: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!

:lol: hehe, I like that... not just "crappy"... "uber-crappy":rotfl:

In the world of LWAMI:

"The year is 2010. A resurgent Russia has aggressively persued a policy of naval modernization based on the doctrine of covert, nuclear and non-nuclear power projection while at the same time arming and equipping nations such as Iran and China with the capability to defend themselves against the projection capabilities of the USN. It is not uncoming for joint regional exercises between the Russian Navy, PLAN, and the Iranians. Israel in particular fears the combination of Russian missile technology in Iran to their east and Russian submarine technology in the Med to their West.

In response, the United States and UK have persued their own program of modernization to counter the latest littoral warfare and open ocean threats with the aim of preserving US and UK power projection capability. The Germans have played in a key role in equipping regional allies with the ability to defend their own coasts without the help of the major powers."

It's not Clancy, but it does provide a guide for me to ensure I don't go too far astray.

You can be your own judge, but this is a lot more interesting than: "The year is 2007 Russia and the US are too broke to keep up their Navies. Russian sailors are selling pieces of their subs as scrap metal and burning their uniforms for fuel. The US has exactly five TLAM's left because they fired them all at Iraq and Afganistan and Cheney ordered 5000000 Haliburton party hats rather than replacing them."

Cheers,
David

From a Jedi point of view... :p :p :p

That's just a cheap shot, Ken, sorry I couldn't help it.

Cheers,
David

Amizaur told me the APR-2 was originally developed for deployment on SUBROCs, but proved to be too unwieldy for the SS-N-15 or SS-N-27 and so it was converted for use on aircraft. It is conceivable that a future version of the APR would be developed as payload for the SS-N-16 if the Russian Navy had the funds and thought it would give them a better weapons platform in the submarines that could carry it.

So, I am going to begin work on LWAMI 3.06 immediately. I really appreciate everyone giving their input.

It will feature the following changes:

1) The UUV from the ATC will be imported in its entireity. That means it will have advanced controls (depth and speed), reduced sensor sensitivity, increased stealth and a range vs. speed function. This is a good opportunity to see how people react to having advanced controls without involving all the issues that come from torpedoes, practical and political. :)

2) The Mk60 will be added to the game (I hope it's as easy as I think it is)

3)Russian SUBROCS: The speed of the SS-N-27 ASW payload will be reduced to 45kts. The APR-3 will replace the UMGT-1 on the Stallion. I will attempt to model this weapon as precisely as possible to what is known about the real weapon. It will 1) have a circle search pattern 2) will enter the water and search at slow speed with a low noise profile, however it will search in active mode (it will take a LONG time to make a complete circle, so it almost acts like a mine with a slowly rotating search sonar), the weapon will shutdown after a single complete circle if it does not find a target 3) if it detects a contact, the torpedo will then move to 70kts and home on the target with a max range of 1.5nm 4) the torpedo will have a seeker equivalent to the seeker of the SS-N-27 payload.

Cheers,
David

The above sounds good, though you might note the APR-3 is actually as much as 125kg lighter and 0.5m shorter than the APR-2.

Ok, the UUV has been imported.

Here is refresher on the controls:

Now on to the APR-3. :)

Cheers,
David

Well personally I've always split the DW timeframe; sometimes cold war scenarios, but sometimes modern day ops. Cold war scenarios are interesting because deep water just feels good to maneuver in and fighting against massive platforms and formations (CGNs and CVNs) is a fun challenge.

However, I've sorta gotten into the littoral battlespace over the last year... it really is an interesting challenge. One could consider the submarine battle in littoral waters a battle of the SSNs vs the SSKs for control of the coastline. Taking on the delimas of how to operate a big SSN in a brown water environment, having maximum impact on land events (strikes, recond, etc), and fighting in a backyard where SSKs are king and ASW helo's are queen... is actually pretty interesting IMHO.

Of course, I don't play multiplayer, so I can get away from the repeated US vs Russia scenarios... US vs coastline (SSKs, helos, and SSMs) is more interesting for us single players IMHO... granted the welcomed blue water op every now and then.

APR-3, check. :)

The weapon functions as I've described above with a couple of exceptions.

When it is dropped from a helo or the SS-N-16, it will enter the water and do a circle search right at 40kts (anything slower messes with the new range vs. speed calculations in DW 1.04 and makes the range of the weapon very very short). When the weapon acquires a target, it will go its max speed of 68kts. If this weapon acquires a decoy and burns through or misses its target, it will malfunction as it does not have reattack capability.

After testing, it proved necessary to make the Max range of the weapon a bit over 2.5nm in the database to make the weapon reasonably effective (since it needs range to both search and home), although in practice it will never reach this range.

Now for the CAPTOR, where I have to do some real work.

Cheers,
David

PS The proper evasion tactic for the APR-3 is to drop a decoy and make sure you are circling clockwise away from the weapon. Trust me when I say, it will take a very good shot to score a kill with this weapon as the payload of the SS-N-16, although the Russian helos and aircraft are NASTY with this weapon. :yep: :arrgh!:

I thought UUV are especially good for mine avoidance. Not as replacement for ship sensors. In such case, it should only have active sonar, passive is useless for mines.

About the FFG .. it has some vertical launching tubes now or does it have no missiles at all ?

Luftwolf : I wonder why you're doing a poll at since you're obviously not taking into account the votes. Almost 50% of the players said they wanted to keep the stallion as it is now without changing anything and you decide nontheless to change the torpedo. I fail to see the point. :shifty: