:rotfl:

virginia = seawolf exterior + 688i interior

Uhh.... no.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=18031

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.

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's not a bad idea. Should be a pretty low-cost expansion. =)

thats what i was meaning thanks TLAM :up:

But everything is 'possible' - like adding the SW sonar suite to the Ak.

Approved 'Hybrids' ? :hmm:

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:

Space.

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.

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

@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/

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.

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.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Thanks for the laugh.

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/milita...74-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.

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 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.

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.

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.