Palex80

Has anyone else played this one?

Possibly a SA-6 Gainful missile?

It's chaos!

Thank you, but...

I've also witnesses AEW aircraft in formation editor which stayed at low altitude, thus diminishing radar range.

That's very interesting. Is this considered per aircraft fueling / being refueled? In previous bulds one tanker could fully fuel up a group of 30 aircraft to the maximum, there was no upper limit, if I am not mistaken. It was quite unrealistic. How does the new build exactly work? a) Let's say one strike aircraft has a 1500nm range and it's being refueled by one tanker aircraft with a 4500 nm range. Does the strike aircaft come up to its maximum range (1500nm) when refueled and the tanker can afterwards refuel it twice again if necessary? Let's say the strike package now consists of three strike aircraft with a 1500nm range and one tanker is refueling them. Do the strike aircraft top off at 1500nm range and the tanker is then empty? Does tanking take three times as long, because the tanker needs to tank 3 aircraft and not just one? c) Let's say the strike package now consists of six strike aircraft with a 1500nm range and two tankers. Does the same result come out as in scenario b? Or does it not make a difference how many tankers are available? d) What happens when a tanker refuels another tanker? Do we have a FAQ for tanking issues? So many questions... Sorry for bothering you.

Good point, although the JSFs are probably not completely stealthy. It depends a lot on what kind of radar coverage the Russians are going to use. The S-400 is quite a formidable weapon.

I initially thought that the S-400 deployment by the Russians as well as the basing of sophisticated air-superiority fighters in Syria was triggered by the shooting down of the Su-24 by the Turkish Air Force. The Russians wanted to make clear that they would not allow this to happen again. I have read that the shoot-down of the Su-24 was ordered by Erdogan-opposing generals within the Turkish armed forces and actually caught Erdogan off-guard. After the coup rumors also emerged that it was the Russians that tipped off Erdogan about the commando raid coming to capture/kill him and apparently the people who were responsible for the Su-24 shoot-down were purged (the coup fraction was particulary strong with the TAF and it seems that many TAF officers were purged after the coup). It is interesting that Erdogan apologized for the shoot-down only weeks before the coup took place and apparently investigations/arrests were going on at that time concerning the shoot-down in Turkey https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/27/kremlin-says-erdogan-apologises-russian-jet-turkish http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/13/turkeys-post-coup-purge-and-erdogans-private-army-sadat-perincek-gulen/ http://theduran.com/reports-russian-tip-off-erdogan-may-true/ Since the coup Erdogan and Putin have been best buddies. Thus it is interesting that the Russians are reinforcing their SAM capabilities in Syria. Either they want to send a clear message to the US or they want to test it against US aircraft? Or are they afraid of something else, perhaps Israel intervening? The Syrian Army has received reinforcements/material by the Russians and one could speculate that the Israelis are worried about the Syrian Army (if the Assad regime survives) may get their hands on sophisticared Russian hardware when the whole mess is over? Perhaps advanced short range ballistic missiles, like the ones the Russians have also deployed to Syria?

S-400 has been deployed since last year around this time, so it was already present for the cruise missile strike. It would have had difficulty tracking or engaging any of the missiles then or in a new strike. Well the article does state that due to the geography of Syria probably more than one batteries are necessary to cover Russian assets, if I understood correctly.

Well with that US missile strike against Assad's air base in April, perhaps the Russians want to try and see how well the S-400 can track Tomahawks?

I agree. I encountered the problem when trying to attack it with my Norwegian missile boats.

Nice scenario, thank you very much. Small bug (?) found. When encountering the Lun class Soviet surface effect ship and trying to attack it, Penguins don't seem to be available. I can only shoot torpedoes at the damm thing, which makes no sense.

Thank you! This makes the scenario more enjoyable!

Strange, I am using the updated database HCDB-150928 and my Russian SU-30s can only carry Kedge missiles in the Precis-LR role.

I actually think this is also a cost-issue. In Syria there is opposition to bombing, no SAMs, no AAA. Is it not "cheaper" for the Russians to drop iron bombs, since they don't need to use standoff weapons or precision guided munitions targetted from high above to avoid opposition from the ground? They did deliver a "show" when they launched that barrage of cruise missiles from their coastal frigates and their long range bombers. They probably spent a couple of dozen million dollars on that day... The Russians still have many operational Su-24s able to carry smart weapons (although not the latest generations) and the Su-34s are probably their platform of choice for launching feature generation weapons. As far as I understand, the Su-30 variants of the Russian Air Force are able to carry the Kh-31 and Kh-59 missiles, making it a potent strike platform. I think that database should be probably updated to reflect these issues, although we probably do not have all the details.

Could that be the reason why they launched the missile from the area around the capital, which is further inland? I recall reading reports that they were moving some missile towards the coast for a speculated test flight. If the missile was launched somewhere along the eastern coast, the US would have the chance to shoot it down. But as you correctly stated, not where the fired it from. I know see why the THAAD was not in a position to intercept the missile.. I wonder however, what would have happened, had it malfunctioned and had it taken another trajectory, allowing it to fall somewhere into/around Japan. Would the Japanese have tried to intercept it? They don't have THAAD, but would they try to shoot it down with PAC-3s?

A THAAD battery in Japan could have intercepted it, don't you think?

AAR this time as RED I started by organizing CAPs over my two surface groups. This was quite stressful, since no tankers are available and range is an issue here. I was not sure if overflying Denmark was actually allowed, since the scenario background said something about nuclear blackmail but did not state I had to use international space to get to the theater of operations. All in all and the long range AAMs of the Flankers and PAK-50 are very effective and F/A-18s and Typhoons were easily killed. Some AEW assets were also destroyed. Some air strikes did get through, mainly undetected and I had to face Harpoons and Harms. The Chinese group took most of the beating and was finally destroyed. I did manage to get a good bearing on the enemy carrier group before this happening and fired several salvoes of missiles, only to see them get downed by Aegis cruisers/destroyers. I tried switching the loadout of some of the Flankers to SEAD/Standoff roles, but there was simply no adequate loadout other than some very short-ranged weapons, which would mean the aircraft's destruction against overwhelming SAMs. I was able to divert two of my Kilo submarines against the battle group. The first attack resulted in the sinking of an Arleigh Burke destroyed and a British frigate. My submarine got killed in the process however. The second attack was more successful, damaging the American carrier and killing two more escorts. My submarine got away, having run out of weapons. Further volleys of cruise missles were launched from the Russian surface group, killing another escort. But then I ran out of missiles... My Oscan SSGNs were still quite off in the North and out of range, although I had ordered them into the theater at flank speed once making contact with the enemy carrier group. By now, I had achieved air superiority, having killed over 60 enemy aircraft. Attacks from the American came very seldom and were repelled well enough. I moved closer to the enemy group, only to be confroned by a barrage of Harpoon missiles, which killed a Udaloy destroyed and a frigate. In the end I had to resort to gun fighting, shelling the enemy vessels. I considered manuevering a Typhoon SSBN which was in the region closer in for a torpedo attack, but it would have been clearly madness to risk such an asset in order to make a surface kill. Shelling of the enemy group continued, although the Americans shelled me back, killing one missile boat and damaging a frigate. The Queen Elizabeth went down first, to be followed by the American carrier. I continued shelling the group, until the last vessels were sinking. Total victory already achieved, I spotted a distant enemy frigate, which seemed to have been operating apart from the carrier group. Luckily, an Oscar SSGN was in range and obliterated it with a volley of 6 cruise missiles. My surface group had to run away from an enemy torpedo attack. Apparently the enemy carrier battle group was escorted by an SSN. I launched some helicopters, but was unable to spot the enemy submarine. Having already won, I wondered what was next... For the fun of it, I granted myself nuclear release and nuked half of Great Britain to rubbles with Bulava SLBMs from my Typhoon. What a nice way to end this beautiful scenario!

I was expecting an attempt to intercept it...

I played this scenario from the Blue side. Quickly deploying Sentries and Hawkeyes I was able to spot the Russian and Chinese surface groups in the North Sea that were steaming quite close to each other. Since I was still at weapons tight, I tasked a lone F/A-18C to overfly the Russian battle group. It was fired upon and managed to dodge the missile running away on afterburner. I decided to deploy a CAP over Denmark and Southern Sweden to defend against possible Russian probing aircraft. In the ensuing air battles I lost 8 aircraft to Russian AAMs, mostly to the fearsome long range PAK-50. RAF Typhoons also took some losses with their shorter ranged AMRAAMs forcing them to come quite close to the Russian aircraft before being able to fire. All in all though, my AEW assets allowed me to keep the radars of my fighter aircraft shut off, so that the Russians often found out too late who was tracking them. Repeated strikes against the SAGs resulted in the sinking of all ships. I did have to launch 7 or some strike packages until finally I succeeded. I tried to manuever a Trafalgar SSN closer to the Russian battle group only to have it sunk by an undetected foe. MINVIC was achieved with 4:03:15 remaining. After than that I spotted several Russian submarines and tried to hit them, SOSUS also provided me a bearing to another Russian submarine. In the end I had sunk one Akula, one Sierra II and one Oscar submarine, while taking no losses. Just before ending the scenario, I launched a major strike against Kaliningrad with all my F/A-18s with SLAMs/JSOWs and all my Tomahawks destroying one base and heavily damaging the other. Good game! The RAF is a bit underrepresented with only 12 Typhoons maybe and the lack of enough strike assets makes repeated strikes against the two surface groups necessary. I did not see any modern Russian strike aircraft or bombers, perhaps I should play the Red side too? Only Su-27s/30s/35s and PAK-50s as well as Su-24 Fencers, mainly in the recon configuration. I didn't see any Backfires or Fullbacks?

Well, not towards Guam at least...

Where are the nukes?

Well that's not a very nice article. There is no MAD-concept in the case of North Korea. North Korea can threaten the US, yes. North Korea can attempt to hit the continental US, yes. But North Korea cannot "destroy" the US. There is actually quite a big chance the US can counter a North Korean strike either by luck (faulty missile/warhead) or ABM systems. Were the US to deploy all its missile interceptors to counter a North Korea strike, it would probably manage to kill off a few missiles. And North Korea is and probably won't be able to launch more than a few missiles during the coming years. What I think the main problem is and one that the author does not describe, is the loss of face. Especially when Donald Trump is the President of the US this loss of face (and credibility) is a major issue for the US. Never before in history was a rogue nation (like North Korea) able to actually threaten the US. The installation of IRBMs in Cuba was considered almost an act of war 50 years ago and the threat removed swiftly, even if those missiles were manned by Soviet personel. And when there were rumors of Iraq developing WMDs this was used as a reason to justify Iraq's invasion, even if Iraq never had the capability of launching any warhead more than few hundred miles away (I fully understand that there were other reasons for the Iraq war, but the threat posed by Iraqi WMDs was the reason put forward at that time). So now the US is going to allow a rogue state to further develop WMD and actually enhance and establish the logistics to use them against the continental US? Donald Trump would consider himself Kim's b**ch (to put it plainly), were he to allow it and his legacy as a President would be ruined. That's why I agree with the author: nuke them and nuke them now. :-)

While much of the tweeting is nonsense, it is no better or worse than sitting on your hands and letting things transpire into what they are today. I prefer Trump over what Hillary might have done in this situation ... a thousand times over. What would have Hillary done about this? I'm just asking as a European. By the way: Do we have a good "US intervenes in North Korea" Harpoon scenario? It would be an interesting game to play with lots of possible variables. US with/without South Korea, with/without use of US bases in South Korea, with/without Chinese involvement...

Oh, I didn't activate that. But let me ask you: I was under the impression that "auto-formation air patrols" are intended to make the AI launch air patrols on its own, without you telling him to. This applies to both sides. Meaning that if you activate that, the AI will also launch patrols for you. Do you need to activate it, so that the enemy also launches patrols? When I design scenarios, I usually place air patrols in the formation editor. They are then launched when the scenario starts. Usually I put double the amount of aircraft in the base, so when I put 2 F16s on the formation editor as AAW patrol, I make sure there are at least 4 F16s in the base. I looked into your scenario with the scenario editor and finally saw the Typhoons. I also saw that you have put 2 of them on the formation editor. So they should actually launch without the "auto-formation air patrols" ticked, right? Am I doing something wrong here? Still strange I didn't see the Typhoons. Maybe I should replay the game.