CV32

Ukraine To Scrap Cruiser, Buy New Vessels (DefenseNews) The cruiser is the Project 1164 Atlant (NATO Slava) class guided missile cruiser Ukrayina (ex Lobov).

That was their intended purpose, i.e. to resolve air combat.

One mechanism that would have potentially immediate good results for both the AI and the player, for that matter, would be to enable attacks to be launched from a scripted patrol point. Not just attacks that the scenario designer thinks will be possible (because a player group can be detected there, although these are useful), but scripted attacks launched from that patrol point against a known player target. This would go a long ways toward permitting off axis attacks, i.e. unexpected attacks that do not come straight down the bearing from known AI controlled bases and groups.

There are plenty. I'd suggest organizing or categorizing the areas of concern, e.g. sensors, navigation, etc, etc.

Pentagon says F-35 operational test aboard USS Wasp did not measure up (Stars and Stripes)

Harpoon: Captain's Edition - Hunter Killer (Hexsides & Hand Grenades blog)

The AI will continue to make scripted (programmed) attacks as long as there are aircraft remaining to perform the mission. It will also launch (unscripted) attacks of its own against newly discovered targets (often ships) and typically these are large scale attacks.

Yeah, aircraft with ATA 30 (e.g. Tornado IDS IT-MLU) are making 360 deg turns in 1 sec. A tanker with ATA 5 (e.g. C-135FR) is making a 360 deg turn in 75 sec.

Running 2015.015 ... Seeing the change in transport and tanker types but not among fighter class aircraft. The latter are still turning in 1 sec. I guess 5x wasn't enough? Or something else going on?

You're right on the money, Don. The usual score for me is 10 to 1 in my favour. I would call that fairly easy gameplay. If there are ways to improve the AI (or alternatively, dull the player's natural advantage), I am generally in favour of those approaches. The decreased turn rate is one attempt at that.

Pentagon Testing Office Calls Foul on F-35B “Operational Test” (POGO) Link to the DOT&E memo (pdf).

Rather more importantly, how does the AI play. The AI tends to throw the kitchen sink, which at times results in large group attacks. Sounds to me like your real complaint is with the RCS of the missiles attacking you. I don't like the fact that the game will detect and report a 60x missile attack (for example), but you might actually only locate those missiles in piecemeal fashion, in smaller sub groups. I would much rather that it reported only what it actually observed. The AI is not nearly as smart or enterprising as the player. Nor can it be. I've been around the game long enough to know that until other improvements are made, this change would not be a good one.

Thanks. I went looking through release notes but must have been looking at an older copy.

Russia Is Setting Up A Forward Operating Base in Syria, Pentagon Confirms (Defense One)

Defiant Chinese Admiral’s Message: South China Sea ‘Belongs to China’ (Defense One)

Are we ready to move forward on this?

Approach #1 is definitely how I play. Approach #2 is often how the AI plays. And the other problem is that you are seeing those 24x A-6 as one massive clump of Grumman metal, i.e. like a Borg cube if you will. You would not be enhancing detection capabilities. You would be making aircraft and missiles easier to detect. There's a difference. It is when I play. These are failings of the scenario writer and the placement of units in the game. And again, you are imagining that 30x Badger group as a single clump of metal, when really they would not be. Radar does not instantly detect 30x Badgers, as explained earlier (and below). Welcome to the closest approximation to real life that Harpoon can muster. If we had a terrain model, a realistic weather model and ToT targeting, you would be really unhappy. And, again, real radar does not instantly detect 60x Tomahawks. It detects a contact, then another, and another ... gets a bearing, and another ... an altitude, a speed ... gets a raid count, etc, etc. You're getting far more information (and far more quickly) than would actually be the case. In other words, the game is already easier than it ought to be.

Your post touches on the simplicity of the radar and terrain models. Making it even easier to detect aircraft than it already is, would not be helpful.

I think you might have missed the point about formations vs groups. (And, for the record, its NOT a problem we are facing right now. Its been that way forever, and frankly, there are far more pressing issues.) I don't see many folks clamoring for the change at all. Even if there were, the ultimate issue is how it would affect gameplay. My concern is that it would make it easier for the player and harder for the AI, which is bad. Very bad. Again, the point was made about formations vs groups. Just because a large number of aircraft performed the same mission at the same time (in wars that happened more than 30 years ago) does not mean they flew together in a single tight formation. Quite the contrary. You are falling victim to the simplicity of the model. Making it simpler still is not going to help. (Excepting the potential compromise for very large groups (maybe of very large aircraft) mentioned earlier). Missiles are even less of an issue. One reason being that HUCE (again, given the simplicity of the model) depicts missile launches en masse. Which is not actually how it happens, and which in turn, affects their detection, i.e. you do not have the entire volley facing you simultaneously).

At least that is one more intelligent way of approaching it. I could live with a detection model where maybe, if the group is quite large, say >12, then the detection value or probability of detection is somewhat higher.

The concept that it is entirely fair that 64 x F-15 in one unit are assumed to be aligned to every potentially detecting radar in a way that makes them no more visible than a single F-15 (i.e. a single detect chance at the base F-15 RCS) yet 64 x F-15 each with a different loadout would have 64 detection runs against them. If for the moment we accepted that a group of 64x F-15 wasn't far fetched (which of course it is) ... The point is that the "group" concept is grossly simplified in the model, when it is actually very complex in reality. Fighter aircraft, for example, don't usually fly in more than two-ship and four-ship formations. A "group" of them, however, launched from the same airfield and with the same mission or destination, may be comprised of multiple such formations. They would not all be on the same bearing (though the game forces it), or at the same altitude (though the game forces it), or at the same range (though the game forces it). They could be widely spaced, stacked at different altitudes, or with multiple times on target because they approach in trail or from different bearings (or a single ToT because they will converge from multiple directions). Assuming they are in one massive clump (like a swarm of bees) is letting the simplicity of the model run right over you. We might as well be playing checkers with those F-15s. And you know that I would happily have every loadout with its own RCS value. But, alas, we do not, because of the limitations of the DB structure.

The U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and the Evolving Balance of Power, 1996–2017 (RAND, pdf)

What is far fetched?

What if the Aircraft Carrier Had Never Been Invented? (Atlantic Council)

As far as radar detection is concerned, yes, that's exactly what I am saying. Only because we are forced by the simplicity of the model. I don't think we ought to volunteer to be further constrained by the model and, in so doing, hamper or simplify gameplay even further. The size of the group does not automatically make radar detection easier. It depends on the wavelength and resolution of the radar, the RCS and aspect of the target, and yes, even the type of group formation, etc. By assigning higher detection values to groups of aircraft, especially the same aircraft types, we would be making clumsy assumptions. For example, how we do know that the group formation is a ladder or stack, and not a potentially less detectable trail formation? (Assigning higher detection values to groups of different aircraft types, as in the current model, is a reasonable compromise because presumably the group is composed of aircraft of different roles and missions, e.g. fighters escorting strikers, etc). I agree that other methods of detection (visual, acoustic, etc) call for different analyses, but again, its not as simple or as hard and fast a rule as you may think. ESM (depending on capability or generation, something that again, we don't model) doesn't necessarily pick up a large group of emitters more easily because there are more emitters. They are usually detected more easily because they appear on multiple bearings. An older ESM set, however, might only pick up a emission on a single bearing and have no idea that there are actually multiple emitters approaching on that bearing in a trail formation.