Carrier Configurations?

[Jhuss96]

With the newest trailer teasing CVN-74, plus Razbam's LHA-1 as well as a possible Forrestal class from heatblur I am curious if ED plans to implement the ability to spawn a carrier in different configurations. While in multiplayer we will certainly need deck space for launch & recovery, but carriers, particularly the Nimitz class just doesn't look right with an empty deck, especially when it's suppose to be sailing into a war. This isn't something I'd expect initially but I truly hope ED takes steps to deliver the most realistic possible carrier & carrier operations experience.

 

[Silver_Dragon]

Sometime ago, ED team talk about Marshal stack, case I,II,II recoveries, refuelling tankers, LSO, and deck activity on a interview, but none has been confirmed. Actually has unknown if some of them has on develop, on future plans, etc.

[Winterz]

+1

[AG-51_Razor]

+! !! I would go a bit further and ask that the carrier deck(s) be populated with numbered parking spots just as the airfields are to allow the mission builders to have aircraft spawn where they want them to, depending on what configuration they intend for the carrier to be in for flight operations.

 

I suggest that the aircraft should spawn with their wings in the folded position, regardless of whether they spawn on the deck of a carrier or an airfield.

[CheckGear]

Sometime ago, ED team talk about Marshal stack, case I,II,II recoveries, refuelling tankers, LSO, and deck activity on a interview, but none has been confirmed. Actually has unknown if some of them has on develop, on future plans, etc.

 

I think they'll implement all of this eventually, just not everything at once. First, they'd have to establish some system of flight deck control (like ground control), air traffic control, then flight deck activity, etc. Knowing ED, they're going to make the carrier ops the most realistic yet!

 

It'd be refreshing to at least have all three recovery types simulated - Jane's F/A-18 Simulator simulated only Case III.

[BlazingTrigger]

What are these case I, II + III things that they're speaking of? I can't find anything on them.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[SkateZilla]

What are these case I, II + III things that they're speaking of? I can't find anything on them.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_United_States_Navy_carrier_air_operations

..

 

Departure/recovery types[edit]

The three types of departure and recovery operations are referred to as case I, case II, and case III. Primary responsibility for adherence to the departure rests with the pilot; however, advisory control is given by the ship's departure control radar operators, including when dictated by weather conditions.

 

Case I occurs when flights are anticipated to not encounter instrument conditions (instrument meteorological conditions) during daytime departures/recoveries, and the ceiling and visibility around the carrier are no lower than 3,000 feet (910 m) and 5 nautical miles (9.3 km; 5.8 mi), respectively. Immediately after becoming airborne, aircraft raise their landing gear and perform "clearing turns" to the right off the bow and to the left off the waist catapults. This roughly 10° check turn is made to increase separation of (nearly) simultaneously launched aircraft from the waist/bow catapults. After the clearing turn, aircraft proceed straight ahead paralleling the ship's course at 500 feet (150 m) until 7 nautical miles (13 km; 8.1 mi). Aircraft are then cleared to climb unrestricted in visual conditions.

Case II happens when flights may encounter instrument conditions during a daytime departure/recovery, and the ceiling and visibility in the carrier control zone are no lower than 1,000 feet (300 m) and 5 nautical miles (9.3 km; 5.8 mi), respectively. It is used for an overcast condition. After a clearing turn, aircraft proceed straight ahead at 500 feet, paralleling ship's course. At 7 nautical miles (13 km; 8.1 mi), aircraft turn to intercept a 10-nautical-mile (19 km; 12 mi) arc about the ship, maintaining visual conditions until established outbound on their assigned departure radial, at which time they are free to climb through the weather. The 500-foot (150 m) restriction is lifted after 7 nmi if the climb can be continued in visual conditions.

Case III exists when flights are expected to encounter instrument conditions during a departure/recovery because the ceiling or visibility around the carrier is lower than 1,000 feet (300 m) and 5 nautical miles (9.3 km; 5.8 mi), respectively, or for night departures/recoveries. A minimum launch interval of 30 seconds is used between aircraft, which climb straight ahead. At 7 nautical miles (13 km; 8.1 mi), they turn to fly the 10-nmi arc until intercepting their assigned departure radial.

 

And:

 

Recovery operations[edit]

As with departures, the type of recovery is based on the meteorological conditions and are referred to as case I, case II, or case III.

 

 

NATOPS manual graphic of day case I overhead landing pattern

Case I is for aircraft awaiting recovery in the port holding pattern, a left-hand circle tangent to the ship's course with the ship in the 3-o'clock position, and a maximum diameter of 5 nautical miles (9.3 km; 5.8 mi). Aircraft typically hold in close formations of two or more and are stacked at various altitudes based on their type/squadron. Minimum holding altitude is 2,000 feet (610 m), with a minimum of 1,000 feet (300 m) vertical separation between holding altitudes. Pilots arrange themselves to establish proper separation for landing. As the launching aircraft (from the subsequent event) clear the flight deck and landing area becomes clear, the lowest aircraft in holding descend and depart the stack in final preparation for landing. Higher aircraft descend in the stack to altitudes vacated by lower holding aircraft. The final descent from the bottom of the stack is planned so as to arrive at the "initial" which is 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; 3.5 mi) astern the ship at 800 feet (240 m), paralleling the ship's course. The aircraft are then flown over the ship and "break" into the landing pattern, ideally establishing at 50- to 60-second intervals on the aircraft in front of them.[11]

If too many (more than six) aircraft are in the landing pattern when a flight arrives at the ship, the flight leader initiates a "spin", climbing up slightly and executing a tight 360° turn within 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; 3.5 mi) of the ship.

 

The break is a level, 180° turn made at 800 feet (240 m), descending to 600 feet (180 m) when established downwind. Landing gear/flaps are lowered, and landing checks are completed. When abeam (directly aligned with) the landing area on downwind, the aircraft is 180° from the ship's course and about 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 km; 1.7 mi) from the ship, a position known as "the 180" (because of the angled flight deck, which is actually closer to 190° of turn required at this point). The pilot begins his turn to final while simultaneously beginning a gentle descent. At "the 90" the aircraft is at 450 feet (140 m), about 1.2 nautical miles (2.2 km; 1.4 mi) from the ship, with 90° of turn to go. The final checkpoint for the pilot is crossing the ship's wake, at which time the aircraft should be approaching final landing heading and around 350 feet (110 m). At this point, the pilot acquires the optical landing system, which is used for the terminal portion of the landing. During this time, the pilot's full attention is devoted to maintaining proper glideslope, lineup, and angle of attack until touchdown.[12]

 

 

A drop line runs vertically from the flight deck down to near the waterline on the stern of the ship. In this graphic, the viewer is left of centerline

Line up on landing area centerline is critical because it is only 120 feet (37 m) in width, and aircraft are often parked within a few feet of either side. This is accomplished visually during case I using the painted "ladder lines" on the sides of the landing area and the centerline/drop line (see graphic).

 

Maintaining radio silence, or "zip lip", during case-I launches and recoveries is the norm, breaking radio silence only for safety-of-flight issues.

 

Case-II approaches are used when weather conditions are such that the flight may encounter instrument conditions during the descent, but visual conditions of at least 1,000 feet (300 m) ceiling and 5 nautical miles (9.3 km; 5.8 mi) visibility exist at the ship. Positive radar control is used until the pilot is inside 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) and reports the ship in sight.

Flight leaders follow case-III approach procedures outside 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi). When within 10 nmi with the ship in sight, flights are shifted to tower control and proceed as in case I.

 

 

A case-III approach is used during instrument flight rules.

A case-III approach is used whenever existing weather at the ship is below case-II minima and during all night-flight operations. Case-III recoveries are made with single aircraft, with no formations except in an emergency situation.[13]

All aircraft are assigned holding at a marshal fix, typically about 150° from the ship's base recovery course, at a unique distance and altitude. The holding pattern is a left-handed, 6-minute racetrack pattern.[clarify] Each pilot adjusts his holding pattern to depart marshal precisely at the assigned time. Aircraft departing marshal normally are separated by 1 minute. Adjustments may be directed by the ship's carrier air traffic control center, if required, to ensure proper separation. To maintain proper separation of aircraft, parameters must be precisely flown. Aircraft descend at 250 knots (460 km/h; 290 mph) and 4,000 feet per minute (1,200 m/min) until an elevation of 5,000 feet (1,500 m) is reached, when the descent is lessened to 2,000 feet per minute (610 m/min). Aircraft transition to a landing configuration (wheels/flaps down) at 10 nmi from the ship. If the stack is held more than 10° away from the final bearing (approach course to the ship), then at 12.5 nautical miles (23.2 km; 14.4 mi), the pilot will arc at 250 knots (460 km/h; 290 mph), and then intercept that final bearing, to proceed with the approach.

 

 

Correcting to the final bearing using an ILS, ACLS, LRLU, or carrier-controlled approach

Since the landing area is angled about 10° from the axis of the ship, aircraft final approach heading (final bearing) is about 10° less than the ship's heading (base recovery course). Aircraft on the standard approach without an arc (called the CV-1) still have to correct from the marshal radial to the final bearing, and this is done in such case, at 20 nautical miles (37 km; 23 mi). As the ship moves through the water, the aircraft must make continual, minor corrections to the right to stay on the final bearing. If the ship makes course correction–which is often done to make the relative wind (natural wind plus ship's movement generated wind) go directly down the angle deck, or to avoid obstacles–lineup to center line must be corrected. The further the aircraft is from the ship, the larger the correction required.

 

Aircraft pass through the 6-nautical-mile (11 km; 6.9 mi) fix at 1,200 feet (370 m) altitude, 150 knots (280 km/h; 170 mph), in the landing configuration and commence slowing to final approach speed. At 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; 3.5 mi), aircraft begin a gradual (700-foot-per-minute (210 m/min) or 3-4°) descent until touchdown. To arrive precisely in position to complete the landing visually (at 3⁄4 nautical mile (1.4 km; 0.86 mi) behind the ship at 400 feet (120 m)), several instrument systems/procedures are used. Once the pilot acquires visual contact with the optical landing aids, the pilot will "call the ball". Control will then be assumed by the LSO, who issues final landing clearance with a "roger ball" call. When other systems are not available, aircraft on final approach continue their descent using distance/altitude checkpoints (e.g., 1,200 feet (370 m) at 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; 3.5 mi), 860 feet (260 m) at 2 nautical miles (3.7 km; 2.3 mi), 460 feet (140 m) at 1 nautical mile (1.9 km; 1.2 mi), 360 feet (110 m) at the "ball" call).

[BlazingTrigger]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_United_States_Navy_carrier_air_operations

..

 

 

 

And:

Thank you for the information, very interesting.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Kayos]

Where is this new trailer teasing CVN-74 the OP is talking about? Can't find it.

[Jester986]

Where is this new trailer teasing CVN-74 the OP is talking about? Can't find it.

 

What he said. Link please?

[Scrape]

 

26 seconds. Look at the number on the island.

[Northstar98]

+! !! I would go a bit further and ask that the carrier deck(s) be populated with numbered parking spots just as the airfields are to allow the mission builders to have aircraft spawn where they want them to, depending on what configuration they intend for the carrier to be in for flight operations.

 

I suggest that the aircraft should spawn with their wings in the folded position, regardless of whether they spawn on the deck of a carrier or an airfield.

 

Yeah, that sounds like the best solution - it would just have to be tailored for each carrier, maybe extend to below decks?

[AG-51_Razor]

:thumbup: I couldn't agree more. I think that Wags has mentioned the possibility of being able to move around "down below", which I took to mean the hangar deck. In a video I have seen of CVN-74 a long time ago, it shows the elevators going up and down. I would love to see 2 separate diagrams of parking spots in the ME, one for the hangar deck and one for the flight deck but I have no idea how the players in a multiplayer mission would get to the elevator and then, command it to take him up to the flight deck. It all seems a bit too complicated for a public multiplayer mission where folks that are total strangers, joining at random times, not necessarrily talking to one another, would be able to function in a world that IRL is so finely planned and scripted.

 

Oh well, it will be interesting to see what Wags and company come up with. :pilotfly:

[Mars Exulte]

You mean how airfields are currently unpopulated unless you put aircraft on them?

 

I don't want the deck cluttered with a bunch of decorative bs that is in the way. The only thing on there should be what you place on it.

 

 

That said, it would be nice if the carriers had the same capability the airfields do, that is, a more detailed diagram with numbered parking so you can see what you're doing, instead of everything simply spawning on the deck runway.

 

As for taxing from the hangar up to the deck, yeah.... that would be neat, but also a lot of hassle for little gain, and as I understand it, nobody rides the aircraft to the deck, anyway. They're towed to the elevator by ground crew and then the pilot enter them up there. In other words, we shouldn't be doing that anyway.

[AG-51_Razor]

Zhukov, I agree 100% with everything you said. I would not want anything cluttering the flight deck unless I put it there myself.

[Northstar98]

You mean how airfields are currently unpopulated unless you put aircraft on them?

 

I don't want the deck cluttered with a bunch of decorative bs that is in the way. The only thing on there should be what you place on it.

 

Agreed! For airfields I'd like a tickbox to have them populated with static objects or not, sometimes I want to have them populated with vehicles (the ones on the runway as well as the static BTRs buses and trucks we sometimes see as well as the RSP-7 and the P-38 radars all the rest of it). But sometimes I want them totally barren but that's for another thread. Going optional is the best way for a sandbox.

 

That said, it would be nice if the carriers had the same capability the airfields do, that is, a more detailed diagram with numbered parking so you can see what you're doing, instead of everything simply spawning on the deck runway.

Also agreed, it's the best way. What I'd like is a representation of the carrier, hangar and flight deck where I can put aircraft as I desire - like with airfields is going to be the best way of doing things in my opinion.

 

As for taxing from the hangar up to the deck, yeah.... that would be neat, but also a lot of hassle for little gain, and as I understand it, nobody rides the aircraft to the deck, anyway. They're towed to the elevator by ground crew and then the pilot enter them up there. In other words, we shouldn't be doing that anyway.

 

I am well aware that only on the flight deck are aircraft boarded, checked, started, armed and refuelled - I have experience from HMS Ocean to tell you that. On Ocean (LPH) aircraft are always 'stored', rearmed, refuelled, boarded, disembarked started, shutdown etc from the flight deck. "Ground crews" aircraft handlers, mechanics, engineers etc handle moving them from below decks to the flight deck so you are absolutely correct in that regard. When most of the embarked aircraft went home leaving just 2 Merlins, the Merlins were moved from on the flight deck (where they otherwise would be) to below decks in the hangar - weather was rough outside so it's better maintenance wise to move the aircraft inside where they're protected from the weather. However, when larger aircraft are embarked which physically do not fit on the lifts such as the MV-22, the other aircraft have to be physically moved out of the way so we can accommodate it. (That's what happened during when I was on board a couple of years ago).

 

The problem is at the moment aircraft carriers have only 4 slots for aircraft which is absolutely not enough for missions with large amounts of sorties from one ship. Where in a make believe universe we could have lots of aircraft flying sorties off of carriers at once. More so than what the flight deck can handle by itself, obviously larger carriers with more deck space such as the Kuznetsov and the Nimitz this is less of a problem but for smaller aircraft carrying ships it is more essential, plus the current SLAVA/Ticonderoga/OHP class have hangars, they're not funnctional, but the model viewer confirms their existence - so it also helps for continuity - especially considering aircraft carriers are for aircraft. (The Kuznetsov is a special case because it has a VLS incorporated into the flight deck, and I take it aircraft aren't on the flight deck when the VLS is in use - another reason for the hangar.

 

Also I said make believe universe - a bit of a misnomer as there has been a one-off situation on Ocean where every embarked aircraft were up (featured in a TV program) that's a maximum of 18 aircraft - I'm guessing just by looking that 18 aircraft is more than what Ocean's flight deck could handle more or less at once for flight operations.

 

All in all I think we're better with the hangars and lifts than without, most frigates and destroyers (at least the newer, updated ones) already have hangars with animated doors, they're just not fully functional yet. The Tarawa which is still in development already has a hangar, and a means of accessing it from the flight deck (forward of the island is a ramp for I'm presuming infantry/equipment), the lift isn't functional yet, it does however have a well-deck and stern door/ramp. Hopefully in the future we will have functional ramps/elevators/lifts, vehicle deck(?) (I'm not up to scratch on the Tarawa), be able to launch amphibious operations from the well deck using landing craft and have the ability to place vehicles/infantry and equipment on the deck for airlifting/loading/unloading of landing craft.

 

As I said, having the hangar offers the largest degree of flexibility even if we are bending realism a tiny bit for how they will be operated - but the thing is DCS is a sandbox simulator focusing on military aircraft - what offers the most capability and the most flexibility has the most value - at least to me. That's why the Caucasus map has the most value to me - you can do everything you want apart from long range stuff. It also has the largest usable area and from a realistic setting is the only modern day combat theatre we have so far (Normandy is historical with WW2, Nevada is NTTR - a training range, the Caucasus map is the only one we have for modern (2008 Russia-Georgia war). But this is DCS, we aren't constrained, we have flexibility to do what our hearts content - that's what makes DCS so great.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Northstar98

[AG-51_Razor]

Lunatic, I am inclined to agree solely based on the lack of space on the flight deck but on the other hand, I don't think it will work for the following reasons;

 

If there were spawn points in the hanger deck, then when a person spawns in one, what do you envision for the sequence of events to get from the hanger deck spawn point to the elevator, and then getting on the elevator and riding up to the flight deck? Keep in mind that in a multiplayer mission on a public server, there will be many times when someone will be looking for a lift up to the flight deck and not necessarily coordinated with anyone else in the mission. Is the a/c moved along the hanger deck to the elevator as if it is being towed? What if the route that one a/c intersects with another and both a/c are manned simultaneously? No doubt that there might be ways to work around these issues - and many others that I have neglected to mention, or even thought of - but would it be worth it if it required an additional several months of development? Not that I even have the remotest clue about the coding required for something like this, much less the length of time to get it done.

 

Other than that, we are definitely on the same page! :thumbup:

[Northstar98]

I agree entirely with you AG-51 Razor - the problem is like you say - control. At the moment we don't have direct control over ground crew in any case apart from what to do, we have no way of towing aircraft, no push-backs or anything like that. This will have to change if things are going to properly immersive to simulate operations with naval aviation.

 

It's difficult to envisage a perfect solution to our problem - carriers demand some form of push-back and increased aircraft handling equipment, both on the flight deck and in hangars - this goes for all classes of ship with aviation facilities with a hangar bay. Personally we need a way - possibly either via direct CA control, like we have with tanks but that one's that can actually 'connect' to an aircraft to push it around, or by way of a graphical user interface (like from the ground crew radio command) that allows you to quasi control a push back tug with at least with basic commands: forward, left, back, right, stop, couple/uncouple with maybe an ability to control speed for greater position, obviously simulating a tug as best we can to mimic real behaviour. If that unmentionable 3 letter 'simulator' beginning with F and ending with X can get an aircraft carrier, beautifully modelled, with working lifts and a modelled hangar bay (which even has a full interior) I don't see why we can't in DCS, obviously the full interior, despite being crude and basic is still a little over the top IMO, I'd only ask for principle positions (bridge, flyco (or American/Russian equivalent), LSO, FDO. catapult control station (if applicable), aircraft control room, when I was on Ocean there was an observation room overlooking the hangar - I'm sure other ships have equivalent, when I was on Albion there's a stern observation room overlooking the stern ramp - - but places like those, I imagine operations rooms/CICs will be a bit tricky).

 

For coordination I can't say I see it as being vastly different to at any old airport - obviously we have fewer routes to follow, and in tight spaces but aircraft carriers and similar ships simply demand coordination for the proper experience - it's no different to at an airbase in this regard, just smaller - this is my way of seeing it.

 

The thing is, ED in the 29/01/2016 newsletter (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsletter29012016.html|) say we should be getting hangars and working lifts for the Nimitz and Kuznetsov class carriers - great news to me - if they fulfil this I will be quite the rabbit of bountiful euphoria. The more we can simulate and the more we can bring to the key environment missing from DCS, that being maritime (least content, none of it playable, not even CA style control (I'm not interest in direct ship modules, they're too complex, the only thing I'd be interested in for direct player control are things like the current patrol boat, if it could be made multicrew that would be great (for 'driver' and 'gunner) I think we're still lacking a proper underwater with a sea bed - which completely negates any ASW activity, weapons, sensors and platforms and also complicates beaching a little - but that's for a different thread too).

 

Plus at the moment the WIP Tarawa already has a hangar, it already has a well deck, with a stern ramp (obviously non-functional for now) it also has a ramp leading from the hangar to the flight deck, which exits in front of the island, obviously this is not for aircraft, but it shows it's accessible (would love to place a Humvee or something and drive about on the deck). The Ticonderoga class, Oliver Hazzard Perry class, Slava class and the WIP Type 052B Destroyer all have hangars and apart from the latter have animated doors (not sure on the Type 052B - I can't find it in the model viewer). While we're on the subject of ships - I wish they were listed by class name and not ship name and then have a livery selection (like with aircraft) to select which vessel specifically, especially when they're not consistent in and out of the mission editor (Ticonderoga class CG-60 USS Normandy in the editor is actually CG-65 USS Chosin, we're just lucky LHA-1 Tarawa and FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry have ship names matching their class name - they're still not called by class name though... anyway back on topic) - checking the model viewer confirms that the Ticonderoga class, Oliver Hazard Perry class and Slava class all have animated hangar doors and hangars, the current Kuznetsov has animated elevators - can't find Tarawa and Nimitz in the model viewer yet - of course they're just not functional in the sim itself - adding hangars to new ships keeps it consistent - which is always good anyway, though it probably means extra work in terms of animation and collision models as well as sim research and 3D modelling.

 

Eh, we'll see what happens :) If one day we can do this I will be very, very happy

Edited January 4, 2018 by Northstar98

[Mars Exulte]

While we're on the subject of ships - I wish they were listed by class name and not ship name

 

+1 it's a royal nuisance trying to sort through the list. I will concede it's better since they started grouping like objects together, but it still need to be by class. Nobody cares what the specific ship is, we may have a half dozen "Carl Vinson"s out there, afterall. Organising by type/class is far more logical.

[Northstar98]

+1 it's a royal nuisance trying to sort through the list. I will concede it's better since they started grouping like objects together, but it still need to be by class. Nobody cares what the specific ship is, we may have a half dozen "Carl Vinson"s out there, afterall. Organising by type/class is far more logical.

 

Yeah a better way would be to have them selected by class name and then have a way of selecting a livery - just like we can with aircraft which would determine which specific vessel it is - it makes sense because we can already distinguish unit names from group names and what the unit is.

 

And considering that the Ticonderoga class USS Normandy (CG-60) is the USS Chosin (CG-65) in game it just makes the most sense.