No carrier ops on Afghanistan?

[MrWolf]

Simple question. I see this map adds only ground. So I guess the f-14 and f-18 won't be able to deploy from carrier?

I mostly fly carrier based aircraft because I like all the stuff involved with it. Just evaluating if I want to buy this on pre-release or in a few years.

[AndyJWest]

Given that the nearest open sea is around 300 miles from the southern Afghanistan border, the map clearly isn't going to support carrier ops.

[El Chapo]

This is because you don't know Kajaki lake yet... 

[AndyJWest]

2 hours ago, El Chapo said:

This is because you don't know Kajaki lake yet... 

You'll need a rather big helicopter to airlift a CVN there...

[rob10]

8 hours ago, MrWolf said:

Simple question. I see this map adds only ground. So I guess the f-14 and f-18 won't be able to deploy from carrier?

I mostly fly carrier based aircraft because I like all the stuff involved with it. Just evaluating if I want to buy this on pre-release or in a few years.

Nineline posted a pretty detailed explanation of why you won't be getting any sea on the Afghanistan map.

 

[JesterIsDead]

Can we make missions load different maps? Do some time warp to land in the Arabian sea?

[Bungle_uk]

 

14 hours ago, JesterIsDead said:

Can we make missions load different maps? Do some time warp to land in the Arabian sea?

In a word..Yes

[Silver_Dragon]

Wags has confirmed Carrier Ops has no available on Afghanistan map yet.

 

[buceador]

Without wanting to state the obvious there are 6 other maps with the potential for carrier ops...

[SteelPig]

22 minutes ago, buceador said:

Without wanting to state the obvious there are 6 other maps with the potential for carrier ops...

The obvious thing here is: You've missed the point. 

[buceador]

18 minutes ago, SteelPig said:

The obvious thing here is: You've missed the point. 

Ok, which was? 

[BIGNEWY]

Folks please keep it civil. 

As mentioned the ocean is to far outside the planned area for carrier ops, Afghanistan terrain is already one of the biggest terrains in DCS and we have to consider not only file size but performance. 

thank you 

[Dragon1-1]

Worth noting, AFAIK most Hornet sorties in Afghan flew from land bases. It's a landlocked country with enough US-friendly territory on its borders that flying directly from a carrier would've been a waste of fuel.

[SteelPig]

44 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Worth noting, AFAIK most Hornet sorties in Afghan flew from land bases. It's a landlocked country with enough US-friendly territory on its borders that flying directly from a carrier would've been a waste of fuel.

Tell this the Navy-Squadrons who flew sorties over Afghanistan. ^^

[Dragon1-1]

Just because a squadron is part of the USN doesn't mean it flies from the boat all the time. FYI, carrier-based missions could take in excess of ten hours during the initial phase of OEF, with multiple AARs in country. IIRC they moved to Kandahar (which we will conveniently have on the map) as soon as they could, because flying such long legs did a number on both the aircrews and their aircraft.

[SteelPig]

9 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Just because a squadron is part of the USN doesn't mean it flies from the boat all the time. FYI, carrier-based missions could take in excess of ten hours during the initial phase of OEF, with multiple AARs in country. IIRC they moved to Kandahar (which we will conveniently have on the map) as soon as they could, because flying such long legs did a number on both the aircrews and their aircraft.

Missions over Iraq took same time. 6 hours on station for CAS with multiple Yoyo ops were performed. And they did from the boat. Marines go shore-based. Navy rarely does. 

[Minsky]

29 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

FYI, carrier-based missions could take in excess of ten hours during the initial phase of OEF, with multiple AARs in country.

A typical Harrier mission lasted about five hours when operating from the NAG. An hour more than that for the Hornets. And up to 8.5 hours for the CAP-tasked Tomcats. Anything longer was an exception.

Edited April 10, 2024 by Minsky

[Nealius]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Worth noting, AFAIK most Hornet sorties in Afghan flew from land bases. It's a landlocked country with enough US-friendly territory on its borders that flying directly from a carrier would've been a waste of fuel.

No. Hornets and Tomcats were employed from Enterprise and Vinson in the North Arabian Sea, then Roosevelt and Stennis joined. 

[Dragon1-1]

Isn't that just for the early OEF, though? Specifically, the high intensity phase when they were just bombing the crap out of the country. For most of the war in Afghanistan, I think it was mostly USMC Hornets out of Kandahar.

Remember how the war in question went. The US rolled in and basically took over in one year, and then played whack-a-mole with the Taliban for twenty. The latter part was where the problems started and the war became something more than JDAM/LGB practice.

[El Chapo]

On 4/10/2024 at 1:12 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Isn't that just for the early OEF, though? Specifically, the high intensity phase when they were just bombing the crap out of the country. For most of the war in Afghanistan, I think it was mostly USMC Hornets out of Kandahar.

Remember how the war in question went. The US rolled in and basically took over in one year, and then played whack-a-mole with the Taliban for twenty. The latter part was where the problems started and the war became something more than JDAM/LGB practice.

Not so true. Until 2010 at least there were regular squadrons from both US and French carriers operating in Afghanistan mostly in the south of course.

[Dragon1-1]

That would make it a little under a half of the war (yeah, it was way too damn long, why do you ask?).  It's a little strange that they ran ops from the water instead of moving their aircraft to some friendly place on land, but I've never accused the military of making efficient use of the taxpayers' dollars. Then again, you could say the same about this whole sordid affair.

[exhausted]

Carrier ops are important to the timeframe ED is modeling in Afghanistan. Cutting out naval ops is basically taking a map with already extremely limited function, and removing the US Navy's Tomcat and Hornet contributions. The early Harrier strikes were flown from the sea as well. I don't at all understand why "there's too much detail" is a reason for deleting featureless water.

[Dangerzone]

On 3/30/2024 at 4:58 AM, MrWolf said:

Simple question. I see this map adds only ground. So I guess the f-14 and f-18 won't be able to deploy from carrier?

I mostly fly carrier based aircraft because I like all the stuff involved with it. Just evaluating if I want to buy this on pre-release or in a few years.

I get your disappointment. The most detailed map yet made soon to be released, and no carrier ops. (I too am a carrier lover). I guess the options that are available to us are either:

1. Use other maps for carrier ops, and just enjoy Afghanistan for something different.
    
2. Be unrealistic and use the lake for carrier ops if we still want carrier operations.
    
3. Wait until DCS "World" is released as a full globe and then do carrier based ops from Persia. 
    
4. Put our focus on Kola, Australia, or other maps being released that cater for carrier ops. 

In the end, DCS's limitations combined with the geographic attributes of Afghanistan doesn't make it an option for this map at this time, and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon™, so we either accept this and work with what we have - or get upset about things we can't change. The serenity prayer comes to mind with this one - especially the serenity to accept the things we can't change and the wisdom to know when that's the case. 

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

Carrier ops are important to the timeframe ED is modeling in Afghanistan. Cutting out naval ops is basically taking a map with already extremely limited function, and removing the US Navy's Tomcat and Hornet contributions. The early Harrier strikes were flown from the sea as well. I don't at all understand why "there's too much detail" is a reason for deleting featureless water.

In fairness and as someone who would be interest in fly from the water, the lack of water seems to be more about the land between the intended map area and the water rather than the water itself. I don't know specifically what DCS's map limitations are so if ED says it's not possible I'll have to defer to them. It does make sense that the ground between would have some cost.

Though on the other hand, a compromise could have been water on the southern edge. Still we do have the ability to fly from the Gulf to Afghanistan with the load map function. If you don't want to buy the Gulf Map, you can make do with Marianas. So it's not completely off the table.

[Cab]

It's just geography. The Google Machine says it's about 300 miles from Afghanistan to the nearest coast on the Arabian Sea. That's a lot of landscape to model to just to provide carrier operations.

And yes, I know people in this thread have said they don't need any real land detail for those 300 miles, but that doesn't seem acceptable for a premium product.