Mission Design balance - FFG

[Bellman]

:) It is difficult to judge the degree/s of risk exposure for the different platforms in setting-up a scenario.

My feeling is that the weighting of chance of survival should mostly favour the FFG. She is the lynch pin, the quaterback,
she coordinates the 'dance of death.' She may have several players aboard (?)

I would appreciate others views but would aim in general at FFG survivability of 60% as opposed to subs 40%
varying +/- 10 % in differing situations. :hmm:

[OKO]

Well ... if you have a FFG and an Akula, or even any nuke on the opposite side in the same mission, I don't give any chance to the FFG !

some reasons :
- torpedoes from nukes => 27 miles
- detection of FFG by nuke is always made first than nuke by FFG
- ASM missiles
- torpedo detection and track respective capabilities of nuke against FFG ....

Only the help of aircraft can get the FFG out of fast death against nukes.

Also, only a good commander of the fregate can beat a KILO commander, alone, by agressive tactics.


So balance is always something difficult to make for a scenario.

I personally think, Bellman, that the FFG is the MOST exposed to risk on mission.
But this depend a LOT on the commander of the ship.
If he know the job, he can reduce significantly the degree of exposure.
With help of good AC also => EW and CM, for early vampire warning.
But without her aircraft, the FFG is mostly a sitting duck for subs.

[Bellman]

:) I agree de facto the odds are strictly stacked against the frigate and thats why I'm trying to assess the risk
probabilities and in design achieve a 'level playing field'.

I am at primary school where triggers are concerned but will get there - eventualy.

It seems that if the FFG is accompanied by several units/civies in convoy the screen takes much of the primary strike,
at least against the severest of AI aircraft threats.Given MP penalties for collateral I think the Aks task can be
ratcheted-up giving the half blind Aker a severe headache in achieving accurate solutions. ( I speak as a new Ak convert :lol: )

[SeaQueen]

:) It is difficult to judge the degree/s of risk exposure for the different platforms in setting-up a scenario.

My feeling is that the weighting of chance of survival should mostly favour the FFG. She is the lynch pin, the quaterback,
she coordinates the 'dance of death.' She may have several players aboard (?)

I would appreciate others views but would aim in general at FFG survivability of 60% as opposed to subs 40%
varying +/- 10 % in differing situations. :hmm:

Heh, you're asking about an operations analysis problem in Dangerous Waters. I could get into this. :-)

In my experience, the FFG is a lot more survivable than a submarine. For one FFG scenario I made, I actually sat down and made a spreadsheet to figure out how many cruise missiles I needed in the air, based in different assumptions, to stand a reasonable chance of putting the FFG out of action. The short answer is that it takes A LOT in DW, but the results varied widely based on ROE and other things.

Also, ability to survive and attack does not mean the FFG is likely to kill the Akula. He might just sit there and dodge missiles and torpedos until the Akula is out of stores and gives up. If you have a convergence zone and you play the FFG intelligently, your odds of getting the Akula are descent. If you have bad acoustics, so that you're only going to get maybe a couple of miles of sonar range, than your odds are pretty bad.

On the other hand... if you have bad acoustics but the Akula decides to shoot a missile instead of a torpedo then you have your survivability in your favor so you might be able to get the Akula before the second shot, because your search problem is simplified.

To really give you a hard answer would require a lot more discussion. I don't think it's fair to just blanketly say one way or the other because a lot of what drives the risk for the different platforms is the scenario you construct.

[LuftWolf]

With the new DB mod, the Akula player has a one shot kill against the FFG at virtually any range, via the 65-76 and the SS-N-27 Two Stage ASM.

However, both weapons are heavily influenced by the interaction of launch presets and surface traffic, so it should be a matter of skill on both sides to attack with/avoid those weapons.

Example:

For the FFG, if you are in a SAG or escorting a convoy, if you have surface traffic on one side of you, you can be more or less sure that you aren't going to get hit by a wakehomer or ASM, but on the exposed side, with no traffic and a huge area of open water, you are very vulnerable, but use of helos and buoys adds considerably to your survival.

I have heard, in RL, the Perry FFG is refered to as the "Helen Keller Class" and I don't suppose would last very long in wartime conditions on it's own... other's know a lot more about that I'm sure.

I would suggest in mission design that placement of helo's and briefing about possible datums, given perhaps from the more well equipped ships in the SAG with a target confirmation/prosecution assigned to the FFG in the mission briefing, or a buoy line dropped from a ASW plane, or something to indicate a fleet-level prosecution would be helpful to add a dynamic feel to the mission and increase the survival of the FFG player.

[SeaQueen]

..

For the FFG, if you are in a SAG or escorting a convoy, if you have surface traffic on one side of you, you can be more or less sure that you aren't going to get hit by a wakehomer or ASM, but on the exposed side, with no traffic and a huge area of open water, you are very vulnerable, but use of helos and buoys adds considerably to your survival.

...




In a high threat environment, it's not likely for any warship, let alone an FFG to be acting alone. Even when it had the missile launcher, it didn't have especially effective AAW capabilities, so if they were worried about cruise missiles, they'd almost always put him out there with at least a DDG and probably a combat air patrol supporting it.

One of the things that bothers me about DW is that people think too much in terms of one-on-one engagements, and not in what a team of warships together can do. For example, a DDG51 doesn't have a helo hanger, but pair that with an FFG and you have a pretty good all around team.


I have heard, in RL, the Perry FFG is refered to as the "Helen Keller Class" and I don't suppose would last very long in wartime conditions on it's own... other's know a lot more about that I'm sure.



The bow sonar is okay active (it's a waste of time to count on it
for passive detection). The towed array is good, but it's performance depends on the acoustics, which can very widely. An FFG is not a cruiser, but that's not to say it's bad. You just need to be wise about setting up a scenario.


I would suggest in mission design that placement of helo's and briefing about possible datums,


I don't think that gives the FFG or the players enough credit. You don't need to just TELL the player the answer to the puzzle.


given perhaps from the more well equipped ships in the SAG with a target confirmation/prosecution assigned to the FFG in the mission briefing, or a buoy line dropped from a ASW plane, or something to indicate a fleet-level prosecution would be helpful to add a dynamic feel to the mission and increase the survival of the FFG player.

Teaming the FFG up with aircraft or another warship is definitely one way to go. Think about it. You're the admiral and you need to make sure a convoy gets to where it needs to go. Your intelligence tells you that they will most likely encounter an Akula class submarine. They need escorts. The Akula class presents:

1 - An ASW problem.
2 - An AAW problem with it's cruise missiles.

So... the FFG is limited with AAW, so you couldn't count on it defending the convoy or itself effectively alone. You'd need at a DDG or a CG too.

ASW wise, the FFG is good, provided you have good acoustics. So... where does your convoy want to go? In a bottom-limited environment, the FFG's search range is severely limited so you'd need either multiple FFGs or maybe another DDG or something else with a higher search rate to cue the FFG ( like a P-3). If you can expect a CZ or two then you might be fine with a DDG and a FFG.


I also tend to always start off scenarios with my helo airborn. Most scenarios should be designed around more than one warship. If it's against a highly capable threat like an Akula.

[Bellman]

:) SeaQueen has raised several good points.
Most scenarios should be designed around more than one warship.
Although we lack many Harpoon tools the FFG would be part of a group and in DW scenarios accompanying
convoy warships can be alloted 'Threat axis' positions.

Threat zones, Nav zones (off-limits) can be created for ASW, AAW and ASuW and the appropriate units assigned tasks.
If (?) this cant be done by the Nav map giving seperate indications to red/blue then the designers briefing
can give relevant reference points.

The game provides scope for fun 'Dogfight' type MP games and real-life simulations of actual maritime strategy.
That is its strength, that is its broad appeal.
We have 'some' of the tools to simulate 'Power Projection' and 'Shows of Force' and some designers are setting the standard.

I have a reoccuring dream that SS will combine elements of 'Fleet Command' with DW to to give us strategic fleet planning/implementation combined with the buzz of operational tactics. It has been done in flight sims. :|\

[LuftWolf]

I don't think that gives the FFG or the players enough credit. You don't need to just TELL the player the answer to the puzzle.

I didn't mean all the time! :P

I just thought if a designer wanted to see if it would be fun to have four Akulas bearing down on an FFG, he might want to give the FFG a bit of intel. in the briefing. ;) :lol:

[Bellman]

LuftWolf
I would suggest in mission design that placement of helo's and briefing about possible datums, given perhaps from the more well equipped ships in the SAG with a target confirmation/prosecution assigned to the FFG in the mission briefing, or a buoy line dropped from a ASW plane, or something to indicate a fleet-level prosecution would be helpful to add a dynamic feel to the mission and increase the survival of the FFG player.


Absolutely - could'nt agree more with the 'fleet-level prosecution' specification. I intend to revisit my imported
Harpoon scenarios( not to crib :lol: ) to get 'theme' ideas which may translete to appropriate fleet level operations for DW.

:roll: Thats when my grasp of the DW design tools of the trade are sufficiently honed to be able to deliver my aspirations.

At this pretentious/pompous point Neal usualy swings in one of his 'gag' avatars - he'll probably give me 'Shore Leave) :rotfl:

[Kapitan]

ever heard "theres two types of ships at sea submarines and targets" :up:

[LuftWolf]

Tell that to the German U-boat crews...

[Kapitan]

lol thats like standing in the middle of berlin and souting hiel hitler at the top of your lungs

[LuftWolf]

At least until active sonar, hedgehogs, B-24 maritime h/k's, enigma code breaks, etc. etc... ;)

[Kapitan]

well today its the saying :D try find a sierra SSN with sonar if she gone deep small hope as she can dive to 800 meters or a al'fa speeding along at 45 knots

[LuftWolf]

I could probably hear the alfa in Brooklyn... :-j :lol:

[Kapitan]

at 900 meters probly hear it anywhere the al'fa was only truly noisey when she stepped on the peddle

[SeaQueen]

:) SeaQueen has raised several good points.
Although we lack many Harpoon tools the FFG would be part of a group and in DW scenarios accompanying convoy warships can be alloted 'Threat axis' positions.


We don't really need all the tools that Harpoon has. They're an overkill. One DOES need to think, when designing scenarios, what would be an appropriate force tasked to do whatever is the stated goal of the mission is, though. If the mission is to destroy an Akula, a single FFG is not an appropriate platform. Honestly for OFFENSIVE ASW, a submarine is probably the best way to go. For ASW defence, though the FFG alone lacks the defensive capabilities it really needs. If an FFG was caught alone by an Akula, the FFG would probably try to run away, assuming it avoided the Akula's first attack, and call for help from a P-3, other aircraft and warships.

An FFG with a DDG and maybe a pair of F/A-18s would be better. The FFG / DDG combination has significant ASW capabilities and the F/A-18s combined with DDG's AEGIS, the FFG's SM-2, CIWS and chaff provides a layered defence against incoming cruise missiles. The playing field would be a lot more equal in this case.

Also, one would have to wonder why an Akula would bother chasing after a lone FFG in the first place. More likely, the Akula would be tasked to go for L-ships, CVs, and cargo vessels -- the Allied / American center of mass. Sinking an FFG in that case might be a means to an end, but once he hits the FFG there's a flaming datum so the high value units (if they're smart) have been alerted and taken evasive measures, complicated the Akula's problem.

I have a reoccuring dream that SS will combine elements of 'Fleet Command' with DW to to give us strategic fleet planning/implementation combined with the buzz of operational tactics. It has been done in flight sims. :|\

It already has. You just need to think about how a scenario would really work. Don't think of scenarios as "I'm going to put an X versus a Y and see what happens." Think of scenarios as "X is doing this. To insure that X does this I need to protect him against A, B, and C. To do that I need (or better yet, HAVE) 1, 2, and 3..."

It tends to lead to fairly balanced scenarios that have at a reason motivating them, and it also gives your scenarios some depth. Personally I think it's much more satisfying.

[timmyg00]

:) SeaQueen has raised several good points.
Although we lack many Harpoon tools the FFG would be part of a group and in DW scenarios accompanying convoy warships can be alloted 'Threat axis' positions.


We don't really need all the tools that Harpoon has. They're an overkill. One DOES need to think, when designing scenarios, what would be an appropriate force tasked to do whatever is the stated goal of the mission is, though. If the mission is to destroy an Akula, a single FFG is not an appropriate platform. Honestly for OFFENSIVE ASW, a submarine is probably the best way to go. For ASW defence, though the FFG alone lacks the defensive capabilities it really needs. If an FFG was caught alone by an Akula, the FFG would probably try to run away, assuming it avoided the Akula's first attack, and call for help from a P-3, other aircraft and warships.

An FFG with a DDG and maybe a pair of F/A-18s would be better. The FFG / DDG combination has significant ASW capabilities and the F/A-18s combined with DDG's AEGIS, the FFG's SM-2, CIWS and chaff provides a layered defence against incoming cruise missiles. The playing field would be a lot more equal in this case.

Also, one would have to wonder why an Akula would bother chasing after a lone FFG in the first place. More likely, the Akula would be tasked to go for L-ships, CVs, and cargo vessels -- the Allied / American center of mass. Sinking an FFG in that case might be a means to an end, but once he hits the FFG there's a flaming datum so the high value units (if they're smart) have been alerted and taken evasive measures, complicated the Akula's problem.

I have a reoccuring dream that SS will combine elements of 'Fleet Command' with DW to to give us strategic fleet planning/implementation combined with the buzz of operational tactics. It has been done in flight sims. :|\

It already has. You just need to think about how a scenario would really work. Don't think of scenarios as "I'm going to put an X versus a Y and see what happens." Think of scenarios as "X is doing this. To insure that X does this I need to protect him against A, B, and C. To do that I need (or better yet, HAVE) 1, 2, and 3..."

It tends to lead to fairly balanced scenarios that have at a reason motivating them, and it also gives your scenarios some depth. Personally I think it's much more satisfying. It's pretty rare to see such good tactical/mission design analysis around here. Bravo Zulu.

TG

[Kapitan]

personaly surface sub surface air land or sea is a target to me :up:

[SeaQueen]

It's pretty rare to see such good tactical/mission design analysis around here. Bravo Zulu.

TG

Building computer models of naval combat is what I do for a living. It was actually one of my supervisors who got me into DW.

[Bellman]

:) Thanks SeaQueen - thats just the sort of information I hoped to elicit. As I said I am a 'Learner' in mission design :-

I am at primary school where triggers are concerned but will get there - eventualy.

A very neat exposition. :up:

[Bellman]

:) Its the combination of force from inter-related platforms that creates a powerful group.
Harpooning has taught me that but I am new to mission design period. It will be interesting
to attempt to translate that experience within DW.

I would add to your excellent post that we shouldnt overlook the essential role of AEW nor forget the
S3 Viking. Both enable long range force projection. Another important player in the orchestra is airborne ECM -
not sure how much that figures in DW. Again the role of the Tomcat and F18(AAW) is the key to establishing
the right conditions for supremacy.

Tools - have we really got enough ? Agree we dont need the heavy Harpoon stuff but I am not alone
in wanting more MD flexible drawing/marking tools for the Nav map. In particular I want the ability
o produce individual marked Nav maps for each side/platform. Nav zones, exclusion zones etc.

Fleet Command - I did'nt make my point here - what I dream about is a sim like DIDs Total War which combines
the strategic with the tactical. In that flight sim you could design missions then board the AWACs aircraft
and as Air Controller issue instructions to individual flights carrying out your mission assignments and
then jump into any F22 pilot seat in 3D.

I seek, as Dids blurb outlined, the naval equivalent of :-
' An extremely sophisticated ariel campaign and and flight simulation program expertly
integrated into one very compelling game. '

You will agree I'm sure that design and implementation are strictly separate in DW.,
hence my desire to see FC and DW integrated. :rock:

Finaly a bit of provocative flag waving DID and Digital Integration were British firms squeezed out
of existence by 'Big Brother' :yep: :arrgh!: The latter produced 'Tornado' and F18E which didnt stay
the course against the much less worthy F18., backed by greater promotional resources. ;)

But then Rolls Royce engines turn up in some funny places. :ping: ;

[timmyg00]

Building computer models of naval combat is what I do for a living. It was actually one of my supervisors who got me into DW. You're a ringer!! :P

TG

EDIT: Sounds like a dream job... not sure my resume would hold up if I applied though ;)

[Bellman]

I guess i'm getting used to seeing the back of the hat.. :lol: After a life time in technical sales - its par for the course.

Well theres a lot of appeals out there for missions designed for the FFG - even as a non-MP (temp) player it is easy
to see that this is vital to the future of the MP game. Seed corn ?

To those of us seeking to learn and develop mission design skills we would appreciate more of the SeaQueen type of input. :yep:

Who will do a TACMAN for Mission Design ? Like all the SS manuals there is much un/understated.

Let me commend OKO for his open, cooperative and very helpfull approach. Thanks OKO . :|\

[SeaQueen]

You're a ringer!! :P

TG

EDIT: Sounds like a dream job... not sure my resume would hold up if I applied though ;)

What is your background in? Mine's in physics. I had no military experience, outside of playing Harpoon. *shrug* In fact, I'm about the most UN-military person you'll ever meet.

I interviewed, they hired me, before I knew it, they sent me to school for underwater acoutics, taught me the modeling language, and set me up analyzing all kinds of things. You should apply, you might be surprised.

[Bellman]

SeaQueen wrote:-

I also tend to always start off scenarios with my helo airborn. Most scenarios should be designed around more than one warship. If it's against a highly capable threat like an Akula.
And-
Building computer models of naval combat is what I do for a living. It was actually one of my supervisors who got me into DW

Cant find any SeaQueen DW/SC scenarios at Bills - maybe I'm looking in the wrong place ? Or perhaps you refer specificaly to work ?

As you seem genned-up I thought I might continue the 'learning process'by having a look and running one. :hmm:

If you design exclusively for the 'Pro' sim area then I wont press. ;)

[SeaQueen]

SeaQueen wrote:-
Cant find any SeaQueen DW/SC scenarios at Bills - maybe I'm looking in the wrong place ? Or perhaps you refer specificaly to work ?

As you seem genned-up I thought I might continue the 'learning process'by having a look and running one. :hmm:

If you design exclusively for the 'Pro' sim area then I wont press. ;)

So far, yeah, I've only designed for pros. I'm actually working on a fun little SOF delivery scenario for DW with the helo, though. If people like it, I want to expand it into a full campaign involving all elements of an ESG. So far I'm not quite satisfied with it.

[XabbaRus]

I say do it SeaQueen it is good to have someone on the forum with in depth knowledge.

Some good scenarios could come out of it.

[timmyg00]

What is your background in? Mine's in physics. I had no military experience, outside of playing Harpoon. *shrug* In fact, I'm about the most UN-military person you'll ever meet.

I interviewed, they hired me, before I knew it, they sent me to school for underwater acoutics, taught me the modeling language, and set me up analyzing all kinds of things. You should apply, you might be surprised.Wow!

My background is: 6 years USN, with the bulk of that spent on SSN-760 as an ESM (and Radio) tech; another year afterwards working on USAF EHF SATCOM, then the past 7 years in civilian telecom (specializing in signaling analysis). (EDIT: and five years playing 688(I), SC, FC, SH1, SHII, and DW :lol: )

Hmmmm ;)

TG

P.S. now, back to our program :P