Slitherine

quote:

ASBM variant of DF-26?

DF-26 IRBM may have ASM variant, China reveals at 3 September parade

quote:

ORIGINAL: markadmiral


I wanted to follow up on post I made last July with a suggestion/request for the several platforms (see below) to be included in DB3000. For North Korea and Iran, these are significant platforms and both nations figure prominently in many scenarios. For some, the information is somewhat sparse, but these are simple platforms and so perhaps not a major issue. If information is an issue, I can try to dig some more, but I can't promise anything since these nations are not so transparent. The recent tensions in North Korea brought the request back up on the radar, by the way.....


North Korea:

(1) Kong Bang LCPA: Major North Korean platform for infiltrating seaborne SOF. Probably based on UK Wellington design.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/l-kong-bang.htm
http://jsw.newpacificinstitute.org/?p=4115
http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry1317.aspx

(2) Nampo LCP: Older landing craft for North Korean seaborne SOF based on P-6 torpedo boat
http://combatfleetoftheworld.blogspot.com/2011/06/future-of-north-korea-navy.html
http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/topics/korea_today/nkhandbooks/nkhandbooksec60011.pdf
http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry3144.aspx

(3) nK Infiltration Trawler: North Korean infiltration ship disguised as a fishing trawler and capable of high speed. An example was sunk by Japan Coast Guard near Amami 0 Shima Island on 22 Dec 2001 and is on display at the Japan Coast Guard museum in Yokohama. The trawler is a mothership for semi-submersible infiltration boats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amami-%C5%8Cshima
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXRh2ahZCQQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTnSIZagOH4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBw92s2h3xg
http://www.kpajournal.com/vol-1-no-1-january-2010/ (good details on armament in article)
http://www.kpajournal.com/vol-1-no-4-april-2010/ (info on earlier Japan infiltration in 1999)

Iran

(4) Wellington LCPA
http://www.shahyad.net/iiarmy/Navy/Hovercraft/Hovercraft.html
http://osimint.com/2013/07/30/irans-hovercraft-fleet-at-bander-abbas/
http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry3065.aspx
(NB: I think Iraq also had a few of these prior to the 1991 war)

Thanks,

Mark

quote:

LCPA

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Some new information about the LD-2000 Land-Based CIWS thru the VJ-Day Parade Rehearsals.

It seems that this system actually doesnt have an own designation in the PLA, but is part of the HQ-6A Batteries, functioning as their Fire Control Radars. HQ-6A (aka. "HQ-64/HQ-6D") and LD-2000 are basically one integrated short-range anti-cruise-missile and close-in-defence unit. These integrated units are, in turn, tasked with defending HQ-9A batteries and important installations.





A PR shot from some years ago, showing the (now confirmed) deployment scheme of this system:



So, maybe add a HQ-64/HQ-6A launcher battery to each LD-2000 equipped SAM unit as well?

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitchens Sink

Just a minor issue with a platform not often used.

The Laser COIL Shot weapon on the AL-1A plane has a valid altitude for firing of 36,000 ft. (No range, just 36,000 ft). This means the AL-1A cannot loiter over land (where Ground Level varies); it must be hovering at exactly 36k ft AGL for the laser COIL shot to fire. If it's over water (where Ground Level is always 0) with plane set at 36,000 ft altitude, the laser works as designed.

Maybe give the Coil Shot weapon a range of altitudes that it can be fired? Again, a low priority issue.

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: fool12342000

Weaopn #541 YJ-83 is not C-803
And YJ-82 is not C-802

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/chinas-eagle-strike-eight-anti-ship-cruise-missiles-designation-confusion-and-the-family-members-from-yj-8-to-yj-8a/
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/chinas-eagle-strike-eight-anti-ship-cruise-missiles-yj-81-yj-82-and-c802/
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/chinas-eagle-strike-eight-anti-ship-cruise-missiles-the-yj-83-c803-and-the-family-tree/

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV60

I'm working on some description files on the AIM-9 series. As I find discrepancies between the database and my research on the AIM-9, I'm going to note them here. One thing I'm seeing right away is that there are disagreements between respected databases on some key AIM-9 specs, especially with the earlier (AIM-9A through AIM-9J):

Just a suggestion for a possible modification to Weapon_945, the AIM-9X sidewinder. In 2009-10, it was demonstrated to (with a software modification) to have an anti-vehicle and anti-small boat capablity. See http://archive.airforcetimes.com/article/20100109/NEWS/1090311/Sidewinder-take-aim-ground-targets

Not sure the software change was ever actually fielded.

quote:


One minor nit-pick, which may be beyond the ability of the game to simulate: The AIM-9B/E had significantly different ranges, depending on the altitude it was fired at. At sea level, it was only about 1 nm in range, while at 30,000 it was 2.5 nm. Right now, the game used the 2.5 nm range. See http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits/sidewinder.shtml

quote:


The China Lake museum gives the range of the AIM-9D as 11 miles ( http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits/sidewinder.shtml ) Database gives an 8 mile range (Weapon_1163).

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: jun5896





http://koreadefence.net/bbs_detail.php?bbs_num=14642&tb=board_notice&b_category=&id=&pg=1
http://www.lignex1.com:8001/en_US/product/product_detail.jsp?pid=42
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Air_Force


RKF-16C(RF-16C) it replaced RF-4C, and equipped ALQ-200 and ELINT POD and EO/IR POD(Korean Product)

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:


The AIM-9X capability was never fielded as far as I know, but there have been some attempt to market a new air-to-ground variant created by modifying existing stocks of AIM-9Ls.

Don't think we should add these until actually operational, though.

quote:

quote:

One minor nit-pick, which may be beyond the ability of the game to simulate: The AIM-9B/E had significantly different ranges, depending on the altitude it was fired at. At sea level, it was only about 1 nm in range, while at 30,000 it was 2.5 nm. Right now, the game used the 2.5 nm range. See http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits/sidewinder.shtml



The sim already takes altitude into account, and the range at low level is significantly shorter?

quote:


quote:

The China Lake museum gives the range of the AIM-9D as 11 miles ( http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits/sidewinder.shtml ) Database gives an 8 mile range (Weapon_1163).


Is that miles or nautical miles?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Just curious...what is the difference between a Building (TV Mast) and a Structure (Mast)? Is Structure (Mast) just meant to be a generic structure to cover all kinds of masts and towers (cell phone towers, etc.) or is it something else?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jun5896

19th Fighter Wing, based at Jungwon Air Base

159th Fighter Squadron was changed 159th Tactical Reconnaissance squadron on early 2014(RKF-16C procured in 2012), This squadron employs KF-16C (Block 52), but some F-16C replaced RF-16C. Still 159 TRS is replacing RKF-16C squadron.

http://www.f-16.net/units_article385.html

When see this page, look tail-wing number ROKAF 93 numbering is 159 FS(Now changed 159 TRS).

lig nex1's alq-200k ecm pods - It procured in 2005.(F-4D/E, RF-4C, F-16C/D Block 32 and KF-16C/D Block 52 can equip.)

Also I upload some pictures.(First pic is test ALQ-X in 2004)





http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/02/10/2011021000422.html

quote from http://tacticalmashup.com/jdam-a-gps-ins-add-on-adds-accuracy-to-airstrikes/

Feb 8/11: F-15K integration. The Chosun Ilbo quotes the South Korean ROKAF, who says it has integrated the 2,000 pound GBU-31 JDAM with its KF-16 fighters, as well as its F-15K “Slam Eagles.” After developing the software, the ROKAF successfully carried out 3 tests, and finished pilot training at the end of January 2011.

The report also mentions wing kits, which are absent from normal JDAMs – but not from the 2,000 pound JDAM Extended Range kit, which was being developed by Boeing and South Korea.



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/south-korea-looking-to-upgrade-its-kf-16s-05404/
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/07/19/lockheed-martins-bill-upgrading-koreas-air-force.aspx

ROKAF isn't decided KF-16 upgrade business partner yet. BAE systems withdrew KF-16 upgrade program, Still ROAKF is negotiating with Lockheed Martin.

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

One more idea...

I don't know if this is possible, or realistic, but should there be a Radar Contact (False) (Generic) platform in the database?

This would represent a flock of birds, bad weather, glitch in the radar itself, etc. It would be an "aircraft" and would probably be able to move at 20 mph or so, which would eventually reveal it as something too slow to be a plane (although it still might be a helicopter loitering in an area). Are false contacts like this actually an issue at times (I guess they are with sonar or they wouldn't be in the database) or can radar distinguish well enough that it's not a problem?

Anyway, just a thought. I hope this helps.

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV60

One idea of database addition
Single Unit purpose-made dispersal airfield. This would simulate a section of highway that was built with a secondary objective of acting as a dispersal field. Suggested Facilities:
1 Runway
4 Access points
10 Open Parking, Medium Size aircraft
Munitions:500, Reload rate 90, Armor: None (simulating minimal storage and handling facilities and use of logistics vehicles for fuel/ammo instead of magazines)

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

In addition, I am making a scenario that involved with several airports and private runways at Alaska. Those preset runway lengths aren't have much choice, and usually between 450m-900m or 900-1400m.

If there's little longer part of runway per addition, that'd be easier to choose. Like these below:

(underlines mean in database)

Runway (450m)
Runway (600m)
Runway (750m)
Runway (900m)
Runway (1050m)
Runway (1300m)
Runway (1450m, just simply change from 1400m would be fine)
Runway (1600m)
Runway (1800m, from 150m to 200m per additional length)
Runway (2000m)
Runway (2200m)
Runway (2400m)
Runway (2600m)
Runway (2800m)
Runway (3000m)
Runway (3200m)
Runway (3600m, from 200m to 400m per additional length)
Runway (4000m)
Runway (4400m)
Runway (4800m)
Runway (5200m)
Runway (5600m)
Runway (6000m, longer than the longest in CMANO)

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEVELOPER'S NOTE: Database development slow-down!

Hey guys,

Just wanted to let you know that I have now re-directed my limited Command time (which is squeezed inbetween family life, day-job, workout, and various other interests) to write code. My code contributions have been rather limited lately and I need to add several new features and fix a few bugs before I can start working on the Advanced Strike Planner.

This means I will only fix reported errors/inaccuracies in existing platforms and only make critical additions, i.e. units needed for a scenario currently under construction. Nice-to-have stuff (that no-one will ever use in a scenario anyway haha) will not be added.

If there is anything you consider extremely important (...enough to justify spending time on adding / fixing, rather than having me working on code) then feel feee to post. If not then you'll find me burried deep down in the Command game engine.

Thanks!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

Won't the current 'Single Unit Airfield' units do?