It's been quite some time since I touched the Scenario Editor, and a question came up but I can't recall the answer:

 

Is it possible to have an air strike in-progress or at least imminent at the start of a scenario... or do all air attacks have to be launched from a base? In other words, is it possible to set it up so that the player will be under attack as soon as he starts playing the scenario, or will there always be the time required for the AI to launch a strike from a base and travel to the attack position?

It's been quite some time since I touched the Scenario Editor, and a question came up but I can't recall the answer: Is it possible to have an air strike in-progress or at least imminent at the start of a scenario... or do all air attacks have to be launched from a base? In other words, is it possible to set it up so that the player will be under attack as soon as he starts playing the scenario, or will there always be the time required for the AI to launch a strike from a base and travel to the attack position?

 

Having missions already underway and in the air is not currently possible, but it is on several folks' wish lists and may someday see some beta attention.

It's been quite some time since I touched the Scenario Editor, and a question came up but I can't recall the answer: Is it possible to have an air strike in-progress or at least imminent at the start of a scenario... or do all air attacks have to be launched from a base? In other words, is it possible to set it up so that the player will be under attack as soon as he starts playing the scenario, or will there always be the time required for the AI to launch a strike from a base and travel to the attack position?

 

Having missions already underway and in the air is not currently possible, but it is on several folks' wish lists and may someday see some beta attention.

As I suspected. But it leaves me quite puzzled after experiencing some situations - like that one USNI scenario where the carrier group is obliterated by hoards of bomber-launched missiles that seem to arrive sooner than would be possible if all those bombers had to launch and move to launch positions and send the missiles... or in the Bridge scenario where MiGs arrive to pounce on Hawkeyes that are only 100 nm into their runs even though the MiG bases are about 375 nm away... etc. It sure seemed like attacks developed sooner than they could have if they had to be launched from the bases - particularly in that USNI case where numerous bombers would have to be launched, formed up, traversed to launch range, and then the relatively slow missiles would have to traverse their own long ranges. Just didn't seem like there was enough time for all that to happen when it did. Oh, well...

As I suspected. But it leaves me quite puzzled after experiencing some situations - like that one USNI scenario where the carrier group is obliterated by hoards of bomber-launched missiles that seem to arrive sooner than would be possible if all those bombers had to launch and move to launch positions and send the missiles... or in the Bridge scenario where MiGs arrive to pounce on Hawkeyes that are only 100 nm into their runs even though the MiG bases are about 375 nm away... etc. It sure seemed like attacks developed sooner than they could have if they had to be launched from the bases - particularly in that USNI case where numerous bombers would have to be launched, formed up, traversed to launch range, and then the relatively slow missiles would have to traverse their own long ranges. Just didn't seem like there was enough time for all that to happen when it did. Oh, well...

 

Considering the MiG cruise speed is roughly twice that of the Hawkeye, I am not surprised at all. You could, of course, just turn on the "show all" feature at game start to watch them take off.

 

As for the Russkie bombers and missiles, which USNI scenario was it? (Noting that Russkie missiles do not tend to be either slow or short ranged).

As I suspected. But it leaves me quite puzzled after experiencing some situations - like that one USNI scenario where the carrier group is obliterated by hoards of bomber-launched missiles that seem to arrive sooner than would be possible if all those bombers had to launch and move to launch positions and send the missiles... or in the Bridge scenario where MiGs arrive to pounce on Hawkeyes that are only 100 nm into their runs even though the MiG bases are about 375 nm away... etc. It sure seemed like attacks developed sooner than they could have if they had to be launched from the bases - particularly in that USNI case where numerous bombers would have to be launched, formed up, traversed to launch range, and then the relatively slow missiles would have to traverse their own long ranges. Just didn't seem like there was enough time for all that to happen when it did. Oh, well...

 

Considering the MiG cruise speed is roughly twice that of the Hawkeye, I am not surprised at all.

Well, lessee... I'm a bit rusty at algebra, but (going (375 + 100) miles at 2X) > (going 100 nm at X) means X equals... um.. well, as I said, my algebra skills are corroded... but wouldn't that mean that the MiGs would have to be going almost five times as fast as the Hawkeye??

 

You could, of course, just turn on the "show all" feature at game start to watch them take off.

Good idea! Someday, I'll get used to using that feature, yet!

 

As for the Russkie bombers and missiles, which USNI scenario was it? (Noting that Russkie missiles do not tend to be either slow or short ranged).

The missiles are long-ranged... and something like 475 knots, IIRC. So, they don't arrive really soon after they are launched at normal range.

 

I don't recall the name of the scenario, but it involved a Blue carrier group near the north end of Norway, and it was either trying to move into the area, or else it was trying to extricate survivors of a carrier group from the area, not sure which. Almost seems like the carrier group was on the offensive in that one, and then the extrication scenario was a follow-on, supposedly taking place after the carnage of the first scenario. But my memory is vague about that... Not so vague about getting blown out of the water the first time by what must have been hundreds of A-S missiles, though...

Well, lessee... I'm a bit rusty at algebra, but (going (375 + 100) miles at 2X) > (going 100 nm at X) means X equals... um.. well, as I said, my algebra skills are corroded... but wouldn't that mean that the MiGs would have to be going almost five times as fast as the Hawkeye??

 

Heh, you'll have to forgive me if I think your recollection of the actual distances and times to intercept is probably as "corroded" as your algebra skills.

 

Good idea! Someday, I'll get used to using that feature, yet!

 

Sooner rather than later, please. It might save both of us quite a bit of time.

 

I don't recall the name of the scenario, but it involved a Blue carrier group near the north end of Norway, and it was either trying to move into the area, or else it was trying to extricate survivors of a carrier group from the area, not sure which. Almost seems like the carrier group was on the offensive in that one, and then the extrication scenario was a follow-on, supposedly taking place after the carnage of the first scenario. But my memory is vague about that... Not so vague about getting blown out of the water the first time by what must have been hundreds of A-S missiles, though...

 

Yeah, without useful specifics, I'm afraid I won't be venturing too far into investigating this.

Considering the MiG cruise speed is roughly twice that of the Hawkeye, I am not surprised at all.

 

Talking about the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario here.

 

The only Vietnamese plane with the range to get more than 300 nm from its base is the MiG-17F, which happens to be the slowest of the lot: 400 kn cruise. The other ones travel at 600 kn cruise. The Hawkeye cruises at 300 kn. Some of the Vietnamese jets can travel much faster if they get out and push. (All numbers are approximate.)

 

Here is a test result. Hawkeye 200 nm N of carrier (and 250 nm from RED base). It took 40 min for it to get there. 15 min later, we get company. "Show all" shows that these enemy planes are alone (except for a bunch of base formation planes). Since visibility now is only 26 nm at low, we can turn off the radar and run away. In this case, the fighters were MiG-21s, so maybe escape was a range issue.

 

This is a typical result.

 

 

Of course, if you get unlucky, a MiG-21 headed right for the Hawkeye at the start. Hawkeye goes 100 nm at 300 kn: 20 min. MiG-21 goes 300 nm at 600 kn: 30 min. The Hawkeye crew has just got on station, and the're brewing up coffee or whatever it is that they do out there when they get company. And by the way, it's a 2-D problem, not 1-D. Distances don't add directly.

 

Another way of getting unlucky is that the visibility might be high enough that the interceptor can track you visually as you try to run away. I believe that maintaining a visual lock is easier than getting it in the first place.

 

The main point is that the Vietnamese fighters are already headed toward the Hawkeye before it turns on its radar, as part of the base patrols. They never show up in the group window. Once they decide to intercept, they get a group window icon. They don't have to go very far; certainly they don't come from the base.

... And by the way, it's a 2-D problem, not 1-D. Distances don't add directly.

Huh?

 

Another way of getting unlucky is that the visibility might me high enough that the interceptor can track you visually as you try to run away. I believe that maintaining a visual lock is easier than getting it in the first place.

 

So, how far away can you get a visual under ideal conditions? When I detected the MiG-21 - apparently by virtue of it turning on its radar (for some reason that I can't fathom, but probably isn't relevent here anyway) - the MiG was about 2/3 of the way out in the Hawkeye's radar range circle, and homing on the Hawkeye. I immediately turned off the Hawkeye's radars, dove it to Low, and then sent it off on a somewhat zagged course, that was perhaps 40 degrees off the initial intercept vector on average. Watching the MiG (when I could "see" it by virtue of its own radars), it was easy to see that the MiG reacted to each change of direction of the Hawkeye as it closed the distance. Being that the Hawkeye was out of range of ground radar at all times, it must have been tracked by ESM or visually, I suppose. But it's puzzling to me just how this was accomplished with such precision at those distances. And the kicker is that if it was a visual on the part of the MiG, then howcum none of my groups in the area could get a visual on the MiG, and could "see" it only when it turned its radar on? BTW, it seemed that it closed on the Hawkeye faster that is should have, judging from the reported speeds, and the implied relative speed. I still can't make sense of it.

 

The main point is that the Vietnamese fighters are already headed toward the Hawkeye before it turns on its radar, as part of the base patrols. They never show up in the group window. Once they decide to intercept, they get a group window icon. They don't have to go very far; certainly they don't come from the base.

The only way I can reconcile this with my own observations is if the MiGs already exist way out in the formation at the outset of game play. Otherwise, I'd assume they have to launch into formation, and then eventually vector off for intercept. All of which presumably would take an appropriate amount of time... and actually would take some time longer than if they vectored directly from their base (well, unless their formation position was directly on the bearing of intercept).

 

My best guess of the approximate numbers involved in the situation is:

Worst case: MiGs had to launch and travel from their base to the point of detection (about 380 nm) in the same time that it took the Hawkeye to launch and travel approximately 100 nm.

Best case: MiGs started at the extreme edge of their formation (255 nm), at the point on the bearing line from the base to the Hawkeye, so they traveled (380 - 255) or 125 nm in the time it took the Hawkeye to travel the 100 nm.

 

So, in the worst case, wouldn't the MiGs have to travel at an average speed of 3.8 X of the speed of the Hawkeye? If so, should they have been able to sustain that speed considering their fuel consumption?

 

In the best case, the traverse time at crusing speed seems plausible... but it requires that the scenario start with the MiGs already out at the full formation range and in the position of that formation that just happened to be closest to the Hawkeye.

 

If the MiGs actually start the scenario at some point in the formation, but presumably not at the point where they are closest to the Hawkeye, then some additional travel time would be required, tending to stretch the plausibility of them being able to traverse that increased distance at cruise speed in the same amount of time.

 

But, as I said - and has been "attested to" by others - my algebra is corroded, so you'll have to make any actual calculations based on these estimated numbers.

My best guess of the approximate numbers involved in the situation is:

Worst case: MiGs had to launch and travel from their base to the point of detection (about 380 nm) in the same time that it took the Hawkeye to launch and travel approximately 100 nm.

Best case: MiGs started at the extreme edge of their formation (255 nm), at the point on the bearing line from the base to the Hawkeye, so they traveled (380 - 255) or 125 nm in the time it took the Hawkeye to travel the 100 nm.

 

MiGs that are a part of their base formation patrols will launch at game start and proceed to their designated patrol zones.

 

The scenario does not start with them already there.

 

I've said it before and I guess I have to say it again. Use the 'show all' keystroke and watch them take off at game start yourself.

MiGs that are a part of their base formation patrols will launch at game start and proceed to their designated patrol zones.

 

The scenario does not start with them already there.

That was my assumption. It seemed that others were saying otherwise, so I just wanted confirmation.

 

In that case, I don't see how it is reasonable for the MiGs to show up where they did, when they did. But then, I don't think it is particularly reasonable for them to be able to detect the Hawkeyes at those distances in the first place, so...???

That was my assumption. It seemed that others were saying otherwise, so I just wanted confirmation.

 

We've told you how to get "confirmation", by using the "show all" keystroke.

 

The question now is whether you will actually do it to satisfy yourself, or keep posting about assumptions.

 

Doesn't that seem like a rational, sensible course of action? Just go have a look see.

That was my assumption. It seemed that others were saying otherwise, so I just wanted confirmation.

 

We've told you how to get "confirmation", by using the "show all" keystroke.

 

The question now is whether you will actually do it to satisfy yourself, or keep posting about assumptions.

 

Doesn't that seem like a rational, sensible course of action? Just go have a look see.

 

I'm going to toss my hat in here: At scenario start of Thanh Hoa Bridge, the CVBG was only 329 miles from ZVa, one of the airfields with a Mig-17, and only 374 miles from ZZa (Hanoi). Seeing an E-2 that's radiating at that distance with ESM is not a stretch at all, even if it's directly over the carrier. If it's 40 miles out in front, it's even easier. A Mig-17F coming in at 400 knots from a patrol station wouldn't take very long at all, especially if you have time compression on, and are busy trying to kill AD sites.

 

I don't see it as improbable at all.

I'm going to toss my hat in here: At scenario start of Thanh Hoa Bridge, the CVBG was only 329 miles from ZVa, one of the airfields with a Mig-17, and only 374 miles from ZZa (Hanoi). Seeing an E-2 that's radiating at that distance with ESM is not a stretch at all, even if it's directly over the carrier. If it's 40 miles out in front, it's even easier. A Mig-17F coming in at 400 knots from a patrol station wouldn't take very long at all, especially if you have time compression on, and are busy trying to kill AD sites. I don't see it as improbable at all.

 

Neither do I, mavfin, and I think it would be helpful if folks made the effort to take a solid second look rather than proceeding blindly on false assumptions.

 

Looking and "seeing" with your own two eyes is undoubtedly preferable to having me preach it from across the Ether.

That was my assumption. It seemed that others were saying otherwise, so I just wanted confirmation.

 

We've told you how to get "confirmation", by using the "show all" keystroke.

It has become quite clear that you don't believe anything that I confirm myself, so I sought confirmation from others.

 

I seem to have an inability to convey the idea that I am not seeing what others say I should be seeing. If that were understood, then telling me to see for myself would be, well, nonsense.

 

I'm going to toss my hat in here: At scenario start of Thanh Hoa Bridge, the CVBG was only 329 miles from ZVa, one of the airfields with a Mig-17, and only 374 miles from ZZa (Hanoi). Seeing an E-2 that's radiating at that distance with ESM is not a stretch at all, even if it's directly over the carrier. If it's 40 miles out in front, it's even easier. A Mig-17F coming in at 400 knots from a patrol station wouldn't take very long at all, especially if you have time compression on, and are busy trying to kill AD sites.

 

I don't see it as improbable at all.

There is confusion here, and I believe it is because parts of three different iterations of the case are becoming co-mingled. Let me try to explain:

 

1. There were the circumstances of an original play of the scenario.

2. There were the circumstances of a later re-play of the scenario.

3. There were the circumstances of a recent test case that I executed at someone's request.

 

Case #3 is what this discussion has evolved to cover, but some aspects of the earlier cases are being dragged into it, hence (I think) the reason for the confusion. So, let me summarize the test case (#3):

 

I was asked to re-run the scenario in order to get actual data for various distances and so forth. I did so. In that test run, all I did was to launch two Hawkeyes into the general areas where I had them deployed in the earlier scenarios. I did this immediately upon starting the scenario. One was sent a couple hundred miles NE of the carrier group, and the second was sent about 150 miles to the ESE of the carrier. (As per normal, the Hawkeyes' radars were off until they reached their patrol areas). I then turned on the carrier group's radars because I was intending to measure their range as well as the other radar ranges - mainly to satisfy my own curiousity in that case, as that range info had not been explicitly requested.

 

While I was measuring the ranges of the base radars and the carrier radars, the Hawkeyes were moving towards their respective patrol positions with their radars still off. When the Hawkeyes had gone about 100 nm, MiGs were first detected by the carrier radar within the range circle of the carrier's AAW missiles, and were heading towards the second Hawkeye, right across the carrier group. (Although not relevent here, the carrier group auto-fired at the MiGs and after three or four volleys finally downed them. I estimate they were about 20-40 nm from the carrier group icon at that time).

 

Anyway, my first point is that the AI had detected the presence of at least the second Hawkeye, and had sent MiGs to intercept it, even though the Hawkeye never had its radars turned on. First puzzle: Howcum the AI even detected it when the carrier group was at least 330 miles from the nearest AI ground radar?

My second point is that the MiGs arrived at the point they were detected, which was probably at least 350 nm from their base (because the carrier was 380 nm from that base, and they were detected within the missile range of the carrier group, which actually would put their trip a bit less than the 380 nm that I was thinking of before). Anyway, those MiGs must have travelled that 350 nm in the same timeframe as the Hawkeyes traveled about 100 nm... which my corroded algebra thinks should mean that the MiGs must have averaged 3.5 X the cruise speed of the Hawkeyes. So, the second puzzle is: How could they do this so quickly, and without exhausting their fuel, and without operating at a higher altitude which intuituvely I would think should have made them detectable at a greater range from the carrier group.

 

Bottom line is that I remain puzzled how they could detect the Hawkeyes, and move so fast and so stealthily into the carrier's radar envelope. And BTW, it now occurs to me that it seemed to take an inordinate amount of AAW fire for the carrier group to down those MiGs.

And BTW, it now occurs to me that it seemed to take an inordinate amount of AAW fire for the carrier group to down those MiGs.

 

50% PK SM2ER Block I missiles at long range vs a highly maneuverable (high ATA rating) VSmall target? Yeah, very possible you'll have several misses. At that range on a VSmall plane target, it might miss more than with straight in (non-maneuvering) VSmall missiles.