No carrier ops on Afghanistan?

[Jackjack171]

 USMC F/A-18C ops out of Kandahar it is. This will be fun!

Edited April 16, 2024 by Jackjack171

[Cab]

57 minutes ago, Jackjack171 said:

 USMC F/A-18C ops out of Kandahar it is. This will be fun!

 

Exactly

[exhausted]

On 4/15/2024 at 8:42 PM, Cab said:

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. 

Since when has any DCS map had full detail in every area? How demanding is mostly flat, low resolution terrain? Some of us already have flown over Afghanistan in DCS and it is currently possible to do it from the sea. As there is no fighting to happen at low levels in that area, it is not as if it needs to be super detailed. And, if adding lower detailed areas is such a drag on development, then the extra effort into making 3 separate renditions of low detail areas in 3 distinct maps just for Afghanistan alone perhaps makes a great deal of sense to someone who is not me.

Edited April 19, 2024 by exhausted

[Cab]

7 hours ago, exhausted said:

Since when has any DCS map had full detail in every area? How demanding is mostly flat, low resolution terrain? Some of us already have flown over Afghanistan in DCS and it is currently possible to do it from the sea. As there is no fighting to happen at low levels in that area, it is not as if it needs to be super detailed. And, if adding lower detailed areas is such a drag on development, then the extra effort into making 3 separate renditions of low detail areas in 3 distinct maps just for Afghanistan alone perhaps makes a great deal of sense to someone who is not me.

 

Yes, I understand that’s the argument. 
Unfortunate for you and the others feeling that way, your only recourse is to not buy the map unless ED change their minds.

7 hours ago, exhausted said:

Some of us already have flown over Afghanistan in DCS and it is currently possible to do it from the sea.

What does this mean?

[Northstar98]

38 minutes ago, Cab said:

What does this mean?

The PG map already includes roughly 2/5ths or so of the area of Pakistan that's needed to bridge the gap between Afghanistan and the Arabian Sea. The PG map does contain a small portion of Afghanistan (about 400 nmi² of it) so it is currently possible to fly to Afghanistan from the sea.

Of course, none of these areas are detailed in any sense of the word, but what exhausted said is technically possible, albeit in a very limited fashion on the PG map.

The PG map also includes a large area of Saudi Arabia, all of Bahrain and Kuwait, easily making up the area needed to bridge Afghanistan with the Arabian Sea, even if low/no detail.

[buceador]

When you consider the available ops in DCS - CAP/ CAS / SEAD / ESCORT / FIGHTER SWEEP / GROUND ATTACK / RECONNAISSANCE /  RUNWAY ATTACK etc etc,  pushing the point that carrier ops are not available on an upcoming map and requesting hundreds of miles on featureless landscape seems a little unnecessary? (JMHO)

[exhausted]

7 hours ago, Cab said:

Yes, I understand that’s the argument. 
Unfortunate for you and the others feeling that way, your only recourse is to not buy the map unless ED change their minds.

What does this mean?

As Northstar98 already said, there is quite a bit of Afghanistan in the Persian Gulf map (full extent not shown below). I have been making a campaign where the US strikes Iran and part of Iran's strategy is to strike US and allied positions in Afghanistan. The missions are from the Iranian point of view.

I started this mission pack years before the strikes that happened last week. 

But yea, you can fly over Afghanistan right now but the terrain isn't great. But if I wanted to fly over Pakistani coast to get to Afghanistan, then this level is all that is needed.

Edited April 19, 2024 by exhausted

[Cab]

36 minutes ago, exhausted said:

As Northstar98 already said, there is quite a bit of Afghanistan in the Persian Gulf map (full extent not shown below). I have been making a campaign where the US strikes Iran and part of Iran's strategy is to strike US and allied positions in Afghanistan. The missions are from the Iranian point of view.

I started this mission pack years before the strikes that happened last week. 

But yea, you can fly over Afghanistan right now but the terrain isn't great. But if I wanted to fly over Pakistani coast to get to Afghanistan, then this level is all that is needed.

 

Well, maybe ED will change their mind sometime in the future and provide what you want.

In the meantime, it is what it is.

[Dragon1-1]

In the future, there will be a full world map, which will allow flying to Afghanistan from CONUS, if you were so inclined (and had the time for it).

[exhausted]

On 4/20/2024 at 8:51 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

In the future, there will be a full world map, which will allow flying to Afghanistan from CONUS, if you were so inclined (and had the time for it).

I think you can already fly from Nellis to 34.5553° N, 69.2075° E, so nothing new?

[Timster76]

Am 30.3.2024 um 00:57 schrieb AndyJWest:

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

Two Chinooks will do fine

[shagrat]

Am 10.4.2024 um 11:05 schrieb SteelPig:

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. 

The first months of the initial campaign against the Taliban, had no airports in country. The USMC established landbased operations as soon as possible and in Nov/Dec 2001, FOB Rhino was established, then the focus was to seize Kandahar airfield... The availability of airfields in country eliminated situations, where aircrafts running into defects or fuel issues would have to land somewhere, and AFAIK the pakistani government, did not really want US aircraft landed and supported on their soil, at least not officially.

The long range bombers, F-14s and F/A-18s did indeed fly long legs from the carriers, a lot, and actually the 10 hrs seem to be the longest ever flown regularly and en masse by USN strike fighters, but as soon as KAF, Bagram and Cmp Bastion were established, helicopters and land based aircraft took over a lot of the workload, as the carrier battle groups had to shift focus on Iraq...

So yes, I would indeed love to see an option of at least a strip of flat Pakistan/Iraq and some ocean, but it isn't a killer criteria...

 

Edited May 2, 2024 by shagrat
typo fixed

[Raisuli]

5 hours ago, shagrat said:

The first months of the initial campaign against the Taliban, had no airports in country. The USMC established landbased operations as soon as possible and in Nov/Dec 2001, FOB Rhino was established, then the focus was to seize Kandahar airfield... The availability of airfields in country eliminated situations, where aircrafts running into defects or fuel issues would have to land somewhere, and AFAIK the pakistani government, did not really want US aircraft landed and supported on their soil, at least not officially.

The long range bombers, F-14s and F/A-18s did indeed fly long legs from the carriers, a lot, and actually the 10 hrs seem to be the longest ever flown regularly and en masse by USN strike fighters, but as soon as KAF, Bangram and Cmp Bastion were established, helicopters and land based aircraft took over a lot of the workload, as the carrier battle groups had to shift focus on Iraq...

So yes, I would indeed love to see an option of at least a strip of flat Pakistan/Iraq and some ocean, but it isn't a killer criteria...

 

And to think I get bored with a 100 mile round trip, and even think about air-starting when I work on muscle memory just to compress the transit.

10 hour simulated F-18 mission?  No thanks; this is entertainment, not a job.  I'd rather fly nine one hour missions and throw in a little helo practice during that last hour.

There are three carrier capable aircraft, plus a couple mods (A-4, T-45)?  I believe two maps, if you include Afghanistan, with no CV ops and yes, you can put a CV on Normandy and Channel.  If I want to fly off a carrier there's plenty of opportunity elsewhere including the other new map about to be released. 

I'll set this one up with ground based missions, just like NTTR.  I've already logged plenty of at-sea time.

[silverdevil]

why not do a starting point which would be closest to a possible carrier that is within the map? then tank from there? there were definitely navy planes in action over afghanistan. i get no take off and landing on a boat but...

[Nealius]

On 4/29/2024 at 10:20 AM, Raisuli said:

10 hour simulated F-18 mission?  No thanks; this is entertainment, not a job.  I'd rather fly nine one hour missions and throw in a little helo practice during that last hour.

And why should your opinion limit what other people can do? I don't understand why people are so gung-ho about oppressing freedom of choice. You have the freedom to choose just as well as they do if we had some carrier-capable waters added to the map. You could simply choose to not use them instead of cramming your opinion down everyone else's throats.

Edited May 7, 2024 by Nealius

[Raisuli]

53 minutes ago, Nealius said:

And why should your opinion limit what other people can do? I don't understand why people are so gung-ho about oppressing freedom of choice. You have the freedom to choose just as well as they do if we had some carrier-capable waters added to the map. You could simply choose to not use them instead of cramming your opinion down everyone else's throats.

 

I have no desire to limit anyone, but why would ED spend tens, or hundreds, of thousands of dollars on a corner case at this point?  I'm absolutely sure there are guys who live for those long, hard missions and honestly have nothing but respect for them; I'm tuckered out after a couple hours in close formation.  The people who really flew at that tempo, and the guys who want to sim it?  Amazing endurance; I'm all for you!

Based on commentary from guys who would know there's no graceful way to get a body of water big enough for a CV on that map with the current limitations.  Kinda like NTTR, and there is less distance between NTTR and the California coast than from the extreme southern border of Afghanistan and the Arabian Sea.  It's a bummer, but it's the reality we live in. 

Some day I hope to see those spherical maps, and we will be able to park a boat off Karachi (nice town, by the way) or even the Arabian Gulf and run all the way north, or the Med and have that version of Sinai, Syria, Iraq, PG, and Afghanistan linked together.  Then we can simulate El Doado Canyon (still think they should have taken an extra squadron of F-15s and flown over France )

Of course 11 days after that there was a little industrial accident in south central Europe.  I was in the Bering sea chasing boomers when all that happened...

 

Edited May 8, 2024 by Raisuli

[MAXsenna]

On 5/8/2024 at 2:09 AM, Raisuli said:

Some day I hope to see those spherical maps, and we will be able to park a boat off Karachi (nice town, by the way)

Town? Officially 10 million when I lived there back in 89/90.  

[Gambit21]

On 5/7/2024 at 4:20 PM, Nealius said:

And why should your opinion limit what other people can do? I don't understand why people are so gung-ho about oppressing freedom of choice. You have the freedom to choose just as well as they do if we had some carrier-capable waters added to the map. You could simply choose to not use them instead of cramming your opinion down everyone else's throats.

 

Wow...Relax.

He's not imposing anything on you (which is manifestly obvious) He simply stated his preference...he's allowed to do that.

 

 

 

[Nightdare]

On 3/29/2024 at 7:29 PM, AndyJWest said:

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.

 

Next patch:

 

 

[Grodin]

Will it be possible to put the carrier in the lake, that way we can sort of pretend we would be flying in from the sea?

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Grodin said:

Will it be possible to put the carrier in the lake, that way we can sort of pretend we would be flying in from the sea?

Very unlikely. It's not possible even on Lake Mead in NTTR map. And... not realistic.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

On 5/7/2024 at 7:20 PM, Nealius said:

And why should your opinion limit what other people can do? I don't understand why people are so gung-ho about oppressing freedom of choice. You have the freedom to choose just as well as they do if we had some carrier-capable waters added to the map. You could simply choose to not use them instead of cramming your opinion down everyone else's throats.

 

You are correct. Exercise that freedom and start programming a map. Otherwise give it a rest Karen! Ed has exercised their right to not do it.  Deal with it!  

[Grodin]

7 hours ago, draconus said:

Very unlikely. It's not possible even on Lake Mead in NTTR map. And... not realistic.

Not realistic? You mean like external views, F10 map, labels, any of the difficulty options in the game, taking off on a taxiway, hot or air starting the plane, landing F15 F16 etc on the carrier, the list goes on forever.

I would argue that the exact location of the carrier impacts realism much less than being completely unable to operate from one considering they did do carrier ops to afghanistan.

[draconus]

12 minutes ago, Grodin said:

being completely unable to operate from one considering they did do carrier ops to afghanistan.

We'll have to start simulation in the air or use other map/mission to launch and recover. They've decided already, pity, I know.

Edited July 3, 2024 by draconus

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

On 4/16/2024 at 4:12 AM, Jackjack171 said:

 USMC F/A-18C ops out of Kandahar it is. This will be fun!

 

British Joint Force Harrier too!