New scenario: Kitty Comes to Kamchatka (TWTNW)

[Yokes]

Here's another The War That Never Was scenario. This one is a bit smaller in size and scope.

This is a simple "use your carrier to smash stuff" air warfare scenario. No surface or subsurface warfare.

A couple new things for me:
1. I tried modeling the air defenses as an IADS. I would be interested to hear how well it worked.
2. I used Lua to randomize the starting locations of some SAMs.
3. The weather starts off awful and gets better over time. Those laser-guided weapons aren't going to be very useful for a while...

As always, comments and suggestions are welcome.

Yokes

[wild_Willie2]

Nice scenario, although the difficulty level listed might just be a "tad" low...

Seriously, this scenario is THOUGH. You first need to destroy all the enemies AC in the air with a sparrow missiles that REALLY sucks and is virtually useless in head on attacks, so you will loose a lot of planes to infrared seekers when you mix it up. I actually ran out of AA missiles on the carrier and then you will also need to destroy a really powerful enemies air defense.

The following losses where just from the AA engagements that destroyed 152 enemy AC and I am now down -510 points and am still looking for a way to suppress the air defenses effectively. I expect that if I would have saved my tomahawks until now things would have been easier as I now have to fly over the enemy positions to attack them and am loosing AC at an alarming rate doing this. It would be nice to have some dedicated recon assets available (or some TARPS recon pods for the F14's) so I can more effectively find where the enemy air defenses are located and can engage them in standoff mode instead.

5x F/A-18A Hornet
12x F-14A Tomcat
15x F-15C Eagle
17x F-4E Phantom II

Overall one of the more challenging scenarios I have played until now as there is no way to game the system (at least I haven't found one yet) and you literally need to destroy EVERY single AC and AA unit before you can even begin to take out enemy Infrastructure targets.

Kudos for a well made and very challenging scenario.

W.

[ojms]

I like this, although it is pretty hard!

SARH missiles aren't very good with the amount of jamming which is adding to the hard.

The backfire strike was good. However I've run out of Sparrow on the Kitty Hawk, I'm hoping that the UNREP from the AOE works.

So far

US LOSSES:
-------------------------------
4x F-14A Tomcat
3x F-4E Phantom II
4x F/A-18A Hornet
7x F-15C Eagle

USSR LOSSES:
-------------------------------
3x Ammo Pad
5x MiG-29 Fulcrum A
15x MiG-23PD Flogger K
8x MiG-31 Foxhound
15x MiG-25PDS Foxbat E
2x Su-27P Flanker B
4x Tu-16P Badger J
10x Tu-22M-3 Backfire C
11x Radar (Back Net [P-80])
15x SA-7a Grail [9K32 Strela-2] MANPADS
20x SA-3c Goa Quad Rail
5x Vehicle (Flat Face B [P-19])
5x Vehicle (Low Blow [SNR-125])
1x Building (Square Pair [5N62])
1x 23mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka

[Yokes]

Great feedback.

I will definitely add a couple TARPS pods. I missed that...

I'm glad you noticed the AOE has additional ammo. I have used UNREP in the past and it worked great.

Did either of you take out the air defense HQ bunker?

Yokes

[ckfinite]

Something I'd like to point out (and a lot of people might hate me for this...) is that the S-300 was fairly widely deployed by 1989, and I strongly suspect that Kamchatka had at least 1-2 of the S-300Ps by this time. It might make sense to add in a S-300 instead of a few of the S-125 sites.

Never mind, just saw that I missed them.

[wild_Willie2]

The Kitty has 96 Phoenix C missiles but nothing that can carry them, I suggest you change the for the A variant, this will fix a lot of the missile deficiency issues.

[Yokes]

Wild Willy2,

It also has the A model Phoenix, right? I didn't go through and remove any of the default weapons that are in the magazine. I thought I put in some A models in the magazine, and in the AOE for UNREP. I'll double check tonight.

Yokes

[ojms]

Hi,

I didn't get as far as attacking the land units yet apart from my initial tomahawk strike.

Cheers

[wild_Willie2]

Ok, I just took out the Air defense bunker. I wont spoil the fun for others, but you did an excellent job with the results...

Again, this is a very nice but very difficult scenario. You have my complements..

I finally got unrep to work, you need to manually steer the AOE to within a few meters of your CV and give the unrep command to your CV. NO need to have them in separate TF's

W.

[Gunner98]

Nice scenario, first engagement: 12-0 for the good guys - lured him East away from the jammers a little with a dozen Tomcats and then lit him up with 16 Eagles from the South.  I think I caught the CAP changing over - a mix of MiG 27, 29 & 31's  very tricky to get the upper hand.  At this rate it will take a week to dig into the IADs though!
 
Think I'll change my Prowlers to Jammers vice HARMs for a while...
 
B

[Mgellis]

I tried it out and was taking serious losses, so I'm going to try again later and see if I can improve my tactics. Great fun so far!

[Gunner98]

Jammers are helping a lot.
 
2nd engagement 26-4 for the good guys, next run has SEAD following up I think.  Had 18 TCats, 12 Hornets, 16 Eagles and 16 Phantoms plus 3 Prowlers:
 
SIDE: US
===========================================================
LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x F/A-18A Hornet
1x F-14A Tomcat
2x F-4E Phantom II

SIDE: USSR
===========================================================
LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x MiG-21bis Fishbed L
19x MiG-23PD Flogger K
16x MiG-29 Fulcrum A
10x MiG-31 Foxhound
5x Su-27P Flanker B

[ExNusquam]

This is a very tricky scenario; I've been mostly mico-managing my fighters so I can deal with the jamming. I'm about 6 hours in...so far I've traded 2 Eagles for 88 Soviet fighters of various types...and having used 300+ AIM-7s. I used all of the task forces TLAMs to take out most of the P-80s and the Air Defense Bunker...this has made things slightly easier. I've started using the valley to the north as cover for my A-6s to BOL HARMs down on the SAMs by the airfield/base. I can't really tell how effective this is, but at the very least it's depleting their missile inventories.

I'm still waiting on the Backfire strike. Hopefully I won't run out of missiles before then.

[Gunner98]

I'm still waiting on the Backfire strike. Hopefully I won't run out of missiles before then.

Be afraid - be very afraid! [:D] Very well executed, I'm taking notes for future scenarios. My CAP was out of position (won't say why) and BAM - all well until the very last missile and 'Bunker Hill's' VLS was expended, Phalanx misses and she disappears in a blinding sheet of flame.[X(] Grrr - and most of the bombers get away as well....[:@]

Well done[&o]

B

[Gunner98]

Having some weird issues, logged in the tech support page.  Will play your next update but need to get back to building my own at the moment.  My only comments are very minor for polish - this is a kick-butt scenario - well done.
 
-Should let the game run for a second or two so the known enemy installations appear at start.
-Would be nice if the TG was pointing down direction of travel at start.
-Until 2004 USN CV groups were called Carrier Battle Groups (CVBGs), after that a Carrier Strike Group (CSG).  A CTF doesn't really enter the lexicon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group 
-I suspect that using the Kitty Hawk is a story line factor - She was in dry-dock at the time for Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) overhaul. http://www.gonavy.jp/CV-CV63-01f.html
-USN Fighter Squadrons are normally 12 AC each, current CVW has 24 AC with the same Sqn name. Would be more realistic if 2 squadron names were used for the Tomcats and Intruders
 
I did note that the scenario must be using an older DB because of the 30 & 45 min ready time for AAW load outs.  Not sure if this is a design choice, I suspect that the game would play out differently with the latest DB.
 
Thanks again - really enjoyed this one so far.
 
B

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Having some weird issues, logged in the tech support page.  Will play your next update but need to get back to building my own at the moment.  My only comments are very minor for polish - this is a kick-butt scenario - well done.

-Should let the game run for a second or two so the known enemy installations appear at start.
-Would be nice if the TG was pointing down direction of travel at start.
-Until 2004 USN CV groups were called Carrier Battle Groups (CVBGs), after that a Carrier Strike Group (CSG).  A CTF doesn't really enter the lexicon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group 
-I suspect that using the Kitty Hawk is a story line factor - She was in dry-dock at the time for Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) overhaul. http://www.gonavy.jp/CV-CV63-01f.html
-USN Fighter Squadrons are normally 12 AC each, current CVW has 24 AC with the same Sqn name. Would be more realistic if 2 squadron names were used for the Tomcats and Intruders

I did note that the scenario must be using an older DB because of the 30 & 45 min ready time for AAW load outs.  Not sure if this is a design choice, I suspect that the game would play out differently with the latest DB.

Thanks again - really enjoyed this one so far.

B

I agree. This one is tough--probably deserves a difficulty of 4 or maybe even 5--but that's one of the good things about it.

I haven't won yet. Lost Kitty Hawk to the bombers last time I played! Ouch!

Yes, Kitty Hawk would have been in SLEP in 1989 (and http://www.gonavy.jp/AirWingsf.html is a great resource; it lists the various squadrons attached to various air wings, etc.), but I also agree it's a minor issue. It won't matter to most players (most of them wouldn't even know unless they checked for some reason--the only reason I found out was I was trying to find the squadron names in case you wanted them)

[Yokes]

Thanks for the kind words! I consider many of you scenario design "masters", so your compliments mean a lot! [:D]

The Kitty Hawk was used because that's what the book's author used. As for the squadron names, feel free to share. I'm a bit too lazy to look them up...

I made a few tweaks. The biggest change was to have the weather improve a bit more. I think it's pretty close to ready.

Yokes

[wild_Willie2]

I have finished the scenario twice now, but both times I literally ran out of AA and AG weapons at the end of the scenario. As Sparrows are virtually useless in this scenario, you can literally fire a dozen of them for zero kills in return). In the end you simply run out of sparrows and you cant fly missions anymore as there is no "sidewinder only" air to air loadout.
The bugs that appear while performing UNREP with the CV do not help either.

I suggest you simply drop the OAE for now and just put some more AA and AG weapons on your CV and bases (i.e. add 100 extra sparrow missiles to your CV and land base) to solve the borderline ordnance deficiency that now exists.

That's about it regarding scenario issues.

Good job.

W.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Jammers are helping a lot.

2nd engagement 26-4 for the good guys, next run has SEAD following up I think.  Had 18 TCats, 12 Hornets, 16 Eagles and 16 Phantoms plus 3 Prowlers:

Gunner, a couple of quick questions about tactics. Am I correct that the purpose of using the E-6s as jammer aircraft is not to counter the Soviet jamming, but simply to "even the odds" by leaving the Soviet aircraft radar as blind as ours is thanks to the Soviet EW plane? This gives the US fighters time to get close enough to get a shot in because now the Soviets no longer have the range advantage that radar-guided missiles provide. I didn't realize you could use jammers in an air battle that way...am I correct that this is what you are doing?

(My tactic for a while was to try to kill the EW aircraft, and the AEW aircraft, but I could never get close enough.)

Do you have to micromanage the jammers or can you just set them up as part of the AA patrol and they will aim their jammers at whatever aircraft are using radar automatically?

I'm assuming this does not increase the success rate of the Sparrow missiles very much. Instead, it renders radar-guided missiles pretty much useless on both sides and the battle turns into one relying on heat seekers, where the superior maneuverability of the aircraft like the F-15 and F-18 gives the US an edge?

Thanks. Sorry if these are dumb questions.

[wild_Willie2]

Hi Mgellis,

The closer your jammer is to the enemy radar, the more effective your jamming will be. So if you just turn on the ship based jammers, you will get some positive effects, but because of the range of these jammers to the target, these effects are minimal. However, if you configure your Prowlers for full jamming support (three on board jammers)and have one or two planes fly right behind your strike AC, the Soviet SAHR missiles become even more useless than your own Sparrows. Because the Soviet jammer is limited to a area over its own base, the effect of their jamming gets less the further you get away from it, so if you can lure the Soviet fighters away from their base, your Sparrows get more effective while you still have full cover from your mobile jammers flying right behind your strike AC.... This close escort jamming is also effective against SAM sites and when I am attacking an active SAM site, I always have a jammer flying in from of the strike AC to provide cover. This lets you get at least 50% closer to the SAM site without taking counter fire. This works even better if you are flying low to the ground...

I generally plot my jammers on the same course, but just behind my fighters and it the fighter engage just have the jammer circle right behind them.