Discussion: Carrier Based AEW stations

[HalfLifeExpert]

In light of the just-released Ford-Class DLC scenario, I'd like to discuss and ask about something directly related to the scenario, but naturally also applicable across MANY more scenarios:

How do you set up/use AEW aircraft from aircraft carriers?

Now the obvious purpose of these aircraft is to give further our Radar coverage without needing to go off of EMCON for your ships (and thus giving away their position).

But within that mindset, what's the best rule(s) of thumb for setting up these AEW stations for protecting a CVBG?

(This will assume you have one AEW aircraft available for flight at any given time.)

Obviously you want the AEW station to cover the most likely threat vectors the Carrier will face, but how do you decide where to put the station for the AEW aircraft relative to the Carrier?
How close to the carrier?
In a Box formation (basic define area) or more in a larger or varied pattern?

This is all with the mindset of making the most out of the AEW aircraft without unintentionally giving away the Carrier's position to the enemy.

Discuss!

[thewood1]

In open ocean, I put it 100-200nm off one side...if I'm lazy and I don't expect peer threats. If its a very contested area, I set up two patrol areas and alternate between the missions to make it harder to backtrack the CV from the AEW.

I have played with randomly moving rps around and swapping relative vs absolute rps to throw off the back track. Its not that hard to do with a few triggers and a line of lua. But have not used it fully.

The multi-mission planner adds a dimension that I haven't yet explored.

[HalfLifeExpert]

In open ocean, I put it 100-200nm off one side...if I'm lazy and I don't expect peer threats. If its a very contested area, I set up two patrol areas and alternate between the missions to make it harder to backtrack the CV from the AEW.

Hmm, that's an interesting idea! I'll have a look if I can set up a couple AEW stations and swap with the Multi-Mission Planner.

[SeaQueen]

It depends. I don't think there's necessarily a "best" solution because like all optimization problems you get into "best for what?" Airborne radar can serve multiple purposes.

The way I think about it is that there's a sensing area (SA), a classification, identification and engagement area (CIEA) and a vital area (VA). The vital area is the area I want to protect. It's defined by the longest or most challenging weapon enemy weapon system. The VA the area I need to keep things out of because if I don't, they might shoot at me. It might be a 100NM radius around the things I'm protecting, or it might be a 10NM radius. It just depends. The SA is defined by greatest distance I can see. One advantage of airborne radar is that I can move it to where ever I want it to be, and expand the sensing area or collapse it, as it makes sense, or in response to constraints like a SAM WEZ. If, for some reason, the CVN was operating near the edge of one, I can position it to remain outside it. Similarly, the CIEA can be expanded and contracted. It's defined by the farthest out ability to engage a threat. Maybe that's with naval SAMs, ASCMs or maybe that's with aircraft. It just depends on the threat. I want to try to give myself the most time I can manage to engage following the detection of threats.

So, maybe I haven't really answered your question, but that's kinda how I think about the problem? Airborne radar is important because if you use it effectively, it means that OODA timer is down to zero by the time you're able to engage, so you don't have to wait on fighters or surface pickets to observe, orient, decide and act. They're ready to shoot.

[kevinkins]

I have wondered if a valuable asset like AEW should have a dedicated CAP or operate within ranges of a destroyer armed with SAMs. AEW and tankers are so important I think they might need some direct protection within the game of hide and seek. A few years ago a lot was mentioned that tankers might be the Achilles Heel in a long range Pacific conflict.

[BobTank63]

Considering the scenario in question, if you choose one of the options with 5 Hawkeye's total you should be to run two AEW stations at once, one north near Lunda and the other south in the direction of those Su-30s.
If you go 20 F-35s I would just substitute one of the AEW locations with an F-35 CAP due to the F-35s big radar.

In general, it depends on the needs of the scenario and how many AEW aircraft I have.

[thewood1]

I almost always station a Far-CAP for the CV group near enough to the E-2 to cover it. I keep the prosecution zone overlapping and and extending out for my F-18s or F-35s to cover the E-2 from any reasonable BVR attempts.

An interesting test of AEW stationing flexibility is passing through the Hormuz Strait. I have a played with a number of phase lines to shift ships and air patrols around to pass from more open ocean to more constrained sea to very constricted strait. It works but takes some effort. It depends on air wing composition, permitted overflies of adjacent countries, and obviously the threat picture. Mt goal in doing my own scenarios is to plan as much as possible to minimize intervention during execution.

[Fido81]

I tend to fly AEW on the expected air threat axis (no surprises there ).

The AEW just burns holes over the ocean in a support mission at max altitude and cruise speed (to take advantage of Quick Turnaround when scenario designers permit).

The support mission I set up tends to have 1 reference point fixed to the battlegroup icon, and is about 50-100 miles "up-range" of the carrier, because I tend to expect the AEW's radar (if not the ESM) to also detect attacks from slightly off the threat axis, or missile attacks not from aircraft.

I tend to run the transit to station under EMCON and at minimum altitude to obfuscate the carrier's location.

[BDukes]

Considering the scenario in question, if you choose one of the options with 5 Hawkeye's total you should be to run two AEW stations at once, one north near Lunda and the other south in the direction of those Su-30s.
If you go 20 F-35s I would just substitute one of the AEW locations with an F-35 CAP due to the F-35s big radar.

In general, it depends on the needs of the scenario and how many AEW aircraft I have.

The F-35 is a good strategy because its radar is LPI. Difficult for even advanced SIGINT to see you.

Mike

[BDukes]

This is all with the mindset of making the most out of the AEW aircraft without unintentionally giving away the Carrier's position to the enemy.

Discuss!

The AI doesn't know to look for your carrier based on that without some additional LUA programming etc.

SQ has a great answer.

Mike

[thewood1]

That is true. But if you play against the AI using CVs with AEW, using some method to obfuscate the CV's location is a good tactic to give the AI.

[BDukes]

That is true. But if you play against the AI using CVs with AEW, using some method to obfuscate the CV's location is a good tactic to give the AI.

I see what you did there.

Mike

[SeaQueen]

I have wondered if a valuable asset like AEW should have a dedicated CAP or operate within ranges of a destroyer armed with SAMs. AEW and tankers are so important I think they might need some direct protection within the game of hide and seek. A few years ago a lot was mentioned that tankers might be the Achilles Heel in a long range Pacific conflict.

It depends. It's preferable to use fighters for strike if at all possible, you want as few of them as possible defending HVAs like AEW (and the carrier). If there's a threat that needs to be honored, then you may need an escort if you feel like putting them behind other defensive counter air missions won't cut it.

[SeaQueen]

The AI doesn't know to look for your carrier based on that without some additional LUA programming etc.

No but the scenario author does, and should create missions to locate and target the CVN if it's appropriate. The range of a typical carrier based fighter is ~500NM. That means that if I'm going to be playing the side with the carrier, I can sail that far away from whatever my target is and the only impact is that I suffer a lower sortie rate because I need to spend more time in flight to get there. There is literally no reason to go any closer than that, except to maybe make improvements to the sortie rate, but I wouldn't do that at the risk of ship. That means anything that can't reach me ~500NM away from the enemy coast is effectively no factor. I'll just set up my operating area outside of that.

If the objective of the computer controlled side is to locate and destroy the carrier, then there needs to be some kind of ISR that extends at least that far out to support it. If I have weapons with a longer total range than that (e.g. naval bombers, ballistic missiles, maybe some ASCMs) then my ISR needs to extend even FURTHER out, because you can't shoot any further than you can see.

There is a logic to all this. The solution might not be the same in all cases, but some things just are, and if you keep those in your head, you can think through the problem without needing to rely on an AI to do your thinking for you.

[BDukes]

The AI doesn't know to look for your carrier based on that without some additional LUA programming etc.

No but the scenario author does, and should create missions to locate and target the CVN if it's appropriate. The range of a typical carrier based fighter is ~500NM. That means that if I'm going to be playing the side with the carrier, I can sail that far away from whatever my target is and the only impact is that I suffer a lower sortie rate because I need to spend more time in flight to get there. There is literally no reason to go any closer than that, except to maybe make improvements to the sortie rate, but I wouldn't do that at the risk of ship. That means anything that can't reach me ~500NM away from the enemy coast is effectively no factor. I'll just set up my operating area outside of that.

If the objective of the computer controlled side is to locate and destroy the carrier, then there needs to be some kind of ISR that extends at least that far out to support it. If I have weapons with a longer total range than that (e.g. naval bombers, ballistic missiles, maybe some ASCMs) then my ISR needs to extend even FURTHER out, because you can't shoot any further than you can see.

There is a logic to all this. The solution might not be the same in all cases, but some things just are, and if you keep those in your head, you can think through the problem without needing to rely on an AI to do your thinking for you.

Ah yes. Need to actually demonstrate this stuff with code and practice though. No points for just saying.. I'm working on it..

Just ran into another ISR complication this week. Lets say you have one great sensor and one bad one (unknowingly). The game will fuse together regardless of quality, so you end up with a worse return. You should obviously know to not mix bad with good but the AI doesn't. Cringe..

The list for things to remember to do these days is very long.

M

[Gunner98]

The AI doesn't know to look for your carrier based on that without some additional LUA programming etc.

If the objective of the computer controlled side is to locate and destroy the carrier, then there needs to be some kind of ISR that extends at least that far out to support it. If I have weapons with a longer total range than that (e.g. naval bombers, ballistic missiles, maybe some ASCMs) then my ISR needs to extend even FURTHER out, because you can't shoot any further than you can see.

Setting up a way for the AI to detect a carrier is not an easy thing to do from a scenario design point of view. Getting targetable data when the player is (or should be) trying to deny same to the AI, is a real trick which I have only managed a few times.

A player who emits close to his carrier makes the problem simpler to solve

B

[thewood1]

In scenarios I play around with, and I know a US CV will be in the vicinity, I try to keep and event and missions set up to launch recon assets on detection of an E-2. And of course there are the follow on strikes if any surface vessels are detected near the E-2. As has been stated, it can go from being as simple as that to more complex lua-based routines that try to better guess the CV group's location and immediately strike. But I have found the simplest approach good enough in most cases.

[BDukes]

In scenarios I play around with, and I know a US CV will be in the vicinity, I try to keep and event and missions set up to launch recon assets on detection of an E-2. And of course there are the follow on strikes if any surface vessels are detected near the E-2. As has been stated, it can go from being as simple as that to more complex lua-based routines that try to better guess the CV group's location and immediately strike. But I have found the simplest approach good enough in most cases.

Wow that's really saying a lot. Good input Kevin. I'm sure you code lots of Lua.

Mike

[BDukes]

The AI doesn't know to look for your carrier based on that without some additional LUA programming etc.

If the objective of the computer controlled side is to locate and destroy the carrier, then there needs to be some kind of ISR that extends at least that far out to support it. If I have weapons with a longer total range than that (e.g. naval bombers, ballistic missiles, maybe some ASCMs) then my ISR needs to extend even FURTHER out, because you can't shoot any further than you can see.

Setting up a way for the AI to detect a carrier is not an easy thing to do from a scenario design point of view. Getting targetable data when the player is (or should be) trying to deny same to the AI, is a real trick which I have only managed a few times.

A player who emits close to his carrier makes the problem simpler to solve

B

Yeah that's what I'm working on and this is what SQ is trying to leverage us to do for them.

Anyways I'll weigh in with something real and actionable at some point.

M
'

[thewood1]

This a very simple one with no lua, just events. The keys are an ELINT unit and a recon plane with surface search. You can play from either side and watch what happens. Built on 1307.5, so a couple versions behind. But this is one of the most basic ways to get a response. Just detect the E-2, launch recon, then launch a strike. And, obviously, it can get as complex as you want. But always try to minimize lua. I have found that too much lua makes it more likely to break in future updates as well as as making any modding very difficult for me.

btw, I would play from the editor so you can switch sides easily.