Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: RE:9M96D

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: Parel803
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: RE:9M96D Page: <<   < prev  89 90 [91] 92 93   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/22/2016 10:17:24 PM   
marksi10

 

Posts: 66
Joined: 8/1/2015
Status: offline
First I would like to say that I feel like an ungrateful bastard for quibbling about anything to do with this game. I think I have found a small thing though that I think may be having a disproportionate effect on many scenarios. This is the F-35s range. I found this doc recently: http://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf#page=16

It seems to me that the game uses the old, unrevised specification for the F-35bs range (I haven´t checked the others yet): the old specification was 550nm radius with 2 1000lb JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs, and in the game it is 567. The new specification however is 450, and the current expectation is 467, exactly 100nm less than in the game.

If this was any other platform than the F-35 I wouldn´t have said anything, but it seems to me that since it will be involved in a large proportion of the post-2015 scenarios, this increase in range may be making things too one-sided in West vs the rest confrontations. All I am saying is, give China and Russia a chance!

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2701
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/23/2016 1:17:06 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 5048
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Any idea what the profile is for that range...altitude, speed, etc.

OK, I'm missing something. I looked at all 4 F-35Bs and with two Mk 83 JDAMS and two AIM-120s, combat radius is 420 nm, not 567. I must just not be comparing the dame thing.

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 4/23/2016 1:32:17 AM >

(in reply to marksi10)
Post #: 2702
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/23/2016 4:35:27 AM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marksi10

First I would like to say that I feel like an ungrateful bastard for quibbling about anything to do with this game. I think I have found a small thing though that I think may be having a disproportionate effect on many scenarios. This is the F-35s range. I found this doc recently: http://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf#page=16

It seems to me that the game uses the old, unrevised specification for the F-35bs range (I haven´t checked the others yet): the old specification was 550nm radius with 2 1000lb JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs, and in the game it is 567. The new specification however is 450, and the current expectation is 467, exactly 100nm less than in the game.

If this was any other platform than the F-35 I wouldn´t have said anything, but it seems to me that since it will be involved in a large proportion of the post-2015 scenarios, this increase in range may be making things too one-sided in West vs the rest confrontations. All I am saying is, give China and Russia a chance!


Mark can you verify what Db you're looking at.

My understanding is the external tanks are being replaced with something internal.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to marksi10)
Post #: 2703
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/23/2016 4:38:08 AM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

According to...

http://jsw.newpacificinstitute.org/?p=10821

...and...

https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/hatsuyuki-or-shirane-class-destroyers-for-the-philippine-navy/

...there is a plan to convert four retired Japanese destroyers into uber-cutters for the Japanese Coast Guard. Unfortunately, as the second article points out, there does not appear to be an English-language confirmation of this. (At least I could not find one. Anyone have the newest edition of Jane's? Maybe it is in there?)

The biggest issue here is the lack of information. The Hatsuyuki-class destroyer is already in the database, and the articles say her missiles and torpedoes will be removed...but...there is not much else to go on. I'm assuming her sensors will remain intact, but will she keep her ECM equipment, or her CIWS? And there is no information on the service dates...these ships may have already been transferred and converted--how long would this process take...a few months?--, but there is no confirmation either way.

Maybe just put in a basic version of the platform--yank all weapons but the 76mm gun and assume service dates of 2016-present?

Again, I'm thinking of working up some scenarios involving the Japanese coast guard (and eventually some others involving the Indian coast guard, but that won't be for a while), so I hope this will be considered, but I understand the information on it is still pretty sketchy.

(P.S. I agree with Supreme. New new database is awesome! )


These articles are pretty old. Will see if I can find something in Combat Fleets on it. In the meantime just add the ships and remove the mounts.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2704
[Fixed]RE: DB String - 4/23/2016 4:54:51 AM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Supreme 2.0

I stumbled across something weird with loadout #7572 of the Venezuelan Su-30MK2. The loadout is the only one that uses the R-73M while all other loadouts use the R-73 or R-73M1. Is this deliberate?





Fixed


_____________________________


(in reply to Vici Supreme)
Post #: 2705
RE: DB String - 4/23/2016 5:01:26 AM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
[ADDED Docking to Zumwalt. Rest needs verification.]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rudd

A few minor ones

1. Zumwalt needs docking facilities
article
video

quote:

The Zumwalt's large boat bay can carry two 11-meter rigid-hull inflatable boats, one of which is in the foreground. The RHIBs launch through a stern door, visible in the distance. (Photo: Christopher P. Cavas/Staff)


2. Possibly an AN/SPS-73 navigation radar, I've speculated previously that the nav radars on the hangar were just temporary for the builders sea trials, but this one doesn't sound temporary, from same article.
quote:

The ship moved out of the harbor with an SPS-73 navigation radar rotating atop a mast on the foredeck, but as it began to sway with the sea the mast was retracted, periscope-fashion, into the hull.


3. Notice of a potential sale
GBU-39/Bs to Australia for F-35A



_____________________________


(in reply to Rudd)
Post #: 2706
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/23/2016 8:14:33 AM   
marksi10

 

Posts: 66
Joined: 8/1/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk


quote:

ORIGINAL: marksi10

First I would like to say that I feel like an ungrateful bastard for quibbling about anything to do with this game. I think I have found a small thing though that I think may be having a disproportionate effect on many scenarios. This is the F-35s range. I found this doc recently: http://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf#page=16

It seems to me that the game uses the old, unrevised specification for the F-35bs range (I haven´t checked the others yet): the old specification was 550nm radius with 2 1000lb JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs, and in the game it is 567. The new specification however is 450, and the current expectation is 467, exactly 100nm less than in the game.

If this was any other platform than the F-35 I wouldn´t have said anything, but it seems to me that since it will be involved in a large proportion of the post-2015 scenarios, this increase in range may be making things too one-sided in West vs the rest confrontations. All I am saying is, give China and Russia a chance!


Mark can you verify what Db you're looking at.

My understanding is the external tanks are being replaced with something internal.

Mike


Ah, sorry, I´m using database 1.08 (I´ve been waiting for the final 1.11 to come out to upgrade). From what theWood1 says it sounds like it has already been revised, I thought I´d looked through the lists of recent changes but I must have missed that one. Just out of curiosity (I´m not asking you to change it again) it now seems to be below the current official estimate, is that because the mission is slightly different (for instance, no 100-nm Mil dash in reality?) or is it just a product of how you work out the ranges for each aircraft?

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 2707
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/23/2016 11:33:08 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 5048
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Why the heck are you using 1.08? There have been at least 2 official upgrades (1.09 and 1.10). I think 1.08 is over a year old. Not to mention the latest dayabase is part of the 1.11 beta.

The policy for reporting issues is put a save game up, state what version you are using, and make sure you have the latest version. That way devs aren't chasing things around.

(in reply to marksi10)
Post #: 2708
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/23/2016 11:34:38 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 5048
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
btw, before asking questions like tha last one, please upgrade. You never know what parameters are being considered and what variations in flight profile you might see in the newest db.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 2709
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/23/2016 11:53:09 AM   
AlGrant


Posts: 908
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
Unit Request:

Quite reluctant to ask anything of CMANO's already superb dev support but any chance of adding in the C-146A Wolfhound (Modified Dornier 328), used for SpecOps

"It is deployed with the 524th Special Operations Squadron of the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) at Cannon Air Force Base to conduct infiltration, exfiltration, cargo resupply, airlift and other military missions in prepared and semi-prepared airfields across the globe."

Have browsed the latest DB and couldn't find it in there. Fully appreciate there are more important things to be worked on, so if it can be done there is no rush.
I've been looking at some scenario's that require providing cover for the sort of missions this a/c performs .... however other units could be used for the exfil/resupply etc



http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/467729/c-146a-wolfhound.aspx
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c-146a-wolfhound-transport-aircraft/

Playing back some of the recent flight routes around the E. Med / Middle East shows some interesting routes
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n360ef/#

Thanks



(in reply to marksi10)
Post #: 2710
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/23/2016 1:49:06 PM   
Pancor


Posts: 60
Joined: 6/18/2015
From: Indonesia
Status: offline
Hello

it looks like the #2360 - Kolkata Class and #2361 - Visakhapatnam class has different gun

for the Kolkata class
it should be 76mm/62 OTO Melara Super Rapido not the 100mm/59 A-190
Plus it has Kavach chaff decoy and Nagin Active towed sonar array and Humsa-NG not HUS-003 and DSBV 62C
For more information see below

While for the Visakhapatnam Class
has 127mm/64 OTO Melara Vulcano not the 100mm/59 A-190

the sources for Kolkata Class is from:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/d-project-15a.htm
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.co.id/2014/08/fitments-of-project-15a-ddg-ins-kolkata.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata-class_destroyer
http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/aegisvesselsoftheworld/kolkata.htm

while the sources for Visakhapatnam Class:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/d-project-15b.htm
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsindian-navy-to-acquire-127-64-lw-guns-from-oto-melara-4483561
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eUJXHLUIvGoJ:www.janes.com/article/50802/india-launches-first-of-class-project-15b-destroyer+&cd=3&hl=id&ct=clnk&gl=id
http://defence.pk/threads/indian-navy-selects-oto-melara-127-64-lw-gun.352077/

Thanks

(in reply to AlGrant)
Post #: 2711
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/23/2016 2:47:02 PM   
marksi10

 

Posts: 66
Joined: 8/1/2015
Status: offline
Well, I didn´t play much Command for a while, and then when I came back to it 1.11 looked like it was going to come out soon so I thought I would skip a couple of versions.

I won´t query anything else until I update, don´t worry, but I am still curious about what the current specs are based on.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 2712
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/25/2016 7:38:50 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2012
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
Please add variants for the Augusta AW.139...

AW.139 (Commercial) <-- can use the same stats as #4098, but remove the weapons and add a "passengers" loadout and an SAR loadout (this version is used by a lot of coast guards, including Japan's, which is why I started looking into this platform, air ambulance services, police forces, etc...several hundred are in use around the world).

AW.139M <-- an armed version capable of carrying gun pods, rocket pods, etc. Changes include the addition of "a high-definition FLIR, infrared detection and countermeasures and heavy duty landing gear." (http://www.helis.com/database/model/955/) Along with the armed loadouts, it should also have an unarmed SAR loadout, as it is used for that, too.

I'm guessing the armed loadouts are...

2 x 12.7mm MG pods (#630?)
2 x 7 x 70mm HYDRA rockets (#1929?)

Some more information...

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/aw139m-multi-role-helicopter/
http://www.finmeccanica.com/-/aw139m
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1159258&pagina_chiamante=index.php


Cyprus National Guard
Service dates: 2011-present

Italian Air Force (as HH-139A)
Service dates: 2012-present

Algerian Air Force
Services dates: 2013-present

Maltese Armed Forces
Service dates: 2014-present

Egyptian Air Force
Service dates: 2012-present

(According to http://www.helis.com/database/model/262/ there are also "long nose" and "7000MTOW" variants, but I do not think these do anything that would affect gameplay so these variants probably do not need to be added.)

Thanks for considering these!

(in reply to marksi10)
Post #: 2713
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/26/2016 12:57:37 AM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2012
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
A bit of extra information for the AW.139 variants...

AW.139 (Commercial)
Service dates: 2006-present

AW.139 (Japanese Coast Guard) <-- identical to the commercial version as far as I can tell
Service dates: 2008-present

Information for Japanese Coast Guard from http://www.helis.com/database/modelorg/927/


< Message edited by Mgellis -- 4/26/2016 1:05:43 AM >

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2714
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/29/2016 8:41:16 AM   
Zaslon

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline
4 MQ-9 Predator-B Block 5 for Spanish Air Force. Since 2017
DCSA authorization
Jane's info about the deal.

2 Sikorsky SH-60F for Spanish Navy. Since 2016 (not delivered yet).

NAVAIR news release

SH-60F for tactical transport. No ASW equipment.[HS.23B]

Thanks!

< Message edited by Zaslon -- 4/29/2016 5:50:11 PM >


_____________________________


Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2715
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/29/2016 4:46:37 PM   
peterc100248

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/21/2016
Status: offline
I have noticed that helos, specifically AH-64s and Pave Low IIIs, nap of the earth flights are always 500ft AGL regardless of day or night operation. Sorry to say i haven't noticed this with other countries aircraft. There are not enough hours in the day to investigate a program so complex. I was using the excellent "Task Force Normandy, 0.95" scenario in this sub-forum.

Is this altitude a function of the database, or the program itself?

A friend of mine, who flew Apaches in Desert Storm and later in Iraq, and I were discussing this, and he stated they operated much lower when there were threats to be avoided. Sometimes as low as 10 feet! I think that might be an extreme case, but 50 feet might be more "normal" for NOE operation for TFR equipped aircraft. There are not any official sources for that. Even so I am curious.

I know there are bigger fish to fry, but thanks for the excellent work and time invested.

(in reply to Zaslon)
Post #: 2716
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/29/2016 5:15:44 PM   
Nightwatch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 9/6/2015
Status: offline
Unit request

A couple of days ago China conducted another test of their hypersonic glide vehicl
e called DF-ZF (also called WU-14 by western sources): http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a20604/china-successfully-tests-hypersonic-weapon-system/

DZ-FZ is a high speed / high maneuverability reentry vehicle vor ballistic missiles. Put on an IRBM/ICBM its capable of reaching up to Mach 10.
It still a couple of years away from being an actual weapon, but given its game changing potential i'd love to see it in Command.

The easiest way to do it would be to add another DF-21 variant:
SSM Bn (DF-21D [CSS-5 Mod-4) ASBM DZ-FZ Mod)- China, 2022 (hypothetical)

Just increase the reentry speed and make it basically untouchable for terminal BMD missiles (ERAM, THAAD).
SM-3 Blk IIA and GBI should be capable of intercepting it though.



(in reply to Zaslon)
Post #: 2717
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/29/2016 5:29:26 PM   
e2204588

 

Posts: 170
Joined: 7/12/2013
Status: offline
South Korea DDG KDX-3 Sejong the Great-class should have MK41 48+32 cells instead of 48+48

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_the_Great-class_destroyer
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/component/content/article/132-rok-navy-frigates-a-destroyers/844-sejong-the-great-sejongdaewang-kdx-iii-class-aegis-destroyer-republic-of-korea-rok-navy-yulgok-yi-i-seoae-yu-seong-ryong-hyundai-heavy-industries-hhi-
https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%84%B8%EC%A2%85%EB%8C%80%EC%99%95%EA%B8%89_%EA%B5%AC%EC%B6%95%ED%95%A8

(in reply to Nightwatch)
Post #: 2718
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/29/2016 5:58:16 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2012
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

A little more information for the Japanese Coast Guard...

Bell 212
Service Dates: 1981-present
As far as I can tell, this is almost identical to the Bell 212 Utility (#1459), but does not have the Commando loadout; instead it would have a Passenger loadout ("a fifteen-seat configuration, with one pilot and fourteen passengers," according to Wikipedia).

Bell 412EP
Service Dates: 1995-present
As far as I can tell, this is almost identical to the Bell 412EP used by the Indonesian navy (#4094), except it is not armed.

Sikorsky S-76D
Service Dates: 2015-present
Wikipedia lists its characteristics as follows:
General characteristics

Crew: two
Capacity: seats 12–13
Length: 52 ft 6 in (16.00 m) from tip of main rotor to tip of tail rotor
Width: 10 ft 0 in (3.05 m) at horizontal stabilizer
Height: 14 ft 6 in (4.42 m) to tip of tail rotor
Empty weight: 7,005 lb (3,177 kg) in utility configuration
Gross weight: 11,700 lb (5,307 kg)
Fuel capacity: 281 US gallons (1,064 liters), with 50 or 102 US gallons (189 or 386 liters) available in extra auxiliary tanks
Powerplant: "S-76D : Powered by two Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S. Also features a Thales Topdeck avionics suite and improved noise signature over all previous variants"
Main rotor diameter: 44 ft 0 in (13.41 m)

"Development of the follow-on S-76D was subject to four years of delays due to technical problems in expanding the flight envelope. The prototype made its first flight on February 7, 2009 and type certification was initially expected in 2011, with deliveries forecast for the end of that year. It was FAA certified on 12 October 2012. Three prototypes were used in the certification program, with one aircraft used to certify the optional electric rotor ice-protection system. The "D" model is powered by 1,050 hp (783 kW) Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S engines driving composite rotors and incorporates active vibration control. Performance is substantially improved with the added power, but initial certification retains the same 11,700 lb (5,307 kg) gross weight and maximum 155 kn (287 km/h) cruise speed as earlier models.[14][15][16] Changhe Aircraft Industries Corporation was contracted in September 2013 to produce the S-76D airframe" --Wikipedia

Performance

Maximum speed: 155 kn (178 mph; 287 km/h) at maximum takeoff weight at sea level in standard atmospheric conditions
Cruise speed: 155 kn (178 mph; 287 km/h) maximum cruise speed is the same as maximum speed
Range: 411 nmi (473 mi; 761 km) no reserves, at long-range cruise speed at 4,000 ft altitude
Service ceiling: 13,800 ft (4,200 m)

Avionics

Honeywell four-tube EFIS and Collins Proline II avionics suite
Four-axis fully coupled autopilot
Integrated Instrument Display System (IIDS)
Honeywell ground proximity warning system
Honeywell Primus weather radar
Dual comm/nav radios
Automatic direction finder
Dual attitude and heading reference system and air data computers
Radio altimeter
Mode C transponder
Dual VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) and Instrument landing system (ILS)
Distance measuring equipment
Cockpit voice recorder

Thanks for considering these!

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2719
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/29/2016 8:01:53 PM   
Gerbilskij

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/29/2016
Status: offline
I wanted to post the following message - which I attached as an image here - but it kept saying
"You are not allowed to post links, emails or phone numbers for 7 days from the date of your tenth post."




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gerbilskij -- 4/29/2016 8:42:53 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2720
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/30/2016 8:08:58 AM   
RoccoNZ

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/9/2015
Status: offline
Weapon request - GBU-62B(V-1)/B Quickstrike-ER

(in reply to Gerbilskij)
Post #: 2721
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/30/2016 3:35:37 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RoccoNZ

Weapon request - GBU-62B(V-1)/B Quickstrike-ER

quote:

GBU-62B(V-1)/B Quickstrike-ER


Still have an open request for this one. We've got to do some code work to get the mine + GPS stuff to work. Bear with us!

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 4/30/2016 3:37:12 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to RoccoNZ)
Post #: 2722
RE: RE:9M96D - 4/30/2016 3:37:02 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: peterc100248

I have noticed that helos, specifically AH-64s and Pave Low IIIs, nap of the earth flights are always 500ft AGL regardless of day or night operation. Sorry to say i haven't noticed this with other countries aircraft. There are not enough hours in the day to investigate a program so complex. I was using the excellent "Task Force Normandy, 0.95" scenario in this sub-forum.

Is this altitude a function of the database, or the program itself?

A friend of mine, who flew Apaches in Desert Storm and later in Iraq, and I were discussing this, and he stated they operated much lower when there were threats to be avoided. Sometimes as low as 10 feet! I think that might be an extreme case, but 50 feet might be more "normal" for NOE operation for TFR equipped aircraft. There are not any official sources for that. Even so I am curious.

I know there are bigger fish to fry, but thanks for the excellent work and time invested.


Thanks Peter. This is a bit of a research project. Any chance you know what aircraft operate within these parameters?

Mike


_____________________________


(in reply to peterc100248)
Post #: 2723
RE: RE:9M96D - 5/1/2016 10:29:07 AM   
RoccoNZ

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/9/2015
Status: offline
DB Entry #3661 P-3K2

ESM should be the Rockwell CS-3045

Source

Also, the EL/M-2022A has an air-to-air mode. Doesn't current have air search flag in the DB.

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 2724
RE: RE:9M96D - 5/1/2016 10:55:51 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1894
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nightwatch

Unit request

A couple of days ago China conducted another test of their hypersonic glide vehicl
e called DF-ZF (also called WU-14 by western sources): http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a20604/china-successfully-tests-hypersonic-weapon-system/

The easiest way to do it would be to add another DF-21 variant:
SSM Bn (DF-21D [CSS-5 Mod-4) ASBM DZ-FZ Mod)- China, 2022 (hypothetical)

Just increase the reentry speed and make it basically untouchable for terminal BMD missiles (ERAM, THAAD).
SM-3 Blk IIA and GBI should be capable of intercepting it though.


Well, there are 5 issues out there:

1, what does DF-ZF looks like? Without an official pictures out there, even hypnotically added will not be agreed.

2, what is the flight characteristic and guidance of it?

3, is DF-21 a true launching platform? Any other platform/warhead devirates?

4, what is its intended target to be use against with? Land unit? Surface vessel? Airfield?

5, any other functionality, as well as intercept/countermeasure resistant systems in it?



If we can fill out these questions with reasonable answers, then we might think about it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nightwatch)
Post #: 2725
RE: RE:9M96D - 5/1/2016 2:35:39 PM   
Nightwatch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 9/6/2015
Status: offline


quote:


Well, there are 5 issues out there:

1, what does DF-ZF looks like? Without an official pictures out there, even hypnotically added will not be agreed.

2, what is the flight characteristic and guidance of it?

3, is DF-21 a true launching platform? Any other platform/warhead devirates?

4, what is its intended target to be use against with? Land unit? Surface vessel? Airfield?

5, any other functionality, as well as intercept/countermeasure resistant systems in it?

If we can fill out these questions with reasonable answers, then we might think about it.


1) Its a warhead mounted on a ballistic missile, I don’t think it really matters how it looks like? The database has tons of stuff we don’t know how it looks.
Anyway, aviationweek had a concept picture from a chinese academic paper:
http://aviationweek.com/awin/us-navy-sees-chinese-hgv-part-wider-threat

2) Probably very similar to the flight profile of the Falcon HTV you can check out online. A rocket boosts the vehicle to near orbit, the vehicle separates, starts engine, enters the upper atmosphere and accelerates to maximum speed while maintaining maneuverability.

Think of it as a faster DF-21D ASBM with a flatter trajectory. You build a guidance package for that one, just copypaste it.

3) There is no reason why they cant mount it on any ballistic missile in their arsenal with a decent throw weight. I suggested the DF-21 since it’s the most logical choice.

4) I never understood the reasoning behind target restrictions. If it can hit a moving surface vessel they can hit stationary land targets as well.

5) Whatever you put on the DF-21D ASBM? I don’t think there is much more information on that one.


(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 2726
RE: RE:9M96D - 5/2/2016 2:31:18 PM   
Galahad78

 

Posts: 381
Joined: 9/28/2009
Status: offline
Got this request from a colleague:

#2371: SU-25SM/SM2, no AT-16 (AT-16 only compatible with Shkval system, only for KA-50 and 25T/TM)
#2928: Ka-50: no radar, no LLTV, no FLIR, no DECM, no RWR, add UPK-23 pod, no night capabilities, laser designator SHKVAL like 25T (compatible with AT-16), bomb sight shkval.

Source: DCS: KA-50 manual (approved by the manufacturer) and references.

I'll try to get more references.

(in reply to Nightwatch)
Post #: 2727
RE: RE:9M96D - 5/3/2016 1:01:31 AM   
Rudd

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Galahad78

Got this request from a colleague:

#2371: SU-25SM/SM2, no AT-16 (AT-16 only compatible with Shkval system, only for KA-50 and 25T/TM)
#2928: Ka-50: no radar, no LLTV, no FLIR, no DECM, no RWR, add UPK-23 pod, no night capabilities, laser designator SHKVAL like 25T (compatible with AT-16), bomb sight shkval.

Source: DCS: KA-50 manual (approved by the manufacturer) and references.

I'll try to get more references.

Notice the 8-12x and 1996, #2928 is probably the Ka-50N/50Sh
quote:

The initial version of the Ka-50 was effectively a day-only / clear weather machine, the intent being to then enhance its night / all weather combat capability, to produce a "Ka-50N" -- "N" for "Nochoy / Night. Work was done from early in the program to evaluate low light level TV (LLTV) and forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imaging systems, but they simply couldn't be made to work right, with social chaos bringing development to a crawl. In the mid-1990s, work was done to evaluate FLIR sensors from Thompson-CSF of France, but that was seen as only an interim step.

By late in the decade, the Urals Optico-Mechanical Plant (UOMZ in the Russian acronym) of Yekaterinburg had developed a series of workable imaging / targeting turrets -- "gyrostabilized optronics systems" or "GOES" in the Russian acronym. From 1997, a Ka-50 was evaluated with a nose-mounted GOES turret designated the "Samshit-50", which featured an LLTV, FLIR, laser rangefinder / target designator, and Vikhr laser guidance system. This demonstrator was eventually fitted with a mast-mounted Phazotron-NIIR Arbalet air defense radar and a full "glass cockpit", with three large color flat-panel displays. A second demonstrator was kitted up, featuring a second, smaller GOES turret for navigation in the nose forward of the targeting turret. The Ka-50N demonstrators with the ball sensor system were also known as "Ka-50Sh", with "Sh" standing for "Shar (Sphere)".

from http://www.airvectors.net/avka50.html not sure about source
Also, google Ka-50Sh and pretty much all the pics of single seat Hokums have a "Samshit"


_____________________________


(in reply to Galahad78)
Post #: 2728
RE: RE:9M96D - 5/3/2016 4:33:04 AM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2012
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
Some vessels for the Indian Coast Guard...

Like the Japanese Coast Guard, the Indian Coast Guard offers a lot of possibilities for scenario design. I've been playing around with ideas for scenarios about encounters between the ICG against criminals like smugglers or pirates and "fish wars" where some other country is violating India's EEZ (and perhaps sending a warship or two to protect their "innocent" fishing trawlers).

Jija Bai-class patrol vessel
Service: Indian Coast Guard
Service dates: 1984-2011
Pennants: 64 Jija Bai, 65 Chand Bibi, 66 Kittur Chinnama, 67 Rani Jindan, 68 Habbah Khatun, 69 Rama Devi, 70 Avvaiyar
Displacement: 181 tonnes (178 long tons; 200 short tons)
Length: 44.02 m (144 ft 5 in)
Beam: 7.4 m (24 ft 3 in)
Draught: 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in)
Installed power: 3 × 80 kW, 315V, 50 Hz diesel generators
Propulsion: 2 × MTU 12V538 TB82 diesel engines, 5,940 bhp (4,429 kW), 2 shafts
Speed: 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph)
Range: 2,375 nmi (4,398 km; 2,733 mi) at 14 kn (26 km/h; 16 mph)
Complement: 7 officers, 27 enlisted
Sensors and processing systems: BEL make-1* Decca 1226 navigation radar
Armament: 1 × Bofors 40 mm AA gun; 2 × 7.62 mm (0.3 in) machine guns

Sarojini Naidu-class extra-fast patrol vessel
Service: Indian Coast Guard
Service Dates: 2002-present
229 Sarojini Naidu, 230 Durgabai Deshmukh, 231 Kasturba Gandhi, 232 Aruna Asaf Ali, 233 Subhadra Kumari Chauhan, 234 Meera Behn, 235 Savitribai Phule

Displacement : 235 tonnes
Length : 48.14 meter
Beam : 7.5 meter
Depth : 4 meter
Draught : 2 meter
Speed : 35 Knots
Armament: 1*30 CRN 91, 2*7.62-mm MG
Electronic Radar: BEL make-1*Decca 1245/6X nav.
Power: 3 mtu 16V4000 M90 diesels, 2720 KW at 2040 rpm each
Propulsion: 3 KaMeWa Type 71SI waterjet, 10,499 bhp
Electric 160 Kw (2*80 Kw, Diesel driven)
Range 1500 naut. Miles (cruising speed not given, but based on other similar craft in the ICGS it is probably 13 knots)
Endurances: 7 days
Crew: 30 (including 5 officers)

Wikipedia says, “Powered by three 2,720 kW MTU diesel engines, driving independent Kamewa water-jets, these vessels are designed for good maneuverability and are capable of operating in up to Sea State 4 and can withstand Sea State 6. The vessels have a top speed of 35 knots and have an operational range of 1,500 nm. They are equipped with a 30 mm CRN 91 Naval Gun at forward with two 7.62 mm or 12.7 mm machine guns, each installed on both sides of the board.

They are fitted with the latest satellite communication and navigation systems including differential global positioning system (DGPS), electronic chart display and information system (ECDIS) and global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS). They have air-conditioned accommodation for a crew of 35 and have endurance of 7 days. The vessels in this series are eco-friendly, featuring an on-board sewage treatment plant and the gases used for air-conditioning are ozone layer friendly.”

Aadesh Class Fast Patrol Vessel
Service: Indian Coast Guard
Service Dates: 2013-present
Pennants: 236 Aadesh, 237 Abheek, 238 Abhinav, 239 Abheraj, 240 Achook, 241 Agrim, 242 Amal, 243 Amartya, 244 Ameya, 245 Amogh, 246 Anagh, 247 Ankit, 248 Anmol, 249 Apoorva, 250 Arinjay, 251 Arnvesh, 252 Arush, +3 others

Displacement: 290 long tons (295 t)
Length: 50 m (164 ft 1 in)
Beam: 7.6 m (24 ft 11 in)
Draught: 1.6 m (5 ft 3 in)
Depth: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)
Propulsion: 3 × MTU 16V 4000 M90 engines, 2,720 kW (3,648 hp); 3 × 120 kW (161 hp) Aux engines; 3 × Rolls-Royce Kamewa 71S3np water jets
Speed: 33 knots
Endurance: 1,500 nmi (2,800 km; 1,700 mi) at 13 kn (24 km/h; 15 mph)
Boats & landing craft carried: 1 × 4.7 m (15 ft 5 in) Rigid Inflatable Boat with 40 hp (30 kW) OBM; 1 × 6 person capacity Gemini Boat
Complement: 5 Officers and 30 other ranks
Sensors and processing systems:

1 × X-Band Radar with ARPA GMDSS 400 W MF/HF
ECDIS, UAIS, DGPS, Gyro, Autopilot
INMARSAT Fleet Broadband 500

Armament: 1 × 30 mm (1.2 in) CRN 91 Naval Gun
Notes: Deck Crane: 1 t @ 4.9 m


Samarth-class offshore patrol vessel
Service: Indian Coast Guard
Service Dates: 2015-present
Pennants: 11 Samarath, 12 Shoor, +4 more
Displacement: 2,350 t (2,310 long tons; 2,590 short tons)
Length: 105 m (344 ft 6 in)
Beam: 13 m (42 ft 8 in)
Depth: MLD 6.00 M; Draught (Propeller): 4.50 M
Installed power: 2 × 20-PA6B-STC engines (9,100 kW)
Propulsion: 2 x controllable pitch propellers
Speed: 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph)
Range: 6,000 nmi (11,000 km; 6,900 mi) at 12 kn (22 km/h; 14 mph)
Radar: none listed...perhaps the same X-band radar used with the Aadesh-class?
Endurance: 20 days
Complement: 18 officers & 108 sailors (some sources say 14 Officers and 98 men)
Armament: 1 × 30 mm (1.2 in) CRN 91 Naval Gun
Aircraft carried: 1x helicopter: HAL Dhruv
Boats carried: Five high speed boats including two Palfinger QRIBs for fast boarding operations, search and rescue, law enforcement and maritime patrol

some information from http://www.goashipyard.co.in/products_specialized_products_105_m_advanced_offshore_patrol_vessel.asp

(in reply to Rudd)
Post #: 2729
RE: RE:9M96D - 5/3/2016 3:51:52 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2012
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

Okay, I promise these are the last ones for a while. Probably. Both are for the Philippine Coast Guard. I figure between India, Japan, and the Philippines, there will be enough coast guard platforms in the database to tell all sorts of anti-smuggling, anti-poaching/fish war, anti-spy ship stories, etc. Thanks for considering these!

San Juan-class patrol boat
Service: Philippine Coast Guard
Dates of Service: 2000-present
Pennants: 001 San Juan; 002 EDSA II; 003 Pampanga; 004 Batangas
Displacement: 540 tons standard[1]
Length: 56 m (184 ft)[1]
Beam: 10.55 m (35 ft)
Draught: 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in)
Propulsion:

2 × Caterpillar 3612 Engines Rated 4060 bkW (5440 hp) @ 1000 rpm [1]
2 × Caterpillar 3406TA Generators rated 260 eKW @ 1800 rpm [1]
1 × Caterpillar 3306TA Harbor Generator rated 170 ekW @1800 rpm[1]

Speed: 26 knots (48 km/h) maximum
Range: 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km) @ 24 knots; 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km) @ 15 knots[1]
Complement: 13 Officers and 24 Ratings + 300 Transient (evacuation limit)
Sensors and processing systems: Furuno X-band and S-band navigational radars
Armament: M2HB Browning .50 Caliber Machine Guns (note: hard to tell where they are, possibly two single guns fore, one fore starboard and one fore port?)
Armor: steel hull with aluminum superstructure[1]
Aviation facilities: helipad at aft deck

Wikipedia says, “The vessel is also equipped with four 25-person SOLAS inflatable rafts; six 65-person open reversible rafts; one 6.5 meter Rapid Intervention Boat with a speed in excess of 25 knots and an 85 nautical mile range, launched from the stern transom ramp; four 4.5 meter Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats are carried on the bridge deck and launched by an Elbeck crane; and one Twinlock Decompression chamber, consisting of two berth inner lock and medical outer lock. A separate survivor's area has been included in the vessel's arrangement, which provides for the decompression chamber, medical reception, operation theater and seating in an open plan arrangement. It takes a crew of 37: six officers, six petty officers, a medical officer that is also a hyperbaric specialist, two rescue divers, a corpsman and twenty-one ratings. Acquired through soft loans from Australia initiated in 1977, each ship originally cost A$19 million, reduced to A$16.7 million....Electronics includes Furuno GPS with Furuno ARPA 26 plotter, Furuno X and S band radars, Furuno depth sounder, Furuno 8000 GMDSS, Furuno Inmarsat B and C Satcom, Furuno FAX 2084 weatherfax, Tokimec 110GS gyrocompass and Tokimec PR 2213 autopilot. Flight deck located on the after end of the bridge deck can support a helicopter for airborne SAR or emergency evacuation, with a maximum weight of 4,672 kg (10,728 lb). Weapons hardpoints located at the bow can mount heavier caliber guns, which was specified by the PCG.”


Ilocos Norte-class patrol boat
Service: Philippine Coast Guard
Dates of Service: 2003-present
Pennants: 3501 Ilocos Norte, 3502 Nueva Vizcaya, 3503 Romblon, 3504 Davao del Norte
Displacement: 120 tons
Length: 36.2 metres (119 ft)
Beam: 6.7 metres (22 ft)
Draught: 3.9 metres (13 ft)
Propulsion: 2 x diesel engines, 2 shafts, 1 waterjet, fixed pitch propellers
Speed: 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph)
Range: 800 nautical miles (1,500 km; 920 mi) at 21 knots (39 km/h; 24 mph); 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km; 2,300 mi) at 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph)
Complement: 4 Officers + 16 Ratings
Sensors and processing systems: Furuno navigational radar
Armament: 4 x 12.7 mm heavy machine guns (looks like two single guns fore/port and starboard and two single guns aft/port and starboard)


(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2730
Page:   <<   < prev  89 90 [91] 92 93   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: RE:9M96D Page: <<   < prev  89 90 [91] 92 93   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.293