Unique Carriers - 20 March 2020 Update

[draconus]

I personally can`t see any difference between four carrier that we have now...

 

Even the island side number?

[Jackjack171]

I personally can`t see any difference between four carrier that we have now...

All NIMITZ class carriers are going to look the same. Except for the Hull numbers and a few different awards, there's not a lot of going against the grain. The "AB" wings (like the ones under my name) on the Island are designed and painted by the AIR Department guys and you may see some more wings on some Bow's, like the TRUMAN.

 

The ships look great. Could use some more rust but hey!

[fagulha]

I wish to see different liveries for the deck of the carriers. Would add even more veriety.

[AMEDooley]

On 9/28/2020 at 5:00 PM, Jackjack171 said:

All NIMITZ class carriers are going to look the same. Except for the Hull numbers and a few different awards, there's not a lot of going against the grain. The "AB" wings (like the ones under my name) on the Island are designed and painted by the AIR Department guys and you may see some more wings on some Bow's, like the TRUMAN.

 

The ships look great. Could use some more rust but hey!

This isn’t correct, the Reagan and up have some different features. Mostly with the island. 

[Jackjack171]

58 minutes ago, AMEDooley said:

This isn’t correct, the Reagan and up have some different features. Mostly with the island. 

Yes, you are correct. The Reagan and the Bush are different. It's the last of the Nimitz class moving into the Ford class with an entirely new deck config. I'm a 68-75 sailor. The Nimitz class that we have in DCS will more than likely be the vanilla Nimitz class. It would be nice to have the latter in class but I won't hold my breath. Still waiting on the Forrestal class!

[draconus]

15 hours ago, Jackjack171 said:

The Nimitz class that we have in DCS will more than likely be the vanilla Nimitz class.

What was promised for the Supercarrier was only the Theodore Roosevelt subclass:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/supercarrier/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships_in_class

[Jackjack171]

8 hours ago, draconus said:

What was promised for the Supercarrier was only the Theodore Roosevelt subclass:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/supercarrier/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships_in_class

Yeah, but being a retired Navy guy, to us it's all the same! The Nimitz class is just that, but I get why they got to calling it a sub-class. The Reagan and Bush are classified as Nimitz class (another sub-class) but are different in many ways (ex. 3 arresting gear wires instead of 4, island super structure). The GW, Truman and Nimitz ( all of which I served on) are similar on the outside, mostly! If you don't know what to look for, it really doesn't matter! In DCS, you just change hull numbers!

[Trol]

I grew up on and around US Naval bases.  Every time I saw a carrier I could pick it out by the superstructure with few exceptions.  I remember when the Enterprise had the major makeover and that was a big deal.  But even the Ranger Vs Connie had their differences.  Connie had the extra tower behind the island. The carriers deserve to be unique with the kind of attention to detail from DCS.

[Tholozor]

One thing that's interesting is that the Lincoln has two CIWS turrets on the port and starboard quarters, whereas the others only have one on the portside.

[Tippis]

5 hours ago, Tholozor said:

One thing that's interesting is that the Lincoln has two CIWS turrets on the port and starboard quarters, whereas the others only have one on the portside.

It also has a much wider arc on its forward Sea Sparrow battery for no readily explained reason.

[Tholozor]

I believe the carriers represent a c.2017 configuration given the models for 71 and 72 are post-RCOH.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Tholozor

[CarbonFox]

It would be cool to see the Carl Vincent (CVN-70) and Dwight Eisenhower (CVN-69) make it into the Supercarrier module down the road.

[Northstar98]

5 hours ago, Tholozor said:

I believe the carriers represent a c.2017 configuration given the models for 71 and 72 are post-RCOH.

 

 

Would they not have RIM-162 ESSM instead of Sea Sparrow in that case? The Arleigh-Burke should have it too (among other things).

 

21 minutes ago, CarbonFox said:

It would be cool to see the Carl Vincent (CVN-70) and Dwight Eisenhower (CVN-69) make it into the Supercarrier module down the road.

 

Indeed, only thing I will say though is that the supercarrier is the Nimitz-Roosevelt subclass which are CVNs -71 to -75.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[Tholozor]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Would they not have RIM-162 ESSM instead of Sea Sparrow in that case? The Arleigh-Burke should have it too (among other things).

That depends, do RCOH plans include upgrading the box launchers to accommodate the larger-sized missiles?

[Northstar98]

Just did some more digging on it.

 

Our supercarriers seem to be a mid-to-late 2000s fit at the very earliest. Though if they actually are mid-to-late 2010s then according to the C:MANO database, then yes they should have ESSM - can't vouch for reliability though as it only seems to cite wiki.

 

The RIM-162D ESSM is actually more compact than a regular Sea Sparrow (which should be the RIM-7P for our ships, which should loft, instead of the RIM-7M), they're both roughly as long as each other, but the RIM-7 has much wider control surfaces and wings.  

 

According to this, this is a picture of an ESSM being loaded into a Mk 29 on board USS Theodore Roosevelt, I don't know what date it is and I'm not sure how they definitely know this is an ESSM and not a RIM-7P (can't see anything on the box), but I'm not even sure the launchers themselves need modification, of course I could be mistaken, there doesn't seem to be much I can find.

 

[Silver_Dragon]

Not only the ESSM on carriers (deployable from 2012 and late on all CVNs), some VLS ha incorrect ammo loadouts (missing ESSM and other weapons). Missing Jammers (ECM / ECCM), Deployable Chaff, Flares and Decoys (rockets and towed infatable decoys), and Main guns capables of fire vs aircrafts and missiles.

 

Block 2 ESSM was lauched on 2018 and reach the IOC on 2020.

https://news.usni.org/2018/07/06/evolved-seasparrow-missile-block-2-successfully-intercepts-aerial-target-in-first-live-fire-test

 

ESSM Block 0 enter on service on 2003-4 on UsNavy

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/

https://www.deagel.com/Defensive Weapons/ESSM/a001158#001

 

Other situations, the Actual RAM has update to the Block 2 version on 2015
https://www.deagel.com/Defensive Weapons/RIM-116 RAM/a001150

Edited April 2, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Silver_Dragon]

Missile Loadouts
- Bunker Hill "Ticonderoga class"

https://influenceofhistory.blogspot.com/2018/01/missile-loadouts-ticonderoga-class-1983.html

 

- Arleigh Burke class

https://influenceofhistory.blogspot.com/2018/06/missile-loadouts-arleigh-burke-1991-2018.html

 

[Northstar98]

On 4/2/2021 at 11:54 AM, Silver_Dragon said:

Not only the ESSM on carriers (deployable from 2012 and late on all CVNs), some VLS ha incorrect ammo loadouts (missing ESSM and other weapons). Missing Jammers (ECM / ECCM), Deployable Chaff, Flares and Decoys (rockets and towed infatable decoys), and Main guns capables of fire vs aircrafts and missiles.

 

Block 2 ESSM was lauched on 2018 and reach the IOC on 2020.

https://news.usni.org/2018/07/06/evolved-seasparrow-missile-block-2-successfully-intercepts-aerial-target-in-first-live-fire-test

 

ESSM Block 0 enter on service on 2003-4 on UsNavy

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/

https://www.deagel.com/Defensive Weapons/ESSM/a001158#001

 

Other situations, the Actual RAM has update to the Block 2 version on 2015
https://www.deagel.com/Defensive Weapons/RIM-116 RAM/a001150

 

 

Do not get me started on what's missing on the Arleigh-Burke, it's bad enough that we only have the BGM-109C TLAM Block IV (with no waypoints available, and should technically be called RGM-109) and the SM-2MR (no idea what variant). And so far we've seen a new RIM-66M (presumably RIM-66M-2 Block IIIA - ED for the love of god, stop being lazy with the designations) SM-2MR Block III/IIIA and a RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV, which is basically the former with a booster (that should have thrust vectoring but doesn't appear to be animated so in the modelviewer - control surfaces however are).

 

Both of them should also have a secondary ASuW mode by using the AN/SPG-62 illuminators (which aren't implemented) - working the same way as the AIM-7s in the Tomcat (which can be fired and guided against ships).

 

I did a bit more of a detailed post on the Arleigh-Burke here (in the spoiler). 

 

All in all if the Arleigh-Burke gets left the way it is I will be pretty disappointed considering it's a paid product.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Northstar98

[VDV]

Hi, havent been there from 4-5 months, now i see that i have CV-59 in my DCS (i have DCS:SC module), but is this part of SC module?? I saw that it has deck equipment for itself. Thanks!

[Silver_Dragon]

22 minutes ago, VDV said:

Hi, havent been there from 4-5 months, now i see that i have CV-59 in my DCS (i have DCS:SC module), but is this part of SC module?? I saw that it has deck equipment for itself. Thanks!

No, CV-59 has a Heatblur develop, outside SC funtionality. Heatblur require implement the SC API on your carrier to get funtionality.

 

[VDV]

Thank you, so it not have all SC voices, functions, etc...And what is SC API?

[draconus]

3 hours ago, VDV said:

Thank you, so it not have all SC voices, functions, etc...And what is SC API?

CV-59 is part of the DCS core now and so is the deck equipment. No animated deck crew availability for the Forrestal and no advanced comms - these are parts of SC API - meaning additional paid functionality.

[Silver_Dragon]

8 minutes ago, draconus said:

CV-59 is part of the DCS core now and so is the deck equipment. No animated deck crew availability for the Forrestal and no advanced comms - these are parts of SC API - meaning additional paid functionality.

CV-59 has into Heatblur F-14 module directories, HB has talked they need ED implement first SC API to implement them propper funtionality. SC has into your module diretory, no into main core files.

[draconus]

28 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

CV-59 has into Heatblur F-14 module directories, HB has talked they need ED implement first SC API to implement them propper funtionality. SC has into your module diretory, no into main core files.

It doesn't matter what directory it goes to. It is a free asset independent of SC.

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

It doesn't matter what directory it goes to. It is a free asset independent of SC.

You missing the point here, when ED implememt all SC API, all 3rd parties can implement carrier crew, ATC, Ready Room, and othen SC funtionality on your assets, has HB, M3,etc without need pay nothing. ED has building SC API as a construction block to us them to implement Ground Crew on ships and bases and help to implement better infantry. ATC on Modern and WW2 carriers and bases, Briefing roms on Ground bases, include the other funtionality (example, control towers on bases similar to CAG station). That has not exclusive of SC payware module.
 

Quote

 

Air Traffic Control (ATC)

Over the past year, our primary ATC focus has been on the Supercarrier. Now that the Supercarrier ATC system is nearing completion, we will next move on to airfield ATC radio communications. Given the scope of DCS World, this is not a simple task, and it will require three separate ATC systems: Western Modern Day, Eastern Modern Day, and World War II. 

Because this effort will require a large amount of new radio voice overs, we will also take this opportunity to update the radio communications for other entities like flight members, other flights, AWACS, tankers, etc.

 

This will continue to be developed in 2021, but we do not have an estimated release date.

 

Quote

 

Over the past six month we have been working on a human motion model with intelligent behavior for infantry and deck crews. We have started with the deck crew, and we will scale it to infantry units. Both logics will receive two new behaviours: Obstacle Avoidance and Dynamic Reroute according to the situation. Re-routing behaviour is based on a path search algorithm with any-angle path planning. 

Obstacle Avoidance is based on the Optimal Reciprocal Collision Avoidance (ORCA) method used for holonomic robots with several restrictions on linear and angular speeds, linear acceleration, and discreteness of animation. The first phase of the development is complete and cases must now be considered for when aircraft are passing by, directing aircraft to and from a parking position, avoiding moving aircraft, different states of service and interruptions, etc.

 

That is only a example.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Silver_Dragon