DEVELOPMENT UPDATE #3: Phoenix Rising!

[QuiGon]

If you have the time to read Tom Clancy, check out Red Storm Rising. It has a serious nightmare scenario with Russian strategic bomber forces operating in the North Atlantic against NATO carrier groups and naval convoys, which are defended by Tomcats. That alone could be the basis for several very good scenarios involving the Phoenix and our beloved Tomcat! Now if there were a North Atlantic map in the works!:music_whistling::pilotfly:

 

I felt the need to add those five words to your comment :)

[Cool Breeze]

I felt the need to add those five words to your comment :)

Darn, thought I had it with the following sentence, but your words do add a bit of bold text I was missing.

 

Being able to re-create parts of the book with the modules in development, most notably the Tomcat, Corsair, Intruder, Hornet, and Harrier, is something I look forward to attempting.

 

The amount of work Leatherneck is pouring into the Tomcat and the Phoenix is really awesome!

[Pocket Sized]

 

You might actually be able to shoot down pretty much anything that flies, SAMs and AAMs included, provided its slow and close enough for your radar to detect.

 

One time I was providing some low level CAP for a few hogs. I had my radar in vertical scan and got a lock on something, the square was empty. According to the range bar I was within sidewinder and maybe even gun range. I was very confused, even more so when the target dove straight into the ground and exploded!

 

I later realized I accidentally locked up a friendly maverick :megalol:

[Thisdale]

How to curiosity; is the phoenix holding the F14 back a bit in terms of release?

You guys could release the plane without the phoenix earlier, gather data and feedback from the pre-release sale and add the phoenix as a secondary release (same price).

 

i certainly wouldn't mind the plane first, get used to it and all : )

[CheckGear]

If you have the time to read Tom Clancy, check out Red Storm Rising. It has a serious nightmare scenario with Russian strategic bomber forces operating in the North Atlantic against NATO carrier groups and naval convoys. That alone could be the basis for several very good scenarios involving the Phoenix and our beloved Tomcat! Now if there were a North Atlantic map in the works!:music_whistling::pilotfly:

 

If we have a "defend the fleet" scenario, then I hope its in a North Pacific setting. We've seen the North Atlantic one too many times.

[QuiGon]

If we have a "defend the fleet" scenario, then I hope its in a North Pacific setting. We've seen the North Atlantic one too many times.

 

Where? I've only seen the Black Sea. :huh:

 

And water is water :D

[NeilWillis]

South China sea, surely? In addition to the SOH map we already know about, we'd have the two biggest hot spots on the planet today. Add to that expanding the Caucasus to include the whole Crimean peninsula and the Bosporus and maybe the Eastern end of the Mediterranean, and we'd be in business.

 

All you'd need to turn the Atlantic into the Pacific would be a grey to blue colour slider - unless you want to include coastlines of course.

 

But seriously folks, water is wet wherever op the planet you find it, so any maritime theatre would be good. If you can float a carrier task force, and have some land based targets, and enemy bases to put up plenty of resistance, why does it matter where it is?

[Tread_Head57]

Previously LN said their map for the F14 will be very cold and wet (or something to that affect). My bet is on Iceland and the surrounding Atlantic. Not too many urban areas to model along with a limited land surface. Will play nicely for 1980's cold war scenarios of defending the fleet from Backfire raids and/or fighting land based Soviet forces who have captured Iceland during a hypothetical WWIII.

[CheckGear]

Where? I've only seen the Black Sea. :huh:

 

And water is water :D

 

Ever play Fleet Defender?

 

South China sea, surely? In addition to the SOH map we already know about, we'd have the two biggest hot spots on the planet today. Add to that expanding the Caucasus to include the whole Crimean peninsula and the Bosporus and maybe the Eastern end of the Mediterranean, and we'd be in business.

 

All you'd need to turn the Atlantic into the Pacific would be a grey to blue colour slider - unless you want to include coastlines of course.

 

But seriously folks, water is wet wherever op the planet you find it, so any maritime theatre would be good. If you can float a carrier task force, and have some land based targets, and enemy bases to put up plenty of resistance, why does it matter where it is?

 

Authenticity, immersion, all those big things that make a game enjoyable.

 

Previously LN said their map for the F14 will be very cold and wet (or something to that affect). My bet is on Iceland and the surrounding Atlantic. Not too many urban areas to model along with a limited land surface. Will play nicely for 1980's cold war scenarios of defending the fleet from Backfire raids and/or fighting land based Soviet forces who have captured Iceland during a hypothetical WWIII.

 

Interestingly enough, the F-14 actually spent more time in places like the Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and North Pacific Ocean than the famed North Atlantic. There are plenty of targets in the North Pacific and the scenario is far more plausible. The likelihood of the Soviets actually invading Iceland depends heavily on how much brandy Tom Clancy put into his coffee. :lol:

[near_blind]

There are plenty of targets in the North Pacific and the scenario is far more plausible. The likelihood of the Soviets actually invading Iceland depends heavily on how much brandy Tom Clancy put into his coffee. :lol:

 

Invasions of Iceland aside, the primary task of the Navy in any hypothetical war with the soviets would be contesting/controlling the Norwegian Sea and failing that, protecting the GIUK gap. The goal would be to get as far north as practicable to interdict soviet submarines on their way south, destroy the northern surface fleet, support the Norwegians (and Sweden if they got drawn in some how), and just generally keep Soviet northern forces from playing a decisive role in the fight for central Europe either by direct attack or destruction of vital supply convoys.

 

During peace time they spent more time outside of that theater because most of the trouble spots were in the middle east (Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq), and because the Norwegian Sea is a terrible place to conduct carrier operations. The weather is terrible, the temperature is terrible, and aside from randomly popping into flip the bird at the odd Sov, there was no need to loiter.

[MBot]

Invasions of Iceland aside, the primary task of the Navy in any hypothetical war with the soviets would be contesting/controlling the Norwegian Sea and failing that, protecting the GIUK gap. The goal would be to get as far north as practicable to interdict soviet submarines on their way south, destroy the northern surface fleet, support the Norwegians (and Sweden if they got drawn in some how), and just generally keep Soviet northern forces from playing a decisive role in the fight for central Europe either by direct attack or destruction of vital supply convoys.

 

Well put, an excellent summary.

 

The official "Maritime Strategy" adopted by the US Navy in the 1980s to fight what they called "Global Conventional War" with the Soviet Union foresaw the following broad distribution of forces:

 

Atlantic Fleet:

3-4 CVBG to Norwegian Sea

2-3 CVBG to Med

1 CVBG in overhaul

 

Pacific Fleet:

4 CVBG to North Pacific

1 CVBG to Indian Ocean

1 CVBG in overhaul

 

1 CVBG in SLEP

 

 

At least 3 CVBG, better 4 were required to survive in the Norwegian Sea. In the Med, 3 CVBG were required to operate in the East Med with confidence. If only 2 CVBG were available they would either require heavy augmentation by land based TACAIR or stay in Central Med. At initiation of hostilities a carrier of the Atlantic Fleet could do a transit strike on Cuba if necessary while deploying from CONUS. The Indian Ocean carrier was expected to destroy the Soviet Indian Ocean squadron, then move to the Pacific while conducting a transit strike on the Soviet naval base in Cam Ranh Bay (Vietnam). The carriers in overhaul would join the war only after several weeks. The carrier under SLEP would be unavailable to the war.

[scaflight]

I've predicted the coast off of Norway before, and I'll do it again. ;)

 

[Xenovia]

wait what are we predicting?

[Tread_Head57]

wait what are we predicting?

 

LN's map their going to create for the F14 module.

[CheckGear]

Invasions of Iceland aside, the primary task of the Navy in any hypothetical war with the soviets would be contesting/controlling the Norwegian Sea and failing that, protecting the GIUK gap. The goal would be to get as far north as practicable to interdict soviet submarines on their way south, destroy the northern surface fleet, support the Norwegians (and Sweden if they got drawn in some how), and just generally keep Soviet northern forces from playing a decisive role in the fight for central Europe either by direct attack or destruction of vital supply convoys.

 

During peace time they spent more time outside of that theater because most of the trouble spots were in the middle east (Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq), and because the Norwegian Sea is a terrible place to conduct carrier operations. The weather is terrible, the temperature is terrible, and aside from randomly popping into flip the bird at the odd Sov, there was no need to loiter.

 

In other words, you just went through the trouble of proving why an invasion of Iceland is implausible, as well as the Soviets ever interdicting the SLOCs. They'd be stuck defending their SSBNs and fighting our carrier and surface forces in the Norwegian Sea, if they ever decided to venture out that far.

 

Anyway, my preference for the North Pacific is because we've seen too much of the GIUK Gap/North Atlantic in other games. The North Pacific allows us to play out the "Vampire! Vampire!" scenarios, as well as directly target the Soviet homeland without having to fight our way up north to the Kola Peninsula.

[Jaktaz]

If we have a "defend the fleet" scenario, then I hope its in a North Pacific setting. We've seen the North Atlantic one too many times.

 

I don't think I've seen the North Atlantic enough to be tired of it, and it makes the most sense given the projected strategic situation if the cold war went hot. There is one scenario I enjoy on CMANO called North Pacific Shootout, set in the late 80's, which puts your Tomcat-equipped Carrier group defending against tu-16s, Mig-31's, and Su-27's. The Su-27's aren't much of a problem since their based too far North to reach you until late in the scenario, but yikes are the mig-31's scary. Superior to the Tomcat in most ways except for maneuverability and perhaps slight range.

[near_blind]

In other words, you just went through the trouble of proving why an invasion of Iceland is implausible,

To be fair, I'm advocating a Norwegian sea map over Iceland.

 

as well as the Soviets ever interdicting the SLOCs. They'd be stuck defending their SSBNs and fighting our carrier and surface forces in the Norwegian Sea, if they ever decided to venture out that far.[/Quote]

 

That's one way to look at the presumptive soviet strategy. Another would be a massive series of attacks by soviet army, airborne and naval infantry forces designed to bypass and eliminate Norwegian positions of resistance, with an ultimate goal of capturing the north cape and guaranteeing a more direct path for their primary offensive weapon, naval aviation, to strike targets the Norwegian sea, Iceland, and eventually the north pacific. Offensive surface formations would be dispatched to both seize coastal objectives and threaten NATO naval carrier and ASW assets, and aggressively probe for NATO SSNs. I don't know about you, but that sounds like the mother of all naval battles.

 

Contrast that with the North Pacific, where there is one military installation of note: Petrapavlosk, which housed submarines and a regiment of MiG-31s. Most everything of substance was centered around Vladivostok and the Primorskiy Krai, with the predilection towards either military action in support of Korea, or a punitive action against Japan. Point is that's more for a Sea of Japan/Okhost/Korea map rather than a North Pacific Map.

 

but yikes are the mig-31's scary. Superior to the Tomcat in most ways except for maneuverability and perhaps slight range.

 

 

The MiG-31 has inferior maneuverability, a more advanced but comparably capable radar, inferior weapons load, inferior weapons range and capability, slightly superior speed, and a slightly superior fighter-datalink. I will gladly take that fight seven days a week.

[CheckGear]

I don't think I've seen the North Atlantic enough to be tired of it, and it makes the most sense given the projected strategic situation if the cold war went hot. There is one scenario I enjoy on CMANO called North Pacific Shootout, set in the late 80's, which puts your Tomcat-equipped Carrier group defending against tu-16s, Mig-31's, and Su-27's. The Su-27's aren't much of a problem since their based too far North to reach you until late in the scenario, but yikes are the mig-31's scary. Superior to the Tomcat in most ways except for maneuverability and perhaps slight range.

 

We've seen the North Atlantic featured in just about every warfare game released since the beginning of time. Much of the desire to see the North Atlantic again is rooted in nostalgia rather than it working as a good theater of play. It's time for some new places.

 

If you study U.S. naval strategy in the late Cold War years, you'll find the North Pacific was just as relevant, perhaps more, as the North Atlantic was in planning for general war with the Soviet Union. In fact, it could be said the North Pacific was more crucial, as targets on the USSR homeland were well within striking distance in places like Vladivostok and Sakhalin. In the North Atlantic, a carrier would have to make it all the way up the Norwegian Sea and around the North Cape to be able to do the same time. Likewise, the Soviet air and naval forces didn't have to come out a long way in the Pacific to be a threat to U.S. forces or our allies in the region.

 

I enjoyed the "North Pacific Shootout" scenario in CMANO. I want to see more scenarios like this, the only difference being the opportunity to experience it inside the cockpit of an F-14.

[CheckGear]

To be fair, I'm advocating a Norwegian sea map over Iceland.

 

GIUK Gap/Norwegian Sea has been done many times as well in the past.

 

That's one way to look at the presumptive soviet strategy. Another would be a massive series of attacks by soviet army, airborne and naval infantry forces designed to bypass and eliminate Norwegian positions of resistance, with an ultimate goal of capturing the north cape and guaranteeing a more direct path for their primary offensive weapon, naval aviation, to strike targets the Norwegian sea, Iceland, and eventually the north pacific. Offensive surface formations would be dispatched to both seize coastal objectives and threaten NATO naval carrier and ASW assets, and aggressively probe for NATO SSNs. I don't know about you, but that sounds like the mother of all naval battles.

 

The more I learn about the true capabilities of the Soviet Armed Forces, the more "disappointed" I become. By no means were they capable of anything Tom Clancy, Harold Coyle, or all those writers and wargame designers made them capable of. They lacked the professionalism that would've allowed them to invade West Germany or Norway and hold territory. Their equipment, for all it's ruggedness, was still inferior to even equivalent Western platforms and the lack of training ensured they would've been incapable of making any meaningful impact on the battlefield.

 

With regards to naval aviation, their ability to successfully attack carriers is contingent on their ability to find them. The Soviets relied extensively on reconnaissance platforms such as the Tu-95 "Bear-D" and submarines and surface vessels that'd be shadowing them. When war comes, these vessels were pretty much on a suicide mission - submarines would engage with torpedoes or even attempt to ram the carriers, as there was no use in running away. Surface vessels would be sitting ducks, so they too would resort to ramming. The bombers like the "Badgers" and "Backfires" were on kamikaze missions - the likelihood of them returning to base after a strike was very low and the air crews were well aware of it. Planning for flying out to the target was very carefully conducted, but plans for returning home were very rudimentary and aircrews were essentially expected to find their own way home. In light of this, one has to ask themselves if the Soviets would've actually committed their Sunday punchers to the war in this manner. Reality has a way of changing the way people do things.

 

These are but a few examples of what the Soviet military was thinking and what they were capable of. Needless to say, it's not what we've been told to believe all these years. Bad the "balloon" gone up, I think the end result would've been messy and surprising. But I'm beginning to believe it would've gone from being the mother of all battles to the mother of all letdowns.

 

Contrast that with the North Pacific, where there is one military installation of note: Petrapavlosk, which housed submarines and a regiment of MiG-31s. Most everything of substance was centered around Vladivostok and the Primorskiy Krai, with the predilection towards either military action in support of Korea, or a punitive action against Japan. Point is that's more for a Sea of Japan/Okhost/Korea map rather than a North Pacific Map.

 

I can live with a Sea of Japan/Okhotsk/Korea map.

[remi]

LN's map their going to create for the F14 module.

 

Still voting for Miramar or Barbers Point.

 

Don't think carriers will be implemented in time for LN's map release. Makes more sense for a training location that can incorporate carriers down the road.

[CheckGear]

Still voting for Miramar or Barbers Point.

 

Don't think carriers will be implemented in time for LN's map release. Makes more sense for a training location that can incorporate carriers down the road.

 

It'd be nice to have a training map like Miramar or Fallon in addition to a theater of war.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Alaska maybe? There's the Bering Strait, lots of AFBs ove the area.

 

 

 

A U.S. Navy F-14 intercepts a Russian Tu-95 heavy bomber near the Alaska coastline in November 1976

 

[Xenovia]

m-m-m-m-m-muh tomcat. <3

[probad]

i personally hope the map's long been decided and under construction, because that means we're that much closer to a release product.

Edited August 26, 2016 by probad

[Vampyre]

Alaska maybe? There's the Bering Strait, lots of AFBs ove the area.

 

 

Except that there are zero active Air Force bases in that little red square. The only US air station that is in there is Galena Air Force Station which is now used as a weather divert field and is maintained by civilian contractors. The major bases are Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage, Eielson AFB near Fairbanks, Eareckson Air Station on Shemya Island, King Salmon Air Station near King Salmon AK closed in 1993 and NAF Adak on Adak island which was closed in 1997. All are widely spread out and the map would be huge. As for the Russians, a quick look at google earth reveals zero air stations in the area delineated by the square. An Alaska map would be nothing like the Caucuses map where you can almost see the next airfield as soon as you take off. Now, I'm all for huge maps but I don't think that is what we will get with the Tomcat release.

 

As far as the Tomcat map is concerned I'm leaning towards a Norwegian sea or Murmansk Peninsula map. They are also large maps but seem much more plausible for a mid to late 80's Tomcat. Iceland is also a real possibility. Several people have posted on the conventional war plans for fighting the Soviets... I have read through them as well and I can say with complete confidence that nothing ever goes according to plan. The North Pacific would have been a sideshow had a conventional land war in Europe started. The strategic goal of the Navy would have been the disruption of Soviet forces operating in the northern Atlantic to ensure the safe arrival of troops and supplies from North America for operation Reforger. Nothing happening in the Pacific would have had the strategic significance of the battle of the Atlantic had the Soviets attacked Europe.