RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

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: New USN frigate: FF 29

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: New USN frigate: FF 29

Page: << < prev 94 95 [96] 97 98 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 6/26/2016 1:08:27 AM

ckfinite

Posts: 377
Joined: 7/20/2013
Status: offline

As far as I can tell, the Zumwalt should be able to carry at least SM-2MR, which would be consistent with its operation with ESSM. At the moment, in game, the Mk57 only supports TLAM, VLS-ASROC, ESSM, and SM-3.

(in reply to Excroat3)

Post #: 2851

RE: RE:9M96D - 6/26/2016 9:40:38 AM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: walsherik

Hi all

Is there a template for reporting missing units / Updating units in the databases or just collect as much info and send it in ?

Cheers

Most of the info that we require is in the Database Viewer, but yeah the more info the better

_____________________________

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

(in reply to walsherik)

Post #: 2852

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 6/26/2016 9:40:57 AM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Excroat3

Quick question, will the new version of the DB be released along with 11.5? Also, is there a general timeframe on the release of 11.5? Just wondering if I should wait for the new units to come out in the new DB or if I should just use placeholders for the time being in my scenario.

Soon, very soon (I hope, lol!).

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Excroat3)

Post #: 2853

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 6/26/2016 9:27:46 PM

gosnold

Posts: 233
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline

#68 - Trumpet II satellite has the SBIRS HEO package mdeled as:

Model Max Range Notes Abilities
1x Generic Satellite IR Camera 2000 nm Infrared, Ballistic Missile Launch Detection Infrared, 3rd Generation Imaging (2000s/2010s, Impr LANTIRN, Litening II/III, ATFLIR) Technology, ABM & Space Search, Heading Info

The range is too short, it does not reach the Earth from geostationary orbit, so the sensor cannot detect any missile launches (tried and confirmed ingame).
The range should be the same as the ELINT payload, so 25000nm.

All missile warning satellites in the database seem to have this issue.

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 2854

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 6/27/2016 12:01:40 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckfinite

As far as I can tell, the Zumwalt should be able to carry at least SM-2MR, which would be consistent with its operation with ESSM. At the moment, in game, the Mk57 only supports TLAM, VLS-ASROC, ESSM, and SM-3.

The navy themselves at one time claimed otherwise...

"On 31 July 2008, Vice Admiral Barry McCullough (Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Integration of Resources and Capabilities) and Allison Stiller (Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Ship Programs) stated that "the DDG 1000 cannot perform area air defense; specifically, it cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), SM-3 or SM-6 and is incapable of conducting Ballistic Missile Defense."[70] Dan Smith, president of Raytheon�s Integrated Defense Systems division, has countered that the radar and combat system are essentially the same as other SM-2-capable ships, "I can�t answer the question as to why the Navy is now asserting � that Zumwalt is not equipped with an SM-2 capability".[21] The lack of anti-ballistic missile capability may represent a lack of compatibility with SM-2/SM-3. "

Not sure where it stands now.

Just looked at the naval budget for 2012. Plan was to start quals for an upgrade for DDG-1000 to be compatible with SM-2. Looks like an electronis and software integration issue that USN was looking to resolve...

http://dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2014/Navy/stamped/0604366N_5_PB_2014.pdf

Just found 2015. Looks like integration work is ongoing. Might be budget reductions have slowed the work down.

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 6/27/2016 12:14:24 AM >

(in reply to ckfinite)

Post #: 2855

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 6/27/2016 2:25:59 AM

ckfinite

Posts: 377
Joined: 7/20/2013
Status: offline

From that though, it looks like neither ESSM nor SM-2 could have illumination provided by SPY-3 until the software upgrade was performed, in which case the ship shouldn't have ESSM, its only in game air defense weapon, either.

Edit: from this in the 2017 budget, the program is still cranking along.

Edit 2:

Here are some previous budget reports for the program:

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

It looks like that the missiles would be fielded on the DDG 1000 at about 2018. There's also this thesis on JUWL integration with ESSM and SM-2. It looks like that if the DDG 1000 has ESSM, though, it should have SM-2 at the same time.

quote:

The 2018 number is a synthesis of the lines

2015:

quote:

SM Development, integration, and test is expected to conclude by FY18 for the X-band JUWL and ICWI.

2016:

quote:

Conduct
planning and configure SM-2/ESSM/SM-6 Internal Missile Initializer and Power Supply (IMIPS) Inert Operating
Missile (IOM) in preparation for land based testing at Surface Combat Systems Center, Wallops Island, Virginia
(SCSC) in FY 18.

Thesis:

quote:

The JUWL integration plan is very ambitious. The current schedule allows each
missile variant one three-to-four month period for �ground-based� integration with the
C/S prior to at-sea flight testing. At this time, the ground integration tests will be
performed with a version of the C/S software that will be different than the flight test
version. Successful flight tests will therefore depend a great deal on the type and extent of
the differences in the final two DDG-1000 C/S software versions and the base APAR
software that has directed JUWL development. As discussed above, the lack of radar and
WCE models has forced the JUWL developers to use the original APAR/ICWI software
as a basis for modeling and component testing.

This suggests that the on-short component of testing for SM will begin in 2017 (FY 2018), continuing for three to four months, followed by what appears to be at most a year of at sea flight testing. This would therefore suggest a SM-2 IOC on the DDG 1000 by 2018, assuming no slips.

< Message edited by ckfinite -- 6/30/2016 12:09:34 AM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 2856

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 6/27/2016 6:20:34 PM

peterc100248

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/21/2016
Status: offline

The US aircraft loadouts for F-18 variants (and other types as well) carry the ITALD decoy and the MALD-J miniature multi-configurable device. There is a pure decoy MALD available to some aircraft, but seemingly not any of the F-18s. In reality, all the MALD variants are inter-operable across the USAF/USN aircraft certified to carry the device. The MALD-J can function as either aircraft simulator/decoy or jammer yet there is no way to set the desired operation within the program. Maybe add all the MALD variants to any aircraft certified to carry it?

I still maintain that the program, as is, has a huge problem with decoys. Unless the targets have their doctrine set to weapons free and radars set to active, the decoys are just ignored. That makes the use of decoys a waste of time. The same units with weapons set to tight and radars off almost always engage real weapons. Decoys are specifically designed to emulate aircraft/weapons in any aspect of their deployment.

I can say from experience that decoys, carried on ICBMs/SLBMs, are a very effective way to hide MIRV warheads from the most advanced defense systems on earth. If the decoy does not fool the defender into targeting it, the decoy has no reason for existence.

Whatever the AI decision making process is for launching attacks on hostile aircraft/missiles/bombs needs to be exactly the same when applied to decoys. The whole visual argument just doesn't wash due to the difficulty of identifying an object coming straight at you at 550 kts (900+ feet per second) and 30 ft. above the surface. You simply do not have time to decide it is harmless - you shoot.

< Message edited by peterc100248 -- 6/27/2016 6:25:11 PM >

(in reply to ckfinite)

Post #: 2857

RE: R-23/24T R-27T - 6/27/2016 9:39:06 PM

PN79

Posts: 173
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

...

The R-23/24T is more complex as there seems to have been a wiring issue with the pylons (in the early variants?) and thus the missile was deployed as either the 2 x T or 2 x R not singularly.

...

MiG-23MF cannot carry one R-23R together with another R-23T but MiG-23ML could carry such combination. Also currently all MiG-23ML in the database are set to carry only R-24R/R-24T and not any R-23 variants, currently MiG-23ML radar cannot iluminate R-23R missile which is not correct as MiG-23ML system can handle R-23R (and R-23T) and for example Czechoslovakia never bought any R-24 missiles and only R-23R and R-23T were carried by our MiG-23ML.

(in reply to KLAB)

Post #: 2858

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 6/28/2016 7:56:30 AM

CrazyIvan101

Posts: 37
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Excroat3

Quick question, will the new version of the DB be released along with 11.5? Also, is there a general timeframe on the release of 11.5? Just wondering if I should wait for the new units to come out in the new DB or if I should just use placeholders for the time being in my scenario.

Soon, very soon (I hope, lol!).

I heard that laser mechanics were going to improved/changed, is this still planned?

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 2859

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 6/28/2016 5:08:24 PM

peterc100248

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/21/2016
Status: offline

Found another weapon entry that needs attention:

Weapon 2733 - Raytheon AGM-176A Griffin

Current database lists range as 3 nm - However, that is for a current un-powered missile (bomb) in air/surface mode. When loaded onto aircraft and forward-fired, the Block II B model (powered) has a range of 12 nm. The current database (update to 837) lists guidance as Laser spot only. The below reference also lists GPS guidance (even on the A model).

The Griffin can be substituted for Hellfire missiles on all Hellfire-capable platforms. It allows 3 Griffins in place of 1 Hellfire. That is particularly attractive for drone aircraft.

Quick source: Military.Wikia.com

(in reply to CrazyIvan101)

Post #: 2860

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 7/2/2016 3:29:56 PM

ShadowStalker887

Posts: 3
Joined: 6/25/2016
Status: offline

Hello again, I've managed to find another database issue. This is with the Chinese H/PJ-17 30mm single-barrel gun which seems to have mistakenly been given the stats of a CIWS weapon (%70 accuracy against aircraft/missiles and unable to attack land targets), instead of a it having stats equivalent to a typhoon (%4 accuracy against aircraft/missile, able to attack land targets). This is a rather annoying problem, as it significantly increases the amount of CIWS modern Chinese warships get making them unrealistically harder to hit with AShM's. Thank you for continuing to improve the game and I hope to see this issue fixed soon.

Fixed Thanks!

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 8/4/2016 1:53:06 AM >

(in reply to peterc100248)

Post #: 2861

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 7/3/2016 3:00:32 PM

Rongor

Posts: 451
Joined: 3/25/2014
Status: offline

Hey there,
I request the addition of some sorts of fixed antenna structures to the facilities in the DB.
We currently have some coms buildings, like the Uplink relay station or the Radio/TV station, but there is only the "TV mast" when it comes to actual antennas.
Besides it took me long to eventually detect the TV mast at all while looking for a generic antenna facility, we could use some variety, especially if we keep in mind the size of such facilities.
So I suggest some generic antenna masts of different scale, so we have antennas for all kind of different frequencies and purposes.

Only a suggestion:
- VLF/LF/MF mast
- HF antenna
- VHF/UHF broadcast antenna
- VHF/UHF communications antenna
- satellite uplink
- aeronavigational transmitter (standing for VOR, TACAN, DME, NDB)
- telecommunications mast (interlinking or simply representing cell)
Since these all should represent fixed sites and no mobile antenna sets, they would have heights of some tens up to more than 250 meters. Respectively they require increasing areas on the ground.

alternatively:
As long as there are no actual generic emissions implemented in CMANO to be picked up by SIGINT sensors, we probably could as well work with a simple system of some "generic antenna mast", offering some incremental sizes of let's say 10 meters, 25 meters, 100 meters, 250 meters and higher...

< Message edited by Rongor -- 7/3/2016 3:04:55 PM >

(in reply to ShadowStalker887)

Post #: 2862

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 7/4/2016 5:02:12 PM

edsw

Posts: 59
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Ukraine
Status: offline

Please add to the arsenal of MiG-29 SMT and Su-30 SM rocket P-77-1, there are photos of these aircraft launchers AKU-170 in the Russian Air Force, and add to pr. 636 Varshavyanka 2 not launch device 3m14 and 3m54 missiles and launching devices 4.
Sorry for my English)

(in reply to Rongor)

Post #: 2863

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 7/4/2016 5:18:19 PM

JamitovHymem

Posts: 47
Joined: 7/4/2016
Status: offline

The Petr Velikiy has a naming issue
The 2023 version is currently named 1144.2 and the 1999 version is named 1144.2M

There seems to be something wrong with the J-10C in the database
The image belongs to Su30MKK2
And everything else are exactly the same as J-10B including sensors and weapons

Z-10: The Z-10 in game uses 12.7mm gun
Z-10 and Z-19 both lacks TY-90 in game

(in reply to edsw)

Post #: 2864

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 7/4/2016 5:49:36 PM

Dysta

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JamitovHymem
There seems to be something wrong with the J-10C in the database
The image belongs to Su30MKK2
And everything else are exactly the same as J-10B including sensors and weapons

I think it's just a new unannounced unit in SP1, definitely worth to search info about it for adjustment. As for picture, report issue here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3441939

quote:

ORIGINAL: JamitovHymem
Z-10: The Z-10 in game uses 12.7mm gun
Z-10 and Z-19 both lacks TY-90 in game

I think it's because PLA never disclose what exactly the caliber of Z-10 gun using at all, as well as the thin barrel make observers harder to believe it's 23mm, or anything larger than 12.7mm.

Anyone need a ruler for this picture?

As for Z-19, the pylon it used does shown in CCTV before:

It's very familiar to this, which is confirmed to mount TY-90:

However, none of a Z-19 being photographed with TY-90, even with this pylon installed. And it does have some doubts of Z-19 capable to use it or not.

Although the older Z-9W (attack helicopter version of Z-9) was shown TY-90 being loaded, it never been seen again afterward for many years.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 7/4/2016 5:58:40 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to JamitovHymem)

Post #: 2865

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 7/5/2016 2:10:38 AM

JamitovHymem

Posts: 47
Joined: 7/4/2016
Status: offline

youtube.co m/watch?v=U4hjLLAunfk
But in the news it says 30mm
and later it also mentions that they both have the ability to use the TY-90

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 2866

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 7/5/2016 2:37:21 AM

Dysta

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JamitovHymem

youtube.co m/watch?v=U4hjLLAunfk
But in the news it says 30mm
and later it also mentions that they both have the ability to use the TY-90

Well, I found what you've mentioned:

Left side wrote 30mm auto-cannon.

Second row, (capable to use) Helicopter-specific AAM (refer to TY-90).

CCTV/CNTV is definitely the state-running news, but also quite common that quoting wrong military sources, pictures and specifications. Still, it's only the source that is came from the governmental mouthpiece.

How contradicting, isn't it?

Now, what we need to search for is pictures, I mean the photography-quality pictures, of Z-19 with TY-90, and a single cartridge of Z-10 30mm shell, then it will be convincing for devs.

_____________________________

(in reply to JamitovHymem)

Post #: 2867

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 7/5/2016 8:40:01 AM

JamitovHymem

Posts: 47
Joined: 7/4/2016
Status: offline

In addition to the names, there seem to be some errors on the sensors of the two Petr Velikiy
The sensors on the 2019 version are newer than the ones on the 2023 refit version

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 2868

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 7/5/2016 10:13:09 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrazyIvan101

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Excroat3
Quick question, will the new version of the DB be released along with 11.5? Also, is there a general timeframe on the release of 11.5? Just wondering if I should wait for the new units to come out in the new DB or if I should just use placeholders for the time being in my scenario.

Soon, very soon (I hope, lol!).

I heard that laser mechanics were going to improved/changed, is this still planned?

It is. If you have a specific mechanics addition/improvement to suggest, please use the dedicated thread for this.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to CrazyIvan101)

Post #: 2869

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 7/6/2016 5:34:42 AM

VIF2NE

Posts: 457
Joined: 7/12/2013
Status: offline

3MD BISON-C - 1960 series production bomber with engines VD-7B, pointed nose with a bar at the end of refueling. Equipped with a sighting and navigation system with circular-looking radar "Rubin" (2 cm, the detection range of large terrestrial radio-goals - 400 km, a large ship - 200-250 km, all-round visibility).

M-4 BISON
Bomber radar sight of the RPB-4 (PUFF BALL). In the stern - radar control aft gun mount "Argon". At 3M an optical bombsight PB-11, autopilot and navigation and bombing NBA automatic warning system on the irradiation of the enemy radar, 3 block release chaff, jamming station SPS-2, AFA-42 aerial camera, or a modification of the night.

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-247.html

_____________________________

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 2870

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 7/6/2016 8:44:43 AM

edsw

Posts: 59
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Ukraine
Status: offline

militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-211.html

(in reply to VIF2NE)

Post #: 2871

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29 - 7/6/2016 8:46:44 AM

edsw

Posts: 59
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Ukraine
Status: offline

correct the sonar pr.636 Varshavyanka to sonar MGK-400EM
//militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-722.html
correct the sonar pr.677 Lada to sonar Lira
//militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-217.html
sorry for my English, and I do not know how to insert links

(in reply to VIF2NE)

Post #: 2872

F-35/F-22 RCS - 7/10/2016 7:18:14 PM

Showtime 100_MatrixForum

Posts: 29
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

A bit vague as there are (obviously) no exact numbers available, but public statements by the USAF suggest that the F-35's RCS is lower than the F-22's (at least from some aspects):

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Air Force Magazine, USAF Generals Christopher Bogden and Mike Hostage

Hostage caused a stir in late spring when, in press interviews, he said the F-35 would be stealthier than the F-22, its larger USAF stablemate. Conventional wisdom had pegged the F-22, with its angled, vectored-thrust engines, as a stealthier machine than the F-35. Hostage also said the F-35 would be unbeatable when employed in numbers, which is why the full buy of aircraft is "so critical."

"I would say that General Hostage � is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Breaking Defense, General Mike Hostage
The F-35�s cross section is much smaller than the F-22�s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.

I recognize that these aren't exactly exact numbers, but I thought it could be worth tweaking their RCS to reflect these statements. It's up to the devs in the end, of course, as it's not my game :)

(in reply to edsw)

Post #: 2873

RE: F-35/F-22 RCS - 7/11/2016 12:26:02 AM

Broncepulido

Posts: 385
Joined: 9/26/2013
Status: offline

Previously, in 2005:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx

quote:

The U.S. Air Force, in it's effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how "stealthy" the F-22 is. It's RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all.

The air force revealed this information, which is usually kept secret, because it wants to make the case that it makes more sense to cut production of the F-35 (which cost $30-50 million each), so that more F-22s (that cost over $100 million each) can be bought. Most of the air force generals are former fighter pilots, and the F-22 is a much hotter fighter than the F-35 (which is basically a fighter-bomber, with emphasis on the latter function.) This is causing an international uproar, because of the many foreign countries that are buying the F-35. Some of these countries have contributed money for the development of the F-35. The F-22 will not be exported, because it uses so much top secret technology.

Some similar statements here in 2012, linking to globalsecurity.org:
https://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-79235.aspx#startofcomments
And ausairpower.net
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html#mozTocId93619

< Message edited by Broncepulido -- 7/11/2016 12:31:48 AM >

(in reply to Showtime 100_MatrixForum)

Post #: 2874

RE: F-35/F-22 RCS - 7/11/2016 1:07:12 AM

Vici Supreme

Posts: 558
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Southern Germany
Status: offline

I'm trying to add the submunitions variant of the SS-26 Stone [9M723 Iskander-M] (DBID #567) to an Iskander battalion, however the missile does not show up in the "Add Weapon Record" and "Add Weapon Mount" tabs. Not sure what'S going on. Am I missing something?

Btw, the submunitions variant of the 9M723 Iskander-M is labeled with a 2010 side note in the DB viewer. Mind adding those to both, 2010/DBID #254 and 2012/DBID #2556 versions of the Iskander battalions in the Russian DB section? Already got a use for those.

Honestly, thanks for the ongoing support of this amazing sim!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Supreme 2.0 -- 7/11/2016 1:10:35 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Broncepulido)

Post #: 2875

RE: F-35/F-22 RCS - 7/12/2016 4:58:32 AM

Showtime 100_MatrixForum

Posts: 29
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Broncepulido

Previously, in 2005:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx

Some similar statements here in 2012, linking to globalsecurity.org:
https://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-79235.aspx#startofcomments
And ausairpower.net
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html#mozTocId93619

Post-2012 statements seem to tell a different story. Here's one from 2014, sourcing an F-22 pilot: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2015/august/04/f35-lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

quote:

ORIGINAL: AOPA
During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. �Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.�

APA's physical optics approach is... well, I'm not going to suggest it's quite as bad as a random number generator, but it's not far from it.

(in reply to Broncepulido)

Post #: 2876

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/16/2016 5:15:48 PM

Lnestig

Posts: 49
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

Regarding the JAS 39C/D 2016 and 2018 versions.

I think they should be able to carry the RB 99 not just the Meteor.
Sweden also have bought a small number of AIM-120C-5 missiles, is it possible to add a loadout with these?

Thanks

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 2877

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/16/2016 8:13:13 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Updated request list to this point

Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Lnestig)

Post #: 2878

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/17/2016 2:11:20 PM

Skjold

Posts: 240
Joined: 9/29/2015
Status: offline

Etendard IVP #67 seems like it is missing its internal recon loadout.

It is a recon plane with no loadout other then Tanker loadout, i am almost 100 % it can be used as a tanker so no error there just rather the lack of the recon one.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 2879

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/18/2016 1:30:46 AM

jun5896

Posts: 216
Joined: 1/17/2015
Status: offline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-25_Stingray

New Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System (CBARS) UAV (2021?)

RAQ-25 was officially renamed as MQ-25

< Message edited by jun5896 -- 7/18/2016 1:40:20 AM >

(in reply to Skjold)

Post #: 2880