Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

Just did the calculations for GROWLER's fuel bunkers: 90,000 gallons of diesel at 7.49 lb/gallon is about 300.9375 long tons.

I also found some more technical terms on the fuel bunkers -- the term is either

"Fuel Ballast Tanks" (WWII)
http://maritime.org/doc/fleetsub/chap4.htm

which gives the fuel capacity for USS Perch (SS-313) a Balao class submarine as:

Normal fuel oil tank group:
1. NFOT No. 1 11,401 gallons
2. NFOT No. 2 13,122 gallons
3. NFOT No. 6 15,201 gallons
4. NFOT No. 7 10,054 gallons
5. Collecting tank 2,993 gallons
6. Expansion tank 2,993 gallons

Clean fuel oil tank group:
1. CFOT No. 1 611 gallons
2. CFOT No. 2 618 gallons

Fuel Ballast Tanks
1. Fuel ballast tanks Nos. 3A and 3B 19,196 gallons
2. Fuel ballast tanks Nos. 4A and 4B 24,089 gallons
3. Fuel ballast tanks Nos. 5A and 5B 19,458 gallons

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

or

"Compensated fuel ballast tanks" (Modern).
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/vessel/unds/upload/2007_07_10_oceans_regulatory_unds_TDDdocuments_appAcompensated.pdf

quote:

The Navy is the only branch of the Armed Forces whose vessels utilize compensated fuel
ballast systems. Compensated fuel ballast systems are used only on CG 47 Class cruisers; DD
963 Class, DDG 993 Class, and DDG 51 Class destroyers; and all non-conventional submarine
classes

So it does look like the USN continued use of fuel ballast tanks post-war.

The idea is that as the ship or submarine leaves port; they run exclusively off the fuel ballast tanks; to empty them first (and deal with any possible water contamination of fuel by having it at the beginning of the voyage); in order to have them full of sea water when in the combat zone (or patrol zone).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jun5896

RF-4B(USMC) and E-2B(USN) was used in 1984~1985. So that have to add on DB 3000, and How does that add F-14 81' loadout for Cold War DB?

Wrong DB string. Please wait until other re-opens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: maple61

Hi .Sirius,
The “Sikorsky H-19 Chickasaw” type helicopters in the CWDB are too big. This precludes them from being loaded onto some ships that actually used them, such as the HMCS Bonaventure. Please change from “Large Aircraft” to “Medium Aircraft”.
FWIW, the dimensions listed in the DB are also wrong. Actual aircraft length is 12.92 m with a 16.16 m rotor diameter. Sub types with these issues include the HH-19G, SH-19A,B,C,D, UH-19A thru F and the HO4S-2 and -3 as used by multiple countries. The near identical Westland Whirlwind used by the UK is already listed as a “Medium Aircraft”, so it is fine.
Thanks for the hard work on the CWDB!
Cam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Just curious...will there be a new version of the CWDB released with v1.10?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

quote:

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

Just did the calculations for GROWLER's fuel bunkers: 90,000 gallons of diesel at 7.49 lb/gallon is about 300.9375 long tons.

I also found some more technical terms on the fuel bunkers -- the term is either

"Fuel Ballast Tanks" (WWII)
http://maritime.org/doc/fleetsub/chap4.htm

which gives the fuel capacity for USS Perch (SS-313) a Balao class submarine as:

Normal fuel oil tank group:
1. NFOT No. 1 11,401 gallons
2. NFOT No. 2 13,122 gallons
3. NFOT No. 6 15,201 gallons
4. NFOT No. 7 10,054 gallons
5. Collecting tank 2,993 gallons
6. Expansion tank 2,993 gallons

Clean fuel oil tank group:
1. CFOT No. 1 611 gallons
2. CFOT No. 2 618 gallons

Fuel Ballast Tanks
1. Fuel ballast tanks Nos. 3A and 3B 19,196 gallons
2. Fuel ballast tanks Nos. 4A and 4B 24,089 gallons
3. Fuel ballast tanks Nos. 5A and 5B 19,458 gallons

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

or

"Compensated fuel ballast tanks" (Modern).
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/vessel/unds/upload/2007_07_10_oceans_regulatory_unds_TDDdocuments_appAcompensated.pdf

quote:

The Navy is the only branch of the Armed Forces whose vessels utilize compensated fuel
ballast systems. Compensated fuel ballast systems are used only on CG 47 Class cruisers; DD
963 Class, DDG 993 Class, and DDG 51 Class destroyers; and all non-conventional submarine
classes

So it does look like the USN continued use of fuel ballast tanks post-war.

The idea is that as the ship or submarine leaves port; they run exclusively off the fuel ballast tanks; to empty them first (and deal with any possible water contamination of fuel by having it at the beginning of the voyage); in order to have them full of sea water when in the combat zone (or patrol zone).

Hate to dig this back up, but I'm playing with the Growler SSG again (ID Sub #47) and it's still got 60-tons of fuel bunkerage in the latest CWDB. At full speed on the surface (12 knots) that only gives me about 40 hours of endurance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Spotted a possible error on the AO 22 Cimarron (DB #667). The ship is listed as having open parking for 24 large aircraft. Is that correct? Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kushan

Starting some preliminary work on a 1940s GUIK scenario. Would it be possible to add the Soviet Project 7 [aka Gnevny or Gremyashchiy] class destroyer?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnevny-class_destroyer

quote:

The air refueling system enables the carrying aircraft to serve as a tanker for other aircraft. All fuel in the Skyhawk tanker aircraft, except the fuselage tank, may be transferred to the receiver aircraft.
The refueling store (Buddy Store) carried on the center-line rack contains a 300 gallon fuel cell, a constant speed ram air turbine-driven hydraulic pump, a hydraulically driven fuel pump, a hydraulically operated hose reel, and 50 feet of refueling hose with a droque.
The store is capable of transferring fuel at aprox. 180 gallons per minute. Provisions are made for dumping fuel when necessary. The operational envelope of the store with the droque extended is limited to 300KIAS or .8 MACH, which ever is lower up to 35,000 feet.
The air turbine that powers the 700-pound in-flight re-fueling package will be able to transfer about 6000 pounds of fuel from the center-line and wing tanks, as well as part of the internal load of 5400 pounds in the wings and fuselage. The tanker will weigh about 23,700 pounds on the catapult. When it reaches the bow, its speed will be about 150 knots (173 mph). It was SOP (standard operating procedure) to launch one tanker in each launch-recovery cycle. In combat, the air wing would launch two or three Skyhawk tankers if several divisions of aircraft were attacking well-defended targets. During the years that the Skyhawk tanker was operational, its pilots prevented innumerable aircraft losses due to fuel exhaustion. The most common causes of "low-state" were additional approaches needed for safe landings on a pitching deck, delay for clearing a crash on deck, using extra fuel in evading SAMs and MIGs, and fuel loss from battle damage. Official Navy photograph from Mike Trout below.

quote:

A-4B
Strengthened aircraft and added air-to-air refueling capabilities,

quote:

ORIGINAL: MR_BURNS2

A-4 Skyhawks of USN and USMC (maybe others too?) are missing Buddy Stores.

quote:

The air refueling system enables the carrying aircraft to serve as a tanker for other aircraft. All fuel in the Skyhawk tanker aircraft, except the fuselage tank, may be transferred to the receiver aircraft.
The refueling store (Buddy Store) carried on the center-line rack contains a 300 gallon fuel cell, a constant speed ram air turbine-driven hydraulic pump, a hydraulically driven fuel pump, a hydraulically operated hose reel, and 50 feet of refueling hose with a droque.
The store is capable of transferring fuel at aprox. 180 gallons per minute. Provisions are made for dumping fuel when necessary. The operational envelope of the store with the droque extended is limited to 300KIAS or .8 MACH, which ever is lower up to 35,000 feet.
The air turbine that powers the 700-pound in-flight re-fueling package will be able to transfer about 6000 pounds of fuel from the center-line and wing tanks, as well as part of the internal load of 5400 pounds in the wings and fuselage. The tanker will weigh about 23,700 pounds on the catapult. When it reaches the bow, its speed will be about 150 knots (173 mph). It was SOP (standard operating procedure) to launch one tanker in each launch-recovery cycle. In combat, the air wing would launch two or three Skyhawk tankers if several divisions of aircraft were attacking well-defended targets. During the years that the Skyhawk tanker was operational, its pilots prevented innumerable aircraft losses due to fuel exhaustion. The most common causes of "low-state" were additional approaches needed for safe landings on a pitching deck, delay for clearing a crash on deck, using extra fuel in evading SAMs and MIGs, and fuel loss from battle damage. Official Navy photograph from Mike Trout below.

http://a4skyhawk.org/content/technical-data


This video shows buddy refueling, and how to deliver nukes ;)

https://youtu.be/3dIqfN_aPtY?t=8m58s


According to wiki buddy store capability was used from A-4B onwards:

quote:

A-4B
Strengthened aircraft and added air-to-air refueling capabilities,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-4_Skyhawk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skjold

I got a question Sirius, is Cold war DB 441 gonna come out together with the next major update since it didn't come out with the most recent one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: .Sirius

maybe DB 442

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skjold

I got a question Sirius, is Cold war DB 441 gonna come out together with the next major update since it didn't come out with the most recent one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seeadler

Hi,
some minor mistakes I've found in the CWDB 442:

#424 Gloire and #425 Duguay-Trouin were CL, not CA
#1300 De Grasse had 6x127mm twin mounts, not 4
#448 It's Le Fantasque, not La Fantasque

I'm adding images of nearly all ships to the DB. When I find more mistakes, I will let you know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: peterc100248

Tinkering with an obscure scenario "The Final Countdown" (available in the scenario thread) I discovered some interesting capabilities for the A6M-2 Japanese Zero WWII fighter plane:

1. The CWDB versions are capable of 360 kt (414 mph) bursts at 36,000 feet - the real A6M-2 was red lined at 288 kts at 15,000 ft. Without the benefit of a supercharger performance fell off rapidly above 18,000 feet. In fact the last version, the A6M-5 Model 52 was only capable of 305 kts at 20,000 feet. The Zero could not catch a B-29 at high altitude. Basically, if they didn't get to the B-29's altitude before they arrived, there was no hope of catching them.

2. The very same Zeros caught a B-52H at 40,000 feet and military throttle (straight and level flight) and shot it down. Ridiculous. Who needs Migs?

3. EDIT: I forgot that all the IJN aircraft acted like they had radar on board. They would respond as a group and pursue attackers that were beyond visual range.

Anyway...I know this is really minor stuff, as nobody uses Zeros in CMANO that I've seen so far. Just a heads up that the oldest platforms in CWDB are likely off to a significant degree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cf_dallas

Question about the SA-1 (S-25) Berkut: Looking at pictures and reading up on it to build the PVO 1st AD Army, it doesn't sound like it could guide missiles in all directions. The Yo-Yo radars look like they're on a rotating fixture, but they're also generally sitting in a massive revetment that would make it difficult to look 'behind' the installation.



I set up a test scenario (attached) and it's able to engage all the way around. Would a 90- or 135-degree engagement arc be more appropriate?