Carriers

[Secret Agent]

Does Harpoon have Soviet & French carriers? If so, how do they compare to US carriers? And how much range do the naval Su-27s have?

[Scully]

Does Harpoon have Soviet & French carriers? If so, how do they compare to US carriers? And how much range do the naval Su-27s have?

They definitely have Soviet and I'm 99% sure they have French in the database. In my limited experience, the Soviet carrier doesn't have a chance against the US carrier unless it has heavy support from ground-based aircraft. There are several scenarios available that deal with this exact issue. Lots of fun!

Take care,
Brian

[Herman Hum]

Yes. Both Harpoon Classic and Harpoon 3 have French and Soviet carriers modelled.

What do you mean by, "How do they compare"?

Statistically, the different database have different philosophies but they both try to achieve the same goals.

Data is accumulated from open sources and then translated into the game database structures. i.e. Damage points, fuel, range,...

There are even some hypothetical platforms included like the German Nuclear carrier, Munich.

The range of the naval Su-27 is dependant, again, on the database. One database might stress anticipated combat range while another prefers to use the Ferry range.

[Secret Agent]

What do you mean by, "How do they compare"?


I was asking how the US and Soviet carriers compared; it sounds like (from Scully's answer) the US carriers are far more capable. That's good to know. :) Oh, has anyone tried fighting with only Hornets? There was a discussion a week or so ago about how the F/A-18E/Fs weren't as good as the F-14s. Do any of you know about that? Or am I asking too many questions? :o

[TonyE]

Lately I've been mostly a Harpoon Classic player and the F-14 is markedly more capable than F/A-18E and F models. There are two keys to this, the much longer range of the F-14 radar, and the range advantage of the Phoenix missile over most opposition AAMs. In the near future the F/A-18 will be armed with extended range AMRAAM missiles that will nullify the missile range advantage and radar range gap will somewhat erode as well.

So in the barrrier air to air role the Super Hornet doesn't stack up to the F-14 but in most other respects (ground attack, dogfight, information management), the Super Hornet will imho win out.

[Scully]

I was asking how the US and Soviet carriers compared; it sounds like (from Scully's answer) the US carriers are far more capable. That's good to know. :) Oh, has anyone tried fighting with only Hornets? There was a discussion a week or so ago about how the F/A-18E/Fs weren't as good as the F-14s. Do any of you know about that? Or am I asking too many questions? :o

Something to keep in mind is that I've only played task force vs. task force so you have to consider the escort ships and land based aircraft as well. I'm not anywhere near a competent commander of naval forces, so I'm not sure how much my opinions should count. :)

[Divefreak]

Does Harpoon have Soviet & French carriers? If so, how do they compare to US carriers? And how much range do the naval Su-27s have?

There are Soviet and French Carriers in the3 db.

The Main different between the Soviet Carriers and the US is the different Philosophy. The Us-Carriers are "floating Airbases" with much Plane CAW around 80 Planse AFAIR and little to less selfdefens
weapons. Some Phalanx CIWIS, Ram, Sea Sparrow. And the Soviet Cariers are more CG with an oversized flight deck
Even the only "Fulldeck" Carier the Kuznetsov had only 30 Planes but still a full arment containing SSM longrange SAM etc.


So a US-Carier matches every other Carrier out by its Airwing
but need much more Protection than a Soviet Carrier.
And this is well represented in the Game.

Regards René

BTW If you would like to see a special platform/installation for the HC-Euro-DB please feel free to contact me. There are only two rules the Unit should be in active duty between 1975 to 2005 and should be present in the Atlantic/Med/Baltic theater.

[Sunburn]

US carriers in the DB2000:
http://www.harpoonhq.com/encyclopedia/HTML_Files/unitedstates.html

Russian carriers in the DB2000:
http://www.harpoonhq.com/encyclopedia/HTML_Files/russia.html

French carriers:
http://www.harpoonhq.com/encyclopedia/HTML_Files/France.html


It is important to note the doctrinal differences between the US and the USSR with regards to the use of aircraft carriers. US naval doctrine views carriers as the centerpiece of naval warfare, and as multi-mission mobile airbases (with a heavy emphasis on strike). Soviet (and Russian) doctrine views carriers as essentially the equivalent of Aegis cruisers & Spruance destroyers: the provider of the main defensive AAW & ASW cover for the surface group. In a US CBVG, every other ship is there to protect the carrier. In a Russian formation, the carrier (Kiev & Moskva in the past, these days Kusnetsov) is there to provide cover to the real HVU, typically a Kirov or an amphib group. This is the primary reason (along with the rich US WW2 experience in carrier ops) that Russian carriers never matched US vessels in multi-role capability.

[VCDH]

Dimitris is esentionally correct. During the Cold War, the Russians look at their carriers as ESCORTS to the large missile shooting cruisers like the Kirov and Slava class. The idea being that the carriers provide enough local air superority to give the cruisers the time to dart in, launch, and then dart out again.

This is borne out by the fact that even the Russian carrier has a battery of SS-N-19s installed in a VLS flush to the flight deck. And by the fact that the initial version of the Su-33 was armed with air to air missiles only.

Compare this to the NATO carriers that are a power projection tool that requires escort.

Although it would be intresting to see just how effective some of those high speed cruise missiles would be in a fight.

Later
D

Dale Hillier
AGSI RD&T
Harpoint Admin

http://www3.nf.sympatico.ca/daleh/avatars/vcdh.jpg

[CV32]

Yup. Completely different aircraft carrier philosophy. It seems unlikely that they would have survived for very long in the face of US Navy carrier airpower, at least not when operating far from home or without significant land based air cover. Harpoon seems to verify this theory. However, operating in close proximity to the Kola Peninsula, with the support of land based air (love those Backfires) and in waters infested by friendly submarines, the story might well have been different. ;)

[CV32]

There was a discussion a week or so ago about how the F/A-18E/Fs weren't as good as the F-14s. Do any of you know about that?

The Tomcat vs Super Hornet debate evokes much controversy in itself ... uh oh :crosseye: :cheeky: ... Tomcat aficionados are very protective of their aircraft. I agree with Tony, in that the F-14 is a better air superiority fighter, but the Super Bug might be a better multi-role platform. The latter seems to be the best all-around solution for the foreseeable future. Now, if we had ever seen the Super Tomcat or Tomcat 21 come to fruition, I might be whistling a different tune. :whist:

Or am I asking too many questions? :o

No such thing. ;)

[VCDH]

The old Soviet tactics were really meant to emphasize more combined arms than the US doctrion of carriers pairing up to go hunting on their own. The Soviets prefered the 'one big strike' concept when it came to defeating NATO carriers.

However their first and foremost consideration was always their SSBN force. The Soviet navy back then was (and for the most part still is today) a submarine force. All other branches of the navy were originally designed to support the submarine arm.

In the Harpoon4 paper rules there is a 'national modifier' of a 10% reduction in Damage Point value for ships built by certain nations (Russia, China, North Korea, etc). But it's intresting to note that the modifier does not apply to Russian submarines. Testomony to the emphasis they place on their sumbarine arm.

Later
D

Dale Hillier
AGSI RD&T
Harpoint Admin

http://www3.nf.sympatico.ca/daleh/avatars/vcdh.jpg

[Sunburn]

The F-14 was designed for a very specific mission profile: engaging large numbers of AV-MF bombers at long range, plus any AShMs that these bombers may launch before being shot down. Today this threat has diminished, both politically and physically.

The modern threat profile is a hypothetical swarming attack by multiple low-RCS short/medium range AShMs (or alternatively scores of tactical aircraft), possibly coming from multiple directions so as to overwhelm the CVBG's defences. Against such a threat you want as many fighters in the air as possible, armed with lots of reliable and relatively inexpensive missiles. They don't necessarily need to be very long-ranged, as the potential threats do not possess the formidable stand-off armament of the AV-MF, and instead they have to approach the CVBG fairly close before using their weapons.

Against such a threat profile, the F-18/AIM-120 pair is more effective than the F-14/AIM-54 combo. Here's why:

More available firepower in the air: The F-14 is maintenance-intensive and thus has a lower sortie rate than the more modern F-18. What this means is that you're likely to have more F-18s in the air than F-14s, and numbers count when you have to deal with a mass attack. Also the practical Phoenix load of the F-14 is 4 missiles (you can load it with 6, but then if the enemy doesn't show up, it has to jettison two of them in order to land - not good!), where as the F-18 can carry up to 10 (6 is IIRC the normal load). So overall you have more fighters and more missiles in the air at once. Additionally, each carrier can carry only about 120 Phoenix missiles (the thing is HUGE!), instead you can stuff it with much more AMRAAMs.

The AMRAAM is more effective against the modern threat than the Phoenix. The latter was designed to engage the large AV-MF bombers plus the occasional Soviet-style (=large!) cruise missile. It has much reduced capability against Harpoon-class weapons and tactical aircraft. The AIM-120 was designed from the outset to engage such targets. Also AFAIK the AIM-120 can be ripple-fired in a more rapid succession than the Phoenix, which is again important when you have a bazillion small anti-ship missiles incoming.

Soviet naval bombers had no fighter escort until the late-80s. The current threat may easily include fighters, as CVBG operations move closer to the coasts. The F-14, after expending its Phoenix missiles is virtually naked against modern fighters. Sure it has the gas to run home, but that's about it.
The F-18, after shooting its AMRAAMs, is still a very dangerous dogfighter and can hold its own as long as the other guy hasn't held back any BVR bullets.


The F-14 does hold the range & endurance advantage, but these are more useful for strike operations rather than CVBG defence, and are largely offset by the presence of AAR assets. Plus, the USN is increasing its reliance on cruise missiles for deep strike, so the Tomcat's longer reach is becoming less relevant even for offensive operations.

[MikMyk]

The now of those aircraft carriers is very interesting so I'll take a stab at this.

Kusnetsov is short on airpower and generally doesn't get much sea time. More aircraft are needed and like Brad and Dale alluded to it has a different mission (far from a land strike carrier). The larger combatants are slowly being retired and there is great debate over what is to be the role of this ship (as well as the rest of the Navy) besides a nice flagship. This is not to say that it shouldn't be respected but to say that it's future role hasn't been fleshed out yet.

DeGaulle is in a transitional period as well. Early propulsion problems plagued it and now its about fitting new aircraft on it decks. So right now you have a mix of super new Rafale's and ancient Super Etendards. Suspect the French will eventually mold this into an all Rafale carrier which offers alot of strike/air defense potential. Will fit in well for them and surely pack a good offensive punch. A little light in the ASW department though.

US CVN's have evolved. The cold war ended as did the backfire threat (maybe four regiments left?). So along with that there was a greater emphasis on getting more strike power out of them. This was evidenced by the evolution of the F-14 to a a multirole strike aircraft and the phasing out of the Phoenix (expensive long range defensive AAR missile). The carriers primary ASW aircraft (Viking) received a different role and will be phased out completely before the end of the decade. This leaves only a small ASW helo detachment and the battlegroup to cover most ASW and AAW self defense tasks.The carriers are moving swiftly to all Hornet multirole which makes them more capable strike carriers. Given the current lack of a naval threat consider them mobile airbases. Although that may change again with the rise of a Chinese Naval Power.

[Secret Agent]

Thanks everyone! You guys have mentioned "AAR;" what does that mean? (I know it's not 'after action report.' :) )

[Secret Agent]

Thanks everyone! You guys have mentioned "AAR;" what does that mean? (I know it's not 'after action report.' :) )

[CV32]

I think Dmitris, in his post, means air-to-air refueling. :)

[MikMyk]

Oh well thats what happens when you got fat fingers.. What I meant was AAW (anti air warfare). Sorry bout that. :laugh:

[Silent Hunter U]

Hope this is alright to bump this after so long.

The Soviet "aviation cruisers" were VSTOL only and their aircraft, the Yak-38 "Forger" is almost universally regarded as one of the worst aircraft ever to enter front-line service.

[Herman Hum]

What if their purpose was primarily to shoot down unarmed enemy aircraft like ASW helicopters and MPA like the Orions and Nimrods? I think that they could have done that job quite well.

[Silent Hunter U]

What if their purpose was primarily to shoot down unarmed enemy aircraft like ASW helicopters and MPA like the Orions and Nimrods? I think that they could have done that job quite well.

Those aircraft aren't exactly unarmed, but it's possible. However, their poor range would mean that the surface group would have been found before they could get into range.