Modelling future A2/AD offset strategies.

[Dysta]

We also forget the rapid redevelop-ability of Chinese satellites with solid fuel rockets.

If orbital warfare also comes in play, there will be generating more space debris than the entire space exploring history combined.

[magi]

May be… With space laser mounted satellites… We can just burn them so they don't function instead of blowing them to pieces... Which would probably happen in hour one.....

[AlanChan]

ORIGINAL: magi

May be… With space laser mounted satellites… We can just burn them so they don't function instead of blowing them to pieces... Which would probably happen in hour one.....

Don't try to match the power of ground based laser from space. Space deployed, lasers are more useful for trick IR star sensor to confuse sat for its position. But ground based laser could burn sats or blind their primary sensors.

[Dysta]

They don't have to redeploy sensor satellite, but rather, disruptive satellite with robotic arms, or wavelength jamming satellite that immune to photonics kill (laser).

Unless the US is extremely desperate to scrap their old-school ASAT doctrine, and bring out 1MW laser that needs a NPP to power it.

[temkc5]

future A2/AD offset strategies seem like an interesting to put it mildly.
Araner is their any way to convince you to release a alpha/beta for the community to get more involved in this fascinating topic
and Test the inner strategist

currently my money is on something DARPA is working on [8D] "ECM/EMP" [;)] [;)]

Ps. AGM-158C LRASM also SLAMER-ATA for second strike & damage reporting

Honorable mention UGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT

[Dysta]

TACTOM and LRASM aren't the critical solution of naval conflicts. It is still the strategic and tactical expense do the answer to which side can last longer. I am pretty sure area denial with AA missiles and MRBMs can deal more efficient damage than actually invading the others.

Of course, offense is the best defense, the problem is how big the offense can equalize their defense.

[Araner]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

I'd like Japan to get some of those ASBMs and see how China likes a little AA/AD action from a nearby, unsinkable platform.

Make those ASCMs and it looks like you may get your wish... http://english.ryukyushimpo.jp/2015/05/17/18524/

[Araner]

ORIGINAL: temkc5

future A2/AD offset strategies seem like an interesting to put it mildly.
Araner is their any way to convince you to release a alpha/beta for the community to get more involved in this fascinating topic
and Test the inner strategist

currently my money is on something DARPA is working on [8D] "ECM/EMP" [;)] [;)]

Ps. AGM-158C LRASM also SLAMER-ATA for second strike & damage reporting

Honorable mention UGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT

I certainly appreciate the interest! Moreover, it seems like a new PLAN vs USN thread is created every other week requesting something aloong the lines of a 2020s-era conflict in the ECS/SCS... As for my being able to share an Alpha scenario, I did get pretty far along in modelling the oft-cited PLA missile attack on Okinawa with US/JSDF response. I even made sure to base every unit on known locations and capabilities, which took a LONG time as you might imagine! This was especially true of the Second Artillery units.

Nevertheless, the scenario yielded interesting information even before I got the chance to run it! By this I mean the fabled "1000 missile strike" of carrier-killing MIRVs is much more likely an "80 missile strike". If you actually map known locations for each 2nd Artillery unit with their reported missile batteries its pretty easy to figure out that the vast majority of the 2nd Artillery missile inventories are aimed at Taiwan. When comparing the range of a DF-15 to a DF-16 one can see the latters range is just barely long enough to reach Okinawa, but nowhere else in Japan, unless stationed north of North Korea... So that leaves the DF-21C (the coventional land attack variant and Df-21D the infamous carrier killer). I have the citations somewhere, but the best sources I could only find 1 and maybe 2 units deployed with DF-21Ds. If we assumed that number were to double in the next few years that still wouldn't account for more than 100 missiles that have never actually successfully been tested hitting a ship at sea... Moreover, as I was able to map each 2nd Artillery unit to their garrison HQ and suspected launch sites, another observation became immediately clear...It would be a lot harder to quietly launch a rocket in heavily urbanized China then it was in the deserts of Iraq. As easy as it was for me to map launch sites from open sources online, I'm guessing the Pentagon has more recent data to work with. Not to mention, if people were Tweeting about the Bin Laden raid while it was happening in Abbotabad, one would imagine the sudden launch of 15 ballistic missiles within the same area would attract some kind of notice on Social Media. Of course, the authorities could always black out access to that area but that alone would signal a red flag for the US.
Anyway, I've been meaning to report all these results in greater detail once the actual scenario came anywhere close to a playable state but I've been running into some technical issues that makes the scenario unplayable after a certain point. Namely, the sheer number of units involved slow the gameplay down to the point where its hard to make an accurate depiction without straining the games resources... I tried streamlining the units down to those most likely to be involved in a PLA vs US/JSDF conflict by getting rid of the DF15 units etc... but it still winds end being a large file.
Something that might be more achievable would be if I could share something like a scenario attachment package in the interim. Such a package could include all the relevant 2nd Artillery units located in their presumed deployment sites, and the "Skywave Radar Brigade" with the four OTH-SW radar sites, and the only known OTH-B site which are considered to be crucial to the "ASBM Kill Chain". If I can figure it out, I can also add the georeferenced image overlays that I used to identify each location. Of course, there seem to be technical issues with sharing even this much as i've found my .inst exports tend to be missing certain random files... I'm sure there's a write up on how to do it properly though so hopefully I'll figure it out soon enough...

[Vici Supreme]

ORIGINAL: Araner


Something that might be more achievable would be if I could share something like a scenario attachment package in the interim. Such a package could include all the relevant 2nd Artillery units located in their presumed deployment sites, and the "Skywave Radar Brigade" with the four OTH-SW radar sites, and the only known OTH-B site which are considered to be crucial to the "ASBM Kill Chain". If I can figure it out, I can also add the georeferenced image overlays that I used to identify each location. Of course, there seem to be technical issues with sharing even this much as i've found my .inst exports tend to be missing certain random files... I'm sure there's a write up on how to do it properly though so hopefully I'll figure it out soon enough...

Go for it! I already wanted to ask. I'm sure a lot of guys here could benefit from your work! [;)]

[falcon2006]

ORIGINAL: AlanChan

Type 022 is not cheap, they come in at 200M CNY each. they are specially designed to operate near heavily contested littoral waters which big ship is hard to survive. 60 of them is enough for taiwan strait. More of them could be added if Vietnam got some really good ASuM capacity. But now, enough 022 were built, so PLAN turn to 056. It is not 022 was replaced by 056. 056 replace 037.

Under every circumstances, the type 022 is useless. This is even a conclusion by PLAN and PLAAF. For where the PLA gains air superiority, enemy warships will be destroyed by aircraft with ASMs and even conventional bombs, other enemy ships will be deployed in enemy's air superiority region.Type 022 will never get a shot chance at that circumstance. On the other hand, 022 has to get into enemy's air superiority region and becomes a prey of enemy weapon platforms. When type 022s were built, the biggest challenge for PLA was and now still is airborne threat. These threats are mainly long range cruise missiles, ASMs, and sometimes torpedoes and missiles from submarines. Type 022 has no capability of engaging all these targets, and its only role of striking enemy ships is just impossible.

[falcon2006]

The stealth capability of 022 can not prevent it from being detected at a long distance by enemy sensors on various airborne platforms. These sensors include fighter-borne fire control radars, helicopter-borne surveillance radars, AEWs, infrared sensors and even LLTVs. Type 022 is a mistake of the PLAN. Fortunately, they were just aware of that.

[temkc5]

Hey I hope all is well Araner.


Can we get a progress report me and our fellow gamers would love to support you in your work

Please [&o].

Ps. I don't think you give yourself enough credit to your two scenarios ("Just another China vs United States scenario") there are many Concepts in play here regarding A2/AD. please try to think of it in a conceptual strategy way instead of country vs country.

many thanks for taking the time to read this

[Araner]

Hello All!
There may be more recent updates in some other threads since I tend to lose track of these things... In any case, thank you TEMKC 5 for your kind words!As such, I'll try to do my best to post updates in the most relevant spot.
I have indeed continued my interest in the area of counter A2/AD operations as it remains highly relevant. I have been taking advantage of Steam Workshop compatibility as a means to develop and organize my simulations. Thus far I have two scenarios posted to the workshop. "Distributed Lethality" was the first and examines the current US naval doctrine known by the same name. "Dragon SEAD" Examines operations necessary for securing air superiority after a hypothetical first strike on US/Allied facilities in the Pacific has already taken place.

My current scenario in development picks up where "Dragon SEAD" left off and tests US/Allied capabilities in eliminating PLA land-based, offensive missile inventories after air superiority has been attained.
I have also included a discussion section for each scenario where users are invited to discuss relevant operational/strategic issues therein.

[Araner]

The scenarios are very open ended and I'm sure everybody will have their own conclusion, but there were a number of key takeaways I learned in the process of creating the scenarios which I probably wouldn't have understood without CMANO as a visualization tool... The "Distributed Lethality" scenario did in fact appear to confirm the logic of respective naval doctrine which emphasizes allocation of more offensive firepower even at the expense of defensive capabilities. In other words, if a standard VLS has only 60 tubes, then you have a better chance of victory if you rely on 20 instead of 30 SM-6 SAMs as long as you allocate for 10 LRASMs. The scenario proved enemy units will be less likely to score a kill shot if they're fighting for their own survival.

Likewise, the "Dragon SEAD" scenario provided even clearer insights by showing how PLA critical radar/EW units are located deep enough in the interior that US/allied units would require long range in addition to stealth capabilities. This would perhaps help explain why the navy is opting for an unmanned tanker aircraft in lieu of a long range/stealthy penetrator. It also explains why the USAF would seemingly invest so much in a new manned bomber program in a budget-constrained environment. Indeed, the picture I came away with is one where the USAF would be called on for most of the front line air ops, while the USN/USMC would serve to protect critical ISR/logistical capabilities.

My ultimate goal is to develop a scenario which models each subcomponent of the so-called "Third-Offset" strategy. Wherein each service branch has responded with a new approach according to their own assets and capabilities. I covered surface naval warfare with "DL", long range air ops in "Dragon SEAD" and persistent domain awareness in my current effort. Next up I hope to model proposals involving land-based (Army) and amphibious (USMC) forces.
The land-based element in a counter-A2AD campaign would essentially give the PLA a "taste of their own medicine" by deploying land-based missile batteries to critical maritime choke points along the first island chain. As such terrain is not likely to be sovereign US territory, close coordination with allied nations would be a precondition. As such, the leading proponent of this approach has not thus far been the US Army, but rather the JGSDF. So long as the facilities database accurately reflects available land-based missile assets, then modelling such a scenario shouldn't be too much of a challenge.

The final component of the offset strategy is being aggressively pursued by the USMC though the USAF is also pursuing a similar approach. As the amphibious service, the USMC is in the unique position of being able to apply elements of both a maritime and land-based strategy. In the past this might've meant Iwo-Jima style landing operations on a fixed beachead. With the MV-22 Osprey, F-35B and America Class LHAs at their disposal however, the USMC are now at the cutting edge of tactical development. Such tactics are beginning to coalesce around a concept of "Expeditionary Advanced Bases" wherein rapidly deployable air bases can be packed inside a single KC-130, set up in the most austere locations and be capable of servicing, refueling and rearming F35Bs for a predetermined period before packing up and moving to another location. The USAF, has a similar concept called "Rapid Raptor" wherein a small squadron of F-22s and everything needed to sustain them can be carried in a single C-17 and deploy anywhere in the world within 24 hours. Most recently the two forces have been working together in a unified concept of "Untethered air operations".
Such operations would be very exciting to model in CMANO but would be very challenging in its present iteration. Game features giving more detailed control over logistical ops would need development. To be sure, logistics may not be as sexy to the average gamer as sexy as a dogfight, but such features would go a long way towards supporting more amphibious operations in general.

[magi]

Araner...
"The land-based element in a counter-A2AD campaign would essentially give the PLA a "taste of their own medicine" by deploying land-based missile batteries to critical maritime choke points along the first island chain. As such terrain is not likely to be sovereign US territory, close coordination with allied nations would be a precondition. As such, the leading proponent of this approach has not thus far been the US Army, but rather the JGSDF. So long as the facilities database accurately reflects available land-based missile assets, then modelling such a scenario shouldn't be too much of a challenge."

i have long believed this as stated above...... i believe there should multi faceted contingency plans for dominating and prevailing in the region..political..economic and military... but one component should certainly be SLOC denial.... how long could china hold out if they could not use their sea lanes...?

"The final component of the offset strategy is being aggressively pursued by the USMC though the USAF is also pursuing a similar approach. As the amphibious service, the USMC is in the unique position of being able to apply elements of both a maritime and land-based strategy. In the past this might've meant Iwo-Jima style landing operations on a fixed beachead. With the MV-22 Osprey, F-35B and America Class LHAs at their disposal however, the USMC are now at the cutting edge of tactical development. Such tactics are beginning to coalesce around a concept of "Expeditionary Advanced Bases" wherein rapidly deployable air bases can be packed inside a single KC-130, set up in the most austere locations and be capable of servicing, refueling and rearming F35Bs for a predetermined period before packing up and moving to another location. The USAF, has a similar concept called "Rapid Raptor" wherein a small squadron of F-22s and everything needed to sustain them can be carried in a single C-17 and deploy anywhere in the world within 24 hours. Most recently the two forces have been working together in a unified concept of "Untethered air operations".

interesting..... but very complicated....

[magi]

ORIGINAL: Araner

Hello All!
There may be more recent updates in some other threads since I tend to lose track of these things... In any case, thank you TEMKC 5 for your kind words!As such, I'll try to do my best to post updates in the most relevant spot.
I have indeed continued my interest in the area of counter A2/AD operations as it remains highly relevant. I have been taking advantage of Steam Workshop compatibility as a means to develop and organize my simulations. Thus far I have two scenarios posted to the workshop. "Distributed Lethality" was the first and examines the current US naval doctrine known by the same name. "Dragon SEAD" Examines operations necessary for securing air superiority after a hypothetical first strike on US/Allied facilities in the Pacific has already taken place.

My current scenario in development picks up where "Dragon SEAD" left off and tests US/Allied capabilities in eliminating PLA land-based, offensive missile inventories after air superiority has been attained.
I have also included a discussion section for each scenario where users are invited to discuss relevant operational/strategic issues therein.

cant you post attachments here..... i really want to see these..... hurry now....

[mikkey]

+1 for uploading your scenarios here or in "Mods and Scenarios" section. Thanks.

[Araner]

For some reason I always get an "OnThread Exception", "TheEx != null" and a series of errors whenever I try to package any scenario for distribution.
Steam Workshop is the only distribution method that has ever worked for me unfortunately... If anyone has any suggestions, I'll be happy to try them.

[mikkey]

Araner, you can upload only your scenario *.scen file from Scenarios folder.

[Araner]

interesting..... but very complicated....

My thoughts exactly... I think I tried to set up a crude "Rapid Raptor" deployment by adding a flight of F-22s and a single C-17 to a one-way ferry mission and then manually arming the F-22s after a certain period of time had elapsed since the C-17 landed. Modelling true "Untethered Ops" as currently envisioned would be much more complex. You would have to change the home base, weapons loadout, mission plan etc... for entire squadrons as an event condition that would need to be triggered after a C-17/KC-130/MV-22 lands at a small airfield and a period of time has elapsed.
What makes the Untethered Ops concept such a potential game-changer however, is not so much in the platforms or weaponry involved but rather in the novel use of logistics as a force multiplier. So just as the wars of the past 20 years have blurred the boundaries between tactical, operational and strategic warfare, the wars of the next 20 years may blur the distinction between logistics and tactics. Such an approach would certainly fit the current "Third Offset" line of thinking as logistics have traditionally been an area where the US Military has excelled.
In terms of game mechanics, this may mean more fine-grained control over magazines and vessel/aircraft loadouts. Especially if it allows for transferable payloads, which as I mentioned previously would also open up more possibilities for amphibious scenarios. After all, when it comes down to it, amphibious ops are really about how much stuff/people you can drop off without the enemy disrupting it. Without such capabilities, all those hundreds, if not thousands, of support ships, landing craft, cargo planes etc... in the database serve little purpose more than to provide something for the opposing side to shoot at.