Replenishment At Sea

[Gdtrfb]

Ok kinda rambled there......what i guess i'm tryin to say is on a ship space is finite so the point values must take into acount that while a AIM-54 and a 2000lb Jdam cost vastly diff amounts of money they take up the same volume about.So just because you have spent more points in unguided doesn't meen you would have that many more weapons or vice-versa.so to be accurate we must come up with an estimate of the internal magazine volume of the ships in question.

Also a significant portion of the AOE weps will be dedicated to the SM-1/2/3 and Tlam/Harpoon of the escorts.anyhoo if anyone wants to talk/heckle me my e-mail is there or message me

 

Joe

[Akula]

After reading Peter's wish list, I think we do need to add 'hanger space' into the mix as well.

 

We could give the hanger space a number 'in square footage most likely' and then the aircraft would need a 'surface area' number to determine how much hanger space it would occupy.

 

We currently have an arbitrary 'capacity' number, but as was pointed out, a Sea King takes up a lot more space than a Sea Sprite, etc. So you could have more short range helo's, or fewer big LR ones.

[Gdtrfb]

I was on the TR and we had only room in the hanger deck for 20 AC as we had an MEU on board....since their stuff took up room.... we were the first CVN to use this MEU attachment....(wooohoooo 800 Jarheads with nothing to do but stand in line for chow !@#!@##!$$!!@!#@#)

anyhoo i believe this is now SOP for CVBG so this will reduce hanger volume but remeber most AC are on the flight deck anyway.....there are pad eyes on the flight deck for foul weather.....

 

just my 1 1/2 cents

 

cheers Joe

[pmaidhof]

I was on the TR and we had only room in the hanger deck for 20 AC as we had an MEU on board....since their stuff took up room....

When was this? How long were they aboard the TR? Why weren't they on the standard amphibs?

 

Sometime it boils down to "Jarheads" being paid for what they can do, not what they do at some specific point in time. I'm sure they appreciated the "ride".

[TEPonta]

I was on the Midway and never dealt with the Marines beyond the normal MarDet, so I can't speak to what the last 2 posters said. I do know that the hangar always had plenty of room for extra A/C if push had come to shove. There were times it seemed that the hangar bay was used damn near as much for temporarily storing, staging, and moving things around as it was for A/C. "There's always room for one more" seemed to be the philosophy. I can't envision us trying to squeeze in another fighter squadron, but a helo or two or three probably wouldn't have been that much of a problem.

 

Buddha

[pmaidhof]

I was on the Midway and never dealt with the Marines beyond the normal MarDet, so I can't speak to what the last 2 posters said. I do know that the hangar always had plenty of room for extra A/C if push had come to shove. There were times it seemed that the hangar bay was used damn near as much for temporarily storing, staging, and moving things around as it was for A/C. "There's always room for one more" seemed to be the philosophy. I can't envision us trying to squeeze in another fighter squadron, but a helo or two or three probably wouldn't have been that much of a problem.

 

I agree from the stand point of the amphibs such as an LHA, since there is not as much parking for aircraft and helos on the flight deck, there would have been room for for at least one more helo on the hanger deck.

 

800 Marines embarked on a carrier, by the numbers sounds like the BLT of a MEU. For whatever reason they were on the carrier, when on a ship, other than as assigned to a MarDet, the Marines are considered "embarked troops", not "ships company" so standing in line for chow seems like a pretty good idea to me. What else would you have preferred them to do? Better than having them looking for something to break. The old saying goes lock a Marine and a ball bearing in a quadcon for 24 hours, when you open it up, he will either have broke it or lost it.

[Gdtrfb]

I was on the TR from 05/90 to 07/92 we were the lucky first for the MEU and gator freighters can't keep up with CVBG (not for long anyway)also the "lucky first" for gals on board also........anyhoo i was part of "A" gang so at least the Jarheads never had hot water....well at least it was either brrrr cold or steam....

i believe the MEU thingy became standard practice after that but could be wrong as i didn't keep in touch with anyone one the TR after 94....but we did drop the most tonnage of "presents" for Mr Saddam!

 

cheers ,Joe

[pmaidhof]

I was on the TR from 05/90 to 07/92 we were the lucky first for the MEU and gator freighters can't keep up with CVBG (not for long anyway)also the "lucky first" for gals on board also........anyhoo i was part of "A" gang so at least the Jarheads never had hot water....well at least it was either brrrr cold or steam....

i believe the MEU thingy became standard practice after that but could be wrong as i didn't keep in touch with anyone one the TR after 94....but we did drop the most tonnage of "presents" for Mr Saddam!

 

cheers ,Joe

 

Hi Joe,

 

Not that I do not doubt your experience, but having been active duty USMC from 1988-1992 and again 2002, reserve time between that through retirement Aug 1, 2008 I had never heard that. In addition, having had to think up interesting things to keep my platoon, part of the embarked troops aboard LHA-2, while wondering around the Med and western Africa during most of 1990, the only time we came close enough to the CVBG was for the very nice photo op of all the ships etc, standing in line for chow was a daily training highlight. That along with MORP (Marine Officer Rest Period), "Hey, it's general quarters, again, quick hit the red light.", but that's another story for another time.

[Gdtrfb]

Well i think the MEU stuff started in 92 but may have been earlier.....my memory is kinda bad from meds and being ill but check with anybody on the TR and theyll tell ya we had the MEU on board for at least three deployments again i dont know if it continued after 93-94 as all my buddies were eaos/pcs after that.

nothin like workin 18 and 6 and goin to chow and findin 500 marines in line....

ya gotta love it......

we took them to FT Lauderdale / ST Thomas and a show for the Indian CNO

cheers Joe

[RA-5C]

Replenishment could be factored into the game engine based on simple table values (making "wild-ass assumptions") similar to refueling

• tanker or supply ship would have to be joined to the group
  
• tanker or supply ship would have to be joined to the group
  
• a time value would be assigned to each item
  
• X amount of time per gallon/pound of fuel transferred
  
• X amount of time per item (ammo, missiles, etc.)
  

If you really wanted to dive into it, you could base the time factor on using helo (VERTREP) or ship-to-ship (UNREP)

• require the ship being serviced to detach from the group
  
• join the supply vessel
  
• split from the vessel when finished and rejoin the group (this would take into account speed/maneuvering issues)
  

Taking into account inventory (no more endless ammo on CV/CVN's) controls that are applied to shells and missiles (SAM) the system would

• look at the total allowed quantity of an item (ex. AGM-88's) (this would have to be defined per unit type)
  
• look at the remaining inventory on hand
  
• transfer the difference using the time factors applied (this would "top off" all items)
  

Again, if you really want to go nuts... set controls on how much and what the supply vessel could carry. Using it in longer scenarios, you could then based your supply load out on your task group's needs. If you plan poorly... you arrive with Harpoons when the carrier (for example) is dying for AAM's. It would make the play more realistic... but would require micro-management that some players may not desire/be suited for... therefore you may want an "auto-resupply switch" where you join the group and "poof!.." instant supplies!

[wombat1417]

This does involve replenishment; maybe it doesn't belong here, but.....

I played a Baltic Sea scenario a while ago where my missile boats launched all their missiles. I sent them back to port where I figured they'd be rearmed, just like an aircraft at an airfield. They weren't. So, don't forget replenishment on land, too.

[gkm]

1. So we cap the speed of the entire task force for a set amount of time to complete the replinishing. I don't know how long it takes but obviosly its not something that is done in 30 minutes. Of course there is also the ships that much replishish DITW. This would require the group coming to a complete stop.

 

2. VertRep could be accompilshed underway I assume. You just assign a set number of replinishment points per helo load and let them fly from one ship to another.

 

3. Torpedo contacts: Preferably you would want to find a 'safe' place to replinish anyway. Question is do we want to auto-break if the contact is made, or do we want to keep the simple speed limit on until it completes? One of those things that puts a little planning into it, instead of topping off after every engagement. You pay your money and take your chances basically.

 

4. Obviously by my #3, I think UnRep should be a player initiated action. It doesn't attempt it until you are comfortable doing it.

VertRep by helo - If that means setting up a bunch of ferry moves for the CH-46's, that might be getting into the micro-managing I think you are looking to avoid. Maybe being able to assign a VertRep profile to the helicopter platform?

 

Item 1 keeps it simple. Item 3 makes sense. Keep it simple, IMHO.

[gkm]

Replenishment at port - when a ship or surface unit is "docked", it is merged with the port or base unit. In the formation editor a surface unit (and for that matter missile barges) can be assigned to a base and serve as some picket or outer defense asset. For a ship to be truly "docked", maybe add another location to the formation editor besides the center of the formation (called docked?). While docked, the ship can be resupplied, maybe even repaired. Should the base be assigned a certain repair capacity (points per day?), or a number of docks? Size of docks (there has been some discussion about the Kitty Hawk going to India, however a limiting factor is the size of drydock available at Cochin)?

In addition, should a docked ship be prohibited from firing weapons or using sensors? I don't think ir may be a good idea to have a SPY-1 running while in the drydock.

[donaldseadog]

Replenishment at port - when a ship or surface unit is "docked", it is merged with the port or base unit. In the formation editor a surface unit (and for that matter missile barges) can be assigned to a base and serve as some picket or outer defense asset. For a ship to be truly "docked", maybe add another location to the formation editor besides the center of the formation (called docked?). While docked, the ship can be resupplied, maybe even repaired. Should the base be assigned a certain repair capacity (points per day?), or a number of docks? Size of docks (there has been some discussion about the Kitty Hawk going to India, however a limiting factor is the size of drydock available at Cochin)?

In addition, should a docked ship be prohibited from firing weapons or using sensors? I don't think ir may be a good idea to have a SPY-1 running while in the drydock.

This is a little of track, I've sometimes had ships joined to a port in its formation and not been able to 'split' them out. In such case I've launched or used an available aircraft and 'joined' the ship to the aircraft then split it so as to have it finally independant. I assumed that ships weren't meant to be joined to a port (even though it makes sence).

More to the point for here, although getting a bit fiddly, when calculating times for unrep, vertrep, take into account the navy invololved? I was on HMAS Supply in the mid 70's and did an exercise with one of our northern neihbours, their corvette (I think it was a corvette, some twin deisel job) was down a few cylinders and couldn't catch us at a breath taking 12 knots (I think we did unreps at 12 knots, its a while back). They were pretty slow with all the seaman ship stuff involved as well - God knows our couple of guys who went across in the 'chair' were glad that we had the loose end of the rope.

Also, thinking about how big a programing job this looks, could it be tackled by starting with the most immeadiate task which might be resupply of armaments, and once teethed extend it?

Don Thomas

Thinking further:

I'm thinking that running replenishments at sea is a bit like launching aircraft from a carrier.

You need to look at sea room, consider swell and wind then pick a course. You calculate how long you'll be running that course to complete the replenishment(s) and (you'll use a standard steaming speed) therefore the distance. For underway replenishments (unrep) you have to stick to that course and speed until finshed or execute a 'break away'.

You'll have a capacity rate per side for (unrep) that rate independant (pretty well) of whether you are doing one or both sides. The rate varies with various goods. I assume today replenishment ships have on board helos for vertical replenishment (vertrep), each helo having a capacity rate (including turn around time) and I'd also assume that normally the ships are brought relatively close in even if only requiring vertrep so capacity rate wouldn't be greatly dependant on distance apart. (I might be wrong here and verteps might be done over long distances to save steaming time - please correct me here if you know). I'd also assume that today unreps are pretty much only for liquids (fuel). For anything more than mail or personell transfer I'd assume that a number of round trips would normally be required for a meaningful transfer of cargo. A someone has already pointed out a pallet of coke won't last long.

I'd assume few if any combat ships (at least ones that are likely to frequently require replenishments) have helos of sufficient capacity to be of use in vertrep so the calculations could be based on the replenishment ships capability, ie number of helos.

To make things easy we could start with two code procedures, one for unrep on the basis of supplying fuel and one for vertrep on the basis of supply armament.

If these two items were given respective 'scores' for different armament and fuel then once the two procedures were ironed out any other form of goods could be implemented with its own 'score' into the appropriate vertrep or unrep procedure.

If only fuel for steaming was considered (not fuel for aircraft and auxillary equipment) then I guess the unrep is the simpler of the two and the place to start. As with aircraft groups joining, sip units would need to be within a predetermined minimum distance and some time delay for manouvreing alongside included.

 

As to questions such as what does Harpoon do in the case of torpedo contact, I think it should use the same procedures as for carriers launching aircraft, which I assume is ignore time considerations and get out of there. In the mid 70's I did a short stint on the Australian oiler HMAS Supply and from memory, unless you were transfering personell, you didn't care too much about spilling oil or dropping goods in an emergency breakaway. (ofcourse in exercises you always cleared lines and recovered gear but if a real emergency, which could be mechanical failure, a shit man at the wheel, what ever, you basically let everything go and get out) Supply didn't have much accelleration and until the ships alongside got out of the way couldn't manouvre, but a destroyer or frigate could be let loose and choof of to a 90 degree departure angle in a couple of minutes giving you some sea room. The biggest danger is in fact one ship getting in too close because a venturi effect can set up and suck the two ships together, there was always a watch doing nothing but constantly gauging the separation and the Supply Captain could order a break away and send a ship off at a moments notice if the separation distance came down to a crtical value.

If replenishments are implemented then also more attention could be given to fuel use rates. Ships running flat chat use hugely more fuel than normal cruise.

[SaSi]

Hi, I am new here and this is my first post. However, I consider myself a veteran harpoonist having played with the game since the original was released in '89.

 

Regarding replenishment at sea (and in general at harbors for surface units and airbases for aircraft), here's one comment and one suggestion.

 

Rearming surface units should receive primary focus. Ammo ships are vital part of any fleet and resupply is part of the reality.

 

Rearming aircraft to any ordnance at any airbase departs from reality. Ferrying TU-22s from Russia down to Lajes and rearming them with Kitchens ad infinitum makes some scenarios child play.

 

What I am proposing is that each base and each supply ship have a configurable ordnance of ammo. The scenario creator can decide how much is realistic. In the same way they decide how much units to use.

 

That means that an aircraft can no longer re-supply with missiles not stocked at the airbase of choise.

 

It also means that cargo ships can carry ammo to another airbase.

 

It also means that airbases cannot resuply aircraft with scarce weapons as often as now.

 

It also means that between strikes, a fleet of vessels can rearm themselves and be prepared for the next strike, instead of sitting helpless.

 

A supply ship can ressuply any ship in the formation. For as long as the transfer lasts (proportional to the amount of ammo) both ships are automatically split from the formation and stay in a slow cuising and steady course. They also cannot launch attacks or defend themselves.

 

An aircraft can only use what ammo us available at the base. And every rearming uses up part of the stock. And an aircraft moving to another base can either utilize "generic" or compatible armament or the player needs to utilize cargo aircraft to move ammo to the base they are needed.

 

Keeping things simple is an integral part of how Harpoon is designed and it's success. I understand that fuel, water and food are also things to consider but any ship will have enough of that for the 2-5 days a normal (long) scenario lasts.

 

Just some of my (many) thoughts on how the game could improve realism, make for some more considerate use of resources and present new challenges.