Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: orca

Can you add the future royal navy helo AEW which will replace the Sea King ASaC.7. It is the Crowsnest radar system which is the EL/M-2052 AESA radar. The Crowsnest kit is roll-on/roll-off mission fit for the 30 RN Merlin HM.2 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopters.

http://www.janes.com/article/48859/lockheed-martin-rolls-out-crowsnest-solution
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/thales-bags-selection-for-rn-crowsnest-system-412700/
http://www.janes.com/article/51627/thales-selected-to-provide-crowsnest-mission-fit
http://defense-update.com/20150208_crowsnest.html#.VdALTlNVhBc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EL/M-2052
http://www.iai.co.il/2013/36566-34455-en/ELTA%20-%20Systems%20by%20Product%20Lines.aspx

thanks

quote:

Crowsnest

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: blh42

The Russian missile cruiser Kirov-class is apparently being updated to carry S-400 SAM's.

Source: https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/107237.html

blh

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: B52H

[Lakota ADDED DB v440]

UH-72A Lakota (USA, Thailand)

Introduction: 2007

Range: 350 Nautical Miles

Number Built: 300+

Y-20 Kunpeng (PLAAF)

Introduction: Unknown (Probably 2020s)

Range: 6000 Miles

Number Built: 4 (Prototypes)

S-97 Raider (US Army)

Introduction: 2020s

Range: 354 Miles

Number Built: 1 (Prototype)

F-16V Viper

Introduction: Late 2010s

Range:Same as F-16C Blk 52

Number Built: 0

F-16IN Super Viper (Hypothetical) (IAF)

Introduction: Late 2010s-Early 2020s

Range: Same as F-16C Blk 52

Number Built: 0

Do you plan on expanding conflicts into the 2030s or even 2040s? If so, I would recommend to look up "Wrath of the Skies Project" on Google Images. I thought these were some nice looking designs that could be implemented in the game for future conflicts. Thoughts?

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

Extremely low priority (just a typo really) but for pretty much all USAF F-16Cs 2005 and onward, the BRU-55 twin rack (for GBU38 and 54) should actually be the BRU-57. The BRU-55 is the Navy version on the F/A-18.

http://www.exelisinc.com/solutions/Cartridge-Actuated-Multiple-Carriage/Pages/default.aspx

Note that this also implies that maybe there should be multi (L)JDAM load BRU-55 loads for Navy and Marine C model Hornets, I know they've done 3 and 4 GBU-38s on a jet operationally. But I have no need for these loadouts right now so no hurry at all.

Also not implemented yet are USAF F-16C SDB loads starting from about the 2014 model. With either 8 SDBs or 4 SDBs + a BRU 57 with either 2 54s or 2 38s.

Again: no urgent need for me at all. Just reporting.

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

quote:

I might also add that the Type 052C Luyang-II still needs some fixing, though. In the DB, it still lacks its ECM suite, towed torpedo decoy and Mineral-ME OTH radars, systems that she shares with the 052D and 054A.

The 052C Luyang-II's only difference to the 052D Luyang-III is, aside of the main radars, that it lacks a VDS. ECM, OTH and torpedo-decoy remain consistent with the other/newer ships.

Didn't find out actually, but could you elaborate what kind of ECM system are they using? Name, range and abilities.

I found it, it's HZ-100 (originally named Type 825, not found in database) and Type 984 (in database, only used by 052D).

It's also been used by 054, 054A and 052C. 056 and other older combat vessels are remain unconfirmed.

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

Kit-2 TLAMs

During Desert Storm, the US used TLAMs to deliver Kit-2 filaments to Iraqi power plants. Can probably use the existing BLU-114/B warhead, although it should probably carry 2 dispensers like the other TLAM Ds. Other specs can probably be copied straight from the entry #231 - RGM-109D Tomahawk Blk II TLAM -- 1989-1998.

DB entry should probably be RGM-109D Tomahawk Blk II TLAM - 1991, Anti-Electrical, Desert Storm

Sources: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-114.htm
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_7/tlam.html
Google Books

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

The F/A-18F's fuel quantity is wrong. In game it is the same as the E model, whereas the real F has ~700 lbs less to make room for the extra crew member.

Minor, but should really be changed.

Source: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18ef/
Also, the declassified flight manual with show this as well.

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrianinMinnie
Hi All

I’m a little confused when I see the term "fixed", does this mean the database or data entry is fixed for the next downloadable update i.e. 1.09 or such? Or is it a downloadable update that’s available for just the database, i.e. db3000. If it’s just a db update, how do I update and where do I get from when\if it’s available?

Thanks

Brian

p.s. great work!!

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV60

There is a possible error in the AGM-62 Walleye ranges. First of all, standard disclaimer: As these are glide weapons, the range of the weapon is release-altitude dependent. However, the maximum ranges in the database are less than what some sources give.

Weapon_1665 (AGM-62A) database gives a 1-10 nm range. Chant, Christopher, "A Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware", pg. 505 gives the range as 1-16 nm (see https://books.google.com/books?id=zUu4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA505&lpg=PA505&dq=AGM-62A&source=bl&ots=vDPRm9cRwc&sig=O7mVtG8cZ5O6XvoUH5EcysBh8n4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCWoVChMIyeGMvOS6xwIVBHySCh2D-QY1#v=onepage&q=AGM-62A&f=false). The USAF museum also uses the 16 nm figure http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/195663/martin-marietta-agm-62-walleye-i.aspx

Weapon_1057 (AGM-62A ER/DL) database gives a 1-15 nm range. I have been unable to find range data for the AGM-62A ER/DL, but believe it should be at least the 16 nm given for the baseline 62A, and probably further.

Weapon_1057 (AGM-62B) database gives a 1-10 nm range. Chant, Christopher, "A Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware", pg. 505 gives the range as 1-24 nm (see https://books.google.com/books?id=zUu4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA505&lpg=PA505&dq=AGM-62A&source=bl&ots=vDPRm9cRwc&sig=O7mVtG8cZ5O6XvoUH5EcysBh8n4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCWoVChMIyeGMvOS6xwIVBHySCh2D-QY1#v=onepage&q=AGM-62A&f=false).

Weapon_1862 (AGM-62B ER/DL) database gives a 1-20 nm range. Chant, Christopher, "A Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware", pg. 505 gives the range as 1-32 nm (see https://books.google.com/books?id=zUu4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA505&lpg=PA505&dq=AGM-62A&source=bl&ots=vDPRm9cRwc&sig=O7mVtG8cZ5O6XvoUH5EcysBh8n4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCWoVChMIyeGMvOS6xwIVBHySCh2D-QY1#v=onepage&q=AGM-62A&f=false).

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Sorry for dropping off the scope, been a busy period. Youngest kid started school so finally done with the kindergarden

Will try to catch up this weekend but no promises.

Thanks again everyone for your support

quote:

Thanks for bringing up this one. It seems the effective range was actually limited by the seeker, which was a really crappy TV camera set. Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ4cDFP0CQk

So although the bomb could probably glide a considerable distance, it seems the weapon was used at relatively short ranges operationally. Even with DL mid-course guidance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV60

For the older AGM-82A, the 10 nm is probably okay. In http://www.8tfw.com/pages/8thhistory1968.htm, the author discusses releasing at 6 nm from target in a permissive environment, implying they would release further out if necessary, so the 10 nm figure is probably okay for the max effective range. However, I'm not sure about WALLEYE II. While the TV image may be bad, the idea behind the AGM-62B ER/DL was that the missile would be released in the direction of the target and enroute the AGM-62B would be locked onto as the bomb approached the target. See http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-62.html ("The next major step in the evolution of Walleye was the ERDL (Extended Range Data Link) modification. One drawback of the Walleye's guidance system was the requirement to lock the seeker onto the target before launch, meaning that the attack aircraft had to come relatively close to a potentially heavily defended target. The ERDL system equipped the Walleye with a two-way datalink, and the launch aircraft were equipped with an AN/AWW-9 (later AN/AWW-13) underwing data-link pod. The pilot could now launch the Walleye out of visual range of the target, turn away, watch the bomb's TV camera image, which was transmitted via the data-link, and lock-on to the target at any convenient moment." )

With that said, it would be difficult to get the full range under operational conditions. However, against a fixed, pre-planned target, the tactic of lobbing the bomb towards the target and locking on as it the weapon got closer would, (I would think) allow it to be used at longer ranges. Additionally, against some fixed targets (bridges, buildings, etc) the image, as bad as it is, would still be perfectly okay for guidance. Possibly someone with real-world experience could provide some insight as whether the true effective range of the AGB-62B ERDL is greater than the current figure in the database?

quote:

Thanks for bringing up this one. It seems the effective range was actually limited by the seeker, which was a really crappy TV camera set. Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ4cDFP0CQk

So although the bomb could probably glide a considerable distance, it seems the weapon was used at relatively short ranges operationally. Even with DL mid-course guidance.

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Sorry for dropping off the scope, been a busy period. Youngest kid started school so finally done with the kindergarden

Will try to catch up this weekend but no promises.

Thanks again everyone for your support

Thank you for adding the Honduras and Guatemala platforms. I'm working on a small Mexico vs. Guatemala scenario right now.

I definitely know about being busy with kids! We're driving my daughter from Michigan to New York next week so we can take her back to college for her senior year [please insert extensive bragging about my beautiful, genius daughter here].

Do you want me to add requests (with information) for platforms from Nicaragua and El Salvador, too? I've got most of the information already so it won't be any problem to post it. (Their navies are small and pretty much all their aircraft are in the database already, so with those it's just a matter of providing the operational dates.)

Also, do you want data for the Mech. Infantry platforms (BT-152, etc.) I requested earlier? They're all in the CWDB already, but if it is easier for you if I post the data here, I can look it up and copy/retype it. It's not a problem.

Thanks again for all your work on the database. You and the rest of the Command developers are amazing!

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

The HZ-100 could be the 'system designation'. Do you know what subsystem it is made up of?

Thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

if we're really down to the the Nicaraguan coast guard I'd say we're in good shape

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Now, if I could only get you guys to add flying saucers and giant sea monsters. If those were available, I would definitely use them!

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Now, if I could only get you guys to add flying saucers and giant sea monsters. If those were available, I would definitely use them!

What would the storyline be for a scen like that haha

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Thanks, have updated the name.

Seems the BRU-55 on the Hornet is only lab-tested and not actually operational? As for larger GBU loadouts, it would be great if you could help me with some photos

Same for the SDB on the F-16.

Thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Now, if I could only get you guys to add flying saucers and giant sea monsters. If those were available, I would definitely use them!

What would the storyline be for a scen like that haha