Jump to content

DEVELOPMENT UPDATE #3: Phoenix Rising!


Cobra847

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Pacific isn't all hot/humid. The North Pacific is just as cold as the North Atlantic can be.

 

I know, hence my use of the article "a" before Pacific, as in 'a' hot/humid part thereof.

PC:

 

6600K @ 4.5 GHz, 12GB RAM, GTX 970, 32" 2K monitor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Vladivostok:

 

The first order need to flatten Vladivostok in a World War III scenario is dead easy: ten Yankees and ten Delta IIIs.

 

The second is the Aleutian chain. Access denial is a simple matter when you are on a short resupply path. Stick a substantial amount of the remaining Soviet submarine force in that formation, and reinforcement in that region becomes borderline impossible; you simply cannot move enough material and fuel by air and land fast enough to sustain an extended defense of American forces based in Alaska.

 

Looking at the surface warfare and naval aviation interactions between the US and USSR in the 80s, one could easily state that the biggest single driver of USN tactics and strategy on the matter was (at the time) RADM James Lyons. This is of special note, as based on his performance in slapping the Northern Fleet at command of the US 2nd, he was given the role of CINCPAC.

 

What's even more of note is what he did with it in the fall of 1986: walking the combined forces of the CV61 and 70 CVBGs across the Pacific- totally undetected by the Soviet submarine fleet, RORSAT, and Tselina, and on September 16th, parked them in the middle of the Sea of Japan, and sent forward strike assets of CVW-2 and -15 in mock attack runs at every Pacific Fleet base in the province.

 

The Soviet response was, shall we say, "substantial"; recent events with the sackings in the Baltic Fleet come to mind.

 

The USN considered Vladivostok a primary target in the 1980s. It still does. Regarding assets current modern DCS subset, the only real challenge to realistically get them into the fight is the Draken (which we'll consider based on the recent nature of it's timeline) and the Mirage 2000, but even that is as close to Japan as Taiwan, and given the nature of treaty entanglements might just find its way in.

 

There is plenty of reason to be interested in that area for development. Do I think it'll happen? Not yet. Would I enjoy it? Damned right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Vladivostok:

 

The first order need to flatten Vladivostok in a World War III scenario is dead easy: ten Yankees and ten Delta IIIs.

 

The second is the Aleutian chain. Access denial is a simple matter when you are on a short resupply path. Stick a substantial amount of the remaining Soviet submarine force in that formation, and reinforcement in that region becomes borderline impossible; you simply cannot move enough material and fuel by air and land fast enough to sustain an extended defense of American forces based in Alaska.

 

I'm not sure if Soviet strategy in the Far East differed all that much from that in Europe, but we do know the bastion strategy was preeminent in the Pacific Fleet as it was in the Northern Fleet. As a result, I don't find the "take the fight to enemy" hypothesis all that convincing. Even if a sustained defense of Alaska is logistically unfeasible, a sustained Soviet assault on Alaska is far less feasible. Power projection was simply not the Soviet military's forte. This is not to say they wouldn't have attempted interdiction in the Pacific; they most definitely would've, using bombers and cruise missile submarines. But that would've been the extent of their offensive activities. Like the Northern Fleet, their overall orientation was a defensive one.

 

Looking at the surface warfare and naval aviation interactions between the US and USSR in the 80s, one could easily state that the biggest single driver of USN tactics and strategy on the matter was (at the time) RADM James Lyons. This is of special note, as based on his performance in slapping the Northern Fleet at command of the US 2nd, he was given the role of CINCPAC.

 

What's even more of note is what he did with it in the fall of 1986: walking the combined forces of the CV61 and 70 CVBGs across the Pacific- totally undetected by the Soviet submarine fleet, RORSAT, and Tselina, and on September 16th, parked them in the middle of the Sea of Japan, and sent forward strike assets of CVW-2 and -15 in mock attack runs at every Pacific Fleet base in the province.

 

The Soviet response was, shall we say, "substantial"; recent events with the sackings in the Baltic Fleet come to mind.

 

The potential U.S.-USSR scenario I have in mind taking place in the North Pacific is indeed set in 1986 and involved the Ranger and Carl Vinson. You have two carriers with four of the coolest F-14 squadrons ever - VF-1 and VF-2 on Ranger, VF-51 and VF-111 on Vinson!

 

The USN considered Vladivostok a primary target in the 1980s. It still does. Regarding assets current modern DCS subset, the only real challenge to realistically get them into the fight is the Draken (which we'll consider based on the recent nature of it's timeline) and the Mirage 2000, but even that is as close to Japan as Taiwan, and given the nature of treaty entanglements might just find its way in.

 

How would Drakens end up in the Pacific? And Mirage 2000s didn't enter service in Taiwan until the 1990s. Even if a scenario were to take place in the '90s, the Taiwanese have no treaty entanglements that would get them involved in backing up U.S. forces in NORPAC, nor should they - they need to protect themselves against China.

 

There is plenty of reason to be interested in that area for development. Do I think it'll happen? Not yet. Would I enjoy it? Damned right.

 

Good to see I'm not the only one who recognizes the significance of the North Pacific.


Edited by CheckGear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Have they given any estimated release dates?

 

They have in the past, last one beeing 2nd half of 2016 for beta:

 

Our revised estimate is the second half of 2016.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have in the past, last one beeing 2nd half of 2016 for beta:

Three and a half months left and two modules need to be released ... hm, I don't think so. But that's no problem. I want a good module, not one on time.

Hardware: Intel i5 4670K | Zalman NPS9900MAX | GeIL 16GB @1333MHz | Asrock Z97 Pro4 | Sapphire Radeon R9 380X Nitro | Samsung SSDs 840 series 120GB & 250 GB | Samsung HD204UI 2TB | be quiet! Pure Power 530W | Aerocool RS-9 Devil Red | Samsung SyncMaster SA350 24" + ASUS VE198S 19" | Saitek X52 | TrackIR 5 | Thrustmaster MFD Cougar | Speedlink Darksky LED | Razor Diamondback | Razor X-Mat Control | SoundBlaster Tactic 3D Rage ### Software: Windows 10 Pro 64Bit

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three and a half months left and two modules need to be released ... hm, I don't think so. But that's no problem. I want a good module, not one on time.

 

I'm totally with you, but he asked if they have given any estimates and that's just what Cobra said.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
I know, hence my use of the article "a" before Pacific, as in 'a' hot/humid part thereof.

There is a performance difference between the two climate zones. Although not extreme. And that only occurred when the 54 actually took flight rather than just fall off the rail with no ignition. Which did happen at times.

System 1:

Windows 10 Pro 22H2 Build 19045.4123 - Core i7 3770K/Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3 (BIOS F-10)/32GB G-Skill Trident X DDR3 CL7-8-8-24/Asus RTX 2070 OC 8GB - drivers 551.61/LG Blue Ray DL Burner/1TB Crucial MX 500 SSD/(x2)1TBMushkinRAWSSDs/2TB PNY CS900 SSD/Corsair RM750w PSU/Rosewill Mid Challenger Tower/34" LG LED Ultrawide 2560x1080p/Saitek X56 HOTAS/TrackIR 5 Pro/Thermaltake Tt esports Commander Gear Combo/Oculus Quest 2/TM 2xMFD Cougar/InateckPCIeUSB3.2KU5211-R

System 2:

Windows 11 Home 23H2 22631.3296 - MSI Codex Series R2 B14NUC7-095US - i7 14700F/MSI Pro B760 VC Wifi/32GB DDR5 5600mhz RAM/RTX 4060/2TB nVME SSD/4TB 2.5in SSD/650w Gold PSU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will we get the Phoenix A or C?

 

I'm quite curious about this too. But we can make some reasonable deductions given the announced timeframes for the F-14A (mid to late 80s) and F-14B (mid-90s).

 

By 1990, the AIM-54C was the deployed version for combat operations, though the AIM-54A was still used for training shots, etc.

 

So if Leatherneck was to choose one version to support both the F-14A and F-14B, it would need to be the AIM-54C. Sub-models like the AIM-54C+/AIM-54C+ ECCM sealed would not match the F-14A's timeframe.

 

So there is a ~95% chance (IMHO) that LNS will create at least the AIM-54C. But I am also wondering if there will be more than one model, such as an AIM-54A to support more early-mid-80s for the F-14A or an AIM-54C+.

 

 

By the time that the AIM-54C was available in the late 70’s/early 80’s, the Mk-60 was no longer in production. The motors were not retired, however, and some were still in service in limited number. As the years progressed, the Mk-60 was removed from service as service life came to an end and the AIM-54C and C+ exclusively used the smaller Mk-47 motor.

 

One quick amendment to this statement: Though the AIM-54C was complete from a R&D standpoint by 1982, it didn't reach fleet units until 1987. This was due to serious quality control problems with the initial run of AIM-54Cs produced by Hughes. In fact, the problems were so bad that the USN engaged another contractor (Raytheon) to begin parallel production as a hedge against Hughes. The problems were eventually ironed out and both Hughes and Raytheon produced the AIM-54C for a time (not sure how long or how many units), though I believe that Hughes still produced the majority of units.

 

The first deployment of the AIM-54C was the summer of 1987, so any intended operations before then would benefit from an AIM-54A version. I'm not sure how challenging it would be to create the AIM-54A along with the C. They were very similar of course, but the AIM-54A had fewer modes, was more susceptible to ECM and chaff, and had more operational limitations.

 

-Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

This all leads to the single thing I'd like to see more than anything else: a CV operating in the radar shadow of the Lofoten mountains. Right next to my home.

 

KkXk9TQ.jpg

 

 

Enthusiastic though I am, certainly the Iceland AO represents a much more economical terrain in terms of effort and detail. I therefore find that to be a more likely venue for LN's efforts. :cry:

 

Never say never. A Iceland map has little replayability as it consists mostly of water= same mission over and over.

 

The mountains in the north of Norway on the other hand, offer a vide range of variation due to the terrain. If Heatblur intends to make a module that is popular, it is one of the better choices.

Intel Core i7­6700K, 32GB DDR4, 512GB PCIe SSD + 2TB HDD, GeForce GTX 1080 8GB, Pimax 5k+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will we get the Phoenix A or C?

I'd suggest reading stickied threads:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3201732&postcount=1

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you to look at the date of my post :D

Ouchie... Point taken :P

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Where did the images go?

DCS Wishlist: 2K11 Krug SA-4 Ganef SAM, VR-TrackIR icons next to player names in score-chart

PvP: 100+ manual player-kills with Stingers on a well known dynamic campaign server - 100+ VTOL FARP landings & 125+ hours AV-8B, F-14 crew, royal dutch airforce F-16C - PvP campaigns since 2013

DCS server-admins: please adhere to a common sense gaming industry policy as most server admins throughout the industry do. (After all there's enough hostility on the internet already which really doesn't help anyone. Thanks.)

Dell Visor VR headset, Ryzen 5 5600 (6C/12T), RTX 2060 - basic DCS-community rule-of-thumb: Don't believe bad things that a PvP pilot claims about another PvP pilot without having analyzed the existing evidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

hey guys,

i have a question about the aim-54s deployment.

 

 

i have read a lot of differing opinions on the capabilities of the missile, especially when intercepting maneuvering targets, however i am more interested in the navys assessment of the capabilities...

 

 

or in other words: would f-14 carry aim-54 as part of a general "mixed" payload (f.e. aim-54 as self defense option), or would they only carry aim-54s in fleet defense scenarios and would use only the sparrow and sidewinder as a general self-defense weapon?

 

 

thx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we carried them it was a mix, they weigh a lot for one so landing on the carrier with 6 of them was not really feasable, and at a million dollars a missile you don't want to jettison them, in Afghanistan and Iraq we rarely carried them because we were doing a lot of bombing and decided to carry sparrows and aim-9s.


Edited by HawkeyeHHDF

Hawkeye

VF-213 CO

VCVW-11

http://www.vcvw-11.com

 

Heatblur F-14 SME

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we carried them it was a mix, they weigh a lot for one so landing on the carrier with 6 of them was not really feasable, and at a million dollars a missile you don't want to jettison them, in Afghanistan and Iraq we rarely carried them because we were doing a lot of bombing and decided to carry sparrows and aim-9s.

 

 

thank you very much for your answer. much appreciated!

i already thought that aim-54s aren't the perfect fit for a "multi-role" loadout, because of their weight, but it's good to know, that at least it won't be completely unrealistic to carry a phoenix (or two) in a multi-role configuration...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...