SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > Modern-Era Subsims > Dangerous Waters > DW Mod Workshop > DW Mission Designers' Forum
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-04-08, 04:02 AM   #1
Molon Labe
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Along the Watchtower
Posts: 3,810
Downloads: 27
Uploads: 5
Default Brainstorming the persian gulf...

Hopefully I'll be able to test my old projects and get them out soon... but SuBB and the FdB/Sakura mods got my hamster wheel spinning again and I'm thinking up design concepts. Between these new mods giving us new tools to play with in mission design and real-world events occuring which can be recreated and developed with the tools DW and the mods give us, we might have a lot to work with.

So, what I'd like to do is come up with a scenario (or perhaps series) that puts as much of these ideas and tools into one bundle as possible. I'm leaning towards a single adversarial multiplayer mission, however, MP coop or SP scenario/campaign is on the table. And if it can be done, I'd like to try to make the scenario involve dynamic or discretionary mission objectives. (Dynamic meaning not the same during every instantiation of the scenario, discretionary meaning all objectives are constant but the commanding officers will be able to choose between several; either way neither side knows what to expect of the enemy in advance). There will be two major design challenges: first, making sure all playables have adequate tasking at all times, and second, maintaining balance in a scenario where it's entirely possible that objectives will be completed unopposed.

With that said, here is what we have to work with that I've thought up with so far, starting with the obvious and ending with the unconventional.

1. Conventional SAG/ARG/CSG escort/intercept
2. Area ASW/attacks on Sea Lanes of Communication
3. Intel work
---2A. Harbor surveilance (sub)
---2B. Aerial recon (P-3)
---2C. Signals intelligence (radio mod)
---2D. Identifying and locating HVTs, shipping lanes, patrol routes, etc. (battlefield prep)
4. Strategic mining
5. Special Forces deployment
---5A. Takeover/destruction of oil platforms
---5B. Support of insurgents/Al Qaida in Iraq
---5C. Covert destruction/sabotage of ships in harbor
6. SAR
---6A. At sea
---6B. On land (CAS)
---6C. Flipside: capturing downed enemy pilot
7. Maritime security operations
---7A. Enforcement of maritime boundaries against potentially hostile platforms
---7B. Detention and inspection of vessels suspected of smuggling weapons
---7C. Flipside: capturing inspection teams near maritime boundaries
8. Suicide boat attacks
(Edit) 9: TBM countermeasures
---9A. Strike vs. TBM sites
---9B. Conventional protection/attack vs. TBM assets (e.g. USS Port Royal, Patriot batteries)

Obviously a lot of this points right at US vs. Iran, hence the thread title. The region is giving us a lot to work with lately. The biggest limitation with using Iran though, is that we're mostly working with Kilos, and that means a relatively small op area for those platforms as well as a light weapons load. So in giving the Kilos something to do, we have to be careful that we don't ask too much of them or get too many platforms doing too many things in too small a space. (This is where a series or campaign might be more do-able). So what I'm thinking about now is about what missions above can the Kilo take part in, how can it be set up so that the Kilo has the choice between them, and/or has the ability to respond to new developments as they occur. And most importantly right now, what overarching strategic missions/interests are the US and Iran working towards?

The design concept I'm working with now is this: The scenario starts at a time of elevated tension between the US led coalition and Iran. Both sides feel a fight is coming, and start playing a delicate game of chess to try to get an advantage for when the fighting does break out. This includes locating key targets, getting weapons to the right people, getting political leverage, etc. The principal op area will be around the maritimie boundaries of Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran, where at minimum an FFG will be engaged in security operations. FFG tasking will include keeping Iranian platforms out and inspecting suspicious merchant traffic. At minimum, a Kilo may by trying to get in. It may try to land terrorists on an oil platform, identify HVTs in a harbor, get supplies to insurgents, mine a harbor... perhaps even command some Boghammars to ambush a coalition boarding team. There will be many tankers in the area which Iran will want to locate in the event of hostilities. There will be at least a few Kilos which the coalition will want to locate before the night sky is lit up by those tankers. There may be innocent looking fishing boats hanging around for a chance to blow someone up. There may be fast attack craft that "identify" US formations near the Iranian coast, only to turn and attack upon receiving a signal from a nearby Kilo, (which may be timed to coincide with the Kilo's own attack, when the US ships are most distracted)...


I'm thinking that the overarching goals/victory conditions would break down as follows:
Coalition win: Safe arrival of reinforcements (needed for operations in the coming war) AND protection of SLOC from major disruption
Iranian win: Prevention of reinforcement arrival
Draw: Reinforcement arrived, but Iran beasted the SLOC.

The various objectives that come up all have to feed into those conditions in some way. The SLOC related goals are faily simple, you just aggregate kills vs. tankers, platforms, ports mined, etc. Transit related goals less so, although you could, for example, require that a minesweeper survives if the port gets mined else it the formation stops or turns around. Or if special forces sneak around somewhere maybe there's an extra suicide attack to deal with. Or maybe forces just have to get pulled off the transit objective to cover the SLOC objective. Not sure how to work in the politics of capture yet... Maybe after I get some sleep.:hmm:

G'nite.

Edit: mmmm, coffee. Anyways, consequences of captured boarding crews/pilots could include coalition forces restricting operations of the relevant platforms to prevent such occurances, which in turn could make it easier (or perhaps automatic) for other objectives to be achieved.

I'm not too happy with the 'safe arrival' goal being a master goal. A better framework might be a political goal, that of being in position to win the war at mission end (which would mean an Iranian settlement on the aid to insurgents/nuclear issue). Victory for Iran would be to prevent the military/political conditions necessary to force such a settlement, which could include degradation of coalition miltiary strength or political will. If combat gets truely out of control to the point that a de facto state of war already exists, it would probably be considered a loss for both sides under this model. The downside of this would likely be that it will be fairly hard to put players on notice of what they need to do to win, but then again that's war isn't it?

Edit 2: Is there room to get the Russians involved? Originally, I thought no. Now I'm thinking maybe. Let's assume for a moment that Russia is seeking resurgence back onto the superpower stage. Let's also assume that Russia believes that the US is in a state of military decline, and a defeat at the right moment may cause the US to assert itself less in the Eastern hemisphere, giving Russia the room to fill the vacuum. So maybe some of the smuggling to insurgents has Russia's name on it. Maybe there is an Akula poking around assisting the Iranians. Having an Akula around means the Iranians have a greater capacity to seriously hurt coalition surface forces and are not completely lacking in ASW capability. Mobility may also increase, although not necessarily because practical speed is limited by detectability, and the detection of such an Akula conducting pro-Iranian operations in the Gulf would have to have serious consequences. (Serious as in, "hey, you know how the Kuznetsov is conducting exercises in the Med right now? Well, we noticed you have a sub dangerously close to our forces. We've moved the USS Seawolf similarly close to the Kuznetsov. You might wish to consider withdrawing the Akula before something really bad happens to the pride of your fleet. By the way, here some some pictures the Connecticut took during your last exercises. Yeah, we can get that close. Have a nice day.") Having an Akula around would definitely allow for a greater role of any US sub that might be included, especially since without it the Iranians would have little capability of killing the US sub at all (they do have helos and MPAs, but as a practical matter they will not survive long if a shooting war develops).
__________________

Last edited by Molon Labe; 02-04-08 at 11:16 AM.
Molon Labe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-08, 01:59 PM   #2
Molon Labe
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Along the Watchtower
Posts: 3,810
Downloads: 27
Uploads: 5
Default

ROE System

As stated earlier, this design concept essentially invovles a tense situation which will begin to boil over as the mission goes on. As such, we need a rather complex ROE system, at least on the Coalition side.

Iranian ROE, in a nutshell, would be "don't get caught." AI units would be set to Peacetime ROE while players would be cleared to use whatever force they beleived they could apply and get away with. AI units would switch to Wartime ROE at such time that it appears that Coalition forces are engaged in general offensive operations. Some AI units would be scripted to conduct limited attacks in spite of ROE, perhaps these units would be on a different "side" but allied with the main Iranian side so that each can be under a different ROE at the time.

Coalition ROE will be determined largely by the extent to which provocative action can be attributed to Iran. The amount of provocation that occurs will be tracked through triggers and will be cumulative. Coalition forces will start at pure peacetime ROE, meaning they may fire only in self defense. At a certain level of provocation, that may switch to modified peacetime ROE, where specific platforms are directed to use force against specific platforms under certain conditions. At a high level of provocation, the gloves come off and Coalition forces will be authorized to conduct general offensive operations against Iranian units, at least for a time.

Low-level provocations include: approaching Coalition platforms in international waters or airspace, intrusions into territorial waters or airspace that does not imminently threaten Coalition interests, and attacks against Coalition forces that cannot be attributed to Iranian forces (e.g., might have been AQI). Individual low-level provocations are unlikely to result in ROE changes, but an accumulation of them may move the ROE into the middle territory.

Moderate provocations include: intrusions into territorial waters that threaten Coalition interests, attempts to capture boarding teams or downed pilots (even if slightly inside Iranian territorial waters), harassment of key assets in international waters. A moderate provocation may result in an ROE change to the middle territory, especially if accumulated with other provocations.

High-level provocations include: Coalition forces observing Iranian platforms deploying mines or special forces, sabotage or bombings attributable to Iranian agents. (Covert hostile action) A high level provocation will result in an ROE change to the middle territory. Additional provocation may cause a general offensive response.

Very High-level provocations include open attacks against Coalition assets, particularly missile and torpedo attacks, as well as suicide attacks that are immediately attributable to Iranian forces. Very high level provocations will result in retaliatory action which may include a general offensive response.


The ROE should end up being a key piece of the virtual chess game being played out. Iran has an interest in keeping the ROE tight because that will allow it to do more to change the situation to its favor before all hell breaks loose, so it has a strong incentive to "play by the rules" and not get detected. The Coalition has a strong interest in catching Iran red-handed for the inverse reason. The Coalition will also need incentive to play by the rules, which can be accomplished by punishing the Coalition in the strategic/political "score" (for example, by weakening US political will or by requiring Coalition forces to pull back some, weakening the US's position in the diplomatic arena and delaying, perhaps indefinitely, any war over the nuclear/insurgent issues). Coalition ROE violations could also trigger an Iranian response at a time before the US is able to ensure it can protect its own assets or the SLOC. In this situation, both sides would be deemed to have "lost." So, both sides are trying to manipulate the ROE while they try to move their pieces into checkmate. If that process goes badly for the Iranians, they have the option to force a stalemate with a scorched sea strategem, provided the Coalition does not already have them in checkmate by then.
__________________
Molon Labe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-08, 10:31 PM   #3
SeaQueen
Naval Royalty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,185
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Obviously a lot of this points right at US vs. Iran, hence the thread title. The region is giving us a lot to work with lately. The biggest limitation with using Iran though, is that we're mostly working with Kilos, and that means a relatively small op area for those platforms as well as a light weapons load.
Iran also has mini submarines. The game doesn't have them in the Iranian database, but you can always pull them from the North Korean entires. They're the ones who sold them to them anyhow. They're basically the same.

The potential operating area for any submarine is surprisingly large, though. It doesn't just encompass the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz even though those are the famous place. You should also keep in mind that Iran borders on the Gulf of Oman and the North Arabian Sea as well. That gives you a lot of space, and those waters aren't even necessarily shallow, either. I wouldn't put it past them to head out as far as the Gulf of Aden, actually, although that'd be quite a ways out for them. That's just my dumb opinion, though.

Quote:
So in giving the Kilos something to do, we have to be careful that we don't ask too much of them or get too many platforms doing too many things in too small a space. (This is where a series or campaign might be more do-able).
That's fair, but suppose you just concentrated kilos in the North Arabian Sea and Gulf of Oman. There's plenty of space for them out there and it'd also fit with a strategy of access denial. If a Western power was attempting to apply military pressure to Iran, they'd have to pass first through the North Arabian Sea and then through the Gulf of Oman, where they'd have some chance of encountering the kilos. Then they'd come into the Straits, where they'd have Silkworms and missile boats, defended by shore-based surface to air missiles and fighters, then finally, they'd come into the Gulf, where there might be mines, missile boats, fighters, and small boats, say. You've got to sort of think of these things in layers.

Quote:
So what I'm thinking about now is about what missions above can the Kilo take part in, how can it be set up so that the Kilo has the choice between them, and/or has the ability to respond to new developments as they occur.
The meat-and-potatoes mission for kilos is sinking surface vessels. They could attack convoys of tankers, a carrier strike group, an expeditionary strike group, whatever. It depends on what they're trying to accomplish. Extorting the rest of the world would mean closing the straits so they'd be going for tankers then. Preventing a hostage rescue attempt or siezure of their WMDs would mean going after amphibs or carriers. They might also blunder into a US SSN. Submarines might also provide over-the-horizon targeting data for shore based cruise missiles. It all depends.

Quote:
And most importantly right now, what overarching strategic missions/interests are the US and Iran working towards?
That really depends on you. You can find plenty of material on the internet or at the public library on conflicts between Iran and the US.

Quote:
I'm not too happy with the 'safe arrival' goal being a master goal. A better framework might be a political goal, that of being in position to win the war at mission end (which would mean an Iranian settlement on the aid to insurgents/nuclear issue).
Right, and so you have to think a little bit more big-picture. Let's take the nuclear issue, for example. How could naval forces influence Iran's ability to acquire nuclear weapons? They can provide strike capacity in the form of ship-based aircraft and cruise missiles, they can land amphibious forces and special operations forces, and they can interdict shipping carrying necessary nuclear equipment and materials. So... if you want the goal to be a political one, then you establish criteria such that at the scenario's end, you have accomplished at least one of the things I just mentioned. Maybe one scenario would be to get into position and launch a TLAM strike against an Iranian nuclear reactor. Maybe another would be to support an amphibious landing by providing naval gunfire, TLAM or intelligence support or landing special operations forces ashore. Another one might be to sink a vessel known to be carrying weapons of mass destruction. It's all up to you and what you decide the political situation is. The rest is just a matter of what services seabased forces can provide.

Last edited by SeaQueen; 02-04-08 at 11:42 PM.
SeaQueen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-08, 11:38 PM   #4
Molon Labe
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Along the Watchtower
Posts: 3,810
Downloads: 27
Uploads: 5
Default

Thanks for the feedback!

Quote:
The potential operating area for any submarine is surprisingly large, though.
The potential operating area isn't what's constraining the design concept; it's the practical operating area of a platform that the sim has instantiated that limits us. Put simply, it doesn't do a Kilo captain any good if he/she has 20 objectives scattered across the region to choose from but only has the speed and time to reach one of them. You might as well just save yourself the time and make a conventional scenario.

EDIT: On the other hand, with respect to a platform that has greater mobility than the Kilo that has to defend several potential objectives, the situation described above offers a significant level of unpredictability. The defender won't know where the Kilo spawned, so for all he/she knows, all objectives are at risk. (Furia was toying with this idea a bit in his "Total War" scenario, to the degree that each merchie can count as an "objective".)

Quote:
That's fair, but suppose you just concentrated kilos in the North Arabian Sea and Gulf of Oman...... The meat-and-potatoes mission for kilos is sinking surface vessels.
Not this time. Meat and potatoes is what I'm trying to get away from. I think we've all had too much of it. It's time to do something different, and I think different is going to happen in the littorals.

I haven't firmly decided on any specific region of the Gulf to focus on. The deciding criteria is going to be the number of discretionary objectives I can fit in the area. Right now the leading candidate is the border region because I get to play up issues effecting the insurgency. I definitely like Hormuz too, and I think a lot of the encounters would work better around there than they would in the border region. There is also the possibility that playable platforms may be operating in more than one area of the gulf during the scenario. I must admit, I'm hesitant to go there because it presents a greater risk of the platforms in one area running out of tasking while the platforms in another area still have a long way to go. I can think of at least one person around here who disagrees, :p but I think it's a terrible thing to ask a player to sit around for hours staring at a blank display. So I have to walk a fine line between spreading out and overcrowding. Nothing's ruled out at this point though. This is idea time. Later will begin the painful process of determining what ideas aren't going to work for whatever reason and going from the ambitious to the practical....
__________________

Last edited by Molon Labe; 02-05-08 at 12:27 PM.
Molon Labe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-08, 02:59 PM   #5
Molon Labe
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Along the Watchtower
Posts: 3,810
Downloads: 27
Uploads: 5
Default

Fleshing out the victory conditions, objectives, and context a bit more....

Strategic Context
Political
Recent US and Israeli intelligence reports indicate that Iran has taken advantage of relaxed foreign scrutiny of its nuclear programs to restart its nuclear weapons program. Further, as the US "surge" in Iraq is subsiding, Iran appears to be increasing its aid to the insurgency in an attempt to create a counteroffensive. The US President has asked Congress for authorization to use military force against Iran. Congress will be voting on the issue shortly, and the resolution is expected to pass by a narrow margin. Once such authorization is obtained the President is expected to make a final push for a diplomatic settlement before launching an air war against Iranian nuclear facilities and bases associated with support of insurgents.

In Iraq, the political gains of the troop surge are beginning to be realized. Baghdad has passed landmark legislation curtailing much of the excessive lustration policies handed down by the CPA and is successfully administering a national budget. Much national infrastructure has been rebuilt. Continued sectarian violence, however, has prevented the Sunni and Shia from fully trusting each other, and there remains a constant threat of a pullout from the Baghdad government.

Military
The situation in Iraq has been deteriorating in recent weeks due to increased attacks. Coalition leaders strongly suspect that the majority of the upswing has been caused by an increase in foreign fighters and supplies coming into Iraq. There has been some concern that current (post-surge) troops levels are inadequate to deal with the situation, but the Pentagon has insisted that it has enough troops.

Tensions with Iran have led to a quiet influx of forces into the Gulf region to prepare for the possibility of war. The buildup is not yet complete. At current force levels, the US would not be able to protect its assets in the theatre from ballistic missile attack, nor does it have enough ground forces in Iraq to deal with both the insurgency and an Iranian conventional counteroffensive, nor can it assure the safety of merchant shipping through the Persian Gulf. This situation is quickly changing, however, and soon the Coallition will have a robust defense against possible Iranian counterattacks.

Strategic Objectives
Coalition: Avoid war with Iran by compelling a diplomatic settlement on US terms.

Iran: Avoid war through deterrence of the US (or its coalition partners).

Both: Maintain safety of commercial shipping

The political and military situation on its current trajectory will lead to a Coalition victory. Iran must change that trajectory; the Coalition must maintain it. If Iran cannot change the trajectory, then it has the option to force a mutual loss by disrupting shipping in the Gulf.


Operations
Coalition:
1. Move TBMD ships into position to protect Coaltion bases
2. Safely deliver additional land forces to Iraq
3. Prevent the smuggling of supplies to the Iraqi insurgency
4. Locate and hold at risk Iranian platforms capable of attacking commercial shipping
5. Preserve military assets in the region.

Iran:
1. Prevent deployment of TBMD ships.
2. Prevent arrival of additional land forces to Iraq
3. Increase the strain on US ground forces in Iraq due to insurgent operations
4. Maintain a credible threat against US interests in the region, including commercial shipping, oil platforms, and military assets.
5. Preserve military assets in the region.

Evaluating Success using Objectives
Scoring system:
I can think of two ways to do this. One is to create a number of scales (e.g. political/military, SLOC security) and to have goal triggers associated with objectives pertaining to those scalese. The names of the triggers would include a point value and a direction (e.g., "Pol/Mil: 100 Iran"). At the end of the scenario, players would have to manually calculate where on the scales the scenario ended at, and they would reference that against specified victory conditions.

Another way would be to use a complex system of aggregate triggers that effectively total up the points automatically. The advantage of this, in addition to the obvious ease to the players, is that it can be made "spoiler free"--a player will not be put on notice through the status screen that his/her opponent has completed an objective. The players won't know unless the completion was observed by the players themselves, or unless an intelligence message lets them know. The downside of this is that there may end up being a rather large combination of possible outcomes, which means there could be a lot of triggers involved. They'd also be very hard to troubleshoot.

Possible Objectives and effects
1. Delivery of land forces not completed: US less able to deal with insurgency/Iranian counterattack; Iran's position enhanced
2. Port mined: Potential "natural consequences." If discovered, may cause disruption of shipping. Ships intended to arrive at that port may be ordered to stop until port is cleared (see #1)
3. Minesweeper destroyed/sabotaged: see #2.
4. Spec ops delivered to port: port facilities sabotaged/bombed, causes economic disruption; or, suicide fishing boat squad formed
5. High value miltiary target sunk/sabotaged (e.g., command ship in port): degraded military capability in region
6. Spec ops delivered to coast: delivery of supplies to insurgents, increased strain on coalition ground forces
7. Smuggling ship safely slips by coalition forces: same as #6.
8. SM-3 TBMD ship damaged/sunk: degraded defense capability
9. Boarding team/downed pilot captured: reduced US political will, likely delay in any operations to secure safe return
10. Spec ops delivered to oil platform: hostage situation, US more cognizant of vulnerability, decreased political will, economic disruption; or, platform bombed/sabotaged, economic disruption
11. Merchants sunk: economic disruption; perhaps additional damage if outgoing tanker (oil spill). Possible reassignment of Coalition assets.
12. Coalition combat losses (attributed to Iran): increased US anger, less Iranian doubt that US is willing to go to war (may also have pro-Iran consequences depending on the platform destroyed, see #1, #3, and #8).

You'll note that I'm already thinking in terms of two scales, Political/Military and Economic disruption. In this model, the Political/Military scale would have Iran on one end and the Coalition on the other. Scored in the middle of the scale would indicate neither side has a diplomatic advantage and that war is inevitable (mutual loss). The economic scale would progress from having no effect to causing a mutual loss.
__________________
Molon Labe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-08, 08:46 AM   #6
SeaQueen
Naval Royalty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,185
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

I think you're off to a really good start, but there's something that's important to remember. Surface ships rarely deploy by themselves. They need air cover and the Navy doesn't entirely trust the Air Force to give it to them. In light of that the first thing into the theatre would almost always be a carrier strike group, and probably an expeditionary strike group as well. The TMD ships would follow behind them. You should make a timeline and figure where stuff is deployed in the world, how long it would take to get there, and what order you think it'd be needed. From that you can figure what would actually be there in order to do what they think needs to be done at a given time. Certain stuff would probably already be there. You might start off with, say an ESG, a CSG and a few submarines. Other stuff, though, might have to come all the way from Japan or Norfolk. You can figure out all the times and distances using Google Earth.
SeaQueen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-08, 04:09 PM   #7
Molon Labe
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Along the Watchtower
Posts: 3,810
Downloads: 27
Uploads: 5
Default

Oh, I can assure you an ESG will be making an appearance. Given my tendency to try to fool around with real-life events, that would be the Tarawa ESG (although the Tarawa and Germantown will have to be played by similar ships (Wasp, HF), not sure what to do with the Cleveland (LPD 7)). I was thinking that the phibs would mostly be in port at the time, while the escorts Port Royal, Hopper, and Ingraham would be out doing other things.*

As for carriers, I was thinking that under these situations they would probaby hang back on the other side of Hormuz, where mosquito boats would be less of a factor, they can keep a safe distance from potential ASuW threats, where they will have an easier time reacting to land-based ASCM attacks, can establish a better CAP, and where the acoustic conditions will make it easier to spot submarines trying to sneak in.... IOW, my judgment had been that inside the Gulf is the last place a CSG wants to be when the shooting starts. Am I wrong about that?



*It seems like that was the plan all along. It appears that the Tarawa dropped off some troops in Kuwait for exercises and helped a few ships in distress off the coast. No mention is made of its escorts after it arrived in the 5th Fleet AOR. Nor does any news about the escorts mention the phibs... It seems as though the escorts detactched upon arrival, which might have something to do with why the Port Royal and Hopper were chosen to link up with the Gulf-bound Tarawa in the first place.
__________________
Molon Labe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-08, 07:05 PM   #8
SeaQueen
Naval Royalty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,185
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Oh, I can assure you an ESG will be making an appearance. Given my tendency to try to fool around with real-life events, that would be the Tarawa ESG (although the Tarawa and Germantown will have to be played by similar ships (Wasp, HF), not sure what to do with the Cleveland (LPD 7)). I was thinking that the phibs would mostly be in port at the time, while the escorts Port Royal, Hopper, and Ingraham would be out doing other things.*
Amphibs spend a lot of time poking into port for a lot of reasons other than exercises. The other thing they do in port is take everything off and rearrange how things are loaded inside the ship because there's not enough space to just take things off as you need them and rearrange things inside. As a result, they have to have a plan about what order things come off, and they do a lot of fussing with it.

Quote:
As for carriers, I was thinking that under these situations they would probaby hang back on the other side of Hormuz, where mosquito boats would be less of a factor, they can keep a safe distance from potential ASuW threats, where they will have an easier time reacting to land-based ASCM attacks, can establish a better CAP, and where the acoustic conditions will make it easier to spot submarines trying to sneak in.... IOW, my judgment had been that inside the Gulf is the last place a CSG wants to be when the shooting starts. Am I wrong about that?
You're almost right, but the problem is that when the carrier stands off in the Gulf of Oman or North Arabian Sea, that increases the flight time for any sortie flown off a carrier. As a result, their sortie rate drops, which means that the aircraft carrier's effectiveness is decreased. That might mean there's times when ships don't have air cover, or they might not be able to deliver as much ordinance to targets. As a result there's always a compromise between wanting to get in closer versus the vulnerability to various threats. The existance of a threat does not mean you are necessarily totally vulnerable to it. You might only be partially vulnerable to it, and their attack might only be successful some fraction of the time. Where to put the carrier then is a risk management problem, where you might accept more risk if the payoff was deemed worth it.

I'm not saying they would necessarily put the carrier in The Persian Gulf, but they might depending on what they were trying to accomplish.
SeaQueen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-08, 12:30 AM   #9
Molon Labe
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Along the Watchtower
Posts: 3,810
Downloads: 27
Uploads: 5
Default

I'm going to "open source" this project because I think it's a bit large for any one person to handle. Right now the priority is to determine which objectives (see above) can actually be made to work in DW. That means testing. So, I've started a feasibility testing thread over at the CADC; anyone who would like to work on this design project (yes, I'm looking at you in particular, SuBB) is welcome to head over there and grab one of the items listed.
__________________
Molon Labe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-08, 02:59 PM   #10
TLAM Strike
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 8,633
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 6


Default

Just FWI I made a Strait of Hormuz base map a while back...

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=125191
__________________


TLAM Strike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-08, 04:37 PM   #11
Molon Labe
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Along the Watchtower
Posts: 3,810
Downloads: 27
Uploads: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Just FWI I made a Strait of Hormuz base map a while back...

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=125191
awesome sauce. That might come in handy.
__________________
Molon Labe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-08, 05:57 PM   #12
suBB
Chief
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 326
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
I'm going to "open source" this project because I think it's a bit large for any one person to handle. Right now the priority is to determine which objectives (see above) can actually be made to work in DW. That means testing. So, I've started a feasibility testing thread over at the CADC; anyone who would like to work on this design project (yes, I'm looking at you in particular, SuBB) is welcome to head over there and grab one of the items listed.
Aye-aye capitan….

Our dive with zypher inspired me to get off my @ss and start editing, so the creative juices are flowing once again, and for what it’s worth, I’m almost finished with map C layout & triggering, just need to do some stuff in LAN testing.

Also I learned possibly (need to test) a new trick of radar jamming through editing and that the bear(probably any EW aircraft) can jam search & fcr radars (doctrine). You can’t script him to use jamming, it can probably be done in editing and only affect playables.

l8r
suBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-08, 07:46 PM   #13
zephyr
Swabbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

I'd offer to help Molon, but it's a little above my pay-grade. If you need a crash test dummy at some point.., I'm your guy
zephyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-08, 02:44 PM   #14
TLAM Strike
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 8,633
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 6


Default

I've uploaded some useful data on the Gulf here:

http://www.commanders-academy.com/tl...Data_And_Maps/
__________________


TLAM Strike is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.