Aircraft sortie rates : Warfare Sims. Aircraft sortie rates. First of all we’d like to use the opportunity to thank everyone who have contributed to the aircraft sortie rate discussions since the early 1. Your input has been a tremendous help pointing us in the right direction, enabling us to implement a highly realistic sortie rate model for the Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations simulator. Table of Contents. Harpoon Classic: air hyperactivity & unlimited munitions. Harpoon 2: air hyperactivity & munitions limitations. ![]() ![]() Harpoon 3: Custom Ready Times. Command: Identifying the next logical step. Surge Operations Vs. Sustained Operations. Scenario design: setting up a squadron for Surge Ops. Scenario design: setting up a squadron for Sustained Ops. ![]() Alpha Strikes. Limiting Factors. Typical ready times and airborne times. Doctrine Settings. ![]()
Manually configuring the number of sorties to fly. Backwards Compatibility. Scenario design: Persian Gulf War (1. Close Air Support using A- 1. A Thunderbolt IIScenario design: Six- Day War (1. Operation Moked (airbase interdiction) and CASScenario design: Yom Kippur War (1. Day 1 CAS, Day 2 air superiority strikes and CASTempo: Surge Operations – Quick Turnaround: Fighters and ASWTempo: Surge Operations – Quick Turnaround: Enabled. Tempo: Sustained Operations – Quick Turnaround: Enabled. Tempo: Sustained Operations – Quick Turnaround: Disabled. USS Enterprise vs USS Ranger, 1. Air Operations at RNAS Yeovilton. Six- Day War: Israel vs Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Yom Kippur War: Israel vs Egypt and Syria. What is a . What can I do about it? Introduction. The heated aircraft sortie rates discussion started more than two decades ago with Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations. In order to understand this subject and the years of research that has gone into it by the Command developers it might be a good idea to look at how aircraft ready times and logistics modeling have evolved from the initial computer version of Harpoon to the very latest CMANO upgrade. Harpoon Classic: aircraft hyperactivity & unlimited munitions. When computer Harpoon was first released in December 1. This was a fundamentally flawed approach that would plague the game for the next 1. The 3. 0- minute setting was absurdly small for most missions that require significant pre- flight preparation. ![]() This was particularly true for strike/bombing missions where attention and effort must be dedicated to the coordination with other cooperative elements such as fighter escorts, airborne early warning, electronic warfare and SEAD. The result was that aircraft became too omni- present and too omnipotent for other scenario units like ships, subs and land units to matter. It should be remembered here that Harpoon was intended to be a wargame of modern combined tactical/operational air & naval warfare, not Flight Commander (as an example) with a naval element strapped- in as an afterthought. But the unrealistic air- hyperactivity combined with unlimited aircraft weapons made airpower a near- invincible tool. The outcome of almost all scenarios were determined on which side had the most formidable air assets. A common Blue- side tactic was to simply shuttle your carrier- borne strikers back and forth in a “take off – get to launch distance – launch Harpoons – get back to carrier” cyclic motion until the Red CVBG/SAG ran out of surface- to- air missiles (SAMs) and countermeasures. No real strategy, no real effort, no complex time- on- target planning or attempt for a surprise attack or a multi- axis saturation, just a pre- determined exercise in attrition. One could almost lay back and calculate when his air assets would break through the defenses. The same held true for the Red side. In scenarios where the Soviets had lots of missile- armed naval bombers and some good escorts they could simply do the “take off – launch stand- off ASMs – land” dance all day long. This essentially meant that the side with the stronger air assets would win almost every time. ![]() Developer’s note! While many airpower enthusiasts may find nothing abnormal to this result, actual combat operations have proven differently. Air power effectiveness, though significant, has often been inflated to mythic proportions. More on that below. Harpoon 2: air hyperactivity & munitions limitations. In Harpoon 2 (and by extension, early versions of Harpoon 3) this situation was partially remedied by enabling aircraft logistics. This optional (and buggy) feature limited the ordnance available to air assets. It thus solved the unfair situation of unlimited airborne weapons versus finite surface- borne weapons (SAMs and decoys). However, while this improvement to some extent eliminated the attrition mindset, it still did not solve the problem that, even with limited ammo, aircraft still remained hyperactive and would quickly dominate a scenario. This had two implications: The frantic “take off – launch missiles – land” dance of Harpoon Classic continued, the difference now being that at some point the aircraft would eventually stop when running out of weapons. First of all we’d like to use the opportunity to thank everyone who have contributed to the aircraft sortie rate discussions since the early 1990s. Home; Legacy Challenge Rules. The Sims 4 Legacy Challenge Rules. Sims 4 Legacy Challenge Rules – Introduction; Sims 4 Legacy Challenge Rules – Succession Laws. But there was nothing that would prevent the player from continuing the bombardment by switching weapons from high- end missiles to lower- end laser- guided bombs (LGBs) and eventually iron bombs. It was almost impossible for surface assets (land & sea) to avoid being monitored by reconnaissance aircraft almost continuously – in real life it is perfectly feasible to avoid both aircraft and satellite surveillance, simply exploiting the gaps in their availability. ![]() Airpower, while great for delivering ordnance, is not limited to the strike role: equally useful are its surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, and these are limited by sortie rates, not by ammo figures. Thus the aircraft logistics option did not prevent air assets from having an unrealistically high “time in the air” and providing much more complete area coverage than they would do in real- life operations: For example, with two or three Tu- 9. RT Bear- D aircraft, and with the standard 3. Soviet player could be guaranteed virtually round- the- clock coverage of a general sea area. In reality, even with 3. HF/DF stations, sea- going SIGINT spy- trawlers (AGIs), HUMINT assets, tattle- tale destroyers and even satellites, the Soviet Navy still had considerable coverage gaps even close to its operating areas, gaps which could be exploited. Harpoon 3: Custom Ready Times. By the time Harpoon had reached its third generation it was time to tackle the fundamental problem of unrealistic aircraft availability. A way to show the end- business difference between a hangar- queen and a mud- fighter. A way to show why many aircraft designers go to extraordinary lengths and make important performance sacrifices in their designs in order to make them more serviceable/maintainable. And a way to show how many “invisible” factors like ground- crew proficiency, base ground equipment, airframe/systems complexity and built- in maintainability features can critically affect the end result: how often the aircraft will be “up there”, doing their job. In the discussions between the Harpoon 3 developer Jesse Spears and members of the Harpoon. HQ. com website (now Warfare. Sims. com, developer of Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations), it became evident that simply assigning a unique ready- time for each aircraft would not suffice. This is because the very same aircraft can have drastically different preparation times depending on its mission. It is not simply a matter of physically preparing the aircraft itself for the mission: depending on the task, the crews must rest, be briefed (often a protracted event!), coordinate their activities with other assets for the same package etc. Therefore, having just one figure for each aircraft would end up being too simple. A more elegant solution was to base the ready- time on the loadout selected for the aircraft, and thus indirectly the mission role that was reflected by the loadout stores. In all versions of computer Harpoon (and also in Command), each aircraft had several pre- defined loadouts available. Each of them was a different predefined package of weapons, sensor & jammer pods, and drop tanks, and represents a different mission type. For example, one loadout might be heavy on air- to- air armament and represent a typical CAP load, another might emphasize long range and precision strike capability (PGMs and fuel tanks), yet another may go all- out on short- range CAS (rockets and cluster bombs on all racks). It was therefore fairly straightforward to determine the mission that an aircraft is destined for, by checking on the loadout configuration. It thus made good sense to base the ready- time on the loadout itself. Robbing Harpoon’s aircraft of their hitherto omnipotence had drastic repercussions on playing the wargame itself. Here is a sample of some of the effects on how the simulation interacts with the user’s actions & decisions: Aircraft that sacrificed performance in order to improve their uptime & availability are now finally being vindicated. Watch simple aircraft as the Harrier, Su- 2. Frogfoot or A- 1. A Thunderbolt II roam over the battlefield repeatedly while their more capable, more sophisticated jets make an occasional and long- awaited appearance, displaying their unique abilities before again withdrawing to their hangars. Heavy long- range combat aircraft in particular , as well as special- mission and electronic- reconnaissance aircraft, now finally get the “silver bullet” treatment they deserve. The vastly reduced sortie- rate of most aircraft, combined with the finite scenario duration time, means that players now have much fewer available aircraft sorties in total. This simulates reality and poses a greater challenge in play. Once committed to action, the player will be unable to use those air assets for next several hours or even days. Portal Looks Great As A Lego Diorama. Look at that orange hole in the wall! Brick. Builder, who goes by Anthony Wilson on Flickr (where you can see other Lego creations), posted their latest project to Reddit. One commenter pointed out that this wasn’t the “correct solve” solve for the puzzle at hand, but it looks sleek and rad nonetheless. Just look at all the flame pieces attached to little wall and floor handles. And nearly everything else covered with flat bricks. Valve’s homicidal disk operating system doesn’t do “cameo” or “guest star.” The moment GLa. DOS. As a result, a number of Portal- inspired Lego projects were submitted for consideration over at the company’s Ideas site. Unfortunately, despite lots of interest, Lego declined to actually produce any of them as sets that could be purchased online or in stores. As ad. Brick. Builder and others publish the guides for their creations, however, fans of Lego and sinister physics experiments can always buy the necessary parts and assemble them themselves, brick by brick.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2017
Categories |