Weapons loadouts in scenarios

[jdkbph]

Question regarding the weapons loadouts on some of these ships in the out-of-the box scenarios. And this may just be a lack of knowledge on my part.

I'm looking specifically at the USS Halsey in the South China Clash scenario. This scenario presupposes a prepared force going into a potential hot zone against a significant threat.

She's carrying 56 Tomahawks, 24 ESSMs, and 8 ASROCs.

96 VLS cells, 88 weapons loaded.

First, why the empty cells?

Second, why the heavy emphasis on land attack? No ASuW capability at all.

Third, no Standard AAW missiles. Why the limited air defense capability?

This seems ridiculous to me. Is there some RL logic behind this that I'm missing? A play balancing thing? A mistake?

Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks.

JD

[ComDev]

Hi JD, some real quick answers [8D]

1. There are not enough weapons around to fill all VLS cells, so ships deploy with empty cells. Typical loadout for a Tico, for instance, is 96 SM-2s, 48 per VLS. The 'heavy' AAW loadout for Burkes is 72 SM-2.

2. The USN is not fitting Harpoon missiles to new ships. They carry helicopters instead. If you look in the db there are no Sub-Harpoon on modern units either. These were withdrawn in the late 1990s.

3. ESSM replaces both the SM-2 and CWIS on newer Burkes.

[jdkbph]

Thanks Ragnar. That's stunning... in a bad, real-world way. No wonder the PTB think the LCS is a great idea... these must be the same idiots who think it's a good idea to pull the fangs on the USN surface forces.

Helicopters?

Sheesh.

JD

[smudge56]

You think thats mad our governments in the uk think its a great idea having carriers before we get any carrier aircraft. Penny pinching they scrap the sea harriers which could at least have been an interim.

Then complain when we struggle to cover operations.

[kieferpl]

Hi JD, some real quick answers

1. There are not enough weapons around to fill all VLS cells, so ships deploy with empty cells. Typical loadout for a Tico, for instance, is 96 SM-2s, 48 per VLS. The 'heavy' AAW loadout for Burkes is 72 SM-2.

...

3. ESSM replaces both the SM-2 and CWIS on newer Burkes.

Neither of these answers are correct. Especially number 3.

[jdkbph]

Do tell....

What then is the right answer?

BTW, I'm also curious as to whether these restrictions and limitations we're talking about here are the result of peace-time and/or low threat conditions. Would these be "war" loadouts as well, or would we see the (eg) Burkes loaded up with SMs and Harpoons should we get into a spat with another major sea power?

It's all just hard to believe... particularly that helicopter thing. Even if they could get close enough to launch at a legit warship (and that's a big - perhaps impossible - if)... I mean, a couple of Hellfires hanging off a Seahawk?

Seriously? [:)]

JD

[Wiz33]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Hi JD, some real quick answers [8D]

3. ESSM replaces both the SM-2 and CWIS on newer Burkes.

Source? This may be true fro a unit operating within a Task Force with other Aegis ship setup for AAW while the Burke carries the Tomakawk for land attack and ESSM for self defense. But there is no way that a Burke will have this loadout if it's the lead in a Taskforce and there are no other ship with better AAW capability around. I hope this is just specific to this scenario but on the general config of a Burke II in the database.

[bsq]

ESSM should sit in 4 cell clusters within a single VLS cell. This is the way they were designed. They are supposed to be a cheaper option to enable more missiles to be carried. Unless the game modelling only allows a one size fits all solution for modular weapon systems?

[Wiz33]

ORIGINAL: bsq

ESSM should sit in 4 cell clusters within a single VLS cell. This is the way they were designed. They are supposed to be a cheaper option to enable more missiles to be carried. Unless the game modelling only allows a one size fits all solution for modular weapon systems?

Good question. I guess we need to go into the scenario editor and see what happens with you add or subtract ESSM on a ship. Ok just checked. 4 ESSM only takes up 1 cell space.

[Wiz33]

OK. There seems to be some major problem with all the Burke loadouts in the DB3000 build 396 Database.

#438 DDG51 Aeleigh Burke ft I 2008-0, 2015-0 SM3 AEGIS BMD
#442 DDG72 Mahan ft II 2008-0, 2015-0 SM3 AEGIS BMD

None of them have SM3s in their magazine and only SM2s

All Burke II/IIA in the database are setup for Land Attack as default loadout with no SM2/3/6 at all even though there are 25 empty cell in the 64 cells VLS.

2008 and 2015 Variants still have Mk46 in ship magazine instead of Mk 50/54

[thewood1]

I assume as you build a scenario, you adjust the magazines as you build it. I never used the default magazine, especially in US VLS systems. The weapons are all there and available in mount, things like the SM3 are zeroed out. You can adjust it as you see fit.

I just did some testing also...the ESSM is four per cell it appears.

[mikmykWS]

We'll take a look.

You guys know you can add weapons and records right?


Mike

[Wiz33]

Yea. But I was surprised that a ship set to the SM3 BMD role does not start with SM3 in the VLS and a Burke set as taskforce lead in a scenario does not have any SM2.

[mikmykWS]

Pretty sure our rationale at the time is we really didn't know how many the US actually allocated to each ship. Still don't have solid data but we can act on the request.

Mike

[jdkbph]

I'm not so sure that this is a DB issue, but rather a scenario design issue. I'm comfortable with the idea that a typical load out during peace time or in a low risk environment might not be what you would get in a pedal to the metal situation. And I suppose it's quite possible to be caught that way and have to make do with what you have, if that's the scenario designer's intent.

However, if the scenario in question (at least the one in my original question) was supposed to represent a war time or "hostilities anticipated" situation... or if in a given scenario the unit is employed in a different role than the default load out was intended for, the scenario designer should be aware and would probably want to alter the load out accordingly and not consider the DB default load out to necessarily be representative or optimized for full effect or capability in that situation.

JD

[Wiz33]

Yep. No way a Burke task with leading a bunch of weaker ships will set sail without it's primary area air defense weapon. If the designer went through the trouble to account for aircraft under maintenance and not available. He should have at least provide the proper loadout for the ships used in the scenario.

[mikmykWS]

I'm the designer [:)]

[Wiz33]

Hey there. Seems like I'm a equal opportunity offender ;-P So can you tell me if it's a simple oversight or if you have a reason behind not giving the Burke it's AAW weapons?

[mikmykWS]

It has ESSM's and the scenario is winnable. Have you played this scenario? If so what do you think the load out should be?

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Wiz33

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Hi JD, some real quick answers [8D]

3. ESSM replaces both the SM-2 and CWIS on newer Burkes.

Source? This may be true fro a unit operating within a Task Force with other Aegis ship setup for AAW while the Burke carries the Tomakawk for land attack and ESSM for self defense. But there is no way that a Burke will have this loadout if it's the lead in a Taskforce and there are no other ship with better AAW capability around. I hope this is just specific to this scenario but on the general config of a Burke II in the database.

100% true, which is why I also mentioned in my first post that the standard/typical AAW loadout for a Burke is 72 SM-2s.

In the DB2000 database for Harpoon3 we actually had database entries for both configurations, AAW and Land attack.

In Command, switching loadout is pretty easy so the sim is shipping with the standard Land Attack configuration, which is Tomahawks + 24 SAMs (SM-2 for early Burkes, ESSM for later). Feel free to change to the SM-2 configuration if you want.