RE: RE:9M96D

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: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: RE:9M96D

Page: << < prev 90 91 [92] 93 94 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: RE:9M96D - 5/3/2016 8:27:02 PM

peterc100248

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/21/2016
Status: offline

Mike

Sorry for the delay. I double-checked with my friend. He flew AH-64As in Gulf War I, and Longbow models in Gulf War II. They escorted Pave Low's in II.

He said the 10 ft runs were brief excursions when threats were detected and all were in hard-pan desert terrain. Normal limit for NOE was 50 feet AGL - in the desert easy and a real 50 ft level above the earth. He said in training they operated at 50 ft AGL, but in forest conditions, that meant normal altitude was 50 ft above anything like trees or other natural obstacles. However normal attack runs often dipped below tree level for visual and radar concealment. Hope some of this helps. I don't know of any place where this stuff is written down for general knowledge, except for some book-type memoirs of pilots.

I found another issue for your consideration. Weapon 2597 APKWS Hydra II. In the latest database entry, the manufacturers' data lists the effective range as 8,000m (4.97 miles / 4.3nm) and max range as 10,500m (6.5 miles / 5.6nm) but in the data section, the range is said to be 0.2 - 2 miles. A little short legged.

Thanks for all your hard work.

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 2731

RE: RE:9M96D - 5/3/2016 9:14:39 PM

DESRON420

Posts: 57
Joined: 9/30/2015
Status: offline

A couple of public domain links I have found include:

Army FM 3-04.203, 'Fundamentals of Flight'
Chapter 5, Rotary-Wing Terrain Flight
https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/124A2C90-72CD-4B05-AB8B-ABC8718F9760-1274574464617/3-04.203/chap5.htm

Table 5-5 gives an example height in a navigation plan for rotary-wing units as 50' AGL.

Army FM 3-04.126, 'Attack Reconnaissance Helicopter Operations'
http://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-04-126.pdf

Chapter 3 describes flight modes at length without use of specific numbers.
Chapter 3, Figure 3-34 illustrates helicopter masking behind vegetation during bump or pop-up attacks.

FLIGHT International article page from 6 Nov 1975
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1975/1975%20-%202439.PDF

This one-pager describes the 1975-era purchase of Euromissile HOT-armed Gazelles by the French Army, and similarly-armed BO105s by the German Army. HOT-armed helicopters are described as "popping up out of ground cover to fire their missiles while remaining partially hidden." These platforms are more appropriate for CWDB, but the implication is that most helicopters should be able to carry out combat operations at very low level in the day, and at night if NVDs are in use.

(in reply to peterc100248)

Post #: 2732

RE: RE:9M96D - 5/4/2016 7:16:10 AM

DESRON420

Posts: 57
Joined: 9/30/2015
Status: offline

true, it's marginal. i blame late night AARGM enthusiasm

< Message edited by DESRON420 -- 5/4/2016 4:49:39 PM >

(in reply to DESRON420)

Post #: 2733

RE: RE:9M96D - 5/4/2016 1:00:00 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DESRON420

Couple AARGM-related links:

Orbital ATK awarded contract modification to convert AGM-88B HARM to AGM-88E AARGM Lot 5 standard
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/742294

"Orbital ATK Inc., Defense Electronic Systems, North Ridge, California, is being awarded $121,370,003 for modification P00002 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-15-C-0123) to exercise an option for the conversion of U.S. government-provided AGM-88B high-speed anti-radiation missiles into 145 full-rate production Lot 5 advanced anti-radiation guided missile all-up-rounds and 12 captive air training missiles, including related supplies and services necessary for manufacture, sparing, and fleet deployment of the missiles, for the Navy and the government of Italy. ..."

US Navy extends Orbital ATK AGM-88E production
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-extends-orbital-atk-agm-88e-production-423546/

"The US Navy has extended production of AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) multi-mode seekers, built by Orbital ATK, by three years to fiscal year 2023 with an added requirement for 556 more units. ..."

Is this a db issue or just news? If its just news, can we move stuff like that to the news thread. I find it almost impossible to follow what is being requested in this thread versus general discussions and news.

If its a legit db request, can people be a little more clear about what needs to be changed?

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 5/4/2016 1:03:34 PM >

(in reply to DESRON420)

Post #: 2734

RE: RE:9M96D - 5/4/2016 2:28:34 PM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: peterc100248

...-but in forest conditions, that meant normal altitude was 50 ft above anything like trees or other natural obstacles. However normal attack runs often dipped below tree level for visual and radar concealment.

That means we need something like forest or natural obstacles module(s) in the future, to simulate natural objects as concealments and covers.

_____________________________

(in reply to peterc100248)

Post #: 2735

RE: RE:9M96D - 5/4/2016 3:10:14 PM

peterc100248

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/21/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

quote:

ORIGINAL: peterc100248

...-but in forest conditions, that meant normal altitude was 50 ft above anything like trees or other natural obstacles. However normal attack runs often dipped below tree level for visual and radar concealment.

That means we need something like forest or natural obstacles module(s) in the future, to simulate natural objects as concealments and covers.

Just me...but that would seem like a whole lot of work for an overall minor issue. Maybe just changing the 500ft minimum flight level to 100ft would suffice. That alone would change the radio horizon from 32 statute miles to 14 (assuming 0 ft elevation for the radar antenna), about a 50% decrease in vulnerability. 50ft would change it to 10 miles. That's a significant change from 32. And it wouldn't take but a minute to re-code.

I didn't want to make a giant programming issue of it. If the minimum altitude thing is a database issue, it would be even more work. You guys know what is possible and practical.

Pete

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 2736

RE: RE:9M96D - 5/7/2016 6:03:28 PM

Galahad78

Posts: 386
Joined: 9/28/2009
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.

Some references:

Air Vanguard Su-25 Frogfoot: 978-178200-359-5
Aerofax Su-25: 978-1-85780-254-2
Combat Aircraft 109: 978-1-4728-0567-6
From DCS: KA-50 manual, written alongside manufacturer.
Red Star: Soviet Military in the 21th Century 978-1-85780-224-5

(in reply to Galahad78)

Post #: 2737

RE: RE:9M96D - 5/7/2016 6:03:37 PM

Galahad78

Posts: 386
Joined: 9/28/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rudd

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"

Nice one, I'll inform my friend

(in reply to Rudd)

Post #: 2738

RE: RE:9M96D - 5/8/2016 2:48:19 AM

mikmykWS

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: peterc100248

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

quote:

ORIGINAL: peterc100248

...-but in forest conditions, that meant normal altitude was 50 ft above anything like trees or other natural obstacles. However normal attack runs often dipped below tree level for visual and radar concealment.

That means we need something like forest or natural obstacles module(s) in the future, to simulate natural objects as concealments and covers.

Just me...but that would seem like a whole lot of work for an overall minor issue. Maybe just changing the 500ft minimum flight level to 100ft would suffice. That alone would change the radio horizon from 32 statute miles to 14 (assuming 0 ft elevation for the radar antenna), about a 50% decrease in vulnerability. 50ft would change it to 10 miles. That's a significant change from 32. And it wouldn't take but a minute to re-code.

I didn't want to make a giant programming issue of it. If the minimum altitude thing is a database issue, it would be even more work. You guys know what is possible and practical.

Pete

Could you try increasing their proficiency and let us know what the results are?

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to peterc100248)

Post #: 2739

RE: RE:9M96D - 5/8/2016 7:01:27 AM

Skjold

Posts: 240
Joined: 9/29/2015
Status: offline

I am wondering if its possible to slightly increase the capability of the #1140 Bofors 57 mm Mk 3 and the #1311 Mk 110 57 mm to shoot down incoming missiles? It has a PH of 1 % against sea skimming missile despite its manufacturer advertising its ability against anti-ship missiles. Don't get me wrong i don't expect it to be a wonder weapon but feels a bit off. Base PH is 25 % and with sea skimmer modifier -30 % and target size modifier -9 % it basicly has zero chance to actually hit. (test against Kh-35U/AS-20 Kayak)

Source:
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/57mm-naval-gun-system
57mk3 Datasheet pdf and under "Typical Applications" and "Full War Conditions" part.

< Message edited by Skjold -- 5/8/2016 7:03:49 AM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 2740

RE: - 5/9/2016 12:59:29 PM

deepdive

Posts: 125
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

Please add "Rescue" mission to all helicopters

Please add a single B-61 to US RF-4C and German RF-4E SIOP Missions. (Right here right now, i cant remember if USAF RF-4c are included in DB2000, if not please add it as they stood SIOP alert in Britain and Germany up to the late 80`s)

Bj�rn

(in reply to Skjold)

Post #: 2741

RE: RE: - 5/9/2016 3:39:55 PM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: deepdive

Please add "Rescue" mission to all helicopters

This may not be necessary. All aircraft already have a Ferry loadout, which is probably good enough if the only thing you are trying to do is fly from point A to point B, pick someone up, and fly back to point A...odds are, the extra few hundred pounds for picking up a pilot or a spy or a couple of refugees won't make that much difference in terms of range, performance, or gameplay. It does make sense that any helicopter could be used for a rescue mission, but it just seems like a huge effort to add a new loadout for every single aircraft...eeek! :)

(in reply to deepdive)

Post #: 2742

RE: RE: - 5/9/2016 3:56:19 PM

Broncepulido

Posts: 385
Joined: 9/26/2013
Status: offline

On the Bofors 57mm PH probably far higher than 1%, at least with 57mm 3P-HE ammunition with 8000+ fragments by shell:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_57-70_mk123.htm
(See also in the BAE Systems site referenced by Skjold the ORKA guided ammunition is very different, anti-surface (mostly) and anti-air, with range limited to 5,39 nm, and 3,9 Kg projectile weight, against 2,4 Kg of 57mm 3P-HE).

(in reply to deepdive)

Post #: 2743

RE: RE: - 5/9/2016 4:25:46 PM

Broncepulido

Posts: 385
Joined: 9/26/2013
Status: offline

On the RF-4E/RF-4C nuke question, for fast aircraft reference I employ the great Joe Baugher site.

Luftwaffe's service of RF-4E/F-4F:
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_43.html

RF-4E:
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_16.html

RF-4C (quote: "Initially, the RF-4C carried no weapons, and the underfuselage Sparrow missile slots of the F-4C were omitted. However, in an emergency the RF-4C could carry a nuclear weapon on the centerline position, but this was rarely done in practice. Aircraft from the European-based 10th TRW were eventually fitted with AJB-7 low-altitude bombing system system equipment just in case the delivery of nuclear weapons ever became necessary", from my own personal notes the RF-4C was capable of carry 1xB28 (in service 1958-1991, 1980-2340 lb. weight), B43 (1961-1991, 2100 lb.) and B57 (1963-1993, 510 lb, but employed perhaps only by USN). Capability to carry 4xAIM-9M was added circa 1984 :
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_9.html

RF-4C was employed by 10th TFW 1965-1987 (not clear if nuke capable from the start), main base RAF Alconbury:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Air_Base_Wing#10th_Tactical_Reconnaissance_Wing

Phantom II service with USAF:
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_36.html

Related:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing#NATO

quote:

The only German nuclear base is located in B�chel Air Base, near the border with Luxembourg. The base has 11 Protective Aircraft Shelters (PAS) equipped with WS3 Vaults for storage of nuclear weapons (maximum capacity of 44). There are 20 B61 nuclear bombs stored on the base for delivery by German PA-200 Tornado IDS bombers of the JaBoG 33 squadron. By 2015 Germany's Tornado IDS aircraft were due to be retired, and it is unclear what nuclear sharing role, if any, Germany will then retain.[

< Message edited by Broncepulido -- 5/9/2016 4:33:13 PM >

(in reply to Broncepulido)

Post #: 2744

RE: RE: - 5/10/2016 1:28:01 AM

B52H

Posts: 113
Joined: 6/28/2015
Status: offline

A few helis are needed for a few scenarios that I'm currently working on:

MI-2 Hoplite

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_mi2_en.php

T-14 Armata (MBT)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

T-15 Armata (IFV)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-15_Armata

CH-54 Tarhe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-54_Tarhe

UH-1V Huey

Aeromedical and rescue variant of the UH-1 for US Army

M551 Shreidan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan

(in reply to Broncepulido)

Post #: 2745

RE: RE: - 5/11/2016 9:15:16 PM

Zaslon

Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline

#2364 - P 41 Meteoro

-Remove C-lite Sensors.
+Attach Dorna 2 FCS to Mk-38 cannons.
+Generic ESM should be changed to ESM RIGEL ( installed too in #3014 F 105 Cristobal Colon)
+Can acommodate 2 Rhibs (7 m)

Armada webpage about BAM
BAM sensors

#3014 F 105 Cristobal Col�n
#768 and #827 F 101 Alvaro de Baz�n

-Remove TRS-3D/32 radar

Info for F 101

Thank you very much.

< Message edited by Zaslon -- 5/11/2016 9:17:05 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to B52H)

Post #: 2746

RE: RE: - 5/12/2016 7:40:03 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: B52H

A few helis are needed for a few scenarios that I'm currently working on:

MI-2 Hoplite

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_mi2_en.php

T-14 Armata (MBT)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

T-15 Armata (IFV)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-15_Armata

CH-54 Tarhe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-54_Tarhe

UH-1V Huey

Aeromedical and rescue variant of the UH-1 for US Army

M551 Shreidan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan

Why would you need a T-14 or T-15? There is almost no difference between tanks in the database. I don't think there is the granularity needed. A T-90 and BMP-3 would probably function the same...just change the names if it bothers you.

(in reply to B52H)

Post #: 2747

RE: RE: - 5/12/2016 11:37:51 PM

mikmykWS

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

Right now there is only a slight difference in fire controls, weapons and sensors.

The new Russian tanks and IFV's have shown up in Parade's and they'll likely be added once I can find enough detail level stuff to build them. I recently added the BMD-4M and BTR-MD because I had enough.

Couple of interesting things though have come up in research on Russian land/Ukraine units.

1)Most would assume the BTR-90 would be the follow on APC to the BTR-80. Not the case. Turned out to be a bit of a flop and only 100 or so were bought and instead the Russians went with the BTR-82A.
2) BMD-4: Very few of these were actually built however the company that builds them went out of business and the replacement vendor then build the BMD-4M which is pretty much the same minus a few non game oriented things (at this point). They also purchased the BTR-MD which seems to be a bit of an insurance policy. Eventually one will make the most sense and one will be bought in significantly less numbers.
3)T-80's: Little to none were involved in the Ukrainian fight. The Ukrainian's version were in storage and Russian's not as available because of the significantly greater cost of fuel. Modern T-72M's and T-64 Bulat's viewed as better.
4)Ukrainian Oplot-M's and some of the newer IFV: Lot of smoke and mirrors (literally). Very few of these actually built never mind in service.

So lesson learned in there is a bit more research to be done and things don't always work out as every one of these systems was in somebody's May Day parade at some time or another. Best to be patient.

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 5/12/2016 11:40:41 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 2748

RE: RE: - 5/12/2016 11:40:33 PM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

quote:

ORIGINAL: B52H

A few helis are needed for a few scenarios that I'm currently working on:

MI-2 Hoplite

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_mi2_en.php

T-14 Armata (MBT)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

T-15 Armata (IFV)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-15_Armata

CH-54 Tarhe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-54_Tarhe

UH-1V Huey

Aeromedical and rescue variant of the UH-1 for US Army

M551 Shreidan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan

Why would you need a T-14 or T-15? There is almost no difference between tanks in the database. I don't think there is the granularity needed. A T-90 and BMP-3 would probably function the same...just change the names if it bothers you.

True, but there might be some subtle differences that affect a scenario a bit (different weapons compared to other tanks or other capabilities, etc.) Plus, with the Russian tanks, you know it's going to be exported to a bunch of other countries in the next ten or twenty years, so it probably doesn't hurt to add it.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 2749

Denmark picks F-35 for 27-aircraft deal - 5/13/2016 9:13:53 AM

jun5896

Posts: 216
Joined: 1/17/2015
Status: offline

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/denmark-picks-f-35-for-27-aircraft-deal-425267/

Add F-35 for denmark

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 2750

RE: Denmark picks F-35 for 27-aircraft deal - 5/13/2016 12:25:55 PM

Skjold

Posts: 240
Joined: 9/29/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jun5896

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/denmark-picks-f-35-for-27-aircraft-deal-425267/

Add F-35 for denmark

Nothing is finalised yet, debate is still to be held in the danish parlament.

(in reply to jun5896)

Post #: 2751

RE: Denmark picks F-35 for 27-aircraft deal - 5/13/2016 12:49:42 PM

jun5896

Posts: 216
Joined: 1/17/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skjold

quote:

ORIGINAL: jun5896

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/denmark-picks-f-35-for-27-aircraft-deal-425267/

Add F-35 for denmark

Nothing is finalised yet, debate is still to be held in the danish parlament.

Ah! I see thanks for feedback, I missed to read last paragraph.

< Message edited by jun5896 -- 5/13/2016 12:52:00 PM >

(in reply to Skjold)

Post #: 2752

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 5/13/2016 8:41:58 PM

Rodney909

Posts: 2
Joined: 5/13/2016
Status: offline

Greetings,

Using the online database viewing tool I noticed Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are missing.
Is it possible to add these countries to future database versions please?

Thank you very much

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 2753

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 5/14/2016 1:27:43 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rodney909

Greetings,

Using the online database viewing tool I noticed Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are missing.
Is it possible to add these countries to future database versions please?

Thank you very much

It may help to identify the specific platforms you need for whatever scenario(s) you are writing.

For some of the platforms, for the time being, you can just use the Soviet-era weapons transferred at the end of the Cold War and in the following years (not always legally...Armenia apparently has quite a few SCUD missiles they're not supposed to have!).

To get an idea of exactly when a particular weapon made its way into the hands of one of these countries, http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php is a useful source.

I hope this helps.

(in reply to Rodney909)

Post #: 2754

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 5/14/2016 5:58:21 AM

peterc100248

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/21/2016
Status: offline

There is a fairly significant vessel missing from the US Navy inventory - the Mark V Special Operations boat. Here is Wikipedia information, which is hardly authoritative, but the boat has been in operational use since at least as early as 2003.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_V_Special_Operations_Craft

65+ knots, significant range and weapon capability. Carries 14 SEALs and the boat crew. As much as we all enjoy the Cold War / Hot War scenarios, it seems the future may dictate more littoral missions and conflicts.

Edited to fix link with a "real" computer.

< Message edited by peterc100248 -- 5/14/2016 3:36:25 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 2755

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 5/14/2016 6:00:26 AM

peterc100248

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/21/2016
Status: offline

Sorry about the link above. All I can say is don't try and post with an IPad!!!

(in reply to peterc100248)

Post #: 2756

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 5/14/2016 2:33:54 PM

Rodney909

Posts: 2
Joined: 5/13/2016
Status: offline

Thank you for your explanation Mgellis.

(in reply to peterc100248)

Post #: 2757

RE: RE: - 5/14/2016 2:38:44 PM

DeSade

Posts: 156
Joined: 3/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
1)Most would assume the BTR-90 would be the follow on APC to the BTR-80. Not the case. Turned out to be a bit of a flop and only 100 or so were bought and instead the Russians went with the BTR-82A.

Most of BTR's are BTR-82AM, which are factory modernized versions of BTR-80 (over 700 modernized since 2010), new production is BTR-82A, but its going slow, according to the sources.
Replacement is VPK-7829 Bumerang:

but high price makes BTR-82 main APC for years to come

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
2) BMD-4: Very few of these were actually built however the company that builds them went out of business and the replacement vendor then build the BMD-4M which is pretty much the same minus a few non game oriented things (at this point). They also purchased the BTR-MD which seems to be a bit of an insurance policy. Eventually one will make the most sense and one will be bought in significantly less numbers.

Actually, IFV BMD-4 (originally BMD-3M) was in fact old BMD-3 chassis and propulsion with new turret. Thats why only 30 or so was build. BMD-4M is completely new construction and pride of Russian airborne troops (2 battalions in service, almost 700 ordered with deliveries up to 2025).

Similar story with APC BTR-MD, prototype construction based on old BMD-3M chassis, but new APC BTR-MDM based on BTR-4M is already in service and almost 1000 was ordered, also with 10 year delivery schedule. Although to be honest, Russian economy will need some serious boost to afford to deliver such numbers :)

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 2758

RE: RE: - 5/14/2016 3:02:46 PM

mikmykWS

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

Ah the plot thickens. I'm sure you see my point though about jumping at parade pictures?

Got stats on these deeper than Wikipedia? If so post and will gladly build them.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to DeSade)

Post #: 2759

RE: RE: - 5/15/2016 1:21:06 AM

DeSade

Posts: 156
Joined: 3/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Ah the plot thickens. I'm sure you see my point though about jumping at parade pictures?

Got stats on these deeper than Wikipedia? If so post and will gladly build them.

Mike

I picked parade pictures because they look so nice there :P
As for Bumerang, you are right, no need to hurry, as optimistic IOC dates are around 2018-19 (and they didn't take into account sanctions, lots of components used were from the EU, Irish transmission, Italian tyres etc.).

But BMD-4M and BTR-MDM are real:

140 BMD-4M and 90 BTR-MDM scheduled for delivery in 2016

IOC declared end of April

Personally, I consider numbers given by commander of russian Airborne Troops in first link (1500 BDM-4M and 2500 BTR-MDM) pure propaganda.

From the game perspective, I don't think there is any important differentiating factor justifying adding them to DB other then having "real" names, so I think I shouldn't post it here - sorry :/

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 2760