Unit Request

[xav]

SSV-33 (NATO reporting name: Kapusta (russian for "cabbage")) was a command and control ship operated by the Soviet Navy. SSV-33's hull was derived from that of the nuclear powered Kirov class battlecruisers.[1] In addition to its role as fleet flagship, SSV-33 served in electronic intelligence, missile tracking, space tracking, and communications relay roles. Due to high operating costs, SSV-33 was laid up.[1]



Translated from french because info in english is very limited:



This giant ship is 265 meters long and 923 crew.
The Ural is the only ship of the class Titan. The Ural is built on the unfinished hull of a new type of aircraft carrier.

The Ural was able to monitor any activity in space from international waters. They were used for tracking missiles strategic SSBN Russians during the test campaign.
Titan, however, was a failure. The cost of manufacturing and operating was astronomical. Embedded systems have never been fully operational and emissions of electromagnetic wave / microwave pulse affect both the electronic board and the health of the crew. The ship was abandoned very quickly.
The Ural was until 2008, left at anchor near Vladivostok and served as a floating power plant with two nuclear reactors (two KN-3 (OK-900) of 171MWT).
Commissioned on 30 December 1988, the Ural was decommissionned in 1989.

The Ural is at anchor in the bay near Vladivostok Fokino: GE 42 ° 55'41 .84 "N 132 ° 25'14 .04" Ehttp://pix.nofrag.com/b/c/f/39f2c9a70fa21d989d89828ef4c5att.jpg

2005:
http://pix.nofrag.com/d/a/d/e29db5ac70673e1eb7f09f6ed297dtt.jpg

2008:
http://pix.nofrag.com/7/1/f/415b54d5c512e9ff8a283a301ad20tt.jpg

http://pix.nofrag.com/4/4/e/715ba609b464c90a58e0f3f00a934tt.jpg

The only nuclear propulsion intelligence ship known as "Project 1941" Ural is rusting dockside after 25 years of near non-use. It is moored at the quay of the Pacific Fleet in the Russian Far East. There is not enough specialists on board to run its nuclear reactor. Her crew has just one hundred thousand men in it can embark. Embedded systems have not functioned for a long time and it would probably be too expensive to restore this giant of the seas.

The Ural was in the early 1990 a secret building the hull is similar to the aircraft carriers cruisers of "Project 1144" Orlan (Kirov class). Its electronic systems and combat are more secrets.

It was not built for combat and can only push small boats and helicopters with two AK-176 guns of 76mm rapid-fire, four AK-630 guns 30mm, four machine guns utes-M 12mm and four systems of surface-air missiles Igla. But his electronic equipment enables it to detect aerial threats, surface and submarine. Several special radar system associated with Korall can also detect and track missiles and satellites and other objects of interest in orbit.

The Ural can navigate without any time limit in international waters without having to refuel. It was designed to monitor and analyze the electromagnetic emissions emitted by aircraft and ballistic missiles near the U.S. coast. It is equipped to quickly analyze large amounts of data and transmit them to the national authorities. It is obvious that Russia has not provided information on such a vessel to its enemies and emerging partners. Even today, 25 years after its launch, it is always difficult to find reliable information about its construction.

The spy in the Baltic

The Military-Industrial Commission of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the Soviet Ministry of Defense decided in 1977 to launch the construction of a large vessel reconnaissance nuclear measuring 265 meters long and 30 meters wide. The office building was designated as Ajsberg maitre d'oeuvre. The building was put on hold in June 1981, launched in 1983 and commissioned in 1988 or 1989. It was equipped with several systems ES-1046 and El'brus to treat the mass of information collected by its sensors in its mission of electronic warfare. The system could Korall meanwhile follow the trajectories of ballistic missiles and manned spaceflight before transmitting the data.

The testing of these systems began in the Baltic Sea in 1988. An important group of scientists was assembled for testing. These scientists can hardly left the ship during its development, construction and testing.

The act of state acceptance of the vessel was signed in 1989 and then joined the trust port of Vladivostok. Many specialists were on board to test the equipment during transit. Vladimir Anikeyev led scientists who worked on the mission system El'brus but it was not much opportunity to see the tropical sun that he never saw because the systems have never functioned correctly and were very temperamental. After 59 days at sea, arrived in the Ural Bay Strelok to Vladivostok. No platform, however, could not welcome it and he was forced to anchor in the bay, beginning its struggle against invisible corrosion and failure of machines that must remain running to power embedded systems and its important support crew.

Problems

The crew of the Ural prepared immediately for an operation near a test site for U.S. missile defense. However, so many things did not go aboard this brand new ship that even specialists in the Baltic Fleet were unable to repair the cooling system of the reactor. It was soon issue of deployment, monitoring systems and computer El'brus Korall did not work.

The vessel first tier, which would become the flagship of the Pacific Fleet, has become nothing more than a floating barracks for young officers. It is never on official party and its powerful and expensive radio equipment began its decline. The officers sent aboard the ship called their demobilization or transfer after only one year to one and a half years of service on board which showed no interest. There were even cases where officers threw into the water to return to shore following the refusal of command to let them go. After several protests, accepted the command no longer refuse the applications for transfer.

It suggested using the Ural as floating nuclear power and even sell it abroad to be scrapped. But none of these suggestions was chosen because the board had secrets to be preserved. The command of the fleet made no suggestion to do something, preferring not to discuss the topic openly. Only the former Chief of Staff of the Navy, Admiral of the Fleet Vladimir Khmel'nov, suggested in a column entitled "Russian Fleet: prowess and poverty" to seal the fate of the giant ship. According to him, "each of the Ural engine was used by 2 men instead of the six required.

There are fewer than a hundred crew members on board a thousand still serving on the Ural, but only 25 are sailors! The ventilation system no longer works and a single pump continues to reject heroically water fund holds immense. He said around the Ural that will be sold abroad after withdrawal of its nuclear reactors.

A few years ago, work was carried out on the hull in a shipyard for the preserve. The 5 ° cottage could not be corrected. The nuclear spy was then moored at dock while awaiting his fate.

Jokes around the Ural:

- The Ural is one of the few buildings with no rats on board because when his electronics work, they all die and only reappear when the vessel is docked.

- When the Ural arrived in Cam Ran Bay in Vietnam, the Marine faction threw grenades on an unknown target in the water which has proved to be a big turtle.

- The ship was only 1.5 to 2 kilometers from the main ammunition depot of the Pacific Fleet when it exploded. Despite amount of missiles and shells flying in all directions and through the efforts of K1R Keshkov and crew, none of them has fallen on the ship. The crew is indeed able to move the ship at night, which was under fire, to a safer place with the help of one tug.

- One box of 76mm ammunition was missing during a refueling operation. The captain of the ship, Keshikov, then asked the crew to bring it anonymously with no questions asked. All the shells were returned the same day and Keshikov personally thanked the crew.

- In autumn 1991, the vessel broke its moorings during a huge storm and began to drift towards the sea rose to a few hundred meters from the rocky shores of the island of Putyatin. The next day, the crew received combat rations because the ship was officially out of its port connecting.
__________________________________________________ __________

Shame such a nice, big and expensive ship never saw real "active duty".

[Pheonix]

SOPGM for AC-130U
EC725's for Mexico

[DHX]

Would there be any way to implement air delivered mines?

[Mike D]

Would there be any way to implement air delivered mines?

On the list but I haven't figured it out yet but I have an idea. The game engine isn't designed for it but there are ways to cheat.

[steel_selachian]

I've wondered about that and sub-delivered mines. You can do it as is by simply setting a Destination Goal and having it create mines when reached, but then you're not accounting for the platform having to swap space for the mines.

[steel_selachian]

Should we think about adding the E-2D Hawkeye to the next release? There's a new radar system there, the APY-9.

[Pheonix]

EC 635 and Mi-17 helicopters for Iraq

[millerj818]

Looks like the MQ-9 Predator B has been renamed the MQ-9 Reaper.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=6405

[DHX]

Could we get the TU-126 Moss added?

[Pheonix]

Talon laser guided rocket for UAE AH-64's
EC725 ehlicopters for Brazil

[Fleet Command CC]

Could we get the TU-126 Moss added?

Yep the only problem is getting the model, but I guess I could just add a radar dome to the Tupolev Tu-95. :)

[DHX]

Yep the only problem is getting the model, but I guess I could just add a radar dome to the Tupolev Tu-95. :)


I can't tell you the trouble I've had getting a model ;)


I wish I had the skill set to create models. I wouldn't even know where to start. If I did first on the list would be the Moss and CH-53.

[Fleet Command CC]

I can't tell you the trouble I've had getting a model ;)


I wish I had the skill set to create models. I wouldn't even know where to start. If I did first on the list would be the Moss and CH-53.

DHX

Would you be interested in having a go? If you would let me know.

[aotino]

Let's add the ADM-141 TALD to the game. Great for getting the enemy to waste a lot of their missiles when planning an ASuW mission!
__________
Alan Caso
Team Member
__________

[xav]

We badly need some of these type 022 (+ the new chinese LPD)
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c105/takhiss/1239256486_41806.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c105/takhiss/1239256486_53909.jpg

[Fleet Command CC]

USS Nautilus (SSN-571) would be nice to have in the game, this is a request from djcyclone and me. :cool:

[Mike D]

Let's add the ADM-141 TALD to the game. Great for getting the enemy to waste a lot of their missiles when planning an ASuW mission!
__________
Alan Caso
Team Member
__________

Added ADM-141A and ADM-141C to F-18C/E and EA-18G

[Pheonix]

AGM-154C for Finnish F/A-18C/D

[Spencemac]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/AVENGER041709.xml&headline=Predator%20C%20Avenger%20Makes%20First%20 Flights&channel=defense
Please! Please!

[the Bandit]

sorry it took a little while, here are the units I would need for the Linebacker 2 mission.

First and Foremost, B-52s
B-52Ds with 108 750lb. bombs
B-52Ds with 66 750lb. bombs (the ones from Guam did not carry any on the external racks)
B-52Gs with 27 750lb. bombs
A-7E with AGM-45s and another with Walleyes
A-6B with AGM-45 and AGM-78s (right now I am using the A-6E with Shrikes which works ok)
A-6C with FLIR and LLTV sensors (keep the loadouts the same as the ones for the A-6As)
EA-6A jammer with no armament (as mentioned in the other thread they could carry AGM-45s but I am not sure if they were used in that configuration)
F-4D with Walleyes (they also used the HOBOS bombs which were similar in guidance and warhead so I could justs use Walleyes to stand in for them)
HH-53C Super Jolly Green Giant CSAR Helos (thus far I am just renaming CH-53Ds which will work for now)
HH-43B/F Husky older, shorter range CSAR helo that was in its twilight years in 1972

Edit: Almost forgot the E-1Bs and EC-121Ts (I think the Connie is already on the list and I already have a passible substitute that works quite well)

[Mike D]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/AVENGER041709.xml&headline=Predator%20C%20Avenger%20Makes%20First%20 Flights&channel=defense
Please! Please!

Not yet. First off no one had ordered it yet. It appears that General Atomics funded the development out of their own R&D funds, not the Pentagon or DARPA. They are anticipating that they could sell it to someone. Once I see orders then I'll add it.

[Mike D]

B-52Ds with 108 750lb. bombs
B-52Ds with 66 750lb. bombs (the ones from Guam did not carry any on the external racks)
B-52Gs with 27 750lb. bombs
A-7E with AGM-45s and another with Walleyes
A-6B with AGM-45 and AGM-78s (right now I am using the A-6E with Shrikes which works ok)
A-6C with FLIR and LLTV sensors (keep the loadouts the same as the ones for the A-6As)
EA-6A jammer with no armament (as mentioned in the other thread they could carry AGM-45s but I am not sure if they were used in that configuration)
F-4D with Walleyes (they also used the HOBOS bombs which were similar in guidance and warhead so I could justs use Walleyes to stand in for them)
HH-53C Super Jolly Green Giant CSAR Helos (thus far I am just renaming CH-53Ds which will work for now)
HH-43B/F Husky older, shorter range CSAR helo that was in its twilight years in 1972

Edit: Almost forgot the E-1Bs and EC-121Ts (I think the Connie is already on the list and I already have a passible substitute that works quite well)

Most of this should be no problem but the loads you have for the Mk117 750lb bombs seem off. The Mk117 was the same basic length as the Mk82 500lb bomb but much fatter. So you only carry half as as many as a Mk82 load. The documents I have give 42 internal and 24 external for the Big Belly 52D. The 52D could carry 84 Mk82 500lb internally and 24 externally. The 52F I think your right on, 27 internally and the early could carry 12 externally and later 24 externally but not all F's got the modification of the AGM-28 Hound Dog rail. The typical load, if there really was one, for the Arc Light and Linebacker raids were Mk82 internal and Mk117 external so on a 52D it would be 84 Mk52 and 24 Mk117.

Let me know if you have other sources for the load data.

[the Bandit]

yep my mistake, it would be 108 bombs all together if a B-52D was loaded with a mix of Mk 82s (500 pounders) and M117 750lb. bombs. It was only 66 if it was just carrying 750 lb. bombs and then 27 for the non-big belly Gs. I suppose then we could be looking at 4 versions

1. B-52D with a Mk82/M117 mix (108 bombs)
2. B-52D with M117s (66 bombs)
3. B-52G with 27 M117s (no big belly mod)
4. B-52G with 51 Mk82s

I am not positive with the 4th load out but the other 3 would seem to fit. On a side not because this is somthing I have never noticed before, did you guys ever get the tail gun for the Bears and Beagles working? If so could it be implemented on the B-52? All the variants which participated in linebacker 2 would have had quad .50s but the Ds still had the gunner in the back where as the Gs he was remote controlling the turret from the crew compartment. If this is possible it might make a nice touch against the Migs. In reality 2 Airforce Tailgunners downed MiGs durring Linebacker 2.


Edit: on a side note I may have to look at the loads for the A-6C because it has the early night vision pod on the belly, may have deminished bomb capacity.

[Mike D]

1. B-52D with a Mk82/M117 mix (108 bombs)
2. B-52D with M117s (66 bombs)
3. B-52G with 27 M117s (no big belly mod)
4. B-52G with 51 Mk82s



All added, still working on the tail guns. Send me your email and I'll send you a beta db you can use for your scenario. mjdobbins@austin.rr.com

[Pheonix]

CH-47F for Australia
Bell 407 for Iraq (known armament; rockets and Hellfire missiles)

[steel_selachian]

According to StrategyPage, it looks like some of the MV-22Bs are being configured with an underslung GAU-2 7.62 minigun remote turret, with a capacity of 4000 rounds. Also planned to configure it with a M240 or M2 ramp gun; not sure if weapons can be fitted to the forward doors just aft of the cockpit.

[Pheonix]

Il-476 for Russia and India

[Mike D]

Il-476 for Russia and India

Not yet I think. As far as I can tell the 476 is still in development and as of yet there have been no buyers. But Russia is pushing China to buy.

[Mike D]

According to StrategyPage, it looks like some of the MV-22Bs are being configured with an underslung GAU-2 7.62 minigun remote turret, with a capacity of 4000 rounds. Also planned to configure it with a M240 or M2 ramp gun; not sure if weapons can be fitted to the forward doors just aft of the cockpit.

First off be cautious, StrategyPage tends to be a little free with their facts. So take everything there with a bit of salt.

I added a rear door gun to the MV-22A, there already were 2 side door guns but I might take them off. There was a field notice from the Navy about a year ago (this is where it gets hazy) ordering/recommending/asking about (?) taking the side door guns off the MV-22. Evidently there is some concern about gunners shooting the propellers and/or the wings. Don't know if this has happened or there was a fear that it could happen.

The chin gun is an on-again/off-again project. It was killed because the development costs were about 5 times the cost of the A49E-7 chin turret on the AH-1Z Cobra and getting more expensive. Also the weight was becoming a concern, adding about 1500lbs onto the nose of the aircraft kind of changes the flight characteristics. Last I read the Marines want it still and are going to try some field mods with the 7.62. The original plan was to use the turret and gun from the RAH-66 but when the RAH-66 was canceled...

Here is a good article with video on the current BAE 7.62 solution. It mounts in the "hell hole" belly hatch and has to retracted into the hold before landing. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004448.html. Sounds like a 'charlie fox' waiting to happen up to me.

[Mike D]

CH-47F for Australia
Bell 407 for Iraq (known armament; rockets and Hellfire missiles)

CH-47F is already in for the Australian army.

I'm going to wait a bit and do some more research on the Iraq 407 purchase. It looks like its going through but there is some question on the sensor package. Also its supposed to include M299 AGM-114 launchers but I can't find any record that the DSCA has posted an intent to sell for the missiles as they have to do before any negotiations can be done. Need to know which 114 they are going to use.

[Pheonix]

Not yet I think. As far as I can tell the 476 is still in development and as of yet there have been no buyers. But Russia is pushing China to buy.
in last week's issue of Aviation Week (or this month's issue of Defense Technology International, i can't remember which), they said that India and Russia were the first buyers.

[Mike D]

in last week's issue of Aviation Week (or this month's issue of Defense Technology International, i can't remember which), they said that India and Russia were the first buyers.

Could you see if you could find the article for me. I looked at DTI and Aviation Week and didn't find anything.

[Pheonix]

Could you see if you could find the article for me. I looked at DTI and Aviation Week and didn't find anything.
http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416079387
page 8

[DHX]

I read recently that Phalanx CIWS radar has been upgraded with the ability to engage small surface targets like small boats aircraft and mines.

It would be nice to be able to shoot up small boats and such with CIWS in fleet command so you don't have to waste ASMs or main gun rounds on boghammers and other small vessels.

Might also have the ability to target incoming artillery or naval gun rounds since the land based version has been quite successful at doing so.

[Fleet Command CC]

I read recently that Phalanx CIWS radar has been upgraded with the ability to engage small surface targets like small boats aircraft and mines.

It would be nice to be able to shoot up small boats and such with CIWS in fleet command so you don't have to waste ASMs or main gun rounds on boghammers and other small vessels.

Might also have the ability to target incoming artillery or naval gun rounds since the land based version has been quite successful at doing so.

DHX

That sound cool it would be nice to see this in the game, I will have to try it and see how it work. :cool: Can I ask where did you read about this upgrade?

[steel_selachian]

That's already in 19.01 as the Phalanx Block 1B - I know the Flight-II Burke is armed with it; it does tend to do a number on small craft. Reportedly the German Navy at least also has a surface-engagement capability with the RIM-116 RAM.

One of my other experiments was turning the Mark 5 SOC into a serious gunboat with two Bushmaster 25mm cannons, two 40mm grenade launchers, an aft-firing 7.62 minigun, and infantry small arms and ATGMs (to simulate an embarked SEAL unit with assault rifles, LMGs, and antitank weapons). The thing is death on Bogs and patrol boats in that configuration, and come to think of it it'll make a nasty mess of nearshore structures or merchant ships as well.

[DHX]

DHX Can I ask where did you read about this upgrade?


Either avweek, a headline on Globalsecurity or strategypage. I don't remember which.

Speaking of strategy page (their accuracy issues acknowledged) I read that the US is upgrading the software on tomahawks to give them the ability to hit moving target such as ships. Sort of TASM resurrected I guess. That would sure be a boost to the handful of harpoons carried on destroyers and cruisers. Nice to see added to FC if the report is accurate.

[steel_selachian]

That seems accurate to a degree - the R/UGM-109E/H Tomahawk Block IVs are equipped with a datalink that allows in-flight retargeting, as well as a real-time camera system that allows the missile to transmit a Bomb Damage Assessment or allows the operator to select a new target. It wouldn't, however, allow the weapon to autonomously search for and engage targets like the TASM; it's more something to let the guys on the boat give the age-old order ...

"Follow that car/ship!"

You would have to have an asset (satellite, aircraft, or sub/ship) provide the GPS coordinates to get the missile in visual range of the target, after which I'm not sure if the operator has to provide a GPS point-of-intercept or if the camera can lock on like an E/O Maverick or glide bomb.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-109.html

Likewise, Spain is apparently getting the Block IV; Australia's latest Defense White Paper reccomends purchasing cruise missiles for their Hobart DDGs but no orders as yet. It would be a pretty simple integration job, though - the Hobarts will have the Mark-41 VLS and AEGIS. Doesn't look like the Collins-class will be getting them, though - despite the fact that their combat systems should be compatible with the UGM-109. Oh well

[steel_selachian]

Speaking of Block 1B, according to the RN's page on the QE CVF they'll use 3 Block 1B Phalanxes as her point-defense weapons.

Also, looks like the Hobarts will be packing the SM-6.

[xav]

New Systems
11) MM40 Block III Exocet
47) Horizon FFG France - as Forbin FFG, 2 hulls.
10) FREMM(Fr) FFG - renamed to FREMM(Fr) FFG ASW - no changes to unit other then name. 6 units for France.

Are the Horizons and Fremms getting the MM40 Blck III ?

[Mike D]

Are the Horizons and Fremms getting the MM40 Blck III ?

Only the French Horizon gets the MM40 Block III. The French FREMM currently has the Block II but my guess is that they will get the Block III eventually. The Italian Horizon and FREMMs get the Otomat Mk2 Block IV.

[xav]

The French FREMM currently has the Block II but my guess is that they will get the Block III eventually

The first FREMM (Aquitaine) won't be ready until 2011... I doubt they will ever be equipped with Block II but that's just an educated guess.

[Pheonix]

Phalcon AWACS and AM-2000 Scorpene class submarines for India

[xav]

IDAS for the German U212s...



German Navy takes IDAS into production

The German Navy has earmarked funding to take the IDAS (Interactive Defence and Attack System for Submarines) submerged-launched precision weapon into production for retrofit to its Type 212A submarines, according to industry and navy officials speaking at the UDT Europe 2009 conference and exhibition. Talks are meanwhile continuing with Norway regarding its participation in the IDAS full-scale development programme.

(Jane’s Navy International, 11 June 2009)

[steel_selachian]

I've always kind of wondered how much sense the whole idea of sub-launched SAMs made - you have to be sitting at periscope depth and be within visual range. Unless you have a very quiet sub and the ASW aircraft isn't using active sonar or a FLIR, I wouldn't want to bet I could lock up and blast the aircraft before it gets a torpedo off. Hiding or running would seem like better bets to make a getaway. Then again, with the amount of special ops work subs do these days, it might just be nice to blast a helo hounding your frogmen. There's been talk of mounting an automated 30mm cannon in a retractable mast on the Type 212 for that purpose.

[The Warrior]

There are a couple Russians subs with SAMs. I know first hand.:confused:

[steel_selachian]

Yeah, I know the Russians have several boats (Typhoon, Akula, and Kilo at least) that have SA-N-8 launchers. I was just wondering if in real life it would be a smart thing to be sitting at PD within a mile or two of a torpedo-armed ASW aircraft that has good odds of detecting you and dropping a torp before you can flip a SAM off. In NWP, the aircrews won't drop on their own, so the Russian boat might get a potshot off if you're busy attending to something else.

[Pheonix]

the Freedom class LCS (USS Freedom went operational last fall)
Independence class LCS (USS Independence is going operational this fall)

[steel_selachian]

the Freedom class LCS (USS Freedom went operational last fall)
Independence class LCS (USS Independence is going operational this fall)

I think we're still not sure about those two. I've got a couple potential ideas for using them in scenarios, but the weapons fit depends on what modules get developed (right now all they have are point defenses and a 57mm gun). Right now they sort of lack an impact on the battlefield. Plus also the future of the program is in flux.

Similarly, we're not sure what the future might hold for the Zumwalt-class DDGs, although at least two are on order. I'd kind of like to see those babies in a future release - the ships might be the kludges various reports make them out to be, but the 152mm guns and capacity for a good number of Tomahawks would make them useful in shore-bombardment missions.

[imprezzed]

That's already in 19.01 as the Phalanx Block 1B - I know the Flight-II Burke is armed with it; it does tend to do a number on small craft. Reportedly the German Navy at least also has a surface-engagement capability with the RIM-116 RAM.

One of my other experiments was turning the Mark 5 SOC into a serious gunboat with two Bushmaster 25mm cannons, two 40mm grenade launchers, an aft-firing 7.62 minigun, and infantry small arms and ATGMs (to simulate an embarked SEAL unit with assault rifles, LMGs, and antitank weapons). The thing is death on Bogs and patrol boats in that configuration, and come to think of it it'll make a nasty mess of nearshore structures or merchant ships as well.

All Halifax, Iroquois, and Protecteur classes have block 1B as well.

[DHX]

Massive Ordnance Penetrator for the B-2.

[steel_selachian]

I see they finally designated that puppy as the GBU-57. Supposedly they've done one drop test at Eglin - major ouch when a 30,000-lb bomb comes through the roof.

Figure we might be able to just take the GBU-28 model, jack the damage up about 6x, and create a 2xGBU-57 MOP launcher entry?

[Pheonix]

I see they finally designated that puppy as the GBU-57. Supposedly they've done one drop test at Eglin - major ouch when a 30,000-lb bomb comes through the roof.

Figure we might be able to just take the GBU-28 model, jack the damage up about 6x, and create a 2xGBU-57 MOP launcher entry?
i don't see how a B-2 can carry 2 MOP's since the maximum amount of ordinance the B-2 can carry is 40,000 lb.

[steel_selachian]

Supposedly there's going to be modifications made to at least part of the B-2 fleet to carry a pair of the things apiece.

[DHX]

As I understand they'll be able to carry one in each weapons bay. They supposedly made special racks to accommodate it.

While they may be able to technically carry two I'd bet in practice they're more likely to carry just one. Probably would save stress on the airframe and lets you carry more fuel etc.

[steel_selachian]

As I understand they'll be able to carry one in each weapons bay. They supposedly made special racks to accommodate it.

While they may be able to technically carry two I'd bet in practice they're more likely to carry just one. Probably would save stress on the airframe and lets you carry more fuel etc.

Could be, although I'd assume they'd want to load something in the other bay to semi-even out the load.

[DHX]

Could we get a SEAD variant for the F-35s carrying HARMs? Or is it already in there somewhere but I'm not finding it?

[Mike D]

Could we get a SEAD variant for the F-35s carrying HARMs? Or is it already in there somewhere but I'm not finding it?

You can find the F/A-35B SEAD and F/A-35B(E) SEAD under the United Kingdom and under AIRCRAFT / SEAD AIRCRAFT.

Currently only the UK has announced plans to use the ALARM missile on the F/A-35, seems that the ALARM doesn't have to acquire the target before launch and with its unique loiter capability you can just point and shoot so it can be carried internally. Also the ALARM is pretty small and pretty light so it's easy to carry internally. It appears that on the F/A-35 SEAD missions will be completed more with weapons like the AGM-154 or the new GBU-39 or even just plain GBU's. As glide kits become available for GBU's and the IMI SPICE kits make it to the market I bet you'll see that too. Its actually kind of funny how the USAF has pretty much abrogated SEAD and EW missions to the US Navy.

[DHX]

Yeah with the retirement of the sparkvark it seems like the USAF doesn't want to mess with the EW anymore. There was a proposal for the B-52 to be made into a jammer but that never really went anywhere.

I've also heard that there was an idea to use the F-35 as a jammer. Instead of a lift fan in a B version there was talk of using that shaft to power a big ol jammer.

I think the USAF has decided to concentrate on stealth instead of jamming. That or just let the USN spend the money on it and then use their capability. I also think they're depending on aesa radars as jamming platforms. As I understand there is more to that capability than is generally known.

[Pheonix]

what i heard was that it was the Marine Corps was planning on developing a ECM version of the F-35B. not sure if they are going to go through with it though. as to the F-35 carrying radar busting missiles, i've recently read that the Air Force is planning on giving some new medium range missile (can't remember the name of it) the ability to engage both air targets and radars, sort of a fusion of the AGM-88 and the AIM-120. supposed to replace the AIM-120 if i'm not mistaken.

as to the Air Force developing their own jamming ability, they may be forced to because the Navy is refusing to allow it's Growlers to be part of the Air Force's Expiditionary Force. so yes, the Air Force may end up relying on AESA radars for jamming. what i would love to see is a jamming capability for the Raptor which is on a par with the Growler. that way, the Air Force would have a credible excuse to buy more.

[Pheonix]

just so you know, the Alarm anti-radiation missile is being withdrawn from British Military service around 2013.

all British Chinooks are being fitted with the T55-714 engine

[Citadelvette]

How about a 1974 version of the USS Enterprise with the first F-14 deployment. I copied and modified the Enterprise(72) into it.

[The Warrior]

I might be able to do that.:D

[Pheonix]

Mi-24 for Afghanistan
LMM for British AW159 Lynx Wildcat

[Pheonix]

replace the SM-1 launcher with the Mk 25 quad-pack cells for ESSM for Turkish Oliver Hazard Perry frigates
Milgem corvettes for the Turkish Navy

[Mike D]

Mi-24 for Afghanistan
LMM for British AW159 Lynx Wildcat

Afghanistan isn't in the NWP db but I'll add it and start adding units.

I'm still waiting to get more info on the LMM like speed, mountings, attack profiles, etc. I'll add it when I get more info.

[phoenix19771002]

And it might be possible for China to achieve something within the 2015 - 2020 time slot. See for example http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/199284.html

A Chinese Carrier battlegroup on its own might not have a particularl large or proficient airwing but it would still allow China to project force around Taiwan, the South China Sea and perhaps into the Indian Ocean. That would support the likely Chinese foreign policy objectives we would have to assume for wargaming purposes. Obviously, a peaceful China means no realistic wargaming scenario can be assumed. After all, how many nations have the military strength to attack China first?

Since this is a wargame the inclusion of Chinese aircraft carriers would allow us to test the strategic implications of their introduction. As far as the proficiency argument goes their are navies such as Tailand and India who also possess carriers and it might be argued that they are not exactly proficient in the use of aircraft carriers yet either.

It seems Chinese Navy will not possess any carrier in the near future.I checked with my classmate in Jiangnan Industry(The shipyard for 052C,052B and 054A).They have no any plan to produce aircraft carrier recently.

[The Warrior]

How about a 1974 version of the USS Enterprise with the first F-14 deployment. I copied and modified the Enterprise(72) into it.

It's something we might do on the next go around. I say might because the only deferance from 72 and 74 is the F-14s. The rest of the air wing was the same. Right now you can edit the aircraft in the actual senario files.

[O.K.]

There are several vessels that I wish to be included in NWP. First I would like Pakistani Jalalat II missile boats to replace Sabqats (which are withdrawn from service) in my "Playing with Terror" scenarios.
For Pakistan also the F-22P Zulfiqauar frigates would be anice addition. And remmeber that FFG-8 McInerney is about to be transfered there.

[steel_selachian]

Any thoughts about adding the Su35BM? Looks like Russia ordered 48 late last year. Also looks like circa 2015 they will be phasing out the Su-33 and replacing the Kuznetsov's air wing with 24 MiG-29Ks piggybacked onto the Indian Navy's orders.

[O.K.]

After I published my Falklands alternate scenarios I would like to request Argentinian destroyers Hipolito Bouchard and Piedra Buena, as well as Rothesay class frigates (for HMS Yarmouth). Also the General Belgrano had a helo deck and one Aloutte on board when it sank.

[The Warrior]

After I published my Falklands alternate scenarios I would like to request Argentinian destroyers Hipolito Bouchard and Piedra Buena, as well as Rothesay class frigates (for HMS Yarmouth). Also the General Belgrano had a helo deck and one Aloutte on board when it sank.

What class are the two Argentinian destroyer? There will be a Rothesay class FF in the next release.

[steel_selachian]

Those two are Allen M. Sumner DDs, you'd have to ask O.K. about the mods to them.

[O.K.]

What class are the two Argentinian destroyer? There will be a Rothesay class FF in the next release.

Modified Allen M. Sumner. By 1982 they were provided with 4 MM38 Exocet, and FRAM II upgrades.


How about having one in whitch the Ark Royal is still in service? I have actually played around with this and it was interesting to say the lest. I know the British had to be kicking them self in 1982 when the war happened for retiring her.

This could be interesting, however I made my scenarios as to represent this hypothetical battle in early May 1982 as close to actual situation as possible. The only two assumptions I made, was not sinking the Belgrano, and that Argentine command decided to take a battle.

[Danscall]

How about having one in whitch the Ark Royal is still in service? I have actually played around with this and it was interesting to say the lest. I know the British had to be kicking them self in 1982 when the war happened for retiring her.

I've also done a scenario with the Ark Royal involved, it's very interesting indeed. I tend to lose a lot of Phantom's to pilot stupidity, but the whole thing becomes a lot easier in my opinion.

[The Warrior]

I've also done a scenario with the Ark Royal involved, it's very interesting indeed. I tend to lose a lot of Phantom's to pilot stupidity, but the whole thing becomes a lot easier in my opinion.

I didn't loss that many Phatoms but the big things was having an AWACS with the Gannet AEW for early warning. The Buccs did real good. If I recall I only loss two of them. The British would have brought so much more fire ppower to the table if they had her then. I think with the Gannet and F-4s, the brits wouldn't of had the losses they did.

[O.K.]

Iraq has strangely poor representation in the database, it definitely needs more units: Osa PCFGs, P-6 MTB, more fighters and helicopters (Mirage F-1, MiG-29, MiG-21, Sa-321 and so -many of them are represented in different countries like Iran, France and so).
For Iran: Kaman class armed with Harpoon missiles as it was original. And it will be a good idea to make some generic LST.
Also Phantoms armed with Mavericks.

[steel_selachian]

Names assigned to three more Astute-class hulls; reactor cores and other long-lead items have been purchased for S123 and S124:

S123 Agamemnon
S124 Anson
S125 Ajax

[steel_selachian]

Also as another RN report, I've been hearing that Harpoons have been pulled from service on subs, mirroring the USN's shift to an all torpedo/Tomahawk loadout. Ditto for the Victoria-class SSKs in Canadian service.

[steel_selachian]

Navsource.org has names for a couple of new Flight IIA Burkes, maybe someone can check to see if these have actually been assigned:

DDG-113 William S. Sims
DDG-114 Callaghan
DDG-115 Scott
DDG-116 Chandler

[Swordfish]

Do we have the upgraded Bayandor class of the Iranian Navy in it?
They're quite active despite their age, and the Iranian Navy ambitiously upgraded them with at least a new 76mm DP and C-802 AShM.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Would like to be able to do more historical conflicts like the 1965 and `97` India Pakistan wars so the old INS Vikrant, the Indian OSAs etc would be good.

Also the various new carriers being built by various countries due in service 2015 - 2020 time frame should be included.

[steel_selachian]

I think in general we're going to have to think about stretching NWP past the current -2015 inclusion date; lots of new ships are being procured for the 2015-2020 period (the Indian Navy in particular is getting a LOT of new ships).

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I think in general we're going to have to think about stretching NWP past the current -2015 inclusion date; lots of new ships are being procured for the 2015-2020 period (the Indian Navy in particular is getting a LOT of new ships).

I think we are if we ant the NWP to stay up to date. Speaking of which some breaking news about a new Chinese anti ship missile the Dong Feng

http://www.helium.com/items/1915068-chinese-dong-feng-missile-capable-of-sinking-every-us-supercarrier (http://www.helium.com/items/1915068-chinese-dong-feng-missile-capable-of-sinking-every-us-supercarrier)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer)
If reports are anything like accurate it sounds like something very nasty indeed.

A couple of links concerning the various new aircraft carrier projects. Some like the Queen Elizabeth Class already have a place in the NWP. The others could warrent a place too.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv.htm)
http://www.naval-technology.com/features/feature88891/

It looks like the Chinese will be bringing the Varyag into service perrhaps in the next couple of years under the name Shi Lang although a domesticly produced carrier might be some way off yet. The US Gerald Ford Class will prpbably have to be included in the database at some point as well

[Saffron]

To be totally honest, I really don't see what the fuss is over this Chinese missile other than it's range. The second article mentioned "it can accurately hit a moving aircraft carrier ..." but then again so can a lot of missiles. What's different about it?

For a range of 900 miles, I'm guessing it's going to be a relatively slow missile which gives US forces plenty of time to detect it.

However, the articles are acting as though this one missile is going to bring US naval supremacy to an immediate and abrupt end as if the carriers are absolutely defenseless against this thing. I don't see this missile as some sort of "super weapon" but just another SSM with an unusually long range (assuming the reports are even accurate). I think there's a lot of hype right now, and there's nothing like a good old scare campaign to shake the government into giving the Navy more money.

That being said, I want this missile in FC! :D

[steel_selachian]

We've been discussing this weapon in the history forum for some time; the trick is that it's supposedly an IRBM with a "smart" conventional RV. To stop it, you'll need ABM-capable defenses.

I am skeptical of it for several reasons. First, the RV is going to be coming in from space. How is it guided? You'd need a sensor that can scan at least several dozen square miles of ocean, pick out a 4.5 acre target doing 30 knots while using every ECM measure in the book, AND that will work after and possibly while being cooked by air friction. Second, the US has not been asleep on ABM stuff; Aegis ships carry the SM-3, the SM2ER and SM6 are ABM-capable, and in the next decade we're liable to see laser-based defensive systems mounted on ships. Unless you salvo a lot of these suckers at a carrier group, you're not going to do much more than tick it off. Third, carrier groups are elusive targets. In order the find the things so they can shoot IRBMs after them, the Chinese will need something like the old RORSAT system, and the USN got plenty of experience dealing with that problem during the Cold War.

The only practical way I can really think it's a threat is if there's a nuke on it. And if that happens, well the USN has a little weapon called Trident II that can fix the Chinese population growth concerns.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

We've been discussing this weapon in the history forum for some time; the trick is that it's supposedly an IRBM with a "smart" conventional RV. To stop it, you'll need ABM-capable defenses.

I am skeptical of it for several reasons. First, the RV is going to be coming in from space. How is it guided? You'd need a sensor that can scan at least several dozen square miles of ocean, pick out a 4.5 acre target doing 30 knots while using every ECM measure in the book, AND that will work after and possibly while being cooked by air friction. Second, the US has not been asleep on ABM stuff; Aegis ships carry the SM-3, the SM2ER and SM6 are ABM-capable, and in the next decade we're liable to see laser-based defensive systems mounted on ships. Unless you salvo a lot of these suckers at a carrier group, you're not going to do much more than tick it off. Third, carrier groups are elusive targets. In order the find the things so they can shoot IRBMs after them, the Chinese will need something like the old RORSAT system, and the USN got plenty of experience dealing with that problem during the Cold War.

The only practical way I can really think it's a threat is if there's a nuke on it. And if that happens, well the USN has a little weapon called Trident II that can fix the Chinese population growth concerns.

Apparently this new missile is one of a family of missiles some wof which are nuclear capable. The Chinese could well decide to engage a carrier group with salvo fire and in combination with other attacks. That is certainly the way I would do it in FC. However, the carrier air defence systems would probably shoot many of them down but perhaps not all. And just one or two missiles hitting either your carrier or the supply ship could really ruin your day.

In reality it is probably a longer range and heavier Silkworn type missile but one should never underestimate a potential opponent.

[Havoc]

The effectiveness of this weapon greatly depends on how much is information provided is not hype.

I'd bet the capability and quality of this ordinance weapon is probably par or no better than Cold War era Soviet ballistic missile systems.

If the Chinese wanted to actually make their adversaries sweat and this weapon wasn't a complete piece of crap, they'd do a live fire long range test on a moving naval target with full international public press coverage.

Quantity of these weapons deployed and ready to fire at a given time is also another factor.

10 to 20 of these deployed would make any naval force commander recognize and respect that threat.

30 or more of these deployed all with the same range to target however would be a very big problem.


One big drawback to using this weapon is that ballistic missile detection systems will quickly detect their launches and begin tracking them.


I don't believe such weapons will be very effective against a US carrier battlegroup, as China has very few units and forces that are effective in tracking a carrier operating several hundred miles from enemy shores.


I'm sure a multiplayer Fleet Command scenario could be created of the proper size and scope of units of China versus US carrier battlegroup(s). that would prove that fact.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Although if I were in command of the PLAN and wanted to use this particular weapon, let's say in the context of a conflict over Taiwan I would actually wait until the Us Carrier battlegroups were much closer before launching a massed attack including air/surface/submarine forces in combination with the DF. Effectively it would form part of a massive ambush timee so as to give the US Carrier Battlegroups minimal or limited time to react. This would give the best chance of doing some severe damage to a carrier battlegroup even if it did not get the carrier itself.

Targeting the supply ships and the escorts rather than the carrier itself in the first waves of the attacs could well be a good move as, witghout protection the carrier becomes much more vulnerable. And without the supply ships the carrier battlegroup will be unable to resupply locally and will have to pull back.

Even the fear of such a scenario could well make the US navy more wary about approaching the Chinese coast And that would help China more easily acomplish its military and foreign policy objectives such as "reunification" with Taiwan. On this issue I also note that the Chinese airforce seems to e gaining a slight edge over Taiwan I suspect that all of this may be linked as part of theChinese grand strategy in the region.

Including this weapon in the next version of the NWP would seem to be essential although its main significance probably is the range and one single missile on its own should probably not destroy a carrier in the event of a hit although a reasonable level of damage may result.

How is the next version doing by the way?

[steel_selachian]

The Russians have reported that the Admiral Kuznetsov will undergo a mid-life refit from 2012-2017, possibly including removal of the SS-N-24 launchers to increase hangar space. Of course, like most Russian announcements, whether it'll actually happen or be on schedule is questionable.

[Havoc]

Given the reputation of the Russians with carriers, it actually getting to sea and deployed is even more questionable. I'm sure rust and the elements is winning the offensive against large Russian capital ships.

[steel_selachian]

Makes me wonder about all the ships they have listed as "in reserve." They keep saying that they'll be bringing two of the Kirovs (Lazarev and Nakhimov) back into service and reportedly they've reached an agreement with the Ukraine to finally complete the Lobov/Ukraynia, but I wonder if those hulls and a lot of the subs they have laid up are too far gone to ever return to service.

[steel_selachian]

Another item for the "Will the Russkies actually build it?" category:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Gren_class_landing_ship

And it looks like the Chinese are making some progress towards a carrier-capable aircraft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15

[steel_selachian]

I've mentioned this before, but it would be a nice touch to separate the Flight I and Flight II Los Angeles-class boats in the database, giving hulls 719-725 and 750 the 12-cell Mk. 45 VLS.

[steel_selachian]

Do want. This is going to make "tank plinking" sheer mass murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-53/B

[steel_selachian]

Looks like the Brits are doing some reorganization of their bird farm stocking ...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/19/348641/cameron-uk-to-swap-jsfs-to-carrier-variant-axe-harrier-and-nimrod.html

[steel_selachian]

To elaborate on the effects of the latest UK Strategic Defense Review:

- Ark Royal to decommission immediately (Oct. 2010); either Illustrious and Ocean to be decommissioned to leave the UK with only 1 LPH (smart money would say Lusty follows her younger sister to the breakers, but who knows)

- Harriers to leave service in 2011; Sentinel R.1 force to be decommissioned "once no longer needed in Afghanistan" (~2015)

- C-130Ks and Js will be retired early (~2020) in favor of 22 A400M

- Nimrod MRA4 cancelled

- Puma fleet to be modernized for service till ~2020

- All remaining Type 42 DDGs and Type 22 FFGs to the scrappers, leaving 13 Type 23s and 6 Type 45s

- Queen Elizabeth to be completed 2019 in a CATOBAR configuration; Prince of Wales to be completed in 2023 and sent straight to mothballs or sold abroad

- F-35B purchase junked in favor of F-35C; purchase numbers unknown but current plans are to put 12 to sea on Queen Elizabeth in 2019 or 2020

- Completion of 7 Astute-class subs confirmed

[O.K.]

In short: The Fall of the British Empire.

[old_pop2000]

In short: The Fall of the British Empire.

I believe that this is just the British government copeing with the financial crisis and diminished budgets. Every developed nation in the world has to recognize its budgetary limitations.

[steel_selachian]

In other info, Pakistan has commissioned the former USS McInerney as PNS Alamgir (F 260).

[steel_selachian]

just so you know, the Alarm anti-radiation missile is being withdrawn from British Military service around 2013.

all British Chinooks are being fitted with the T55-714 engine

Source for ALARM withdrawal?

[Armand2REP]

Some new models I would really like to see:

FREMM
BPC Mistral
Mirage-2000
Barracuda SSN
Scorpene SSK

Really need to get the first two.

[Fleet Command CC]

Some new models I would really like to see:

FREMM
BPC Mistral
Mirage-2000
Barracuda SSN
Scorpene SSK

Really need to get the first two.

Hello Armand2REP.

If you want the FREMM, BPC Mistral, that badly how about you buying these models from somewhere and then donate them to the NWP Team. I have done this on many times over the years. :D

[Saffron]

Heh, aren't models like that pretty expensive - in the hundreds of dollars range? Also, do you know if linwg is doing anything else for FC? He was always the big modeler for the game and does a damn fine job of it, too.

[Fleet Command CC]

Heh, aren't models like that pretty expensive - in the hundreds of dollars range? Also, do you know if linwg is doing anything else for FC? He was always the big modeler for the game and does a damn fine job of it, too.

Hey Saffron.

You can find some at lower prices, but this depend on quality of the model.
Here are some for you to check out.

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=419243

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=58288

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=218750

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=348067

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=60131

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=105904

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=345495

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=107971

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=113038

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=109061

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=120636

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=113040

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=289842

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=371312

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=224298

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=239411

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=181589

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=161921

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=196179

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=109091

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=117711

There all under $150 dollars which is good but most of them would need to be modity to work in Fleet Command.

If someone does want to buy one, please ask me first to check if it will work in the game. :cool: I don't want anyone wasting their money. ;)

[FoxAlfa]

Some new models I would really like to see:

FREMM
BPC Mistral
Mirage-2000
Barracuda SSN
Scorpene SSK

Really need to get the first two.

Hey, no need to buy FREMM, BPC Mistral or Mirage-2000, I am already building them for FC and I will probably finish one or two of them till the end of the week...

Of course, if you want to support me you could buy one of my models :P

@Jon did you get the flies I sent you?

Cheers,
Fox

[Fleet Command CC]

Hey Fox.

Yep I did thanks just been a bit busy with other things unfortunately. :cool:

[Swordfish]

If someone in interested in adding many more Iranian fast attack craft and some North Korean torpedos to the DB, then look at the pdf from the first post here:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?195355-Iran-Navy-infos-MEGA
Although I'm not an advocate of the idea to include even the smallest launches or Boston Whalers to the DB I think that adding some of these iranian units would make sense. That would put more emphasis on Torpedos and MLRS, which forces you to develop new tactics.

[Athlone]

I haven't installed the latest beta patch yet, so maybe this is already included (perhaps someone can have a look), but the SA-5 Gammon SAM would be nice to have.

Mark

[O.K.]

I haven't installed the latest beta patch yet, so maybe this is already included (perhaps someone can have a look), but the SA-5 Gammon SAM would be nice to have.

Mark

Yes it is.

[Athlone]

Found this while browsing,

http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=11270

[steel_selachian]

The mission records for Iran need to be fixed; several air force units listed in there that they never had (A-50 AEW, Tu-22M Backfire being the big examples). Some adds would also be in order, like the EMB312A (in the database as ALX STK) and the Mi-17 TRN. We could also put in the new Jamaran-class "destroyer" (really a slightly upgraded homebrew follow-on to the Alvand-class frigates, with a helipad and possibly SM-1 missiles).

[The Warrior]

The mission records for Iran need to be fixed; several air force units listed in there that they never had (A-50 AEW, Tu-22M Backfire being the big examples). Some adds would also be in order, like the EMB312A (in the database as ALX STK) and the Mi-17 TRN. We could also put in the new Jamaran-class "destroyer" (really a slightly upgraded homebrew follow-on to the Alvand-class frigates, with a helipad and possibly SM-1 missiles).

Hey Steel.

I'll put on the list of things to do.

[DHX]

The mission records for Iran need to be fixed; several air force units listed in there that they never had (A-50 AEW

Didn't they have an A-50 that escaped from Iraq during ODS? Wasn't it the the one that had a mid-air with an F-5 recently when they were preparing for a parade flyover?

[FoxAlfa]

Didn't they have an A-50 that escaped from Iraq during ODS? Wasn't it the the one that had a mid-air with an F-5 recently when they were preparing for a parade flyover?

Technically it wasn't an A-50, but the Baghdad-2, independet Iraqi development using french equipment and just using the IL-76 as a base as a A-50 ...but I guess A-50 is a close enought stand in...

Cheers,
Fox

[steel_selachian]

Technically it wasn't an A-50, but the Baghdad-2, independet Iraqi development using french equipment and just using the IL-76 as a base as a A-50 ...but I guess A-50 is a close enought stand in...

Cheers,
Fox

Yes, it was the Adnan, a homebrew Iraqi AWACS. The Iranians got two, but apparently the AEW systems were inoperational. There were reports that Russian technicians had installed a new radar system onboard one during 2008, but it was destroyed only a year later in that midair. The other one is currently non-flightworthy; odds are it was cannibalized to put the other one in the air. I suppose in that case we can justify putting the A-50 in there, although it's debatable whether it constituted an "operational" asset during its short existence.

On another subject, we may need to update the AASM. Apparently it's produced in three sizes - 125, 250, and 1000 kg - and with three different guidance packages - SBU-38 GPS, SBU-54 IR/GPS, and SBU-64 GPS/SALH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASM

[The Warrior]

Ok guys.

I removed the following aircraft fom Iran. The Backfires, Mig-19s and the H-6. I was unable to find any information they had these aircraft. I went ahead and left the A-50 being that they did have it for a bit.

[steel_selachian]

Wikipedia lists the Iranians still operating 18 J-6 Farmers, which is probably where that MiG-19 record came from.

[The Warrior]

Wikipedia lists the Iranians still operating 18 J-6 Farmers, which is probably where that MiG-19 record came from.

You know, I saw thattoo and I didn't put two and two together. I'll fix that. Thanks for the catch.

[O.K.]

Hey Warrior.

I added a few new units to the database that Havoc returned after checking the sensor issues. I hope these entries will find their way into new release. They are nothing special, just a few modifications to better reflect actual units.

[steel_selachian]

Hey Warrior.

I added a few new units to the database that Havoc returned after checking the sensor issues. I hope these entries will find their way into new release. They are nothing special, just a few modifications to better reflect actual units.

Which ones are those?

Oh yeah, and another thing with Iran ... when did they order MiG-29K variants?

[O.K.]

Which ones are those?

Oh yeah, and another thing with Iran ... when did they order MiG-29K variants?

Well Steel if You want:

****Change log****

Corrected:
-removed RIM-116 RAM launcher from O.H. Perry FFG* as actually they were never fitted with this
-removed Harpoons from Pakistani Tariq_Sam frigates/destroyers Corrected Helo for the Lynx.
-corrected split between SAM and SSM version of Tariqs. Corrected names in each class.
-Type 22 Batch 1 -changed MM40 for MM38
-Hercules DDG -replaced Improved Sea Dart with original Sea Dart as on the British Type 42 Batch 1
-Alvand FFG* -changed SSMs on C-802.

New units added:
-Kaman PGF* for Iran - a version of Kamans from 80s armed with Harpoon missiles -12 units
-Kaman PGF^ for Iran - an sole unit used by Iranian Navy armed with 2x Standard missile 1 unit added -228 Gorz
-F-4D II STK^ for Iran -6xAGM-65A 4x1000lb Bomb-A 4xAIM-9B Sidewinder
-Segui DD for Argentina - a modified Allen M. Sumner class -3 units
-Alamgir FFG for Pakistan - a recently acquired ex-US Navy FFG-8 USS McInerney -1 unit so far
-Valiant* SSN - version armed exclusively with torpedos, for 1982 Falkland War and similar time scenarios Mk24 Tigerfish torpedos only, until Mk 8 is added. 5 units
-Swiftsure* SSN - version armed exclusively with torpedos, for 1982 Falkland War and similar time scenarios Mk24 Tigerfish torpedos only, until Mk 8 is added. 6 units
-increased Argentinian Salta class submarines to 2 (added ARA San Luis)
-Providence class SSN and SSN* - a 688 class with VLS- 8 units each class. Deleted old Los Angeles entries
-Komar class PCFG -generic unit, not assigned to any countries yet



There certainly should be more changes but that's for the start.

[steel_selachian]

Well Steel if You want:

****Change log****

Corrected:
-removed RIM-116 RAM launcher from O.H. Perry FFG* as actually they were never fitted with this
-removed Harpoons from Pakistani Tariq_Sam frigates/destroyers Corrected Helo for the Lynx.
-corrected split between SAM and SSM version of Tariqs. Corrected names in each class.
-Type 22 Batch 1 -changed MM40 for MM38
-Hercules DDG -replaced Improved Sea Dart with original Sea Dart as on the British Type 42 Batch 1
-Alvand FFG* -changed SSMs on C-802.

New units added:
-Kaman PGF* for Iran - a version of Kamans from 80s armed with Harpoon missiles -12 units
-Kaman PGF^ for Iran - an sole unit used by Iranian Navy armed with 2x Standard missile 1 unit added -228 Gorz
-F-4D II STK^ for Iran -6xAGM-65A 4x1000lb Bomb-A 4xAIM-9B Sidewinder
-Segui DD for Argentina - a modified Allen M. Sumner class -3 units
-Alamgir FFG for Pakistan - a recently acquired ex-US Navy FFG-8 USS McInerney -1 unit so far
-Valiant* SSN - version armed exclusively with torpedos, for 1982 Falkland War and similar time scenarios Mk24 Tigerfish torpedos only, until Mk 8 is added. 5 units
-Swiftsure* SSN - version armed exclusively with torpedos, for 1982 Falkland War and similar time scenarios Mk24 Tigerfish torpedos only, until Mk 8 is added. 6 units
-increased Argentinian Salta class submarines to 2 (added ARA San Luis)
-Providence class SSN and SSN* - a 688 class with VLS- 8 units each class. Deleted old Los Angeles entries
-Komar class PCFG -generic unit, not assigned to any countries yet



There certainly should be more changes but that's for the start.

Nice - thanks. I had already done my own add of the Providence; the absence of those VLS-configured boats was something that had bugged me since I first played vanilla FC.

[steel_selachian]

Couple of weapons requests:

*Dual-mode laser/GPS guided bombs (we already have the GBU-33, which is now just referred to as the EGBU-24; dual-mode versions exist of the GBU-12, GBU-16, and GBU-28 LGBs)
*GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II - Raytheon SDB with tri-mode laser, IIR, and millimeter-wave radar guidance
*GBU-54 Laser JDAM (dual-mode GBU-38)
*GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, 30,000lb GPS-guided munition to be carried by B-2 Spirit
*A/RGM-84L Harpoon Block II
*Update Mk. 48 ADCAP variants (Mod 6 with improved range; Mod 7 is current production, improved sonar, guidance logic and quieting)
*AGM/LACM variants of the PJ-10 BrahMos
*UGST monopropellant-powered 533-millimeter torpedo for Russia
*VA-111 Shkval rocket-propelled torpedo for Russia
*SA-N-20a Gargoyle SAM fitted to final unit of Kirov-class and Chinese Type 051C DDGs

And a few ship requests:
*Type 051C DDG for China - 2 units, follow-on to Type 051B Luhai class with VLS for 48xSA-N-20a SAMs, launchers for 8xC-803 SSM, Tomb Stone missile guidance radar
*Zumwalt-class DDG, probably be worth putting in by now
*Russian Admiral Gorshkov and Admiral Grigorovich-class FFGs, Stereguschiy-class FSG
*Indian Vikrant-class CV (new class commissioning in 2014), Kolkata-class DDG, Shivalik-class FFG, Kamorta-class FSG

[FoxAlfa]

Couple of weapons requests:

*Dual-mode laser/GPS guided bombs (we already have the GBU-33, which is now just referred to as the EGBU-24; dual-mode versions exist of the GBU-12, GBU-16, and GBU-28 LGBs)
*GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II - Raytheon SDB with tri-mode laser, IIR, and millimeter-wave radar guidance
*GBU-54 Laser JDAM (dual-mode GBU-38)
*GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, 30,000lb GPS-guided munition to be carried by B-2 Spirit
*A/RGM-84L Harpoon Block II
*Update Mk. 48 ADCAP variants (Mod 6 with improved range; Mod 7 is current production, improved sonar, guidance logic and quieting)
*AGM/LACM variants of the PJ-10 BrahMos
*UGST monopropellant-powered 533-millimeter torpedo for Russia
*VA-111 Shkval rocket-propelled torpedo for Russia
*SA-N-20a Gargoyle SAM fitted to final unit of Kirov-class and Chinese Type 051C DDGs

And a few ship requests:
*Type 051C DDG for China - 2 units, follow-on to Type 051B Luhai class with VLS for 48xSA-N-20a SAMs, launchers for 8xC-803 SSM, Tomb Stone missile guidance radar
*Zumwalt-class DDG, probably be worth putting in by now
*Russian Admiral Gorshkov and Admiral Grigorovich-class FFGs, Stereguschiy-class FSG
*Indian Vikrant-class CV (new class commissioning in 2014), Kolkata-class DDG, Shivalik-class FFG, Kamorta-class FSG

They are all on the 19.3 todo list already :D so no worries... we just need to get the 19.2 done first :)

[steel_selachian]

They are all on the 19.3 todo list already :D so no worries... we just need to get the 19.2 done first :)

I've done most of that weapons list in my old 19.1 copy and 19.2 Beta copy, except for the Harpoon Block II; I can probably do more functional versions of updated Mk. 48s once the new wire-guidance doctrine comes through and the Shkval once we get a "dumb" torpedo doctrine (I based the version I made off the Sub Command version - non-homing torp, speed 200 knots, range 12,000 yards, and about a 25% probability of correct detonation). Currently have the Type 051C, Gorshkov, and Grigorovich in my 19.2 Beta. The latter two are essentially just Talwar FFGs, with the former packing the SS-N-26 in place of the BrahMos and the latter probably carrying the Klub-54E.

[sepperson]

I would like to add the A-6F to my data base. Using the A-6E, what would I need to do to "convert" to the A-6F. Hopefully someone on this board will know the details, like weapons and engine changes and can help me out...Thanks in advance.

[steel_selachian]

I would like to add the A-6F to my data base. Using the A-6E, what would I need to do to "convert" to the A-6F. Hopefully someone on this board will know the details, like weapons and engine changes and can help me out...Thanks in advance.

Well, the A-6F was never built, so it's not something in store for a future NWP release. Not that I haven't done the same sort of thing on my own copy for fun, like with the never-built "AST-21" F-14. Easiest way is to go look up the info for the proposed A-6F - what sensors it would have carried, how the new engines would have affected range, speed, and max altitude, and what weapons it would have carried. Then drop by FCCC's tutorial on how to add new units to the database and see how to make yourself an altered version of an existing aircraft.

[steel_selachian]

Well, two more requests ...

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/597/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akizuki_class_destroyer_(2010)

[Cowboy12568]

Are we going to get the USS Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 in the near future for the USN?

[FoxAlfa]

Are we going to get the USS Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 in the near future for the USN?

yes, you are :)

[xav]

IDAS (sub launched anti air/surface)
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/853/idas1.jpg
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3356/idas2.jpg
(pics by me)

I actually tried to do this one myself... Took IRIS-T (they share a lot in common) and made it sublauncheable... didn't change the doctrine or anything else... but most of the time in game the IDAS doesn't gain enough altitude, sometime even it stays underwater, sometime gains altitude and hits target...


ANL - Future Franco British light antiship missile (helicopter launched)
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7738/1001820r.jpg


TorpBuster
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9233/1001832x.jpg
Not sure if game engine could handle these...

Generic Cargo ship with CLub-K
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/623/1001665n.jpg
Could make some very fun/unique scenarios...

Club M coastal system
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/985/1001668s.jpg


UAE Banyuna Class (pics by me a couple month ago)
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/754/pict0237u.jpg
http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/4342/pict0248.jpg


Last but not least

DSBX-1 sonar with good detection performance for Tourville and Degrasse. The sonar currently in the DB really doesn't do them justice (they are currently the best ASW assets Marine Nationale has because DSBX-1 really is one of the world top towed sonar)

If need info/details pm me, I can help.


edit:
Here are values I used for DBSX-1 (based on DSI magazine's Marine Nationale anti submarine warfare special)
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6678/dsbx1.jpg (http://img822.imageshack.us/i/dsbx1.jpg/)


also:
You can remove active sonar for French SSBN: They don't have any.


edit: I see Baynunah in the lastest beta. Thanks!

[xav]

I don't think we have these in the DB:
http://en.rian.ru/images/15830/89/158308953.jpg


Chinese Type 22 would be good to have too

[Cowboy12568]

For operations in the 60s and 70s we need the US submarine boomers known as the 41 for Freedom

and we need some Gulf, Hotel and Yankee boats on the Soviet side.

[FoxAlfa]

I don't think we have these in the DB:
http://en.rian.ru/images/15830/89/158308953.jpg


Chinese Type 22 would be good to have too

Yep, you are getting those in the 19.3, the model is almost complete... but for now we are pushing to finally release 19.2 stable to the public
I am also looking in the ways to convert my Fremm model in the Banyuna Class....

1090


For operations in the 60s and 70s we need the US submarine boomers known as the 41 for Freedom

and we need some Gulf, Hotel and Yankee boats on the Soviet side.

Those too, Ben Franklin, Gulf and Hotel might make appearance in the 19.2 but its more likely in the 19.3....

[xav]

Great surprise FoxAlfa and great looking model, very detailed.


- This also is a small unit that i really miss ingame
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Type022.png/280px-Type022.png

- Baracuda SSN class or is it too early?

- Scorpene class, several countries use them already and many more will shortly

[xav]

http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/users/user349/Falaj_0.jpg

better pic i took http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3065/quizz2.jpg
IIRC it is Mica VL in the 6 VLS tubes

[the Bandit]

I dunno if this has been brought up but, I'd love to see the old 60s era DE/DERs to go along with all the FRAMs and Essex class CVSs we now have.

[xav]

http://www.meretmarine.com/objets/500/32537.jpg

[The Warrior]

I dunno if this has been brought up but, I'd love to see the old 60s era DE/DERs to go along with all the FRAMs and Essex class CVSs we now have.

Probably 19.3.

[the Bandit]

Another thing that might be possible is Guppy class SS/SSKs or even the early "square" SSNs. It wouldn't be PERFECT but I think the Romeo SSK model would work just great for these boats especially the Guppys.

[Cowboy12568]

Another thing that might be possible is Guppy class SS/SSKs or even the early "square" SSNs. It wouldn't be PERFECT but I think the Romeo SSK model would work just great for these boats especially the Guppys.

Also Darter and Tang classes. As Bandit said, it wouldn't be perfect, but it would sim the last years of good diesel boats in the US Fleet. As for GUPPY, I would probably limit it to the GUPPY III class boats. by 1965 earlier class GUPPY just didn't have he associated equipment to handle the tracking needed.

[xav]

Also Scorpene class subs

[FoxAlfa]

Also Scorpene class subs

There is already a model for it, but I am not sure if it will make it to 19.2...

Cheers,
Fox

[O.K.]

There is already a model for it, but I am not sure if it will make it to 19.2...

Cheers,
Fox

What are the other models of units that are unlikely to get into 19.2, and will probably get into 19.3 if so?

[FoxAlfa]

What are the other models of units that are unlikely to get into 19.2, and will probably get into 19.3 if so?

Yep, sure... most of the stuff listed is ether built, being built or on the to do list :)

There is also stuff added between Beta 3 and the release...

[O.K.]

Yep, sure... most of the stuff listed is ether built, being built or on the to do list :)

There is also stuff added between Beta 3 and the release...

So may I ask what about this:
-F-22P Zulfiquar class FFG for Pakistan
-Assad class corvettes for Iraq (Actually transferred to the Royal Malaysian Navy, where they are known as Laksamana class)
-Saar-3 and Saar-2/Saar-1 for Israel
-Lada class SSK for Russia
-Jalalat II missile boats for Pakistan
?

[FoxAlfa]

So may I ask what about this:
-F-22P Zulfiquar class FFG for Pakistan
-Assad class corvettes for Iraq (Actually transferred to the Royal Malaysian Navy, where they are known as Laksamana class)
-Saar-3 and Saar-2/Saar-1 for Israel
-Lada class SSK for Russia
-Jalalat II missile boats for Pakistan
?

Lada is done, F-22P will be made from the converted model of the type 53H FFG... Laksamana class is on the list... but not the priority right now...

[Sea Dragon]

Couple of unit requests from this side of the pond,

Your missing the Bay class LPD's, the Wave knight tankers, in fact most of the more recent RFA tankers and a few of the older ones are missing. The Queen Elizabeth class need updating now to include the fact that they will have cats and traps now instead of ski jumps. F35B needs changing to F35C for both RAF and RN.

Personally given the simulations T45 includes STWS, Phalanx, 30mm, Aster, 114mm I still don't understand why it doesn't include the 2 quad harpoon boxes it was fitted to be able to carry would it be possible to have this rectified?

For missiles, CAAM will be around before 2020. Not to mention Future lightweight and medium weight ASuW missiles that Helicopters will be using.

The Lnyx Wildcat is not featured in the game. The first deliveries of that have started arriving.

I can't do the models for these things however if people wish help with the details of sensors, weapons, crew size and size specs then I can provide decent ones for the Royal Navy.

EDIT:

Also the Royal Oman navy has no entries. It would be quite cool if someone fancied adding the Khareef class to it?

Lovely Corevetes with Mica VL, 75mm gun, 2x30mm guns, 4x Exocet, Hanger for 1 Lynx sized Helictoper (which will be a lynx I believe). Compliment of around 90-100 I believe. Made by BAE (Big and Expensive :P) systems engineering.

EDIT 2:

Meteor would also be a nice addition, given that it is a considerably different BVR AAW missile than AMRAAM.

[xav]

I don't recall seeing the 3 Al Riyadh class frigates for Royal Saudi Navy... they really look like Lafayette class so it could be an easy adition to the DB (to begin with... then to model it you need to stretch a lafayette helo deck and add VLS cells in the front)

edit, my bad, saw them



Not to mention Future lightweight and medium weight ASuW missiles that Helicopters will be using.

Already requested: http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?184-Unit-Request&p=44816#post44816

[xav]

Belgian Navy:
F930 Leopold I
F931 Louise-Marie
A960 Godetia

P400 Class patrol vessels, used by French, Gabon and Brazil navies.

[Sea Dragon]

Also all RN submarines are no longer operating Sub-Harpoon. Instead they will only operate spearfish torpedo's and TLAM. I have also noticed that you only give the RN submarines block II TLAM. As they have been operating Block IV TLAM for quite some time now.

Information comes from Seaforth World Naval review 2010 and Seaforth World Naval review 2011. As well as the RN website. I alter this regularly in the database however it is quite frustrating to keep having to do it. Would not take long to change the units at all.

[Sea Dragon]

Sorry to post yet again however,

CAAM is well into the development stage and has had trials with various parts of the missile. It will be in service with the Type 23 by 2015 replacing Sea Wolf.
On that note 8 of the Type 23 are due to have Sonar 2087 installed over the current variable depth towed array. As of 2010, 6 of these vessels have that update.

The Type 23 will also be recieving the Artisan 3D radar as an update to their old radar. Albion, Bulwark and HMS Ocean will/have also get/got the Artisan 3D radar.
There are currently 19 contracts in place for the radar to be delivered to the 13 T23, The HMS Ocean (or Illustrious depending on further SDSR), the HMS Albion, the HMS Bulwark, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales.

Sea Skua mark II with an increased warhead, an IR sensor and a 2 way data link is also in development and will be developed within the mid half of the next decade.

[steel_selachian]

New update for when we get the Gerald R. Ford-class CVNs in action, second unit CVN-79 will be the second John F. Kennedy according to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.

Admittedly I was hoping for a new Enterprise.

[paladin5]

Can we get the TYPE 051C for the PLAN?

[paladin5]

New update for when we get the Gerald R. Ford-class CVNs in action, second unit CVN-79 will be the second John F. Kennedy according to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.

Admittedly I was hoping for a new Enterprise.


I think we were all hoping for a new Enterprise.

[Fleet Command CC]

I think we were all hoping for a new Enterprise.

The US Navy wouldn't be the same without a Big E in its Navy, it would be like the RN now with no HMS Ark Royal real shame, but one of the new bird farms might be given that name. If they are not both sold which will probably happen I'm sorry to say.

[paladin5]

Can we get the TYP 054A added to china for 19.2. It is already in the DB it just hasn't been added to china.

[old_pop2000]

I think we were all hoping for a new Enterprise.

Hi Mike:
Just my two cents in this discussion. I believe that once the name "Enterprise" is finally stricken from the list of ships, it would be nice to have a representative ship, however, based on the new budgetary conditions, I doubt it will be a CVN-79 carrier type. The budget restrictions might reduce the current carrier fleet from 12 to as low as 8, with Nimitz, Vinson and Ike being placed in ready reserve. An LHA-6 USS America class might be appropriate and work much better under current geopolitical conditions. Super Carriers are now the "Dreadnoughts" of the 21st century.

[Armand2REP]

There is already a Navy installation called USS Enterprise. The barracks at Great Mistakes Illinois goes by that name. Forget about any carrier. USN has no pride in its heritage.

[paladin5]

My gut instinct say that we should count the carriers out quite yet.

[Warship NWS]

USN has no pride in its heritage.

Please take care not to make such comments. We have quite a few USN vets, and relatives of vets, on this forum. The USN has quite a bit of heritage pride. The politicians, and/or public, however are the decision makers when it comes to how much "heritage" is allowed to be funded or respected. Veterans often give their own time and raise funds to help preserve the heritage of our military history. This goes pretty much the same for the military heritage of any country. Now please move on with the appropriate topic of the thread.

Thanks.

[Armand2REP]

I am a USN vet, 4 years before I joined the FFL. How do you think I know about Great Mistakes? If that doesn't give me the right to complain about it, nothing will.

[O.K.]

Hi Mike:
Just my two cents in this discussion. I believe that once the name "Enterprise" is finally stricken from the list of ships, it would be nice to have a representative ship, however, based on the new budgetary conditions, I doubt it will be a CVN-79 carrier type. The budget restrictions might reduce the current carrier fleet from 12 to as low as 8, with Nimitz, Vinson and Ike being placed in ready reserve. An LHA-6 USS America class might be appropriate and work much better under current geopolitical conditions. Super Carriers are now the "Dreadnoughts" of the 21st century.

Don't even mention.
Or maybe, if it goes further, the US should start writing a contract about selling Alaska to China...

[steel_selachian]

Hi Mike:
Just my two cents in this discussion. I believe that once the name "Enterprise" is finally stricken from the list of ships, it would be nice to have a representative ship, however, based on the new budgetary conditions, I doubt it will be a CVN-79 carrier type. The budget restrictions might reduce the current carrier fleet from 12 to as low as 8, with Nimitz, Vinson and Ike being placed in ready reserve. An LHA-6 USS America class might be appropriate and work much better under current geopolitical conditions. Super Carriers are now the "Dreadnoughts" of the 21st century.

I could see the name being passed down to an LHA (after all, America was also given an iconic carrier name), but CVN-80 is still in the pipeline. We can hope she gets the moniker. I would cast blame on politics rather than the USN "forgetting its heritage;" after all that's how we ended up with a CVN named after a president who gave a good run at putting the CV fleet up on blocks prior to Korea. At least Kennedy is an improvement over two suggestions from the Arizona contingent at Congress; there were proposals afoot to affix Arizona and/or Barry M. Goldwater to CVN-79 and/or CVN-80.

IIRC, the carrier fleet will already stand at 10 between 2013 and 2015, between when CVN-65 takes her last bow and CVN-78 enters service. From what I've seen Nimitz and Eisenhower at least will be going out of service about 6-7 years short of the maximum expected lifespan on their second set of reactor cores. All it would take to knock it back to 10 for the long run would be to not replace the Carl Vinson when she stands down sometime in the 2020s, or delay CVN-80 until after Eisenhower and Vinson leave service.

[old_pop2000]

To All:

Just as a gentle reminder, in 1945, there were 6,768 ships of all types active in the US Navy. By 1950, five years later, there were 634. Today, there are 285 ships in the U. S. Navy.

So the question becomes how do I fit 6000 possible past ship names into a box for 285 ships?

Source:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#1945 (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm)

[steel_selachian]

To All:

Just as a gentle reminder, in 1945, there were 6,768 ships of all types active in the US Navy. By 1950, five years later, there were 634. Today, there are 285 ships in the U. S. Navy.

So the question becomes how do I fit 6000 possible past ship names into a box for 285 ships?

Source:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#1945 (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm)


Yes ... but there's only 1 Enterprise. Gotta keep it active until Starfleet stands up, ya know ...

[O.K.]

To All:

Just as a gentle reminder, in 1945, there were 6,768 ships of all types active in the US Navy. By 1950, five years later, there were 634. Today, there are 285 ships in the U. S. Navy.

So the question becomes how do I fit 6000 possible past ship names into a box for 285 ships?

Source:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#1945 (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm)


Thanks for the reference!

I wanted to ask for something like this, but I haven't. Nevertheless You have satisfied my never spoken ask ;-)

About the numbers: It has no sense to compare number of ships in the US or any other Navy in the year 1945 and 2011. Different epochs, different numbers.

[old_pop2000]

Thanks for the reference!

I wanted to ask for something like this, but I haven't. Nevertheless You have satisfied my never spoken ask ;-)

About the numbers: It has no sense to compare number of ships in the US or any other Navy in the year 1945 and 2011. Different epochs, different numbers.


It does make sense, if you want the USN to be "respectful of its heritage", then we have to consider the maximum number of ships names from the past, that are possible. Different epochs doesn't matter, we have a maximum of 6768 ship names as the maximum. That is our " heritage" pot to choose from. But how do I do that, with only 285 ships in the fleet? I can't, it just doesn't work. That is the point. In fact, I think the whole issue is silly as h---.

As to the reference, you are certainly welcome. If you need something, sir, just ask me. I will always help the team. I always have, as Chris knows.

[steel_selachian]

Looks like while the RN is drawing down its amphib capabilities, the RAN is picking up some of the pieces - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Largs_Bay_(L3006)

[old_pop2000]

Looks like while the RN is drawing down its amphib capabilities, the RAN is picking up some of the pieces - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Largs_Bay_(L3006)

If you had Australia's geostrategic position, and no real help except for India and the US, you might try to maintain a sizeable force.

[steel_selachian]

If you had Australia's geostrategic position, and no real help except for India and the US, you might try to maintain a sizeable force.

It seems the main reason for the buy was that the two Kanimbla-class LPAs were found to be in sorry shape last year - Manoora has been taken out of service and Kanimbla is being overhauled to keep her around until Canberra is ready in 2014. With the Largs Bay plus the two upcoming Canberra LHDs and the three Hobart DDGHs coming up, they should have the capability to form a nice little ARG in the near future. If they want to go really hog-wild, the RN is supposedly going to be mothballing one of the two Albion LPDs in the near future.

[old_pop2000]

With the Largs Bay plus the two upcoming Canberra LHDs and the three Hobart DDGHs coming up, they should have the capability to form a nice little ARG in the near future. If they want to go really hog-wild, the RN is supposedly going to be mothballing one of the two Albion LPDs in the near future.

Well, it's probably a good strategy for an island nation surrounded by islands. ARG's can be handy, to protect your trade and communications routes.

[paladin5]

If i remember correctly not all of those 6,768 ships had proper names, since the amphibs tended to just get hull numbers and not the dignity of a proper name.

[old_pop2000]

If i remember correctly not all of those 6,768 ships had proper names, since the amphibs tended to just get hull numbers and not the dignity of a proper name.

While that is certainly true, the point is still valid. There are just not enough ships in the USN and too many names to use. You will not be able to please everyone on the names.

[O.K.]

"There'll always be an England in the United States Navy"...

For me the reason why they don't want to name a new carrier Enterprise is simple. There is already the Enterpise in the USN. And there won't be any new Enterprise, until the old carrier get broken for the razorblades.

About names: I don't think it's good to name all the new ships after the previous ships. Tradition is important, but there should be at least some new names, after new heroes, battles, and so on.
Don't live only by past.

[Fleet Command CC]

Could you chaps start a new thread, because this thread is for Unit Request, I don't want to offend anyone but please try and keep this thread for unit request only.

It can be a bit of pain for the NWP Team to have to go thought lots posts with no Unit Request, I know I posted something so I'm just has bad.


The US Navy wouldn't be the same without a Big E in its Navy, it would be like the RN now with no HMS Ark Royal real shame, but one of the new bird farms might be given that name. If they are not both sold which will probably happen I'm sorry to say.

My has got nothing to do with Unit Requests.

[Warship NWS]

FC is right.. this thread needs to stay on topic. If you want to debate names of ships please start a thread in the general history section. Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

FC is right.. this thread needs to stay on topic. If you want to debate names of ships please start a thread in the general history section. Thanks.

Mission accomplished. New thread created in this forum. The discussion was aimed at this game, but move it obviously, if the general history is where you actually want it.

[steel_selachian]

Back on the topic of units, one thing we need to do is revise the Bush CVN's stats; last I checked it had SPY-3 radar and multiple ESSM VLS systems. I believe her sensors and armament are identical to the later Nimitz CVNs; she just has a reduced radar signature. Basically we need to take the object record for the Bush and use it as a start point for the Ford, although I haven't seen any indication that they'll be putting VLS cells in place of the Mark 29 ESSM box launchers for the class.

[paladin5]

"There'll always be an England in the United States Navy"...

For me the reason why they don't want to name a new carrier Enterprise is simple. There is already the Enterpise in the USN. And there won't be any new Enterprise, until the old carrier get broken for the razorblades.

About names: I don't think it's good to name all the new ships after the previous ships. Tradition is important, but there should be at least some new names, after new heroes, battles, and so on.
Don't live only by past.

about new names, new heros:

USS Jason Dunham DDG-109, named for Cpl. Jason Dunham, USMC 3rd Battalion 7th Marines. Medal of Honor recipient. KIA 22 April 2004 Bethesda Naval Hospital from wounds sustained at Husaybah, Iraq.

USS Michael Murphy DDG-112, named for Lt. Michael P. Murphy USN SDV Team 1. Medal of Honor recipient. KIA 28 June 2005 during Operation Red Wings, Kunar Province, Afghanistan.

USS Michael Monsoor DDG-1001, named for MA2 Michael Monsoor, USN SEAL Team 3 . Medal of Honor recipient. KIA 29 September 2009 in Ramadi, Iraq.

[the Bandit]

Just wanted to add, Vietnam now has two Gepard 3.9 class FFGs. Think of an improved/stealthy Grisha/Koni class. Its armed with SS-N-25 Harpoonski missiles and SA-N-4 SAMs, and a Kashtan CIWS.

[Armand2REP]

While that is certainly true, the point is still valid. There are just not enough ships in the USN and too many names to use. You will not be able to please everyone on the names.

There is a point to what you are saying, but there are some ships that are too much of part of USN heritage to disappear. The naming of carriers after presidents is what really ticks me off. The rest you can argue all day I won't put up a complaint. Naming a CVN after Jimmy Carter is a slap in the face, except for the Abraham Lincoln, the rest of the presidents are mediocre and not worthy of a carrier naming. The Brits have realized their folly with the Prince Charles and asked his permission to rename it HMS Ark Royal. It is sad there is not outcry in the US over the same naval heritage.

[old_pop2000]

There is a point to what you are saying, but there are some ships that are too much of part of USN heritage to disappear. The naming of carriers after presidents is what really ticks me off. The rest you can argue all day I won't put up a complaint. Naming a CVN after Jimmy Carter is a slap in the face, except for the Abraham Lincoln, the rest of the presidents are mediocre and not worthy of a carrier naming. The Brits have realized their folly with the Prince Charles and asked his permission to rename it HMS Ark Royal. It is sad there is not outcry in the US over the same naval heritage.

The first carrier was named after Samuel Pierpont Langley, the first person to fly an unmanned powered flying machine in 1896. His designs never were successful at carrying a human. The Wrights did that. Why then did we name a carrier after him? He failed.

The USS Bunker Hill was named after a defeat in the Revolutionary War. Wonderful.

The USS Ticonderoga was named after a fort on Lake Champlain and another defeat in the Revolutionary war in June 1777.

The USS Antietam was named after a battle in the Civil War that had the distinction of being the bloodiest day in the history of the US miliitary. That makes sense, doesn't it.

The Forrestal was named after a former Secretary of the Navy who committed suicide. The USS Lexington was named after another brief encounter at the start of the Revolutionary War. Again, a losing battle.

Anyway, I won't bore you with more. But that should be enough to make the point. Do you see any rhyme nor reason for some of these names? Where's the heritage in some of those names? The average american probably has no idea about the significance of any of those names.... but they will recognize some of those presidents. The Navy powers are not stupid, they understand about funding. So, "whats in a name..."; money.

[Saffron]

Most of the traditional carrier names have been given to the Aegis cruisers, so we can't have a carrier named Yorktown, for instance, and Hornet is an LHA, I believe. There is no rhyme or reason to carrier naming, now. Nimitz was an admiral, Forrestal was a secretary of the Navy (IIRC). Lincoln and Washington were early presidents but later carriers were all named after 20th century presidents. Who knows? But I do agree with needing a carrier named Enterprise.

[paladin5]

To All:

Just as a gentle reminder, in 1945, there were 6,768 ships of all types active in the US Navy. By 1950, five years later, there were 634. Today, there are 285 ships in the U. S. Navy.

So the question becomes how do I fit 6000 possible past ship names into a box for 285 ships?

Source:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#1945 (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm)


I don't suppose you can find something like this for the russian navy from say 1945 - present could you?

[old_pop2000]

I don't suppose you can find something like this for the russian navy from say 1945 - present could you?

I can't say that I have seen such a list, but this site might be able to provide a good start. - http://rusnavy.com/

[guynumber7]

Whiskey Long bin and Whiskey twin cylinder class subs

[D_Higgins]

There is a point to what you are saying, but there are some ships that are too much of part of USN heritage to disappear. The naming of carriers after presidents is what really ticks me off. The rest you can argue all day I won't put up a complaint. Naming a CVN after Jimmy Carter is a slap in the face, except for the Abraham Lincoln, the rest of the presidents are mediocre and not worthy of a carrier naming. The Brits have realized their folly with the Prince Charles and asked his permission to rename it HMS Ark Royal. It is sad there is not outcry in the US over the same naval heritage.
To be fair, Teddy Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet around the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet) and Ronald Reagan attempted to build a 600 ship navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/600_ship_navy).

[old_pop2000]

To be fair, Teddy Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet around the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet) and Ronald Reagan attempted to build a 600 ship navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/600_ship_navy).

Sounds good in the history book or the New York Times, but there is a reasonably good chance, that that grand stand play, prompted a Japanese admiral, Isoroku Yamamoto to advocate an attack on the Pacific Fleet when it is in Pearl Harbor. He wrote the plan at Japanese Naval War College in the early part of the century. the voyage of the "Great White Fleet" was always aimed at the Japanese, and they apparently got the message, but were not cowered one bit. The rest is history. When you play poker, it's best not to overplay your hand or give away your strategy.

As far as Ronald Reagan, that was a grand stand play also. He accomplish it by keeping older ships in the fleet beyond the time when it was economical to repair them, recommissioned a couple of old battleships and did speed up the Nimitz class carrier construction and started the Ohio class submarines. All in all, it ran up a tremendous deficit and accomplished little in the way of geopolitics.

[steel_selachian]

Not to be a killjoy on the fine NWP tradition of tangential detours in threads, but didn't we open an established thread for this line of discussion?

http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?2264-Naval-Ship-Naming

[Sea Dragon]

To get the thread back on track.

The Royal Oman Navy is purchasing 2 very fine corvettes. Built by BAE they are for once not Big and Expensive projects. £400 million for the training and development of 3 Khareef class Corvettes.

Look like they could be fantastic corvettes, 1 Lynx sized helo, 75mm gun, 2 30mm guns, 4-8 AsuW missiles (Exocet most likely), 12 Mica VL.

1104

[old_pop2000]

To get the thread back on track.

The Royal Oman Navy is purchasing 2 very fine corvettes. Built by BAE they are for once not Big and Expensive projects. £400 million for the training and development of 3 Khareef class Corvettes.

Look like they could be fantastic corvettes, 1 Lynx sized helo, 75mm gun, 2 30mm guns, 4-8 AsuW missiles (Exocet most likely), 12 Mica VL.

1104

The first of these ships built by BAE in conjunction with VT systems was launched in 2009. Interesting ships with an endurance of about 21 days or 3500 NM @ 16 knots. They will be armed with the Block III Exocet missile with a range of 97 nm and the rapid fire version of the OTO Melara 76 mm gun. The second ship was launched in July 2010, the third was supposed to be launched in March of this year. These could be handy for coalition operations to keep the straits of Oman open, however, with only three, that could be a slim margin. They are ocean patrol vessels with a multi-role capability. So says the brochure knowledge.:)

http://www.muscatdaily.com/Archive/Stories-Files/Delivery-of-Khareef-corvettes-delayed

http://wn.com/Khareef_Class_Corvettes

[Sea Dragon]

These could be handy for coalition operations to keep the straits of Oman open, however, with only three, that could be a slim margin. They are ocean patrol vessels with a multi-role capability.

Personally I think the RN should go for them as oppossed to a Absalon type class for the C2 role. Before you all tell me off :P.

18-20 High end warships as planned, formed around the T45/T26.
20-24 Low end warships called the C2, Khareef class, Sea Skua 2 instead of Exocet, CAAM instead of Mica as it can be quad packed, use that extra space for 114mm

This would keep commonality with the rest of the fleet. CAAM and Sea Skua 2 are modest weapons, not requiring massive sensors but capable for daily patrol and showing the flag. 114mm is mainly to keep commonality with the rest of the fleet, the 114mm off the T22, T42 and retiring T23 could be used. Even more advantageous would be the fact that the majority of the design problems would have been ironed out. The weapons suggested are already in development. Thus they would still remain £200 million or under so long as the MoD observed proper business practice.

They would boost the fleet, be perfect for WIGs, Falklands Gaurd ship, Patroling the Med, Suez, Straights of Hormuz. Thus allowing the larger warships to focus on remaining part of Britains intervention/reaction groups.

Finally the C3 would no longer be such a confused class, it would be fishery protection and MCMV. 20 MCMV vessels would be ideal, 16 for normal duties in the gulf etc where they are very busy and the additional 4 so that 1-2 can always be ready to be deployed with a CBG or ARG. Doing only fishery protection means1-2 30mm guns would be sufficient.

About the only problem I see with this is the MoD would let BAE charge more than £200 million per "british" Khareef because of some silly reason despite the fact that CAAM and Sea Skua 2 are being designed for that type of vessel. Furthermore you would suddenly need another 20 Lynx Wildcat to take advantage of their hanger. Which comes in at around another £500 million.

Still I think it's a better solution than an Absalon class.

[paladin5]

Whiskey Long bin and Whiskey twin cylinder class subs

While were at it can we get Yankee Notch added as well.

[old_pop2000]

Personally I think the RN should go for them as oppossed to a Absalon type class for the C2 role. Before you all tell me off :P.

18-20 High end warships as planned, formed around the T45/T26.
20-24 Low end warships called the C2, Khareef class, Sea Skua 2 instead of Exocet, CAAM instead of Mica as it can be quad packed, use that extra space for 114mm

This would keep commonality with the rest of the fleet. CAAM and Sea Skua 2 are modest weapons, not requiring massive sensors but capable for daily patrol and showing the flag. 114mm is mainly to keep commonality with the rest of the fleet, the 114mm off the T22, T42 and retiring T23 could be used. Even more advantageous would be the fact that the majority of the design problems would have been ironed out. The weapons suggested are already in development. Thus they would still remain £200 million or under so long as the MoD observed proper business practice.

They would boost the fleet, be perfect for WIGs, Falklands Gaurd ship, Patroling the Med, Suez, Straights of Hormuz. Thus allowing the larger warships to focus on remaining part of Britains intervention/reaction groups.

Finally the C3 would no longer be such a confused class, it would be fishery protection and MCMV. 20 MCMV vessels would be ideal, 16 for normal duties in the gulf etc where they are very busy and the additional 4 so that 1-2 can always be ready to be deployed with a CBG or ARG. Doing only fishery protection means1-2 30mm guns would be sufficient.

About the only problem I see with this is the MoD would let BAE charge more than £200 million per "british" Khareef because of some silly reason despite the fact that CAAM and Sea Skua 2 are being designed for that type of vessel. Furthermore you would suddenly need another 20 Lynx Wildcat to take advantage of their hanger. Which comes in at around another £500 million.

Still I think it's a better solution than an Absalon class.

In the research on the two types of vessels, I've seen a trend of decentralizing capabilities to smaller ships to make them more secure. I can see value in this. The Khareef class of ship is a smaller type, Corvette if you will, but it does need more support from larger escorts like FFG's and destroyers along with a possible carrier battle group or land based air. It is well adapted to small wars, coastal patrols, anti-piracy but within reach of local ports because in endurance the corvette class cannot sustain itself for long. I am not certain this matches well with the British navy. Their geostrategic requirements are far different than Oman's, hence requirements and specifications are different. These types of ships are a much better class in place of the smaller coastal patrol boats, but not for anything else. Now, if the RN changes its geostrategic requirements, giving up its NATO obligations to focus on just North Sea and other local areas of operation, then this would be a good ship for that purpose. However, I don't see this happening. Libya is a good example of this.

Just one person's opinion, of course. I just believe in the top down approach to analysis, in this case, you start with overall strategy which will drive operational requirements and therefore tactical operations. Then, define the requirements and specifications from that. It was the way I was trained by the government.

[Sea Dragon]

In the research on the two types of vessels, I've seen a trend of decentralizing capabilities to smaller ships to make them more secure. I can see value in this. The Khareef class of ship is a smaller type, Corvette if you will, but it does need more support from larger escorts like FFG's and destroyers along with a possible carrier battle group or land based air. It is well adapted to small wars, coastal patrols, anti-piracy but within reach of local ports because in endurance the corvette class cannot sustain itself for long. I am not certain this matches well with the British navy. Their geostrategic requirements are far different than Oman's, hence requirements and specifications are different. These types of ships are a much better class in place of the smaller coastal patrol boats, but not for anything else. Now, if the RN changes its geostrategic requirements, giving up its NATO obligations to focus on just North Sea and other local areas of operation, then this would be a good ship for that purpose. However, I don't see this happening. Libya is a good example of this.

Just one person's opinion, of course. I just believe in the top down approach to analysis, in this case, you start with overall strategy which will drive operational requirements and therefore tactical operations. Then, define the requirements and specifications from that. It was the way I was trained by the government.

Except the Royal Navy has already but in a requirement for a class of medium capability, force stabilisation and patrol vessels. Also I would argue that it is very much in need of such a vessel. The UK still has several oversea's territories, running all the way down the Atlantic, the Falklands, the Antartic Territories, The West Indies, Gibralter, Malta, Bases in Cyprus and finally bases in the Indian ocean. All of these places could berth a Khareef size vessel due to it being less advanced and much smaller.

Most of those patrols do not need a destroyer, it is a waste of a high end unit that should be part of SAG's, CBG's or ARG's. However it would not be a waste of a Khareef that could do local deterence, anti-narcotics, anti-terrorism, anti-traficking and anti-piracy very well. In the event of war it can act as a "screen" for the CVBG, relying on the air cover and Air umbrella from a T45 but still being able to be deployed away from the carrier and help form another layer of defence.

More importantly these units could be forward based, Cyprus, Gibralter, the Falklands and the Indian Ocean bases could all take these. In and around the straits of Hormuz we already have Minesweepers permenantly based out there. Doing this with these vessels would be much easier than a destroyer. Much cheaper due to a smaller crew even for 2 of them. And much more efficient.

At the end of the day you don't see a requirement. I do, I see a requirement to not only project power but also to help in multiple small scale patrols and deterence requirements. Something that the Khareef class fits in perfectly. As such a High/Low fleet seems to make perfect sense.

[old_pop2000]

Except the Royal Navy has already but in a requirement for a class of medium capability, force stabilisation and patrol vessels. Also I would argue that it is very much in need of such a vessel. The UK still has several oversea's territories, running all the way down the Atlantic, the Falklands, the Antartic Territories, The West Indies, Gibralter, Malta, Bases in Cyprus and finally bases in the Indian ocean. All of these places could berth a Khareef size vessel due to it being less advanced and much smaller.

Most of those patrols do not need a destroyer, it is a waste of a high end unit that should be part of SAG's, CBG's or ARG's. However it would not be a waste of a Khareef that could do local deterence, anti-narcotics, anti-terrorism, anti-traficking and anti-piracy very well. In the event of war it can act as a "screen" for the CVBG, relying on the air cover and Air umbrella from a T45 but still being able to be deployed away from the carrier and help form another layer of defence.

More importantly these units could be forward based, Cyprus, Gibralter, the Falklands and the Indian Ocean bases could all take these. In and around the straits of Hormuz we already have Minesweepers permenantly based out there. Doing this with these vessels would be much easier than a destroyer. Much cheaper due to a smaller crew even for 2 of them. And much more efficient.

At the end of the day you don't see a requirement. I do, I see a requirement to not only project power but also to help in multiple small scale patrols and deterence requirements. Something that the Khareef class fits in perfectly. As such a High/Low fleet seems to make perfect sense.

If local patrolling in areas like the Falklands, and other locations is a requirement, then this type of boat would be perfect. It can't act as a screen for a CVBG for endurance and speed reasons. A ship of its length at 325 feet has a maximum speed to length of around 25 knots. A 900 foot QE class carrier has a speed of over 30 knots. No Admiral is going to risk his CVBG with escorts that are over 9 knots slower. The faster that Khareef goes, the less range and endurance it has which means more UNREP's and more fuel. I do see a requirement for local patrol boats, if the MoD establishes that strategic requirement. If they don't set that strategic requirement, then the ship is not necessary. Again, strategic requirements drive operational requirements which drive specifications.

So, does the British Defense Review specify this as a requirement is the question? Not directly, in the versions I've read. But they do stress coalition operations with the EU, NATO and other local nations like Oman. They also stress affordability. The review stresses LIC's or low intensity conflicts against opponents with no air force or navy. However, it does emphasis the need to be able to deal with a larger more sophisticated opponent who has all those assets. However, coalition operations are always stressed. IMO, the British do not have to equip the RN with such ships, just be able to operate with nations like Oman that do have the ships. This is the essential nature of coalition operations. So, does a singular requirement exist for the RN? No, but overall, for regional operations, the requirement does exist and can be adequately filled by ships from the nations in the region. They are better able to know the area and the requirements.

[Sea Dragon]

If local patrolling in areas like the Falklands, and other locations is a requirement, then this type of boat would be perfect. It can't act as a screen for a CVBG for endurance and speed reasons. A ship of its length at 325 feet has a maximum speed to length of around 25 knots. A 900 foot QE class carrier has a speed of over 30 knots. No Admiral is going to risk his CVBG with escorts that are over 9 knots slower. The faster that Khareef goes, the less range and endurance it has which means more UNREP's and more fuel. I do see a requirement for local patrol boats, if the MoD establishes that strategic requirement. If they don't set that strategic requirement, then the ship is not necessary. Again, strategic requirements drive operational requirements which drive specifications.

So, does the British Defense Review specify this as a requirement is the question? Not directly, in the versions I've read. But they do stress coalition operations with the EU, NATO and other local nations like Oman. They also stress affordability. The review stresses LIC's or low intensity conflicts against opponents with no air force or navy. However, it does emphasis the need to be able to deal with a larger more sophisticated opponent who has all those assets. However, coalition operations are always stressed. IMO, the British do not have to equip the RN with such ships, just be able to operate with nations like Oman that do have the ships. This is the essential nature of coalition operations. So, does a singular requirement exist for the RN? No, but overall, for regional operations, the requirement does exist and can be adequately filled by ships from the nations in the region. They are better able to know the area and the requirements.

The Queen Elizabeth class is required for 24 knots speed, top speed using IEP with 4 screws/Pods driven by 2 motors is more likely to be 27-29 knots top. Also given that there is talk of 1 screw/pod going due to cost saving measures this means the carrier is unlikely to be exceeding 27 knots. In which case you are looking at around 2 knots slower at top speed or cruising speed for that matter (16 versus 18).

The SDSR is a piece of rubbish, which lays out only 1 particularly sensible requirement which is to reduce the budget. The fact remains, The Royal Navy as a force that is a member of a country that is on the UN Security council MUST be able to preform a wide range of flexible operations. As well as defend the soverignty of it's territories and resources. Quite Frankly Oman for example cannot guarente defence of the Suez Canal because they are a coalition. An unsanctioned group may not be recognised as a threat by them and as a result may only hit British trade resource.

So the fact remains, Britain has the West Indies, Falklands, Antartic Territories and Gibralter with indigenous population of British Nationals. It has further territories running through the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and in the Med that are of vital strategic importance. Many of these are incapable of basing or maintaining 6,000 ton or more warship on a permenant basis. A small light frigate or corvette would be more than perfect for this duty.

Finally the 1998 review stressed that the Royal Navy needed 30 escorts to do the jobs the Navy requires. Nothing has changed, the world has got more dangerous, pirates are more prevelant, drug runners are more prevelant, natural disasters seem to be more prevelant. Yet the number of escorts mean the help of the Royal Navy in these vital but low key jobs is less prevelant. This is before we consider the fact that terrorism and threats to British trade, which makes up 90% of our income and export potential.

Sir Rupert Smith acknowledged this when giving evidence to the defence comitte with regards to the SDSR, and it's failing in acknowledging the importance in protecting British trade and British nationalists. Libya and Syria are only an example of the British government being incapable of doing this compared to multiple scenarios not much less than a decade ago where carriers, destroyers etc could all easily be diverted to such a role.

As such I disagree with you, Political and economical pressure has forced the Royal Navy into accepting less escorts, and the C1, C2 and C3 concepts being merged into the Type 26 and the C3. However we needed a MCMV/Fishery patrol vessel, a High End combatant AND a local stabilisation warship. Just like we needed 12 Type 45 were promised 8 and got 6.

Case in point, we have had to drop the WIGs which was a station that regularly proved it's worth in anti-narcotics, anti-piracy and humanitarian aid. Not to mention showing British presence in the West Indies and THUS showing political desire to retain the strategic importance of those Islands (again they look over an important trade canal and choke point).

I'm sorry but the more I consider the strategic situation in the world today and with Britain in general the more I disagree with you. A high/low force enables the number of escorts we need to do both NATO/UN and UK deployments without tying up a 6,000-8,000 ton warship chasing pirates/terrorists and risking it against such combatants. It enables the Royal Navy to stablise escort numbers. It also enables the Royal Navy to give younger officers precious experience that is so important to operating on a large warship as part of a Carrier Battle group or Amphibious reaction group. Finally it ensures that we can have fewer expensive vessels due to them being able to be asigned solely to coalition and CBG/ARG duties.

Just because the SDSR didn't acknowledge the requirement doesn't mean it isn't there. It didn't expect Libya, It didn't expect Syria, It didn't expect the need for carrier strike so soon or on many other accounts like the need for maritime survelience aircraft. That's all happened in less than a year since it was published. It has failed. The defence review is NOT a document to trust with regards to acknowledging and identifying the UK's needs. The premise of deficeit reduction is an unaviodable and important starting premise, but the document failed to deliver that in a sensible way, it also failed to identify how to rebuild the forces from that reduction. A major slip up given the oportunity in rebuilding the forces after cutting away everything but the core skeleton.

Finally having recently been aboard the HMS Cattistock as a visit before my AIB I know that the officers on board that ship certainly regard the RN as desperately needing a cheap vessel that can go and get the job done for LIC's, Peacetime deployment, Pressence generation and humanitarian relief until an RFA/Charity help arrives. I would suggest that they know what the RN needs.

EDIT:

On that note, perhaps a mod can move this into a seperate thread. After trying to get the thread back on topic I seem to have derailed it again. Sorry :(

[old_pop2000]

The Queen Elizabeth class is required for 24 knots speed, top speed using IEP with 4 screws/Pods driven by 2 motors is more likely to be 27-29 knots top. Also given that there is talk of 1 screw/pod going due to cost saving measures this means the carrier is unlikely to be exceeding 27 knots. In which case you are looking at around 2 knots slower at top speed or cruising speed for that matter (16 versus 18).

The SDSR is a piece of rubbish, which lays out only 1 particularly sensible requirement which is to reduce the budget. The fact remains, The Royal Navy as a force that is a member of a country that is on the UN Security council MUST be able to preform a wide range of flexible operations. As well as defend the soverignty of it's territories and resources. Quite Frankly Oman for example cannot guarente defence of the Suez Canal because they are a coalition. An unsanctioned group may not be recognised as a threat by them and as a result may only hit British trade resource.

So the fact remains, Britain has the West Indies, Falklands, Antartic Territories and Gibralter with indigenous population of British Nationals. It has further territories running through the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and in the Med that are of vital strategic importance. Many of these are incapable of basing or maintaining 6,000 ton or more warship on a permenant basis. A small light frigate or corvette would be more than perfect for this duty.

Finally the 1998 review stressed that the Royal Navy needed 30 escorts to do the jobs the Navy requires. Nothing has changed, the world has got more dangerous, pirates are more prevelant, drug runners are more prevelant, natural disasters seem to be more prevelant. Yet the number of escorts mean the help of the Royal Navy in these vital but low key jobs is less prevelant. This is before we consider the fact that terrorism and threats to British trade, which makes up 90% of our income and export potential.

Sir Rupert Smith acknowledged this when giving evidence to the defence comitte with regards to the SDSR, and it's failing in acknowledging the importance in protecting British trade and British nationalists. Libya and Syria are only an example of the British government being incapable of doing this compared to multiple scenarios not much less than a decade ago where carriers, destroyers etc could all easily be diverted to such a role.

As such I disagree with you, Political and economical pressure has forced the Royal Navy into accepting less escorts, and the C1, C2 and C3 concepts being merged into the Type 26 and the C3. However we needed a MCMV/Fishery patrol vessel, a High End combatant AND a local stabilisation warship. Just like we needed 12 Type 45 were promised 8 and got 6.

Case in point, we have had to drop the WIGs which was a station that regularly proved it's worth in anti-narcotics, anti-piracy and humanitarian aid. Not to mention showing British presence in the West Indies and THUS showing political desire to retain the strategic importance of those Islands (again they look over an important trade canal and choke point).

I'm sorry but the more I consider the strategic situation in the world today and with Britain in general the more I disagree with you. A high/low force enables the number of escorts we need to do both NATO/UN and UK deployments without tying up a 6,000-8,000 ton warship chasing pirates/terrorists and risking it against such combatants. It enables the Royal Navy to stablise escort numbers. It also enables the Royal Navy to give younger officers precious experience that is so important to operating on a large warship as part of a Carrier Battle group or Amphibious reaction group. Finally it ensures that we can have fewer expensive vessels due to them being able to be asigned solely to coalition and CBG/ARG duties.

Just because the SDSR didn't acknowledge the requirement doesn't mean it isn't there. It didn't expect Libya, It didn't expect Syria, It didn't expect the need for carrier strike so soon or on many other accounts like the need for maritime survelience aircraft. That's all happened in less than a year since it was published. It has failed. The defence review is NOT a document to trust with regards to acknowledging and identifying the UK's needs. The premise of deficeit reduction is an unaviodable and important starting premise, but the document failed to deliver that in a sensible way, it also failed to identify how to rebuild the forces from that reduction. A major slip up given the oportunity in rebuilding the forces after cutting away everything but the core skeleton.

Finally having recently been aboard the HMS Cattistock as a visit before my AIB I know that the officers on board that ship certainly regard the RN as desperately needing a cheap vessel that can go and get the job done for LIC's, Peacetime deployment, Pressence generation and humanitarian relief until an RFA/Charity help arrives. I would suggest that they know what the RN needs.

EDIT:

On that note, perhaps a mod can move this into a seperate thread. After trying to get the thread back on topic I seem to have derailed it again. Sorry :(

I've explained my position and it disagrees with yours. So be it. May be others will want to join in.

[steel_selachian]

Looks like the RAN is happy to buy more Seahawks as opposed to buying into the NH90 ASW variant - http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/16/358074/australia-inks-a3bn-deal-for-24-mh-60r-naval-helicopters.html

[Armand2REP]

Here's one for a model...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGL_Hj6dNb0

[JollySam]

I would like to request HMS Vanguard; the last battleship built by Great Britain. It was completed just too late to take part in WW2, so it would be interesting to see how it fares in Fleet Command.

Actually, theres a general lack of battleships in Fleet Command. I know that only the US has battleships anymore (and those are either in reserve or retirement) but it would be nice to see (for example) USS Iowa in Fleet Command. It did see some action after the war, after all. It was equipped with some modern anti-aircraft weapons too.

Finally, anyone feel like making the cruiser HMS Belfast? Its now a museum on the Thames, and is the last big-gunned warship of WW2 in Europe. It saw action in both WW2 and the Korean war.

So, HMS Vanguard, HMS Belfast, and USS Iowa are my requests. Or has someone made these already?

[steel_selachian]

I would like to request HMS Vanguard; the last battleship built by Great Britain. It was completed just too late to take part in WW2, so it would be interesting to see how it fares in Fleet Command.

Actually, theres a general lack of battleships in Fleet Command. I know that only the US has battleships anymore (and those are either in reserve or retirement) but it would be nice to see (for example) USS Iowa in Fleet Command. It did see some action after the war, after all. It was equipped with some modern anti-aircraft weapons too.

Finally, anyone feel like making the cruiser HMS Belfast? Its now a museum on the Thames, and is the last big-gunned warship of WW2 in Europe. It saw action in both WW2 and the Korean war.

So, HMS Vanguard, HMS Belfast, and USS Iowa are my requests. Or has someone made these already?

Check the info about NWP; at present it covers the 1965-2015 timeline. If we're going to change that envelope, it's probably going to be the future end as 2015 isn't that far off and we already have a number of units that won't enter service until after then. IIRC Vanguard, Belfast, and most of the other big-gun ships were scrapped or awaiting that fate by 1965. We have theIowa-class ships, both in Vietnam (for BB-62 only) and 1980s configurations. The RN Tiger-class is in the game, as well as the Soviet Sverdlovs, the Argentine General Belgrano, the US CAGs and CLGs of the Vietnam era, and a few other gun cruisers that survived into the late 1960s and later.

Speaking of which though, I'd really like to seeUSS Newport News (CA-148) in the game. She was in commission until 1975 and saw service in Vietnam; those auto-loading 8-inch guns could fire 7 shots per minute per barrel. That would be a hell of an add to a period shore-bombardment or gun duel scenario.

[O.K.]

I would like to request HMS Vanguard; the last battleship built by Great Britain. It was completed just too late to take part in WW2, so it would be interesting to see how it fares in Fleet Command.

Actually, theres a general lack of battleships in Fleet Command. I know that only the US has battleships anymore (and those are either in reserve or retirement) but it would be nice to see (for example) USS Iowa in Fleet Command. It did see some action after the war, after all. It was equipped with some modern anti-aircraft weapons too.

Finally, anyone feel like making the cruiser HMS Belfast? Its now a museum on the Thames, and is the last big-gunned warship of WW2 in Europe. It saw action in both WW2 and the Korean war.

So, HMS Vanguard, HMS Belfast, and USS Iowa are my requests. Or has someone made these already?

Hey JollySam :-)

NWP download is here: http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?66-NWS-NAVAL-WARFARE-PROJECT-INFORMATION-AND-DOWNLOADS

Some additional scenarios are here: http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?1719-Fleet-Command-NWP-Submitted-scenarios-thread

A new version 19.2 will appear soon.

Enjoy.

[JollySam]

HMS Belfast went into reserve in 1963, and was only actually retired in 1971, so I think it's still a possible candidate for the NWP mod.

I'm interested in the Iowa as well, and the Tiger class cruisers. I never even heard of those until you mentioned them; I guess I just assumed that HMS Belfast was the last of the Royal Navy's big-gun ships. Tell me though, was the Iowa's 1980's configuration the same as in the 1990's, where this game is set?

Thanks.

[JollySam]

Thanks, O.K., I'll check the mod out.

[paladin5]

HMS Belfast went into reserve in 1963, and was only actually retired in 1971, so I think it's still a possible candidate for the NWP mod.

I'm interested in the Iowa as well, and the Tiger class cruisers. I never even heard of those until you mentioned them; I guess I just assumed that HMS Belfast was the last of the Royal Navy's big-gun ships. Tell me though, was the Iowa's 1980's configuration the same as in the 1990's, where this game is set?

Thanks.

The 1980's configuration represents the final weapons configuration that they carried from their recommissioning in the 1980's until their retirement in the early 1990's.

BTW. Is there anyway we are can get a version that strips out all of the TASM's and replaces them with TLAM's. The current configuration isn't useful for much other then being a missile sponge.

[JollySam]

The 1980's configuration represents the final weapons configuration that they carried from their recommissioning in the 1980's until their retirement in the early 1990's.

Thanks Paladin5, I'm glad to hear that.

The Iowa 1980 model is great, its nice to have a full battleship in Fleet Command, finally. But someone should really add some textures to it. Or, again, has someone already done that?

[Saffron]

Would like to see these added for Germany at some point:


A first batch of four frigates of the F125 class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F125) (Baden-Württemberg class) specialised for persistent stabilization missions is planned to replace some of the older Bremen class warships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warship) (eight guided-missile frigates). Each F125 will have two crews. They are expected to enter service between 2016 and 2018.

1148

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F125

[astute97]

maybe a skin for the upholder/victoria class?
1302

[Fleet Command CC]

Hey astute97.

I think that one as been re-done by Fox.

[astute97]

Perhaps a version of the type45 destroyer without the harpoon launchers, or the type 26 frigate?

[Fleet Command CC]

Perhaps a version of the type45 destroyer without the harpoon launchers, or the type 26 frigate?

Hey astute97.

I could send you a Type D45 without the harpoon launchers if you would like, but it won't be added to the mod because RN can add them at any time.

On the Type F26 this is on the to do list.

[astute97]

Hey astute97.

I could send you a Type D45 without the harpoon launchers if you would like, but it won't be added to the mod because RN can add them at any time.

On the Type F26 this is on the to do list.
please do, ps i noticed that the type 45 also dosent have tommohaws although it can be fitted with them
Also i watched a video on youtube with a skin for the Queen Elizabeth ( the old model before the government screwed up massively) and in game it is represented with the charells de gulle.
same with the astute as trafalgar, do you know where i can get the skins?
thanks

[Saffron]

Also i watched a video on youtube with a skin for the Queen Elizabeth ( the old model before the government screwed up massively) and in game it is represented with the charells de gulle.
What happened to the QE model made my Smiling Albert some time ago? Granted, it was unfinished and needed a bit of work, but it's much better than using the Charles DeGaulle.

[The Warrior]

What happened to the QE model made my Smiling Albert some time ago? Granted, it was unfinished and needed a bit of work, but it's much better than using the Charles DeGaulle.

Hey there Saffron. The QE CV is in the game.

[steel_selachian]

Hey there Saffron. The QE CV is in the game.

That could be improved - I'm not crazy about the billboard radar painted with the White Ensign atop the bridge and the deck is still in the ski-jump configuration. I seem to recall another QE posted on the models thread quite some years ago that IMHO was a bit less cartoonish. Armament also needs corrected on the QE; 3x Phalanx Block 1B CIWS instead of RAM launchers.

I'm still nosing through the latest release, but one thing I've noticed so far is that the F-15S was added to Singapore as the F-15SG. The SG is actually a derivative of the South Korean F-15K with the addition of an APG-63(V)3 AESA. We also still need UK F-35C versions.


please do, ps i noticed that the type 45 also dosent have tommohaws although it can be fitted with them

Also i watched a video on youtube with a skin for the Queen Elizabeth ( the old model before the government screwed up massively) and in game it is represented with the charells de gulle.
same with the astute as trafalgar, do you know where i can get the skins?
thanks

The current version has new models for the Astute, Trafalgar, Vanguard, Swiftsure, Valiant/Dreadnought and a whole bunch of other subs. As far as the T45, the only way it can carry Tomahawks if I recall is if the SYLVER VLS is ripped out and replaced with a US Mk. 41 system. That's possible but I wouldn't expect it to be done given the costs and the probability that the combat systems would have to be revised to use Standard and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles rather than ASTER. In theory they could not only be refitted to take a strike-length Mk. 41 VLS and all associated goodies (Tomahawks, VL-ASROCs, SMs, ESSMs) but an extra 16-24 VLS cells, a 155 mm gun, and torpedo tubes. Again however, it's doubtful the RN has any plans to do that in the foreseeable future - as is the ships didn't have CIWS until last year, when Phalanx units from decommissioned T42s were installed.

[steel_selachian]

Seeing as the former Varyag has put to sea with the PLAN and a new weapons fit, it may be time to finally include a Chinese carrier with an air wing. I've done that in the database along with the Type 051C DDG.

[The Warrior]

Seeing as the former Varyag has put to sea with the PLAN and a new weapons fit, it may be time to finally include a Chinese carrier with an air wing. I've done that in the database along with the Type 051C DDG.

It's on the to do list.

[steel_selachian]

It's on the to do list.

For reference - my crackpot radar is lighting off here, but this guy seems to have assembled a decent analysis and illustration of the ex-Varyag's current weapons and sensors fit.

http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/varyagtransform.htm

[The Warrior]

For reference - my crackpot radar is lighting off here, but this guy seems to have assembled a decent analysis and illustration of the ex-Varyag's current weapons and sensors fit.

http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/varyagtransform.htm

Oh man. I love this guy and his site. This how I've been keeping up there carrier programe.

[steel_selachian]

Oh man. I love this guy and his site. This how I've been keeping up there carrier programe.

He does seem to have done a good job keeping track of the ex-Varyag's refit and the newer hulls coming out of the PRC shipyards, however I'll put that site in the same category as Carlo Kopp's Air Power Australia - take in the technical details and filter out the overblown threat rating.

I did mock up a "Shi Lang CV" in the database based on those specs; for the FL-3000N I "cloned" the RIM-116A, reduced the range to match the brochure figure, and dumbed down the doctrine a notch. For the J-15s I just cloned the Su-33 and gave it a mostly Chinese weapons fit with AAW, STK, and two SUW variants and put 28 of those on the deck plus a mix of Ka-28A, Ka-31, and Zhi-8 helos. I'll just say her self-defense suite is a major downgrade from the Kuznetsov; once I sank her primary AAW escorts with sub-fired torpedoes I easily killed her with a hail of AGM-88Es and SDBs. Then again, the Lanzhou DDG is a nasty customer - in another mission I fired 56 AGM-84Ds at a six-ship SAG consisting of a Lanzhou, a Jiangkai-II FFG, a Jiangwei-II FFG, an upgraded Luda DDG, and two older Jianghu FFGs and only sank the Jiangwei and the Luda.

[steel_selachian]

Two notes for the Russian Navy:

1) The first of their four Mistral-class LHDs, Vladivostok, was laid down at Saint-Nazaire with delivery expected in 2014; second unit will possibly be named Sevastopol ​and deliver in 2015.

2) The Lada-class SSK project is on hold reportedly due to issues with the Sankt Petersburg; construction of two additional boats is suspended while the first unit is utilized as an experimental trials platform. The Russian Navy has 6 Project 636 Kilos (Kilo SSK* in NWP) under construction or on order for 2013 onward, possibly as replacements.

[The Warrior]

He does seem to have done a good job keeping track of the ex-Varyag's refit and the newer hulls coming out of the PRC shipyards, however I'll put that site in the same category as Carlo Kopp's Air Power Australia - take in the technical details and filter out the overblown threat rating.

I did mock up a "Shi Lang CV" in the database based on those specs; for the FL-3000N I "cloned" the RIM-116A, reduced the range to match the brochure figure, and dumbed down the doctrine a notch. For the J-15s I just cloned the Su-33 and gave it a mostly Chinese weapons fit with AAW, STK, and two SUW variants and put 28 of those on the deck plus a mix of Ka-28A, Ka-31, and Zhi-8 helos. I'll just say her self-defense suite is a major downgrade from the Kuznetsov; once I sank her primary AAW escorts with sub-fired torpedoes I easily killed her with a hail of AGM-88Es and SDBs. Then again, the Lanzhou DDG is a nasty customer - in another mission I fired 56 AGM-84Ds at a six-ship SAG consisting of a Lanzhou, a Jiangkai-II FFG, a Jiangwei-II FFG, an upgraded Luda DDG, and two older Jianghu FFGs and only sank the Jiangwei and the Luda.

Hi Steel_selachian.

Can you send me the stats for the FL-3000 your using please. you can PM me or sen it to petrinis4u@aol.com. Thanks.

[steel_selachian]

Actually, upon rechecking what brochure info I could find the range should be the same as the RIM-116 (9 km or 10,000 yards), although personally I'm a little suspicious of that. The FL-3000N is considerably shorter than the RIM-116 (2 meters versus 2.8 meters) and of slightly smaller diameter (120 mm versus 127 mm), which might translate to decreased range. However the the TY-90 micro-AAM the FL-3000N is based off of also has a much smaller warhead than RAM or Sidewinder (3 kg versus 11.3 kg); if they didn't scale up the warhead significantly when they increased the FL-3000N's airframe diameter from 90 mm to 120 mm it might trade off warhead size for rocket propellant to match the RIM-116's range despite the smaller dimensions.

[steel_selachian]

Three new Flight-IIA Arleigh Burke-class DDGs named:

DDG-113 John Finn
DDG-114 Ralph Johnson
DDG-115 Rafael Peralta

[steel_selachian]

Russian Navy signed a deal for 20 MiG-29K and 4 MiG-29KUB, presumably to equip the Admiral Kuznetsov​ after her scheduled mid-life refit.

[Fleet Command CC]

That could be improved - I'm not crazy about the billboard radar painted with the White Ensign atop the bridge and the deck is still in the ski-jump configuration. I seem to recall another QE posted on the models thread quite some years ago that IMHO was a bit less cartoonish. Armament also needs corrected on the QE; 3x Phalanx Block 1B CIWS instead of RAM launchers.

I mean to reply to this sometime ago but forgot.

On the radar having the White Ensign was me just having a bit of fun no real reason for it, about the sky-jump the QE CVF may still have it went launched, its the PoW that won't have the ski-jump. I know the model your on about the person that made it never got back to me with the update version of the model. I gave him a lot of help and I got nothing out of it this is one of the reasons why I can be a bit of an a**h**e sometimes.

On the armament of the CVF weapon systems haven't been finalised yet! There been a lot going on about this in the Admiralty they may use, Aster missiles or Goalkeepers or Phalanx's or New Sea Ceptor or Sea Ram, also I had heard that they may have two systems cannons and missiles which I think would be for the best.

What I would like to see on them is the six Goalkeepers and two 48 cell SYLVER A50 VLS or the new MK 57 VLS modules on them but that's never going to happen I can hope I guess. How I see it the two bird farms will most likely have no armaments a tall to start with, that if they ever end up in the RN anyway.

[steel_selachian]

I mean to reply to this sometime ago but forgot.

On the radar having the White Ensign was me just having a bit of fun no real reason for it, about the sky-jump the QE CVF may still have it went launched, its the PoW that won't have the ski-jump. I know the model your on about the person that made it never got back to me with the update version of the model. I gave him a lot of help and I got nothing out of it this is one of the reasons why I can be a bit of an a**h**e sometimes.

On the armament of the CVF weapon systems haven't been finalised yet! There been a lot going on about this in the Admiralty they may use, Aster missiles or Goalkeepers or Phalanx's or New Sea Ceptor or Sea Ram, also I had heard that they may have two systems cannons and missiles which I think would be for the best.

What I would like to see on them is the six Goalkeepers and two 48 cell SYLVER A50 VLS or the new MK 57 VLS modules on them but that's never going to happen I can hope I guess. How I see it the two bird farms will most likely have no armaments a tall to start with, that if they ever end up in the RN anyway.

I'd kind of think that the QE wouldn't have the ski-jump; after all the whole idea behind keeping her in "extended readiness" (note air quotes) is so she can be refitted as a backup to the PoW. Doesn't make much sense if they would have to rip off the front end of the flight deck first, but then again the MoD is not an organization that frequently makes sense. Also, should the RN decide to use her as a giant LPH during her short term in service (something I plan on simulating by giving her an airgroup of about 2 dozen Chinooks plus Apaches and Lynxes in a scenario), not having a skijump would add a lot of usable space for helos.

In general if the bird farm has to use CIWS, something's gone very wrong. Also remember that the more SAMs you add, that's flight deck space taken up and an extra ordnance hazard (stuff happens, like when the Saratoga​ accidentally blasted a Turkish DD with a Sea Sparrow). Even the Ford-class CVNs are only getting a 2/2/2 mix of Phalanx/21-round RAM/8-round ESSM installations. I wouldn't be surprised if the CVF ships only get 3 Block 1B guns if anything (odds are good QE will go unarmed, since she'll be sent to mothballs after two years).

[xav]

On top of my head some units that would be nice to see:

Turkish MILGEM corvette
UAE Falaj 2 stealth coastal FPB
China Type 022
China Type 056 corvette
China Type 071
Both types of LCS
Royal Danish Navy Absalon
A generic type of "midget" sub (Iran and North Korea comes to mind)
Sigma class (by Damen, sold to many countries like Morocco, Malaysia etc)
Meko class (TKMS)
Gowind (DCNS)

[grivie]

Hello gents,

Is there a way that the original F-14 graphic, the one used in the vanilla game, be imported into the NWP mod? The one that is currently available is not as good looking, but more importantly will not sweep it's wings back when accelerating or at max speed. Thanks.

[steel_selachian]

Hello gents,

Is there a way that the original F-14 graphic, the one used in the vanilla game, be imported into the NWP mod? The one that is currently available is not as good looking, but more importantly will not sweep it's wings back when accelerating or at max speed. Thanks.

It's still in the graphics files, so yes. Although that model has the wings permanently swept back unless it's destroyed, in which case one wing is blown off and the other seems to dislocate straight through the wing glove.

I will say that personally I much prefer the new models and skins; nothing like watching that VF-84 F-14A smoke some bandits!

[FoxAlfa]

Just to check you don't like this Tomcats?

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/332/2/a/f_14_tomcat_by_alfafox-d4hjyyf.jpg


Hello gents,

Is there a way that the original F-14 graphic, the one used in the vanilla game, be imported into the NWP mod? The one that is currently available is not as good looking, but more importantly will not sweep it's wings back when accelerating or at max speed. Thanks.

[grivie]

Just to check you don't like this Tomcats?

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/332/2/a/f_14_tomcat_by_alfafox-d4hjyyf.jpg

LOL...Ok I could have used a better choice of words. These are great looking, although I have not used them all. Really what I would like is the wings to sweep back when it's hammer time. Maybe it's something on my end. I assure you, the models look great :)

[grivie]

It's still in the graphics files, so yes. Although that model has the wings permanently swept back unless it's destroyed, in which case one wing is blown off and the other seems to dislocate straight through the wing glove.

I will say that personally I much prefer the new models and skins; nothing like watching that VF-84 F-14A smoke some bandits!

I agree nothng like watching them launch AIM-54 Phoenix missiles at bandits! But I just love when they transform from min to max speed and the wings sweep back ;)

[grivie]

Just to check you don't like this Tomcats?

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/332/2/a/f_14_tomcat_by_alfafox-d4hjyyf.jpg

BTW just to so you know FoxAlfa, I truly believe that your work is fantastic. Love all of the models that you have designed and have been imported into the mod. If I has to guess I would say you do this for a living. Now if you can just get a QE model in the mod to replace the one that is currently being used... ;)

[steel_selachian]

I agree nothng like watchiing them launch AIM-54 Phoenix at bandits! But I just love when they transform from min to max speed and the wings sweep back ;)

I don't think any of the models do that; it's something outside the capabilities of the FC engine. Now there is an older version of those Tomcat models in the graphics file that does have the wings swept all the way back; it has a sort of mottled gray skin (rather than one of FoxAlfa's gorgeous paintjobs) so I sometimes use it as a present-day Iranian F-14A.

[grivie]

I don't think any of the models do that; it's something outside the capabilities of the FC engine. Now there is an older version of those Tomcat models in the graphics file that does have the wings swept all the way back; it has a sort of mottled gray skin (rather than one of FoxAlfa's gorgeous paintjobs) so I sometimes use it as a present-day Iranian F-14A.

It certainly is within the FC engine capabilities ;). If you install vanilla Jane's and use the Ronald Regan CVN, launch an F-14, give it a destination about 20 miles away and SHIFT + 1, the wings swing forward. If you SHIFT + 3, they will sweep back and giddy up to max speed :). I just checked it to be sure my meds aren't messing with me lol. I can only imagine how sweeter FoxAlfa's models would be with this option!!!!!

[old_pop2000]

Someone might want to verify F-14s on board the CVN-76. She never deployed in 2006, her first deployment, with F-14s; FA-18E and Cs(N). Just a suggestion

[steel_selachian]

Someone might want to verify F-14s on board the CVN-76. She never deployed in 2006, her first deployment, with F-14s; FA-18E and Cs(N). Just a suggestion

If grivie is referring to a "vanilla" FC mission there rather than NWP, the Nimitz-class ships (or for that matter, the Enterprises and Kitty Hawks) all have the same late-1990s airwing composition - 12 F-14, 36 legacy F/A-18, 4 EA-6, 8 S-3, 4 E-2, etc.

[grivie]

Indeed you are correct. Not sure what CVN-76 RR deployed with in real life on 2006, but in "vanilla" FC they are aboard. The point was to clarify that I was positive it was not a game engine limitation; it can be done ;)

[Saffron]

I remember this topic being brought up many many years ago, and it was discovered that the F-14 wing-sweep was specific to the vanilla model and couldn't be transferred to any new models because it was part of the source code - which no one had access to. So while the engine may be capable of it, getting it to work with new models may be impossible.

[grivie]

I remember this topic being brought up many many years ago, and it was discovered that the F-14 wing-sweep was specific to the vanilla model and couldn't be transferred to any new models because it was part of the source code - which no one had access to. So while the engine may be capable of it, getting it to work with new models may be impossible.

Hummm...that sounds odd. If that was the case then why parts of other models are able to rotate/spin/whatever? I'm certainly not arguing with you about this, but that seems odd. Why would just this part be hard coded and not any other moving part? I don't think it has anything to do with the game engine, but the model itself.

[Fleet Command CC]

Hummm...that sounds odd. If that was the case then why parts of other models are able to rotate/spin/whatever? I'm certainly not arguing with you about this, but that seems odd. Why would just this part be hard coded and not any other moving part? I don't think it has anything to do with the game engine, but the model itself.

Hello grive and others.

Seem like you guys have been a bit busy talking about the F14, Saffron is quite right the F-14 wing-sweep is coded into the .exe file and it is name specific too.

i.e.

For the wings to sweep on the stock model of the F-14 (F14.j3d, F14_m.j3d, F14_d.j3d) the Object Record name must be F-14 Tomcat and the 3DObject Record name must be F-14 Tomcat. You can add a new model that could have sweeping wings but it must be call F-14 Tomcat in the data base that is fact!
Its also the same for the carriers with there aircraft lifts, there Object Record, 3DObject Record names are specific for the lifts to move up and down.

The name F-14 Tomcat was hard coded into the .exe file, I worked this out many years ago, I also ask Sonalysts to be sure and they told me I was right. Mike D also ask too many years before me and he was told the same.

I'm not going to go into detail on how to do it on this thread because its a Unit Request, if you would like to know post a new on this forum or my forum.

[grivie]

Hello grive and others.

Seem like you guys have been a bit busy talking about the F14, Saffron is quite right the F-14 wing-sweep is coded into the .exe file and it is name specific too.

i.e.

For the wings to sweep on the stock model of the F-14 (F14.j3d, F14_m.j3d, F14_d.j3d) the Object Record name must be F-14 Tomcat and the 3DObject Record name must be F-14 Tomcat. You can add a new model that could have sweeping wings but it must be call F-14 Tomcat in the data base that is fact!
Its also the same for the carriers with there aircraft lifts, there Object Record, 3DObject Record names are specific for the lifts to move up and down.

The name F-14 Tomcat was hard coded into the .exe file, I worked this out many years ago, I also ask Sonalysts to be sure and they told me I was right. Mike D also ask too many years before me and he was told the same.

I'm not going to go into detail on how to do it on this thread because its a Unit Request, if you would like to know post a new on this forum or my forum.

Dang! So if I understand this correctly, SCS decided for who knows what reason to encode the F-14 and carrier elevators in the exe and not anything else. I ain't no coder, but that just sounds plain dumb.

And with this limitation we cannot enjoy the gorgeous models that FoxAlpha has created with this most unique aspect of these fantastic aircraft. So if I really wanted to know, how can I get one of FoxAlphas models to do this? It's going to suck to have to chose only one of them, but I would probably choose the one that would have been deployed on one of our Nimitz carriers. Man this sucks :(.

BTW Saffron, good memory ;)

Scratch that...I'll open a new thread in the How to section.

[Fleet Command CC]

I'd kind of think that the QE wouldn't have the ski-jump; after all the whole idea behind keeping her in "extended readiness" (note air quotes) is so she can be refitted as a backup to the PoW. Doesn't make much sense if they would have to rip off the front end of the flight deck first, but then again the MoD is not an organization that frequently makes sense. Also, should the RN decide to use her as a giant LPH during her short term in service (something I plan on simulating by giving her an airgroup of about 2 dozen Chinooks plus Apaches and Lynxes in a scenario), not having a skijump would add a lot of usable space for helos.

Well that's what happens went you get a change of government in the UK-GB everything get mess up (not the words I wanted to use) but you should know what I would have like to have said.

The Labour government plan was to have the HMS QE with the Ski-jump, so they could use the GR9's on it and till the JSF jump jet was ready and all the problems iron out. Then the HMS PoW was going to be a CATOBAR carrier, and went the PoW was ready to go the HMS QE was going to become a big LPH with the add valve of the JSF jump jet.

This new gov't has mess it all and added more cost to the project which is nothing new.


In general if the bird farm has to use CIWS, something's gone very wrong. Also remember that the more SAMs you add, that's flight deck space taken up and an extra ordnance hazard (stuff happens, like when the Saratoga​ accidentally blasted a Turkish DD with a Sea Sparrow). Even the Ford-class CVNs are only getting a 2/2/2 mix of Phalanx/21-round RAM/8-round ESSM installations. I wouldn't be surprised if the CVF ships only get 3 Block 1B guns if anything (odds are good QE will go unarmed, since she'll be sent to mothballs after two years).

Yes I know it take up more space and there's an extra hazard, but the these carriers are going to need to be able to protect themselves, because the RN has only got six T45 which meant only four of them will be available at any one time. You can't put the USN and RN in the same category have you not seen how small the RN is now. USN has got a lot DDG,FFG,CG that can protect its new carriers, but the RN hasn't got enought DDG or FFG to protect its new carriers.
These two bird farm need to be able to protect themselves in my opinion, I'm not sure if you know this but they are not going to have any armor plating.

[Fleet Command CC]

Dang! So if I understand this correctly, SCS decided for who knows what reason to encode the F-14 and carrier elevators in the exe and not anything else. I ain't no coder, but that just sounds plain dumb.

Yep you got it in one, real stupid methinks but having said that it might have been all about time, because doing hard codeing is hard and takes a lot men hours.


And with this limitation we cannot enjoy the gorgeous models that FoxAlpha has created with this most unique aspect of these fantastic aircraft. So if I really wanted to know, how can I get one of FoxAlphas models to do this? It's going to suck to have to chose only one of them, but I would probably choose the one that would have been deployed on one of our Nimitz carriers. Man this sucks :(.

BTW Saffron, good memory ;)

Scratch that...I'll open a new thread in the How to section.

Ok cool I will answer there then.

[grivie]

Scratch that again...posted on your forum instead ;)

[Fleet Command CC]

Scratch that again...posted on your forum instead ;)

Ok thats cool with me niceone.