Not to take anything away from the Persian Gulf campaign, but when I hear Operation Earnest Will, it’s hard not to think of Nightstalkers and SEAL team ops during the period.
My response to both of you.
SAG Delta FTW.
In any case, any new units are good units. I can’t wait!
Because I’m bored.
CVW-2 was deployed on USS Ranger in 1987, and was rocking the Grumman Wing.
| Squadron | Air Frame | Modex |
| — | — | — | — | — |
| VF-1 | F-14A | 100 |
| VF-2 | F-14A | 200 |
| VMA(AW)-121 | A-6E | 400 |
| VA-145 | A-6E / KA-6D | 500 |
| VAW-116 | E-2C | 600 |
| VAQ-131 | EA-6B | 604 |
| HS-14| SH-3H | 610 |
| VS-38 | S-3A | 700 |
CVW-14 was deployed on USS Independence in 1990. Sort of funky for the forward deployed PACFLT carrier to be in the Black Sea, but Hey! I’ve seen funkier uses of handwavium.
| Squadron | Air Frame | Modex |
| — | — | — | — | — |
| VF-154 | F-14A | 100 |
| VF-21 | F-14A | 200 |
| VFA-113 | F/A-18A | 300 |
| VFA-25 | F/A-18A | 400 |
| VA-196 | A-6E / KA-6D | 500 |
| VAW-113 | E-2C | 600 |
| VAQ-139 | EA-6B | 604 |
| HS-8 | SH-3H | 610 |
| VS-37 | S-3A | 700 |
CVW-17 was deployed on USS Saratoga.
| Squadron | Air Frame | Modex |
| — | — | — | — | — |
| VF-74 | F-14B | 100 |
| VF-103 | F-14B | 200 |
| VFA-83 | F/A-18C | 300 |
| VFA-81 | F/A-18C | 400 |
| VA-35 | A-6E / KA-6D | 500 |
| VAW-125 | E-2C | 600 |
| VAQ-132 | EA-6B | 604 |
| HS-3| SH-3H | 610 |
| VS-30 | S-3B | 700 |
Everything below is conjecture, read at your own risk.
They’ve cleverly chosen their scenarios to maximize their assets. All three utilize examples of their Forrestal boats. Interestingly enough they’ve avoided using any period air wings that were equipped with A-7s, which means that of the 10 aircraft that would be on their flattops during the time, between their assets and ED’s, they can represent 6 of them with acceptable verisimilitude. I doubt anyone will riot if there are SH-60s in place of SH-3s, (if helicopters are there at all). The other three are variants of the A-6.
What I find the most interesting is they’ve chosen a Grumman Wing (that is one equipped entirely with F-14s and A-6s without the traditional F/A-18s or A-7 “light” attack squadrons), for their Persian Gulf map. If you read the afore-linked wiki article, I would imagine that combat in the Gulf would play out largely analogously to that operation, in which naval air power was an important, if not totally decisive factor. Not having strike aircraft would be a glaring omission, and taking the time to name drop a unit that was equipped with only a strike aircraft that doesn’t exist (which was semi anomalous for the period), is a peculiar development
Of course this could be way to much reading into the subject by a nerd with too much time on his hands. They could just throw in Hornets and call it a day (and that would be totally acceptable). That said, their repeated hints at unseen AI units, the rather prominent featuring of an Intruder in their art, and the specificity of their notional unit list has me excited.
I’m not saying AI Intruder, but AI Intruder.
If I get bored, I’ll go see if I can find which ships were assigned to which battle group at the time.
6 Likes
bump
It’s always harder to track down the surface ships, which probably says something about the aviator mind set.
I’ve got a big book of naval stuff that gave me the nominal composition of each carrier group circa 1992. I’ve gone back and attempted to cross reference those ships with open source references to try and narrow it down. I’m not very confident. Massive caveats here are I’ve got only the vaguest understandings of the arcane art of Navy surface ship allocation, and these are not exactly the things people document for prosperity. At least not publicly. I’d be curious to hear @Hangar200’s opinions.
Ranger '87 - See Below!
Saratoga '90 - CRUDESRON 8 / DESRON 24
| Ship | Name | Class |
| — | — | — | — | — |
| CG-34 | Biddle| Belknap |
| CG-58 | Philippine Sea| Ticonderoga (VLS) |
| DD-974 | Comte De Grasse | Spurance (ABL) |
| FFG-24| Jack Williams| Oliver Hazard Perry
| FFG-26 | Gallery| Oliver Hazard Perry
| FFG-29 | Stephen W. Groves | Oliver Hazard Perry
| FFG-32 | John L. Hall | Oliver Hazard Perry
Independence '90 - DESRON 15
| Ship | Name | Class |
| — | — | — | — | — |
| CG-52 | Bunker Hill | Ticonderoga (VLS) |
| CG-63 | Cowpens | Ticonderoga (VLS) |
| DD-966 | Hewitt | Spruance (VLS) |
| DD-975 | O’Brien | Spruance (VLS) |
| DD-991 | Fife | Spruance (VLS) |
| FFG-38 | Curts | Oliver Hazard Perry |
| FFG-41| McClusky | Oliver Hazard Perry |
| FFG-43 | Thach | Oliver Hazard Perry |
| FFG-60 | Rodney M. Davis | Oliver Hazard Perry |
In order of confidence: Indy → Ranger → Sara. Independence was the forward deployed carrier in Japan, which is paired with the forward deployed destroyer squadron 15. Turns out both organizations are pretty stable throughout the late 80s and early 90s. With the case of Ranger and Saratoga, I essentially went through any place I could find info on the ships, and only kept the names of ships that either directly mentioned deploying with those carriers, or didn’t mention anything about the time period. In the case of the Sara, I think I’m missing a few destroyers. In the case of ranger, I think I’ve got a few too many cruisers.
Anyhow. Assuming we’re going with that briney a e s t h e t i c. The Mk-41 VLS armed Ticonderoga and Mk-13 armed OHP are already in DCS. If Heatblur were looking to do a good one by history and make friends, the clear answers are a DD-963 class destroyer (Mk-41 optional 
), and a Belknap or Leahy class cruiser. Bonus points are allocated for Mk-26 armed Ticonderogas and anything else.
2 Likes
By reading you post I just went from a boner to a stroke.
@Navynuke99 said it best: "What a time to be alive! "
1 Like
Nerd alert
During Ranger’s 1987 cruise, it was joined my USS Missouri to form a rather unique Battle Group Echo:
Left to right, front to rear:
| Ship | Name | Class |
|---|---|---|
| DDG-14 | Buchanan | Charles F. Adams |
| DD-973 | John Young | Spruance |
| AE-33 | Shasta | Kilauea |
| FFG-38 | Curts | Oliver Hazard Perry |
| CG-21 | Gridley | Leahy |
| AOR-1 | Wichita | Wichita |
| BB-63 | Missouri | Iowa |
| CV-61 | Ranger | Forrestal |
| CGN-9 | Long Beach | Long Beach |
| FF-1073 | Robert E. Peary | Knox |
| CG-52 | Bunker Hill | Ticonderoga (VLS) |
| AOR-3 | Kansas City | Wichita |
| DDG-13 | Hoel | Charles F. Adams |
| DD-984 | Leftwich | Spruance (ABL) |
| T-AO-145 | Hassayampa | Neosho |
Now since the combination with Missouri is fairly uncommon (I assume they sailed together only for this photo), lets look at with which escorts the battleship went on its 1987-88 cruise:
| Ship | Name | Class |
|---|---|---|
| CGN-9 | Long Beach | Long Beach |
| FFG-38 | Curts | Oliver Hazard Perry |
| DD-984 | Leftwich | Spruance (ABL) |
| BB-63 | Missouri | Iowa |
| DDG-13 | Hoel | Charles F. Adams |
| CG-52 | Bunker Hill | Ticonderoga (VLS) |
| AOR-3 | Kansas City | Wichita |
By the power of subtraction, we would get for Ranger:
| Ship | Name | Class |
|---|---|---|
| CV-61 | Ranger | Forrestal |
| CG-21 | Gridley | Leahy |
| DDG-14 | Buchanan | Charles F. Adams |
| DD-973 | John Young | Spruance |
| FF-1073 | Robert E. Peary | Knox |
| AE-33 | Shasta | Kilauea |
| AOR-1 | Wichita | Wichita |
| T-AO-145 | Hassayampa | Neosho |
In any case, I think the most important addition would be the Spruance class. These were the standard ASW destroyers for carrier escort and were available in numbers sufficient to add 1-2 to each battle group. Next is the air defense cruisers, of which Leahy and Belknap were the most numerous. Since there were as many Leahys and Belknaps and they were fairly similar, I would go with Leahy (since it is the cooler configuration). The CGNs are cool (I love the California class) but few in numbers. Next comes the guided missile destroyers. This must be the Charles F. Adams class, with 23 units one of the most numerous carrier escorts as well.
The frigates (Oliver Hazard Perry and Knox classes) are an interesting topic. Historically, the have been part of carrier battle groups numerously, even though doctrinal they do not belong there. They have been acquired in large numbers (over 100 units between the two classes) as convoy escorts. But since there weren’t any convoys to escort since WWII, these ships were available in large numbers and frequently ended up in carrier battle groups. For both scenarios mentioned above this is fitting. For a global US-Soviet war, I would assume the frigates to be assigned to convoys and the CVBG would have sailed with cruisers and destroyers only.
7 Likes
Excellent work!
2 Likes
Welcome to the club. A DESRON is part operational command and part administrative command.
For example: For the Carrier Strike Group -7 (CSG7) 2004 deployment, we had DESRON7 Actual - the Commander, embarked. The surface combatants USS LAKE CHAMPLAIN, USS HOWARD and USS FORD were part of CSG-7 administratively, as were a couple of ships not part of CSG-7.
Enter the Naval Warfare Commander Structure: Operationally, the DESRON-7 Commander was CSG-7’s Sea Control Warfare Commander as “BS” actual (we use the full NATO letter names so its “BRAVO SIERA”. The Call Sign for the Sea Control Warfare Watch is “BS” (The CSG-7 Commander is BA; BRAVO ALPHA. As the CSG-7 Intel Officer, I was BI Actual [insert double entendre witticism here] my watch intel watch was BI or BRAVO INDIA)
However, the CO USS LAKE CHAMPLAIN was the Air Defense Warfare Commander or BW; BRAVO WHISKEY…under which he answered directly to BA, not DESRON-7.
When you are operating it actually makes a lot of sense - you have warfare commanders and warfare coordinators - all have a specific task and can employ units/platforms from other administrative commands. For example BW uses the fighters that administratively belonged to Airwing-14 (CVW-14) embarked aboard CVN-74, as CAP, while BS used the S-3’s for Sea Surveillance and Control (SSC). I coordinated with the warfare commanders to get intel collection, like TARPS airborne recede missions, but didn’t actually control the platforms (coordinator vice commander). We all answer to BA.
Then when it is time for inspections and other administrative stuff, you fall back on the admin chain of command.
A long way to say that just because a unit is in a specific DESRON it doesn’t necessarily mean it s attached to a specific carrier.
If I have confused everyone even more, my work is done here.
3 Likes
And this is why I was happy to stay on the 4th deck and below.
I used to pay soccer with one of the DESRON flag writers. Now I’m beginning to understand why he was so weird.
2 Likes
I want to inspect the aircraft after landing and give the flight crew a public paddling if they touch the displays.
2 Likes
Informed speculation on my part: I was in CVW-3 from 1986 to 1988. We were an All Grumman airwing. VF-14, VF-32 (my squadron), VA-75 and VMA-533(AW). One must remember that these airwings were “assembled” during the height of the “Big One”…the Cold War.
When “the balloon went up”, some of the East Coast carriers would head up to the Norwegian Sea and engage with the Soviet Red Banner Northern Fleet for air and sea supremacy over the “Northern Flank”. One of them would most likely have an All Grumman arming on board. An important thing to remember is that Severmorsk (Murmansk), on the Kola peninsula, is home to all the Soviet “boomers” - SSBNs - on the Atlantic side of the world. At the time many of these boomers employed missiles with shorter ranges…they needed to get closer to the US east coast…not something we really wanted to happen so…you get the picture. An All Grumman Airwing has the Tomcats for long range fleet defense while two A-6E squadrons gives you a heavier conventional / “non-conventual” capability (I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of nuclear weapons aboard this ship nor any other United States Navy warship.) and the longer range to hit where those ships and subs live. In that scenario, All Grumman made sense.
BTW, the rest of the east coast carries would go down to protect NATOs southern flank in the Mediterranean - a theater, like the PG, with less need for a “heavier punch”.
So that was essentially the thought process.
That said, changing squadrons into or out of an airwing is kind of a big deal…impacts their readiness, maintenance schedules, training schedules, etc. Slightly less onerous is swapping an airwing intact to another carrier. Its a team building issue.
A long way to say that while an All Grumman airwing in the Persian Gulf (now called the Arabian Gulf…a snub to Iran?) is not optimal, it is completely understandable.
Sea Story: When we deployed to the Med in 19886-87, it was “discovered” that our A-6Es and EA-6’s didn’t have what it took to fire HARM (AGM-88). At the last minute a 4-plane detachment from an A-7 squadron that was being decommissioned, was added to the airwing so we could shoot HARM. They promptly named themselves the “Grumman Defenders”
6 Likes
Oooh, I wanna hear the details on this one…
1 Like
No real details…four pilots…the CO was one of them (stuck that in my “good leadership rucksack”). They took over a small space from the E-2 squadron as a combined ready-room and flight gear locker. One or two sorties would show up in the airplan everyday.
While we were deployed, the squadron decommissioned. They held a brief “ceremony” on an elevator. They had some kind of sculpted hawk as their mascot. The MARDET put out a squad armed with rifles. On the command “Pull!”, the CO threw the thing into the air, over the side, and the Marines shot it. Then…
“This concludes the ceremony. Guests are invited to join us in the dirty shirt wardroom for bug juice and something from the dog machine.” etc.
1 Like
A “true” Tomcat “cat” depiction will have two tails showing…because the F-14 has two tails.
Also the words, “Anytime Baby!” should be present…denoting the all-WX day/night capability of the Tomcat.
I may be able to find something better on eBay for you. 
2 Likes
Podcast interview with Heatblur
Minute 56:00, working on the follow aircraft:
- Advanced Jet
- Multicrew
- Ground Radar
- Jester???
F-111? Tornado? Su-24?
3 Likes
you should know not to give bogus hope like that … 
3 Likes