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: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

 
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: Stickied thread for minor database issues? Page: <<   < prev  129 130 [131] 132 133   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 2/23/2018 8:41:02 PM   
KLAB


Posts: 355
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: offline
REF KA-52 Hokum RuAF.

For consideration please change:

KA-52 pre 2015 remove 12 X Vikhr loads and replace with 12 X Ataka AT-9 Spiral 2 (Laser command guided variant).
Add L-370-5 Vitebsk suite.
(The length difference between Vikhr and Ataka is obvious when seen side by side)

KA-52 post 2016 add 12 x Vikhr-1/M.

Note:

6 x (APU-6 pylon) for AT-9 Spiral 2 (9M120-1) (Laser command guided variant of Ataka V). Note the two rows of three missiles of the APU-6.
The KA-52 initial production and deployed aircraft were fitted with the Shturm VK fire control system using the Ataka 9M120-1 ATGW.
The KBP web site > https://www.kbm.ru/en/production/ptrk/358.html

Vikhr pylon has two tubes over a row of four.
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/vikhr.htm
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/egypt_first_international_customer_for_russian_9a1472_vikhr-1_at-16_scallion_anti-tank_guided_missile_tass_12402167.html

Despite initially being armed with the first incarnation of the Vikhr the KA-50 was only equipped with the Vikhr for a limited deployment and trials,
and the KA-52 was NOT initially armed with the Vikhr missile.


Vikhr production stopped due to cost in the 90's and restarted again in 2013 with the Vikhr-1/M.
Only post 2015 when production issues were resolved were the most recent KA-52's likely to be using Vikhr - 9K121 missiles.
Latest production is likely to be the Vikhr M system using the upgraded Vikhr-1 missile.

https://southfront.org/russian-helicopters-use-advanced-vikhr-long-range-missiles-against-terrorists-in-syria-photo/

https://rostechnologiesblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/russia-to-test-vikhr-1-guided-missile-later-this-year/
The Vikhr-M/1 missile has been mis-identified as the Hermes in some articles(it has obvious family lineage).

Checking the sensors in the DB all the L-370-5 components ECM/IRCM MAW LWR etc are already in the DB and annotated to the Ka-52 yet they aren't added to the KA-52 or KA-52K?

Regards

K




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by KLAB -- 3/3/2018 8:11:40 PM >

(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 3901
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 2/25/2018 8:10:15 AM   
Dragon029


Posts: 76
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline
This isn't exactly for the databases, but would it be possible (assuming it isn't already) to have something like generic "Internal Weapons Bay" and "External Hardpoints" weapon mounts for aircraft in the scenario editor? Ideally these would also be compatible with / feature every data link under the sun, with the intent that scenario editors could experiment with things like, what if a B-2 could fire AMRAAMs?, without having to make specific requests here. As mentioned, generic, specifically internal and external mounts would allow you to not spoil stealth aircraft, or inversely to ensure that aerodynamic and RCS penalties apply.

(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 3902
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 2/27/2018 4:23:14 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
Marine Hornet IOC APKWS guided Rockets.

Picture and source here on NAVAIR tweets

https://twitter.com/NAVAIRNews/status/968455052821135360

(in reply to Dragon029)
Post #: 3903
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 2/27/2018 4:55:31 PM   
Dysta


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

This isn't exactly for the databases, but would it be possible (assuming it isn't already) to have something like generic "Internal Weapons Bay" and "External Hardpoints" weapon mounts for aircraft in the scenario editor?


There was some topics, including mine, were posted about user-editable loadouts for aircrafts. But for some reasons they remain to be done by loadout preset only.

On a second though, maybe the loadout selection can comes with set-rules, from heaviest ordinance to the lightest for player to choose individually. If player wants additional pylons, or add some fuel tanks, bombs, or some kind of mix, a several selection menus will allow player to decide how heavy the loadout he want, instead of the fixed roles or overly unorthodox selections.

Like if a small fighter have 2 pylons on each wing and maximum 1500 lbs loadout weight limit, in theory the aircraft can load 3 500 lbs bombs. However if the aircraft has the proven limit that cannot exceed 750 lbs on each wing, then the fighter can only load one on each wing -- 2 in total, which is 1 less than theoretical. When player has readied the loadout selection, it will automatically remove two pylons from the wings which is not loaded with anything to reduce a bit of weight.

Of course if the same fighter want some CAP, then it can mount 2 AAMs that each one of those cannot exceed 250 lbs. However, the trick of individually selectable options can comes with more flexibility rather than "CAS+CAP" "Pure CAP" or some other fixed loadout sets like from CMANO. If he want CAP and then realized he also want a bit of precision strike against one mobile surface unit, then he can choose 1 AAM and 1 AGM. As long as these weapons aren't exceeding the wing weight or pylon limits, the aircraft should able to load them. Once all 4 pylons are fully set, the other ordinances will gray out and unable to load anything else, even the total weight (not wing weight) is not exceed the limit.

Same for stealth fighters, the first selecting menu for player to choose is weapon bay only, or comes with wing pylons. If he want stealth, some ordinances that only capable to mount on external pylons will gray out and will not let player to choose. If the latter, he also need to abide with wing weight limit so the fighter will automatically load the selected weapons evenly and avoid overload on each side of the wing.

Lastly for the moddability, I'd suggest some universal pylons like you said. I did saw some crazy scenarios like a civilian plane loaded with nukes, or like you said, bomber loaded with AAMs.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dragon029)
Post #: 3904
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 2/28/2018 2:57:32 PM   
sergiopl

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline
I think that SPY-1D´s range, and probably SPY-1B too, could be 256 nm instead of the 175 nm stated on the DB. Several sources mention it, although only this one appears to have a degree of credibility: http://www.defensa.com/espana/defensa-aerea-de-espana-prueba

quote:

In Spanish: la fragata Blas de Lezo aportaba la capacidad de su dotación y sus sensores, principalmente su radar Lockheed Martin SPY-1D, que con sus 475 kilómetros de alcance refuerza de una manera muy eficaz la capacidad de las estaciones de radar del Ejército del Aire

Translation: the frigate Blas de Lezo provided the capacity of its crew and its sensors, mainly its Lockheed Martin SPY-1D radar, which with its 475 kilometers of range strengthens in a very effective way the capacity of the radar stations of the Air Force


475 km = 256 nm

In addition, that figure appears on several more sources... not so reliable in appearance, although they contain apparently detailed information:

https://quizlet.com/64668521/aegisssss-flash-cards/
https://www.studyflashcard.com/flashcards/aegis/deck/12806
https://www.freezingblue.com/flashcards/print_preview.cgi?cardsetID=309681
http://www.nrotc.web.arizona.edu/data/101/swo_brief.ppt (page 16)

Moreover, a very reliable human source told me years ago that the SPY-1D range was exactly 256 nm, so I´m pretty sure that this is the case. But this is an Internet forum and I cannot seriously ask you guys to believe me, so consider only the previous sources

Taken all of this in account... I guess that the 175 nm range, already mentioned on several 1980s sources (for example: The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems), could be referred to the early SPY-1A. SPY-1B has twice the power, so maybe the range was increased too.

PS. This source also gives a "250+ nm" range for the SPY-1: https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1812

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/2/2018 9:16:37 AM >

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 3905
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 2/28/2018 5:44:23 PM   
AlGrant


Posts: 912
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
Turkish 'Tuzla' class patrol boat.

16 hulls operated by Turkey
10 hulls operated by Turkmenistan

https://turkishnavy.net/patrol-craft/tuzla-class/
http://www.dearsan.com/dunya-basininda/naval-forces-article-related-tuzla-class-patrol-boat.html
http://www.dearsan.com/en/products/57m-patrol-boat.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuzla-class_patrol_boat

Turkmenistan version with 2x SIMBAD-RC - this reference also suggests that they may get MDBA'a Marte Mk 2/N ASM (adding a nice little punch to a small PB)
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/january-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4846-turkmenistan-s-coast-guard-patrol-boat-spotted-with-simbad-rc-short-range-naval-air-defence-system.html





_____________________________

GOD'S EYE DISABLED.

(in reply to sergiopl)
Post #: 3906
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/2/2018 3:40:56 PM   
kojis

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 11/9/2015
Status: offline
Please add upcoming Finnish Navy Squadron 2020 -project to database. Project name is Squadron 2020 and class name is Pohjanmaa, 4 new corvets total.

Details are still estimates.

  • Lenght: 105m
  • Displacement: 3000t
  • Beam: 15m
  • Draft: 5m
  • Speed: 25+ knots (???)
  • Crew: 60-120
  • Bofors 57 mm Mk 3
  • Rheinmetall MASS
  • Torped 47
  • CEROS 200
  • Radar: Integrated to mast (???)
  • Mk 41 VLS
  • ESSM
  • CIWS: Millennium Gun (???)
  • Hull and towed sonars (???)
  • Harpoon RGM-84
  • Helicopter deck and hangar
  • Mine deck (rails)
  • Ice breaking capability
  • Electronic countermeasure, jamming (???)


More info in english:
https://www.defmin.fi/en/administrative_branch/strategic_capability_projects/squadron_2020
https://www.defmin.fi/files/3819/Squadron_2020_The_Finnish_Defence_Forces_strategic_project.pdf







< Message edited by kojis -- 3/3/2018 3:21:17 PM >

(in reply to AlGrant)
Post #: 3907
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/2/2018 6:30:34 PM   
Broncepulido

 

Posts: 385
Joined: 9/26/2013
Status: offline
I know radar ranges are ever contested, and usually don't write about it to avoid irresoluble feuds.

But the last week discovered one or some Korean Wikipedia editors have detailed some radar ranges compilations and number of T/R modules (From OSINT) on many radar types entries on Korean Wikipedia:
https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-1

And here Chinese radar ranges (Obviously South Koreans are very interested on it!):
https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/346%EC%8B%9D_%EB%A0%88%EC%9D%B4%EB%8D%94

(in reply to kojis)
Post #: 3908
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/3/2018 9:07:27 AM   
sergiopl

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline
The problem with the SPY-1 range is that the most credible sources constantly refers to a figure that dates back to the late 80s (even quoted in the first part of the Korean article: 175 nm max range, and 45 nm against sea-skimmers).

But later on, in that same article, they are nearly spot on with the 450-1,000 km range (450 km against air targets, 1,000 km against ballistic missiles).

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/3/2018 9:08:17 AM >

(in reply to Broncepulido)
Post #: 3909
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/3/2018 10:33:02 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
quote:

Please add US Navy EC-24A Electronic Aggressor Aircraft. Thank you!

Training but probably fleet support as well. Spent lots of time in Waddington UK. IOC=1966 Retired=1998


Stats (Global Security)
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ec-24-specs.htm

EC-24A=series 50 DC-8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-8

More stats

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/163050.html

Pictures
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ec-24-pics.htm

quote:

The Naval Test Wing Pacific provides test aircraft and the ability to modify these aircraft in support of test and training operations. During realistic Fleet training and weapon systems Test and Evaluation (T&E), representative target vehicles are used in a realistic, radio frequency (RF), threat environment. The AN/ULQ-21(V) modules are mounted inside the AN/ALQ-167(V) pod in many different combinations of modules. As the airborne ³host vehicle² for ECM systems, the AN/ALQ-167(V) pod can be carried on manned aircraft. These aircraft include the A-6E, the EA-6A, the EA-6B, the EP-3J, the F-14A/B/D, the F/A-18A/D, the EC-24A, the NKC-135 and the Q-Lear.

(in reply to sergiopl)
Post #: 3910
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/4/2018 6:59:00 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kojis

Please add upcoming Finnish Navy Squadron 2020 -project to database. Project name is Squadron 2020 and class name is Pohjanmaa, 4 new corvets total.

Details are still estimates.

  • Lenght: 105m
  • Displacement: 3000t
  • Beam: 15m
  • Draft: 5m
  • Speed: 25+ knots (???)
  • Crew: 60-120
  • Bofors 57 mm Mk 3
  • Rheinmetall MASS
  • Torped 47
  • CEROS 200
  • Radar: Integrated to mast (???)
  • Mk 41 VLS
  • ESSM
  • CIWS: Millennium Gun (???)
  • Hull and towed sonars (???)
  • Harpoon RGM-84
  • Helicopter deck and hangar
  • Mine deck (rails)
  • Ice breaking capability
  • Electronic countermeasure, jamming (???)


More info in english:
https://www.defmin.fi/en/administrative_branch/strategic_capability_projects/squadron_2020
https://www.defmin.fi/files/3819/Squadron_2020_The_Finnish_Defence_Forces_strategic_project.pdf








Frankly, none of that is set as definitive. E.g, Harpoon is only one of 3 contenders. FMS permit was sought to make possible sale quicker. Others are NSM and RBS 15 Mk3+.

Only thing definitive is Torped 47, VDS sonar, 57mm gun, CEROS, ice breaking capability and MASS.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to kojis)
Post #: 3911
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/4/2018 8:16:09 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
Please Add UK Marconi S-600 System. Was used on Falklands in late 82 after fight and in UK since 1968. You have other entry for Norway #930

http://marconiradarhistory.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/120674730/MCATP%207-1968%20New%20mobile%20radar.pdf

Source http://marconiradarhistory.pbworks.com/w/page/52557648/The%20Falklands%20Story

Please add for Oman

http://marconiradarhistory.pbworks.com/w/page/68427766/Oman%20Air%20Defence%20Radar%20System

Malaysia 1969

http://marconiradarhistory.pbworks.com/w/page/30050230/S600%20radar

Saudi Arabia 1972

http://www.radarpages.co.uk/download/p172.pdf

Yugoslavia

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

Looks like Kenya, Turkey, Thailand

http://marconiradarhistory.pbworks.com/w/page/36189315/Major%20achievements%20of%20Marconi%20Radar

Abu Dhabi/UAE: 1976

http://marconiradarhistory.pbworks.com/w/page/117429012/Abu%20Dhabi

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 3912
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/6/2018 9:14:47 PM   
Realbarrow

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 3/6/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yvonmukluk
I noticed that the USS Lexington (CV-16) isn't in the DB3000. While obviously it was only a training carrier by 1980, it does have the distinction of being the longest-serving Essex-class carrier, serving up until 1991.


Hello, Ragnar! Your database work is excellent considering the density of data you've had to implement, but I've just noticed the same issue Yvonmukluk did here last summer.

The late-model SCB-27C/125 Essex-class carrier USS Lexington (CV/CVA/CVT-16) was in commission until 1991, well into DB3000's covered time period, but does not appear in DB3000 as of Build 473. Which is bizarre, because it's right there in CWDB and has been there for quite some time.

Would it be possible to (please!) include the Lexington in DB3000 as well?

The final version of Lexington can be found under CWDB ID# 2191. As far as I am aware, Lexington remained fundamentally unchanged from the 60s to the end of its career, and therefore hopefully requires minimal work to port over.

In case you need some hard evidence to support adding it to DB3000, here is a quote on its decommissioning date directly from the ship's factsheet on the official USN website's archives at navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=33.

quote:

Lexington operated out of her home port, Pensacola, as well as Corpus Christi and New Orleans, qualifying student aviators and maintaining the high state of training of both active duty and reserve naval aviators. Lexington marked her 200,000th arrested landing 17 October 1967, and was redesignated CVT-16 on 1 January 1969. She continued as a training carrier for the next 22 years until decommissioned 8 November 1991.


Many thanks in advance!

< Message edited by Realbarrow -- 3/6/2018 9:18:20 PM >

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 3913
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/7/2018 5:52:35 PM   
KLAB


Posts: 355
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: offline
http://fb.ru/article/225458/ryichag-av-noveyshie-sistemyi-radioelektronnoy-borbyi

Mi-8AMTSh Syrian RuAF.
Vitebsk L-370-5
In the absence of any Raduga type transmitter dome like the Mi-24 it would appear the 9M120-1 laser command guided variant is used.
For the purpose of the sim the 9M120-1 is essentially the same as the initial radio series but would be less vulnerable to jamming, and possibly faster.
For consideration please?
K
Just noticed the picture is flipped but it makes the point.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by KLAB -- 3/7/2018 6:42:08 PM >

(in reply to Realbarrow)
Post #: 3914
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/7/2018 9:52:26 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
Spice 1000 now loadout of Israeli Barack F-16C/D. Confirmed by IDF with picture

http://www.iaf.org.il/4470-50031-en/IAF.aspx

(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 3915
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/12/2018 12:01:14 AM   
orca

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline
is it possible to add several types of generic cargo of various sizes (maybe personal, small, medium, large, and very large)

(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 3916
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/16/2018 2:42:20 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
Look like Rodina have replacement of USET-80 coming. Buy 73 UET Torpedo.

Jane Source on a purchase

http://www.janes.com/article/78414/russian-navy-to-receive-73-uet-1-torpedoes-by-2023

Russia Source

http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12164690@egNews

Data Deagles

http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons/Fizik-1_a003312001.aspx

Thank!

(in reply to orca)
Post #: 3917
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/17/2018 4:48:32 PM   
gosnold

 

Posts: 233
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline
Please add EPICURE SIGINT plane to the database.
User: France, 3x
IOC: 2025

The plane is a 3 engine Dassault Falcon business jet carrying a SIGINT (ELINT +COMINT) payload. It replaces the Gabriel SIGINT planes, so should carry an update of the Gabriel's payload. I propose 1x 500nm range, early 2020s all-bands ELINT sensor, and one 500nm early 2020s COMINT sensor.
Comms are likely to be at least link-16 and satcom.

sources: https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/group/press/press-kits/falcon-epicure-serve-french-air-force/
http://www.lepoint.fr/sciences-nature/le-falcon-epicure-futur-espion-de-l-armee-de-l-air-francaise-17-03-2018-2203261_1924.php

(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 3918
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/18/2018 2:06:32 AM   
Zia ur Huriya

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/18/2018
Status: offline
Dear developers,
How about adding the abandoned CGN(X) cruiser to the U.S. Navy as a hypothetical unit? All the specifications remain the same as the CG 21, except the followed:
Damage points: 2500
Standard displacement: 22300 tons
Full displacement: 25464 tons
Propulsion: 1*A1B Nuclear Reactor

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 3919
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/18/2018 7:36:27 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
Look like little update to Sonya minesweep #875

Now 25mm gun back and 30mm CIWS front

See

https://twitter.com/YorukIsik/status/970705259566981120

(in reply to Zia ur Huriya)
Post #: 3920
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/18/2018 11:00:06 PM   
ultradave


Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zia ur Huriya

Dear developers,
How about adding the abandoned CGN(X) cruiser to the U.S. Navy as a hypothetical unit? All the specifications remain the same as the CG 21, except the followed:
Damage points: 2500
Standard displacement: 22300 tons
Full displacement: 25464 tons
Propulsion: 1*A1B Nuclear Reactor


I see one problem with this right off. Propulsion and electric power was to be provided by 2x S6W (Seawolf) reactor plants. There is absolutely no way an A1B plant would fit in that hull. Weapons and sensors would be complete speculation. I guess that's two problems, as much fun as it would be :-)

< Message edited by ultradave -- 3/18/2018 11:03:37 PM >


_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to Zia ur Huriya)
Post #: 3921
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/19/2018 3:08:27 AM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
Ohio Class SSGN

The submarine as currently implemented lacks the capability to carry special operations forces (e.g. Navy SEALS, USMC MARSOC) as cargo. The platform has space for up to 66 SOF personel.

Supporting Documentation:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4100&ct=4&tid=300
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ada491329
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=5767





< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 3/19/2018 3:10:02 AM >

(in reply to ultradave)
Post #: 3922
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/19/2018 3:53:58 AM   
Zia ur Huriya

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/18/2018
Status: offline
It is written on Wikipedia that there were two options to choose from,“using two of the Seawolf-class submarines' 34 MW S6W reactors, and halving one of the two 550 MW(th) A4W reactors used in Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. The first option would not even match Zumwalt for power, while the second option probably would not fit into the Zumwalt hull”. So probably its propulsion would also be a hypothetical unit, for example C2W, C1G, C1B etc.
As for the weapons and sensors, they developers have already made some quite good speculations on the CG 21, for instance the AN/SPY-3&4 Dual Band Radar and the Mk57 PVLS. The missiles in the PVLSs could be SM-3, SM-6, VL-ASROC, or anything that is loaded in today’s Arleigh Burke class destroyers and Ticonderoga class cruisers.

(in reply to ultradave)
Post #: 3923
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/19/2018 10:53:10 AM   
ultradave


Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zia ur Huriya

It is written on Wikipedia that there were two options to choose from,“using two of the Seawolf-class submarines' 34 MW S6W reactors, and halving one of the two 550 MW(th) A4W reactors used in Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. The first option would not even match Zumwalt for power, while the second option probably would not fit into the Zumwalt hull”. So probably its propulsion would also be a hypothetical unit, for example C2W, C1G, C1B etc.
As for the weapons and sensors, they developers have already made some quite good speculations on the CG 21, for instance the AN/SPY-3&4 Dual Band Radar and the Mk57 PVLS. The missiles in the PVLSs could be SM-3, SM-6, VL-ASROC, or anything that is loaded in today’s Arleigh Burke class destroyers and Ticonderoga class cruisers.


I’m a nuclear engineer and I worked on the preliminary design for the reactor plant and propulsion plant of CGN(X). The preliminary design WAS for 2 Seawolf reactors. The 34 MW power rating you quote is wildly incorrect. That's not the power rating of the reactor. That's the shaft horsepower converted to MW. The 550MW you list for A4W IS the reactor power rating. Different kettle of fish. Unfortunately I can't reveal the actual rating. (It's bigger). There's no "probably" about fitting an A4W plant. It didn't fit. Not even close and it wasn't ever seriously considered.

There was also no option for development of a new reactor. That would have taken many years of up front work that would have had to have been started long before the ship design and the cost would have been prohibitive for what the Navy wanted for CGN(x). That's why the Seawolf reactor was chosen. Already a proven design and there had been plans to build 20 Seawolfs before the Soviet Union collapsed and the class was cancelled at 3.




< Message edited by ultradave -- 3/19/2018 11:18:08 AM >


_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to Zia ur Huriya)
Post #: 3924
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/19/2018 11:27:53 AM   
ultradave


Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline
deleted

< Message edited by ultradave -- 3/19/2018 11:28:25 AM >


_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to ultradave)
Post #: 3925
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/19/2018 2:18:34 PM   
Zia ur Huriya

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/18/2018
Status: offline
Thanks for your informative reply and for clearing up my misunderstanding regarding the reactors.

(in reply to ultradave)
Post #: 3926
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/19/2018 2:42:38 PM   
ultradave


Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zia ur Huriya

Thanks for your informative reply and for clearing up my misunderstanding regarding the reactors.


No problem. In general you won't find accurate numbers for US submarine reactor plant power ratings anywhere. Any that you do find should be taken as estimates. Whoever wrote that Wikipedia article didn't have a good understanding of what the numbers were.

_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to Zia ur Huriya)
Post #: 3927
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/20/2018 9:04:28 PM   
Hongjian

 

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline
The 2nd Type 927 SURTASS ship has been launched
On occasion of the serial production of this class of ASW ships, I would like to lobby the devs for the addition of this ship.
The equipment would be comparable to that of the USNS Impeccable, which serves a similar purpose.

https://twitter.com/xinfengcao/status/976111929499574272




(in reply to ultradave)
Post #: 3928
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/21/2018 9:55:11 PM   
Psawhn

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/21/2018
Status: offline
I've got a couple minor database fixes for Canada.

1. ADATS
1.a. Because it's "Air Defense Anti Tank System", it can hit ground targets, too. Can you add land structures and mobile vehicles to its valid targets?
1.b. The warhead is a combined fragmentation and shaped charge warhead; can this be modeled in the database? With the damage models, this should make it more lethal to ground and air targets than just a frag warhead.


2. CRV7 70 mm Rocket
2.a. Can you change the CSAR loadout for the CH-146 Griffon from Hydra-70 rockets to the domestically-produced CRV7?
2.b. It uses the exact same M151 ten-pound warhead as the Hydra-70. Can you synchronize its damage values with the Hydra?
2.c. If Wikipedia and the manufacturer's brochures are to be believed, supposedly it has better accuracy and kinematic performance to the Hydra-70. Would it be worth it to reflect that in the database?
2.d. Can you add the CRV7-PG, a laser-seeking variant pretty much the same as the database-extant HYDRA APKWS II? I don't know how to find deployment information, but I figure they're available for platforms that are: 1) Have a post-2007 variant, 2) Already carry the CRV7, and 3) Carry a laser designator or laser designator pod. This limits them to only a handful of platforms.
I'm not allowed to post links, but the Wikipedia page has links to the manufacturer's brochures in pdf form.

(in reply to Hongjian)
Post #: 3929
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/22/2018 2:13:21 AM   
miller7219

 

Posts: 220
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline
CWDB B998.7

Beginning with #1624 - CA 124 Rochester all the way through #59 CAG 2 Canberra, all have incorrect aircraft facilities. All are US cruisers that have aircraft carrier arresting wires, catapults, and/or 24 aircraft capacity.

< Message edited by miller7219 -- 3/22/2018 2:14:50 AM >

(in reply to Temple)
Post #: 3930
Page:   <<   < prev  129 130 [131] 132 133   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? Page: <<   < prev  129 130 [131] 132 133   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

1.234