Different time frame for different Forrestal class ships

[Mig Fulcrum]

As far as I know the current USS Forrestal is a '80 modification an that's cool but since there is no need for more modern-oriented carriers (we have CVN-74 and CV-59 for free and the whole SC module) it would be cool to have the remaining ships of the class representing different time frames.

In this way we could have a carrier for almost each decade to make period-correct scenarios.

For example:

CV-59 - '80

CV-60 - Late '50 with still early deck markings and original armament

CV-61 and CV-62 - Late '60 and '70s for future Vietnam scenario (along with the future naval F-4 by HB) and perfect for the upcoming F-8J (maybe one free and one part of the SC module).

Just a suggestion, what do you think?

Edited August 25, 2022 by Mig Fulcrum

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Mig Fulcrum said:

As far as I know the current USS Forrestal is a '80 modification an that's cool but since there is no need for more modern-oriented carrier (we have CVN-74 and CV-59 for free and the whole SC module) it would be cool to have the remaining ships of the class rapresenting different time frames.

In this way we could have a carrier for almost each decade to make period-correct scenarios.

For exaple:

CV-59 - '80

CV-60 - Late '50 with still early deck markings and original armament

CV-61 and CV-62 - Late '60 and '70s for future Vietnam scenario (along with the future naval F-4 by HB) and perfect for the upcoming F-8J (maybe one free and one part of the SC module).

Just a suggestion, what do you think?

The forrestal build by HB has a "Tomcat" CV. The problem about a previously version has been the great quantity of changes of equipment, systems and armament from 50 to 2000. That require ED build a system to select propper "age" carriers.

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, Mig Fulcrum said:

As far as I know the current USS Forrestal is a '80 modification an that's cool but since there is no need for more modern-oriented carrier (we have CVN-74 and CV-59 for free and the whole SC module) it would be cool to have the remaining ships of the class rapresenting different time frames.

The timeframe of it is currently 1990s owing to Phalanx Block 1 (though the barrels are too long). If you ignore that and pretend they're Block 0s (and it's not like they're modelled any differently) then the earliest it goes is the 20th of May 1985 (as the ship is post SLEP).

This actually makes sense owing to the current Tomcats HB has delivered.

Our current A represents the mid 90s (if C:MO is to be believed, owing to the RWR - though that is the only thing I've found so far so pinch of salt) up to 2003. Though that changes to the late 90s to 2003 with LANTIRN. The current B is somewhere from the mid to late 80s up to 2005, though again that changes to the late 90s - 2005 with LANTIRN. 

7 hours ago, Mig Fulcrum said:

Just a suggestion, what do you think?

In an ideal world I'd probably be in full agreement with you. Personally though, right now I'm more on the side of the late Cold War as that fits the majority of coming a naval modules (namely the A-6E and the A-7E, both of which are likely to be firmly into the 80s). We don't know what naval Phantom HB will provide, but it could end up being post Vietnam. Right now it's only the F-8J that'll be out of place.

The problem for me with going earlier than the 80s is that you run into the problem of having no-escorts or indeed any other ships at all. This is already an issue for the late Cold War (where even there the only thing that really fits is the OHP, but you still need to do some fudging even for that).

Edited August 25, 2022 by Northstar98
added disclaimer

[Mig Fulcrum]

3 ore fa, Northstar98 ha scritto:

Our current A represents the mid 90s (if C:MO is to be believed, owing to the RWR) up to 2003. Though that changes to the late 90s to 2003 with LANTIRN. The current B is somewhere from the mid to late 80s up to 2005, though again that changes to the late 90s - 2005 with LANTIRN. 

I remember HB said the B is late '90 (1997 if I remember correctly) and the current A is late '80 (maybe I'm wrong but I think 1989)

[LanceCriminal86]

10 minutes ago, Mig Fulcrum said:

I remember HB said the B is late '90 (1997 if I remember correctly) and the current A is late '80 (maybe I'm wrong but I think 1989)

Incorrect on the A.

If we consider the visual aspect alone, we are talking 1995+ for the B,  and '96 or '97+ on the A as LANTIRN rollouts began following 1995 testing. For the A to have ALR-67 may even be later than that, again depending on the actual date where the ALR-67 retrofit to As began. I say visual because the GPS dome added for LANTIRN would only have been there from 95+ as jets got LANTIRN.

Now, take away the actual LANTIRN, and the B can go all the way back to the late 80s as an A+ if you just do loadout restrictions. They already had ALR-67 and the upgraded gun vents from the start, just pretend that pesky GPS dome isn't there.

Take off the LANTIRN for the A, and you're still stuck in a scenario where ALR-67 make it a late 90s jet. Otherwise it visually would be fine back to about 1990-1991 or whatever point the gun vents began the conversions from the slotted vents to the NACA style. You could try and ignore the ALR-67 but it's a significant difference from what the ALR-45 could do.

Still to come is an older jet that is proper 1980s, covering from the early 80s through early 90s, or again mid-late 90s if you ignore the gun vents. That would be due to no LANTIRN, non-A2G loadouts, and the ALR-45 RWR.

There are still some visual things missing from the A and B plus some fixes to be made. If some magic happens, we might even get to pretend we have late 70s jets without the TCS pod and no upgraded jammers (because the end of -110-GR in like 1981 and up had added ALQ-126 jammers, which are currently missing except for the boat tail antenna). Otherwise we're going to have early 80s production and up to about 91-93 or so A, then a very late 90s-00s A. The Iran jet isn't going to be a 100% thorough jet, just the 80s jet with some of the systems turned off.

[Northstar98]

39 minutes ago, Mig Fulcrum said:

I remember HB said the B is late '90 (1997 if I remember correctly) and the current A is late '80 (maybe I'm wrong but I think 1989)

The F-14A-135-GR (as a whole) is no earlier than the mid 80s, which is probably what the F-14A-135-GR (early) will represent. Our current A is 90s owing to the AN/ALR-67(V)2, which (at least according to the C:MO database - so pinch of salt), came to the A in the mid 90s.

As for the B, the earliest you can take it is the year the B was introduced which is late-ish 80s, so long as you ignore the more minor visual differences LanceCriminal86 brought up.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Northstar98
added disclaimer

[LanceCriminal86]

On the topic of the Forrestal class we still don't even have all 4 from the 80s-90s period. Saratoga should be very close to Forrestal but Ranger and Indi had more significant changes to the layout. You can slap a 60, 61, or 62 on the Forrestal though and pretend if you want.

As far as your eras though, late 50s? We don't and probably won't have any jets that represent that point anytime soon. The oldest we will probably see are late Vietnam F-4Js and F-8Js, which would be pre-SLEP where the ships were converted to the shuttle style catapult from bridle style. There is a good chance a bridle era ship will be done but probably years down the road whenever the Navy F-4 happens. I don't even know that it would be worth trying to pretend we have the early 60s or late 50s with the F-8 because you'd be missing the entire rest of the air wings from that time.

As far as the F-8J goes, by the time Phantoms and eventually Tomcats were on the scene the Crusaders were becoming relegated to converted Essex or the Midway class ships. They weren't being deployed as much on the Forrestals, Kitty Hawks, Enterprise, or Nimitz classes. The J itself only equipped a few F-8 squadrons before they transitioned to F-14s or were shut down.

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

The F-14A-135-GR (as a whole) is no earlier than the mid 80s, which is probably what the F-14A-135-GR (early) will represent. Our current A is 90s owing to the AN/ALR-67(V)2, which (at least according to the C:MO database), came to the A in the mid 90s.

As for the B, the earliest you can take it is the year the B was introduced which is late-ish 80s, so long as you ignore the more minor visual differences LanceCriminal86 brought up.

I've never found a date where ALR-67 upgrades began on the A, only that the later BuNOs mainly got it with possibly one exception. And trying to look for the antenna changes you can see it on the OEF/OIF jets, but not sure I've seen it on say the Allied Force era Tomcats or before. I'll have to go back and look but I was under the impression crews were using car fuzz busters as a ghetto RWR around that time?

[Northstar98]

3 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

I've never found a date where ALR-67 upgrades began on the A, only that the later BuNOs mainly got it with possibly one exception. And trying to look for the antenna changes you can see it on the OEF/OIF jets, but not sure I've seen it on say the Allied Force era Tomcats or before. I'll have to go back and look but I was under the impression crews were using car fuzz busters as a ghetto RWR around that time?

I mean, the C:MO database is far from an authoritative source (I'll edit the post and put a disclaimer), I'm using it simply for the reason that something else seems incredibly difficult to come by.

[LanceCriminal86]

12 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I mean, the C:MO database is far from an authoritative source (I'll edit the post and put a disclaimer), I'm using it simply for the reason that something else seems incredibly difficult to come by.

Yeah, I have found a shortage of info on the ALR-67 dates versus say LANTIRN or PTIDs. At least those we know were happening in 1995 and we also know there were squadrons with pods but not PTID into 1998. ALR-67 though has not been easy to find.

That said, I think the 1998 draft training plan seemed to imply that ALR-67 was on the docket then to be done:

"AIRCRAFT AND/OR EQUIPMENT/SYSTEM/SUBSYSTEM REPLACED. In the F-14A Aircraft, sixty "core" F-14A Aircraft will be upgraded with the AN/ALR-67 Countermeasure Warning and Control System, LANTIRN and the Programmable Tactical Information Display (PTID)."

If you said our A model was a 1998 jet from say, VF-154 that had LANTIRN and maybe got ALR-67 but hadn't received a PTID yet, you could just squeeze it in on a razor's edge. We saw anecdotes that '98 is where PTIDs were showing up in 154 and they had jets with LANTIRN and the old fishbowl.

 

- 2001 NTSP changes the above statement to "were upgraded". So Allied Force jets might not have had the ALR-67 upgrades yet, but by Afghanistan in 2001 any As left should have had it.

Edited August 25, 2022 by LanceCriminal86

[Top Jockey]

On 8/28/2022 at 3:03 PM, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Honestly this would be too much work and basically require entirely new ship models. We should get a 80's to 90's Saratoga eventually as it is mostly a reskinned Forrestal, with some slight differences here and there and will also fit really well into the B model campaigns we have. It's kinda unfortunate that HB chose the Forrestal to be the first carrier as it only ever deployed with F-14A's, while Saratoga had both A's and B's throughout its life. 

 

The CV-60 Saratoga would be interesting for me... once upon a time in 1975, it had a brief and slight political influence in my country's ( Portugal ) history.

( Operation Locked Gate-75. )

[Top Jockey]

2 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Not only that but the official HB campaigns basically use the Saratoga (or should rather) as they are centered around VF-74 and OG 103.

 

Very good, that I didn't know.

Believe it or not, I've never played any DCS campaign so far, 100 % of my time is on edited Single Missions...

 

When I do have spare time I must try one of the Campagins for the first time, since evryone talks about them.

So from what you say, are the HB campaings using the CV-59 Forrestal instead ?