CV32

Part 4: Assessment and Prep The first step, in most any scenario, is to gauge the forces at your disposal and figure out to best employ them to achieving the overall objective. In doing so, the forces under your control are typically assigned lower level tasks or objectives, the successful achievement of which will bring you one step closer to the larger goal. That larger goal, as stated in the previous post, is to get seaborne units safely to Port Said. All other forces - both air and sea - are directed to support that effort. You don't know how many ships must reach Port Said, but suffice to say it is quite likely that the loss of your key naval power projection asset - Varyag, or too many of her high value escorts, or the merchants and tankers carrying precious cargo for the deployment, would be disastrous to the mission. It is also likely that losses of aircraft or secondary naval assets (especially if they belong to client states rather than the Motherland) would be much more palatable to Moscow, especially if they take similar numbers of NATO assets with them. So, what to do first? Now that a 'pause' feature is available in HCE, by setting time compression to 'zero', I generally pause the scenario and take a closer look at the composition of the forces at my disposal, including the numbers and loadouts of aircraft and the formations of my naval groups. i. Prepping Land Based Air Let's take the big airbase at Antalya (Turkey) by way of example. It is furthest west and south, and is closest to both the enemy and my naval forces. Firstly, I can see it is protected by a long range air defence system, which in this case is the elderly Nike Hercules. Under Settings/Staff Options, the default 'surface SAM fire rate' is set to 'Normal' and the 'AAW Auto-Fire Range' is set to '3/4 Max'. This means that the Nike Hercules will begin engaging enemy targets when they reach 75% of its maximum range, and will shoot two SAMs for every target. Generally speaking, I leave this default setting in place or even move it down to 'Light' (one SAM per target). If there is a sudden attack, or it looks like I might be overwhelmed, then I will bump up the firing rate to 'Normal' or 'Heavy'. And, on the other side of the coin, if I have total control of the skies, I may even throttle back the engagement range to something like '1/2 Max' to conserve SAMs (a non-replenishable resource). At Antalya, which is nicely furnished with two Vlarge runways, I can see that the tarmac is crowded with 60 aircraft. These include a squadron equivalent (18x) of second gen MiG-23ML Flogger G fighters and another of multi-role MiG-29 Fulcrums, roughly half-dozen of each of the MiG-25M Foxbat E and MiG-31 Foxhound interceptors, and small numbers of MiG-25R high altitude reconnaissance aircraft, Tu-95 Bear D maritime reconnaisance aircraft, Tu-16 Badger J electronic warfare aircraft, and Il-38 May maritime recce and ASW patrol aircraft. The MiG-23s and MiG-29s will probably be best employed in the combat air patrol (CAP) and point defense roles, and mostly in the sense of protecting the western approaches to my airfields (including Antayla) across the Aegean Sea. They are fairly short ranged in both endurance and missile types, and so will be used to spoil NATO's attacks and probe their defenses. I generally do not put fighters into formation patrols, and instead launch them and direct them specifically on an as needed basis. Two-thirds of the Fulcrums are already configured for attack, but since they aren't really the best asset for this, and I have no immediate plans to use them in that role, I reconfigure them for the air-to-air mission. This will take 30 minutes to complete. One thing I am sorely lacking at Antalya is airborne early warning and control (AEW&C). The next best thing, however, is ample amounts of fighters, electronic warfare (EW) and reconnaissance aircraft, and a decent ground based air defence. So, in this case I throw up a MiG-25R patrol to the northwest (and overland) and a Badger J to the southwest (and over water). In this way, the Badger J can provide some EW coverage to the naval forces. I also assign an Il-38 May to perform ASW patrol ahead of the Varyag group, again from within the formation of the airfield. Now, what to do with the Bear D? It is the premier asset for exposing US Navy carrier battle groups, but I only have a pair at my disposal. Often times, I will hold back on Bear patrols (especially when they are limited in number) and let a carrier reveal itself in some other fashion, keeping the Bear D out of play (and out of danger) until it is necessary to help coordinate a multi-axis attack. Here, I decide to send one Bear south to an orbit east of Port Said. There are three reasons for this: (1) I do not yet know what surprises lie between me and my objective; (2) Port Said (already in the hands of my allies) has no coverage of its own, other than ground based radar; and (3) my primary objective is not to destroy the Saratoga, but to get my own forces safely from Point A to Point B. Lastly, there are the big and fast MiG-25s and MiG-31s. The -31s are more capable overall than the -25s, with better endurance and weapons, but the Foxbats do make up for some of that with raw, unadulterated speed. I decide to use the MiG-31s to bolster the barrier combat air patrol (BARCAP) between the carrier and my naval groups, while the MiG-25s will conduct 'slash and burn' offensive counter-air missions against NATO aircraft flying out of Greek airfields. ii. Naval Formations The most obvious choice of examples here is the Varyag group. I can tell immediately from using the 'Formation Editor' that I do not like the way this group is arranged. The zone sizes (set at 9, 13, 17 and 50 nm) I will leave alone, but the ships and subs within the formation need better organization if they are to have the best chances of surviving the transit to Port Said. They passed through the Bosporous bottleneck, and survived the island strewn Aegean, but this is the Med. It is quite likely that NATO could have attack submarines lurking here. My first priority, then, is to arrange the formation in such a way as to reduce risk of submarine attack. It is more like an exercise in preventative damage control, to be honest, because there is actually very little I could do to prevent a submarine from penetrating my screen. What I am aiming at, instead, is to make it more likely that he will be detected (and with any luck, destroyed) before he can sink my most valuable assets. At the core of the formation, in Zone 1 or the main body, I assign the carriers Varyag and Moskva, the four merchants, the Dubna class oiler Irkut, and the replenishment ship Dnestr. I am looking for the best area air defense asset as well, which is obviously the Azov, but she is in a quadrant well to the north (and behind the group) all by her lonesome. This makes little sense to me, and so I reassign Azov to the center alongside the carriers. I could put her in Zone 2 or the AAW ring, but I have other fairly capable (but ultimately less valuable) assets I can put here: a Kara, Sovremennyy, and Kashin. In Zone 3 or the ASW ring, I place the Kresta II class ASW cruiser and the three Krivak frigates. Lastly, in Zone 4 or the picket ring, I place the Victor I and II class attack boats. In each case, I space my individual ships and submarines as evenly as possible while also orienting the most capable units along both the route of my advance and the most likely axes of attack, in this case south and west, respectively. My best speed is 16 knots, and as I have no intention of doing anything other than making for Port Said, I am not terribly worried about the rear approaches to my formation. iii. Naval Air As for air patrols within my formation, I am hesitant to do this. Telltale emissions from orbiting Su-27K or MiG-29K fighters flying CAP would give away my group's position. I could put them up but keep them radar silent, but this defeat the purpose. Even so, they might be detected by an enemy patrol. The same is true of my Yak-44 (cough, E-2C) or Helix helos in the AEW role. Instead, I choose to send out only a small ASW patrol of one Helix and one Hormone helos, and instead rely more heavily on the shore based Il-38 and the pair of Victors accompanying me. Why not a heavier ASW patrol, given the risk of enemy submarines? Because I know the Saratoga is out there, and that means F-14 Tomcats. And that means AIM-54 Phoenix. The AI has no qualms about shooting its precious AIM-54s at my helos, and even one or two Tomcats could strip out a heavy toll of helos in short order. And of course there's also the increased risk of group detection from their AWG-9 radars. In the end, I elect to send a Yak-44 to an orbiting AEW&C patrol as far west as I dare, and that is the eastern edge of the Tashkent group, behind the SA-N-6 coverage afforded by Slava. Here it can provide early warning for the big naval groups as well as a good portion of the Turkish coast along the Aegean. I know that the AI will be gunning for my Yak at game start, and I cannot send it too far forward to risk it being overwhelmed or fall into range of the dreaded AIM-54. Along with the Yak I send a pair of Flankers, who join up with a pair of Foxhounds out of Antalya, and together form a BARCAP patrol at the western edge of the Tashkent group, a little more than a hundred nautical miles west of Varyag.

Part 3. The Orders Your mission, in a nutshell, is to get seaborne forces to Port Said (Egypt) in order to seize and secure control of the strategic chokepoint at the Suez Canal. Your air forces have been directed to provide support to help ensure that they arrive safely. Your naval groups are arrayed between Crete and Cyprus as follows: i. TF 7.0 (group ZTC) Comprising the brand new (and perhaps slightly green) aircraft carrier Varyag, her decks jammed with 30 MiG-29K Fulcrums and 20 Su-27K Flankers, helicopters and (as a curiosity or compromise sometimes seen before in the legacy battlesets) a trio of E-2C Hawkeye AEW&C aircraft - perhaps intended to masquerade here as Yak-44. That's how we will treat them. The escorts include the helicopter carrier Moskva (with lots of ASW helos aboard), the SA-N-6 capable Kara class cruiser Azov, two other cruisers, two destroyers, three frigates, two second rate attack submarines, a pair of support vessels, and four cargo ships. ii. TF 7.1 (group ZMS) Comprising the class lead and namesake Slava cruiser, Kara cruiser and group flag Tashkent, a Sovremennyy destroyer, a Mod Udaloy destroyer, and the Kashin class destroyer and SA-N-7 testbed Provornyy. The Tashkent group flanks the Varyag group on the west. iii. TF 8.1 (group ZLS) Comprising a trio of Grisha V patrol corvettes, performing anti-submarine warfare (ASW) sanitization ahead of the Varyag and Tashkent groups. There are also several groups not mentioned in the Orders. These include: Undesignated but perhaps properly identified as TF 8.2 (group ZKS), comprising a trio of Tarantul III fast attack missile craft, at the western edge of the Sea of Crete. (Note that these have only a chance of appearing in the scenario). Group ZHS, comprising three cargo ships and three tankers, and escorted by two Grisha II and two Mod Petya I class ASW corvettes. Though not specified, these presumably carry personnel and equipment necessary for the deployment to Egypt, and must make it safely to Port Said. This group lies conveniently sandwiched (in fact, protected) between the Varyag and Tashkent groups. It should be noted that this group only has a chance of appearing in your play of the scenario. There are two nuclear powered attack submarines, a Victor II and a Victor III, performing barrier patrol west of your intended route. There are also three diesel-electric types, an Egyptian Romeo (virtually useless), a Tango, and the vaunted Kilo mentioned earlier. All three are operating more or less in the area where the Saratoga is reported to have been operating. The Kilo actually only has a 25% chance of appearing in this area, and is more likely to appear west or southwest of Crete, in which case it is probably not the same Kilo. The Romeo, meanwhile, has an even chance of appearing southwest of Crete (in which case it might be of better use). There is another small oversight (imho) in the Orders that should be mentioned. Group ZLS (the Grisha V trio) is directed to seek out and destroy US surface forces. Quite obviously, these ships are completely unsuitable for confronting a US Navy carrier battle group, and instead are much more appropriately assigned to provide ASW support to your high value units as they advance to Port Said. Instead, the Orders should probably have fingered group ZKS, the three SS-N-22 Sunburn armed Tarantul III missile craft. But, again, these might not appear in every play of the scenario. (Even so, I will explain later how this particular directive is moot in any event).

Part 2. The SITREP As usual, you are theater commander. You are in control of several Black Sea Fleet naval groups that have managed to successfully break out into the Mediterranean; forward deployed elements of Frontal Aviation operating from seized airfields in Turkey and Cyprus; elements of the Syrian and Egyptian air forces operating from their own airfields; as well as some Long Range Aviation and Soviet Naval Aviation forces in the Caucasus/Crimea region. Your intelligence report is grim. A US reconnaissance satellite - believed to be an Aquacade type - passed over your naval forces four hours ago, undoubtedly providing NATO with solid information on your location and group composition. Moreover, first echelon USAF reinforcements have arrived in Greece, and though understrength, could still comprise 60-80 fighters. The USS Saratoga carrier battle group is also operating somewhere southeast of Italy. One small bit of good news on that - a Kilo submarine skipper has reported sinking a US Navy fleet oiler, meaning the CVBG might be pressed for fuel.

Sara's Day - a "How To" Guide for Achieving Victory in HCE. [spoilerS APPLY] Part 1. The Scenario 'Sara's Day' is scenario 3 in the HDS III MEDC/HDSB battleset. This scenario is legacy, and does not use the updated HCDB database. It is the fifth day of World War III, a conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact (and their allied or client states) across the globe. Three days previous, the Soviets pummeled NATO partner Turkey into submission, seizing control of several airfields and installations intact, while a joint effort by Syria and Egypt (and supported by the USSR) exhausted the Israeli Defense Forces. A few survivors have escaped into Greece and Italy, but for all intents and purposes, the Eastern Mediterranean is completely under Soviet control. This is a sort of "how to" guide for achieving victory, this time around from the RED (Warsaw Pact) perspective.

Taiwans New Source for Submarine Tech? (The Diplomat, Flashpoints blog)

A Russia-China Alliance Brewing? (The Diplomat)

Part 12: Responding to the Evolving Iranian Ballistic Missile Threat (Defense Media Network)

Part 3: Training, Transition, and Deployment (Defense Media Network)

I am looking at updated versions of the annexes that you probably don't have. It may have appeared in a SITREP, but I can't confirm that. In any event, you can trust that the AS.37 is a terminal diver. Afaik, Buccaneer was never cleared for Harpoon. Its primary antiship weapon in the '80s was the BAe Sea Eagle, which is very similar.

I'll leave this for Tony. Because the bug also appears in 2009.076.

Yes, thank you. Typo fixed.

LCS-4 Trials Halted After Engine Fires (Aviation Week) Newest LCS Suffers Fire at Sea, Damage ‘Minor’ (DefenseNews)

As mentioned earlier, the gun model was changed to its current iteration in 2009.037, so yeah, that's the way it was in 2009.050. 2009.076 is now the most recent upgrade distributed here, not at Matrix (the storefront). The current build versions and betas are here: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/topic/2049-current-files/ We do answer the tech support inquiries at Matrix, as you found out. But since all of the behind the scenes work gets done here (as was the case before Matrix), we prefer to do it here. Just makes our lives easier.

That's a good list. Small typo with the Harpoon, btw.

That's what we're hashing out here. Whether jettisoning should be re-introduced, and what its effects would be. Improving the performance of the aircraft, not necessarily its speed (which is treated the same regardless of loadout, and which is a bigger issue) but by improvement of the ATA/DATA values.

Surrender would be a neat feature, but something else for a wish list or pipe dream.

What version are you currently running? Let's establish that much. The redesigned gun model was introduced prior to the Ultimate version released at Matrix. It wasn't present in more recent betas, but I can confirm that it apparently has appeared in 2009.076. I'm getting the impression that the underlying structures and people behind Harpoon is confusing you. AGSI is the owner of the game. We advanced the development of the code (having been involved in previous versions), provide the database, and provide tech support and further development. We're not just another fan site. And Matrix is simply the publisher. Does this clear it up at all?

Maybe you haven't looked at the Release Notes in your HCE directory, or you aren't familar with coding, but this game has been in constant development and improvement for a very long time now. There is nothing unusual about new bugs appearing as this process continues. (Albeit at a reduced rate these days). Afaik, guns were working just fine until fairly recently, and I expect some of our veteran players like Broncepulido (thanks for your input, btw) would have noticed if this were not the case.

As I attempted to explain earlier, the current gun model is not at all the same as it was before. Now, guns are treated just the same as missiles. You decide how many 'bursts' to throw at an enemy aircraft or ground target. The bug appears to be that the guns aren't appearing as an option at all.

Looks like you uncovered a bug, Yojimboguy. Guns are not appearing as a weapon option in the attack window, as they should. If you would, please put together a small test scenario and add the problem in the Issue Tracker.

I suspect "little" is exactly the reason why ESSM (or RAM, etc) gets the call instead of the big honking Standard.

Correct, and all the more reason folks should write their scenarios using newer battlesets and databases.

Guns are still present in the EC2003 and later battlesets. With version 2009.037, we disabled the 'hard wired' guns in these battlesets and instead began treating guns like any other disposable weapon. The hard wired guns (with fixed 3 nm range) still exist in the older legacy battlesets (EC2000 and earlier). The new model offers more flexibility for variation between types of airborne guns, and allows more precise control of when and where use of guns is appropriate. One of the limitations of the older model, for example, was that all aircraft with an air-to-air loadout had the built in gun, even if they didn't actually have a gun in real life. Also, you couldn't use the gun against surface targets unless the gun was otherwise modeled as a bomb or rocket. I hope this helps clear up the issue for you.

Hence the role of a testbed. Guns, missiles, and torpedoes were all shorter ranged once, as well.

I don't see this development as in the same class of JSF or LCS. Ponce is now a test platform, and like it or not, directed energy is the wave of the future (no pun intended). Perfecting the use of a laser for defence in the maritime environment is something that I will definitely be watching.