Arleigh Burke class destroyer

[chortles 263]

We will see. If in the end tanks receive some kind of activer countermeasure system such as the israeli Trophy or the russian Arena, theoretically one could program a missile so it would home on enemy missiles and destroy them.

I'm rather interested in this, since that'll determine whether "vanilla Phalanxes" can perform ASM point defense or not, and thus how much "moar gunz" a second Phalanx adds to the Arleigh Burke versus a pair of 25 mm chain guns. :lol:

I focus on this at least in part since in stable branch we've now got a degree of both radar warning receiver (RWR) simulation for the transport helos, the nearest octant of the outer circle flashing yellow during tracking/"painting" and the red upon a detected launch; in my experience (at least with the weather conditions in the vicinity of Stratis Air Base and the surrounding waters on the default date and time) both indicators are easily and readily seen.

For what it's worth, Chops, if you so choose to represent them, DDG-91 through DDG-96 had their MK 32 torpedo tubes moved to the aft missile deck (with the VLS cells) whereas prior Flight IIAs had them amidships, so it's up to you in essence which Flight IIA to represent. ;) Here and here are photos of USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81) with the fore Phalanx clearly visible, though.

[fragmachine 12]

Yep. You are right. Unless in Arma 3 things have changed, in Arma 2 I tried to destroy a couple of big missiles with a 20 mm cannon flying a F-35 and the bullets couldn't destroy missiles. It was as if they were ghosts. No Fire Geometry?

Based on Your post I've decided to make a ticket for this to highlight the problem.

I'm not an expert so if I made a mistake please correct me if needed:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12062

Edited July 28, 2013 by fragmachine

[giorox 1]

Hopefully PhysX will work as it does in VBS *Fingers crossed*

Besides that, the cruise missiles will work as an artillery correct? Having to click on the map to target and stuff?

[BadHabitz 235]

Hopefully PhysX will work as it does in VBS *Fingers crossed*

Besides that, the cruise missiles will work as an artillery correct? Having to click on the map to target and stuff?

Hopefully the 5 inch gun works the same way. Naval Gunfire Support isn't all that dissimilar from calling in artillery.

It'd be cool if the Tomahawk strikes could be performed by entering lat/long, or grid coordinates.

[masonddg87 16]

I to am contemplating weather to start an Naval Project. The model you have provide so far looks wonderful. The endeavor you are embarking on will have it ups and downs. But the model I prefer would be based upon the Flight III series of the production. The reason being that the Flight III will replace the Ticonderoga Class CG, while the Flight IIA (in my project) will be replaced by the DDG 1000 series. If you need a good guide to the weapons load out, I suggest you to purchase Fleet Command from Steam. It will give a guide line idea of gun firing timing, sonar and radar coverage, etc. In the following link are some detail slides of the IIA model: http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-uss-sterett-ddg-104-arleigh/396800. Also is a link to a series of Game Programming material. I wish all of us the best moving forward.

[gurdy 479]

That looks rad! How did I miss this thread until now? :confused:

Can we see some close-ups of the ship's weapons? I want to see what the Phalanx looks like up close (if that's not a strange request... :p)!

[chortles 263]

As I've discussed multiple times, it will also depend on which iteration of the Flight IIA's the OP intends to represent... as it is, by including the forward CIWS and specifying that it's the 5-inch/62 caliber gun in front he's basically narrowed it down to four such ships. ;)

[BadHabitz 235]

I to am contemplating weather to start an Naval Project. The model you have provide so far looks wonderful. The endeavor you are embarking on will have it ups and downs. But the model I prefer would be based upon the Flight III series of the production. The reason being that the Flight III will replace the Ticonderoga Class CG, while the Flight IIA (in my project) will be replaced by the DDG 1000 series. If you need a good guide to the weapons load out, I suggest you to purchase Fleet Command from Steam. It will give a guide line idea of gun firing timing, sonar and radar coverage, etc. In the following link are some detail slides of the IIA model: http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-uss-sterett-ddg-104-arleigh/396800. Also is a link to a series of Game Programming material. I wish all of us the best moving forward.

DDG-1000 is a gimmick that costs twice as much as a Burke. Whatever has been appropriated so far is all they will make, while they're planning on 40+ new Burke builds.

Ticonderoga's will still be around during the timeframe the A3 story takes place in. All VLS CG-47s have been upgraded to add another 35 years of service life.

Just sayin'...

---------- Post added at 05:08 ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 ----------

As I've discussed multiple times, it will also depend on which iteration of the Flight IIA's the OP intends to represent... as it is, by including the forward CIWS and specifying that it's the 5-inch/62 caliber gun in front he's basically narrowed it down to four such ships. ;)

He should just make it a Flight IIC and add any armament he wants (Harpoon!).

[kdk11 1]

Is this complete mate? Basically ad like with your permission of course to add it to my project am currently doing. I am new to all texturing side of things but I do enjoy playing around with them. What I would like to do is use this excellent ship you have, take away any weapons and use it as a coast gaurd ship to carry my helicopters around or use(somehow) as a mobile refuelling station/HQ. And maybe retexture it to be more fitting with my theme. I will link my post bellow so you can see what I have done. Page two for more pictures.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?160267-My-project

[masonddg87 16]

DDG-1000 is a gimmick that costs twice as much as a Burke. Whatever has been appropriated so far is all they will make, while they're planning on 40+ new Burke builds.

Ticonderoga's will still be around during the timeframe the A3 story takes place in. All VLS CG-47s have been upgraded to add another 35 years of service life.

Just sayin'...

Yes you are correct. But do to the structure of my project being based upon a Carrier Strike Force, it is vitally important that I have a set of Naval Gun fire support to cover 59 +/- nmi for my Marines.

[BadHabitz 235]

The 5/64 gun mounts on Burkes and Ticonderogas can use Mark 171 ERGM rounds, which can get you the range you're looking for

[chortles 263]

Actually both the ERGM and it seems the BTERM were cancelled, but it seems that the Excalibur "system" can fit in 5 inch guns too:

In addition to 155mm artillery land forces worldwide, the GPS/SAL capability will be available for both 155mm and 5-inch (127mm) naval guns to address moving targets on land and at sea. Counter-swarming boat capability will be the prime focus of the at-sea moving target capability using a high-firing rate, large caliber, affordable munition that can be fired from land or sea platforms. The transition to the naval 5-inch configuration is easily made as the existing 155mm Excalibur Ib GNU design also fits in a 127mm projectile body.

[BadHabitz 235]

The 5 inch guns normally have a 20 mile range, which is plenty for NGFS (or Naval Surface Fire Support I guess they're calling it now). Even if you're 5 miles offshore you still get 15 miles of power projection. I honestly don't see a need to go much further. As it is, 15-20 miles of NSFS range should cover most of (if not all of) the land mass of Altis.

Inland strikes would be handled by precision-guided munitions from aircraft, or TLAM strikes. NSFS is more for shore and harbor barrages.

You can use whatever ships you want for your Carrier Strike Group, I'm just saying you don't have to feel stuck using a certain ship because you need certain capabilities. You're not going to get upgraded capability if you choose Zumwalts over Burkes and Ticos.

[chortles 263]

One of the issues with getting "Carrier Strike Groups" is that to my knowledge I don't recall anyone ever modding in a driveable CV...?

P.S. For anyone wondering, the static Destroyer object in Arma 2 was based on a really, really rough outline of an Arleigh Burke.

[BadHabitz 235]

One of the issues with getting "Carrier Strike Groups" is that to my knowledge I don't recall anyone ever modding in a driveable CV...?

P.S. For anyone wondering, the static Destroyer object in Arma 2 was based on a really, really rough outline of an Arleigh Burke.

The mobile CV is the poster child for the movable ship/walking on deck/vehicle landing dilemma. I'd like to see it, but for my purposes I think a static CV is fine. All a CV does anyway is travels from one spot to another and turns into the wind (to conduct flight ops) inside of a navigation box. Functional smaller ships are more of a priority, as they will move from one area to another to conduct a myriad of different tasking.

Something else that Id ask be considered for this Arleigh Burke project are boat davits, so RHIBs can be used for VBSS on static merchant ships. Having a nice static merchant ship with walk-able corridors, cargo hold and wheelhouse would be awesome.

[masonddg87 16]

BadHabiz, speaking of smaller ships. What is the limit length for ships before you have to model in sections?

[BadHabitz 235]

BadHabiz, speaking of smaller ships. What is the limit length for ships before you have to model in sections?

I'm not well versed in modelling, but this post might be of some use to you: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?156976-US-Destroyer-Ship-(WIP)&p=2429208&viewfull=1#post2429208

[masonddg87 16]

I read the post from mankyle. Thanks. So should we use the Freedom Class LCS for a test bed first? I mean, it's only 378 ft. (115 m) long. Has a flight deck, a lunch bay, a gun, missiles, etc. I have found a model that even has a bridge. And with that the MH-60R can be tested also.

[BadHabitz 235]

So should we use the Freedom Class LCS for a test bed first?

Like this?: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158772-Big-PHYSx-compatible-ship-LCS-2-technological-demonstrator

[masonddg87 16]

Well, a little more advanced. The reason I point this out is the Anzac Class Frigate is 387 ft. (118 m) in length. Which is in ArmA 2. As one whole model. Two meters longer than the Freedom Class itself. Also the scripting has been tested and proven where as to have avatars walk and land on moving ships. Above and below the water line. It's just someone has to the do the very heavy scripting for it.

[chortles 263]

Shouldn't all this go into one of the naval threads rather than clutter up Chops' thread about Chops' Arleigh Burke-class DDG? :lol:

We do already know thanks to OP the extent of the modder's ambition for this vessel as far as its intended scope:

It will have a functional helideck. The extent and details of this depend on what happens when the game is finally released. I'm not going to invest a load of time on work-arounds or scripts or the like, only to find the game develops in a different direction regarding vehicles on vehicles and PhysX. This will also be the case with weapons and countermeasure systems. Not only do I have no idea how to implement much of a weapons/countermeasures system, I imagine the likes of Mando Missles will be far better anyway, and allow me to concentrate on the model.

I'm not seeing anything about "walkability" here and mankyle's LCS 2 (Independence-class) is specifically credited, so beyond "functional helideck" that's presumably defined as "helicopters can land and have appropriate friction (not sliding off due to speed differentials due to the game applying absolute speed to both vessels instead of relative speed for the helicopter) without scripting required" (even if a scroll wheel "Lash/Secure Chopper" option wouldn't be inauthentic due to the RAST system on Arleigh Burke DDGs) I'm not seeing unrealistic goals that weren't already achieved in Arma 2.

[masonddg87 16]

Shouldn't all this go into one of the naval threads rather than clutter up Chops' thread about Chops' Arleigh Burke-class DDG? :lol:

We do already know thanks to OP the extent of the modder's ambition for this vessel as far as its intended scope:I'm not seeing anything about "walkability" here and mankyle's LCS 2 (Independence-class) is specifically credited, so beyond "functional helideck" that's presumably defined as "helicopters can land and have appropriate friction (not sliding off due to speed differentials due to the game applying absolute speed to both vessels instead of relative speed for the helicopter) without scripting required" (even if a scroll wheel "Lash/Secure Chopper" option wouldn't be inauthentic due to the RAST system on Arleigh Burke DDGs) I'm not seeing unrealistic goals that weren't already achieved in Arma 2.

Well after this post, we continued in private message mode. So the conversation contents where continued there.

[chortles 263]

This one's a bit of a tangent, but after looking at the BF4 MP trailer... you can probably guess where

? :D

By the way, good news on the functional helideck front, with an added bonus of some degree of "ground vehicle" functionality, which at the very least bodes well for anyone who cares to mod in an aircraft tow tractor... although, do Arleigh Burkes make use of those?

[BadHabitz 235]

....which at the very least bodes well for anyone who cares to mod in an aircraft tow tractor... although, do Arleigh Burkes make use of those?

No. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158772-Big-PHYSx-compatible-ship-LCS-2-technological-demonstrator&p=2458503&viewfull=1#post2458503

[DrWub 1]

When can we get our hands on some early access? :D