homepage Forums Miscellaneous Naval Simulations New Sonalysts sim

test

;-)

one more test

:-)

Am I missing something here?......

colon :
dash -
smile )

Sandman.

WoH! that's wierd. I have no idea why it's not replacing the characters with a smiley.
Try with just the eyes and mouth.
Hmm, I'll try here....

Got it Crims!! Thanks!

Gee I feel special now....

Sandman.

Did this new simm ever see the light of day...???

I would like to see a modern simm based upon the RN Upholder Class......all the mod cons, plus the tatical thinking needed to raise and lower to breath..

BTW, it was in an Australian news paper today that one of our Collins Class subs was able to "sink" a 688 sub, as well as get close enough to photograph the keel of a US carrier...all during the latest RimPac excersise

Did you also happen to read that the 688 was using a transient emitter to emulate the running sound of a russian Victor I/II class?

Did not think so. The papers rarely report the "whole" story.

Also, photogging a skimmers keel, especially one as big as a CVN is not a hard thing to do. A D/E boat can sit quiet, and wait for the ASW screen to pass by before creeping under the CVN and keel shotting her.

I bet that the paper did not report that the picture taking skipper got his boat killed as he tried to disengage? See what I mean? An escorts Seahawk managed to "kill" her as she crept away, but the damage would have been severe in real life. The CVN would have been severely damaged. It's a small consolation to kill the attacking SS after she has blown her load.

Bet the incident pissed off the CVN's skipper though. The ASW screen commander probably got his ass chewed.

-Skater

Still wasn't too bad considering our boats are supposed to be very noisey..

I thought that a carrier has an escorting sub or two..??..Is that not the case..??

Let's think about this--if the 688 (which was with the CVBG, of course--2 to each, I believe) was emulating a Victor, wouldn't that mean the CVN was probably emulating a Kusnetsov or other non-US carrier? Perhaps they had turned back their capabilities a bit to more accurately simulate this? Not a fact, just a musing...
The Jedi Master

'Llo Bros,

(Sandman, Skate, Crimson: LMAO!)

Don't mean to be a wet-blanket, but I intend to be one anyway! Sonalyst's last effort 688(I), er, kinda wanked for me. (Ahh! I put it delicately!) While the sim did somethings extremely realistically, it failed in several fundamental areas. (Of course, I take into account to my humble LAYMAN sensibilities. After all: I only commanded a 688 at sea for one 6-month span. Plus this was well-before the re-engineered 688's -- featuring the new passive, fully bi-oculated, multi-array, dinaptured and antuculated toilet seats put to sea! )

Buuuuuuuuut seriously; I can't think of any genre that readily lends itself to PC simulation than the submarine. E.g., in an airplane sim, there's no way to simulate a real fighter pilot's peripheral vision, or the instant, physical feedback any control input provides. Yet in a modern sub sim, you realistically spend much of your time staring at console screens, trying to divine the location of an enemy submarine, while taking extreme pains to avoid detection yourself. Obviously the PC can simulate this quite well. (No, of course a PC can't fully convey the impression of war that most of those with the misfortune of having to face actual combat are left with: "hours of mind-numbing boredom, punctuated by moments of sheer terror." Yet, let us never forget the obvious: sims are fun; real war IS NOT FUN.)

Well, excuse my usual long-windededness. Here let me break wind and conclude (OK, that was BAD ) by saying that it is perplexing as to why (IMHO) we have yet to really see a first-rate modern attack sim. Sonalysts certainly posseses the know-how to make a realistic attack-sub sim; I wish them all the luck in the world!

Cheers!

Robert

Skater, a few questions please!

1) The designation fast-attack submarine. Er, are their any 'slow-attack' subs? Seriously, what does this designation mean?

2) Just how dramatically improved are the Seawolf attack sub's capabilities when compared to the re-engineered 688? Did they finally build one?

3) I understand that one argument (admittedly a valid one) against axing the Seawolf submarine program was that it could well turn Groton Connecticut(?), Electric Boats central location, into another Flint Michigan, (I.e., Flint after GM pulled out), as well as effectively shutting down America's ability to produce new and sophisticated submarines. Do you think that the new Virginia class boats may be a compromise solution to the far more expensive Seawolf submarines?

4) Comrade, Vere are the nuclear vessels?

Oh, and by the way, DO post any classified information you have, Skate, or I'm posting the U.S.'s nuclear launch codes (Pentagon anti-hacker security, what a bunch of amateurs!) tomorrow!


[This message has been edited by Robert Murphy (edited December 31, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Robert Murphy (edited December 31, 2000).]

"in an airplane sim, there's no way to simulate a real fighter pilot's peripheral vision"

Yes there is, and by a number of means..But the one I'm looking forward to is VR. VR head tracking units are already here, as are the simms that can use them (Flanker 2.0 and EAW). Just waitning for LCD technology to become cheap enough..

"or the instant, physical feedback any control input provides. "

Ever heard of Force Feedback joysticks and steering wheels..?? Been around for a couple of years now..But one this they can't simmulate is the G effect..

"Don't mean to be a wet-blanket, but I intend to be one anyway! Sonalyst's last effort 688(I), er, kinda wanked for me. (Ahh! I put it delicately!) While the sim did somethings extremely realistically, it failed in several fundamental areas."


Curious. Which areas do you feel were lacking?


"...we have yet to really see a first-rate modern attack sim."


Actually Fast Attack by Sierra was pretty close, too (to a Sturgeon-class. anyway).


Skater, a few questions please!

1) The designation fast-attack submarine. Er, are their any 'slow-attack' subs? Seriously, what does this designation mean?

Fast refers to the fact that the original mission profile for the Los Angeles Class was for Carrier Battle Group protection. As the Carriers cruise at a nominal 30 knots the class had to be fast enough to be able to range far out in front of the Battle Group to clear the path of any obstacles. Unfortunately, this restriction (combined with several others) resulted in a decidedly inferior class (for real Submarine work, anyway) when compared with its predecessor the Sturgeon class.

2) Just how dramatically improved are the Seawolf attack sub's capabilities when compared to the re-engineered 688? Did they finally build one?

There are 3 (I think). Seawolf, Connecticut and Jimmy Carter (which I think is still in the stays).

It has been publicly stated that the Seawolf-class is quieter at 30 knots that a 688i is sitting at the pier. One other quote that I recall from the Captain (who was in turn quoting some of his crew) was to the effect that "she goes so terrific fast that stuff falls off".

3) I understand that one argument (admittedly a valid one) against axing the Seawolf submarine program was that it could well turn Groton Connecticut(?), Electric Boats central location, into another Flint Michigan, (I.e., Flint after GM pulled out), as well as effectively shutting down America's ability to produce new and sophisticated submarines. Do you think that the new Virginia class boats may be a compromise solution to the far more expensive Seawolf submarines?

That is the intent. Once you lose the ability to build the boats you will not soon get it back. Besides, the NSSN looks to be a boat built for current scenarios, rather than fighting the Cold War.


[This message has been edited by JCC (edited December 31, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by JCC (edited December 31, 2000).]

Actually, two seperate incidents on two different engagements on different days.

The 688 was performing Dissimilar Adversarial ASW exercises.

Not sure what Ops the CVN was doing, but she was "playing herself".

CBG sub screens only ride close aboard when getting a photo op or something. Sub Skippers are a lot like Bill Clinton when it comes to photo ops. The subs will normally screen way out in front of the CBG where her sonar can be more effective. The skimmers make too much #%&*$# noise.

-Skater

Skater, a few questions please!

1) The designation fast-attack submarine. Er, are their any 'slow-attack' subs? Seriously, what does this designation mean?

Fast Attack is a term brought from the Rickover era. Rickover envisaged this all powerful, superfast nuclear powered Navy. We started with subs. To get the point across, he called attack boats Fast Attack's. We almost got that nuclear Navy too. Carriers and subs were not the only nuke boats in the Nav... Anyone remember the USS Virginia? A nuclear powered cruiser (CGN).

2) Just how dramatically improved are the Seawolf attack sub's capabilities when compared to the re-engineered 688? Did they finally build one?

A lot, and that's all I can say. She's a little more vulnerable in littoral situations, but overall, performance and combat capabilities are greatly enhanced. Her sonar suite is nothing short of incredible. They are finishing the third (and last) 21-class this coming year (if they have not already).

3) I understand that one argument (admittedly a valid one) against axing the Seawolf submarine program was that it could well turn Groton Connecticut(?), Electric Boats central location, into another Flint Michigan, (I.e., Flint after GM pulled out), as well as effectively shutting down America's ability to produce new and sophisticated submarines. Do you think that the new Virginia class boats may be a compromise solution to the far more expensive Seawolf submarines?

Not a compromise, but a solution. Virginia is a very capable design, although much smaller than the Seawolf class. She benefits in the very latest in technologies. 10-20 years more advanced than that on Seawolf. Her main advantages are her small size, advanced sensors, reduced signatures, capabilities in the littorals, and her reduced cost (we can get more of 'em).

4) Comrade, Vere are the nuclear vessels?

Not sure what you mean here... If you want to know where we base the Tridents now, the answer is only two bases: Bangor Washington and Kings Bay Georgia.

Oh, and by the way, DO post any classified information you have, Skate, or I'm posting the U.S.'s nuclear launch codes (Pentagon anti-hacker security, what a bunch of amateurs!) tomorrow!

Roger that. I'll post pictures and schematics of the reactor spaces as soon as I get back home.

-Skater

Are there any non-Ohio and non-Los Angeles class subs left in the inventory? Those old subs were the best!

Not really...

The only subs left in our inventory that are not LA or Ohio class boats are not classified for standard use...

Special Mission Submarines:

SSN 683 USS Parche - A heavily modified Sturgeon class "Special Projects" boat (Sorry, not getting any more than that out of me).

SSN 642 USS Kamehameha - A heavily modified Benjamin Franklin class SSBN converted into a SEAL transport boat. She can carry 67 SEAL's and all related equipment. All missiles and missile equipment have been removed, but tubes retained and converted to other uses, including armories/magazines, storage, etc., for embarked SEALs. A mission planning center replaced the missile control center. She also carries two Dry Deck Shelters which are permanently fixed just aft of the sail.

SSN 23 USS Jimmy Carter - A modified version of the Seawolf class currently under construction and due to enter service in 2004. The Carter will be a "Special Mission" and "Special Project" boat, and is designed to carry a small number of SEAL's and their equipment. The conversion includes an additional hull section, providing space for various minisubs, ROVs, UUVs, and other underwater vehicles and equipment.

Other than those three submarines, we also have three auxiliary submarines in our inventory.

SSN 691 USS Memphis - An LA Flight I class boat modified as a seagoing testbed for new submarine technologies and weapons. She was first assigned to this role in 1989, and underwent extensive modifications, including fitting of a larger torpedo tube, in 1993-94. Has an external shelter for ROVs, equipment for handling new towed arrays, and extensive test/trials monitoring equipment installations.

ex-SS 566 ex-Trout - A heavily modified Tang class boat, Trout was the last operational diesel-electric submarine in the US Navy. She has been designated for use as an operational underwater sonar target for ASW exercises. Conversion/modification for this role has not yet been completed. The vessel will be operated by NAWCAD Detachment Key West. In addition to ASW training, the boat will be used for testing and trials of new technologies. Will be manned by a small crew while surfaced for transit, but unmanned while submerged. The boat is currently not assigned an official designation or name. The USS Trout (SS 566) wass decommissioned and stricken 19 December 1978 and nominally transferred to Iran. She was never delivered; following the Iranian revolution she was laid up at Philadelphia while her ownership and fate were worked out. In 1994 she was "sold" back to the US Navy at scrap value.

AGSS 555 USS Dolphin - A small, deep-diving submarine built specifically to test various submarine equipment and new technologies. Her configuration has varied greatly over the years as systems have been added and removed.

Other than these boats and small manned submersibles like the NR-1, DSRV-1, DSRV-2, and the ASDS, all submarines in our inventory are LA and Ohio class boats.

-Skater

Are you refereing to the USS PARSH Tapping the russian communication in the Barentz Sea?

The russian already caught the SEAWOLF tapping in their Okhotz sea in the 80s...
is it really still a "secret" ?

For the uninitiated the USS PARShe was modified to carry several deep sea divers as well as all kind of electronics in order to tap the russian communication and recuperate their "scattered" missile in order to find out more about the way they were designed.
"special projects" refers to all kind of activities that are authorized directly by the president and the head of the navy. The idea is to gather a maximum of information about the "BAD" guys ....


------------------

I decline to comment on anything to do with the USS Parche.

I believe that the Okhotsk operations are now part of uncommon knowledge. The tap is now part of a Russian museum display about cold war spying activities. However, I believe that the name or names of the boat or boats that participated in these operations, and the dates of these operations are still classified. So, I respectfully decline to comment on whether the USS Seawolf was involved.

-Skater

Yes the USS Seawolf even if she was getting very old did a few operations. But later USS parshe keep on tapping russian communication even while Reagan was talking peace and nuke suppression with Gorbatchev.More interesting is that USS Parshe did more operation and was "updated" in 90's in order to fulfill more mission. USS Parshe is the most decorated submarine in the navy with 8 President citation and I think that deserve to be known. Later the USS Seawolf retired and was succeeded by USS Russel with the name of the famous Senator. Doing the same type of "operations"
Clinton authorised the production of 3 others Seawolf submarines while he was president and the "special project" went on. This time less focusing on the russian but more on China, North Korea and of course Iran and Irak.
Even if in a pure intelligence point of vue those missions were crucial, they still raise the question to is it legal? or does it worth it ?
The russian even in the middle of the cold war were running a defensive position and were certainly not ready for a "first strike war" but still America put his own crew in danger by placing those illegal devices in order to tap in their communication. This could have been consider as an act of War and if the russian were so willing to fight US they would have found an "excuse" to do so when they found out about the mission of USS Seawolf in Okhoskt sea (sorry for mispelling) USA was willing to "sacrifice" his own crew for those mission, those submarines who were carrying those special mission were equipped of a self destruct device in order to avoid any evidence of their illegal tapping. ( Regardless what the Navy Lawyers might say on this, tapping russian communication in the middle of their territorial waters is very questionable)
The point that i am trying to make is that it is totally possible to have access to those "classifield" information.
Just need to read a few books or surf the internet.



------------------