I don't think that's the issue at hand. As I said before, balance can be achieved in various ways.

Swapping out the Stallion payload is not an issue of balance, its an issue of retiring a useless weapon from the game and replacing it with something that might actually see the light of day, and doing it along the lines of a plausible developement in Russian technology, which already gets the benefit of the doubt all over both the stock and modded databases.

This is directly equivalent to replacing the useless and redundant Mk46 with the Mk54.

Cheers,
David

It can't be directly equivalent, there was no pairing issue with the Mk46/54. Especially since you left the Mk46 on the ASROC.

The equivalence:

Mk46=UMGT-1=outdated, not useful in game

Mk54=APR-2E(on Stallion)=based on near-future capability, useful in game

I think it's pretty simple.

The UMGT-1 is only 3kts faster than the SW, which gives it a lethal envelope of about 200 yards or less, when dropped in an optimal position, and 0 yards (completely ineffective) if dropped behind the SW.

Cheers,
David

I think in terms of realism we should leave as is. The SS-N-27 ASW is more effective and my preferred loadout. If we get into second guessing possible loadouts we could stray off into Dangerous grounds.

The Akula is pretty capable and in the right hands has no problems with a Seawolf.

Probably the best thing to do is make the 53 cm a UGST as that is almost as good as an ADCAP.

53cm already is a UGST...

Given the fact that the SS-N-27 payload's max speed is going to be reduced to 45kts, and that is has been at 55kts in error for so long with no one saying anything, I sense the opposition to this is strictly in principle and not because of any practical consideration given the state of DW and LWAMI.

I have to think that 1/3 of people will oppose any changes that aren't written in Jane's (even though jane's can be wrong too) and 1/3 of people will oppose any improvements to Russian equipment, particularly SUBROCs, even if the balance of the changes will make both SUBROCs, when considered together, less effective.

If I don't filter those opinions out, I'm left with a confusing picture.

Cheers,
David

:o Wow, those are some pretty bold statements...

Might I suggest some light reading... I just bought Submarine Technology for the 21 st Century by Stan Zimmerman and it presents some interesting facts and perspectives about the various capabilities/problems/innovations out between the nations. Of note is that Russians were the first nation to use Anechoic coating, the first to develop wakehoming torpedoes, and the first with supercavitating technology... those guys can put out great engineering.

If 80% of USET-80's failed, here's an interesting quote from the book to put that into perspective...

[edit]excuse any typos

However, at one point the USET-80 was a reliable torpedo.

The differences between the Russian problems and the problems mentioned above is that those weapons fail because they are cutting edge with teething techinical problems, the Russian weapons fail because they were manufactered 25 years ago and are well past their overhaul dates. :)

In regards to the Akula's and other Russian nukes, I am very suspicious of their current operating capabilities, particularly their quieting, given the current state of the Russian nuclear fleet, and also the fact that I suspect the Russian's active quieting systems are particularly maintenance intensive even over and above the regular issues of keeping up nuclear boats.

Cheers,
David

The Mk48 ADCAP had supposedly completed it operational evaluation, been approved for deployment, and instuted into active service for at least 5 years before the 1992 report. Even before that the ADCAP itself had been in development since 1975, more than 15 years earlier.

I've read that various British T-boat maintenance problems put every boat except one in repairs in 2000 with the only operational boat the Triumph. I think its fair to say that every navy has experienced both design and maintenance problems. If we really wanted to be objective, we would plague every boat with maintenance problems and every weapon with problematic failure probabilities, not just the Russians.

Then it stands to reason the country in question with the smallest economy, highest levels of corruption, and lowest level of technology (Russia) would have the most problems. :)

Cheers,
David

Then perhaps we should change the name of the game to "Rickety Waters":p

Whoever has the most rickety boat looses:lol:

Press button "A" to simulate mopping up the oil leaks. First one finished wins.:yep:

The point of this whole track of the conversation is to try to explain what I mean by "consistency"... and why that is important when doing game design.

Cheers,
David

Hijacking was unintentional. I guess what I was trying to say is that "accurate as possible" means *both* sides would be vunerable. Wasn't there a Russian naval stunt near the end of the cold war where they orchestrated a mass invasion of Russian Subs past US ASW screens into US waters untracked just to prove to the world that they could do it... and using "old" Victor IIIs at that. Lets not be too cocky...

Ok, back on topic... modding the stallion right?

In my mind this is the second to last in a list of weapon related changes that started some time ago:

1) two stage SS-N-27 replaces single supersonic stage SS-N-27 (the weapon is advertised to have two stages, but there is little or no actual information about the performance of this weapon, or whether it is currently in service or works at all)

2) 53cm given UGST specifications (another new Russian weapon with only advertised specs) and 65cm modified to 65-76 (a proven cold war weapon)

3) mk54 replaces mk46 (the mk46 will be in service with the USN for years to come because of logistical reasons, also, the mk54 has serious problems and was either on the block to be cancelled, or has been already, or the program has been completely overhauled)

4) Yu-8 replaces SET-53 (if you want to accuse me of making something up, this is your chance, this weapon really doesn't exist anywhere)

5) SLAM-ER given ASuW capability (I'm not sure this weapon exists, I was never able to actually confirm whether the "real" version of this weapon is simply an upgraded harpoon with limited strike capability or an advanced strike missile with no ASuW capability... in any case, it was added to compensate for the fact the harpoon can't be mounted on the P-3 at all in game)

6) So then at 6 would be the APR-2E/3 loadout for the Stallion

7) and seven is to add the Mk60 CAPTOR to the P-3 to replace the 1000lbs mine (a weapon I'm fairly certain does not function as advertised)

So, as you can see, I've been thoroughly off the reservation for some time now.

As a followup point, why does no one complain that the FFG7 has a missile rail? This is unquestionably the most significant "fantasy platform" capability in DW. If I REALLY wanted to be accurate for the sake of accuracy alone, I'd remove the Harpoons and SM-2 from the OHP, and how much fun would that be?

Cheers,
David

PS Also, the UUV would have to go entirely as there is not even anything close to a real world analogue, in late-stage developement or otherwise.

Well, the argument for the FFG missile launcher has been that the it wasn't removed until 2003 and DW hasn't really been considered a 2007 simulator... its sorta had the feel of a 1990-1999 time frame from the platforms expressed (when the FFG still had its Mk 13 launcher...) but the fact that it shoots SM-2 is a little stretch...

... what about downgrading ever weapon to 1990. Mk 46's back in and Mk 54s out. FFG SM-2 downgraded to SM-1s... but now we're talking the about changing the mod's whole direction... which I'm guessing isn't really something that's being considered...:hmm: :p :88)

... hm... come to think of it, what is the mod's stance on the DW timeframe anyway?

As far as I'm aware, there is informatin out there that makes both of these choices justified. What information supports the conclusion that the APR-3 is, or is about to be, deployed on the Stallion?
At the time of the change, you sold the Mk54 as a weapon that was entering the US inventory as a cheaper alternative to the Mk50.

I did bitch at you for that one. There are strong balance reasons to do this though, since the Chinese Kilos are pretty worthless at ASUW with only wakehomers and the uber-crappy SET-53.

You told me you found sources indicating that the SLAM-ER did have ASUW capability. Also, the Harpoon issue alone justifies this change.

The case has only been made that Russia *could* do this, not that they have or soon wil. There is no compelling balance reason to do this either. The only reason advanced to do this is to prevent the Stallion from being useless as a practical matter. That alone doesn't cut it.

Reliability is not modeled for any DW weapons (unless you count pk of missiles).

It's only been removed VERY recently. It's not unrealistic to have it under that circumstance. There are enormous balance concerns to leave it on. And I've been bitching about the SM-2 replacing the SM-1 since before DW was released.

And I supported the changes to the UUV reducing its power to less-incredible levels.

So I am consistent!