View Full Version : Ageis platform and Virginia class
smrtwhkd
12-13-05, 11:47 AM
Just a few sugguestions. Could we add an Ageis surface platform into the game, either Arleigh or Ticon, to keep the lonely FFG company? :) Also, I think we should have the new Virgina class added in. It is a powerful platform and good for littoral combat. These are just some suggestions and I am not sure if this is the rite forum to put it.
Kapitan
12-13-05, 01:07 PM
been there many times and done that many times how about some thing else non american or russian
german 212 214
british type 23
who knows
OneShot
12-13-05, 03:13 PM
A quick search on the forums would have provided lots of similar threads, all pretty much with the same result. Yes there is demand for new plattforms (among them the Aegis ships), and no there will be no SCU like utility (SCS has forbidden that) and yes, SCS will think about a release of an expansion if sales for DW go well. At which time I guess they will actually ask around what plattforms the community would love the most to see in DW. Till then I would say this point is mood to discuss.
Deathblow
12-13-05, 07:03 PM
Some report place the weapons capacity, vls tubes, speed, and diving depth of the LA and Virginia very similarly.... the main difference between the platforms behind noise level and periscope technology. You could always simulate the Virginia by reducing the noise levels of the LA to that of the SW. Then again.... a Virginia is just a slower SW with less weps capacity... nothing new there.
Just a few sugguestions. Could we add an Ageis surface platform into the game, either Arleigh or Ticon, to keep the lonely FFG company? :) Also, I think we should have the new Virgina class added in. It is a powerful platform and good for littoral combat. These are just some suggestions and I am not sure if this is the rite forum to put it.
At first I wanted an AEGIS platform in DW. Then I realized that it's capabilities in AAW/ASuW were complete overkill in this sim, while it's ASW capabilities equal those of the present OHP. While it would be nice to be able to survive a stream raid of Sizzlers, it's much more important that every platform add another piece to the puzzle without stacking the deck.
That being said, put me in a DDG and terror will have a designation: RUM-139 :stare:.
Fandango
12-14-05, 02:54 AM
But let the additional platform(s) be russian...we need balance. There's no point in adding western platforms with no opponents...
Bellman
12-14-05, 03:01 AM
:up: I second that Fandango. :rock:
Fandango
12-14-05, 03:10 AM
:up: I second that Fandango. :rock:
Well, this issue has been discussed many times in this forum...I'm just expressing what I think is the community's opinion on the matter... ;)
I was playing with the FFG yesterday and realized how good it would be if there was a russian surface platform to control. You could make missions not only restricted to sub hunting...you could make surface based missions, too, which could include land attack or interdiction surface vs surface...and from BOTH sides. I'm talking about cooperative missions here...two or more players on a surface ship playing a single mission. A sub MAY be out there but not necessarily...you could use the probability to inclusion for the sub in the mission editor to give the mission some sort of "thrill"...
Bellman
12-14-05, 03:38 AM
Yep - its like having one hand tied behind you. It limits the potential for achieving balanced gameplay
and flexibility of options in MP mision design. :yep: :down: :arrgh!:
goldorak
12-14-05, 04:37 AM
But let the additional platform(s) be russian...we need balance. There's no point in adding western platforms with no opponents...
Yes, absolutely, bring on Ivan's navy :|\
What Russian surface ship would be a "balance" to the FFG-7?
Kapitan
12-14-05, 12:53 PM
a krivak III would be en par with a perry but the Krivak is acctualy classed as large corvette small frigate.
Udaloy is seen to russians as frigate but in the west as a cruiser same as sovremenny
btw its realy messed up the classification
TLAM Strike
12-14-05, 01:01 PM
What Russian surface ship would be a "balance" to the FFG-7? A Neustrashimy, Udaloy or Krivak II/III are probaly the best options.
Kapitain:
Not good enough ASUW warfare with that one.
SCS should have modeled a more capable ship besides the FFG-7. Then it would be easier to balance with an introduction of a new Opfor ship. Like Sovremenny or Udaloy.
Kapitan
12-14-05, 01:07 PM
udaloy is over 500 feet long bigger and carrys more weapons than a frigate and cannot realy be classified frigate its more destroyer cruiser same with sovremenny but the udaloy is a very good ASW platform.
krivak III and IV is a sort of costal and sea going frigate ASW ASUW and some AAW its multi role.
the grisha is a ASW platform but thats a corvette
last time i saw an udaloy the 2nd officer remarked she is a bit*h to handle
meaning she is a bit too big
LuftWolf
12-14-05, 01:38 PM
SCS should have modeled a more capable ship besides the FFG-7
The focus of DW is ASW. The FFG is as capable in ASW as any other ship they could have modelled without the complications of other systems and capabilities, and is thus the best choice for this simulator.
If you want to play AEGIS, then try to find a copy of an old sim by that name, I hear it was quite good. :up:
Kapitan
12-14-05, 01:40 PM
i was also told harpoon you can play agies arliegh burke and ticonderoga kongo as agies capible platforms
SCS should have modeled a more capable ship besides the FFG-7
The focus of DW is ASW. The FFG is as capable in ASW as any other ship they could have modelled without the complications of other systems and capabilities, and is thus the best choice for this simulator.
If you want to play AEGIS, then try to find a copy of an old sim by that name, I hear it was quite good. :up:
What complications are you talking about? The game has simplified systems as it is. Another more capable ship wouldn't be much different except a better SAM capability. Not to mention asrocs.
Kapitan
12-14-05, 04:55 PM
U.S ships and subs no longer deploy as rock
russians deploy the ASW SS-N-16 and SS-N-27 asroc typed missiles
U.S ships and subs no longer deploy as rock
russians deploy the ASW SS-N-16 and SS-N-27 asroc typed missiles
The USN and certain allied navies do currently use vertically launched ASROCs; more accurate, carrying a more effective payload and longer ranged. I mentioned it before, the RUM-139 VLA.
If you want to play AEGIS, then try to find a copy of an old sim by that name, I hear it was quite good.
Actually, it sucks. A lot of scenarios, the only way to win was to force the enemy to come at you by controlling their actions. Although it was quite realistic in that it used the same crappy and annoying music as real USN informational videos.
LuftWolf
12-14-05, 06:40 PM
:rotfl:
Kapitan
12-14-05, 06:50 PM
virginia = seawolf exterior + 688i interior
virginia = seawolf exterior + 688i interior
Uhh.... no.
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=18031
Kapitan
12-14-05, 07:43 PM
i was refering to some thing that some one else said it was a quote froma similar post but i dont know who said it
i was refering to some thing that some one else said it was a quote froma similar post but i dont know who said it
That person was either misinformed or joking. The Virginias are full generation ahead of the LAs and outshine even the Seawolves in the littoral regions.
TLAM Strike
12-14-05, 10:47 PM
I think he might be talking about me. I said for DW if you want a VA just take the 688(i) weapons interface and slap it on the SW. Because its basically a small SW with 688(i) weapons.
Molon Labe
12-15-05, 01:41 AM
That's not a bad idea. Should be a pretty low-cost expansion. =)
Kapitan
12-15-05, 02:26 AM
thats what i was meaning thanks TLAM :up:
Bellman
12-15-05, 02:50 AM
But everything is 'possible' - like adding the SW sonar suite to the Ak.
Approved 'Hybrids' ? :hmm:
That person was either misinformed or joking. The Virginias are full generation ahead of the LAs and outshine even the Seawolves in the littoral regions.
I'm not so sure...why would the US navy convert a Seawolf Hull to replace Parche over waiting for a year or two and converting say USS Texas.
It would indicate a Seawolf Class SSN is considered more or less equal to a Virginia...
A friendly jibe to make things on this thread a bit more interesting
...anyway, both classes are ten years behind the Trafalgar Class SSN anyway. :cool:
Molon Labe
12-16-05, 12:17 PM
Space.
LuftWolf
12-16-05, 02:53 PM
As I understand it, USS Virginia=cheap SeaWolf. Now this is just piecing together random stuff and trying to sort he Navy and industry propaganda, no serious research.
The basic technology is more or less the same, but most of the research put into the USS SSN program between the final design and construction of the SW class and the construction of the Virginia was invested into technology that would save money in construction. The primary example of this is trying to limit the number of perforations in the pressure hull, as each time something has to go through the hull from or to the inside adds signification cost. The periscope of the Virginia links from the outside hull into the ship without actually going through, wow, the Russians must be terrified. :P
The Virginia probably does have an ungraded GUI for its computer systems, better use of internal space, and sonar designed for operations in the littorals, but overall it is a compact version of the SW built more efficiently with slightly less overall capability.
smrtwhkd
12-16-05, 04:27 PM
...anyway, both classes are ten years behind the Trafalgar Class SSN anyway.
Uhh.... I don't know about that.
...anyway, both classes are ten years behind the Trafalgar Class SSN anyway.
Uhh.... I don't know about that.
As I said, a jibe designed to make the discussion on this thread a more broader then it was.
If more discussion data is required. My argument is...
...the Trafalgar has specialised systems that allow it to navigate littoral waters. To my knowledge, no one has ever said publically that the US has such technology.
...once in litroral waters, the Electronic Intercept capability of a Trafalgar is supposed to be ahead of either a Seawolf or Virginia in their standard configeration (I suspect that USS Jimmy Carter is far in advance of a Trafalgar in this regard)
Word of note: No one hold back in fefuting these arguments or even suggesting they are wrong if they are. I picked the Trafalgar because I'm familiar with them - not because of my nationality.
I happen to think the Walrus Class beats all. :D
OneShot
12-16-05, 09:26 PM
@DAB : Check out the German Class 212 subs (with AIP) and the future project Class 214. I think those are the current hot shot littoral subs worldwide.
Look here : http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/
I'm not so sure...why would the US navy convert a Seawolf Hull to replace Parche over waiting for a year or two and converting say USS Texas.
The USS Parche was nearing the end of it's service life and there was a brief gap between the Parche's decommissioning and the Jimmy Carter's delivery and commissioning. I'm not even sure it's started workups yet. Waiting until the USS Texas would mean an additional two years without a vessel equal to the Parche's.
It would indicate a Seawolf Class SSN is considered more or less equal to a Virginia...
They had a sub, built for a mission that no longer exists, that could perform a different mission equally well. The Jimmy Carter's lack of the littoral-optimized sonar won't as debilitating while it performs the ISR/SOF role... after all, torpedoing ships in peacetime, even if they are "the enemy", is generally discouraged.
...anyway, both classes are ten years behind the Trafalgar Class SSN anyway. :cool:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Thanks for the laugh.
As I understand it, USS Virginia=cheap SeaWolf.
Originally, yes. It was comparable to the situation between the F-15/F-16, one. Although once it was apparent that the Seawolves weren't going to be produced in large numbers that the Navy wanted, they started to adding more capabilities to the "low-end" model until there really wasn't a whole lot of difference in cost.
I did a real quick search and came up with this blurb. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem quoting a more reliable source, but my original source in this case is a friend and I don't like claiming "I heard it from my friend" as a source.
[quote]The New Attack Submarine is designed for multi-mission operations and enhanced operational flexibility. SEAWOLF (SSN-21)-Class quieting has been incorporated in a smaller hull while military performance has been maintained or improved. Compared with the Seawolf, the NSSN is slower, carries fewer weapons, and is less capable in diving depth and arctic operations. On the other hand, the NSSN is expected to be as quiet as the Seawolf, will incorporate a vertical launch system and have improved surveillance as well as special operations characteristics to enhance littoral warfare capability... The primary design driver for the NSSN is acoustic quietness equal to that of the Seawolf, even at the cost of reducing maximum top speed. With a focus on the littoral battlespace, the New Attack Submarine has improved magnetic stealth, sophisticated surveillance capabilities, and Special Warfare enhancements.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ssn-774-mission.htm
It may have less blue-water capability than a Seawolf, but it wasn't designed with blue-water in mind. Unfortunately, DW doesn't do a very good job of simulating the chaotic littoral acoustic environment so your sensors still work pretty much fine and dandy.
SpruCanFan
12-19-05, 05:23 PM
I agree that adding a DDG51 or CG47 platform would likely create an unreasonably powerful anti aircraft platform. However, is no one here a fan of the DD963 class? I would argue that the Spruance class is a superior choice for an ASW oriented sim than the Figs that DW includes. The DD963 would provide a more capable surface ASW ship equipped with more Harpoons, TSAM/TLAMs, and the two 5 inch guns in addition to the SQS-53 and RUR-139 VLASROC. The two Mk32 torpedos, SH-60, 3 inch OTO/Melara gun and anemic Mk13 Standard/Harpoon launcher just isn't doing it for me. I'd relish the oppertunity to go 'surfing' and provide naval gunfire support with the two 5 inchers as I believe Caron and Moosbrooger did. Nobody really seems to complain about the land attack capabilities of the SSNs, so why should the surface fleet be limited to a single platform of limited capability? Admittedly the land-attack role of the Spruance would likely be downplayed and instead you'd end up chasing subs, but I'd still be thrilled to have a bit more flexible a standoff capability than the Mk50s and SH-60s can provide the FFG. It'd be a lot of fun to be forced to run the gauntlet of Kilo or two to get into a position to provide NGFS for some troops or something.
As far as play balancing goes, give us an Udaloy or Sovremenny to counter the Spruance. The choice of ship in this case would greatly affect the gameplay. The AAW/ASuW oriented Sovremenny would dictate toward use against a TLAM or TASM equipped Spruance. The ASW oriented Udaloy would be better used as a Russkie foil to the Spruance, doing to 688is, Virginias and Seawolfs what the Spruance does to the Russian Kilos and Akulas. I might go so far as to suggest complete play balancing between the American and Russian fleets, to the point of simulating the Krivak, IL-38 May, and a Kamov Helix of some variety in addition to the Udaloy and Spruance to provide full multiplayer platform parity. The Krivak possibly could be handled as the various Kilo mods are handled by DW, with different versions simply adding or deleting features. This would allow the Krivak I, I mod, II, and III to be modeled without extensive reprogramming, just slight modifications to the model (which IIRC is already done), and to the user's interface. As some have suggested perhaps the German 212A would provide a good counter to the Kilo, which could make for some enjoyable littoral combat.
Theoretically you could include an Aegis platform provided you also provided something like an Oscar II, Slava, or even Kirov class cruiser, but then the focus of the game likely would end up changing. If simulated accurately you'd end up with the captain of the Aegis equipped ship almost acting like the 'Admiral' in Fleet Command. Who knows, maybe an upgrade to DW could include backwards compatibility with an upgraded (or perhaps downgraded) Fleet Command, wherein he acts as the CVBG commander. But then I'm getting ahead of myself and wildly speculating. I don't want to make SCS's job any harder and truely love Dangerous Waters, I'd just like to see a more capable ASW surface platform, such as the Spruance, included in any future version.
If you think I'm slightly biased toward surface fleets then you'd likely be correct. When I first read the title of this thread I thought it was refering to the Strike cruiser and CSGN 42. :)
I agree that adding a DDG51 or CG47 platform would likely create an unreasonably powerful anti aircraft platform. However, is no one here a fan of the DD963 class?
I can't say I am. At least not for DW.
The last was decommissioned in September. The Navy is currently evaluating their value as exports and targets. One is becoming the new self-defense test ship. You make some good points, but putting in Sprucans would be a real throwback to a bygone era. I can't really see how the game would change. You would have a bit more ASW capability (RUM-139s are nice) but less AAW capability, essentially reduced to self-defense given the limited range and loadout of Seasparrow. Big boost to ASuW though.
When I first read the title of this thread I thought it was refering to the Strike cruiser and CSGN 42. :)
You weren't the only one...
There is nothing wrong with modeling older ships. You can create earlier year scenarios like people did with SC/SCX.
DeepSixNiner
12-20-05, 09:28 PM
I was waiting for someone to say that!!! :up:
DW is a naval simulation, no question, but it doesn't have to be just "modern day", does it?
Sub Command, after a short time, became a bit of a bore to me, until the release of SCX and all those new targets, and easily the best scenarios made for Sub Command were Cold War-era.
Personally, I'd like to see them all.
Cheers.
There is nothing wrong with modeling older ships. You can create earlier year scenarios like people did with SC/SCX.
Modelling is fine. Matter of fact, there are still Sprucans in DW. It's quite another thing entirely when you are making playable Sprucans and leaving whole other classes out (DDG 86s, SSN 774s, Super Hornets, SSGNs, etc). I mean, I know SCS is kinda wierd with the surface stuff (SM-2 armed OHPs and a CIWS that can shoot down your own missiles :huh:) but c'mon, at least throw us a bone and update the current database before creating the old school version.
drEaPer
12-23-05, 01:06 AM
I second Oneshots proposel: The U212.
If stealth had a name, it d be U212 :)
sonar732
12-23-05, 10:17 AM
Very nice arguement SpruCanFan! :up: :rock:
Kapitan
12-23-05, 12:17 PM
seawolf is more advanced than the trafalgar period
but the trafalgar was one of the first SSN's to have fully touch screen systems
trafalgar is more equal to a very highly improved 688i the new astute is as capible as the new virginia but dont forget trafalgar is 80's tech seawolf is 90's
Sea Demon
12-23-05, 07:48 PM
We definitely need an AEGIS add-on for surface ships. Western diesel if you're looking for new subs (ie Oyashiu, Collins, U214 :cool: ).
With the AEGIS platform, you open up whole new doors. There would be a plethora of new mission types in multi-mission surface warfare modes. You would be able to do heavy duty long-range AAW, ASuW, Deep land-strike from the surface, more involved ASW (maybe ASROCS for Arleigh Burke), naval support and interdiction, etc. The possibilities would seemingly be limitless with a Tico or Burke.
For those looking for OPFOR, why not include a playable Sovremenny (Russian/Chinese) with a Ticonderoga or Burke pack? And of course throw in that Collins for good measure too. 3 new platforms in one package.
;)
Sea Demon
Kapitan
12-23-05, 07:52 PM
it would be worth putting new addon playables now its gone retail otherwise too soon you gunna find people takeing it back to the shops,
FS can do it so why cant we in a smaller capacity
drEaPer
12-23-05, 08:22 PM
You talk about adding plattforms as if its done in 2 weeks.... :o
The decision what plattform to add has to be based only on player demand. It doesnt help if we have a perfect balance but no ppl buying the addon, cause they arent really interested in that plattform. The last thing I wanna see is SCS developing something nobody buys, which then leads to SCSs end in games development due to the lack of profit.
_If_ they add a new plattform with an addon, it should be one that has been selected by a majority of the player base, so that the chances are high alot DW customers will go and get it.
Sea Demon
12-23-05, 08:29 PM
I'll purchase any platform they make....that's a guarantee. Even if they model the super tanker as a playable. Even so, I think we would get the most out of a Ticonderoga/ Arleigh Burke or a western diesel when the time comes. Just my opinion.
I'll purchase any platform they make....that's a guarantee. Even if they model the super tanker as a playable. Even so, I think we would get the most out of a Ticonderoga/ Arleigh Burke or a western diesel when the time comes. Just my opinion.
Can't say it's the same for me. If they add a platform I have no interest in, I won't buy.
Sea Demon
12-23-05, 09:38 PM
I'll purchase any platform they make....that's a guarantee. Even if they model the super tanker as a playable. Even so, I think we would get the most out of a Ticonderoga/ Arleigh Burke or a western diesel when the time comes. Just my opinion.
Can't say it's the same for me. If they add a platform I have no interest in, I won't buy.
You've heard of the word "hyperbole", right? :D
Sea Demon
Kapitan
12-24-05, 04:52 AM
udaloy sovremenny arliegh burke type 214/212 and a few others
CaptJodan
12-27-05, 05:10 PM
While I know this topic has been covered and most of the community has opted out of the idea, the thing I keep coming back to is the lack of true multi-mission capability of the OHP verses, say, a Burke. Yes, the game is centered primarily on submarines. Of that there is no question. But what is a sub capable of? In this game, it is the ultimate multi-mission platform. It can take on and win against any surface unit if properly commanded, as well as any land target. A 688i can take on the most powerful carrier or Kirov, or go up against smaller boats if it so chose to, or hit land based targets of opportunity.
The OHP has no such versitility. It can take on light sea targets, can maybe hold it's own against a unit of similar nature to itself, but doesn't stand a chance against most surface units.
I recognize that the main advantage of a sub's defense is stealth, and that a Burke or Ticondo or Som for the Russians wouldn't have that advantage (and of course I'm not expecting the OHP to go after all these destroyers and cruisers). But adding a surface unit that has a more multi-mission capability, including defending itself against a slightly higher surface threat, would be a nice feature to have.
Fully agree with CaptJordan!!
Sea Demon
12-27-05, 07:20 PM
Definitely agree in terms of more multi-mission capabilities. While OHP is a fun ASW platform, and I'm glad to have it, it would be nice to have an Arleigh Burke to bring more capabilities to the table in terms of surface action.
Sea Demon
LuftWolf
12-27-05, 07:24 PM
Why not a Nimitz, with fully playable S-3, E-2, F/A-18, and F-14? :P
Or a Harpers Ferry, with playable landing craft and individual Marines. Oooo ooo, we could have a FPS component in DW, with fully commandable squads and platoons... oh, we need to have corpsmen! And Super Cobras! And don't forget about playable AOR ships.
Is it cheating to use autocrew crane?
:-j
:hulk:
TLAM Strike
12-27-05, 08:00 PM
Why not a Nimitz, with fully playable S-3, E-2, F/A-18, and F-14? :P WHAT thats it!! I want my playable C-2 COD damnit!
Oh and we can't forget the EA-6B and ES-3A...
:-j
:roll:
Sea Demon
12-27-05, 08:23 PM
Playable MCM-1 Avenger. :cool: Oooh. Mine Warfare. :-j
Sea Demon
TLAM Strike
12-27-05, 08:36 PM
We alreay got the .50 cal gun interface so we are set for its weapons. :up:
Kapitan
12-28-05, 03:43 AM
id like to command an arliegh burke or a spruence but the perry frigate are so common so ugly it makes me feel sick when i command it not only that when i have one targeted it gives me plesure to scream FIRE at the top of my lungs.
the perry is 70's issue heap of scrap metal america should order some newer frigates cause a thousand bird droppings wont hold them together much longer.
soundken
12-28-05, 04:13 AM
Why not a Nimitz, with fully playable S-3, E-2, F/A-18, and F-14? :P
Or a Harpers Ferry, with playable landing craft and individual Marines. Oooo ooo, we could have a FPS component in DW, with fully commandable squads and platoons... oh, we need to have corpsmen! And Super Cobras! And don't forget about playable AOR ships.
Is it cheating to use autocrew crane?
absoloutly and no cheatin autocrane usin noob is going to be allowed on any server.
and if your going to have that then dont forget that if you dont have fully playable hind helicopters t-72 tanks bdrm's and spetznaz troops with all mig and su varients in nothing but the best graphics or it just wont do
LMAO ROTF
:-j sorry guys just kiddin lw made me laugh al this is tounge in cheek
I think he might be talking about me. I said for DW if you want a VA just take the 688(i) weapons interface and slap it on the SW. Because its basically a small SW with 688(i) weapons.
That is about as far from the Virginia in reality as you can get. Her C3I capability alone surpasses anything on the inside of any hull period. Besides, you are forgetting about another specialty. Littoral combat also provides for an advanced surveillance and Special Operations delivery capability.
Some personnel in this thread also seem to be searching for balance. And as we all know, balance is the enemy of a good sim. Things are the way they are...
I noticed another poster mentioned how this has been posted before. Well my my, why don't we all shut up for good. Half the threads on this forum are repeats of the firsty half. There is no harm in a little reptition. If it was an issue, a mod would step in.
soundken
12-28-05, 09:08 PM
the perry is 70's issue heap of scrap metal america should order some newer frigates cause a thousand bird droppings wont hold them together much longer.
not to worry Kaptain if the time comes to protect those precious convoys the Canadian Navy will be there to answer the call
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/current/halifax/
btw my uncle was one of the engineers on the turbine engine system 28+ Knots is just what we tell the tourists ;) and i hear there real quiet: :D
it doesnt reflect anywhere on my profile that i grew up in Canada if you'll all indulge me with a liitle family pride :lol:
TLAM Strike
12-28-05, 10:04 PM
You got every right too have some pride in the Halifaxs those are nice Frigates. They lack two of the torp tubes the OHP has and no SM-2 capability like the Iroquois but they sure are nice to have in a battle group.
Yes of course me being Canadian as well, that would be really great to have the Halifax class in the game.
We will have in all of them Evolved Sea Sparrow (yes not as powerful as the SM-2, but very effective for the role of the Halifax class and has a limited area defense capability). They have outstanding sonar/towed array capability, new CIWS and the 57MM Mk3 coming shortly on line.
The H-92 Cyclone will be a very very good helicopter when operational.
So of course those are not american but why not having either an Halifax or Brandenburg or even type 23 frigates to replace the older OHP in this game.
TLAM Strike
12-28-05, 10:23 PM
I've said before I've wanted a Brit FF or DDG, Type 23 has been my #1 choice from the RN for a new DW surface platform. But I would rather have an OPFOR Frigate first, the FFG-7 needs a foil. But after each side is balanced a couple of extra NATO and non-NATO units would be nice.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.