Scenario for Testing: There can only be one

[trismidt]

I hope everyone finds this scenario interesting.
I came up with the idea of this one during a discussion at work.

I am trying to settle the age old question, which generation is better.
The TR CSG is exactly what will deploy in 2015, I estimated the
TR CVBG in 1989, if anyone has more accurate data on the CVBG make up
please let me know.

Please let me know if you find any bugs, inaccuracies, ways to improve.
I would like to make more detailed events to make it more interesting.

Thanks!
V/R
Trismidt

[trismidt]

By the way, I set up the scenario to play through without
operator input so if you want sit back and watch. It is
fun to see one side with a good long range offense and one
side with a strong AW defense.

[Dimitris]

Bonus points for the concept [:)]

[Flankerk]

Played this as 2015 side as I thought it might be easier. It perhaps is, but not an easy scenario, and certainly original.
Strictly speaking the scenario is probably too long, the main battle probably lasts the day at a guess?
I managed a win, actually sinking everything out there, but it probably needs a scenario ending trigger, sinking the Nimitz got me 200 points, but it didn't score that as a win, and didn't trigger the end of the scenario. I worked really hard to sink her as well!

The missions worked well, with several very nasty attacks. I also ran out of ammunition which I suspect may well be intended, the air war eventually petering out.

A real challenge this one and intriguing.

[Gunner98]

Played it through as you suggested AI vs AI. Seemed to work well, after a day, the CVBG was down by 41 A/C and the California had just sunk, so I think the writing was on the wall. I think the 89 CVBG would take quite a bit of finesse to get a good hit in on the 2015 side.

One thought is to add a couple SSNs to the equation, the S-3s did not do much in the way of finding the CSG except die, so some other form of detection would be good. Also the SAG formation did not work, the CGN was well ahead of the escorts and all alone.

I think the CVBG is a bit short on ships, it would never have a Knox because they couldn't keep up and were used for Amphib and BB escort if not convoy work. Ideally it should have 2-3 x CG or CGN, by 89 at least two of them would have been Tyco's. That should not include the one in the SAG which should be a Tyco if possible. Also in the escort would be 3-4 x ASW ships, ideally all destroyers but I think 2 x Spruance and 2 x OHP or a combination would be normal, plus 2 x SSNs and an AOR.

Been hunting around for a source but don't have one to hand. In 81, 'The Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet' doesn't get specific but for the 12 CVBGs active at the time they quote 18 Aegis CG, 30 CG/CGN/DDG, and 24 DDs assigned to CVBGs (so 1.5 Aegis, 2.5 other AAW, and 2 ASW. FFGs were not tasked with CVBGs but often filled gaps and were used to escort the AOR when it was separate. The SSNs would be attached to the CVBG but in a very lose way, probably over 100 NM's away.

This site has gross numbers: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm
So if you assume that all CGs are dedicated to CVBGs (unlikely) in 89 there are 40 CGs for 14 CVs, 2 CVs inactive, 10% of CGs in refit (lots of assumptions here) and you have a 1:3 ratio.

BG

[Yokes]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

In 81, 'The Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet' doesn't get specific but for the 12 CVBGs active at the time they quote 18 Aegis CG...

The always accurate Wikipedia ([8|]) says that there were 14 commissioned by the end of 1989, but one of the those was the Normandy (9 Dec '89).

I think including one Tico per CVBG is fair, but two or more is being a bit generous. But that's just my opinion.

Yokes

[Gunner98]

Fair point. FAS agrees with Wiki https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cg-47.htm

And only 9 with VLS (including Normandy [;)]). The next 13 came out in 3.5 years - that's fast.

I stand corrected, thank you.