We could use more ships

We need em !

So many countries do not have a single vessel.

+9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

 

Plus pretty much all of the ships are due for a rework, it's only really the Tarawa, the new Supercarrier assets and the Kilo class SSKs that are up to date.

And the CAP

definatrly we need more ships, more frigates, more "tragets" jejeje

+1

Yeah, but more importantly we need actual damage models for the ships we have, and for them to actually work like modern naval units do. You know, deploy countermeasures and take evasive maneuvers when shot at.

Well, basically there's quite a lot missing from naval whatever, from graphics, manoeuvring, countermeasures, damage model, sinking realistically, even weapons (think Mk41, it can fire a bit more than just SM-2MR and BGM-109C), as well as ASW everything (though hopefully that will change in the future). Not to mention having a few number of ships...

 

I think it would be better if the ships got a complete overhaul doing everything in one go instead of adding proper damage models to ships 20 years out of date graphics wise... Even if we're going to have to wait...

Edited January 24, 2020 by Northstar98

Couldn't agree more. Look at the Persian Gulf - we have absolutely no Iranian naval units beyond the speedboat. Really stops mission makers from making any proper naval clashes on the map. We don't even have desert camo for the vehicles yet.

I can't agree more. Persian Gulf Map has been my greatest DCS disapointment because of this. I don't even bother to use it as it is and only use big desert areas to simulate other locations.

Couldn't agree more. Look at the Persian Gulf - we have absolutely no Iranian naval units beyond the speedboat. Really stops mission makers from making any proper naval clashes on the map. We don't even have desert camo for the vehicles yet.

 

And that speedboat is totally generic...

Ships in general need an overhaul. And better ship behavior. Back in the day you could set a ship on the map, and give it an attack unit command, and it would sortie out and hunt down that unit, then return to its stating point. Just one example of needed behavior. Another is a vastly improved damage model, the one on the Perry isn’t bad. And the ability to have weapons, radar, and systems destroyed, or damaged. And like one user said they need defensive behaviors. ASW would be cool, but probably totally useless in DCS. Most missions don’t or won’t last long enough. Though flying cap, to defend your ASW captors wile they defend your carrier from a sub would be a kinda cool mission. I don’t think we should wait on a retexturing of old ships to start seeing improvements, or new ship modules. DCS took a seriously navel turn, and that environment needs to start getting the love it deserves. And yes we need more ships. Especially WWII ships. Oh and every ship with a radar should be able to act as a EWR.

...vastly improved damage model, the one on the Perry isn’t bad. And the ability to have weapons, radar, and systems destroyed, or damaged...

 

Yes absolutely, and while graphically speaking the OHP class is decent enough, graphically it's good but in terms of fidelity it's still quite low (they often don't reflect where the weapon actually hit, what angle and what damage, it's just threshold reached -> damage displayed in the general location), and AFAIK it is merely a unit health-bar and when that health bar gets too low multiple systems go down across the board. The WW2 assets have superior graphics, but it's still low fidelity. I guess a good starting point is maybe a cross between SH4 (which has holes and gashes exactly where weapons hit, basic but works) and SF2 (which has more appropriate subsystem damage, you can gun a turret and it'll stop working, and they'll catch fire, no bullet holes or gashes though).

 

Individual systems should have their own customised hitboxes. Things like weapon mounts/launchers, individual antennae etc with their own graphical damage depending on damage taken (bullet holes, to complete destruction of the system, maybe accompanied by smoke/fires).

 

And like one user said they need defensive behaviors.

 

Yes, defensive/offensive manoeuvring, releasing countermeasures, I would say jamming but I'll check (not like ECM is modelled with any fidelity)...

 

ASW would be cool, but probably totally useless in DCS. Most missions don’t or won’t last long enough.

 

Disagree, this is up to the mission editor - how scenarios would probably play out is that we already have a submarine in a known approximate location (which can be as precise or as ambiguous as the mission designer likes, obviously the less precise the more difficult). The submarine in the area poses near to/immediate danger to friendly forces and is close to being within weapons range. Forces engage in ASW using whatever (MPAs, helicopters, surface vessels) to try and locate, pinpoint, attack and sink the submarine. I will agree that hunting submarines in transit essentially blind, away from the AO of friendly assets is probably out of the current scope (mostly because of maps and the lack of airborne ASW platforms), though again this is and should be at the discretion of the mission designer, given the capability to do so (which of course we haven't got). In the current scope of DCS I imagine missions will play out is kinda how they do in Cold Waters, i.e with the submarine already close, say within 25~ nmi (up to mission designer) to other assets, which the submarine poses an imminent threat to or is otherwise just about to carry out it's mission (sink stuff, launch cruise missiles insert special forces etc). Even if this is just one part in a larger naval battle, it by no means has to be a focal point.

 

Right now we have 2 Kilo class submarines; a Pr. 877V (a 1-boat variant of the Pr. 877, fitted with a pump-jet/propulsor) and the improved Pr. 636. At the moment only the 877V is a usable asset in the mission editor and all it can do is follow waypoints and turn lights on, the Pr. 636 boat is only present in the modelviewer. IMO both submarines, but more so the 636 (which is basically modelled to perfection), are the best looking naval assets in DCS by far, both submarines have fully animated control surfaces (including the retractable bow-planes) as well as all masts and antennae; the 636 also has animated outer torpedo tube doors and even the retractable capstans and hatch for the torpedo tube reloading adaptor!

 

Adding to the 2 Kilos are 2 SLCMs which it fires, both only present in the modelviewer. These are the 3M-54E (though without it's terminal stage) and the 3M-54E1, both are anti-ship missiles fired from the torpedo tubes when the submarine is submerged (I believe the 3M-54E and 3M-54E1 are encapsulated until they reach the surface, like the UGM-84 and UGM-109, correct me if I'm wrong).

 

I don’t think we should wait on a retexturing of old ships to start seeing improvements, or new ship modules. DCS took a seriously naval turn, and that environment needs to start getting the love it deserves. And yes we need more ships. Especially WWII ships. Oh and every ship with a radar should be able to act as a EWR.

 

To clarify I think current assets should be upgraded before adding new, because what happens is that they end up seemingly left behind perpetually, this is because we've already had these assets for ages. I think improvements should start with the easy to implement (new models, textures, animations etc) and then ramp up in complexity (DMs, AI etc) or preferably one big revamp before adding completely new ones this is because I imagine it's probably more difficult to retrofit an existing asset rather than have that asset designed from the outset to be able to do it in the near future. Essentially fitted for, but maybe right now, not with these improvements an example is the Kilo class submarines we have, in the modelviewer they have animations for all masts and antennae, torpedo tube doors, planes and even the torpedo tube reloading adaptor hatch, so while these things aren't functional in DCS, they can be made so with less work. If we were to add new assets and not have these fitted for but not with improvements IMO that would be short-sighted if these improvements were to be considered as it will mean that more ships would have to be retrofitted. With a smaller number there's less work involved and once it's been done for a few, I'm guessing it would be easy to just copy and paste the technology onto newer vessels. If we have tonnes of assets we've got more to retrofit/revamp.

 

I mean look at the Chinese Asset pack ships, there's actually a heck of a lot where they fall short graphically speaking, by a fair margin - I don't want to bash the devs by any means, they have been busy with the JF-17, but there are some glaring flaws (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=204859, though I think I'm going to update this with a new thread).

 

But also ships right now don't even move like ships, things like pitch and roll are AFAIK randomised with a wind dependent magnitude, they don't turn realistically (though I guess it's hard to tell). They don't roll when they turn at speed (AFAIK), AFAIK there's no heave, sway or surge (up/down, left/right, forwards/backwards translation movements). Now if interacting with the water properly even if still approximated is a performance problem then so be it, but those translation movements are still totally randomised.

 

As said before ship damage models are something lacking, both in terms of fidelity/complexity and graphically. In terms of fidelity it's merely a health bar, get that below a threshold and things stop working (AFAIK). Individual subsystems should have their own hitboxes, both external (antennae, weapon mounts/launchers) and internal (propulsion, steering, fire-control) of course when torpedoes come they'll be more things to do. In terms of visuals, systems should accommodate damage done by aircraft cannon rounds, to larger calibre rounds, to bombs and AShMs (can be approximated to bullet holes, or a graphically destroyed system), this should probably include smoke and/or fires. The same should be said for antennae that has a visual damaged & destroyed state. This is already done with nearly all aircraft currently in DCS (incl. AI).

 

Ships should also simulate flooding, at least approximately, divide the ship into compartments (say 8, 3 on each side and an extra one at the bow and stern), and make it a race between water coming in (determined by the damage done to that compartment, whether a large hole/gash from an AShM or several small ones caused by gun rounds), the more water comes in the more the ship lists towards the damaged compartment. Provided the compartment isn't too heavily damaged (can be done by a health bar for that compartment) eventually the water can be pumped out and the list removed/reduced.

 

And of course I absolutely agree that ships should have improvements like GCI (SCI?).

Edited January 27, 2020 by Northstar98

A reasonably priced ai ships module wouldn't be something i would frown upon if that's what it takes to get the wheels turning on this. +1 to everything above.

I am a bit concerned that ED dug themselves into a hole with the graphical details of the most recent generation of ground units and ships. They set an extreme high standard and I fear that they can't/won't back down from this again. Production at this high level takes years and the introduction of new AI units went down to a minimum. The AI Arleigh Burke-class has been in development since at least 2018 and it will even be bundled into a DLC. While these fantastic models are very nice to look at, I don't think they are really needed for a flightsim. I would rather prefer to have more less detailed much needed new units with their unique capabilities. Frankly I would take a couple of new units that look like the old Krivak model over a single new high-detail ship any day. More ships would offer more opportunities for varied gameplay and allow to flesh out scenarios better, while from the cockpit you wouldn't notice the lack of detail much anyway. But I get that you can't release low-detail models anymore. As a compromise, I think that the detail level of the Perry is good enough though.

 

At the simulation level some improvements are needed, but I think this can be limited to the area where ships interact directly with our aircraft or shape the scenario that our aircraft participate in. I am a big fan of ASW, but frankly I think any effort in this area is wasted until someone is doing a dedicated ASW aircraft. Investing development resources to simulate underwater craft that we cannot see nor detect with any playable aircraft makes little sense in my opinion.

 

What I would like to see is the simulation of AA-guns bigger than CIWS that are currently missing on every ship, as well as the simulation of all air search radars. With these radars, every ship should be able to act as EWR, give warnings to players and direct AI aircraft (as 1L13 and 55G6 units currently do in game).

 

With regards to the damage model, I don't think there is a need to go overboard. What is most important I think is individual weapon and sensor mount damage. While the newer models (for example Tarantul-III) already have this effect graphically, destroying a radar will not actually disable the radar in the simulation. This would be pretty important for attacking ships with ARM though. Otherwise I don't think detailed compartmentalized internal damage is needed for a flightsim, the health-point system is probably good enough for the hull. It would be nice touch though if a hull penetration at the rear would immobilize the ship or if the penetration of a magazine could lead to a catastrophic magazine explosion.

I am a bit concerned that ED dug themselves into a hole with the graphical details of the most recent generation of ground units and ships. They set an extreme high standard and I fear that they can't/won't back down from this again. Production at this high level takes years and the introduction of new AI units went down to a minimum.

 

Agreed. Detail levels on the AI SU-34 and SCUD are magnificent but considering it's taking years to overhaul or add new units to the sim, maybe a different approach is needed. As some others have suggested, it might be a good idea to get the community involved in the creation of some more AI units. Some modders made a fantastic P-3C model, why not add stuff like that to the sim? Look at the Supercarrier - it'll look incredible but we'll be stuck with SH-60 and S-3 models on the deck from Lockon which was released 17 years ago...

To expand on the concept on putting emphasis on ship's interactions with aircraft, I would like to see the addition of at least one class featuring the following SAM systems:

 

SA-N-1 (SAM Kotlin, Kanin, Kashin, Kynda or Kresta I)

SA-N-3 (Kresta II, Kara, Moskva or Kiev)

SA-N-7 (Sovremenny)

 

We already have at least one class with SA-N-4, SA-N-9, SA-N-6 and SA-N-20.

 

SM-1/2ER (Leahy, Belknap, Farragut, Long Beach, Bainbridge or Truxtun)

 

The Standard SAM in DCS should actually be divided into the SM-1 and SM-2 generations. The Oliver H. Perry class in DCS currently has SM-2MR instead of SM-1MR (should be a lot less effective against supersonic anti-ship missiles).

Warning monster post ahead.

 

I am a bit concerned that ED dug themselves into a hole with the graphical details of the most recent generation of ground units and ships. They set an extreme high standard and I fear that they can't/won't back down from this again. Production at this high level takes years and the introduction of new AI units went down to a minimum. The AI Arleigh Burke-class has been in development since at least 2018 and it will even be bundled into a DLC. While these fantastic models are very nice to look at, I don't think they are really needed for a flightsim. I would rather prefer to have more less detailed much needed new units with their unique capabilities. Frankly I would take a couple of new units that look like the old Krivak model over a single new high-detail ship any day. More ships would offer more opportunities for varied gameplay and allow to flesh out scenarios better, while from the cockpit you wouldn't notice the lack of detail much anyway. But I get that you can't release low-detail models anymore. As a compromise, I think that the detail level of the Perry is good enough though.

 

Well I respect your position and I absolutely get where you're coming from but I disagree that it was the 3D model that took the most amount of time and is what's currently being the hold up - in fact if you look through the modelviewer ED far improved great swathes of weapons in one swoop without much notice (AFAIK) months and months before they were implemented, and still there's stuff that isn't implemented but the visuals are complete - things like ATFLIR, SLAM-ER, GBU-24, the Mk-40 etc. ED went above and beyond and gave these weapons animated control surfaces (apart from the JDAM so far), they must've redone about ~20 weapons in total in one go to almost ridiculously high quality. 3rd parties have yet to catch up with their native weapons, it's only Deka who have included animated control surfaces on the GB-6 and LS-6 guided glide bombs (they're animated in the modelviewer at least). I would've thought that animating tiny control surfaces would have been something nobody really noticed, but looking at them now in game, combine this with weapon flight models and it actually makes the weapons look less artificial in their movements using the F6 camera (I definitely notice the difference between say the HARM and the RB-15F/RB-04E).

 

Also things like the components of the S-200 model are already present in the modelviewer and have been so for months, fully animated (including things like the bleeding umbilical connector!), as is a Pr. 775 (Ropucha I) class landing ship. Also don't forget that the current best looking asset IMO the Pr. 636(.3?) Improved Kilo has been in the modelviewer for 2-3 years but yet hasn't been implemented in any way into DCS (only the Pr. 877V Kilo variant - a one boat modification, is actually present, despite the 2 being added at the same time, with similar features (the 877V doesn't have it's torpedo tube doors animated in the modelviewer) - there was no announcements, they we're updated out of the blue, pardon the pun).

 

The Arleigh Burke model was actually seen close up

from a video uploaded in December 2018 and by the looks of it, the model looks pretty much complete... In fact it's pretty difficult to judge how long it takes for 3D models to be developed; ships I imagine are the most time consuming, followed by aircraft and then vehicles and weapons, simply by virtue of having the most details to model and the most things to animate. Plus often it seems with module development, the model is one of things completed first with only minor adjustments and enhancements. Just so cards are on the table, the SCUD also appears in aforementioned video, as well as the new Admiral Kuznetsov...

 

The same can even be said of the Su-34, there were in-game screenshots of it weeks, maybe a month or 2 before we actually got it, even though it doesn't look like anything major changed with the visuals...

 

I'm not an asset developer, I've only dabbled with 3D modelling but from my speculation, it isn't the new 3D model causing the delays (with the SCUD we know that it's the FDM of the missile that's taking time, though now it's been actually implemented into DCS just can't fire).

 

However I do absolutely agree that we need more ships, like the OP said there are so many countries with major naval presence without a single vessel that they actually operate (either past or present), especially in maps like SoH and the Marianas, but even WWII assets are minimal at best for Normandy and the Channel. But even for navies that do have ships, they're hardly comprehensive - the US so far has a grand total of just 5 ships (incl. the SC module) each of a single variant.

 

At the simulation level some improvements are needed, but I think this can be limited to the area where ships interact directly with our aircraft or shape the scenario that our aircraft participate in. I am a big fan of ASW, but frankly I think any effort in this area is wasted until someone is doing a dedicated ASW aircraft. Investing development resources to simulate underwater craft that we cannot see nor detect with any playable aircraft makes little sense in my opinion.

Hmm, I get what you're saying and it's definitely reasonable with regards to interacting with aircraft, but personally I don't think it should be limited to purely what the player can interact with. Yes DCS is a sandbox flight sim and not so much a naval sim, but I think if improvements are feasible we should go for it, of course priority applies and I am by no means saying that all the stuff I mentioned (which alone is a big, big ask) is something desperately needed right this second now, I recognise that in comparison to other elements it takes the back seat.

 

For submarines I get what you're saying, if we were to implement subs now we wouldn't be able to do anything about them, they'd sit under the surface firing off AShMs. What I will say, is if submarines and ASW got some love, maybe it'll provide a bigger incentive to do a naval helicopter (of which almost all have ASW capability in some form, barring transport aircraft which of course have nothing to do with anything underwater). It will be essentially AI fighting AI for the time being.

 

If ED were to do a ship module, I think it should be for smaller craft up to the size of a corvette, at least in this stage of the game (of course if a naval module was going to be considered in the first place). I think that playable submarines is out of the scope of DCS, and would probably require the effort of standalone games. As far as the underwater environment goes, I'd be more than satisfied with a low-res, semi accurate depth map, with the water itself being at KSP level (essentially just blue filter with reduced visibility).

 

What I would like to see is the simulation of AA-guns bigger than CIWS that are currently missing on every ship, as well as the simulation of all air search radars. With these radars, every ship should be able to act as EWR, give warnings to players and direct AI aircraft (as 1L13 and 55G6 units currently do in game).

Absolutely. For me personally, it's accurate modelling of animation types for DP naval guns (mostly boils down to different fuzings). Another example is the Phalanx CIWS aboard ships, which fires untraced APDS ammunition, not the yellow tracers it currently has. AFAIK larger guns seem to have an inaccurately high RoF which should be corrected. Lastly the only other (minor) thing is improvements to sounds, though I guess this is subjective.

 

And as for RADARs I completely agree.

 

With regards to the damage model, I don't think there is a need to go overboard. What is most important I think is individual weapon and sensor mount damage. While the newer models (for example Tarantul-III) already have this effect graphically, destroying a radar will not actually disable the radar in the simulation. This would be pretty important for attacking ships with ARM though. Otherwise I don't think detailed compartmentalized internal damage is needed for a flightsim, the health-point system is probably good enough for the hull. It would be nice touch though if a hull penetration at the rear would immobilize the ship or if the penetration of a magazine could lead to a catastrophic magazine explosion.

 

Yes exterior components are definitely the most important by far.

 

With the damage modelling, the sinking thing is the most difficult, but can be heavily approximated, I just mentioned the damage control thing to just think of all ideas I could think of. I would however like ships to sink more realistically and in a more corresponding fashion to damage sustained and where, this can be done with hitboxes corresponding to compartments (which can also be heavily guesstimated), with each hitbox having a health-bar, as that health-bar depletes, the ship lists in the direction of the hitbox which can be weighted depending on the size of the hitbox. Alternatively I guess it would be possible to simulate centre and magnitude-of-mass and centre and magnitude-of-buoyancy in a largely approximated fashion (which DCS already does in some aspect for basically every aircraft, just instead of buoyancy we have lift).

 

The same can be said for internal subsystems, you mentioned magazines - it's just a hitbox, something DCS has done since it's inception - the difference here is that we'd need to simulate weapons penetrating and then exploding and the effects of such.

 

With the visual damage I mentioned, there's actually a pretty simple way of doing it, and one that DCS actually already does. Basically what you would do is model a rudimentary interior throughout the ship, this would only really need to be featureless walls and floors/ceilings. Then when a weapon hits it applies an invisible hole/gash shaped texture to the model, revealing the interior structure, with the size depending on the weapon. The funny thing is DCS already does this with the terrain, it's just that the texture is a crater, that's size dependent based on the weapon, buildings already have fires & smoke which corresponds to impact location and the LST Mk.II in some areas already has sections where an interior is present, to represent 3D damage, with invisible, hole shaped textures - all we need to do is marry what the terrain does and what the LST Mk.II has and that's it, we have 3D damage, corresponding to the location and magnitude of weapon hits. This is low priority, but it shouldn't be too much of a far stretch.

 

To expand on the concept on putting emphasis on ship's interactions with aircraft, I would like to see the addition of at least one class featuring the following SAM systems:

 

SA-N-1 (SAM Kotlin, Kanin, Kashin, Kynda or Kresta I)

SA-N-3 (Kresta II, Kara, Moskva or Kiev)

SA-N-7 (Sovremenny)

 

We already have at least one class with SA-N-4, SA-N-9, SA-N-6 and SA-N-20.

 

SM-1/2ER (Leahy, Belknap, Farragut, Long Beach, Bainbridge or Truxtun)

 

The Standard SAM in DCS should actually be divided into the SM-1 and SM-2 generations. The Oliver H. Perry class in DCS currently has SM-2MR instead of SM-1MR (should be a lot less effective against supersonic anti-ship missiles).

 

Absolutely agree.

 

Also it should be said that the Harpoon fired from ships shows up as AGM-84S when it should be RGM-84 (I'd stick with the -84D variant, as it's implemented on the Hornet, visually though, if ED were to revamp the ship based Harpoon all they'd need to do is take the model used by the Hornet, model folding wings/control surfaces, stick a booster on the end and subtly change the texture to read RGM-84D instead of AGM-84D). Another thing is the TLAM, which is designated BGM-109B, except that is the AShM variant of the Tomahawk with active RADAR homing. The current version should be renamed BGM-109C.

 

The Ticonderoga should also have access to the RIM-157A SM-2ER Block IV, the RIM-174 SM-6 ERAM and the RIM-162A/B ESSM with maybe loadout control in the mission editor.

 

It should also be said that the AN/SPG-62 illumination RADARs for the SARH Standard missiles (SM-1MR/ER & SM-2MR/ER) aren't animated. The SARH standards also have a limited AShM capability, albeit ballistic, without over-the-horizon capability (again using SARH with the SPG-62s).

Edited January 27, 2020 by Northstar98

One low hanging fruit for submarines would be submerged subs as ASM launch platforms. No 3d model, no damage model, no sensors, no torpedoes, just an empty "ship" shell to act as submerged ASM platform which can launch its missiles on datalink targets (which all ships in DCS already can).

 

Why you might ask? Imagine the following scenario. A hostile A-50* is approaching the fleet which needs to be intercepted. If the A-50 is not destroyed in time, it will detect the fleet, datalink the targets to the submerged sub which will then attack the fleet with missiles. This mechanic already works in DCS right now with ships instead of subs. The problem is that ships do not usually remain uncontested for long in the vicinity of hostile fleets. A stealthy hidden submerged Oscar SSGN would.

 

*Current behaviour in DCS is that only AWACS (E-2, E-3, A-50) can datalink surface targets to ships. It would make much more sense if that behaviour would be extended to maritime patrol aircraft and helicopters.

About ASW:

I remember from Lomac / FC was on DCS some 3D model to ASW and ASuW weapons not implemented.

- GL-Bomba (air depth charge)

- P-120 Malakhit (SS-N-9 Siren)

- 85RU/URPK-5 Rastrub / Metel Anti-Ship Complex (SS-N-14 Silex)

 

Actually has two ASM missiles to Kilos (but kilos has no yet funtional Torpedo Tubes and kilo 636 has TT animations).

- 3M54E

- 3M54E1.

 

And naval mines as:

- Mk-40 Destructor.

 

About Ships:

- Moscow (Slava) has torpedo tube doors (mising torpedo tubes) and RBU has not animated.

- On supercarrier has talk DDG-51 can coming with animated torpedo tubes. Coming ASW torpedoes?.

- Unguied torpedos to ships and subs coming from WW2, expected see more, and Deka has planned a Sub to your assets pack.

We're supposedly getting an F5x aerial torpedo with the Ju-88 (unguided, straight-running, fixed depth - to attack surface vessels) and presumably the G7a (again unguided, fixed depth (though AFAIK can be fired on +/- 90 degree bearing from launcher controlled by a gyroscope).

 

Of course the 3M-54E and 3M-54E1 submarine launched AShMs (I was sure the 91RE1 was in too, but can't find it, I'm probably mistaken).

 

The Hornet is getting the Mk40 Destructor and Mk63 Quickstrike sea mines (both are bottom, influence mines, converted from retarded Mk83 bombs), designed to engage surface ships (in shallow waters) and submarines.

 

Apart from that nothing much else apart from what SD has already said.

Add to them, the Supercarrier has incoming

- Mk-32 launchers with RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile Block 0 (changing to the Block 2)

- Mk-29 launchers with RIM-7 (in fact the Sparrow has been supressed by the RIM-162 ESSM)

- Phalanx

 

Missing Nulka and Mark 36 SRBOC launchers on USNavy Ships (modeled but not implemented) ECM and towed decoys.

 

About naval environment docs

https://maritime.org/doc/