Updated Kirov BC

Updated Kirov BC (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series

Message

chesmart -> Updated Kirov BC (7/10/2014 1:44:44 AM)
Need help re Kirov & slava upgrades. Russia is modernizing them and i would like to update them for my new scenario, Does anybody have any links of proposed updates or any theories ?

DeltaIV -> RE: Updated Kirov BC (7/10/2014 10:11:33 AM)
Kirov: P-700 Granit -> P-800 Onyx S-300 -> S-400 AK630 & Kashtan -> Pantsir-S1 http://defenseupdates.blogspot.cz/2014/02/russia-starts-upgrading-project-11442.html http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140124/186878185/Russia-Begins-Nuclear-Powered-Missile-Cruiser-Overhaul.html http://www.brighthubengineering.com/marine-history/94506-the-kirov-class-reborn/ Cannot help with Slava, all the information that were published so far are very vague and nothing concrete was said yet. So far Slava cruiser underwent only routine maintenance, read somewhere that some sensors were upgraded but that's all.

Dimitris -> RE: Updated Kirov BC (7/10/2014 10:20:33 AM)
We know roughly which primary systems are being replaced, but we don't know the quantities of the new systems that will be installed. For example, each P-700 cell could IIRC fit up to 3/4 P-800 canisters. Will they do that? (60/80 P-800s would be an "interesting" ASuW punch). Likewise for the S-400 installation. (I would assume a mix of 48N6DM and 9M96M but who really knows).

NakedWeasel -> RE: Updated Kirov BC (7/10/2014 11:58:36 AM)
Well, we've got F-117's flying from a carrier... Let's hash out a modernized Kirov as a place holder, and make corrections as needed when more concrete info is made available. Respectfully, please and thank you.

chesmart -> RE: Updated Kirov BC (7/10/2014 3:58:18 PM)
That would be nice nakedweasel :) an updated kirov and slava

NakedWeasel -> RE: Updated Kirov BC (7/11/2014 5:25:22 AM)
Hey, you've got it... BAM! Kirov update. But seriously, I don't have that kind of juice. I have to make suggestions, and provide reasons why, just like the lot of you. [:D]

thewood1 -> RE: Updated Kirov BC (7/11/2014 10:20:18 AM)
And this is why I am always leery of putting in these types of even near-future systems. There is always a scenario when someone can say if put in the A-12, why can't have this one.

Feltan -> RE: Updated Kirov BC (7/11/2014 11:01:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 And this is why I am always leery of putting in these types of even near-future systems. There is always a scenario when someone can say if put in the A-12, why can't have this one. I am totally with you. READ: Proceed with caution. Generally, from a personal opinion, I am OK with one level of abstraction/guess-work. If a new ship is in the slips being constructed -- OK, put it in the DB. But if you are taking a concept ship and trying to guess the load out and the timeframe ..... well, pretty soon you are going to jump the shark of reality and publish pure fantasy. In this specific case, I would say OK. It is a known ship, and it will be upgraded. This group, with some judicious thinking and debate, will probably get it 75% correct. And 75% correct is way better than Government work! Regards, Feltan

Sardaukar -> RE: Updated Kirov BC (7/11/2014 11:08:38 AM)
Well, it's not that one couldn't fiddle with editor to approximate future Kirov BC etc.. Changing mounts and magazines ans sensors in ships is lot easier than making changes to aircraft, introducing loadouts that are not in database... [8D]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.03125