Your choice on next playable platform in DW?

[Scotty Watson]

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

[ASW Jedi]

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)

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by ASW Jedi

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.

[ASW Jedi]

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.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by ASW Jedi

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

[Molon Labe]

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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.

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.

[Chock]

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.

Chock

[Linton]

Trafalgar or a Russian surface vessel.

[Reaper51]

Russian Typhoon class SSBN.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Trafalgar class, please

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

And I agree, the Arleigh Burke IIA's are the ultimate destroyer.

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.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

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. .......

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.