Mgellis

I was curious about whether the Pledge scenarios are turning out okay or not. I hope people are enjoying them. Anyone want to post an AAR or two?

I've been doing a little thinking about the LCS, both in terms of the politics and the possibilities for scenario design. My limited understanding of the controversy surrounding the LCS is that a) people are annoyed that the ship has cost so much to develop and build and people are disappointed that some of the promises associated with the design (all those modules, etc.) have not been delivered. I don't know how justified these complaints are, but it sounds like there have been a lot of problems with the development of the LCS, and these are certainly legitimate reasons for people to be upset. Question...from what I can tell, there are currently contracts to build 10 of each type of LCS. Are there plans to go beyond these 20 vessels (I understand the Navy originally wanted something like 50 of them) or will that be the point where the LCS is phased out in favor of something else? What have people heard or read on this topic? It seems to me that the LCS is basically a big (and regrettably expensive) patrol ship. Actually, I get the impression that is really one of the biggest objections to it--it's not so much that the LCS is a particularly bad design but that it is costing a lot more than people think it should cost--it's probably a reasonably capable patrol boat/corvette but it has ended up costing as much as a destroyer. In any event, for better or worse, it looks like we will be getting a bunch of them. How should they be used in scenario design? It would work well as a scout for a larger task force or as a main combatant in low intensity conflicts (hunting pirates, hunting terrorists, etc.). It also sounds like it would serve well as a escort if the primary threats will be small surface vessels (pirates, other patrol boats, etc.) or submarines. It is not meant to take on a task force of destroyers or other large warships. It would also serve as a force multiplier for such missions--instead of using two destroyers, one destroyer and one LCS, while less effective, would be adequate, and would free up the second destroyer for other missions. Does this make sense? How well would the LCS work as a major combantant against small nations--e.g., Central American or African states that have very small air forces (some with no combat aircraft except helicopters) and small navies? If other assets were tied up with other conflicts, how might one use a wolfpack of four or five of these ships, with a dozen drones and helicopters, and a company or two of Marines? How would a task force like this fare against, say, Nicaragua or Togo? (I'm assuming a limited mission like a couple of raids rather than an invasion.) What about somewhat larger and more capable nations like Uraguay or Cambodia or Cameroon? What are the realistic limits of what the LCS can do for the US (or anyone else who buys it...I understand some other countries are looking at it)? Thoughts? Observations? Suggestions? Comments?

Thanks, broncepulido. I just hope it's a fun and challenging scenario, too.

File Name: Pledge 9: The Battle of El'dzhik File Submitter: Mgellis File Submitted: 06 Oct 2012 File Category: Scenarios Uzbekistan believes that Turkmenistan is using one of its dams to "steal" water from a river that runs through both countries. They have gone to the U.N., but to no avail, and have decided that their only option is to destroy the dam. Image: Uzbekistani Su-24 Fencer. Image released by the United States Air Force with the ID 050214-F-OK556-004. Author: Scott T. Sturkol, U.S. Air Force. Author's Notes: I wrote this scenario partly to explore the possibilities of smaller, air-oriented scenarios for Harpoon. It is based around a limited conflict (an attack on one strategic target) between two smaller nations and there are no naval units in this scenario, only aircraft and ground facilities such as runways, air defense units, and buildings. Click here to download this file

Nice...I look forward to seeing it, and all the other new platforms.

Well, on the bright side, by the time things are updated, there will be a bunch of new scenarios here that people can download. Now if only the ANW/HUD 4 ones weren't all mine. I enjoy writing scenarios, but I'm sure having a variety of authors would make things more interesting, more challenging, etc.

Still no change... Anyone have any news?

File Name: Pledge 8: Mission to Bahrain 1981-1982 Part 2 File Submitter: Mgellis File Submitted: 29 Sep 2012 File Category: Scenarios In early 1982, the Kitty Hawk battle group and an amphibious group must eliminate the threat to a counter-coup in Bahrain posed by Iranian forces. Destroy at least 75 Iranian aircraft and at least 20 Iranian facilities. Avoid serious losses. Image: Various aircraft parked in formation aboard the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk. Defense Image photo VIRIN: DN-SN-85-06347. Click here to download this file

File Name: Pledge 7: Mission to Bahrain 1981-1982 Part 1 File Submitter: Mgellis File Submitted: 27 Sep 2012 File Category: Scenarios Late in 1981, Islamic militants tried to seize control of the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain. In history, this coup attempt failed, but this scenario assumes that it succeeded, that the United States decides to restore the former government of Bahrain, but that the only forces available for this mission are the Kitty Hawk battle group, two submarines, and a group of amphbious vessels. First, American forces must make their way to the Gulf of Oman to gather intelligence. However, Iran has warned the United States not to interfere in Bahrain. It remains to be seen how far the Iranians will go to support their new allies... Image: A U.S. Navy Grumman F-14A Tomcat from fighter squadron VF-51 Screaming Eagles, Carrier Air Wing 15 (CVW-15), landing on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) off Oahu, Hawaii (USA), on 1 April 1981. In the background is an F-14A from VF-111 Sundowners. U.S. National Archives No. NN33300514 2005-06-30; Camera Operator: PH2 Michael Mcmillan, USN. Click here to download this file

A brief update...I went through the various ships in the battle group and changed some of the magazines...I had to get rid of all the weapons that were not in use in 1981 and replace them with ones that were! So my F-14s will have AIM-54As and AIM-7Fs, and the attack aircraft will have Shrikes, Walleyes, and the like. Should make the missions more interesting. (I just realized that I accidentally posted this topic in the HCE forums instead of the H3 forums...sorry! It is for a series of H3/ANW scenarios.) First mission is going to be just get the battle group station in the Gulf of Oman and gather intelligence...and see if Iran is going to play nice or plans to start trouble...

Oh, actually the Adams have the Block III RIM-66B instead of the Block V. (That was the default setting for 1981.) Does it matter or should I switch it? Thanks.

Thanks! I've got the Mk46 mod. 2 torpedoes and Harpoon 84A missiles swapped in, and I also switched out the RIM-7Ms for RIM-7Hs. (This means some ships do not have RIM-7 reloads...only RIM-7Ms were supplied as an option. Does this need to be changed in the database?) Changed the torpedoes in the ASROC launchers, too, although those are still acting oddly...I don't know if the database issue with those ever got solved. What I'm actually doing here is setting up a "template" scenario first and then I'll use this battle group with a couple of linked scenarios about the 1981 Bahrain crisis (coup failed in history...what if it had succeeded and been openly backed and even defended by Iran but the US decides this cannot be tolerated?)

Yes, indeed, it is Reptilicus. A truly dreadful movie, even by my low standards!

One thing I really like about ANW is how you can tweak the ships for realism by modifying what weapons they have onboard. For a scenario set in 1981, what would have been the likely missile loads for a Leahy-class cruiser (Halsey, CG 23) and Adams-class destroyers (Hoel & Berekely, DDG-13 and DDG-15)? The Leahy-class is listed as "85+" and I know there was a major upgrade program in the 1980s...how much did the Leahy change between 1981 and 1985? Should I replace the Standard missiles with the Tartars (an available loadout)? What about doing this for the Adams-class ships, or is it okay the use the default setting of the RIM-66B? Any other suggestions or things to watch out for? Thanks. Mark

LST-1171 De Soto County class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_De_Soto_County_%28LST-1171%29 http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry1674.aspx ANW HUD 4 v1.1 b10

AOR Almirante Gastao Motta class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_tanker_Almirante_Gast%C3%A3o_Motta_%28G23%29 http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry2157.aspx ANW HUD 4 v1.1 b10

Fouga CM.170 Magister / Zephyr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouga_CM.170_Magister http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry1777.aspx ANW HUD 4 v1.1 b10

North American T-28 Trojan / AT-28D Nomad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_T-28_Trojan http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry1406.aspx ANW HUD 4 v1.1 b10

De Havilland Dove / Sea Devon C.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Dove http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry2148.aspx ANW HUD 4 v1.1 b10

Aero L-60 Brigadýr http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry1241.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-60_Brigadyr ANW HUD 4 v1.1 b10

Soviet command ship SSV-33 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapusta_class_command_ship ANW HUD 4 v1.1 b10

Khobi class tanker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobi_class_tanker ANW HUD 4 v1.1 b10