Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Wrong Load-out of US AEGIS

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
U

unmerged(476407)

Recruit
Apr 15, 2012
3
0
Just started playing and I've enjoyed it so far, but I've got one gripe: the Arliegh Burke and Ticonderoga have incorrect missile load outs.
The Burke has
56 SM2
16 ESSM
10 TLAM
8 VLA
and 20 Harpoon

It only has 96 cells and NO Harpoon canisters. Assuming ESSM quad packs, that accounts for either 78 cells or 98 cells if the Harpoons are supposed to be an undeveloped vertical launch version.

The Tico is worse:
56 SM2
8 Harpoon
16 ESSM
10 TLAM
8 VLA
This totals to only 78 of 120 VLS cells used! The loadouts may be flexible, but the ships would be full heading out to war. I'm sure that the "best" loadout will be debated, but here is my proposal:
DDG
8 VLA
18 TLAM
52 SM2
72 ESSM (18 cells of quad packs)
CG
8 VLA
32 TLAM
52 SM2
112 ESSM (28 quad packs)
8 Harpoon
This is a lot of SAM's, but that is the primary purpose of these ships and quad pack ESSMs really help.
 
I guess they did this because of gameplay balance, so the US wont kick but in every game. :)
 
I think the 20 Harpoons on the Burke assume that Harpoon canisters were added at some point, giving us 8 Harpoons, and the remaining 12 were supposed to be VL Harpoons. This gives us 90 cells, which would be correct if this was a Flight I Burke instead of a II or IIA.

As for your suggested loadouts - much too heavy on the ESSM. These ships are intended as area defence, and the ESSM is not a true area defence weapon. The typical loadout on a IIA is 32 ESSM, which is 8 cells. The remainder is dependant on the mission, though ASROC and SM-2 are guaranteed to be in the mix. I could potentially see a Burke or Tico as a carrier escort maybe packing 48 ESSM or even 64 ESSM, but that would probably only be one ship.

My suggestion would be;
Burke IIA
64 SM2MR/SM2ER/SM6
32 ESSM
12 TLAM
12 VLA
8 Harpoon (leave out the VL Harpoon)

Ticonderoga
80 SM2MR/SM2ER/SM6
48 ESSM
18 TLAM
12 VLA
8 Harpoon
 
Yes, we presumed somebody in the US Navy got sensible one day, woke up and decided "we have to add Harpoon cannisters to Burke fl IIA!"

We have some alternative loads in the game already (not used in campaign), but exactly what missiles would be loaded in the cells in case of a blue water conflict is a bit hard to know.
 
I think you should just remove all Harpoons from Burke & Tico and replace them with LRASM A & B mix, I don't think that the us navy will be using Harpoons in 2030, they already cancelled Harpoon Block III in 2009 when they decided to concentrate work on the Harpoon replacement (LRASM) so right now Harpoon is EOL and probably by 2020 they will only use the air launch version(SLAM-ER).
 
OK, the DDG makes sense. Current DDG loadouts do make surface warfare interesting with the total lack of over the horizon striking power (we have to rely on air power for that); I personally wanted to see how that works. I went heavy on the ESSM in my proposed loadouts since most Russian ASCM are sea skimming beasts; an SM2 could only engage them at 20 miles max anyways, so I would prefer sufficient missiles to sustain a shoot, shoot, look, shoot, shoot than the added range (a SOVREMENY could fire 12 Moskits requiring a first salvo of 24 SAMs, almost half the SM2's). With a formation only 20nm across and an ESSM shooter down the threat axis should gove better results than an SM2 crossing shot, which is what they are for. (Questions like this is why i would love a simple mission editor)
 
JanH said:
We'll make LRASM A / B options for the Tico & Burke's for specific scenarios. Changing it outright is too much of a balance problem.
Click to expand...
Just a quick note, the LRASM-A is air-launched and the LRASM-B is ship launched. Or at least that's what I have heard. :) Btw, please make ship load outs editable in the mission editor, whenever that may come around. :)
 
nimitz98 said:
Just a quick note, the LRASM-A is air-launched and the LRASM-B is ship launched. Or at least that's what I have heard. :) Btw, please make ship load outs editable in the mission editor, whenever that may come around. :)
Click to expand...

Your information is wrong, both versions will be ship & air launched, nothing was said if they will also be sub launched.
 
I think the plan, if there is one, is that both should have both air and surface options.

Based on what I have heard, both LRASM A and B is developed with VLS in mind. A is subsonic but stealthy while B is supersonic, so yes, obviously A is better suited for air-launch.

Knowing how "Joint" makes it into every project, it will undoubtedly be spec'd to be deployable on subs, planes, ships and probably handheld guns. Cost overruns ensues. A weapon that is marginally better than Harpoon eventually comes out.
 
JanH said:
I think the plan, if there is one, is that both should have both air and surface options.

Based on what I have heard, both LRASM A and B is developed with VLS in mind. A is subsonic but stealthy while B is supersonic, so yes, obviously A is better suited for air-launch.

Knowing how "Joint" makes it into every project, it will undoubtedly be spec'd to be deployable on subs, planes, ships and probably handheld guns. Cost overruns ensues. A weapon that is marginally better than Harpoon eventually comes out.
Click to expand...

If my understanding of your post is correct, it seem to me you are a little bit skeptical that LRASM will see the light of day in the current form at all.

Why do you think it's not gonna happen, if you ask me US Navy is long overdue for a new modern ASP missile, they can carry on with the Harpoon for ever, that one was build in the Seventies era and although the electronics side was updated time and time again to keep it modern surely the aerodynamic performance side of the missile is outdated.
 
I absolutely agree, claudiucojo. Russian (and Indian!) ASMs seriously overpower their US counterparts currently. I am just somewhat skeptical to the current economical climate supporting such a large project for the Navy, and the ability of the defense industry to deliver something even remotely on time and budget.

Well, sooner or later LRASM will probably happen.
 
I am with Jan here. We build the IIA's down the road, and the first of three DDG-1000s is about to see the river for the first time :D That project is an excellent example of what Jan has above. Originally, it was a world beater. Then cost overruns and so on paired it down to what it is now, barely more capable then the DDG51 FlightIIA and far more expensive. Bath Iron Works really got lucky in the Navy deciding to buy a bunch of Burkes instead of Zumwalts, half will be built up here and our city will survive (whew!) but with all the money poured into the Zumwalt, you have to have something to show for it. Enter the Seawolf of destroyers!!!! Even the LCS program is all jacked up, ships are starting to dissapear (not rust, but literally disappear) cause the navy didn't want to use a certain part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back