Command LIVE: Korean Missile Crisis is Released!

[Gunner98]

You certainly have a point on the Nike Hercules, completely missed that one.

From what I gather the KM-SAM started deploying in Aug last year and one possibly two Btys are in existence. I could update that.

The Pac-3 was announced in 2016 but I don't think it is deployed yet. If you have any information on that I can include it in an update to the scenario.

Of course the latest news today is this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39188826

[Kushan04]

ORIGINAL: lamboman43

Can someone help me understand why the Russian krypton ARMs can almost never be fired at SAM sites in this scenario? I would fly my planes into a SAM site that is radiating and launching missiles, but even then it won't let me fire. I'll press shift+F1 and try to manually do it but it won't even show the missiles at all. On any other missile it says it can't find any radiating targets but still lists it, but with the Kryptons in this scenario, they don't even show up. The Kryptons work in every other scenario I tested them in.

Update: I just restarted the scenario and tried again and it is working now. But the same thing happened in Kushan's video here at the 5:14 mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a475XAhykxA. He is able to later target with the Kryptons. Is that missile just garbage?

I originally thought it was because the radars were not radiating hence the missiles had nothing to home in on. But I looked at the save and they appear to be. I'll have to do look into it a little more. Not sure if its a bug or if its something to do with the missile itself.

[WBailey]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

You certainly have a point on the Nike Hercules, completely missed that one.

From what I gather the KM-SAM started deploying in Aug last year and one possibly two Btys are in existence. I could update that.

The Pac-3 was announced in 2016 but I don't think it is deployed yet. If you have any information on that I can include it in an update to the scenario.

Of course the latest news today is this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39188826

This Reuters article states that the ROK operates Patriot PAC-3:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north ... SKBN16F0CT

Additionally, US Forces Korea includes the 35th Air Defense Artillery Brigade at Osan Air Base, which was just upgraded to the latest equipment:
https://www.army.mil/article/181717/mod ... riot_fleet

[Cik]

scenario's pretty fun. it makes me laugh how similar it is to falcon 4's campaign. little has changed since the 90s, save that nuclear thing.

it surprises me how effective the ROK F-16K B32 are. AIM-9P-4 doesn't seem that great but when enhanced by a very maneuverable shooting platform and a massive swarm of aircraft, it's pretty fearsome. the poor MIGs off koksan are having real problems not dying 2 seconds off the ground to a swarm of diving falcons, vulcans blazing.

not having much luck on the OCA front though; anyone want to give recommendations on how many OCA strikers i should send? 8 falcons with 2 GBU31/GBU24 penetrators apiece has failed to shut down two runways now. note: i'm only targeting taxi/runway/access points. granted i do have piles of penetrators to throw around. should i just send 12 per sortie? i wish there were more feedback on how exactly the bombs are doing when hitting these runway segments. there doesn't seem to be any BDA, save 100% penetration (does that mean destroyed when targeting runways(?)

fun so far though. just watching massive WVR air battles is a good time. and there are lots of those to go around with their WWII-esque 150 MIG-21s they throw up.

[Gunner98]

This Reuters article states that the ROK operates Patriot PAC-3: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north ... SKBN16F0CT Additionally, US Forces Korea includes the 35th Air Defense Artillery Brigade at Osan Air Base, which was just upgraded to the latest equipment: https://www.army.mil/article/181717/mod ... riot_fleet

Interesting, regarding the 35th ADA, it gives very specific dates 25/26 Jan - so I'll change them up for sure.

The Reuters article is not so specific and the PAC-3 comment is almost a throw away line. But

Defense Security Cooperation document from Nov 14: http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/re ... 3-missiles

This article states: South Korea requested for a $404m possible foreign military sale of 112 Patriot missiles, which were subsequently upgraded to GEM-T configuration in October 2013 but is not firm on SK actually getting that permission. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/

And this article as well is not firm: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-l ... RC20150331


So I think on balance of probabilities, with the date of the requests being a couple years ago - and it really could be critical if you cannot find the launching systems. I'll change at least some of them up.

Thanks for that.

[Gunner98]

Cik

Cannot really advise on the OCA strike package, but considering all your other targets, and time constraints, you may want to conserve your penetrators. Your A2A missiles are pretty effective at OCA [;)] and most of your assigned target sets are hard to destroy. You have some room to play but not as much as you think.

B

[Gunner98]

introduced the KN-06 to the DB

Will fix that on the next release.

B

[Tailhook]

ORIGINAL: Cik

scenario's pretty fun. it makes me laugh how similar it is to falcon 4's campaign. little has changed since the 90s, save that nuclear thing.

it surprises me how effective the ROK F-16K B32 are. AIM-9P-4 doesn't seem that great but when enhanced by a very maneuverable shooting platform and a massive swarm of aircraft, it's pretty fearsome. the poor MIGs off koksan are having real problems not dying 2 seconds off the ground to a swarm of diving falcons, vulcans blazing.

not having much luck on the OCA front though; anyone want to give recommendations on how many OCA strikers i should send? 8 falcons with 2 GBU31/GBU24 penetrators apiece has failed to shut down two runways now. note: i'm only targeting taxi/runway/access points. granted i do have piles of penetrators to throw around. should i just send 12 per sortie? i wish there were more feedback on how exactly the bombs are doing when hitting these runway segments. there doesn't seem to be any BDA, save 100% penetration (does that mean destroyed when targeting runways(?)

fun so far though. just watching massive WVR air battles is a good time. and there are lots of those to go around with their WWII-esque 150 MIG-21s they throw up.

I posted my AAR over in the appropriate section, but where I didn't use Tomahawks to shut down the runways I sent 4 F-16s with 2x penetrators per airfield. By targeting the runways and runway grade taxiways this was more than sufficient.

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: Kushan

ORIGINAL: lamboman43

Can someone help me understand why the Russian krypton ARMs can almost never be fired at SAM sites in this scenario? I would fly my planes into a SAM site that is radiating and launching missiles, but even then it won't let me fire. I'll press shift+F1 and try to manually do it but it won't even show the missiles at all. On any other missile it says it can't find any radiating targets but still lists it, but with the Kryptons in this scenario, they don't even show up. The Kryptons work in every other scenario I tested them in.

Update: I just restarted the scenario and tried again and it is working now. But the same thing happened in Kushan's video here at the 5:14 mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a475XAhykxA. He is able to later target with the Kryptons. Is that missile just garbage?

I originally thought it was because the radars were not radiating hence the missiles had nothing to home in on. But I looked at the save and they appear to be. I'll have to do look into it a little more. Not sure if its a bug or if its something to do with the missile itself.

When I was watching your video it seemed like you were clicking on the missile rather than the SAM site, that's why only chaff/flares came up as options.

I wonder if lamboman had the same issue.

[Vici Supreme]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Exactly why are the USAF F-16s at a 2001 standard instead of 2014-2016?

The Korea based Sqns are Block 40's: http://www.f-16.net/units_article186.html

I'm not 100% sure but as I understand it, modernized F-16CJ/CGs are designated F-16CM. Those are in the DB and range up till 2016. Hope this helps!

[Cik]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Cik

Cannot really advise on the OCA strike package, but considering all your other targets, and time constraints, you may want to conserve your penetrators. Your A2A missiles are pretty effective at OCA [;)] and most of your assigned target sets are hard to destroy. You have some room to play but not as much as you think.

B

you're right about needing the bombs. some of these bunkers must be dug really deep with how many GBU-28/24 they are soaking. the DPRK air force is surprisingly difficult to overcome, not because the planes or pilots are good, but just because of sheer numbers. i can send up every escort i have, plus 4 sections of strikers (themselves loaded with AMRAAM) and fail to penetrate to pyongyang, not because i lose an air battle but simply that all of my escorts shotgun out.

i think next time i will give swarming tomahawks a try as an initial strategy (against parking spaces. most of these airfields have to be absolutely PACKED with planes) have you tried that, and do you think it will work? so far i've held them in reserve and used them to smash the pyongyang air defenses, but it seems like sending AGM-88 equipped falcons or GBU-39 raptors should be able to deal with that. my normal instinct is to hold the tomahawks in reserve until i've cleared out the higher-level point-defense capable SAMs, but the DPRK doesn't have any so there's that out the window. have you tried shotgunning tomahawks into the DPRK's forward bases? did it work? thoughts?

[Gunner98]

The TLAM swarm may work, but don't forget to let the Russians do some of the work.

I've found that this one depends on timing quite a bit. Although there is a lot of time pressure, rushing in may not be the best option.

B

[Gunner98]

I'm not 100% sure but as I understand it, modernized F-16CJ/CGs are designated F-16CM. Those are in the DB and range up till 2016. Hope this helps!

You are correct, thanks for the lead. Will fix in the next release.

B

[TXTBOOK]

With the recent article referencing a US B-1B simulated strike in Korea (escorted by South Korean F-16 and F-15's which are part of the Korean Missile Crisis scenario), it got me thinking about the assets available in this scenario.

Is there a particular reason why the scenario editors did not include B-1B assets for use? Are there targets which are not included in the scope of the scenario for which the B-1B would be more suitable for?

Of course there must be many considerations in scenario design, and the commander can't have everything. Just a thought

Here's the article I'm referencing: https://theaviationist.com/2017/03/22/u ... china-sea/

[Gunner98]

Hi TXTBOOK

I certainly could have included a B-1, however, there are already so many assets in theatre that there is generally no doubt that a US player will overwhelm North Korean defences, especially with indirect help from Russia.

So the choice was a non-stealthy bomber(s) with a decent bomb load or a stealthy bomber that could deliver the GBU-57 MOP. Considering the target set, I felt that the MOP would probably be required, therefore a B-2. Any more than one bomber would probably be a little overkill, although it might be realistic to have one or two B-2 and perhaps 8-10 B-1 loaded with JASSMs in this situation - 240 JASSMs would mean much of the USAF and SK AF could stay home and take a break.

The other key consideration was stealth. The USMC F-35 Sqn deployed to Japan in early Jan, and I felt that these, combined with a couple ready Raptor Sqns would complement the B-2 quite well, where the B-1(s) would just hang out over Japan and start lobbing death and destruction all over the place. Since the MOP needs to get in close and personal, the strike takes real coordination between very interesting platforms.

So you have a very good point but the choice was made more for game balance and interest.

Thanks

B

[TXTBOOK]

Thanks for your quick response, and I understand and agree completely.

I should have lead with this, but the scenario is fantastic!

[DrRansom]

A couple of quick points I noticed from the Russian playthrough:
- There are a bunch of extra RP's on the map that are neither fixed nor attached to any mission visible to the Russians, as far as I can tell. It clutters the screen.

- I am able to: sink a North Korean submarine and launch As-4 missiles without the North Koreans treating the Russians as hostile.

I'm not sure if either are intended, but they seem odd.

[Vici Supreme]

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

- There are a bunch of extra RP's on the map that are neither fixed nor attached to any mission visible to the Russians, as far as I can tell. It clutters the screen.

Almost sure these are the RPs needed to divine the AI mission areas when the Russians are not human controlled.

[DrRansom]

ORIGINAL: Supreme 2.0

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

- There are a bunch of extra RP's on the map that are neither fixed nor attached to any mission visible to the Russians, as far as I can tell. It clutters the screen.

Almost sure these are the RPs needed to divine the AI mission areas when the Russians are not human controlled.

That is very plausible, still clutters the screen though and I'm afraid to delete, less I break some other AI mission.

[Gunner98]

Yes, the added RPs are there to help the Russian AI with missions that are scrubbed if side is human. I suppose I could have those RPs on another side but that makes building the AI very tricky. Having RPs small helps, or you could delete as the AI RPs for the North Korean's or the US side are not visible to the Russian player. The only concern would be the locked ones which indicate zones or the ones that the remaining missions use.

Regarding the point on hostile side - if the North Korean cannot identify the shooter, it does not know who did the shooting and therefore who should be hostile. Its a bit of a weird one, and in particular the NK side does not have very good sensors. This same logic usually works against the player if you fire in the direction of another side it may inadvertently consider you hostile, that can be a PITA.

Hope this helps.

B