Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bellman
 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.
Quote:
|
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.