Seems to allow for only 44 a/c per the DB description (i.e. 22 open space; 22 hanger) but I can place 66 a/c. The exact 1/3 increase seemed suspicious hence the post.
he U.S. supports the sale of standoff missiles to Poland, the Defense Department said in a notice to Congress on Monday. The State Department has approved the possible $200 million foreign military sale to supply the Polish government with the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles Extended Range, or JASSM-ER, made by Lockheed Martin Corp., according to an announcement from the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency. In addition to the U.S. Air Force (which this fall received its 2,000th munition), the weapon is used by the governments of Finland and Australia. Poland is its third international customer. The Polish military wants to purchase 70 of the projectiles, a semi-stealthy GPS-guided cruise missile armed with a penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead designed to strike targets from as far away as 620 miles, according to the release and the manufacturer’s website. The Polish air force plans to outfit the munitions onto its F-16C/D fighter jets. In addition to the standoff missiles, the deal calls for flight test vehicles, simulators, spare parts and other equipment. In a foreign military sale, known in military parlance as FMS, the U.S. buys weapons or equipment on behalf of a foreign government. Countries approved to participate in the program may obtain military hardware or services by using their own funding or money provided through U.S.-sponsored assistance programs. The release doesn’t specify which government would pay for the transaction. “The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and the national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally,” it states. “Poland continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in Central Europe.”
I was out of CMANO for the last 18 months, but as far as i can see unrealistic RCS numbers are still here. All these "0,000zerozero1" numbers are coming from advertisement speechs, not actual combat manuals. For example, after F-117 was shot down and examined by Russian specialists, its all-around continuous RCS was described in the manual to modernized S-125 Pechyora as 0,3 sqm. Of course, RCS of every object has its local minimums and maximums and aircraft designers are trying to make it minimal from the front. But average RCS(during continuous radar scan) in sector +/- 45 degree of thousand fractions of meter?! Gentlemen, please, don't use advertising speechs a'la TV-shop style about "golf balls" as a source for your serious simulator.
Combat manuals based on the real examinations are providing much more realistic numbers.
< Message edited by Scar79 -- 11/30/2016 9:33:36 AM >
The text is kinda hard to read at parts but I will try.
quote:
KG800 self defense jamming pod
The KG800 airborne electronic warfare system is carried by combat planes to disrupt enemy airborne fire control radars and SAM search and fire-control/illumination radars. It also increases the combat plane's survivability against AESA threats that are launched against the plane (probably meaning AESA seekers on missiles)"
Special Points:
- Broad jamming spectrum (probably of radar bands) - High ERP (effective radiated power) - Advanced Jamming Technologies - Effective/Useful (against) multiple threats - Fast response time - Modularity - High reliability
Think this was first referenced as a DB request when the contract was announced some time ago but the article has photos.
South Korean Navy Wildcat using Spike NLOS. Loadout photos shows port side of 2 x Spike NLOS for a potential total of 4, Article also refers to ROK Navy using asymmetric loadout of 2 x Spike NLOS, 1 X Blue Shark. This would make sense given threat from fast boats and minisubs in littoral waters?
Radar is 7350E Sea Spray not 7400 (suspect there is no material difference) no clarity on E/O system but references to SAGE EW system. Interestingly it also says they have Link 16 for cooperative engagement and Data sharing.
Would it be possible to add a new weapon Record for Generic Mine Moored Currently there is 6768 Generic Mine [Moored, Contact Fuze] (1/1) 6767 Generic Mine [Moored, Contact Fuze] (80/80)
could a weapon size of (20/20) and (30/30) be added
When i add the 80/80 to a ship and it works no problem and wil lay mines when given a mine laying mission. but then i cant edit the size to 20/80. It keeps droping the record to 0/80 when i use the 'change/set' command.
Im trying t get Indian P68 Arnala {Petya III} to lay mines, they could hold 20 to 30 mines ( depending on literature source) Its highy probable im not doing something correctly .. ? I add the mine weapon record using the 'Add Weapon Recoord' to the ships Depth charge Rack.... ?
cheers Paul
Added
< Message edited by mikmyk -- 12/5/2016 6:29:06 PM >
Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005 From: The Great White North! Status: offline
I believe that the South African replenishment ship SAS Outeniqua (A-302) should have the following:
-replenishment at sea - cannot find specifications but she was used in that role for 10 years -spots for 4x LCU -Cargo, 600 troops & 10 vehicles -Icebreaker if that is a DB item -hanger space for 2 x medium Helos
Ok. Why is this in this string? Do you have a request? We can make the warheads rounder if you'd like
Thanks!
Mike
Well...i tought this thread is "DB3000 database problems, updates or issues"
And it's not only nose section - look at the wing and tail sections, sweep angle of winggs, their lowplane position, size and angle of the tail stabilizers - these two missiles have completely different aerodynamic configuration.
Ok. Why is this in this string? Do you have a request? We can make the warheads rounder if you'd like
Thanks!
Mike
Well...i tought this thread is "DB3000 database problems, updates or issues"
And it's not only nose section - look at the wing and tail sections, sweep angle of winggs, their lowplane position, size and angle of the tail stabilizers - these two missiles have completely different aerodynamic configuration.
Ok if you can back these up with some stats will be more than happy to make a change. My sense is if you put this into context of a sim/game the difference may not be large enough to really change the outcome much.
ORIGINAL: Scar79 Hi all, I am returning to CMANO after 18 months, and I have observed some RCS values which seem to differ significantly from my sources and material. Here are some examples: [...] Can you please check if the discrepancy is due to different methods of estimation or if there is a possible error somewhere. Thanks!
ORIGINAL: mikmyk Ok if you can back these up with some stats will be more than happy to make a change. My sense is if you put this into context of a sim/game the difference may not be large enough to really change the outcome much.
Thanks!
Mike
Emmmm...Excuse me, but i'm afraid i don't understand - what stats you're talking about?! I just said it's a wrong photo for the DB entry "Kh-55".
ORIGINAL: mikmyk Ok if you can back these up with some stats will be more than happy to make a change. My sense is if you put this into context of a sim/game the difference may not be large enough to really change the outcome much.
Thanks!
Mike
Emmmm...Excuse me, but i'm afraid i don't understand - what stats you're talking about?! I just said it's a wrong photo for the DB entry "Kh-55".
The developers don't deal with the images. Its a community project.
See the string below. I would suggest being nice as they don't have to do squat for you.
ORIGINAL: Scar79 Hi all, I am returning to CMANO after 18 months, and I have observed some RCS values which seem to differ significantly from my sources and material. Here are some examples: [...] Can you please check if the discrepancy is due to different methods of estimation or if there is a possible error somewhere. Thanks!
Fixed it for you.
Excuse me, under the "method of estimation" you mean something like this?
BTW, as you can see - B-2 RCS, according to this computer modeling, is 1000 times larger than numbers in CMANO. I wonder - where did you get these...well...incredibly optimistic numbers?
BTW, as you can see - B-2 RCS, according to this computer modeling, is 1000 times larger than numbers in CMANO. I wonder - where did you get these...well...incredibly optimistic numbers?
For the small frequencies, is the simulation grid converged?
BTW, as you can see - B-2 RCS, according to this computer modeling, is 1000 times larger than numbers in CMANO. I wonder - where did you get these...well...incredibly optimistic numbers?
For the small frequencies, is the simulation grid converged?
Errrrr...i'm not sure i understand what you mean, but there are four frequencies modeled by researchers for each object: 10GHz(3cm); 3GHZ(10cm), 1GHz(30cm) and 166MHz(180cm).
Errrrr...i'm not sure i understand what you mean, but there are four frequencies modeled by researchers for each object: 10GHz(3cm); 3GHZ(10cm), 1GHz(30cm) and 166MHz(180cm).
What I am trying to get at is the accuracy of the simulation. The simulation requires a 3D model with lower resolution than the actual aircraft. What I am curious about is if the simulation is reporting a high RCS due to an insufficiently detailed model.
BTW, as you can see - B-2 RCS, according to this computer modeling, is 1000 times larger than numbers in CMANO. I wonder - where did you get these...well...incredibly optimistic numbers?
For the small frequencies, is the simulation grid converged?
Errrrr...i'm not sure i understand what you mean, but there are four frequencies modeled by researchers for each object: 10GHz(3cm); 3GHZ(10cm), 1GHz(30cm) and 166MHz(180cm).
It doesn't matter anyways. You don't have the real values for the B-2 because they're secret. You can make as many educated guesses as you'd like but our goal is to get reasonable outcomes in a simulations for data we might not actually know. Right now I think its ok for the B-2. If however you could walk through the math and show us where we're going wrong we'd be more than happy to accomidate. You're not going find that in a pdf.
Thanks!
Mike
< Message edited by mikmyk -- 12/1/2016 5:02:51 PM >
It doesn't matter anyways. You don't have the real values for the B-2 because they're secret. You can make as many educated guesses as you'd like but our goal is to get reasonable outcomes in a simulations for data we might not actually know. Right now I think its ok for the B-2. If however you could walk through the math and show us where we're going wrong we'd be more than happy to accomidate. You're not going find that in a pdf.
Thanks!
Mike
That PDF, if it represents an accuracy solution to the EM wave equations, is about as accurate a result as one is going to get on the open source. Scar79 would have to replicate that work to get a more accurate answer.
BTW, as you can see - B-2 RCS, according to this computer modeling, is 1000 times larger than numbers in CMANO. I wonder - where did you get these...well...incredibly optimistic numbers?
For the small frequencies, is the simulation grid converged?
Errrrr...i'm not sure i understand what you mean, but there are four frequencies modeled by researchers for each object: 10GHz(3cm); 3GHZ(10cm), 1GHz(30cm) and 166MHz(180cm).
It doesn't matter anyways. You don't have the real values for the B-2 because they're secret. You can make as many educated guesses as you'd like but our goal is to get reasonable outcomes in a simulations for data we might not actually know. Right now I think its ok for the B-2. If however you could walk through the math and show us where we're going wrong we'd be more than happy to accomidate. You're not going find that in a pdf.
Thanks!
Mike
To say where you're wrong i need to know what are your sources and method of calculation. And of course we don't know the real numbers, but this is what mathematical/computer modeling was invented for. Finally, when many serious researches suggest it's not O,ooo1sqm but 1000-4000 times higher - it's a serious reason to rethink if 0,0001sqm is even close to the real RCS of the real thing.
< Message edited by Scar79 -- 12/1/2016 5:31:43 PM >
It doesn't matter anyways. You don't have the real values for the B-2 because they're secret. You can make as many educated guesses as you'd like but our goal is to get reasonable outcomes in a simulations for data we might not actually know. Right now I think its ok for the B-2. If however you could walk through the math and show us where we're going wrong we'd be more than happy to accomidate. You're not going find that in a pdf.
Thanks!
Mike
That PDF, if it represents an accuracy solution to the EM wave equations, is about as accurate a result as one is going to get on the open source. Scar79 would have to replicate that work to get a more accurate answer.
He's trying to use a toaster to grill a hamburger though. This game isn't really about hemming and hawing over data although we try. Bottom line is there are lots of datapoints we'll never know because they're secret. So its about modeling and reasonable outcomes.
If he had come to us and said. Gee the SA-10 can shoot this down easy or howe come the Flanker can detect this at x distance it would be different. Thats demonstratable and actionable. We can work with that.
I think as we release more about pro I think it will come together for some of you. You can try and poke and prod but at the end of the day no other game comes close to what we do now. This is not to brag. This is to wonder why there is so much complaining. You can't do this with anything else! Get a life!
Mike
< Message edited by mikmyk -- 12/1/2016 5:49:17 PM >
I never said or even meant that CMANO is a bad game - it's a really great Tactical and even Strategical Simulator, proud successor of the classic Larry Bond's Harpoon. But in my subject opinion it would be even better if RCS estimations for different stealth platforms were closer to some sientific researches, instead of all those cool-stories about insects, golf balls and metal marbles.
This is just my subjective and honest opinion. And if there is some way to edit CMANO Database i would be happy to do it with my copy of the game - to get the numbers i consider as more realistic than default ones. Is it possible to do just with my local copy of DB? Thx for your answer in advance.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: F-5 variants 
RE: F-5 variants - 
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