Your choice on next playable platform in DW?

[Apocal]

My vote goes to the Arleigh Burke-class Flight IIA (Oscar Austin-class). Take command of arguably the most powerful surface combatant in the world today. In terms of tradeoffs, the Flight IIAs lost their Harpoons (and TACTASS, possibly) in exchange and both CIWS mounts on the all units past the USS Shoup (DDG-86).

The upside however, is that it gains a hangar bay for two embarked helos, additional helo handling equipment, and the RIM-162A Evovled SeaSparrow Missile, in quadpacks mounted inside the VLS, which is significantly more effective against modern seaskimming missiles than CIWS.

I wonder what everyone else is thinking? Since I can only have so many poll options, my first runner up would be an Oscar II-class SSGN.

[Molon Labe]

The priority really ought to be to add the Russian/Chinese equivalents of the American ASW platforms that DW added to SC, or, by the same logic, a Western diesel-electric. This would round-out the ASW battlespace, which is rather incomplete without the counterparts being in the game.

After that, expanding the game into a better surface and air warfare makes sense. That would be the time to start adding more multirole surface vessles. :|\

[Sea Demon]

I would love to see an Arleigh Burke DDG or a new Western Diesel add-on. :cool: I definitely voted Arleigh Burke. :up: But if we get a western diesel, I was thinking Japanese Oyashio or Harushio. Even a RAN Collins. And I would love a Virginia SSN add-on as well. But since we only get one vote....I gotta say Arleigh Burke. :up:

Sea Demon

Edited to add a comment and spell-check.

[Pigfish]

Udaloy II all the way for me, and equally a western diesel. Think 212A. :cool:

[diver]

Other.

I would love...
RAN Collins class subs
RN type 23 Duke class frigates
RAN OHP FFG, that is with the VLS launched ESSM forward of the mk13

[Orm]

Other,

A western surface or sub platform that is not American but could be from NATO.

[Kapitan]

id love to get into an alfa but then again i thinik the burke class destroyers are great and id love to command one of them

[TLAM Strike]

Udaloy with Ka-27PL Helx and Bear-F support :rock:
And a Western SSK, either Upholder/Victoria or Scorpene (AIP) class.

[Bellman]

I would prefer initialy more balance in the gameplay by introducing Russian/Chinese equvalents to the current platforms.

[Kapitan]

in saying western SSK what about the german 212 / 214 ?

[Skybird]

in saying western SSK what about the german 212 / 214 ?

Yep. Probably the most silent subs in service today.

Else: give me a carrier!

serious: a russian equivalent to the sim's frigate, helo, recce plane would be politically correct. :-j But I personally would welcome sub stuff more than any surface or flying things - these simply do not catch my interest.

But I do not even guess about addons. These will take many years to realize, judging by the ridiculously slow pace at which they do their patch - which goes first of any addons. Fix what is there before mess it up again by adding new things.

[SeaQueen]

But since we only get one vote....I gotta say Arleigh Burke. :up:


I know... I'd love to see them all. I'm not particularly worried about Western D/E boats being playable, though. Maybe that's just because of my specific interests.

Something I'm curious nobody brought up:

What about an Ohio SSGN?

[Fish]

For multiplay, Russian/Chinees equivalent of the FFG,MH-60 and P3, unquestionably!
And some AI Dutch ships, sub. :rock:

[Molon Labe]

in saying western SSK what about the german 212 / 214 ?

Yep. Probably the most silent subs in service today.

Else: give me a carrier!

serious: a russian equivalent to the sim's frigate, helo, recce plane would be politically correct. :-j But I personally would welcome sub stuff more than any surface or flying things - these simply do not catch my interest.

But I do not even guess about addons. These will take many years to realize, judging by the ridiculously slow pace at which they do their patch - which goes first of any addons. Fix what is there before mess it up again by adding new things.

Rounding out the ASW battlespace has nothing to do with political correctness. It's about finishing what was started. Right now, we have a choice of platforms that allows sub v. sub games and Russian/Chinese sub v. US ASW. Adding the counterparts to the new playables gets US subs v Russian ASW in. Being able to turn things around makes for a much better game.

Currently, surface and air warfare are crudely modeled, but the ASW battlespace is close to where it needs to be. It's just more efficient for SCS to finish the ASW component of the game before hitting the surface and air warfare hard. DW (or possibly its sequel) is an evolutionary project which will eventually fully integrate all battlespace into one game. It's not easy to do right, so skipping around is not going to produce as good a product as finishing the parts they started will.

[OKO]

For multiplay, Russian/Chinees equivalent of the FFG,MH-60 and P3, unquestionably!
And some AI Dutch ships, sub. :rock:


I definitly agree with that.

[FERdeBOER]

No, seriuosly.

About the ones on the list: the Udaloy

About others... it seems that the Scopene class (diesel) will be very extended in many countries (India, France, Chile, Spain) in the next years... some directly, other under license (Spain will build the S-80 in its own shipyards).

[timmyg00]

This poll should really have been split into

"which surface platform do you want to see next in DW"

"which air platform do you want to see next in DW"

and

"which sub do you want to see next in DW"

But even so, I'd go for OPFOR units (Russia/China) as has been mentioned already.

TG

[DivingWind]

I would really like to see Neustrashimy with his onboard Ka-28 helo.And russian equivalent to P-3 orion , Il-38 May or Tu-95 BEAR!

[SquidB]

Its got to be Opfor units guys, failing that id love to see a trafalga or even a oscar

[Kapitan]

what about a han or song class ?

[Kapitan]

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/ming_class.jpg

what about onew of these Type 035G ming class of the chinease navy ? failing that how about a han or song class?

[TLAM Strike]

what about onew of these Type 035G ming class of the chinease navy ? failing that how about a han or song class? Ming, Han, Song they are all junk. The Kilo Improved is the best the PLAN has got.

[Kapitan]

its not what you got its how you use it

ive got some real crappy guns at home here and i got some real good ones turns out my chinease made AG809 rifle fires better than my logun dominator and its also more reliable (its yet to misfire)

my logun dominator is the most powerfulest out of the two and cost me over £500 yet my AG809 cost only £130

its how you use the thing not what it can do cause most of the time you wont use all the bells and whistles hence why theres a fued on about DDX

[DivingWind]

Anyway, we will wait for any addons from sonalysts very long. (or never)

[compressioncut]

The Han is a tactically useless submarine. There's a reason the Chinese have done only extremely limited blue water work with them, it's because they can be tracked on IUSS probably for the entirety of their patrol. So, it wouldn't matter how you use it. It's first gen Russian nuc noisy, which is to say extremely noisy.

A decent Chinese platform would be the Yuan, or perhaps Song, although the 636 Kilos outclass the latter. The Yuan is probably 636 equivalent or better, and may have AIP. But seeing as it would be 100% speculation as to what equipment it's packing or how capable it actually is, why bother? We already have the 636 Kilo.

As for air platforms, a Bear would be outstanding.

Surface? Of course, Canadian Patrol Frigate, although the OHP does a reasonable simulation of it. The CPF is a much better point air defence platform, though (Evolved Sea Sparrow, 220 round per minute gun, block 1B "jetty sweeper" Phalanx, Harpoon, and it's much quieter); kind of a super OHP. - edit for non-fantasy choice: I'd prefer a Tico over a Burke. If you're going to go big, why not go all the way?

I don't play subs, so I haven't got a recommedation, there ;)

[Kapitan]

yes the han is useless but is good for a costal support and defence the kilo yuan and song are the only real blue water submarine but there endurance is limited if they were nuke they could be good

today china maintains only 4 of its once 6 hans and it is true they are very very noisey infact there noiser than a november SSN and that states something but the han is first generation SSN for china the new TYPE 093 is supposed to be based around the victor III and has improved quietning measures.

china does not have the tech to build super silent subs yet thats why they rely on the imports untill they can buff up thier own type

ive trailed a xia in DW and she is very noisey in fact i could keep track of her 15 miles away i am a sub driver always have been but the han in costal waters could knock out a sufficent force to buy time for thier country as for blue water no chance

[Apocal]

I originally included the Oscar II SSGN, because I think thought it would be "cool", but then I realized that the Oscars don't have much in the way of mission diversity and their "dogfighting" capabilities are limited at best. Not much fun playing a platform that does one thing well and having your hand held while doing it.

[Kapitan]

an oscar is designed with anti ship in mind but its also designed to sink submarines and does this fully independantly

[TLAM Strike]

an oscar is designed with anti ship in mind but its also designed to sink submarines and does this fully independantly

So it can do two things. :lol: They don't have anywhere near the multi-mission capabilities of a SSN.

Just imagine taking an Oscar in to an enemy harbor to conduct recon! Or doing CVBG escort! :o

[Kapitan]

can imagine CVGB escort it has done it chiefly escorts the kuznetsov around its normaly up front of the battle group.

as for intel gathering done that one too only few years ago were three of these submarines spotted one of the east coast one in the med and one near pearl harbour.

one of these submarines came withing striking distance of three US carriers and it wasnt noticed till it took off back to base

so yeah they can do some what limited multi role missions

[Fandango]

I would prefer initialy more balance in the gameplay by introducing Russian/Chinese equvalents to the current platforms.

:up: :up: :up:

[Bill Nichols]

I would prefer initialy more balance in the gameplay by introducing Russian/Chinese equvalents to the current platforms.

Agreed. That's why I'm voting Udaloy (Although a Krivak would be closer to the FFG-7).

[Stewy]

Come on you 'jive turkeys'

:lol: - sorry, I've had a bottle of wine and 3 beers - we need Western Diesels stat! Collins, 212, Swedish boats! :know:

[Amizaur]

Well most easy to do for SCS would be Lada/Amur class 677, in game it could be a quieter Kilo with modified sensors/armament and faster reload times. Other great SSK would be Type-212 or Type-214, Collins, Scorpene (just oreder by India!). Other nukes are of course Trafalgar/Astute class, and Virginia class (could be in place of Seawolf ;-). From russian subs well Alfa and Sierra are cool but are they operational ? I don't think SCS are building cold-war sim ;-). Beside the 677 class SSK, next Russian platforms could be Oscar class and maybe Typhoon class, I know it;s a boomer butI'm sure many people would like to command one uder ice cap :-) think about two human player Akulas defending a human player (so responding to threat and coordinating tactic with Akulas) Typhoon class SSBN hunded by western subs ? :-)
For air and surface platform we need red equivalents of Perry, SH-60 and P-3, so Udaloy, Ka-27 and Il-38. Later we may think about additional western platforms.

[Kapitan]

sierra is in service still but not for much longer and ive just picked up a report offical for the disposal of all alfa submarines

a typhoon would be great theres only 3 left now and 2 will be gone by by 2008 the 3rd 2010

[stormrider_sp]

I voted for the Arleigh Burke cause it would be something really new here. But I´m not much into above-the-surface platforms. An Ohio SSGN would be a great addition, even better than my favorite, the NSSN.

[Sea Reaper]

Other ,would be nice to see some western SSK like type 214 :up:

[Deathblow]

I vote for the....... DDX! :o :|\ :up:

[Ghost Dog]

I voted for Virginia Class which 'should' have been in the game in the first place rather than Seawolf.

But i'd love to see Udaloy or Krivak although im not much a skimmer driver.

Canadian Patrol Frigate would be cool too, be neat to try out that rapid-fire bofors!

[timmyg00]

I vote for the....... DDX! :o :|\ :up: That's a subject for another thread... but I would LOVE for a future sim to feature the DDX, along with some other stuff we keep hearing about that's in development...

I'll stop now ;)

TG

[Deathblow]

*whispers*Trimaran FFG...... (http://defence-data.com/dsei99/pagedi10.htm)*drools*

ok, I'll stop now too

EDIT:
Come to think of it, that could potentially be a very interesting discussion. I'ld love to hear peoples input on a "future naval" game and the systems modelled

*is thinking about starting a thread*

[Sea Demon]

My vote goes to the Arleigh Burke-class Flight IIA (Oscar Austin-class). Take command of arguably the most powerful surface combatant in the world today. In terms of tradeoffs, the Flight IIAs lost their Harpoons (and TACTASS, possibly) in exchange and both CIWS mounts on the all units past the USS Shoup (DDG-86).


In regards to the Harpoons, the Navy does not embark these ships with Harpoons only as a cost cutting measure. They retain the ability to fit Harpoon launchers between the stacks if the threat requires. This would give the IIA's the same or better anti-ship capability than the Flight I's. They also can use the SM-2 in the anti-ship role if necessary as well and they carry more of them in the IIA's. So a DW Arleigh Burke Flight IIA add-on can still be modelled with all the anti-ship capabilities as flight I,and II's with no loss in realism.

And I agree, the Arleigh Burke IIA's are the ultimate destroyer. It's amazing because they carry all the equipment for every operation type. Being able to attack aircraft, missile, sub-surface, surface, and far away land-targets simultaneously sounds rather appealing.

On a side note, I heard AEGIS baseline 7 is operational as of September 12. Gotta love it. :cool:

Sea Demon

[Kapitan]

how about sevdvinsk class ?

[Apocal]

In regards to the Harpoons, the Navy does not embark these ships with Harpoons only as a cost cutting measure. They retain the ability to fit Harpoon launchers between the stacks if the threat requires. This would give the IIA's the same or better anti-ship capability than the Flight I's. They also can use the SM-2 in the anti-ship role if necessary as well and they carry more of them in the IIA's. So a DW Arleigh Burke Flight IIA add-on can still be modelled with all the anti-ship capabilities as flight I,and II's with no loss in realism.

That is good to hear. I wonder if the same situation exists with TACTASS? I mean, what good is helicopter capability if you depend on Helen Keller (the SQS-53C) to make initial detection?

And I agree, the Arleigh Burke IIA's are the ultimate destroyer. It's amazing because they carry all the equipment for every operation type. Being able to attack aircraft, missile, sub-surface, surface, and far away land-targets simultaneously sounds rather appealing.

Yes, their true multimission design is what attracted me. I imagine mission, set a short distance off the coast, on TMD watch, where you come under sudden and rather unexpected attack by seaskimming missiles, small boats, and aircraft. You'd have to deal with the hostiles with SM-2s and Harpoons, while simultaneously engaging coastal SSMs batteries with 5"/62 and/or Tomahawks, then switch gears and attempt to intercept a IRBM launch before Japan experiences another artificial sunrise.

On a side note, I heard AEGIS baseline 7 is operational as of September 12. Gotta love it.

AEGIS Baseline 7, SPY-1E, SM-3 LEAP, RAM, RNSSMS, ESSM... it's a good time to be a surface-type in the Navy. :sunny:

I voted for Virginia Class which 'should' have been in the game in the first place rather than Seawolf.

That was my reasoning as well. I especially like how they retained VLS, so I don't have to choose between limiting my offensive ASW ability to supplement my ASuW/strike capability or vice versa. 4 ADCAPs, all the time.



As for the Oscar II SSGN... I'm sure it could sink other subs, but will you imagine turning a 24,000 ton sub at four knots? I did. And the thought horrified me. And regarding the Sierra, for some reason I had heard that it was the Seawolf to the Akula's Virginia and they pursued prdouction of the Akulas for much the same reason? Was I misinformed?

[Surefire]

It's a good question to ponder. My thought is that there are plenty of playable subs already, both US and Russian. An SSBN doesn't seem like it would be all that interesting in terms of gaming fun: (mission orders- come up off the ocean floor and wipe continent XYZ off the face of the map by 1800 hours; don't get killed by an SSN in the process). An SSGN might be a little more interesting if the game was geared more toward fleet engagements. I suppose it would be easy enough to write scenarios for it.

If I were releasing a mission pack/upgrade, I would seek to balance the air and surface units with what was already in game. A KA-27 helo and the Tu 142M would be good OPFOR ASW aircraft. On the surface side, an UdaloyII, while admittedly bigger than the Perry frigate, is still a good choice for a modern-day Russian multipurpose DDG and suited to carrying the Ka27 helo.

Beyond that, the rest is gravy. Playable cruisers for both sides? Maybe some small missile boats to facilitate littoral missions. If it could be included, it might give some more depth to an expansion pack.

[Scotty Watson]

I would like to see a T-Bt, S-Bt or possibley a Type 212a

[ASW Jedi]

Sorry to rain on ya'lls parade the Flt IIA Burkes Can Not carry Harpoon (right now). Their is no place for the canisters to go and no electronics to fire them. Heard rumor that Harpoon could become vertical launch capable though.

James B.
USS Momsen (DDG-92)
USS Jefferson City (SSN-759)
USS Pogy (SSN-647)

[Sea Demon]

Sorry to rain on ya'lls parade the Flt IIA Burkes Can Not carry Harpoon (right now). Their is no place for the canisters to go and no electronics to fire them. Heard rumor that Harpoon could become vertical launch capable though.

James B.
USS Momsen (DDG-92)
USS Jefferson City (SSN-759)
USS Pogy (SSN-647)

Yes. Nobody disputes that. But take a look at the fifth paragraph on this link regarding Flight IIA's.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-flt2a.htm

It basically says that Harpoons were taken off to reduce costs, but provisions were made to be fitted if needed. They would only need the launchers and the electronics installed. Not too difficult at all if you ask me. And yes, the latest version of Harpoon can be launched from VLS. But sadly the USN has not made a purchase of these missiles. And it's not clear if they will later.

[ASW Jedi]

If there was provisions to fit the canisters on my ship I certainly never got the memo. I suppose they could have shoe horned them between the stacks of course that would have meant losing the retractable king posts that are there right now.

[Sea Demon]

If there was provisions to fit the canisters on my ship I certainly never got the memo. I suppose they could have shoe horned them between the stacks of course that would have meant losing the retractable king posts that are there right now.

Since you are part of ships company on one of these DDG's, I'll take your word for it. You would know better than us. I find it regrettable that the USN doesn't give these ships the anti-ship weapons it deserves.

[TLAM Strike]

If there was provisions to fit the canisters on my ship I certainly never got the memo. I suppose they could have shoe horned them between the stacks of course that would have meant losing the retractable king posts that are there right now.

Since you are part of ships company on one of these DDG's, I'll take your word for it. You would know better than us. I find it regrettable that the USN doesn't give these ships the anti-ship weapons it deserves. My buddy from the Winston Churchill DDG 81 stopped by today to say goodbye (they are leaving on a 7 month cruise- frist to England than through the Med to the Gulf). So I can confermn they have no Harpoons canasters but that 5 in Gun is quite nasy as a anti-ship weapon. They were out having target practace on an old Anphib about 6 months ago, he was sitting next to the gunner when the target was listing. HE shells from the 5in gun scoring bulleyes on well a bulleye painted on the deck. Aparently they took some pictures and sent them to the commander of their DESRON.

[Sea Demon]

So I can confermn they have no Harpoons canasters but that 5 in Gun is quite nasy as a anti-ship weapon. They were out having target practace on an old Anphib about 6 months ago, he was sitting next to the gunner when the target was listing. HE shells from the 5in gun scoring bulleyes on well a bulleye painted on the deck. Aparently they took some pictures and sent them to the commander of their DESRON.

Yeah, that 5 in gun is great. But it's range is very short. That alone would do no good against another modern OPFOR destroyer with anti-ship missiles and a reasonable ability to target them. I was thinking more along the lines of anti-ship weaponry that can reach out beyond the horizon to kill a target. Somewhere along the lines of 120 km to 500 km. The USN has the ability to target over the horizon. And there are potential enemy warships afloat. So why not keep that ability intact. I realize the USN can bring back the TASM, or develop a newer dedicated anti-ship weapon if the need arises, and anytime they want. And do it better than anyone else. And I also know that the USN can destroy surface targets from the air (USAF and USN carriers) and from the depths with submarines. But why not keep the ability for long range anti-ship warfare on the Flight IIa's? I've heard that the latest version of Tomahawk may have an ability to target surface ships. But I don't think the USN would ever consider using them that way unless they absolutely had to. Therefore, any potential capability of Tomahawk to do this is moot. I have to trust that if the need arises, the people in charge will make the right calls.

[Molon Labe]

I think the navy has been struggling to stay relevant in Congress' eyes ever since the cold war ended. To try to stay relevant, they've tried to change their focus from war at sea to support of forces ashore, in particular being able to respond to all those "low-intensity" conflicts and humanitarian crises that have been in the public eye since the 90s. So the budget today goes towards strike missiles and special forces. ASMs are a low priority.

It bugs me too. I read somewhere about a year ago that we passed up a chance to build some knockoffs of either the -25 or -27 to test our missile defense. This, at a time when the Brahmos is expected to be widely exported. I'm not happy about not having a replacement for the Pheonix either, although there is an ER version of the AMRAAM expected sometime in the future.

[TLAM Strike]

So I can confermn they have no Harpoons canasters but that 5 in Gun is quite nasy as a anti-ship weapon. They were out having target practace on an old Anphib about 6 months ago, he was sitting next to the gunner when the target was listing. HE shells from the 5in gun scoring bulleyes on well a bulleye painted on the deck. Aparently they took some pictures and sent them to the commander of their DESRON.

Yeah, that 5 in gun is great. But it's range is very short. That alone would do no good against another modern OPFOR destroyer with anti-ship missiles and a reasonable ability to target them. I was thinking more along the lines of anti-ship weaponry that can reach out beyond the horizon to kill a target. Somewhere along the lines of 120 km to 500 km. The USN has the ability to target over the horizon. And there are potential enemy warships afloat. So why not keep that ability intact. I realize the USN can bring back the TASM, or develop a newer dedicated anti-ship weapon if the need arises, and anytime they want. And do it better than anyone else. And I also know that the USN can destroy surface targets from the air (USAF and USN carriers) and from the depths with submarines. But why not keep the ability for long range anti-ship warfare on the Flight IIa's? I've heard that the latest version of Tomahawk may have an ability to target surface ships. But I don't think the USN would ever consider using them that way unless they absolutely had to. Therefore, any potential capability of Tomahawk to do this is moot. I have to trust that if the need arises, the people in charge will make the right calls.

Thing to remember is that the Flight IIAs are used for HVA Defense and Strike missions. My buddy told me all they really do it train to shoot down missiles. Besides Destroyers really aren't the kind of ships you send out alone, Cruisers are the smallest type of ship you can do that with. Most of the time they will have someone else nearby with ASMs aboard to deal with an enemy ship. Plus the SM-2 can target surface ships in a pinch so they can deal with patrol boats etc and just call in an airstrike on the bigger stuff.

[Chock]

If it was up to me personally and selfishly, I'd want more Soviet subs because I like them. But if I were considering improving the game generally, then Russian surface elements would be the wisest choice, so any sort of vessel that could deploy ASW helos would be best.

It would be interesting to see elements such as satellite recon and tracking in there too, as the same simulation data would probably be okay to use for either side.

Similarly, the resurgence of diesel subs and their use by many nations offers yet more possibilities, especially since their capabilities have currently got the US on edge.

:D Chock

[Linton]

Trafalgar or a Russian surface vessel.

[Reaper51]

Russian Typhoon class SSBN. :up:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Trafalgar class, please :up:

[SeaQueen]

And I agree, the Arleigh Burke IIA's are the ultimate destroyer.

Arleigh Burkes are enormously powerful warships but they're not the ultimate destroyer. In an ASW capacity, DDG-79s have to team up with DDG-51s or some other warship because the one has a towed array, and the other has the helos.

I think it's best to think of warships in terms of complimentary capabilties rather than "Awww man... this ship is the latest and greatest so it must be better than all the older stuff!" We like to think that everything is getting better and better all the time, but sometimes it's not the truth. Destroyer design is one of those situations. Even though a lot was made of warships being multi-mission, the truth is that warship designs are typically compromises intended to fill in the capability gaps left by the last series of compromises. Since each new ship is a compromise, it can do things that the last ship can't, but only at the expense of doing some things less well than the last ship.

The ultimate destroyer is a cruiser, but they're too expensive to use like destroyers so they're typically on the end of a 4000yd leash from some high value unit like a CVN or LHD. Now-a-days, destroyers are too expensive to use like destroyers were intended, so they invented the LCS, which is single-mission partly as a cost cutting measure. The thing is, their cost is inflating out of control even as single mission warships, and frankly I don't think they do anything particularly well. In light of that, it's unlikely to see any surface warships operating in any groups less than a loosely formed pair, simply because no single warship can do everything it needs to on it's own.

[Sea Demon]

Arleigh Burkes are enormously powerful warships but they're not the ultimate destroyer. In an ASW capacity, DDG-79s have to team up with DDG-51s or some other warship because the one has a towed array, and the other has the helos.

I think it's best to think of warships in terms of complimentary capabilties rather than "Awww man... this ship is the latest and greatest so it must be better than all the older stuff!" We like to think that everything is getting better and better all the time, but sometimes it's not the truth. .......

I see your point. And I understand alot more about these ships from when I made that statement 2 years ago. But to me, IMHO, the flexibility inherent in any version of Arleigh Burke (Oscar Austin included) seem unmatched in terms of overall ability to adapt to changing naval situations. Yes, I think you are totally correct in saying the strength of these units lie in their complimentary capabilities. But to me, the only thing that stops these ships from getting everything they need in one package is financial decisions, or real world threat assessments. Like the TASM for example, or a successor to it. Do we need them now? They don't really seem as necessary as when the Soviets were running around out there. But who says the Navy couldn't return an improved TASM with greater range, GPS updates, etc. to IIA's and have them carry 30 each if the need arises. In addition, their AAW packages seem pretty well fielded and their ability to carry TLAM's for the strike role don't seem to be shorted in any way. And now they're talking about adding them to the ABM role with the Tico's. And they've also been given a mine warfare role with the use of Autonomous unmanned mine-hunters. I'm not sure about the Harpoons, but I know I've read that they and their equipment could be returned to IIA's if need be. And the issue of removing them was financial. All versions seem very ASW capable, although I'm not sure what would be needed to give the IIA's the TACTASS in an upgrade or if it's even possible. Perhaps that's where the complimentary capabilities with the Flight I Burkes come into play, although those types don't embark with their own ASW helos.

I guess calling them "ultimate" may not be the best, or accurate wording for their true abilities. But they are powerful, and flexible, and seemingly have alot of warfare areas built into them. If the Navy needed them in any role, I don't see any reason why they couldn't give them any specification they needed to accomplish any mission that they intended for them. In that way, I'm highly impressed with how they were designed, and what they've evolved into. And yes, I'd love to simulate some of those capabilities in a naval game.

[Rotary Crewman]

Nimrod, Merlin Mk1, Lynx, Sea King...

[Sea Demon]

Nimrod, Merlin Mk1, Lynx, Sea King...

All those sound great. And if they would add more airborne ASW, I'd also like to see Helix ASW helo from the Russkie side, Russkie IL-38 May, and the ultra modern American P-8 MMA someday.

[Reaper51]

I think I'd like to change my answer to, Sovremennyy.
After all I do like Typhoons, but a Typhoon would have a tiny impact on game play,
when compared to a Russian destroyer. Of course then the Americans would need a destroyer, as I can't really see an OHP FFG standing up to a Sovremennyy destroyer...

<edit>
Oh and the yy is intentional, as y is Chinese, and yy is the Russian version.
</edit>

[Sea Demon]

True. I think if they would include any new Russian or Chinese DDG's, they would also have to include an American Cruiser or Destroyer for balance. The FFG-7 is underpowered compared to a Sovremenny or a Udaloy.

[tonibamestre]

I would really give my vote for some Aircraft Carrier classes like could be Kitty Hawk class,Nimitz and Invincible.Of course,the way to implement more birds should be discovered in order to give them all its Air Wing.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

We can always have a Neu. Sure, there's only one of them, but it can still be fun (there aren't exactly dozens of Akula IIs or Seawolves either) - make up one or two more for hypotheticals and we've got a nice platform.

For extra fun value, this website got an unique view on the armament of a Neustrashimy (http://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/ws/ws10997.htm). It does explain why the Russians didn't strip the Kh-35 stands off some patrol craft and paste them onto the Neustrashimy for its antiship capability (the stands don't look that expensive in any rate)... It'd also make for some interesting (and different) tactics.

This would mean ironically that the Neu actually has better bow sensitivity than the Perry, while having an inferior towed array (Russians use VDS, but VDS can have towed arrays like the SQR-18 threaded through them, so...).

[SeaQueen]

If you're that into carrier ops, Harpoon is probably the best way to go. Carrier stuff beyond something very simple doesn't play well in DW. There's a lot more to aircraft carriers than just the ship themselves. They're really the centerpiece for a whole fleet of warships and because of that the captain of the aircraft carrier is really just a tiny piece of things. He really just drives the ship, the fight is really controlled by someone above him. The commander air group (CAG), for example, controls the air wing, but he's not UNDER the captain of the aircraft carrier. Hence, the captain of the carrier, giving rudder orders doesn't decide when to launch aircraft or when not to. That's the responsibility of someone above both him and the CAG, who coordinates the air and sea operations as a unified whole. As a result, I don't think carriers would play well in DW which is best for one-on-one or small groups of warships. By the time you get into fighting aircraft carriers you're into some pretty substantial scale fleet tactics, where a single engagement might be better as a DW scenario.

I've come to think of CVs, gators and CLF ships, as basically just targets in a DW scenario because their offensive power is on an operational scale. They might motivate a scenario and provide the underlying logic for what's going on, but in themselves, they don't typically add a lot of combat power. That's more for destroyers, cruisers, MPA, helos and submarines to add on the scale DW is concerned with. Aircraft carriers, amphibs and logistics are a step or two above what's going on. Aboard a carrier or large-deck gator there's a whole staff of planners and what not concerned with things are are totally abstract to a DW scenario.

I would really give my vote for some Aircraft Carrier classes like could be Kitty Hawk class,Nimitz and Invincible.Of course,the way to implement more birds should be discovered in order to give them all its Air Wing.

[Greenwood]

At this point - I'll be happy with ANY addition to this wonderful simulation! :-) Heck, even news that the SCS is working on anything related to DW would be make happy :-) happy, happy, happy

:D

[Rotary Crewman]

even news that the SCS is working on anything related to DW would be make happy :-)

Amen to that, wonder if they have anything planned...

[Dr.Sid]

Last week Frying tiger (SCS man) posted this:


No, we get irony just fine. (grin)
We're still trying to figure out a way to get the company a return on any investment in addtional DW work.
The fact it's still slowly selling helps... naval sims may not be a big niche, but they have long lives! We're all grateful you're still having fun with it.

I read it as 'no we are not working on it nor we are planing to, sure some of us want to'.

[Sea Demon]

Frying Tiger also mentioned on the main Sonalysts site that they have approached some publishers to no avail. Well, at least that's what it sounded like to me. I'm wondering what they approached a potential publisher for. DW add-ons? FC2? I guess we'll never know.

[jmr]

What a bummer. So do they need $$$ straight up from a publisher in order to make anything in the first place? If not, why not just go the digital distribution route instead? How about Matrix Games? Sure, we'll have to pay $69.99 but it sure beats not having anything at all!

[Eyebiter]

SCS should approach the Australian Navy and see if they would be willing to underwrite additional development on the game. Indonesia has a demonstrated submarine threat, and the Aussie Navy is putting $$$ into ASW platforms and training. Before you laugh at the idea of a govt subsidizing a video game, note that Battlefront.com did this with Combat Mission: Afrika Korps. The Australian Government, Department of Defence licensed it to aid Officers in historical education. http://www.battlefront.com/news_cmak.html

[OneShot]

SCS already has a contract with a goverment (US) ... so development isn't an issue. The problem is transfering the stuff into the Commercial Edition which according to some comments from Jamie back when is different to some extend.

[Ghost Dog]

I agree with the digital distrubution idea, the way of the future for most games I think. And im sure that if sonalysts were to put out anything, be it FC2 or a DW expansion/sequel, we'd all happily get out our credit cards.

as for future platforms, I agree with those who have voted for a western diesel. Collins, Victoria, Scorpene or Gotland.

[NFunky]

My vote is for any non-western platform. There's already a 5/2 (technically 5/3 incl. Chinese Kilos) ratio of American/hostile nation platforms.

DW is mainly a sub/ASW game, but its ASUW engine isn't too bad and even a controllable PCFG would be interesting. What I'm getting at is, say you wanted to make a multiplayer US vs. Iran or US. vs China scenario you could play as a US frigate, a US helo, a US ASW aircraft, or one of two types of US submarine. On the other side, you can play as an Iranian Kilo or one of two similar types of Chinese Kilo.

As Russia is not as much a potential threat as China, I'd suggest either a Chinese Song class or Jangwei class. As others have mentionned, a Sovremenny would be nice, but it would unbalance multiplayer a bit.