Forestall Historical Accuracy

[Tank50us]

So, since the ship is supposedly going to drop this week, I am now wondering: What would be the correct make-up of the battlegroup for around the time the Forestall was slated for retirement?

 

While this obviously doesn't affect my own campaigns (as they take place in the near future and my group is a PMC with modern ships available), I do wonder if someone were to make a historical campaign or mission, and wanted to really sell the scene, what escorts would the ship have, where would they be placed in relation to the Forestall herself, and more importantly, what would their counter be from the reds?

 

Just some interesting topics to discuss there really, not trying to ask 'who would win' questions, but I am curious as to what assets, modded or otherwise, would be appropriate.

[Nozzle]

When I was deployed on the Forrestal in the mid to late Eighties, the airwing consisted of two F-14 squadrons of ~10 aircraft each, two A-7 squadrons, one A-6 squadron, one E-2C squadron, one EA-6B squadron, one S-3 squadron and one H-3 squadron.  Because the ship was the last CV to burn the older mix fuel, the rest of the battle group tended to be similarly aged surface ships that also burned that fuel to simplify replenishment underweigh.  Although the ship was modified to support the F-18s prior to her last deployment in 1991, I don't know if the ship ever actually deployed with Hornets.  So I believe most of the airwing composition would've been similar if not the same for the last decade of her operational life.  Same for the battle group logistics.

[Airhunter]

https://www.navysite.de/cvn/cv59deploy.htm

[Swordsman422]

Forrestal's very last cruise in 1991, CVW-6 had two Hornet squadrons, VFA-132 and -137.

 

She did sail with contemporary surface assets, including Ticos, but I cannot find documentation to indicate whether she ever had surface nuke escorts. Appropriate Escorts would be Belknap or Tico-class CGs, Spruance, Charles F. Adams, or Forrest Sherman-class destroyers, and Knox or OHP frigates, of which we have only the OHP frigate and Bunker Hill-type Tico cruisers. DCS is SORELY lacking in US late Cold War surface combatants.

[LanceCriminal86]

There were CGNs as well like the California and Virginia classes, but trying to find cruise books or even details on the contents of specific carrier battle groups is proving pretty ridiculous.

 

A mod to backdate the Ticonderoga to the earlier ships of the class might be useful, to add the hull numbers and names and perhaps edit the armament.

[MBot]

From a gameplay point of view, the Ticonderogas don't make very interesting escorts. AEGIS type escorts basically make the battle group immune to anti-ship missile attacks (in DCS and probably also IRL for the most part). This in turn largely takes away any fleet defense responsibilities from the Tomcat. For the F-14 player, the pre-AEGIS era is much more interesting, as it puts fleet defense into the player's hand. Unfortunately this means we are left with only the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates as carrier escorts.

 

That is why I don't quite understand why all the members of the Forrestal class need to be modelled individually and won't be copy-pasted. E.g. we only get Forrestal initialy and might not get Saratoga, Ranger and Independence because they have slight differences. If the naval environment is so lacking that I have to suround my carriers with only OHP frigates, differences between members of the same class are the least of my problems...

[Swordsman422]

Gameplay considerations and historical fidelity don't always go hand-in-hand. I'd rather have the right ships than worry about which ships keep the game interesting for me. The best real world engagements are the ones that your side isn't sweating razor-thin margins. And if it is a matter of other assets keeping a player from getting busy in the game, the mission designers always have the option of not using the ships that do.

 

I don't really see why specific boats have to be recreated in exact individual detail down to a specific cruise either. The issue being that, outside of recreating that specific cruise it's wrong everywhere else. General sense of the thing should be good enough for a game, especially for a non-player asset. We fly on and off of it, or shoot at it as our hearts desire. Does it look within 90% of the ship it's supposed to represent? Fine enough.

 

But none of us is the guy making the decisions here.

[Northstar98]

I'm okay with having exact individual details, it goes hand-in-hand with DCS' own stated goals, which are accurate as possible, where feasible.

Though I absolutely get the need for period (circa mid 80s, as this seems to be the fit of the current Forrestal) escorts, as right now we technically don't have any (though this is more pedantic), and basically all of the REDFOR ships for the era are in dire need of a graphical overhaul.

We really need mid 80s fits of:

• A Knox-class FF (see the spoiler of this post for details)
• A Belknap-class CG
• Either a Spruance-class DD or Charles F. Adams-class DDG#

 

As for MBot's comments on AEGIS ships making a battlegroup immune, one of the problems here is the simplicity of DCS' RADARs; and naval units are probably the worst offenders here (often not even having RADARs defined or modelled as a completely different RADAR).

For instance, in DCS, the Mk92 CAS of the Oliver Hazard Perry, the AN/SPY-1D(V) ABM mod. of the Arleigh-Burke, and the AN/MPQ-53 STR of the Patriot PAC-2 are all identical in DCS.

Edited October 16, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[Tank50us]

32 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

For instance, in DCS, the Mk92 CAS of the Oliver Hazard Perry, the AN/SPY-1D(V) ABM mod. of the Arleigh-Burke, and the AN/MPQ-53 STR of the Patriot PAC-2 are all identical in DCS.

 

TO be fair, I think this is more a bit of handwave for gameplay reasons then anything else, as trying to model the exact methods by which every radar available in game now works would be an immense undertaking for one, and it would likely cook the potato PCs. That said, there is still room for improvement. If memory serves, radars that rotate like those on the Perry should only ping the RWR when it actually points at you (admittedly this would very very annoying, very fast, which I think was something that was handled irl). And the same applies to other 'rotational' radars that 'sweep' the sky instead of the AESA style radars like those of Aegis ships.

 

Ideally the radar situation should be handled by putting the radar into one of three classes, and then having sub variants from there:

• Directional Search
  • Airborne
  • Shipborne
• Directional Track
  • Airborne
  • Shipborne
• Omnidirectional
  • Airborne
  • Shipborne

Once you have those, you can determine power, range, and clarity (basically, how well does the radar light the target up, how far can it see, and how well does it see the target at different altitudes), and that in theory should make for a decent radar set in DCS that's based on a simple numbers lookup system and doesn't risk frying peoples computers.

 

But getting back on topic.....

 

Yeah, the naval aspect of DCS is sorely lacking in general, and while it's nice that some mod makers are trying to solve that issue, I still think it would be nice if ED, or any of the 3rd Party devs could put a bit more work into some ships, especially since many of them have helicopter decks and we're getting helicopters out the wazoo.

[draconus]

Of course it would be great to have all possible units but that's just not possible so we get what we get, and every year we get something more, same like with flyable aircraft.

I'm all for fidelity and don't see a problem when there is only one specific type/model/year ship. Mission designers have to deal with it like they already do currently.

Radars are already simulated pretty decently in DCS (and it doesn't take much cpu time) and I'm sure ships will get theirs overhauled and differentiated when the ships modeling overhaul time will come to improve their damage models and weapons.

Edited October 12, 2021 by draconus

[Northstar98]

On 10/12/2021 at 6:41 PM, draconus said:

Of course it would be great to have all possible units but that's just not possible so we get what we get

That's not what's being asked for, nobody is asking for all possible units, just some units that can be properly paired up with the Forrestal.

The issue here is (at least pedantically) the Forrestal will be alone, the only USN naval unit for the time period (everything else, apart from maybe the CVN 70, are post 2000s) is the Type 148 Tiger-class (La Combattante IIa) and even that is only just (our La Combattante IIa is depicted as a West/Unified German Type 148 Tiger-class circa 1991 owing to the RADAR fit and countermeasures).

You probably only need one class from each major category to suitably cover a battlegroup:

• Frigate: Knox-class
• Destroyer: Spruance/Charles F. Adams-class
• Cruiser: Belknap/Leahy-class
• Auxillary: Whichita-class

On 10/12/2021 at 6:41 PM, draconus said:

and every year we get something more, same like with flyable aircraft.

One doesn't negate the other...

On 10/12/2021 at 6:41 PM, draconus said:

I'm all for fidelity and don't see a problem when there is only one specific type/model/year ship.

Neither, but I'd rather take the accuracy route, it is after all DCS' goal, as stated on the main page. I'd rather pick a real world ship and have it be accurate to that. The problem then becomes a matter of priority.

Unlike, say, the Arleigh-Burke, which is a fictional hybrid of early and late Flt. IIAs 5"/62 ships.

On 10/12/2021 at 6:41 PM, draconus said:

Mission designers have to deal with it like they already do currently.

This doesn't mean that they should...

On 10/12/2021 at 6:41 PM, draconus said:

Radars are already simulated pretty decently in DCS (and it doesn't take much cpu time)

I definitely disagree, especially when EW is concerned.

But some DCS ships don't even have their primary RADARs defined (like an the AN/SPS-48E NTU and AN/SPS-49(V)5 NTU on the Supercarrier, both undefined). Then there's things like the Mk92 CAS and AN/SPY-1D(V) MFR both being defined as "patriot str" despite the 3 being completely different RADARs.

On 10/12/2021 at 6:41 PM, draconus said:

and I'm sure ships will get theirs overhauled and differentiated when the ships modeling overhaul time will come to improve their damage models and weapons.

I hope so.

Edited October 16, 2021 by Northstar98
has there been a forum update? Where a line has been left has been expanded

[Silver_Dragon]

18 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

That's not what's being asked for, nobody is asking for all possible units, just some units that can be properly paired up with the Forrestal.

 

The issue here is (at least pedantically) the Forrestal will be alone, the only USN naval unit for the time period (everything else, apart from maybe the CVN 70, are post 2000s).

 

You probably only need one class from each major category to suitably cover a battlegroup:

Frigate: Knox-class

Destroyer: Spruance/Charles F. Adams-class

Cruiser: Belknap/Leahy-class

Auxillary: Whichita-class

 

About Forrestal airgroup, weapons and sensors, check here:

 

[Harlikwin]

On 10/12/2021 at 2:23 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

 

About Forrestal airgroup, weapons and sensors, check here:

 

 

It would be nice if we had like 1 version from each decade sensor and armament wise.

 

And yes DCS sorely needs better ship modeling at least in the sense of Air radars/missiles... 

[Silver_Dragon]

7 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

It would be nice if we had like 1 version from each decade sensor and armament wise.

 

And yes DCS sorely needs better ship modeling at least in the sense of Air radars/missiles... 

Has very interesting a "Missile Crissis" forrestal with guns to air defense.

[Harlikwin]

16 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Has very interesting a "Missile Crissis" forrestal with guns to air defense.

That could be fun... But at the time what did cuba have, Mig15s? 

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

That could be fun... But at the time what did cuba have, Mig15s? 

il-28T, Mig-15bis, Mig-19P, Mig-21F-13

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

il-28T, Mig-15bis, Mig-19P, Mig-21F-13

 

That could be interesting then. 

[Tengu]

If you get a Falklands map from Razbam with matching assets (before ED develops any of the 80s era escorts), you could probably use a Type 12 / Type 21 / Type 22 Frigate or County-Class / Type 42 Destroyer.  Probably not for the whole battle group, but I wouldn't think 1 or 2 RN vessels mixed into the battle group would be out of sort.

[Uxi]

On 10/12/2021 at 12:43 PM, Northstar98 said:

That's not what's being asked for, nobody is asking for all possible units, just some units that can be properly paired up with the Forrestal.

The issue here is (at least pedantically) the Forrestal will be alone, the only USN naval unit for the time period (everything else, apart from maybe the CVN 70, are post 2000s) is the Type 148 Tiger-class (La Combattante IIa) and even that is only just (our La Combattante IIa is depicted as a West/Unified German Type 148 Tiger-class circa 1991 owing to the RADAR fit and countermeasures).

This is a larger general problem with DCS in there is no set focus for timeline (more acute in the 3rd parties than from ED themselves maybe).  In 1991, while our Tomcats would roughly fit, only F/A-18A models would have been available...  none of the surface escorts and adversaries is a hodgepodge, too.  In 20/20 hindsight, I'm thinking HB would have been better to have gone with CVN-65 Enterprise than the Forrestals since they wouldn't have had to deal with requests for the other ships in the class and she was still operating in the mid to late 90s timeframe of most of the ED assets.   

Forrestal should have waited for the A-6 release if they were going to do it at all.  I'd love to see ED start a coordinated focus with 3rd parties on late Cold War era with map, asset pack, peer adversaries, F-4E and F-4N/S phantoms F-15A, F-16A, and F/A-18A variants (even if they're FC3 level though full fidelity would be ideal, era appropriate missiles and bombs.

That same concept could be extended to mid Cold War with F-4B and F-4C, SEA map, early missiles,  maybe after building up a Korea War focus around the F-86....  Imagine watching the changes to NTTR and the Vegas Strip if that concept were extended.

 

[Airhunter]

DCS isn't some era-specific roleplay sumulation. Especially given the different timeframes of modules we got. Albeit, the early 2000's is probably the closest or most accurate we'll get. 
I for one really like their choice of the Forrestal as it opens up quite a bit for stuff like the F-4 an gives you that 80's to early 90's Tomcat vibe. Could really care less about naval assets in the battlegroup, which as a pilot I will more than likely never get to see up close anyway.

[Harlikwin]

41 minutes ago, Uxi said:

This is a larger general problem with DCS in there is no set focus for timeline (more acute in the 3rd parties than from ED themselves maybe).  In 1991, while our Tomcats would roughly fit, only F/A-18A models would have been available...  none of the surface escorts and adversaries is a hodgepodge, too.  In 20/20 hindsight, I'm thinking HB would have been better to have gone with CVN-65 Enterprise than the Forrestals since they wouldn't have had to deal with requests for the other ships in the class and she was still operating in the mid to late 90s timeframe of most of the ED assets.   

Forrestal should have waited for the A-6 release if they were going to do it at all.  I'd love to see ED start a coordinated focus with 3rd parties on late Cold War era with map, asset pack, peer adversaries, F-4E and F-4N/S phantoms F-15A, F-16A, and F/A-18A variants (even if they're FC3 level though full fidelity would be ideal, era appropriate missiles and bombs.

That same concept could be extended to mid Cold War with F-4B and F-4C, SEA map, early missiles,  maybe after building up a Korea War focus around the F-86....  Imagine watching the changes to NTTR and the Vegas Strip if that concept were extended.

 

 

F18C's were a thing in 91... 

[Northstar98]

On 10/18/2021 at 2:38 AM, Airhunter said:

DCS isn't some era-specific roleplay sumulation. Especially given the different timeframes of modules we got.

Yes, but for some this is an issue...

The lack of consistency means that we largely have something a mile wide but an inch deep, with aircraft spanning something like 70 years, but pick any one decade and you might find that there really isn't much.

I'm not saying just focus on one era and then that be the end of it, but it would be good to focus on one era, get it fleshed out to the same level as WWII currently is (at least), then move on. Unfortunately, with some exceptions that isn't really happening.

This is kinda off-topic, but this issue was well described here.

On 10/18/2021 at 2:38 AM, Airhunter said:

Albeit, the early 2000's is probably the closest or most accurate we'll get. 

Meh I'd say WWII:

• Fairly equal numbers of modules (excluding variants) on both sides, that largely fit together, with more coming.
• 2 dedicated maps, with a third coming.
• A dedicated asset pack, adding a decent number of assets.

On 10/18/2021 at 2:38 AM, Airhunter said:

I for one really like their choice of the Forrestal as it opens up quite a bit for stuff like the F-4 an gives you that 80's to early 90's Tomcat vibe.

Yes, I quite like their Forrestal too, their choice of a mid 80s - 90s fit is my preferred, though the Phantom does predate this (though of course, nothing stopping you from using it with a Phantom, provided we get one).

On 10/18/2021 at 2:38 AM, Airhunter said:

Could really care less about naval assets in the battlegroup, which as a pilot I will more than likely never get to see up close anyway.

You realise escorts aren't just there for eye-candy, right?

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
spelling

[Airhunter]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

You realise escorts aren't just there for eye-candy, right?

 

Yes, and I couldn't care less what ship does the escort. As long as it shoots down stuff and protects the CV. Again, all of this has nothing to do with flying the plane, it's just what a very small munority or model building / RP people seem to want. Some people really get obsessed with historical accuracy and depicring a accurate snapshot in time. I get it but DCS is simply the wrong platform for that.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Airhunter

[Northstar98]

11 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

Yes, and I couldn't care less what ship does the escort. As long as it shoots down stuff and protects the CV.

Do you care about the differences between say, the SA-10 and the SA-11, to the point that one is a stand-in for the other, just so long as it "shoots down stuff"?

This is more extreme, but let's say I recreate a Falklands scenario, shall I use an Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA in place of a Type 42 batch 1, knowing that the former is way more capable in basically every single way?

11 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

Again, all of this has nothing to do with flying the plane, it's just what a very small munority or model building / RP people seem to want.

I would argue that working with certain assets and on the other side, fighting against them, has a little bit more than 'nothing' to do with flying the plane.

11 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

Some people really get obsessed with historical accuracy and depicring a accurate snapshot in time. I get it but DCS is simply the wrong platform for that.

How is it the wrong platform for that? There are places where DCS does pay attention (or at least a lot more attention) to depicting a reasonably accurate snapshot in time (at least in terms of the assets and maps themselves), it just doesn't around here.

And again, the lack of consistency has been seen by some has a fairly major problem.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Northstar98

[Airhunter]

I can see what you are saying but I don't think Heatblur should focus on said assets. If ED want to do some 80's naval assets free of charge (heck, even the USS Missouri would be pretty cool) then that would be fine. And like I said, SAM systems are much higher on the list of priorities than naval assets and ships, unless you want to primarily do anti-ship operations. I'm just happy to have the Forrestal, hopefully sooner rather than later Saratoga and an A-6 and KA-6 AI. Again, DCS is primarily a combat flight simulator not a virtual battlespace sim like say CMO etc.