we need the 1980s Iowa-class battleships in DCS core

[upyr1]

I have stated we need battleships. The best  place to start would be the 1980s refit of the Iowa class battleships in DCS core. Here are some reasons.

• We have a Kirov-class battlecruiser. I've read multiple sources that one of the reasons for bringing back the Iowa-class battleships was to take on the Kirovs. this would be a good show down for DCS.
• We have two theaters where at least one Iowa was used in the 1980s. The USS New Jersey saw action off the coast of Lebanon and Syria and they also saw action in the tanker wars in the Persian gulf. It would be a good asset for F-14A missons. 
• DCS core is the only place for the 1980s Iowas. Clearly we can't have Harpoon and Tomahawks in the World War II assets pack so if we don't have at least 1 1980s Iowas in DCS core there will be no place for them
• It will improve community ship mods, looking at what we have the current mods are using 6 inch guns however put a 16-inch gun in the game and it will get the range right.

[rkk01]

Would be good to see in the game, but probably more interest to do a WW2 version first?

[Qiou87]

Any ship would be good at this point. Outside of a few modern ships, DCS is sorely lacking in ships, and especially in the WWII era. I know it probably takes a while, but still.

 

However these 1980's battleships are a bit weird, don't you think? Battleships were already outclassed and outdated in WWII, I don't see their significance especially in the western maritime doctrine in the 1980's. I would also prefer a WWII version first, for the Marianas WWII map (and against Yamato).

[Northstar98]

On 7/16/2021 at 10:27 AM, Qiou87 said:

Any ship would be good at this point. Outside of a few modern ships, DCS is sorely lacking in ships, and especially in the WWII era. I know it probably takes a while, but still.

 

However these 1980's battleships are a bit weird, don't you think? Battleships were already outclassed and outdated in WWII, I don't see their significance especially in the western maritime doctrine in the 1980's. I would also prefer a WWII version first, for the Marianas WWII map (and against Yamato).

Well pretty much everything naval environment is sorely lacking - from the physics, sensors, weapons, damage model, even graphics in a lot of cases.

As for battleships, I guess you're right - their main focus during the Cold War was naval gunfire support - shore bombardment.

Though personally I would prefer early-to-mid 80s fits of other escorts - mainly to go with HB's Forrestal (which seems to be at least an early 80s fit it's actually early 90s), vessels such as the Belknap CG and Knox FF.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[AbuMuqawama]

It would certainly be nice for 1980s missions in the Persian Gulf and Syria maps. That said I suspect that there will be plenty of other ship classes that would be higher on the priority list.

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Would be good to see in the game, but probably more interest to do a WW2 version first?

It might take a bit less work for the modern, since you don't have to worry about the sea planes. Also while I do have the warbirds due to the community ship mods a WWII version is not as high on my wish list as the 1980s version. The next question though is how hard would it be to convert the 3d model of the modern version to the World War II version. 

[upyr1]

12 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

Any ship would be good at this point. Outside of a few modern ships, DCS is sorely lacking in ships, and especially in the WWII era. I know it probably takes a while, but still.

 

However these 1980's battleships are a bit weird, don't you think? Battleships were already outclassed and outdated in WWII, I don't see their significance especially in the western maritime doctrine in the 1980's. I would also prefer a WWII version first, for the Marianas WWII map (and against Yamato).

I don't think the idea of bringing back the battleships was weird. They had their place in maritime doctrine of the 1980s.  Frist they had tomahawk and harpoon missiles installed on them. next they were expected to provide naval gunfire support for the Marines as they came ashore and the big guns would also get used against SAMs sights I believe the 1980s Iowas would be easier to implement. Either way most of the ship will be identical 

[upyr1]

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Well pretty much everything naval environment is sorely lacking - from the physics, sensors, weapons, damage model, even graphics in a lot of cases.

that is an understatement.

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

As for battleships, I guess you're right - their main focus during the Cold War was naval gunfire support - shore bombardment.

 

Though personally I would prefer early-to-mid 80s fits of other escorts - mainly to go with HB's Forrestal (which seems to be at least an early 80s fit), vessels such as the Belknap CG and Knox FF.

The 1980s Iowas would fit in there. 

[Northstar98]

26 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

that is an understatement.

 

I couldn't agree more!

 

26 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The 1980s Iowas would fit in there. 

 

They do, though the ship is 1 missiononly, that being land attack.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

They do, though the ship is 1 missiononly, that being land attack.

They carried 

32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles
16 × RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-Ship missiles

The Tomahawks were a mix of anti-ship and land attack missiles. So that makes another argument for adding them. Anyways we'll need some destroyers and cruisers to escort the Iowas and the Forestall.  The Iowas would be high on my list since I think it would be somewhat easy to modify the models for older fittings. 

[Northstar98]

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

They carried 

32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles
16 × RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-Ship missiles

The Tomahawks were a mix of anti-ship and land attack missiles. So that makes another argument for adding them. Anyways we'll need some destroyers and cruisers to escort the Iowas and the Forestall.  The Iowas would be high on my list since I think it would be somewhat easy to modify the models for older fittings. 

 

Oh I see, I forgot about the RGM-109B TASM, but if they carry Harpoon too that opens up some possibilities for ASuW.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Oh I see, I forgot about the RGM-109B TASM, but if they carry Harpoon too that opens up some possibilities for ASuW.

At least according to popular belief part of the reason for the Iowa reactivation was to challenge the Kirov class battle cruisers.  Anyways I'd love to see a ship loadout screen where you could select the shell load out as well as missile loadout. 

[Northstar98]

On 7/17/2021 at 2:44 PM, upyr1 said:

At least according to popular belief part of the reason for the Iowa reactivation was to challenge the Kirov class battle cruisers.  Anyways I'd love to see a ship loadout screen where you could select the shell load out as well as missile loadout. 

It's really essential for things like the Mk 41 VLS.

But +1 for the Iowa.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[upyr1]

On 7/16/2021 at 10:13 AM, AbuMuqawama said:

It would certainly be nice for 1980s missions in the Persian Gulf and Syria maps. That said I suspect that there will be plenty of other ship classes that would be higher on the priority list.

Ideally I want to see a all the ships for a mid 1980s battleship battle group introduced in the same update. According to wikipedia they consisted of the following 

consisted of one modernized battleship, one Ticonderoga-class cruiser, one Kidd-class destroyer or Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, one Spruance-class destroyer, threeOliver Hazard Perry-class frigates and one auxiliary ship such as a replenishment oiler.

The USS New Jersey operated with the Long Beach and as @Northstar98 has pointed out the Belknap-class cruiser was common for the era.  We need the Kidd and the Spruance class destroyers 
 

 

[Tank50us]

On 7/17/2021 at 12:36 PM, upyr1 said:

We need the Kidd and the Spruance class destroyers 

 

Heck, it'd be nice to have every version of USS Kidd, from the Fletcher Class Destroyer now on display as a museum ship to the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer that's out now patrolling the waves.

 

As for the Battleships themselves, I personally like the idea of not just the actual fits we got irl, but in a delve into the "Almost happened so why not?", having the hybrid carrier Iowa concept as an option. I'm sure the Harrier pilots would enjoy it (since that's what the idea was built around.

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

Heck, it'd be nice to have every version of USS Kidd, from the Fletcher Class Destroyer now on display as a museum ship to the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer that's out now patrolling the waves.

 

As for the Battleships themselves, I personally like the idea of not just the actual fits we got irl, but in a delve into the "Almost happened so why not?", having the hybrid carrier Iowa concept as an option. I'm sure the Harrier pilots would enjoy it (since that's what the idea was built around.

That realy looks like a job for community modders. If we could get the 16-inch guns right then a battlecarrier mod would work out better. The problem with all of the community mod battleships right now is the main guns are all 6 inch with a script. I don't believe they have the proper range 

[upyr1]

Behold the mighty boom sticks go boom

Edited July 31, 2021 by upyr1

[Callsign112]

+1   To the Dev's, now that wouldn't be so hard... would it!

Edited August 1, 2021 by Callsign112

[upyr1]

I know were supposed to be getting the Forestal, here is Battlegroup Echo, don't tell me that you don't want to this in a 1980s scenario 

 

 

USS RANGER (CV-61), USS MISSOURI (BB-63); USNS HASSAYAMPA (T-AO-145), USS LEFTWICH (DD-984), USS HOEL (DDG-13); USS KANSAS CITY (AOR-3), USS BUNKER HILL (CG-52), USS ROBERT E. PEARY (FF-1073); USS LONG BEACH (CGN-9), USS WICHITA (AOR-1) , USS GRIDLEY (CG-21), USS CURTS (FFG-38); USS SHASTA (AE-33), USS JOHN YOUNG (DD-973) and USS BUCHANAN (DDG-14). 

Edited August 3, 2021 by upyr1

[Tank50us]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I know were supposed to be getting the Forestal, here is Battlegroup Echo, don't tell me that you don't want to this in a 1980s scenario 

 

 

USS RANGER (CV-61), USS MISSOURI (BB-63); USNS HASSAYAMPA (T-AO-145), USS LEFTWICH (DD-984), USS HOEL (DDG-13); USS KANSAS CITY (AOR-3), USS BUNKER HILL (CG-52), USS ROBERT E. PEARY (FF-1073); USS LONG BEACH (CGN-9), USS WICHITA (AOR-1) , USS GRIDLEY (CG-21), USS CURTS (FFG-38); USS SHASTA (AE-33), USS JOHN YOUNG (DD-973) and USS BUCHANAN (DDG-14). 

 

 

A formation like that in the 80s, you know someone is about to have a REALLY bad day...

[Kev2go]

yes agreed!

[upyr1]

On 8/2/2021 at 10:27 PM, Tank50us said:

 

A formation like that in the 80s, you know someone is about to have a REALLY bad day...

A case of wa

[upyr1]

 

the mighty boom sticks going boom 

 

[SOLIDKREATE]

I want a Krivak so I can blow it up. I learned about that ship in 'Sight Reco' class.

[Northstar98]

16 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

I want a Krivak so I can blow it up. I learned about that ship in 'Sight Reco' class.

We've got a Krivak II, it's just named in a way that doesn't make it obvious to people unfamiliar with Soviet/Russian designations/classfications and names.

It's called "Frigate 1135M Resky". Though personally, it should be called SKR Pr. 1135M 'Burevestnik-M' [Krivak II FF], which makes it obvious to people familiar with either the NATO reporting name/classification or the native name/designation/classification, while allowing you to learn the other.

Plus its model is probably getting on for being 2 decades old, the SS-N-14 system also isn't implemented (while this was more intended as an ASW weapon system, in the mid 80s it was upgraded to fire the 85RU missile, which both carries a lightweight aerial torpedo (the UMGT-1) and has its own 185 kg unitary warhead with an IR seeker for use against surface ships).

Edited August 9, 2022 by Northstar98