*whispers*Trimaran FFG......*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*

Re: Your choice on next playable platform in DW?
 

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

how about sevdvinsk class ?

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?

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.

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:

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?

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.

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

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/milita...g-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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Trafalgar or a Russian surface vessel.

Russian Typhoon class SSBN. :up:

Trafalgar class, please :up:

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.

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.