Slitherine

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!

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! )

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?

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RoccoNZ

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

quote:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)".