Nimitz Class high detail

Not sure where to put this so moderators please move accordingly. I was just wondering about the high detail Nimitz class model that is coming. Will it be a high detail version of the Stennis? Or will it be a different ship of the same class? The reason I ask, is my hope that the ship is modeled correctly to present pre Super Hornet era details. For example Nimitz came out of RCOH in 2001 with a brand new tri-level main mast, and never again operated Tomcats in that configuration. IKE Came out of her RCOH in 2005 with the same tri-tier main mast, and also never operated Tomcats in this config.

My hope is that ED does it’s research, and provides us with a high detail in the NIMITZ class ship that represents a mid 90’s configuration. This would be the best compromise to get both F/A-18’s and F-14’s operating from the deck at the same time.

With that said, I know their aim for the Hornet is a mid 2000’s update, which just doesn’t Make any sense, unless they plan to add Super Hornet Ai to the fray at some point?

-Woog

AFAIK Heatblur is working on a carrier to support the F-14, could be changed though.

Heatblur will be releasing a Forrestal class carrier for the F-14.

Forrestal, nimitz, stennis, it's a lot of steel and iron of which a large part is flat :D :D: D

Heatblur are doing a Forrestal class CV to fit the F-14. Bit it won’t appear for a while.

Regarding the Hornets time period. They are modelling one of the very last F-18Cs produced because they have references for it and that aircraft has the most mature systems. It also allows them to model resonably recent weapon systems. The F-18 and the F-14 modules are not linked together. They are developed independently, so the era of the carrier is only relevant to the Hornet and not the F-14. The F-14 will be able to operate off the new Nimitz despite the fact that wouldn’t be realistic.

I am aware of the Heatblur Forestall class. I am also aware that the Hornet is being developed by BST/ED and the F-14 by HB, two separate companies altogether.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Charlie Hornet no matter the era is not the top dog on the deck. It was always 2nd to the Tomcat or the Super Hornet except for a couple minor examples. Therefore we have need to have either Super Hornets modeled as Ai, or ships modeled era specific for both Hornets and Tomcats. As we all know that DCS can never replicate current gen weapons systems for OpSec reasons, the choice to model this version of the Hornet is perplexing at best. Older Hornets, worked the same way, they just had less system depth, or with out many of the pages and options that were added later in life.

I just wish that the Producers would do a better job of focusing the subject matter to be more consistent between modules. In the case of the A-10C, I get it, they were under contract for the actual US Air Force. I fail to believe that ED is under contract for an F/A-18C that has been retired by its primary operator, and will be retired by more by the time the module is "Finished."

Honestly, Pre-Millennium Eagle Dynamics. That should be your focus for now. Its the only era that you a can legally accurately simulate consistently.

-Woog

I am aware of the Heatblur Forestall class. I am also aware that the Hornet is being developed by BST/ED and the F-14 by HB, two separate companies altogether.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that the Charlie Hornet no matter the era is not the top dog on the deck. It was always 2nd to the Tomcat or the Super Hornet except for a couple minor examples. Therefore we have need to have either Super Hornets modeled as Ai, or ships modeled era specific for both Hornets and Tomcats. As we all know that DCS can never replicate current gen weapons systems for OpSec reasons, the choice to model this version of the Hornet is perplexing at best. Older Hornets, worked the same way, they just had less system depth, or with out many of the pages and options that were added later in life.

 

I just wish that the Producers would do a better job of focusing the subject matter to be more consistent between modules. In the case of the A-10C, I get it, they were under contract for the actual US Air Force. I fail to believe that ED is under contract for an F/A-18C that has been retired by its primary operator, and will be retired by more by the time the module is "Finished."

 

Honestly, Pre-Millennium Eagle Dynamics. That should be your focus for now. Its the only era that you a can legally accurately simulate consistently.

 

-Woog

:megalol::megalol::megalol: Mate, if you got no other problems upsetting you, you must be a very lucky man :thumbup: But maybe ED will follow your advice. Or was it an order? :huh:

You have an amazing amount of conjecture and armchair analysis here, you even whipped out some obviously incorrect assumptions about a favorite buzzword, ''OpSec''. A lot of really anal nitpicking, too. Good job!

Ripper: Indeed life is pretty damn good to me.

Zhukovsky: I am not sure exactly what “armchair analysis” you are speaking of, other than the simple fact that the Legacy Charlie Hornet is a lesser aircraft to the Tomcat and the Super Hornet. Operational Security is a great blanket term that most definitely covers the release of classified information regarding aircraft and anything else you might want to use it for. I am not here to argue another pointless fight. Zuk was anything in your statement constructive or necessary?

I just wanted to find out more about the carrier plans.

-Woog

Woogey, have some respect then when you let that slide out of your sound hole :-)

The legacy Hornet had more A2A kills than the Tomcat did, and one of the times where the Hornets got it in real good they had Tomcats escorting them. Legacy Hornets will likely have more A2A kills than super H for the long haul, unless we manage to have another conventional-ish war.

Robert you’re clearly a fan of the Hornet, which is why your statement sounds like I personally attacked you. Just because an aircraft has a higher score card does not mean it’s a better or more capable aircraft. By every single measure, the Tomcat was more capable. If you compare the score card for all Tomcat A2A victories, you will find the Hornet coming up short. You seem to forget about this other little country called Iran that shot down many more Iraqi jets than US Hornets ever did.

Respect is something that is earned by a person, not a machine. If you want to credit the machine properly, then credit the Tomcat for being so persuasive, that it did not need to bloody it’s claws. Enemies ran in fear when locked up by the AWG-9.

Moderators, can we now close yet another argument thread? This place is filled with vile human beings. I just wanted to know about a carrier model.

What I've been trying to tell you is that you'd probably get an answer from an ED official earlier/at all if you'd asked nicely.

Instead you complained about the existing model and what's even better, tried to explain to them what the only right way is to do their job properly. That garnished with a furious smiley is the most easy way to get ignored by any professional (unlike us who answered you).

I just wanted to know about a carrier model.

I probably should keep my mouth shut, but you are the one who started comparing uncomparable aircraft...

The simple fact of the matter is that the Charlie Hornet no matter the era is not the top dog on the deck. It was always 2nd to the Tomcat or the Super Hornet except for a couple minor examples.

Honestly, Pre-Millennium Eagle Dynamics. That should be your focus for now. Its the only era that you a can legally accurately simulate consistently.

 

-Woog

There're still plenty of pre-millennium systems that remain classified to this day.

Ripper: Indeed life is pretty damn good to me.

Zhukovsky: I am not sure exactly what “armchair analysis” you are speaking of, other than the simple fact that the Legacy Charlie Hornet is a lesser aircraft to the Tomcat and the Super Hornet. Operational Security is a great blanket term that most definitely covers the release of classified information regarding aircraft and anything else you might want to use it for. I am not here to argue another pointless fight. Zuk was anything in your statement constructive or necessary?

 

I just wanted to find out more about the carrier plans.

 

-Woog

Woog, ED has our plans. The "carrier module" has a "CVN-74" based on the actual AI ship, show on previously newsletter.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3735513&postcount=178

After of them coming the AI Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Flight III and the Kutnesov carrier, actually has Unknown if can be as "carrier module" or only AI.

About other ships, has none planned, ED need implement "old" the kilo subs with sub launched weapons actually into the ED directory, but the problem has the lack of time to implement features meanwhile working on modules.

About others (aka F/A-18E), has builder by a external team (by Chizh commentaries on russian forum) and your future plans has unknown. They can building now new AI units not show yet by ED.

There is no such thing as a ''necessary'' post in regard to a videogame, nice try at being edgey, though. As for OpSec I was pointing out how full of bs you are =) Most all these aircraft still have classified systems, including the A-10C and late model F-18C we have, which shares many systems with the early Super Hornet blocks.

The solution to classification is emulation (something that produces a similar end result in a different manner). The caveats are thusly : getting permission from the relevant government entities and actually locating the necessary data (which in some cases is provided by those same entities in exchange for input or concessions regarding the final product).

I find people who fling around buzzwords like ''OpSec'' are usually civvies who know somebody who knows somebody that enlisted, or perhaps wishes they were a soldier. Case and point, the recent high profile Youtube channel that was harassed by random idiots that had no idea what they were talking about.

And before you say it, yes yes, I'm sure you're a Delta Force SEAL Beret with three ToDs in the Angolan Civil War or some shit. I've never ''disputed'' commentary with somebody who didn't immediately claim to have a direct line to the President @@

-edit

I also like how you worked in blaming the community for calling you on some of your nonsense, played the victim card and called for moderators. Well done, man, you covered all the Internet bases =)

Didn't the Roosevelt get the same refit in 04. She operated F-14, admittedly the D, until they were retired. I don't see the big deal. I mean no lot 20 hornet ever flew off of the Stennis. Tomcats were in service, so in our ficticious war scenarios, CVW-7 and CVW-17's F-14Bs deployed with Stennis instead of the Kennedy or Washington.

On the contrary Woogey, I have it and rarely fly it. As an aviation enthusiast it's in my top ten gen II or newer armed jet aircraft, but in the back half. I personally was very disappointed to see that although the Tomcat rose to the occasion as a bomber, and even exceeded everyone's expectations, and in many cases the abilities of aircraft designed specifically for that role in Serbia, that the Tomcat never really vindicated it's entire reason for existing in the first place - fleet interceptor with superior maneuverability.

Tomcat should have had more kills than Hornet. I realize the USAF had more chances to engage the Iraqi air force by virtue of their geographical position, but it bums me out that Tomcat didn't get in on the action. My comment was only to remind you that the Hornet gave a good accounting for itself in the a2a arena, and continues to prove that is a very capable high alpha fighter when it is configured for the role of "fighter plane", similar in many regards to the Viper.