SUBSIM Radio Room Forums


SUBSIM: The Web's #1 BBS for all submarine and naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > Subsims & Naval Games > Blue Water
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-26-2019, 08:06 AM   #1
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 55
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default Blue Water Development Diary

Dear Diary,

Today SUBSIM has agreed to open a new forum for Blue Water!

To catch everyone up on some of the progress so far, why not a picture montage?

The UI is somewhat WIP. The "order a course" function isn't implemented yet (just manual rudder control). Also the map display will have textures instead of a solid color for the panel and buttons among other things.

As for the list of weapons in yellow on the right - kind of a placeholder for another major UI addition yet to be implemented:

 




Quite happy with the caustics effects underwater:

 






The "STYLE" button above the map is a WIP-build only thing so I can toggle between Soviet and NATO UIs. Although we don't currently have a Soviet ship to show off, this is the WIP Soviet UI:

 


I don't think I've ever seen a game implement this before - did Silent Hunter V do it? At any rate, the ships interact dynamically with the waves. I've seen it so much it's hard to go back to a game that doesn't implement this. It's fun watching the ship ride the big swells up and down:

 



Anyways, that is all for now. The ship you saw was a Charles F. Adams-class destroyer, and the model may change for it in the near future, or perhaps not. There's a lot going on with development, I just thought the community would like to know what's in the works.

There's a whole lot that hasn't been shown off yet, and a whole lot left to be done. Many half-baked placeholder graphics and unpolished ugly things that shouldn't be shown off, but that some people might appreciate seeing, anyways...
 
AzureSkies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2019, 12:25 AM   #2
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 55
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Well, I think it's safe to say some improvements have been made.

I can talk about the Ocean a bit more in another post, perhaps, but for now, let's take a look at what's floating in it.

 


This is the Azov, lacking her RBU's (still in development), and with the hull number she had in 1983 (The Russians like to change their ships' hull numbers every so often, it seems).

She was a Kara-class cruiser designed with a special modification: an installation of S-300 Fort (NATO reporting name: SA-N-6 "Grumble") missiles and accompanying 3R41 Volna ("TOP DOME") radar replacing her rearward M11 Shtorm (NATO name: SA-N-3 "Goblet") launcher and its accompanying HEAD LIGHTS radar.

 


This served as the sea trials for this new long-range SAM system that would be fitted on Slava and Kirov-class ships, and almost doubled the range of her air defense capabilities, and put her up with these fleet flagships in terms of fleet air defense.

 


She did, however, retain the forward one, so you can see the HEAD LIGHTS radar just behind and on top of the bridge, and the associated M-11 Shtorm launcher on the elevated deck in front of it (currently carrying two missiles). By 1983, I believe this would have been the upgraded version.

 


Stationed with the Black Sea fleet, her and the Slava will be the most important ships for Soviet players trying to break out of the Black Sea, providing long-range air defense against large numbers of NATO aircraft.

Some parts of the model are yet to be augmented a bit, RBUs have yet to be added, and the sky will get some drastic improvements soon.

Next update is sure to come much sooner. Until then, good hunting.
AzureSkies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2019, 12:04 AM   #3
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 55
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

This week is a bit late.

Been mulling over decisions with regard to the game's design and release schedule. I've been thinking of using an early access release towards the end of the year to raise funds to put towards a more complete development. It would only be the bare bones of gameplay, only surface ships and probably a simplified damage model, but come with all the updates from there.

Thoughts, comments? Feel free to provide feedback on the idea.

Anyways, I've done a lot of work implementing a sky system in the project, and had to re-do the water to make it look good in light of this. I think it's an improvement - the sky sure is! - but you'll have to tell me what you think of the water.

Anyways, I like to introduce a new vehicle each week, so without further ado...



This is a Juliett-class submarine. It was initially built in the 60s to play the role that SSBNs would later take - threatening the US east coast with nuclear-tipped (cruise missiles in this case) missiles. Once SSBNs made them obsolete with the ability to launch nuclear ballistic missiles from submarines, their armaments were switched out for long-range antiship missiles.

Typical armament would consist of 6 533 mm torpedo tubes with 18 torpedoes, and four non-reloadable 400 mm stern torpedo tubes. Usually 4 of the 18 torpedoes were nuclear-tipped antiship torpedoes.

But its main armament to worry about in 1983 was 4 P-6 (NATO reporting name: SS-N-3A "Shaddock") missiles, two of which were typically nuclear-tipped.



By 1983, though, the submarine was old, and bordering on obsolescence. In order to fire, the ocean had to be less than sea state six, but most troublingly, it had to be surfaced and moving less than four knots. It also took about five minutes from surfacing to firing, making it extremely vulnerable to ASW attack.

The Shaddocks had a range of 450 km, or 250 nmi. Their own radar could only acquire targets from about 50 nmi out, and until they did, the missile had to be guided by the Juliett's FRONT DOOR/FRONT PIECE radar, which due to its limited abilities, could only track two at a time. This meant it had to fire its missiles in salvos of 2, guide them until they acquired the enemy targets (50 nmi range), and only then could it fire another pair.

The FRONT DOOR/FRONT PIECE radar had an unusual design in that it occupied a large front section of the conning tower that had to be rotated 180 degrees for the radar to work.





Given the Shaddocks were high-flying, although supersonic, just two at a time meant that a single submarine was highly unlikely to saturate a carrier battle group's air defenses.

Also, while the missiles were guided by the radar from beyond 50 nmi to the target, the Juliett would have to remain surfaced to track and guide them with its radar.







The Juliett is a close relative of the Echo II, and 16 were built. It may seem odd, given the Juliett carried half as many missiles as the Echo II, but the Juliett was actually designed after the Echo II's.

It would be fairly easy to model an Echo II if needed, but for gameplay purposes I chose the Juliett, as it would make balancing missions easier, since while you can't have half an Echo II, you can have 1 Juliett instead of 2. Also, 2 Julietts would make for more interesting and dynamic gameplay than 1 Echo-II.





Also, while a single Juliett would do little to a carrier battle group alone, and although its missile armament was designed with carrier groups in mind, it might have also proven useful against Atlantic convoy routes, where smaller escort groups would prove a more vulnerable target to its nearly-obsolete design...



In the end, for gameplay purposes, I'm leaning towards putting a Juliett or two in a wolfpack with other diesel-electric sub(s) against a North Atlantic convoy group, and using Echo II's for a CVBG vs. Soviet submarines mission.

On November 10th, 1983, when hostilities will have broken out, the USS Independence, a Forrestal-class aircraft carrier, had just finished assisting operations in Grenada, and was underway to the Mediterranean. This will have put it somewhere around 1,000 nmi W-SW of Spain, in the Atlantic. Given it would have been impossible to hide the carrier's presence at Grenada, it's easy to imagine that nuclear-powered Echo-II's could have attempted to intercept the Forrestal before it entered the Mediterranean...

It's certainly been interesting researching all of this. Contemporary sources were used, which means there's little chance of getting mixed up with modernizations as opposed to weapons of the time, but also means there was the limitation of what knowledge the US had peering across the Iron Curtain, so if you happen to have a more contemporary reliable source that conflicts any of this, feel free to pipe in.



Also feel free to leave responses, comments and feedback below, I'd love to hear from ya!

Until next time, good hunting.

Last edited by AzureSkies; 05-23-2019 at 12:22 AM.
AzureSkies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2019, 07:10 PM   #4
bismarck1011
Helmsman
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: pensylvania
Posts: 105
Downloads: 1091
Uploads: 116
Default

The models look great, but will there be other factions to this game? Like american and British naval units?
bismarck1011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2019, 02:45 PM   #5
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 55
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Icon5

Quote:
Originally Posted by bismarck1011 View Post
The models look great, but will there be other factions to this game? Like american and British naval units?
Of course! It wouldn't make sense to only have Soviet units and nothing to combat them. We should have a USN vessel to show off in early July, and at least one NATO aircraft before then.

Also, the Brits will certainly be making an appearance further down the road.

Last edited by AzureSkies; 06-17-2019 at 02:59 PM.
AzureSkies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2019, 06:08 PM   #6
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 55
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default WEEKLY UPDATE

I'm going to give the update in two parts. The first is going to be this text-heavy thing, but the next post (planned for tomorrow) will be a more photogenic vehicle highlight with in-game renders.

So this post is going to be some updates with regards to the plot. Not many pictures, and a lot of words, but this provides the context for the conflict in the game, and tells the true story of one of the moments we came the closest to nuclear war during the Cold War.

I've mentioned before that the premise was a Soviet response to Able Archer.

Let's go more into detail.

I'm assuming the readers here are probably familiar with MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. The idea that nuclear war would be prevented, because both parties know they cannot win - that any conflict would cause them unacceptable losses.

A key part of this, is that it takes an ICBM about 30-45 minutes to reach the heart of the USSR from the mainland US, and vice versa. That window of time would allow the other nation to launch its weapons before their silos and launch sites were destroyed, even if they were all located and targeted.

There are also two kinds of attacks: A counterforce attack, which is aimed at destroying your enemy's ability to launch nuclear attacks, and a countervalue attack, which is essentially meant to inflict unacceptable losses on the enemy's population and infrastructure.

With that in mind, let's look at the timeline.

In 1976, the Soviet Union deployed RSD-10 Pioneer missiles (NATO reporting name: SS-20 Saber), truck-launched IRBMs (Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles). The Soviets believed that in the eventuality of a war, they could win a conventional war with numbers, but that NATO would employ tactical nuclear weapons and defeat their forces. So this missile system was developed for "surgical nuclear strikes", to knock out NATO tactical nuclear capability without enough warning for NATO to respond.

(Pioneer missiles*)

They were made to destroy NATO's tactical nuclear capability in Europe.

In December 1979, NATO command decided to deploy new missiles to Europe in response. Among these would be the MRBM Pershing II in West Germany. This would mean it could strike targets in Eastern Europe in only 4-6 minutes, and reach Moscow in only 6-8 minutes. Furthermore, the Pershing II's had a more advanced guidance system than earlier missiles, allowing them to accurately target Soviet missile launch sites.

The hope was they could negotiate with the Soviets to decommission their SS-20 missiles in exchange for NATO decomissioning their Pershing II's.

But the Soviets knew that the Pershing II flight time would not give them time to launch a retaliatory strike, and thus give NATO a true first-strike capability. As a result, in 1981, the KGB launched Operation RYaN to learn about the plans and possibility of a first strike by the US.

(Pershing II missile*)

Some of the key things they would look for would be preparation of frontline NATO forces and military communications between heads of states as indicators of an imminent NATO attack.

President Reagan took a strong stance against the Soviet Union, one that was interpreted as aggressive. In March of 1983, he announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, which Soviet leaders took as an escalation of the arms race into space, and Yuri Andropov, the then-General Secretary of the Soviet Union, accused Reagan of "inventing new plans on how to unleash a nuclear war in the best way, with the hope of winning it".

In April of 1983, the USN conducted FleetEx 83-1, the largest fleet operation to that date, which even involved provoking Soviets (in ways such as flying over their airspace) to study their electronics equipment and response tactics.

Similar psychological operations had been going on for years, to study Soviet response times and tactics.

In October of the same year, a coup in Grenada killed a number of leaders, and the US decided to answer the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States and the Governor-General of Grenada's appeal for aid. Operation Urgent Fury was launched. Margaret Thatcher publicly supported it, but sent private encrypted messages to Raegan.

Operation RYaN was aware of these messages, but not their contents, and was suspicious that these were some of the warning signs of a NATO first strike.

Then, barely more than a week after the conclusion of Urgent Fury, comes Exercise Able Archer 83. These were exercises carried out every year to test NATO readiness, but this year, the exercise raised the level of realism by including many heads of state of various NATO countries. They were simulating a nuclear strike in response to (fictional) Soviet chemical weapons attacks.

Non-routine elements also included the transporting of 19,000 US soldiers to Europe in a radio-silent air lifts, shifting command from permanent HQs to alternate HQs, new nuclear strike procedures that included communications with Washington and London, and various slips of the tongue that referred to B-52 flights as "strikes" instead of "sorties". It fit all the indications of a NATO first strike perfectly.

Soviet units were placed on high alert with readying of nuclear forces.

In reality, fortunately, the exercise concluded on November 11th, Soviet forces stood down, and we had no WWIII. The Pershing II's weren't even ready during Able Archer 83, though they were deployed immediately after. I personally don't know if the KGB knew that at the time, though they most certainly knew they were deploying sometime around that time frame.

In this alternate timeline, however, the Soviet Union decides to act in accordance with their preparations in Operation RYaN. The SS-20 missile batteries launch surgical nuclear strikes on believed Pershing II sites in Europe, in a desperate pre-emptive strike to restore MAD and prevent the [believed] imminent nuclear destruction of the Soviet Union.

(SS-20 missiles had a yield of 150 kt. Pictured is Greenhouse George, yield 225 kt. *)

The General Secretary, Yuri Andropov, simultaneously informs Raegan why he has done this - to prevent a first strike by NATO, and that he will accept a limited tactical nuclear response, but urges him not to escalate the conflict, or face a full Soviet countervalue attack.

Raegan and Thatcher decide not to escalate, and the Soviets keep to their word - and the war remains conventional.

Their war goals are to expand the buffer in Europe, because clearly, the proximity of NATO forces had proven catastrophic, and thus they will enact their pre-prepared war plans to march far west, even into France.

However,

True to reality, France has long departed the NATO military command structure, and they have their own nuclear doctrine. If Soviets near the French border, they will deploy tactical nuclear weapons as a warning. If they cross and invade, France will launch a full countervalue attack on the Soviet Union, triggering a full nuclear exchange.

So the planned campaign of the game will balance on a razor's edge - it will be difficult, and at times, desperate. You may be tempted to use tactical nuclear weapons to gain an edge. But their use will result in measured retaliation - either by Soviet naval forces present, or later in Mainland Europe, bolstering the Soviet advance westward.

Failure will also have terrible effect on the war effort.

And in either case, if the Soviets reach the French border...

Good luck.

And with that... Let's rewind a little.

In researching nuclear warfare doctrines and strategy, terms and analysis, I came across something interesting. In November of 1982, a year to the month that Able Archer almost triggered armageddon, a 10-year old girl, Samantha Smith, living in Manchester, Maine, wrote a letter to Yuri Andropov, the General Secretary of the Soviet Union:

Quote:
Dear Mr. Andropov,

My name is Samantha Smith. I am ten years old. Congratulations on your new job. I have been worrying about Russia and the United States getting into a nuclear war. Are you going to vote to have a war or not? If you aren't please tell me how you are going to help to not have a war. This question you do not have to answer, but I would like to know why you want to conquer the world or at least our country. God made the world for us to share and take care of. Not to fight over or have one group of people own it all. Please lets do what he wanted and have everybody be happy too.

Samantha Smith
The letter was featured in a Soviet newspaper, but it wasn't until April of 1983, after sending another copy to the Soviet ambassador to the United States, that Yuri Andropov himself answered:

Quote:
Dear Samantha,

I received your letter, which is like many others that have reached me recently from your country and from other countries around the world.

It seems to me – I can tell by your letter – that you are a courageous and honest girl, resembling Becky, the friend of Tom Sawyer in the famous book of your compatriot Mark Twain. This book is well known and loved in our country by all boys and girls.

You write that you are anxious about whether there will be a nuclear war between our two countries. And you ask are we doing anything so that war will not break out.

Your question is the most important of those that every thinking man can pose. I will reply to you seriously and honestly.

Yes, Samantha, we in the Soviet Union are trying to do everything so that there will not be war on Earth. This is what every Soviet man wants. This is what the great founder of our state, Vladimir Lenin, taught us.

Soviet people well know what a terrible thing war is. Forty-two years ago, Nazi Germany, which strove for supremacy over the whole world, attacked our country, burned and destroyed many thousands of our towns and villages, killed millions of Soviet men, women and children.

In that war, which ended with our victory, we were in alliance with the United States: together we fought for the liberation of many people from the Nazi invaders. I hope that you know about this from your history lessons in school. And today we want very much to live in peace, to trade and cooperate with all our neighbors on this earth — with those far away and those near by. And certainly with such a great country as the United States of America.

In America and in our country there are nuclear weapons — terrible weapons that can kill millions of people in an instant. But we do not want them to be ever used. That's precisely why the Soviet Union solemnly declared throughout the entire world that never — never — will it use nuclear weapons first against any country. In general we propose to discontinue further production of them and to proceed to the abolition of all the stockpiles on Earth.

It seems to me that this is a sufficient answer to your second question: 'Why do you want to wage war against the whole world or at least the United States?' We want nothing of the kind. No one in our country–neither workers, peasants, writers nor doctors, neither grown-ups nor children, nor members of the government–want either a big or 'little' war.

We want peace — there is something that we are occupied with: growing wheat, building and inventing, writing books and flying into space. We want peace for ourselves and for all peoples of the planet. For our children and for you, Samantha.

I invite you, if your parents will let you, to come to our country, the best time being this summer. You will find out about our country, meet with your contemporaries, visit an international children's camp – Artek – on the sea. And see for yourself: in the Soviet Union, everyone is for peace and friendship among peoples.

Thank you for your letter. I wish you all the best in your young life.

Y. Andropov
AzureSkies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2019, 07:19 PM   #7
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 55
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default VEHICLE HIGHLIGHT



Today, we'll be taking a look at the S-3A Viking.

In the 60's, work had began on a replacement for the piston-powered S-2 Tracker. The US Navy needed a more modern anti-submarine, carrier-based aircraft. With 186 entering service in the 70's, the S-3 Viking ultimately filled the role.

Since the Soviets invested a large amount of resources into submarines with powerful, long-range supersonic cruise missiles meant to kill US carrier battle groups, the S-3 played an extremely important role in creating an ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) "net" at a long range from the carrier battle group.

Some of you may be familiar with the S-3's ability to carry AGM-84 Harpoon cruise missiles - however, although it wasn't until the late 80's that the S-3B was fitted with that ability (and Blue Water takes place in 1983), the S-3A did carry a wide range of weapons and sensors...



Extending from the tail is a retractable/extendable boom for a MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detector). The sensor carefully scans the local magnetic field. The large metal hull of a submarine hiding under the water will cause a distortion in the magnetic field that it can detect.

(At least, most submarines. The Soviets did build some with titanium hulls to avoid this, however)



Underneath, many little slots are visible - these would carry 59 sonobouys and one slot was reserved for search and rescue equipment. It also had 3 dispensers for carrying a combination of 90 total flares, chaff, and expendable jammers.



Finally, internal bays could carry four air-dropped Mk.46 or two Mk.50 torpedoes to prosecute any submarines it found. The external pylons were, in some theaters, mounted with bombs, as well, to catch anything surfaced or snorkeling.

And with that, there's little commentary left, so I'll just leave it to the gallery:









The Azov from earlier gives us something to park it on to observe its nice folding wings. Almost all, if not all, carrier-based aircraft could fold their wings to reduce hanger space needed.

Pardon many of the WIP and placeholder UI elements.



AzureSkies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2019, 08:56 PM   #8
PurpleCow
Mate
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 55
Downloads: 12
Uploads: 0
Default

Personally I think an early release would be a great idea. Many sim fans such as myself are more than willing to invest in an early access project in order to help it progress.
PurpleCow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 07:00 PM   #9
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 55
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default VEHICLE HIGHLIGHT

Hello everyone,

I think I'll start trying to make these a regular Tuesday night thing.

For the most recent progress, it's mostly been administrative work, and the hard-working modelers making progress on their end, too. Not much to say on this front, other than switching to a new repository system can be a real pain.

But more on the vehicle fare, today's update is going to be relatively short, and the vehicle of today is the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier FRS-1.



The Sea Harrier FRS-1, informally known as the "Shar", was the variant of the Harrier used on the UK's Invincible-class aircraft carriers.



With only 111 built, it seems lackluster on paper, being subsonic and having light air-to-air armament compared to other aircraft like the Tomcat.



Nonetheless, its purpose was to provide air defense for the British Navy, and that, it did.



It, along with the GR.3 land-based variant, the Shar was the primary aircraft of the British during the Falkland Islands conflict, and had tremendous success, shooting down 20 Argentine aircraft with no air-to-air combat losses of their own.





Hovering exhaust effects will continue to receive tweaks, but not so bad, so far.





That's all for this week. Thanks for stopping by!
AzureSkies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2019, 01:17 AM   #10
p7p8
Samurai Navy
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 587
Downloads: 116
Uploads: 5


Default

It looks awesome - I'm say this as almost "fanatic" DW player
__________________
p7p8 is online   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 06:51 PM   #11
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 55
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default VEHICLE HIGHLIGHT

Hello again.

More of the same. A new ship model is nearing completion - the first US ship - but it'll be a bit before it has enough of the weapons' systems models to be completed to show it off here.

Last week I showed some screencaps of the Sea Harrier FRS-1 - today, it's a similar, but Soviet aircraft - the Yak-38 "Forger".



The Yak-38 was developed specifically for use on the Kiev-class "Aviation Cruisers", which are strikingly similar in airwing capacity to the British Invincible-class aircraft carriers, except that the Kiev also carried a formidable armament of its own.



Faced with the same design requirement of VTOL capability, what the Soviets ended up with is very similar to what the British got in their Sea Harrier program: a subsonic jet fighter with relatively little armament and short range - greatly inferior to land-based aircraft, but still a vast improvement to relying on SAMs alone for fleet air defense.



A bit of an unusual design choice, it had no internal guns but instead had to use a 23mm gunpod (or two) installed on one of its four under-wing pylons.



Part of this relatively restricted loadout, is that it could carry 2 FAB-500 bombs, 2 AA-8 Aphid short-range AAM, or 2 Kh-23 Grom (NATO name "AS-7 Kerry") small air-to-ground/antiship missiles. Use of the Kh-23, however, required another pylon be occupied with its guidance system.



It could also carry external tanks on the pylons, and surprisingly enough given its relatively small payload weight, two RN-28 nuclear bombs.



Another interesting design feature is that unlike the Sea Harrier FRS-1, which used two nozzles on each side of the fuselage for balance, the layout of the Yak-38 was more similar to today's F-35, using centerline thrust behind the cockpit to balance the torque.

Some interesting trivia about the design is that it featured an automatic ejection seat that would fire if one of those forward VTOL engines failed and the aircraft rolled beyond 60 degrees.



By 1983, Soviet pilots were well-adjusted to the new technology.
AzureSkies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 06:54 PM   #12
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 55
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by p7p8 View Post
It looks awesome - I'm say this as almost "fanatic" DW player
Thank you very much! I was quite a fan of the game, myself! It's aged quite a bit, but every now and then it's nice to break it out again and do some TMA work in a Los Angeles, or sail around in a Perry. Been awhile since I've done that, though.
AzureSkies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2019, 02:42 AM   #13
Medley1991
Swabbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Belgium
Posts: 11
Downloads: 1
Uploads: 0
Default

Wow ! Harrier and Yak look amazing !

Difficult to wait this game...
Medley1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2019, 03:01 AM   #14
Medley1991
Swabbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Belgium
Posts: 11
Downloads: 1
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzureSkies View Post
Hello everyone,

I think I'll start trying to make these a regular Tuesday night thing.


Yeah ! Perfect idea !
Medley1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 08:32 PM   #15
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 55
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default VEHICLE HIGHLIGHT

Today, we're going to be looking at a capital ship.



This is the Slava.

She was decommissioned in 1990, but re-instated in 2000 as the Moskva, and serves in the Russian navy as the flagship of the Black Sea fleet today. However, since we'll be talking about the ship as she was in November of 1983, we'll refer to it by its old name - the Slava.

Commissioned at the end of January of 1983, she's the only ship of her class to be in service during the events of Blue Water.



Anyone familiar with modern Soviet warships will probably know about the Kirov. The Kirov is renown for its extremely formidable loadout of 20 P-700 Granit (NATO name: SS-N-19 "Shipwreck") supersonic, long-range missiles and 96 very long-range S-300F Fort (NATO name: SA-N-6 "Grumble") SAMs.

Although not nuclear-powered like the Kirov, and only at around half the displacement, the Slava carried 16 comparable P-500 Bazalt (NATO name: SS-N-12 "Sandbox") missiles and 64 S-300F Fort SAMs.



Simply put, while not quite a Kirov, there's good reason that of the 3 Slava-class ships completed, two serve as fleet flagships today. In Blue Water, you will find the Slava as the flagship of a Mediterranean Soviet task force, either leading your fleet, or leading the fleet you must keep from reaching Italy or France.















Now let's take a look at her weapons -



First off, Slava carried an AK-130 dual gun. A 130mm gun capable of firing 90 rounds per minute - either HE or fragmentation AA rounds to intercept aircraft or missiles - it is a good gun for closer quarters.



However, with a maximum firing range of 23 km for ships, 15 km for aircraft, and only 8 km for missiles, ideally, you'd never let your enemies get that close...



Its primary armament is its enormous signature array of 16 P-500 Bazalt (SS-N-12 "Sandbox") supersonic cruise missiles that would cruise at Mach 2.5, striking targets up to 550 km (300 nmi) away. The 5-ton missiles could carry a payload of a metric ton - either enough explosives to end almost any ship in a single blow (except perhaps an aircraft carrier), or enough weight to fit a 350 kt nuclear warhead, as they were sometimes armed with.

Also visible in this shot are AK-630 CIWS guns. At 4-5,000 30mm rounds per minute, these posed a good defense against any incoming cruise missiles or vehicles in range.

[As with the Azov, not yet modeled are 2 RBU-6000s that will be included in the full game.]



In addition to the two on the bow, there's also a separate battery of two AK-630 guns (with their own independent radar director separate from the bow battery's) on each side of the ship.

Also visible in this shot is the utility boats.



Moving further aft, we find the S-300F Fort (SA-N-6 Grumble) missile silos. I wrote about this weapon system in the Azov post. These are very long-range SAMs that are highly capable for fleet defense, and the Slava carries 64 of them.

In the bottom-right of the picture is the "TOP DOME" radar director for the S-300 missiles.



Easy to miss since the doors are flush with the hull, and thus almost invisible until the doors open and they turn to fire, are the two 5x 533 mm torpedo racks. These could carry torpedoes with a range of about 20 km, and are generally a useful weapon to respond with if a submarine launches an attack.



And finally, we have the OSA-M (NATO name: SA-N-8 "Gecko") short-range SAM launchers on either side of the helicopter hanger. Behind it you can see the radar unit for its guidance.



And finally, the best weapon to use for hunting submarines. Getting close enough to fire from the torpedo racks means putting the ship closer than you'd ever want it to enemy submarines. A better weapon is an escort corvette or frigate - or the best weapon, an aircraft.



Our guest for today's highlight that you may have noticed in earlier shots, is the Ka-25 Hormone. A multipurpose helicopter that features as an extremely useful ASW asset.

The Hormone will get its own feature at some point, but until then, have a few shots showcasing its deployment from the Slava's hanger.





And that's all for today. Thanks for joining us!

AzureSkies is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2019 Subsim