Fulda Gap

[SlipHavoc]

7 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Don't help having long range bombers to places that don't existed anymore or have modern skyscrapers.

Vietnam today doesn't look like Vietnam in 1970. Tokyo today. Don't look like Tokyo in 1944 etc. So no spherical earth is of no help for historic maps. And Wags himself has said the historic maps(named Vietnam and Korea specifically) will need their own map. Separate from spherical each that will be modern. 

Something that was mentioned in the recent dev blog for "the flight sim named after a WW2 Soviet attack aircraft that is now working on a Korean War sim", is that since the war, South Korea has significantly altered its coastline through land fills, and so a modern map cannot be used even as an accurate outline or for some terrain elevation data.  That's something I had never even thought about; it's not just the types of buildings that have changed but the actual outline and topography of the country, especially around the cities.

[Gunfreak]

9 minutes ago, SlipHavoc said:

Something that was mentioned in the recent dev blog for "the flight sim named after a WW2 Soviet attack aircraft that is now working on a Korean War sim", is that since the war, South Korea has significantly altered its coastline through land fills, and so a modern map cannot be used even as an accurate outline or for some terrain elevation data.  That's something I had never even thought about; it's not just the types of buildings that have changed but the actual outline and topography of the country, especially around the cities.

Saw that too. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

One thing to also consider about a Cold War gone hot in the Fulda Gap in regards to carrier forces in theatre is timeframe.

How long has that gone on for?
Who has come out worse for wear in that time period?
It could be that the GIUK gap is secured and then those Carrier assets could be committed for inland work.

These are things that must be considered by mission makers.

Edited July 10, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Rifter]

2 hours ago, Raisuli said:

Trust me, in the early 80s that all anyone droned on talked about.

Oh, I’m old enough to remember that time and I experienced this in Germany in particular, which would have been simply wiped out in any possible version of a full scale conflict. That war would not have been about moving carrier groups around on the planning table. That war would have been about preventing the Soviets from occupying Germany at all costs. Nuclear landmines (Atomic Demolition Munitions) were intended to stop the advance of enemy troops. And thereafter the warhead size for the nukes used would have been gradually increased.

So what do you guys want with those NATO plans?

While I am quite sure that there were no specific NATO plans to employ carrier task forces in the near of German coastline,  I still don’t put any weight into that. Those were just plans. I mean...P L A N S ! We all know how big plans work out in big scenarios. They don’t.

Therefore I will happily and carefree and with a light heart use a future Fulda Gap map with carriers. Provided there is a bit of sea. Not even for a millisecond I will vote to keep the sea out of this map just because there were no concrete NATO plans for carrier deployments for Central Europe.

Our assets in DCS are limited anyway and I want to make use of them as much as possible.

[MAXsenna]

Don't help having long range bombers to places that don't existed anymore or have modern skyscrapers.
Vietnam today doesn't look like Vietnam in 1970. Tokyo today. Don't look like Tokyo in 1944 etc. So no spherical earth is of no help for historic maps. And Wags himself has said the historic maps(named Vietnam and Korea specifically) will need their own map. Separate from spherical each that will be modern. 

You missed the point, no worries. Not having historical maps on a rudimentary sphere will be a list opportunity.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Raisuli]

14 minutes ago, Rifter said:

While I am quite sure that there were no specific NATO plans to employ carrier task forces in the near of German coastline,  I still don’t put any weight into that. Those were just plans. I mean...P L A N S ! We all know how big plans work out in big scenarios. They don’t.

Therefore I will happily and carefree and with a light heart use a future Fulda Gap map with carriers. Provided there is a bit of sea. Not even for a millisecond I will vote to keep the sea out of this map just because there were no concrete NATO plans for carrier deployments for Central Europe.

Our assets in DCS are limited anyway and I want to make use of them as much as possible.

Europe was a problem for the Army and Air Force.  Do need Bittburg for that very reason, but that is a redonkulously dense piece of real estate.  I don't think there's a single point anywhere in that area more than 500 meters from a town, village, farm, train track, road, or substation.  Well, unless they release a post-apocalyptic central European map that's all desert.  I don't see that map happening in any kind of warm, fuzzy detail given the current limitations.

The Navy's job was to keep supplies from the US flowing into Europe.  Then again, we have carriers on the black sea.  Blow up a few bridges and we can launch aircraft from the Rhine, but watch out for Lorelei. 

[Rifter]

47 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

Europe was a problem for the Army and Air Force.  Do need Bittburg for that very reason, but that is a redonkulously dense piece of real estate.  I don't think there's a single point anywhere in that area more than 500 meters from a town, village, farm, train track, road, or substation.  Well, unless they release a post-apocalyptic central European map that's all desert.  I don't see that map happening in any kind of warm, fuzzy detail given the current limitations.

The settlement density of Germany is for sure a huge challenge for the present map technology of DCS. It will unfortunately limit the expansion of such a map in way, that it will leave a lot of people very unhappy.

48 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

The Navy's job was to keep supplies from the US flowing into Europe.  Then again, we have carriers on the black sea.  Blow up a few bridges and we can launch aircraft from the Rhine, but watch out for Lorelei. 

So if ED decides to block carriers from being used on the Caucasus map you would be one of those who would say: "Given the unlikeliness of US carriers in the Black Sea this finally respects reality!”? Now come on, don't be such a spoilsport.
I see it pragmatically: If the water is navigable, then it is feasible. My reality limit for a carrier task force would therefore be the Baltic Sea. North Sea is fine. Black Sea is unlikely but technically doable.

By the way, since I don’t have the Sinai map: Is the Suez Channel navigable for carriers?

[MAXsenna]

54 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

Then again, we have carriers on the black sea.  Blow up a few bridges and we can launch aircraft from the Rhine, but watch out for Lorelei. 

Yeah! That's some gal for sure.  

1 minute ago, Rifter said:

By the way, since I don’t have the Sinai map: Is the Suez Channel navigable for carriers?

I believe so, but you know DCS pathfinding. I think @cfragdid it? 

[cfrag]

38 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

I believe so, but you know DCS pathfinding.

For a carrier to navigate the Suez Channel, you must ensure that it's slow (I think below 20 km/h) and always remain inside the orange buoys. Which orange buoys? Exactly. They are tiny, and not orange in ME. Just like @MAXsenna kindly mentioned, I did indeed create a miz template and added eternal civ traffic (please see here); the route that the carrier takes is guaranteed to navigate the channel.

That being said, I doubt that you can get a carrier up the Rhein - IFAIK it's about 2.5m deep on average, that's 8 feet. 

[MBot]

4 hours ago, Rifter said:

Lookin forward to it!

Here: https://irp.fas.org/doddir/navy/strategy1980s.pdf

I belief you will find this a most interesting lecture. The Navy was very much prepared to fight what they called a Global Conventional War.

[Silver_Dragon]

13 minutes ago, cfrag said:

For a carrier to navigate the Suez Channel, you must ensure that it's slow (I think below 20 km/h) and always remain inside the orange buoys. Which orange buoys? Exactly. They are tiny, and not orange in ME. Just like @MAXsenna kindly mentioned, I did indeed create a miz template and added eternal civ traffic (please see here); the route that the carrier takes is guaranteed to navigate the channel.

That being said, I doubt that you can get a carrier up the Rhein - IFAIK it's about 2.5m deep on average, that's 8 feet. 

Has a post form me somewhere, about the Suez navigation rules... and a carrier follow that rules, cross that without problems.

And about the carriers, someone missing the Baltic Gap...

Edited July 10, 2024 by Silver_Dragon

[MAXsenna]

9 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Has a post form me somewhere, about the Suez navigation rules... and a carrier follow that rules, cross that without problems.

Are you referring to the real world or the game? As we were discussing if it could done in the game. That's why I pinged cfrag. 

I'm not a strategist, but I don't think it's a nice place for carriers in the Baltics during wartime from either side during the Cold War. 

Cheers! 

[Silver_Dragon]

20 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Are you referring to the real world or the game? As we were discussing if it could done in the game. That's why I pinged cfrag. 

I'm not a strategist, but I don't think it's a nice place for carriers in the Baltics during wartime from either side during the Cold War. 

Cheers! 

The carriers dont go to enter into de baltic, but some carriers on the north sea can launch strikes vs all baltic front and denay / Supresse and Destroy the baltic fleet and air assets, and make deep strikes vs soviet territory. On fact, on the document, has very clear the Navy need to support combat operations on that front and central front.

[MAXsenna]

The carriers dont go to enter into de baltic, but some carriers on the north sea can launch strikes vs all baltic front and denay / Supresse and Destroy the baltic fleet and air assets, and make deep strikes vs soviet territory. On fact, on the document, has very clear the Navy need to support combat operations on that front and central front.

Yes, I know that. The question was if carriers could traverse the Suez. Your document is about real life, is it not?
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Silver_Dragon]

34 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Yes, I know that. The question was if carriers could traverse the Suez. Your document is about real life, is it not?
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

CV-66 pass Suez Channel on 1981....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal#/media/File:USS_America_(CV-66)_in_the_Suez_canal_1981.jpg

About Suez limitations (tipical carrier draft has 12 meters, Suez limitations has 18-20 meters).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suezmax

Suez navigation rules:
https://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/English/Navigation/Pages/RulesofNavigation.aspx

Edited July 10, 2024 by Silver_Dragon

[MAXsenna]

39 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

[/url] CV-66 pass Suez Channel on 1981....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal#/media/File:USS_America_(CV-66)_in_the_Suez_canal_1981.jpg
About Suez limitations (tipical carrier draft has 12 meters, Suez limitations has 18-20 meters).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suezmax
Suez navigation rules:
https://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/English/Navigation/Pages/RulesofNavigation.aspx

Thank you, but this doesn't matter. We wondered about the game. If a carrier could traverse the Suez in the game. That depends on the game map, not real life.
Cheers!

Edit: somehow the forum messed up my reply.  

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Edited July 10, 2024 by MAXsenna

[draconus]

7 hours ago, SlipHavoc said:

Also IIRC the F-14's RWR wasn't suitable for overland operations until the very late 1980s or early 1990s so that removes the main air-to-air platform.

The radar might be more prone to ground clutter over land but RWR? Where did you get this from?

[Rifter]

First of all - thanks a lot, MBot! Interesting lecture indeed.

2 hours ago, MBot said:

The Navy was very much prepared to fight what they called a Global Conventional War.

To be a little more precise, the paper selects this one scenario from a whole spectrum of scenarios without calling the remaining scenarios into question.

Quote: Before discussing the role of the Navy in a conventional global war, it must be emphasized that the Navy serves the U.S. government across the entire range of conflict possibilities: from peacetime presence through strategic nuclear war.

And it contains a political component because it is a response to accusations from US politicians at the time that the US had no sensible national strategy and also the role of the Navy within a national strategy was questioned.

Quote: Those who say that the United States has no national strategy are simply wrong. The national strategy is constructed upon this foundation: deterrence first, but if this fails, then defense as far forward as possible, worldwide, in conjunction with our allies.

From my understanding of the paper the US Navy was by no means solely committed to being able to wage a global conventional war; at best, it was limited in its ability to deal with other scenarios to any extent.

The underlaying scenario has an assumed war commencing with a Soviet attack in Southwest Asia, and then spreading to Europe and Korea sixteen days later. At the same time, the meaningfulness of the military implementation of the strategy according to the scenario is questioned.

Quote:What troubles the Navy is that this scenario can be used to influence planning and programming to an unwarranted degree. Actually fighting a global war against the Soviets the way the scenario depicts would be very unwise.

So the paper is apparently intended to show the Navy's basic ability to act based on a fictitious scenario, without excluding other scenarios. It is not possible for me to clearly deduce from the explanations what role the Navy would have played in a conflict at that time and what role it would not have played.

About the Baltic Sea the paper is very clear - that should have been handled by the West German Navy and Naval Airforce.

 

Will take some time to read all of that. Thanks again for sharing it, MBot!

Sidenote: I still have your old "Suppression Fire Script" from 2013. Used it a lot in the past. Not sure if it still works, have to try it.

[SlipHavoc]

6 hours ago, draconus said:

The radar might be more prone to ground clutter over land but RWR? Where did you get this from?

I couldn't remember where I heard that so I did some searching.  I couldn't really find a single source outright stating that the F-14's RWR wasn't suitable for overland operations, but I found several references to the RWR being unreliable, ineffective, and hard to reprogram.  Here are some sources and relevant quotes:

 

Quote

 

Threat warning capability. Again, without exception, every community voiced concern about the poor reliability of the radar-threat-warning systems designed to detect enemy missiles and aircraft. The F-14A and the A-6E, for example, had threat-warning systems designed against weapon systems used by enemy forces during the Vietnam War 25 years ago. Detecting certain missiles operated by the Iraqis presented problems for these aircraft; subsequently, missions flown over Iraq and Kuwait had to be altered. The AV-8Bs and F/A-18s were equipped with the AN/ALR-67, an upgraded threat warning system, but anomalies and ambiguities in the software affected system reliability. Once again, missions over enemy territory were modified during Desert Storm operations because of the problems exhibited by the AN/ALR-67.

-USNI Proceedings, September 1992, https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1992/september/professional-notes

 

 

Quote

 

In Desert Storm ALR-67 reportedly proved less effective than the air force's ALR-56, that made the ASR [the ALR-67(V)3 Advanced Special Receiver] upgrade more urgent.  Reportedly, ALR-67 can be overloaded by high-PRF radars. Reportedly, too, there were some problems in reprogramming ALR-67 and ALQ-126 to deal with the Persian Gulf threats.  Not all aircraft had identical equipment, some could be reprogrammed directly, others required the physical insertion of new memory modules (tripling the time needed).

-Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1994 Update, Norman Friedman, p. 65

 

 

Quote

 

The Navy began producing the original ALR-67 in the early 1980s before proving it was operationally effective. Subsequently, the system performed so poorly during operational testing that the testing had to be curtailed. However, the Navy continued production while the system’s performance problems remained unresolved.

As a result, the Navy installed the unsatisfactory system in operational aircraft for use by the combat forces. Subsequently, some Navy pilots during Operation Desert Storm distrusted the system to the extent that they stopped using it to detect threat radars and relied instead on other means that DOD considers classified.

-ELECTRONIC WARFARE Navy’s New Radar Warning Receiver Needs More Testing, GAO report, June 1996, https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-96-68.pdf

 

 

Quote

 

A subcommittee staff member also said the panel was told by Navy pilots that the Navy has bought commercial radar detectors, similar to ones popularly called 'fuzz-busters' and used by motorists, and performed $2,500 in modifications to the $180 units so they can be used in F-14A, A-6E and A-7E jets to overcome limitations of a $500,000 radar warning receiver.

-Navy using 'fuzz-buster' radar warning devices, UPI, April 1987, https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/04/29/Navy-using-fuzz-buster-radar-warning-devices/2670546667200/

 

More discussion in this old DCS forums thread as well: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/117631-f-14-rwr-question/

And on the other hand, I also found many references to the F-14 doing TARPS recon missions over land during Desert Storm, as well as apparently doing fighter escort missions inland.  I'm not sure if those might have been mainly the planes with systems that had been reprogrammed successfully, or if there were other considerations.

[Raisuli]

15 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The carriers dont go to enter into de baltic, but some carriers on the north sea can launch strikes vs all baltic front and denay / Supresse and Destroy the baltic fleet and air assets, and make deep strikes vs soviet territory. On fact, on the document, has very clear the Navy need to support combat operations on that front and central front.

During the cold war the Baltic was primarily a WP lake; too much Poland and Soviet States (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Kaliningrad) with neutral Sweden and Finland to the north.  The only passage was a rock garden with Denmark on one side and no help on the other, which isn't to say Sweden didn't pull the America's chestnuts out of the fire when they escorted a crippled Blackbird back into friendly territory.  I believe those Swedish pilots got their Air Medals thirty years late, and IIRC they flew a Viggen variant.

For carrier aviation to get involved in a European war the best bet would be the North/Wadden sea out by Bemerhaven.  It's a stretch no matter how you play it launching off a carrier into a European battle, and if the fight gets close enough to the left coast for it to be easy the war is already lost.

Of course with a European map the scenario is what you make it, so put some water somewhere (even in the Baltic) and carrier ops are automagically a thing.  This is a game.

16 hours ago, cfrag said:

That being said, I doubt that you can get a carrier up the Rhein - IFAIK it's about 2.5m deep on average, that's 8 feet. 

Details.  If we can have submarines in DCS we can put a carrier on the Rhein.  Heck, we can probably turn left at the Main and do liberty in Wurzburg.  Work our way to the Danube and I'll get schnitzel at Figlmuller's in Vienna.

Edited July 11, 2024 by Raisuli

[bies]

7 hours ago, SlipHavoc said:

As a result, the Navy installed the unsatisfactory system in operational aircraft for use by the combat forces. Subsequently, some Navy pilots during Operation Desert Storm distrusted the system to the extent that they stopped using it to detect threat radars and relied instead on other means that DOD considers classified.

After many decades, do we even know which other classified device they've been using instead?

During mid 1980s under MSIP II program USAF installed some self protection devices on F-15C which remains classified even today, like AN/ALQ-128.

[SlipHavoc]

23 minutes ago, bies said:

After many decades, do we even know which other classified device they've been using instead?

During mid 1980s under MSIP II program USAF installed some self protection devices on F-15C which remains classified even today, like AN/ALQ-128.

My personal guess is that the "classified means" was the commercial off-the-shelf fuzzbusters mentioned in the next quote.  The word "classified" often implies high-tech sophistication, but in this case it could easily just be that if it became known that we were using a COTS device to pick up enemy radars, the enemy could simply buy one of their own and test their own radars against it, and maybe find some easy way to make their radars not trigger the device, and/or determine the range and sensitivity of the device and therefore make accurate guesses as to whether our planes had picked up their signal at a given distance, etc.

[Gierasimov]

I wonder what is the limitation of DCS currently in terms of polygons count in a DCS terrain, which directly influences the possible size of the terrain. 

Then, having in mind constant developments, like the new APi, perhaps the TDK can be expanded so that making  a map much larger than we expect it to be. It was mentioned that Afghanistan is the most ambitious project to date, it we know Iraq is also coming, so maybe the Germany map will beat even those and will be released with DCS 3.0, sometime in 2026?

[Gierasimov]

In the new FC 2024 trailer @1:18, @1:24 and possibly two more one second shots, is this the new map or perhaps Kola? 

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, Gierasimov said:

In the new FC 2024 trailer @1:18, @1:24 and possibly two more one second shots, is this the new map or perhaps Kola? 

The trailer that came in my feed only goes to 1:11?