How to repair wrong loadout of US AEGIS in Naval War: Arctic Circle?

**Tinku-Jia** · 18-04-2012

Recently I have started to play and I am having great time with the game itself. I have also managed to get single gripe. I noticed Arliegh Burke and Ticonderoga was having wrong missile load outs. It was having ,
56 SM2
16 ESSM
10 TLAM
8 VLA
and 20 Harpoon

There were only 96 cells available but there was not a single Harpoon canisters. If it supposed to be a ESSM quad packs it should be of 78 cells or 98 cell and Harpoons should be into the undeveloped vertical launch version.
The Ticos should be the worse one
56 SM2
8 Harpoon
16 ESSM
10 TLAM
8 VLA
It totals 78 of 120 VLS cells are being used. Loadouts supposed to be flexible and ships supposed to be full for the heading of the war. I wanted to have below mentioned loadout in the game.

DDG
8 VLA
18 TLAM
52 SM2
72 ESSM (18 cells of quad packs)
CG
8 VLA
32 TLAM
52 SM2
112 ESSM (28 quad packs)
8 Harpoon

I know there are lots of SAM however the primary purpose should be ships and quad pack ESSM which are going to be used in the game. if you are having any comments on above mentioned thing. thanks a lot in advance.

**Shikamaru Nara** · 18-04-2012

I am wondering that 20 Harpoons on Burke means that Harpoon canisters were added at the certain stage of the game. it would give you 8 Harpoons and rest of 12 should be of VL Harpoons. It would give you 90 cells and it should be correct if it should be a flight Burke rather than that of II or IIA.
After going through the loadout which you have suggested over here I wanted to tell you that it should be heavy on ESSM. Such ships are considered as area defense and ESSM should not be a true defense weapon.. according to me typical loadout should be of IIA is 32 ESSM which supposed to be of 8 cells. The entire thing is also dependent on mission. There should be combination of ASROC and SM-2. There will be Burke or Tico as a carrier escort and it would be packing 48 ESSM or 64 ESSM. In my Opinion the loadout should be in following manner.
Burke IIA
64 SM2MR/SM2ER/SM6
32 ESSM
12 TLAM
12 VLA
8 Harpoon (leave out the VL Harpoon)

Ticonderoga
80 SM2MR/SM2ER/SM6
48 ESSM
18 TLAM
12 VLA
8 Harpoon

**Badmannah** · 18-04-2012

I think one day US Navy would become sensible in the game where we should to add Harpoon canisters to Burke fl IIA in the game. if I am not wrong we are already having optional loads but we cannot use the same into campaign. But it would be little difficult to figure out which missiles has been loaded on the cells in the situation of blue water conflict.

There is no need of having Harpoons and it should be removed from Burke & Tico. You have to replace the same with combination of LRASM A & B. I am sure about the thing that US Navy will not use Harpoons in 2030. If I am not wrong they have already cancelled the Harpoon Block III in the year 2009. In that year only they have started to work on the Harpoon replacement in the game. hence in current situation Harpoon is EOL and by 2020 it could be used as air launch version.

**DevenderD** · 18-04-2012

Well DDG seems to be sensible enough. In the current scenario DDG loadouts are making the surface warfare interesting with lacking of horizon striking power. There is need of relaying air power. I really wanted to know how it would work in the situation of mine. I would like to have ESSM in loadout of mine. as most of Russian ASCM are able to skimming beasts. Also SM2 will be able to engage for maximum distance of 20 miles. There should be enough amount of missiles so that you can have shoot constantly in the game. SOVREMENY will be able to shoot 12 Moskits which are needed by salvo of 24 SAMs. You will be able to get better results after having 20nm across and ESSM shooter in the game.

**Halle** · 18-04-2012

There should be both air as well as surface defense option available in the game. as far as I know both LRASM A and B are developed considering VLS . A should be subsonic and stealthy as well. whereas B should be supersonic. Hence A should be more suitable for air launch. There should be joint associated with the every single project. All the things such as subs, planes, ships are deployed. If you are going to ask US Navy then they will let you know about that they are overdue for new modern ASP missile. So there is need of using Harpoon which was developed in the year of 1970s. however electronic version was updated at regular interval. It should be kept modern so that you will be able to get aerodynamic performance for the missiles. Russian ASMS are overpowered than that of US. I am not sure about that current economical climate would support such a large project. The defense industry has to provide something which will allow you to get something on time.

**Daksha90** · 18-04-2012

I do agree whatever you have stated in the post of yours. we are going to build IIA and first three DDG-1000s are going to see river really soon. This particular project seems to be an example of world beater. As there was cost overrun it was closed. It was more capable then that of DDG51 FlightIIA and seems to be more expensive. Iron Works was lucky than that of Navy and purchasing the bunch of Burkes rather than that of Zumwalts. City should survive and all the money should be provided into Zumwalt. Now enter Seawolf of destroyers. The ships are going to disappear as navy not wanted to use some parts in the game.