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: Eurofighter Loadout Austria

 
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: Eurofighter Loadout Austria Page: <<   < prev  100 101 [102] 103 104   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 10/25/2016 7:31:06 PM   
mikmykWS

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: edsw

quote:

Added this one to our list the other day. Any pictures of dumb bomb or rocket loadouts?

I'm hoping we'll get some once it arrives off Syria.

Mike

That is, you do not want to do make smart bombs and missiles for Su-33 due to lack of pictures with them? Where in this case, photos F-15,16,35 with AIM-120D? !!. Where it is evident that suspended Owned AIM -120D? !!!!


You're being ridiculous. Once I see a picture will add. Look forward to it!

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to edsw)
Post #: 3031
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 10/25/2016 7:38:28 PM   
edsw


Posts: 59
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Ukraine
Status: offline
quote:

Вы смешны. После того, как я вижу картину дополнит. Посмотрите вперед к нему!

Майк
I ask again, on what basis for the F-15,16,35 added AIM-120D ?!

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3032
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 10/25/2016 8:25:22 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
My reading of the appropriations is that IOC on SIP 1 is complete on F-22 and other aircraft that already have the 120C. SIP 2 and 3 go through 17 to 19.

(in reply to edsw)
Post #: 3033
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 10/26/2016 1:02:50 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
And this is why there is so much skepticism around Chinese and Russian claims on new weapons. The US and NATO country armed forces are forced to be fairly transparent when it comes to weapon acquisition. Both budgeting and shareholder information for GRC at defense contractors drives a certain amount of openness. I will point out that anyone thinking they know when weapons go online in the US and aren't looking at appropriations, are just guessing. This level of transparency is driven by legal and constitutional mandates and are governed by legal checks and balances, as well as the press and dozens of watchdog organizations. Pick a weapon system and the google it with the word budget or appropriation and you will get all the detail you need.

What we get in this thread is blurry pictures, press releases, and models at tradeshows. We get a picture of a prototype on a runway. Where is the planning for IOC and the steps that go with it? The history, especially with Russia, is usually significantly less than what is announced. So I expect the devs to push back a little on nationalistic jingoism, US, Russia, whatever. The difference with the US, its fairly easy to debunk a PR with a budget report. That lets the devs decide if its worth putting in a hypothetical unit or not.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 3034
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 10/26/2016 1:16:45 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Here is a pessimistic, but most likely realistic, assessment of Russian Navy ship building expectations. Delays, productivity, quality, and missing integration seem to be issues. This would be a massive scandal in most countries, so I have to assume there is little oversight.

https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/160310_Schwartz_AdmiralGorshkov_Web.pdf


(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 3035
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 10/26/2016 2:39:08 PM   
Hongjian

 

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

And this is why there is so much skepticism around Chinese and Russian claims on new weapons. The US and NATO country armed forces are forced to be fairly transparent when it comes to weapon acquisition. Both budgeting and shareholder information for GRC at defense contractors drives a certain amount of openness. I will point out that anyone thinking they know when weapons go online in the US and aren't looking at appropriations, are just guessing. This level of transparency is driven by legal and constitutional mandates and are governed by legal checks and balances, as well as the press and dozens of watchdog organizations. Pick a weapon system and the google it with the word budget or appropriation and you will get all the detail you need.

What we get in this thread is blurry pictures, press releases, and models at tradeshows. We get a picture of a prototype on a runway. Where is the planning for IOC and the steps that go with it? The history, especially with Russia, is usually significantly less than what is announced. So I expect the devs to push back a little on nationalistic jingoism, US, Russia, whatever. The difference with the US, its fairly easy to debunk a PR with a budget report. That lets the devs decide if its worth putting in a hypothetical unit or not.


You have to remember that this sort of strategy is, while bad for us gamers, good for Russia and China.

They are being consistently underestimated and not taken seriously - until it is too late and Red Lines have been overstepped, an unloved dictator rescued and moderate islamists successfully driven to the brink of destruction, leaving everyone dumbstruck since they never believed that the suppossedly "inferior and obsolete" military of that power could have pulled it off.

Sure, it's hyperbole now, but you know what I mean...

/off topic

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 3036
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 10/26/2016 2:55:23 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
OK, like they've shown before...oh wait. They haven't. Russia especially, how many systems have people claimed are operating or going to operate, yet never do. Just look at tanks....good grief, I shouldn't have to look beyond that to make my point.

And I do know what you mean...another person sucked in by press releases. I have seen little from China except press releases and some staged demonstrations.

(in reply to Hongjian)
Post #: 3037
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 10/26/2016 3:44:40 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Ok locking this string for awhile. I've asked a couple times that this one be kept strickly for requests but I guess no comprende!

This is why we can't have nice things

Anybody needs anything just pm with sources etc.

Thanks!

Mike


< Message edited by mikmyk -- 11/5/2016 5:42:24 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 3038
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 11/5/2016 5:42:18 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Ok reopened.

Requests only.

Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3039
RE: L-39C Loadouts - 11/6/2016 12:07:46 PM   
Zaslon

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline
I notice that Aero L-39C hasn't any loadouts.

L-39C Has a gunsight and two hardpoints, so it can load:

100kg of bombs in each pylon (so FAB-100)
A pair of UB-16-57U with S-5 Rockets.
A pair of IR missiles (R-3S, R-60)

Manual (page 140-141)

Missing users:
Slovakia
Russia
Soviet Union
Ukraine x39?
Algeria x7
Azerbaijan x23
Iraq x22
Ethiopia x17
Afghanistan x26
Czech Republic
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
North Korea
Vietnam
Yemen


_____________________________


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

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3040
RE: L-39C Loadouts - 11/6/2016 2:29:54 PM   
PN79

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
While basic L-39C can use UB-16-57 rocket pods or 100 kg bombs (weight limit for one pylon under each wing is 125 kg) it cannot use R-3S (AA-2) or R-60 (AA-8). Only later series of L-39ZA in second half of 1980s were wired to carry R-3S and this was not for combat but for training purposes. So only in 1990s and later modernization could add AA-2, AA-8 compatibility but basic L-39C was not able to use that missiles.

< Message edited by PN79 -- 11/6/2016 2:30:42 PM >

(in reply to Zaslon)
Post #: 3041
RE: L-39C Loadouts - 11/6/2016 3:38:16 PM   
mikmykWS

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PN79

While basic L-39C can use UB-16-57 rocket pods or 100 kg bombs (weight limit for one pylon under each wing is 125 kg) it cannot use R-3S (AA-2) or R-60 (AA-8). Only later series of L-39ZA in second half of 1980s were wired to carry R-3S and this was not for combat but for training purposes. So only in 1990s and later modernization could add AA-2, AA-8 compatibility but basic L-39C was not able to use that missiles.


Need a picture or source to act on.

Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to PN79)
Post #: 3042
RE: L-39C Loadouts - 11/6/2016 4:20:39 PM   
PN79

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
L-39C with UB-16-57:


(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3043
RE: L-39C Loadouts - 11/6/2016 8:32:37 PM   
Zaslon

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline
In the page 199 (PDF) of the manual you can see the list of approval external stores.
Delete R-60 from my request, my bad.

P-50-75 pr P-50Sh dummy bomb
OFAB-100
ZAB-100-105
UB-16-57U/UMP with S-5K/M/MO/KO rockets
R-3U (training)
R-3S

_____________________________


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

(in reply to PN79)
Post #: 3044
RE: L-39C Loadouts - 11/7/2016 6:49:38 PM   
PN79

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
The issue is that the first L-39 wired for carrying R-3S was L-39ZA and that in 1987 and first trial firing was in 1988 so we simply cannot take everything written for granted even if it is manual. One has to take also in account that L-39C was training aircraft with ability to simulate use of different weapons which is in game represented by training load. L-39C unlike later L-39ZO and L-39ZA was never ment to be used as combat aircraft. It still can make sense to add at least rocket pods UB-16-57* because we can see them on photos but I have never seen live 100 kg bomb on L-39C apart of only inert training variant.

*To represent possibility of desperate use as actually its predecessor L-29 was used in combat and even to shot down an aircraft.

So in my opinion just adding UB-16-57 rocket pod as only combat load would be enough. Unless someone can actually find photo of L-39C with live 100 kg bombs.

(in reply to Zaslon)
Post #: 3045
AT-16 Scallion cannot be carried by Su-25SM - 11/7/2016 9:00:26 PM   
SpadeAce

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 9/1/2016
Status: offline
AT-16 Scallion [9K121 Vikhr] cannot be carried by Su-25SM, Su-25SM2 and Su-25SM3. It only can be carried by Su-25T and Su-25TM. Su-25SM - is a cheaper modernization variant then Su-25T.
Su-25SM/SM2/SM3 don't have "Shkval" electro-optical targeting system, which is necessary for using this missiles.

This wrong loadout used in LIVE "Don of a new Era" scenario. And that's why I can't make myself play it (it's just wrong).

< Message edited by SpadeAce -- 11/8/2016 2:10:42 PM >

(in reply to PN79)
Post #: 3046
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 11/8/2016 4:08:06 AM   
Filitch


Posts: 423
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
And this is why there is so much skepticism around Chinese and Russian claims on new weapons. The US and NATO country armed forces are forced to be fairly transparent when it comes to weapon acquisition.

I don't know about China, but in Russia there is official website of the unified information system procurement http://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/main/public/home.html. There you can find information about purchases that carries or conducts (I'm not sure - what is right in English) any government organization in Russia, including the Department of Defense.
For example - purchase of ice-class patrol vessel project 22120: http://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ep44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=0373100064616000932
or purchase of AAM R-77 http://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/za44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=0173100004515001647

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 3047
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 11/9/2016 8:49:39 PM   
neno

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 7/30/2014
Status: offline
Ship #1008 R08 Queen Elizabeth has Brimstone missiles in her magazines, while the aircraft she will carry (#1095 F-35B) use Brimstone 2.

(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3048
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 11/10/2016 3:15:06 AM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
I tracked down a little extra information for the railgun that might be added to US ships someday...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Rail_Gun.php <-- this one has lots of pictures
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21174/navy-electromagnetic-railgun/ <-- since Mach 3 is about 2500 mph, I am assuming the range for both of the less powerful alternatives mentioned in this article is about 50 miles.

Anyway, I hope this helps.


(in reply to neno)
Post #: 3049
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 11/10/2016 6:49:59 PM   
orca

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline
Freedom class LCS will have TRS-4D radar. First will be on LCS-17. Launch estimate 2017 or 2018.



http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17618/US_Navy_s_Freedom_Variant_LCS_To_Be_Equipped_With_Airbus__TRS_4D_AESA_Radars#.WCTNzIY76Ed

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 3050
RE: L-39C Loadouts - 11/11/2016 10:48:04 AM   
Zaslon

 

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

ORIGINAL: PN79

The issue is that the first L-39 wired for carrying R-3S was L-39ZA and that in 1987 and first trial firing was in 1988 so we simply cannot take everything written for granted even if it is manual. One has to take also in account that L-39C was training aircraft with ability to simulate use of different weapons which is in game represented by training load. L-39C unlike later L-39ZO and L-39ZA was never ment to be used as combat aircraft. It still can make sense to add at least rocket pods UB-16-57* because we can see them on photos but I have never seen live 100 kg bomb on L-39C apart of only inert training variant.

*To represent possibility of desperate use as actually its predecessor L-29 was used in combat and even to shot down an aircraft.

So in my opinion just adding UB-16-57 rocket pod as only combat load would be enough. Unless someone can actually find photo of L-39C with live 100 kg bombs.

Historians use an easy criteria in research. As far I can remember they talk about primary, secondary, tertiary...sources which is related with the degree of confidence. Primary sources has more confidence...It's direct information. In my research for CMANO DBs I used this criteria.

A picture is a primary source, so his confidence is vey High. A flight Manual is another primary source. As secondary source we can use offical communications (GAO, official magazines, MoD website, manufacturer brochures and videos...). For tertiary sources external websites, books and magazines with direct sources (Jane's, FlightGlobal, F16.net...). In tertiary sources can be degrees of confidence too...For example Jane's and some books have more confidence than some webs, magazines...when there are any discrepancy between sources of the same tranche.

For example...When I made the research for Mirage IIIEE I had a lot of problems because there are not a lot of good primary sources (and I am still dealing with it in the Mirage F1 research and Spanish AB.212 modernization). There are only a few pictures of spanish Mirage III with weapons. Almost 90% of the pictures, the aircraft load only fuel tanks. A flight manual is very complicated to obtain (for this reason I suppose that Mike ask for pictures, is the easiest primary source to find)...So I was in a dead end. Until I remember that I can perused official Spanish Air force Magazine. Et voilà! I found some articles in RAA (Magazine of Aeronautics and Astronautics, spanish air force official magazine) where they talk about it. Direct testimonies of pilots, flight mechanichs who operate the Mirage IIIEE.

In the official magazine, they talk about loadouts...I could not find any picture. That's means that if I cannot find a picture it doesn't exist? Nopes. The existence of a picture with a specific loadout is circumstancial. The info comes from a secondary source...So it's reliable. It's better have a photo? of course. But and official publication has enough confidence. If I found an exotic loadout in a tertiary source, surely I will be more skeptical.

Then, In my opinion, according to the criteria exposed, if we can post Flight manuals, i's not necessary support the info with pictures because they have the same degree of confidence...and of course, we delete the circumstantial factor of pictures.

Can be interesting if Sunburn, Mike or another Warfaresims's developer can tell us what criteria is used in CMANO for help us to improve our request.

P.S. if the FM said that L-39C can load a pair of FAB-100...We can load it. If you never saw a picture with this loadout doesn't means that it doesn't carry it. If a Devil african dictator can use his L-39C for bombing rebels in a turmoil and the Aircraft can do it, he will use it, for example.

< Message edited by Zaslon -- 11/11/2016 10:52:30 AM >


_____________________________


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

(in reply to PN79)
Post #: 3051
3M-54, -14 active radar seekers - 11/11/2016 6:42:59 PM   
Filitch


Posts: 423
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Characteristics of active radar seekers of 3M-54 and 3M-14 are different in DB and at the manufacturer's site.
active radar seeker for 3M-54 in DB #3219 and #2671
sensor azimuth (bearing) field of view - ±45°
sensor elevation field of view - from +10° to -20°
maximal range - 65 km (35 nm)
heaving of sea - up to 6 points

active radar seeker for 3M-14 in DB #2713 and #3272
sensor azimuth (bearing) field of view - ±45°
sensor elevation field of view - from +10° to -20°
maximal range - 20 km (10 nm)


< Message edited by Filitch -- 11/11/2016 7:09:36 PM >

(in reply to Zaslon)
Post #: 3052
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 11/12/2016 7:26:21 PM   
I1066

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 10/22/2013
Status: offline
Found this article today. It has some interesting info on aircraft turn ratio.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/


(in reply to Temple)
Post #: 3053
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 11/13/2016 12:41:29 AM   
PN79

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
Hi Zaslon,
Adding 100 kg bombs to L-39C loadout is perfectly reasonable for me and I have mentioned that in my first reaction to L-39C. My issue is with AA missiles as basic L-39C simply doesn't have "wiring" for carrying that. I will leave on Mike to decide what to add. Rocket pod should be added, 100 kg bomb would be nice but AAM no way.

And actually remove 350 liter drop tank from L-39C ordnance because it is too heavy and only later L-39ZO and L-39ZA can carry it.

Regarding Czechoslovakia as user the first 5 L-39C were received in 1971.
http://www.l-39.cz/L-39_uzivatele.html#cz

Czech republic still uses several ones for training. Photo of czech L-39C from this year:
http://www.lkpd.info/photo.php?id=9404&airline=397

< Message edited by PN79 -- 11/13/2016 1:15:09 AM >

(in reply to I1066)
Post #: 3054
RE: L-39C Loadouts - 11/13/2016 12:03:13 PM   
mikmykWS

 

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

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

Can be interesting if Sunburn, Mike or another Warfaresims's developer can tell us what criteria is used in CMANO for help us to improve our request.


We need reputable sources and some pictures of the loadout. We tend to follow up with some research on our own and an evaluation on the pictures. In terms of pictures we'll generally add it if its proves to be an operational load out.

I would also suggest creating a good relationship with us as well. This is accomplished by posting credible stuff but also coming across as somebody enjoyable to talk to. Anybody that just insults us or acts like a all knowing muppet generally ends up at the back of the pile. This is not because we don't value their knowledge but because we value our sanity

Thanks!

Mike



_____________________________


(in reply to Zaslon)
Post #: 3055
RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria - 11/13/2016 12:04:52 PM   
mikmykWS

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

I tracked down a little extra information for the railgun that might be added to US ships someday...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Rail_Gun.php <-- this one has lots of pictures
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21174/navy-electromagnetic-railgun/ <-- since Mach 3 is about 2500 mph, I am assuming the range for both of the less powerful alternatives mentioned in this article is about 50 miles.

Anyway, I hope this helps.




Thanks Mark. It does. We're also working on the code updates that need to happen behind this. More on this soon!

Mike


_____________________________


(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 3056
RE: 3M-54, -14 active radar seekers - 11/13/2016 12:06:22 PM   
mikmykWS

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filitch

Characteristics of active radar seekers of 3M-54 and 3M-14 are different in DB and at the manufacturer's site.
active radar seeker for 3M-54 in DB #3219 and #2671
sensor azimuth (bearing) field of view - ±45°
sensor elevation field of view - from +10° to -20°
maximal range - 65 km (35 nm)
heaving of sea - up to 6 points

active radar seeker for 3M-14 in DB #2713 and #3272
sensor azimuth (bearing) field of view - ±45°
sensor elevation field of view - from +10° to -20°
maximal range - 20 km (10 nm)



Added to worklist but need a weblink so we can verify.

Thanks!

Mike


_____________________________


(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3057
RE: 3M-54, -14 active radar seekers - 11/13/2016 12:08:44 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
DB worklist updated to this point.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3058
RE: 3M-54, -14 active radar seekers - 11/15/2016 5:04:15 PM   
orca

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline
Can you add Rafale for India?

France and India signed a contract on Sept 2016 for 36 Rafale. First jets to be delivered in Sept 2019.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/india-inks-deal-with-france-for-36-rafale-fighter-jets

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3059
RE: 3M-54, -14 active radar seekers - 11/15/2016 5:24:19 PM   
orca

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline
In db build 447 the range for the HQ-16A is 2-21.59 nm. Shouldn't it be 2-40 nm?

(in reply to orca)
Post #: 3060
Page:   <<   < prev  100 101 [102] 103 104   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Eurofighter Loadout Austria Page: <<   < prev  100 101 [102] 103 104   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

0.875