USS Kitty Hawk Class

Is there any chance of Kitty Hawk (CV-63) and Constellation (CV-64) coming? I am aware of ED's Nimitz module and Heatblur's Forrestal Class carriers. My old man served a few years on the Kitty Hawk and I would love to see it in DCS. The USS John F. Kennedy would also be a great addition.

+1

However, developers would probably have to add more in the way of escorts and other vessels to compliment the carriers. At the moment we only have the Mk41 variant of the Ticonderoga class CG and the long hull variant (?) of the Oliver Hazard Perry Class FFG. With an Arleigh Burke Flight IIA (5"/62 variant) in the works (variant based on in development screenshots of DDG-112 USS Michael Murphy).

With new carriers such as the refit Forrestal class carriers we're really running out of appropriate escort units, such as the Knox class FF, Belknap class CG and Spruance class DD/DDG. All preferably with original/refit variants.

Mising the USS America (CV-66) and the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) to complete the Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier class similarly to ED and HB expected release your carriers. Other point has be we not know the "ships" coming by HB outside the carriers or future ED projects, someone talk about Burke can be a new ship "module" as carriers. HB has not talk about your modules get the same functionality of ED "modules", only a carrier crew.

My buddy served on the KItty Hawk, Independence, and one other non nuke carrier. I know he's hoping to see a non nuke CV with full functionality in game, would add a great feel to it.

even though a further new CV module would be cool, better to focus resources on completing the existing ones . Think that will be the Kutnetsov DLC in the works aswell , so my vote goes on expanding scorts type and its capability . My bet also in starting ASW operations and development, building new modules like the S-3 Viking , SH-3 Sea King , SH-70 Sea Hawk LAMPS , and why not thinking about some kind of Submarine DLC, diesel-electric for the Persic Gulf if you want . Could be an interesting progress into Naval environment, dont you think ?

even though a further new CV module would be cool, better to focus resources on completing the existing ones . Think that will be the Kutnetsov DLC in the works aswell , so my vote goes on expanding scorts type and its capability . My bet also in starting ASW operations and development, building new modules like the S-3 Viking , SH-3 Sea King , SH-70 Sea Hawk LAMPS , and why not thinking about some kind of Submarine DLC, diesel-electric for the Persic Gulf if you want . Could be an interesting progress into Naval environment, dont you think ?

Agreed and ASW is the only type of direct combat mission totally absent in DCS, which is a shame because it's a major role of quite a lot of frigates and destroyers as well as a good 90% of every maritime helicopter, Ka-27, SH-60, SH-2, SH-3, Lynx, AW101 even the Z-9 to a lesser degree.

For submarines I don't think they should be a module, they're a radically different ball-game and perhaps beyond the scope of DCS, however, there's nothing stopping them from being AI subs.

I mean we already have 2 beautifully done Kilo classes present in the model viewer, they're both fully animated (control surfaces, propellers/propulsors, all masts and antennae, outer tube doors, and even the hatch for the reloading adaptor) there are also 2 SL-AShMs, the 3M-54E and 3M-54E1. However in DCS itself we only have 1 variant that we can place in the mission editor (the variant with the propulsor - in reality this is a 1 ship variant AFAIK, if you play around with the arguments in the model viewer it also has a trainable 8-round launcher for Igla or Strela that deploys from the back end of the fin/sail) However, the submarine cannot submerge nor can it use any of it's weapons, including the Igla/Strela launcher.

Now in this post by Wags https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3285514&postcount=13

He states that the Hornet will be getting the Mk-40 Destructor and Mk-62 Quickstrike sea mines, which hopefully means implementation of underwater weapons (the Mk-40 and Mk-62 are both bottom, influence mines that come as converted Mk-82s (?))

I am not in agreement in DCS there are already the American and Russian aircraft carriers.

WHERE ARE THE ITALIAN CARRIERS?

WHERE ARE THE ENGLISH CARRIERS?

WHERE ARE THE FRANCE CARRIERS?

WHERE ARE THE ALL CARRIERS???????????????????????????

Surely, that mines can be used as ground mines with seismic fuzes. The main problem actually has all weapons has destroy when impact water and has none implemented to use them on the naval environment.

The same situation, that two Kilo submarines and two sub launched land attack cruise missiles has inoperative as combat platform / weapons. Has unable to use on DCS by all weapons fired underwater detonate at second, and the subs has not implemented a underwater sumerge / surface logic.

Other point has none implemented as a sonar engine with sound propagation to build proper ASW warfare, torpedoes, mines, etc and MAD.

ITALIAN CARRIER (NEW TRIESTE )and CAVOUR

TRIESTE

CAVOUR

I am not in agreement in DCS there are already the American and Russian aircraft carriers.

WHERE ARE THE ITALIAN CARRIERS?

 

WHERE ARE THE ENGLISH CARRIERS?

 

WHERE ARE THE FRANCE CARRIERS?

 

WHERE ARE THE ALL CARRIERS???????????????????????????

For that can need new 3rd parties. Actually ED has centred on build realistic carrier functionality (and suspect on other ship modules and Task Force environment), unknown if can see carrier on the WW2 assets pack. HB and M3 has centred your carriers on specific aircraft module, RAZBAM on a module and a map. Dekka has plans to build Chinese carriers to the Chinese assets pack.

Surely, that mines can be used as ground mines with seismic fuzes. The main problem actually has all weapons has destroy when impact water and has none implemented to use them on the naval environment.

But these things are designed to be aircraft laid bottom mines, which are influence activated. They are designed to attack surface ships and submarines. If they're only going to be able to be laid on the ground and used like regular bombs then I have to ask what's the point?

Presumably ED are going to radically change the naval environment to facilitate underwater and a seafloor (the latter is already present) as well as some underwater sensor (these mines are after all influence mines, though not sure if acoustic, pressure or magnetic influence) even if it means these sensors are going to be simplified or approximated, which I'm personally fine with. (I mean if it's acoustic ED will probably have to do something with the sound system for ships, i.e have propeller noise, cavitation and different sound profiles for ships. At the moment ships all sound exactly the same regardless of propulsion system, layout, size or speed).

And having upgrades to the naval environment itself are definitely welcome, finally we'll get proper implementation of submarines, depth charges, mines and torpedoes. This is pretty important as ASW is totally absent from DCS and nearly every maritime helicopter I can think of (apart from medium/heavy lift transports) is either dedicated to ASW or if not ASW forms a major part of the role - the list is quite long. Not to mention MPAs such as the P-3C Orion, Nimrod MR2, Tu-142 Bear F/J and the Il-38 May all 4 of which carry ASW sensors (sonobuoys, MAD, surface search RADARs) as well as depth charges, and torpedoes.

It may also mean other improvements to the water itself - improve waves, wakes and maybe even improvements to how ships actually interact with the water. At the moment heave, say and surge is totally absent, pitching and rolling are unnatural and randomised with magnitude dependent on wind. Ship damage models seem pretty off and ships always sink the same scripted way before exploding into a puff of water. In DCS there's no regard for where damage actually is and there's no concept of partial damage besides fires and visual damage, ships don't list and some subsystems (e.g weapons) remain operational even after taking direct hits from AShMs.

The same situation, that two Kilo submarines and two sub launched land attack cruise missiles has inoperative as combat platform / weapons. Has unable to use on DCS by all weapons fired underwater detonate at second, and the subs has not implemented a underwater sumerge / surface logic.

 

Other point has none implemented as a sonar engine with sound propagation to build proper ASW warfare, torpedoes, mines, etc and MAD.

With the Kilo definitely, but my hope is that ED will change the naval environment to facilitate their planned Mk-40 and Mk-62 sea mines for the Hornet, and this will pave the way to submarines actually doing what they say on the tin as well as facilitating submarine launched weapons.

For sound propagation and sensors, this can largely be approximated, for active SONAR, this can be approximated to be the same as RADAR, the only difference is with regard to thermal layers (refraction), surface ducts (reflections) and scattering (which DCS radars already do). If you want to go further you can differentiate between the 'SONAR cross section' of the hulls of vessels depending on orientation, which the Viggen's A/G radar already does against ships, so apart from a few things DCS is pretty much already there.

For passive SONAR then yes we do have to think about propagation, but this can't be too radically different from the current sound system, the main thing is speed of propagation and attenuation, as well as previously mentioned thermal layer and surface duct. The main difficulty is having a sound profile for each class of ship, as well as transients, cavitation etc. Underwater sound profiles can be heavily approximated (this kind of stuff is heavily classified however it should be able to make usable approximations that are based on propulsion system, number of propellers, number of blades per propeller and propeller RPM, whether this is accurate isn't much of a factor as only RL SONAR operators will be able to tell the difference).

MAD is a bit difficult but I'm sure it can be approximated.

So all in all, once we have the environment there, the weapons and sensors aren't too much of a stretch if the Mk-40 and Mk-62 are magnetic influence, then we're nearly there w. regard to MAD systems, active SONAR isn't too dissimilar from the Viggens A/G RADAR that we have already, refraction and reflection are just Snell's law (which is fairly easy) there's just attenuation to consider (which again, DCS already does w. RADAR and sound). For passive SONAR the main thing is building profiles for each ship class, transients (things being dropped into the water, launching of weapons) and cavitation.

The actual sensor displays are a different ball game, we don't have any ASW modules yet and the S-3B, SH-60B, Tu-142 and Ka-27 are the only airborne platforms with ASW capability (being able to drop torpedoes, sonobuoys, surface search RADAR and MAD systems).

Not only that but every (or near enough every) surface combatant we have in DCS has ASW weapons/sensors.

• Oliver Hazard Perry class (LH) FFG: Mk32 SVTT for Mk46/50/54 torpedoes, hull mounted active/passive SONAR, probably a towed array.
   
  
• Ticonderoga class (Mk41) CG: Mk32 SVTT for Mk46/50/54 torpedoes, RUM-139 VL-ASROC (also carrying same Mk46/54 torpedoes), active/passive hull mounted SONAR (AN/SQS-53), towed array SONAR (AN/SQR-19), possibly others.
   
  
• Arleigh Burke Flt. IIA DDG: Again, RUM-139 VL-ASROC, Mk-32 SVTT (both for Mk46/50/54 torpedoes), AN/SQS-53(C?), AN/SQR-19 towed array
  

Nearly all Russian/REDFOR surface combatants have at least one RBU-6000, if not RBU-1000 or RBU-12000. Nearly all of them also carry 553mm torpedo tubes. The Krivak-II and Grisha-V are dedicated ASW ships, the Krivak-II carrying 2x RBU-6000 rocket propelled depth-charge launchers, 8x 553mm torpedo tubes and 4x SS-N-14 ASW missiles that drop a lightweight torpedo (though not sure precisely which, AT-1, AT-2 or AT-3 (UGMT-1)) I believe it can also carry racks for depth-charges or mines. The Grisha-V also has 2x RBU-6000 launchers, 4x 553mm torpedo tubes and again racks for depth charges/mines.

Near enough all of them carry SONAR equipment (be it hull mounted active/passive or towed arrays).

Phew bleeding 'eck now back on topic

down the road a Super Etendart / Foch Pack would be brilliant by some third party

+1 for the Kitty Hawk class.

Honestly, it could have been the companion for the F-14, while we could have had the Forrestal class with the F-4 (I've always associated the two together.)

+1 for the Kitty Hawk class.

 

 

Honestly, it could have been the companion for the F-14, while we could have had the Forrestal class with the F-4 (I've always associated the two together.)

Very true but mods are the only way to get the F-4B, F-4J, and F-4N

Mising the USS America (CV-66) and the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) to complete the Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier class similarly to ED and HB expected release your carriers. Other point has be we not know the "ships" coming by HB outside the carriers or future ED projects, someone talk about Burke can be a new ship "module" as carriers. HB has not talk about your modules get the same functionality of ED "modules", only a carrier crew.

Kennedy and 'Murica were one offs (America was in dry dock while we were at NNSY; used to stand under the overhang when it rained...biggest umbrella ever) originally planned as nukes.

Sailed with the Indy, so I wouldn't mind seeing 64 on the horizon again at all, but at the end of the day from a flight ops perspective one flattop is as good as another. Above the waterline carriers are pretty much the same.

Forest Fire -> Nimitz is about all we need. The only other addition that would make logistical sense would be something like Midway or Oriskiny; old Essex boats that got the extra runway added. They're a lot tighter, but for the purpose of DCS I'm not convinced that makes a huge difference.

Honestly, there are too many other things that could use the dev time and add more to the game.

That's just my opinion, of course.

I am not in agreement in DCS there are already the American and Russian aircraft carriers.

WHERE ARE THE ITALIAN CARRIERS?

 

WHERE ARE THE ENGLISH CARRIERS?

 

WHERE ARE THE FRANCE CARRIERS?

 

WHERE ARE THE ALL CARRIERS???????????????????????????

YOU ARE ANNOYINGINGLY LOUD!!!!

There are both brit (Hermes) and Italian (caveour) carriers available as mods right now. Be nice to have them fully supported at some point. I even think there is a french carrier as mod, but I'm not sure.