Sorry to do this, but I found a flaw in one of th screenshot

TexasAggie99

Jamie or Hutch,

don't know if you care about this, but I noticed in one of the screenshots that on weapons loadout for the FFG you can select the SM-2. I don't know if you intended to do that or not, but the SM-2 cannot be fired from the MK13 launcher or using the MK 23 CAS Fire Control System (FCS) aboard the FFG. SM-2 requires AEGIS to work. The FFG does not have the AEGIS system nor the SPY-1 Phased Array.

The FFG can only fire the SM-1 and it has a min range of around 2NM and and a max of 30NM (approximately, I can't give you the exact amount). The SM-2 can travel almost twice the distance. So this is a realism error.

Like I said, I don't know if you care about this or not but I thought I would let you know.

/r
Aggie

fyi... I served as a Combat Systems Officer on an FFG, I owned those missiles once before and I know what they can do.

TexasAggie99 · Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:17 pm Post subject:

sorry about the subject title misspelling, I fat fingered it.

I also forgot to mention that the FFG is broken into two categories. Mod 2 and Mod 6.

FFG's that have received the Mod 6 Variant have a modification to their Fire Control System that allows them to shoot SM-1 missiles approximately 50NM.

There are only a handful of Mod 6 FFG's, so I thought I would include that as well.

/r
Aggie

diver · Joined: 06 Aug 2004 Posts: 194 Location: Australia

are you sure, i think that australia's OHP FFG's have SM-2 technology. with the second post are you saying a few can fire SM-2. Anyway, i thought that FFG's can/do fire SM-2, or SM-1 with SM-2 technology making them in effect SM-2.

Thomasew · Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:39 am Post subject:

Hi

The SM-1s were 'supposedly' to be phased out in 2003. :hmm:

That would leave only the SM-2 for MR/ER Air Defense, ... with development on the SM-3 still ongoing.

One wonders ... Confused

Maybe Sonalysts has a heads up on that one.

Cheers
Tom

Furia · Joined: 14 Mar 2001 Posts: 558 Location: Spain

The US NAVY is removing the MK-13 launcher from the FFG-7 class so there is no way to fire such missiles, none of them.

So far the SM-2 has been launched from the MK_41 vertical launcher .

OlegM · Joined: 25 Dec 2001 Posts: 466 Location: Zagreb, Croatia

I think this was already discussed and Jamie or Hutch explained they have SM-1/2 "for gameplay purposes". Same as in SC we had some torpedos and missiles that were already phased out (Tomahawk ASM for US) or not entered service yet (some torpedo-rockets for Russians), for gameplay purposes.

Now, that's fine with me. If you want something that's really unrealistic to complain about, then how about having shoulder launched anti-air missiles in the game to have fun while on the surface? Totally, 120% unrealistic, as no sane sub commander would risk his zillion dollar sub to play cat and mice with some helos, but probably fun, and players asked for them, so you have them, "for gameplay purposes" too.

Oleg

TexasAggie99 · Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:20 am Post subject:

As for the MK13 "Divestment" as it has been dubbed by the Navy. Tom you are absolutely correct. As of SEPT 03 all SM-1 missiles were supposed to be in deep stow. I know the USS Doyle had her Launcher mount removed. There is talk of putting SEA-RAM in its stead, no official word as to that yet.

As for shoulder fired Stingers, that is actually more real than you think. Some ships, Big deck amphibs, carriers, oilers are now being outfitted with Shoulder launched Stinger missiles for Anti-Terrorism purposes and be able shoot down a low slow flyer while moored to a pier. There is talk to outfit all ships with a small loadout of the same, including subs.

As for realism, I didn't know how detailed we were being, so I thought I would make the issue known. I didn't mean to make a big fuss.

thanks,
Aggie

Looney11 · Joined: 05 Aug 2004 Posts: 307 Location: Netherlands

I'm not really familiar with the US navy atm, but are the OHP being phased out as well? Or will they be equipped with a new type of launcher to allow for shooting SM-2?

Thomasew · Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:30 pm Post subject:

Hi Looney

The OHP doesn't really need a Long Range Air Defense Missile System. You must remember that it's primary role is that of Anti-Submarine Warfare, ... at which it is very capable. Ping

If provision is not made for a SM-2/SM-3 launcher, ... they may well bung a RAM (RIM-116), ... or even an ESSM (RIM-162) Launcher up there.

They may just put the Gun back. Razz

Cheers
Tom

TexasAggie99 · Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:49 pm Post subject:

well to add to the conversation.

there have been many discussions as to what will replace the MK 13.
from RIM-166 to SEA-RAM, to a gyro stabilized 25MM chain Gun. Ultimately, the answer is that the Perry is going away. I believe four were decommed last fiscal year, and I believe by 2014 they will all be gone.

This will be done in preparation for the introduction of the LCS which will provide the latest in ASW capability.

-Aggie

Looney11 · Joined: 05 Aug 2004 Posts: 307 Location: Netherlands

Maybe they'll go for the goalkeeper system this time Smile

Tchocky · Joined: 30 Jul 2004 Posts: 75 Location: The Ruins Of Europe

If they really want to future-proof it, a magnetic railgun would fit nicely

Scion · Joined: 31 May 2001 Posts: 1552 Location: New Zealand

TexasAggie99 · Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:02 pm Post subject:

perhaps sharks with freakin laser beams coming out of their forehead, will circle the ships Joking

buffpuff · Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:14 pm Post subject: