Slitherine

quote:

#4873 F-35C 2024 has the JSOW-ER but #3836 F-35C 2025 does not have this weapon usable in any of its loadouts. Additionally, #4874 F-35C 2028 has lost almost all of its external loadouts except the GBU-12/D along with the ability to use the JATM (as stated in an earlier post, the larger LJDAMs and almost all the Paveways with the exception of the GBU-12. Are these discrepancies intended? If not would it be possible to add the JSOW-ER to the 2025 variant and the additional weapons and external loadouts from the 2025 variant to the 2028 variant?

Finally can the hypothetical naval aircraft that have 2020 variants have additional future variants with the new weapons systems like the JSOW-ER, JAGM, JATM and AARGM-ER? As these are hypothetical aircraft I understand that this request will be low in priority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scar79

#2310 - SKR Admiral Sergey Gorshkov [Pr.2235.0] (Russia [1992-] - 2017)
#2816 - SKR Admiral Sergey Gorshkov [Pr.2235.0] (Russia [1992-] - 2019)
#3174 - SKR Admiral Flota Kasatonov [Pr.2235.0] (Russia [1992-] - 2019)

SA-N-22 Greyhound [Pantsir-M] and everything related to it(FCR Hot Shot [1RS2 Shlem], missiles and magazines for them) needs to be replaced with CADS-N-1 [Palash] but without adding SA-N-24 Grinch [9M337 Sosna-RA] missiles.

Reference images:

Palash AAA on the pr.2235.0 frigate.


Palash/Palma CIWS with Sosna missiles on Vietnamese Pr.1166.1E frigate.


Pantsir-M on the pr.22800(Karakurt-class) missile corvette.

quote:

Unit #3836 F-35C 2025 has incredibly wrong RCS Data compared to all other F-35C variants

quote:

It may be just a database view error it shows the RCS as .14 and .15/sqm while all others show .012 and .0012 /sqm respectively

quote:

I think you are only partially correct as SA-2 nomenclature is more complicated because public books use different lettering from those which is used in CIA’s declassified reports. To further increase confusion SA-2 are actually three different and incompatible systems with parallel development. Hence all the chaos about which version operates in which frequency.

So before any nomenclature change is done one must decide which nomenclature design wants to follow.

....

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV60

I agree that following a single nomenclature design is important. IMHO, the NATO designation SA-2a/b/c/d GUIDELINE is the best nomenclature to generally rely on, as it: 1) had widespread use; 2) it readily identifies the type and purpose of system (for example, GUIDLINE=a guided missile/SAM; FOXBAT= a fighter; BADGER=a bomber) and 3) identifies major modifications (for example a SA-2f is different and later modification than an SA-2b). Also, a lot of cold war soviet nomenclature was intended to be confusing, so as to confuse the western intelligence agencies. With that said, I believe that the naming convention should be not inconsistent with the USSR nomenclature. So (in my opinion) when the USSR system that incorporates the V-750M missile and the RSN-75 (FAN SONG C) illuminator and calls it the S-75M Volkhov, it is fine if CMO calls it the SA-2c GUIDELINE. It is also okay if CMO calls it the SA-2c GUIDELINE/S-75M Volkhov. However, it shouldn't be designated the "SA-2b Guideline SA-75 Dvina), as it currently is, as that is incorrect, as the Dvina system was the earlier SA-2a, and the SA-2b used the V-750VK and -VN missiles and the FAN SONG B radar. When I write the weapons/facility descriptions, I try to note alternative nomenclatures. However, the current CMO nomenclature for the GUIDELINE family is, I believe, incorrect. For reference, I am including a screen shot of a table from https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-75-Volkhov.html#mozTocId587506 that shows the various GUIDELINE configurations. I belive, based on my research (including using Jane's) that this table is accurate. See also https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagement-Fire-Control.html#mozTocId517282 for a discussion of the FAN SONG series of radars

quote:


I see. The issue with presented table is that is use same SA-2C designation for system equipped with 13D and 20D missiles and SA-2D for systems with 13DM/DA and 20DSU and 5Ya23 which is confusing as hell. Desna system with 13D missiles is different from Volkhov with 20D and 5Ya23. Furthermore it uses designation SA-2E for system with nuclear 15D missiles which doesn’t make sense as any late Soviet Volkhov system can launch 15D missile apart from standard 20D and late 5Ya23.

Currently in database CWDB v478 (I am using this one because DB3000 have less entries regarding earlier SA-2 variants) are these entries for Soviet SA-2:

quote:

ORIGINAL: LORDPrometheus

I have been advocating for the Tu-22M series having AS-16 Kickbacks since I started with CMANO years ago now. However this change has not yet been made and I know it is because my previous posts on the topic did not have adequate sources. That changes today. I present to you a rotary launcher in the bomb bay of a Tu-22M carrying 6x AS-16 Kickbacks internally and 2 AS-4 Kitchens simultaneously.



We can be certain this is a Tu-22M and not a Tu-95 or Tu-160 for 3 reasons.

1. The Tu-95 bomb bay has longer bay doors without visible hydraulic pistons as seen in this image

2. The Tu-160 does not feature external stowage of weapons

3. The fact that we can see the externally stowed weapons and that their height is abour in line with the lower level of the bomb bay indicates it cannot be a Tu-95 which stores it's external missiles more forward and up.

Nnow that we have some evidence that the AS-16 is used on the backfire here are the loadouts I suggest including suggested fixes for the AS-16 which is missing 2 major conventional variants in the game. From here on (N) denotes nuclear)

1: 6x AS-16 (N) + 2x AS-4 Kitchen ac Mod 3 (N)
2. 10x AS-16 (N) (this loadout uses the ability to place 2 AS-16s on each external point)
3. 10x Kh-15P (conventional warhead anti radiation version)
4. 6x Kh-15S (conventional anti shipping AS-16) + 2x AS-4 Kitchen-D (Kh-32)
5: 10x Kh-15S