a pinch. I have absolutely no idea how many MQ-25s would be assigned to a carrier, so I went with 6.

Quickstrikes were included because someone went to a lot of trouble certifying the F/18 to carry these things. Someone out there believes they have a use. On the other hand it would take way too many aircraft to seed a minefield with Mk84 versions (can only carry two). So I included enough for one mission.

The number of JSOWs were bumped up and the Mk-82 LJDAM was added back because of the limitations of the "older" F-35 squadron. They don't have a lot of options otherwise. The advanced version is almost as good of a bomb truck as the F/A-18 if you use external loads.

Comments welcome.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 10

RE: Future Carriers - 11/8/2018 3:12:54 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

The CVW isn't bad but for what it's worth, an "official" notional future CVW (~2030 timeframe) is usually defined as 44 strike aircraft including:

12 F/A-18E
12 F/A-18F
20 F-35C
5 EA-18G
5 E-2D
11 MH-60R/S, w/8 MH-60R dispersed aboard the escorts

Then there's varying accounts of how many UAS will be aboard, usually in reference to the MQ-25.

Quickstrikes are another thing like JDAMs which are built off dumb bomb bodies. They probably would deliver the kits by COD or UNREP in preparation for a planned mining mission. Because of the legal, diplomatic and political issues involved in laying sea mines, any such mission would most likely be planned very carefully with permission from the highest levels. I doubt a CVW would just have them aboard, even though F/A-18s can carry them (or any other dumb bomb carrier). I also doubt that a carrier would carry so much mine hunting gear, because the tendency is for carriers to sit out at sea, just within strike range, in order to minimize their vulnerability. Way out at sea, in the deep, the only mine threat is from floating mines, which the helicopter sweeping gear won't help. That stuff would be better put aboard an LCS with the MiW package or a big-deck gator (LHA/LHD) because they are intended to go into waters where there's likely to be mines.

(in reply to Cpt Black)

Post #: 11

RE: Future Carriers - 11/17/2018 4:36:22 PM

IICptMillerII

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/25/2018
Status: offline

Apologies, made this post in the wrong thread.

< Message edited by IICptMillerII -- 11/17/2018 5:51:22 PM >

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 12

RE: Future Carriers - 11/17/2018 11:43:18 PM

ARCNA442

Posts: 158
Joined: 4/7/2018
Status: offline

Interesting work.

I think you are significantly underestimating a carrier's magazine capacity. Ignoring pods, guidance kits, and minesweeping gear, your loadout adds up to around 1630 tons. While Friedman's US Carriers suggests that a Nimitz can carry 2500-3000 tons of ordnance - nearly twice what you propose.

I would also expect that there would be enough guidance kits for every bomb onboard. The US hasn't been dropping large numbers of unguided bombs for years, yet 57% of your bombs are unguided.

SDB-II numbers should probably be a bit lower. Assuming a ~2025 date based on the F-35's in the airwing, the Navy should have around 5000 SDB-II, which wouldn't permit 600 for each carrier. Probably 300-400 is more realistic.

The number of JSOW could probably be higher, the Navy has bought nearly 5000 of them, so they should probably be present in similar numbers to SDB-II.

There could probably be more AARGM as well since the Navy has stock of 2300 currently planned.

There appears to be far too many AMRAAM. The Navy has only bought around 1000 AIM-120D to date and scheduled procurement would appear to put the 2025 stock at less than 2000. I would guess something like 120-180 per carrier and maybe another 40-60 AIM-120C to round things out (I don't know if the older AMRAAM can or will be brought up to current standard though so that could change things).

For antiship missiles, I doubt the Navy will have more than 200 LRASM by 2025, but it will also have around 150 Harpoon II. I'm betting it will prioritize LRASM for the Pacific, so having 48 on a carrier might be possible but almost certainly not common. 24 missiles per carrier probably is more likely.

Finally, I would second SeaQueen's comments about mines and minesweeping gear. That's specialist equipment and I doubt it would show up on routine cruises.

*note, all missile numbers are from my analysis of the DoN budget materials, which can be found here: http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Pages/Fiscal-Year-2019.aspx

ETA: the Navy only bought 480 SLAM-ER, so those should probably be reduced as well.

< Message edited by ARCNA442 -- 11/17/2018 11:46:03 PM >

(in reply to IICptMillerII)

Post #: 13