Jump to content

Vietnam War - POLL


Hueyman

Vietnam War - POLL  

1090 members have voted

  1. 1. Vietnam War - POLL

    • Yes, it would create a new dimension to the DCS World simulator
    • No, I prefer 3rds to still work on aircrafts, and to fly in the same old Caucasus


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, ustio said:

This confuses me. what else is ED going to make when they finish the Mig-29?.

 

Rafale?

I don't think so since Razbam has better conection with AdA

 

Grippen?

Wasn't the reason why HB didn't make JA-37 was because there are still classified system in the JA-37 which is still being use in the Grippen.

 

Tornado ?

They already said they wont

 

SU-27

The russian governent doesn't allowed them.

 

Unless ED is going for full WW2 i don't see any other options

 

 

 It looks like they might be trying to focus on the Pacific theater one of the big wigs with eagle loves the hellcat. I just hope if that happens then we get some more ships and improvements there. Though the Korean era or middle east might be on their list. I hope they will at least do the other F-110

149405-f-110-af-4b-9-mc-62-12168-mcdonne

to dog fight the F-110 we already have 

5008ee2a750350a08d05bab068658ac9.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, WelshZeCorgi said:

Yes, though I believe it is an exported version of the model? So less capabilities than the ones used by the USSR/Russia. 

 

AFAIK, it's supposed to be a Soviet 9-12 MiG-29 'Fulcrum A'. But from what I gather it's still 'hope to', they haven't confirmed it or what it'll actually be yet. 

  • Thanks 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2021 at 1:06 PM, Northstar98 said:

 

AFAIK, it's supposed to be a Soviet 9-12 MiG-29 'Fulcrum A'. But from what I gather it's still 'hope to', they haven't confirmed it or what it'll actually be yet. 

Fulcrum A is the nato designation. On russian forums they said 9.12 wich is the russian version

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2021 at 2:05 AM, upyr1 said:

What MiG variants were used in Vietnam? I know we don't have the right MiG-21, but how about 19? Also is the right 17 planned?

Instead of MiG-19, Chinese Shenyang J-6 was more common as far as I know. I believe Razbam intents to add MiG-19S as well, without gunnery radar and the ability to carry missiles, but with an additional 30mm gun and I think also slightly nicer handling maybe. MiG-19S would fit fairly decently. Current 19P is probably not quite the right variant, but could probably take part.

 

MiG-17F should fit I think, and there *may* be one in development right now. It's from a new group who wants to become an official 3rd party with a MiG-17F, but ED seems to be lukewarm at best so far on their efforts. But they may prove themselves.

 

As for the Fishbed variants, I think most numerous was the MiG-21F-13 and to lesser degree MiG-21PF and PFM. Late in war, small numbers of MiG-21MF was also introduced unless I am mistaken. MiG-21Bis we have out accelerate and out climb the hell out of any of these, especially at low to medium altitudes. It also has a considerably better radar. Other advantages it has like weapons and countermeasures can be disabled in mission design, but inherent performance difference and avionics upgrades it has can't.

 

On the other side of the fence, UH-1H we have has access to a few small post-war capabilities I think but overall it would fit ok. Short hull Hueys were more associated with Veitnam war, but H did operate in it too, even if later. F-5E we have is pretty much post Vietnam with a much better radar, countermeasures, all the possible aerodynamic updates etc. To be fair, most F-5 action on Vietnam was F-5A variants, by South Vietnamese, and in ground attack roles.

 

Magnitude 3/Leatherneck's upcoming F-8J is pretty much the only true Vietnam era bird that is in development, but it seems to be quite some time off from any sort of release, seeing as F4U Corsair is still not near the horizon of a release. Well, there is also the lovely freeware mod that is already about paid module quality, the A-4E, that one fits as well. But being a mod, it wouldn't be a thing for payware or bundled campaigns, public multiplayer servers etc.

 

There's also the A-7E and an A-6 (most likely at least E, and probably at least a TRAM), these will most likely be post 'Nam as well, but what exact variant will they be is not clear yet, and even if they prove to be post Vietnam, perhaps they can fit the part of their (late) Vietnam era counterparts with some restrictions of loadouts and maybe some options.

 

Razbam at some point also teased an OV-10 Bronco as a side project of one of their devs (might have even been Ron himself), but who knows if it will happen, if so when, and if a Vietnam appropriate version or not.

 

Reasons like these make me firmly prefer any upcoming aircraft to be post Vietnam variants, as they will at least fit a later 70s and 80s setting which has a lot more fitting assets in DCS, and frankly, even immediately post Vietnam versions of aircraft had more interesting stuff to play with.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love Vietnam experience in DCS too, but I'd prefer first post Vietnam stuff to finish fleshing out. Like getting a later F-4E first, getting later A-7 or A-6 first etc.

 

Getting things like F-100 and F-105 would be great, but these don't seem to be in ED's immediate plans going by an interview last year.

  • Thanks 1

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

35 minutes ago, WinterH said:

 

 

Getting things like F-100 and F-105 would be great, but these don't seem to be in ED's immediate plans going by an interview last year.

As much as I would like to fly them, right now I would be happy to have them as AI assets.  I know the MIG-21 and F-5 we have are both post Vietnam but the Century Series didn't get retired when the last American troops left Vietnam. The last F-111 left the USAF inventory in the 1990s (I know some folks don't count it but I do) the last NATO F-104 was retired in 2004, the F-106 was retired in 1988, the F-105 and F-101 were retired in the early 1980s (I believe they were Gs though the guard may have had some Ds) the F-100 and F-103 were retired in 1979.  When historical mode is turned on, my MiG-19 gets depressed and has to go on meds 

 

i-dont-neet-meds-i-need-targets.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2021 at 2:03 PM, WinterH said:

Instead of MiG-19, Chinese Shenyang J-6 was more common as far as I know. I believe Razbam intents to add MiG-19S as well, without gunnery radar and the ability to carry missiles, but with an additional 30mm gun and I think also slightly nicer handling maybe. MiG-19S would fit fairly decently. Current 19P is probably not quite the right variant, but could probably take part.

 

MiG-17F should fit I think, and there *may* be one in development right now. It's from a new group who wants to become an official 3rd party with a MiG-17F, but ED seems to be lukewarm at best so far on their efforts. But they may prove themselves.

 

As for the Fishbed variants, I think most numerous was the MiG-21F-13 and to lesser degree MiG-21PF and PFM. Late in war, small numbers of MiG-21MF was also introduced unless I am mistaken. MiG-21Bis we have out accelerate and out climb the hell out of any of these, especially at low to medium altitudes. It also has a considerably better radar. Other advantages it has like weapons and countermeasures can be disabled in mission design, but inherent performance difference and avionics upgrades it has can't.

 

On the other side of the fence, UH-1H we have has access to a few small post-war capabilities I think but overall it would fit ok. Short hull Hueys were more associated with Veitnam war, but H did operate in it too, even if later. F-5E we have is pretty much post Vietnam with a much better radar, countermeasures, all the possible aerodynamic updates etc. To be fair, most F-5 action on Vietnam was F-5A variants, by South Vietnamese, and in ground attack roles.

 

Magnitude 3/Leatherneck's upcoming F-8J is pretty much the only true Vietnam era bird that is in development, but it seems to be quite some time off from any sort of release, seeing as F4U Corsair is still not near the horizon of a release. Well, there is also the lovely freeware mod that is already about paid module quality, the A-4E, that one fits as well. But being a mod, it wouldn't be a thing for payware or bundled campaigns, public multiplayer servers etc.

 

There's also the A-7E and an A-6 (most likely at least E, and probably at least a TRAM), these will most likely be post 'Nam as well, but what exact variant will they be is not clear yet, and even if they prove to be post Vietnam, perhaps they can fit the part of their (late) Vietnam era counterparts with some restrictions of loadouts and maybe some options.

 

Razbam at some point also teased an OV-10 Bronco as a side project of one of their devs (might have even been Ron himself), but who knows if it will happen, if so when, and if a Vietnam appropriate version or not.

 

Reasons like these make me firmly prefer any upcoming aircraft to be post Vietnam variants, as they will at least fit a later 70s and 80s setting which has a lot more fitting assets in DCS, and frankly, even immediately post Vietnam versions of aircraft had more interesting stuff to play with.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love Vietnam experience in DCS too, but I'd prefer first post Vietnam stuff to finish fleshing out. Like getting a later F-4E first, getting later A-7 or A-6 first etc.

 

Getting things like F-100 and F-105 would be great, but these don't seem to be in ED's immediate plans going by an interview last year.

 

Objective conclusion balancing different arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2021 at 2:02 PM, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Fulcrum A is the nato designation. On russian forums they said 9.12 wich is the russian version

 

9.12 is the product number (presumably like project numbers used for ships).

 

For fear of highlighting how pedantic I am, I added "Fulcrum A" as most seem to (incorrectly AFAIK) call it MiG-29A, and despite what the english wikipedia says, AFAIK that's the wrong designation. It should be called MiG-29 (9-12 or 9.12) [NATO: 'Fulcrum A'].

 

It's hardly the most egregious thing though *cough* AGM-84S.

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

9.12 is the product number (presumably like project numbers used for ships).

 

For fear of highlighting how pedantic I am, I added "Fulcrum A" as most seem to (incorrectly AFAIK) call it MiG-29A, and despite what the english wikipedia says, AFAIK that's the wrong designation. It should be called MiG-29 (9-12 or 9.12) [NATO: 'Fulcrum A'].

 

It's hardly the most egregious thing though *cough* AGM-84S.

No. It has been talked about it on russian side of the forums. 9.12 is the russian version,9.12A is the warsaw pact version and 9.12B is the export version

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

No. It has been talked about it on russian side of the forums. 9.12 is the russian version,9.12A is the warsaw pact version and 9.12B is the export version

 

We're OT here but I'm not talking about the various versions.

 

9.12 is the correct Mikoyan product number (provided ours is supposed to be a domestic USSR/Russian aircraft), the aircraft is called MiG-29 (not MiG-29A) and in NATO it's given the reporting name "Fulcrum A".

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

We're OT here but I'm not talking about the various versions.

 

9.12 is the correct Mikoyan product number (provided ours is supposed to be a domestic USSR/Russian aircraft), the aircraft is called MiG-29 (not MiG-29A) and in NATO it's given the reporting name "Fulcrum A".

You lost me.

Define product number.

Just to be on the same page i told you that fulcrum a is the nato designation and 9.12 is the version. Think of it like a generation then the geneeation has its versions


Edited by IkarusC42B Pilot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

We're OT here but I'm not talking about the various versions.

 

9.12 is the correct Mikoyan product number (provided ours is supposed to be a domestic USSR/Russian aircraft), the aircraft is called MiG-29 (not MiG-29A) and in NATO it's given the reporting name "Fulcrum A".

There is a thread about the MiG-29, I think this thread we're best of discussing the 17 through 21.  back on topic though.   what would you like to see added from the Vietnam era? I've said it before I would be happy if we just got some AI assets. I'd start with the 105 and gunless Phantoms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

There is a thread about the MiG-29, I think this thread we're best of discussing the 17 through 21.  back on topic though.   what would you like to see added from the Vietnam era? I've said it before I would be happy if we just got some AI assets. I'd start with the 105 and gunless Phantoms

 

For Vietnam I'd actually like to see a fair amount of naval assets, such as USN frigates, cruisers and destroyers. One thing that's always lacked in DCS is naval units as well as the fidelity of the whole naval environment.

 

Things like the Brooke or Knox class frigates, the Belknap class cruiser and the Charles F. Adams destroyer. These would also fit fairly well with HB Forrestal class (though they seem to be post Vietnam ships).

 

I would love to see something like PIRAZ, as was used in Vietnam, I kinda miss "Red Crown" out of SF2.

 

I would love to see the Century series, as well as the Phantom II.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

For Vietnam I'd actually like to see a fair amount of naval assets, such as USN frigates, cruisers and destroyers. One thing that's always lacked in DCS is naval units as well as the fidelity of the whole naval environment.

 

Things like the Brooke or Knox class frigates, the Belknap class cruiser and the Charles F. Adams destroyer. These would also fit fairly well with HB Forrestal class (though they seem to be post Vietnam ships).

 

I would love to see something like PIRAZ, as was used in Vietnam, I kinda miss "Red Crown" out of SF2.

 

I would love to see the Century series, as well as the Phantom II.

The ship classes you mentioned would be correct for the Vietnam era the earliest commissioning date is in the 1950s and the latest decommissioning date is in the 1980s. I would also toss in some modernized World War II ships -such as an angled Essex class carrier, the USS New Jersey with a helicopter pad(I would love to have 3 Iowa models a World War II, Korea/Vietnam and Desert Storm),  Fletcher-class destroyers.

As for air assets- I would go with the A-1, F-4B, C/D, an improved E model, and the J, A B-52D, A-3 (navy tanker and EW platform), EB-66, F-100, 105, 104 EC-121 (period AWACS).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The ship classes you mentioned would be correct for the Vietnam era the earliest commissioning date is in the 1950s and the latest decommissioning date is in the 1980s.

 

Sorry, I meant HB Forrestal class; while they certainly were around in Vietnam, HB's one is a later fit (mid 80s and beyond).

 

The good thing is that all of these ships (provided we got a couple of fits for appropriate ships), is that they are all suitable for the mid-to-late Cold War, being decommissioned right at the end of it.

 

The Brooke class were retired in the early 90s, the Knox in the early to mid 90s, the Belknap in the early-to-mid 90s and the majority of the Charles F. Adams in the early 90s.

 

The only thing is, I'd prefer we get multiple fits of these ships (though that shouldn't be too hard) to accomplish, to represent Vietnam war era as well as the mid 80s - which is personally, what I'm most interested in, with regards to these ships.

 

Quote

I would also toss in some modernized World War II ships -such as an angled Essex class carrier, the USS New Jersey with a helicopter pad(I would love to have 3 Iowa models a World War II, Korea/Vietnam and Desert Storm),  Fletcher-class destroyers.

 

Hmm, that might work, especially if we ever get some more serious WWII surface combatants (we only have an S-100 MTB right now).

 

Iowa I'd definitely go for, though I'm more interested in an 80s variant.

 

Quote

As for air assets- I would go with the A-1, F-4B, C/D, an improved E model, and the J, A B-52D, A-3 (navy tanker and EW platform), EB-66, F-100, 105, 104 EC-121 (period AWACS).

 

Agreed for everything. Though I will say I'm more interested in 70s/80s stuff, though a fair amount of those do fit.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

You lost me.

Define product number.

Just to be on the same page i told you that fulcrum a is the nato designation and 9.12 is the version. Think of it like a generation then the geneeation has its versions

 

More like 9.12 being the version, while 9.12A and 9.12B are variants of it.

 

You are right that NATO's reporting name "Fulcrum A" covers all three and that, strictly speaking, 9.12 without any suffix would mean the original Soviet version.... provided that whoever talked about it, meant it as specific as that and not just as the general version(i.e. Fulcrum A), which I believe is what Northstar meant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

More like 9.12 being the version, while 9.12A and 9.12B are variants of it.

 

You are right that NATO's reporting name "Fulcrum A" covers all three and that, strictly speaking, 9.12 without any suffix would mean the original Soviet version.... provided that whoever talked about it, meant it as specific as that and not just as the general version(i.e. Fulcrum A), which I believe is what Northstar meant.

 

As I understand it, 9.12 is kinda like a project number (as used for ships) but for an aircraft - ish. As I understand it, they are what the design bureau refer to the aircraft as (i.e MiG design bureau product 9.12). Similarly what NATO refers to as the Victor III submarine is the SPMBM Malachite (Малахит) design bureau, project 671RTM "Pike".

 

And 9.12A, 9.12B are export variants as Ikarus described.

 

If we're talking about the designation MiG-29 (much like the NATO designation), it fits all 3.

 

What I was getting at initially is that the 9.12 MiG-29 [NATO: "Fulcrum A"] is often called MiG-29A which I don't think is correct - just me being pedantic.

 

What I'm talking about is the original, domestic Soviet variant. AFAIK the MiG design bureau calls it 9.12, everywhere else refers to it as MiG-29 (which AFAIK covers 9.12, 9.12A, 9.12B, 9.13 and 9.14). The NATO reporting name "Fulcrum A" covers 9.12, 9.12A, 9.12B; "Fulcrum C" covers the 9.13 (i.e MiG-29 (9.13) "Fulcrum C").

 

Anyway, back on topic.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Sorry, I meant HB Forrestal class; while they certainly were around in Vietnam, HB's one is a later fit (mid 80s and beyond).

 

The good thing is that all of these ships (provided we got a couple of fits for appropriate ships), is that they are all suitable for the mid-to-late Cold War, being decommissioned right at the end of it.

 

The Brooke class were retired in the early 90s, the Knox in the early to mid 90s, the Belknap in the early-to-mid 90s and the majority of the Charles F. Adams in the early 90s.

 

The only thing is, I'd prefer we get multiple fits of these ships (though that shouldn't be too hard) to accomplish, to represent Vietnam war era as well as the mid 80s - which is personally, what I'm most interested in, with regards to these ships.

 

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I would also toss in some modernized World War II ships -such as an angled Essex class carrier, the USS New Jersey with a helicopter pad(I would love to have 3 Iowa models a World War II, Korea/Vietnam and Desert Storm),  Fletcher-class destroyers.

16 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Iowa I'd definitely go for, though I'm more interested in an 80s variant.

I'd like multiple fits of the different ships as well. Since Nick Grey's favorite plane is the F6F Hellcat I would expect the World War II fit to be added. Though I'm with you on the 1980s version and if we get that along with the WW II version then the Korea and Vietnam era would be easy to do. Put the 1980s stern on the 1940s model. Except for the ones that were converted to LPHs the Vietnam era Essex class carriers are basically different ships  so I don't expect one unless it comes with the F-8 Crusader.As you may remmeber I have been asking for DCS fleet ops I don't know what all it would be like but it would cover naval warfare from World War II to the present.  

 

16 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

As for air assets- I would go with the A-1, F-4B, C/D, an improved E model, and the J, A B-52D, A-3 (navy tanker and EW platform), EB-66, F-100, 105, 104 EC-121 (period AWACS).

 

Agreed for everything. Though I will say I'm more interested in 70s/80s stuff, though a fair amount of those do fit.

 

The A-3 I believe was used as tanker in Desert Storm. The B-66 was retired shortly after Vietnam but it was the USAF's crippled version of the A-3. I hope that we at least get an AI USAF A-7 The A-1 would be needed for Korea as well.  Then there is the subject of ground assets since  Vietnam would need better infantry.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 cent Food for thought...

 

Infantry and ground ops even with Combined Arms at current levels would pose massive setbacks with a scenario like Vietnam.

I'd love to see this scenario come around but maybe the scale is a little large. Maybe, setting our sights on something with a smaller map like the specific operation "Lam Son 719" as an example. Lots of accounts of CAS, FAC, bombing and transport for fixed wing and endless accounts of the massive helicopter operations. Even the ground aspect of mechanized vehicles and Air defense deployment for both sides could gel loosely with current models and aircraft. I do think that something like this would fit the current DCS build more than the massive scale of an all out Vietnam war that lasted so long with so many different aircraft participating. Not to mention the size of the country/countries to be mapped.

Concentrating on a specific operation or maybe just a smaller AO may be a more realistic expectation. However, I am also aware that even the specific operation above poses problems as you can't have a navy flying off of a ship without an ocean! 

Again, just my thoughts on trying to "make it work". I would love to be proved WRONG.👍🏾


Edited by cochise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

As I understand it, 9.12 is kinda like a project number (as used for ships) but for an aircraft - ish. As I understand it, they are what the design bureau refer to the aircraft as (i.e MiG design bureau product 9.12). Similarly what NATO refers to as the Victor III submarine is the SPMBM Malachite (Малахит) design bureau, project 671RTM "Pike".

Yes and then not quite :) . MiG-29 is the "service designation", while 9.12, 9.13 etc are MIG's internal product codes where the "9- " indicates the MiG-29 design. Sukhoi also has internal product codes - i.e. "T10-" indicates a Su-27 version, while e.g. "T8-" a Su-25 etc.

 

But for ships, the project number is the actual service designation for the ship, which is typically accompanied by type codes(abbreviations) such as "BPK"(large antisubmarine ship) - i.e. roughly equivalent to "FFG" or "DDG" ect.

 

15 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And 9.12A, 9.12B are export variants as Ikarus described.

Yes.

15 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

If we're talking about the designation MiG-29 (much like the NATO designation), it fits all 3.

Yes and in fact also the 9.13.

15 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

What I was getting at initially is that the 9.12 MiG-29 [NATO: "Fulcrum A"] is often called MiG-29A which I don't think is correct - just me being pedantic.

No you are right - its an interweb thing.

15 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

What I'm talking about is the original, domestic Soviet variant. AFAIK the MiG design bureau calls it 9.12, everywhere else refers to it as MiG-29 (which AFAIK covers 9.12, 9.12A, 9.12B, 9.13 and 9.14). The NATO reporting name "Fulcrum A" covers 9.12, 9.12A, 9.12B; "Fulcrum C" covers the 9.13 (i.e MiG-29 (9.13) "Fulcrum C").

All correct, but my point was that "9.12" is also often used as a general term(without specifying domestic/export) in order to distinguish it from the 9.13 version since both are called "MiG-29".

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2021 at 3:39 AM, upyr1 said:

I'd like multiple fits of the different ships as well. Since Nick Grey's favorite plane is the F6F Hellcat I would expect the World War II fit to be added. Though I'm with you on the 1980s version and if we get that along with the WW II version then the Korea and Vietnam era would be easy to do.

Yeah, the main thing I'm worried about is HB's Forrestal (which is an early 80s fit) not having anything else to go with it. The other ships (The Ticonderoga and the Oliver Hazard Perry), are all 2000 fits of the class (the OHP doesn't even have STIR, which was removed at the same time the Mk13 GMLS was removed - meaning no missiles).

With the other ships, I'm not sure about the Brooke though there weren't many of them (only 6, compared to the 46 Knox), there is a bit more information about the Knox, which I'll detail, in the spoiler below:

Spoiler

All going off of the C:MANO database:

 

For 1977 onwards (which I'll assume is the most representative of a Vietnam fit, though for Vietnam, they won't have BPMDS or Harpoon capability).

  • The most common fit (14 ships: FF-1084-1086, 1088-1097) are fitted with the Mk112 Mod. 2 ASROC launcher, which can fire the RUR-5A Mod. 4 ASROC RTT, which is fitted with a Mk46 Mod. 2 LWT as well as the RGM-84A Harpoon Block 1, there's also the RUR-5A Mod. 3 ARSOC RTD, which was fitted with the W44 10kT nuclear depth charge, though that's probably less appropriate for DCS. In addition to the AN/SQS-26CX hull mounted LF active/passive SONAR, these ships were also fitted with AN/SQS-35 HF active-only VDS. These ships aren't fitted with BPDMS.
  • The 2nd most common fit (12 ships: FF-1052, 1056, 1066, 1067, 1069, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1080-1083) are as with the most common fit, but fitted with BPDMS, with a Mk25 GMLS firing RIM-7E Sea Sparrow and an accompanying, manually operated, Mk115 illuminator, providing the CWI needed to guide the RIM-7E.
  • The 3rd most common fit (11 ships: FF-1053-1055, 1057-1062, 1072, 1077), is as with the 2nd most common fit (BPMDS, Mk112 Mod. 2 w. Harpoon), but without the AN/SQS-35 VDS. 
  • The 4th most common fit (8 ships: FF-1063-1065, 1068, 1075, 1076, 1078 and 1079) is as with the 2nd most common fit, but with the Mk112 Mod. 1 ASROC launcher instead of the Mod. 2, which doesn't have the ability to fire the Harpoon, and only has the RUR-5A ASROCs available.
  • FF-1087 is as with the most common fit (no BPMDS, AN/SQS-35), but with the Mk112 Mod. 1 ASROC launcher without Harpoon capability.
  • FF-1070 is as with the 2nd most common fit (AN/SQS-35, Mk112 Mod. 2 w. Harpoon), but instead of BPDMS, it's fitted with IBPDMS and Mk29 GMLS firing the RIM-7H. As part of the Mk91 FCS, the Mk115 manual illuminator is replaced with the unmanned Mk95 illuminator (which also has a 1st generation EO system).

As for RADARs, they are all fitted with the AN/SPS-40 VHF (NATO B band), long-range, 2D air search RADAR and an AN/SPS-10 G-band surface-search RADAR (limited air search capabilities), with the exception of FF-1070, which replaces the AN/SPS-40 with the Mk23 TAS as part of IBPDMS. There's also a Mk68F GFCS (including the AN/SPG-53 FCR) for the 5"/54 Mk42 Mod. 9 naval gun (which fires HICAP Mk41 Mod. 0 which can be equipped with a point detonating, mechanical timed and proximity fuses; SP Common Mk42 Mod. 0/Mod. 1 with the same types of fuses; Illumination Mk33 and Mk48 Mod. 0 as well as rocket-assisted Mk58).

 

For EW, they are fitted with an AN/SLQ-26 ECM suite, comprising the AN/WLR-1 ELINT/RWR system, and the AN/ULQ-6C OECM/DECM system (according to this it's capable of degrading missile RADARs by repeating them in anti-phase, thus destructively interfering with the return from the ship, as well as range deception, though according to this it wasn't deemed to be sufficient). This fit is common to all ships but FF-1070 which replaces the AN/SPS-40 with the Mk23 TAS RADAR as part of IBPDMS. The ships are also fitted with the AN/SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo decoy.

 

For 1984 onwards:

  • The most common fit (25 ships: FF-1056, 1066, 1067, 1069-1071, 1073, 1074, 1080-1086, 1088-1097. BPDMS and IBPDMS on FF-1070, replaced with Mk15 Phalanx Block 0 CIWS. Mk112 Mod. 2 ASROC launcher firing RUR-5A Mod. 4 but equipped with the Mk46 Mod. 5 NEARTIP LWT (instead of the Mod. 2), as well as the RGM-84C Harpoon 1B (which is like the RGM-84D without the selectable pop-up terminal attack mode), there's also the RUR-5A Mod. 3 equipped with the W44, 10kT nuclear depth charge (but as said above, not really suitable). These ships were also fitted, in addition to their original SONAR systems (AN/SQS-26CX LF active/passive, hull mounted and AN/SQS-35 HF VDS) the AN/SQR-18A(V)1 VLF, passive only, towed array SONAR.
  • The joint 2nd most common fit (8 ships: FF-1063, 1065, 1068 1076, 1076, 1078, 1079 and 1087) were as with the most common fit, but with Mk112 Mod. 1 without Harpoon capability.
  • The other 2nd most common fit (again, 8 ships: FF-1054-55, 1057-1062) were as with the most common fit but fitted with AN/SQR-18A(V)2 instead of the (V)1 VLF TAS.
  • FF-1052 and FF-1053, as with the most common fit (SQR-18A(V1) VLF TAS), but with BPMDS instead of Mk15 Phalanx Block 0 CIWS
  • FF-1091 and FF-1096, were as with the most common fit but without Mk15 Phalanx Block 0 CIWS or (I)BPDMS. 

As for RADARs, all retained the AN/SPS-40 B-band, long-range, 2D air-search RADARs; the AN/SPS-10 was replaced by the AN/SPS-67(V)1 (but using the same antenna as the SPS-10), it also retains the same Mk68 GFCS with the AN/SPG-53F FCR.

For EW equipment, the AN/SLQ-26 ECM suite was replaced by the AN/SLQ-32(V)2, which only provides ESM capability, and no OECM/DECM; countermeasures are instead handled by the Mk36 decoy launching system, firing Mk182 SRBOC chaff and Mk186 flare decoys.

 

For 1988 onwards until the end of their service lives, the ships stayed pretty much exactly the same as their 1984 fits.

The other thing worth mentioning is that in the 80s the Knox class were fitted with different SATCOM antennae. Some ships were also fitted with hull upgrades (such as a strake near the bow) to improve shortfalls in deck wetness.

All Knox class ships are fitted with 2 324mm Mk32 twin torpedo tube launchers, for Mk46 lightweight torpedoes (Mod. 2 in early ships, Mod. 5 NEARTIP in later ships), with a magazine holding 18 reloads. They also carry a full set of reloads for the Mk112 ASROC launcher (typical fit for Mk112 Mod. 2 is 14 RUR-5A Mod. 4 (w. Mk46) and 4 RGM-84 Harpoons).

They can also embark a Kaman SH-2F Seasprite (LAMPS 1) helicopter, though for Vietnam, the QH-50C/D DASH is probably more appropriate, which I'm guessing only had the original hangar and not the later telescopic hangar.

The Belknap class cruiser is a lot easier as there doesn't seem to be major differences between the class, unlike the Knox.

The difference between a 70s Vietnam fit and an 80s fit is:

  • RIM-67A SM-1ER Block 1 (and later RIM-67B SM-2ER Block 1); before they were using RIM-2 Terrier.
  • Mk15 Phalanx Block 0 CIWS installed, before this was absent (entered service after Vietnam)
  • AN/SLQ-32(V)3 (ESM + OECM/DECM); before they were using AN/SLQ-26 with the components described above.
  • Harpoon, again this was post Vietnam, before there were 3"/50 Mk22 guns where the the Mk141 launchers were later fitted.
Quote

Put the 1980s stern on the 1940s model. Except for the ones that were converted to LPHs the Vietnam era Essex class carriers are basically different ships so I don't expect one unless it comes with the F-8 Crusader.

Yeah, I think you're right. Though sticking with Vietnam, wouldn't it be cool if we also got some river gunboats? Such as a PBR Mk. II. Though naval physics is still kinda wonky, and it's especially noticeable on small craft.

Quote

As you may remmeber I have been asking for DCS fleet ops I don't know what all it would be like but it would cover naval warfare from World War II to the present.

Yeah, I remember.

WWII definitely some surface combatants (only have a single MTB so far). BLUFOR doesn't have any Cold War ships apart from the La Combattante IIa, which is using the wrong missile.

Personally, given that we're soon (hopefully) to get the Forestall class circa early 80s and onwards, I think going from the late 70s to 80s are the best to go for right now (which would also fit the F-14A early quite well).

Regarding Vietnam, I would like to see the PIRAZ system implemented, as well as naval air controllers in general (if I toss in a Farragut class destroyer or a Baltimore-class cruiser - though the latter looks very odd in its Vietnam era fit IMO, though Belknaps also assumed the role).

Quote

The A-3 I believe was used as tanker in Desert Storm. The B-66 was retired shortly after Vietnam but it was the USAF's crippled version of the A-3. I hope that we at least get an AI USAF A-7 The A-1 would be needed for Korea as well.  Then there is the subject of ground assets since  Vietnam would need better infantry.  

I mean, sure, I'd go for an AI B-66 and A-3. We're also missing a loud of ground units too.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Yes and then not quite 🙂 . MiG-29 is the "service designation", while 9.12, 9.13 etc are MIG's internal product codes where the "9- " indicates the MiG-29 design. Sukhoi also has internal product codes - i.e. "T10-" indicates a Su-27 version, while e.g. "T8-" a Su-25 etc.

 

That's what I thought.

 

Quote

But for ships, the project number is the actual service designation for the ship, which is typically accompanied by type codes(abbreviations) such as "BPK"(large antisubmarine ship) - i.e. roughly equivalent to "FFG" or "DDG" ect.

 

Don't worry I am familiar with it, I just I just thought the project number was something assigned by design bureau (such as in my case) and then used as a service designation (though usually alongside a name e.g. project 877 «Па́лтус» or "Halibut" in English, DEPL (essentially an abbreviation for multi-purpose diesel electric submarine, the equivalent USN hull classification for diesel-electric attack submarine) NATO reporting name "Kilo").

 

On this subject I wish ED would overhaul the display names to include both naming conventions (like C:MANO and SF2), that way users familiar with one or the other are accommodated. I did make a thread about it but very little interest - it is a fairly pedantic request, though I would've done it myself as a mod, but the .lua files got hidden.

 

Quote

No you are right - its an interweb thing.

 

That's what I thought and that's all I was getting at initially.

 

Quote

All correct, but my point was that "9.12" is also often used as a general term(without specifying domestic/export) in order to distinguish it from the 9.13 version since both are called "MiG-29".

 

I see.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Yeah, the main thing I'm worried about is HB's Forrestal (which is an early 80s fit) not having anything else to go with it. The other ships (The Ticonderoga and the Oliver Hazard Perry), are all 2000 fits of the class (the OHP doesn't even have STIR, which was removed at the same time SM-1 was removed).

 

With the other ships, I'm not sure about the Brooke though there weren't many of them (only 6, compared to the 46 Knox), there is a bit more information about the Knox, which I'll detail below.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

All going off of the C:MANO database:

 

For 1977 onwards (which I'll assume is the most representative of a Vietnam fit, though for Vietnam, they won't have BPMDS or Harpoon capability).

  • The most common fit (14 ships: FF-1084-1086, 1088-1097) are fitted with the Mk.112 Mod. 2 ASROC launcher, which can fire the RUR-5A Mod. 4 ASROC RTT, which is fitted with a Mk46 Mod. 2 LWT as well as the RGM-84A Harpoon Block 1, there's also the RUR-5A Mod. 3 ARSOC RTD, which was fitted with the W44 10kT nuclear depth charge, though that's probably less appropriate for DCS. In addition to the AN/SQS-26CX hull mounted LF active/passive SONAR, these ships were also fitted with AN/SQS-35 HF active-only VDS. These ships aren't fitted with BPDMS.
  • The 2nd most common fit (12 ships: FF-1052, 1056, 1066, 1067, 1069, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1080-1083) are as with the most common fit, but fitted with BPDMS, with a Mk25 GMLS firing RIM-7E Sea Sparrow and an accompanying, manually operated, Mk115 illuminator, providing the CWI needed to guide the RIM-7E.
  • The 3rd most common fit (11 ships: FF-1053-1055, 1057-1062, 1072, 1077), is as with the 2nd most common fit (BPMDS, Mk112 Mod. 2 w. Harpoon), but without the AN/SQS-35 VDS. 
  • The 4th most common fit (8 ships: FF-1063-1065, 1068, 1075, 1076, 1078 and 1079) is as with the 2nd most common fit, but with the Mk112 Mod. 1 ASROC launcher instead of the Mod. 2, which doesn't have the ability to fire the Harpoon, and only has the RUR-5A ASROCs available.
  • FF-1087 is as with the most common fit (no BPMDS, AN/SQS-35), but with the Mk112 Mod. 1 ASROC launcher without Harpoon capability.
  • FF-1070 is as with the 2nd most common fit (AN/SQS-35, Mk112 Mod. 2 w. Harpoon), but instead of BPDMS, it's fitted with IBPDMS and Mk29 GMLS firing the RIM-7H. As part of the Mk91 FCS, the Mk115 manual illuminator is replaced with the unmanned Mk95 illuminator (which also has a 1st generation EO system).

As for RADARs, they are all fitted with the AN/SPS-40 B band, long-range, 2D air search RADAR and AN/SPS-10 G-band surface-search RADAR (limited air search capabilities) with the exception of FF-1070, which replaces the AN/SPS-40 with the Mk23 TAS as part of IBPDMS. There's also a Mk68F GFCS (including the AN/SPG-53 FCR) for the 5"/54 Mk42 Mod. 9 naval gun (which fires HICAP Mk41 Mod. 0 which can be equipped with a point detonating, mechanical timed and proximity fuses; SP Common Mk42 Mod. 0/Mod. 1 with the same types of fuses; Illumination Mk33 and Mk48 Mod. 0 as well as rocket-assisted Mk58).

 

For EW, they are fitted with an AN/SLQ-26 ECM suite, comprising the AN/WLR-1 ELINT/RWR system, and the AN/ULQ-6C OECM/DECM system (according to this it's capable of degrading missile RADARs by repeating them in anti-phase, thus destructively interfering with the return from the ship, as well as range deception, though according to this it wasn't deemed to be sufficient). This fit is common to all ships but FF-1070 which replaces the AN/SPS-40 with the Mk23 TAS RADAR as part of IBPDMS. The ships are also fitted with the AN/SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo decoy.

 

For 1984 onwards:

  • The most common fit (25 ships: FF-1056, 1066, 1067, 1069-1071, 1073, 1074, 1080-1086, 1088-1097. BPDMS (and IBPDMS on FF-1070) replaced with Mk15 Phalanx Block 0 CIWS. Mk112 Mod. 2 ASROC launcher firing RUR-5A Mod. 4 but equipped with the Mk46 Mod. 5 NEARTIP LWT (instead of the Mod. 2), as well as the RGM-84C Harpoon 1B (which is like the RGM-84D without the selectable pop-up terminal attack mode), there's also the RUR-5A Mod. 3 equipped with the W44, 10kT nuclear depth charge (but as said above, not really suitable). These ships were also fitted (in addition to their original SONAR systems, the AN/SQS-26CX and AN/SQS-35 VDS) the AN/SQR-18A(V)1 VLF, passive only, towed array SONAR.
  • The joint 2nd most common fit (8 ships: FF-1063, 1065, 1068 1076, 1076, 1078, 1079 and 1087) were as with the most common fit, but with Mk112 Mod. 1 without Harpoon capability.
  • The other 2nd most common fit (again, 8 ships: FF-1054-55, 1057-1062) were as with the most common fit but fitted with AN/SQR-18A(V)2 instead of the (V)1 VLF TAS.
  • FF-1052 and FF-1053, as with the most common fit (SQR-18A(V1) VLF TAS), but with BPMDS instead of Mk15 Phalanx Block 0 CIWS
  • FF-1091 and FF-1096, were as with the most common fit but without Mk15 Phalanx Block 0 CIWS or (I)BPDMS. 

As for RADARs, all retained the AN/SPS-40 B-band, long-range, 2D air-search RADARs; the AN/SPS-10 was replaced by the AN/SPS-67(V)1 (but using the same antenna as the SPS-10), it also retains the same Mk68 GFCS with the AN/SPG-53F FCR.

 

For EW equipment, the AN/SLQ-26 ECM suite was replaced by the AN/SLQ-32(V)2, which only provides ESM capability, and no OECM/DECM; countermeasures are instead handled by the Mk36 decoy launching system, firing Mk182 SRBOC chaff and Mk186 flare decoys.

 

For 1988 onwards until the end of their service lives, the ships stayed pretty much exactly the same as their 1984 fits being added.

 

The other thing worth mentioning is that in the 80s the Knox class were fitted with different SATCOM antenna. Some ships were also fitted with hull upgrades 

 

All Knox class ships are fitted with 2 324mm Mk32 twin torpedo tube launchers, for Mk46 lightweight torpedoes (Mod. 2 in early ships, Mod. 5 NEARTIP in later ships), with a magazine holding 18 reloads. They also carry a full set of reloads for the Mk112 ASROC launcher (typical fit for Mk112 Mod. 2 is 14 RUR-5A Mod. 4 (w. Mk46) and 4 RGM-84 Harpoons). 

 

They can also embark a Kaman SH-2F Seasprite (LAMPS 1) helicopter, though for Vietnam, the QH-50C/D DASH is probably more appropriate, which I'm guessing only had the original hangar and not the later telescopic hangar.

 

The Belknap class cruiser is a lot easier as there doesn't seem to be major differences between the class, unlike the Knox.

 

The difference between a 70s Vietnam fit and an 80s fit is:

  • RIM-67A SM-1ER Block 1 (and later RIM-67B SM-2ER Block 1); before they were using RIM-2 Terrier.
  • Mk15 Phalanx Block 0 CIWS installed, before this was absent (entered service after Vietnam)
  • AN/SLQ-32(V)3 (ESM + OECM/DECM); before they were using AN/SLQ-26 with the components described above.
  • Harpoon, again this was post Vietnam, before there were 3"/50 Mk22 guns where the the Mk141 launchers were later fitted.

 

 The fact the Bekknap didn't change much makes it a good choice for doing different versions.  I figure my ship Wishlist right now comes down to factors like number built, years in service and noticeable physical changes over the years. 

 

 

47 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Yeah, I think you're right. Though sticking with Vietnam, wouldn't it be cool if we also got some river gunboats? Such as a PBR Mk. II. Though naval physics is still kinda wonky, and it's especially noticeable on small craft.

PBRs would be a great addition. 

 

47 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

Yeah, I remember.

 

WWII definitely some surface combatants (only have a single MTB so far). BLUFOR doesn't have any Cold War ships apart from the La Combattante IIa, which is using the wrong missile.

 

Personally, given that we're soon (hopefully) to get the Forestall class circa early 80s and onwards, I think going from the late 70s to 80s are the best to go for right now (which would also fit the F-14A early quite well).

As we have said earlier from capital ships on down we're lacking in Naval assets. 

 

47 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Regarding Vietnam, I would like to see the PIRAZ system implemented, as well as naval air controllers in general (if I toss in a Farragut class destroyer or a Baltimore-class cruiser - though the latter looks very odd in its Vietnam era fit IMO, though Belknaps also assumed the role).

Here's a photo I believe

 USS_Chicago_(CG-11)_underway_in_the_Cora

 

The Baltamore-class cruisers went through a lot of mutations after World War II. It looks like the Saint Paul changed the least. They would have to be on the must have list for World War II

 

47 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

I mean, sure, I'd go for an AI B-66 and A-3. We're also missing a loud of ground units too.

Agreed on the ground units, in order to do Vietnam right- combined arms will need drastically improved infantry as well as. I know some folks have been wanting playable infantry I have mixed fealings but I do know we need more small arms for proper fire teams and better AI

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Yes, I'm familiar with it, though I thought the project number was something assigned by design bureau (such as in my case) and then used as a service designation (usually alongside a name). 

 

I don't know exactly how the project numbers are assigned, but I guess there must at least be some coordination involved, so that the same number isn't applied for more than one design - the system is also used for civilian ships, so it could quickly become a mess otherwise :) . 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, upyr1 said:

The fact the Bekknap didn't change much makes it a good choice for doing different versions.  I figure my ship Wishlist right now comes down to factors like number built, years in service and noticeable physical changes over the years.

 

Yeah, so far it only seems to be certain weapons, hopefully the models can be made somewhat modular in development, so they don't have to completely remodel it to accommodate them.

 

These were things off the top of my head though. I'm not aware of much else.

 

 

1 minute ago, upyr1 said:

PBRs would be a great addition. 

 

Agreed. They could also be the first full-fidelity CA ship, given how simple it should be. Potentially using AI gunners or multicrew.

 

1 minute ago, upyr1 said:

As we have said earlier from capital ships on down we're lacking in Naval assets.

 

Yeah, the whole naval environment is lacking.

 

1 minute ago, upyr1 said:

Here's a photo I believe

 USS_Chicago_(CG-11)_underway_in_the_Cora

 

The Baltamore-class cruisers went through a lot of mutations after World War II. It looks like the Saint Paul changed the least. They would have to be on the must have list for World War II

 

Mmm, though they're modifications do make them look very odd IMO, almost more odd looking than the Long Beach.

 

1 minute ago, upyr1 said:

Agreed on the ground units, in order to do Vietnam right- combined arms will need drastically improved infantry as well as. I know some folks have been wanting playable infantry I have mixed fealings but I do know we need more small arms for proper fire teams and better AI

 

I mean, we already have playable personnel units (MANPADs), but there's a fair bit missing if we're going to go down that route.

 

Obviously things like AI (though that's much more broad, applying basically everywhere), there's some other stuff as well (things like being able to customise what they're carrying and loadout, as opposed to having a dedicated unit), improving the tracers (though that applies everywhere too), and making it such that small-arm splashes don't look like autocannon fire.

 

Other stuff is more miscellaneous IMO, but worth doing (mostly relating to equipment).

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...