Page 109 of 371
RE: Brimstone BOL
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:42 pm
by Tomcat84
[FIXED DB v440]
Seems to be some Damage Point inconsistencies for Underground Avgas tanks and Runway grade taxiways.
Runway grade taxiways:
450m - 450 DP
900m - 4800 DP
1400m - 3200 DP
2000m - 4800 DP
2600m - 6400 DP
3200m - 1200 DP
4000m - 1400 DP
5600m - 1400 DP
Avgas fuel tanks (underground)
100K liter - 1600 DP - Special (201-500mm RHA) Armor
150K liter - 40 DP - Light(41-90mm RHA) Armor
200K liter - 1600 DP - Special (201-500mm RHA) Armor
400K liter - 100 DP - Light(41-90mm RHA) Armor
750K liter - 200 DP - Light(41-90mm RHA) Armor
1500K liter - 1600 DP - Special (201-500mm RHA) Armor
3000K liter - 1600 DP - Special (201-500mm RHA) Armor
Miscellaneous AIM-9 issues
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:03 am
by CV60
[NOT OPERATIONAL / ALREADY SIMULATED / MILES vs NAUTICAL MILES]
I'm working on some description files on the AIM-9 series. As I find discrepancies between the database and my research on the AIM-9, I'm going to note them here. One thing I'm seeing right away is that there are disagreements between respected databases on some key AIM-9 specs, especially with the earlier (AIM-9A through AIM-9J):
Just a suggestion for a possible modification to Weapon_945, the AIM-9X sidewinder. In 2009-10, it was demonstrated to (with a software modification) to have an anti-vehicle and anti-small boat capablity. See
http://archive.airforcetimes.com/articl ... nd-targets
Not sure the software change was ever actually fielded.
One minor nit-pick, which may be beyond the ability of the game to simulate: The AIM-9B/E had significantly different ranges, depending on the altitude it was fired at. At sea level, it was only about 1 nm in range, while at 30,000 it was 2.5 nm. Right now, the game used the 2.5 nm range. See
http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits ... nder.shtml
The China Lake museum gives the range of the AIM-9D as 11 miles (
http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits ... nder.shtml ) Database gives an 8 mile range (Weapon_1163).
ROKAF update
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:36 am
by jun5896
JMSDF 27DD New Atago, 2020 x2
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:11 am
by jun5896
RE: JMSDF 27DD New Atago, 2020 x2
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:02 pm
by orca
RE: JMSDF 27DD New Atago, 2020 x2
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:27 pm
by Hydrolek
[IN-SERVICE DATE UNKNOWN]
Airbus Helicopters' Caracal selected for Polish medium-lift utility helo requirement
http://www.janes.com/article/50883/airb ... equirement
RE: JMSDF 27DD New Atago, 2020 x2
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:42 am
by Dysta
ASBM variant of DF-26?
DF-26 IRBM may have ASM variant, China reveals at 3 September parade
The state media claimed only its destinated for targeting surface ship, but never mention its land striking ability.
Maybe those warheads are duel-purposes?
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:54 am
by ComDev
Thanks for the bump! Added [:D]
LCPA
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:41 am
by ComDev
Updated/added:
Radar (China HQ-64 Search) -- China (Army), 1995, HQ-64 Search Radar
SAM Plt (HQ-64 [LY-60]) -- China (Army), 1995, 3x + 3x LD-2000 Plt + China HQ-64 Search Radar pr Bty
AAA Plt (LD-2000 x 2) -- China (Army), 2010, 3x pr Bty, Used with HQ-64
Thanks!
ORIGINAL: Hongjian
Some new information about the LD-2000 Land-Based CIWS thru the VJ-Day Parade Rehearsals.
It seems that this system actually doesnt have an own designation in the PLA, but is part of the HQ-6A Batteries, functioning as their Fire Control Radars. HQ-6A (aka. "HQ-64/HQ-6D") and LD-2000 are basically one integrated short-range anti-cruise-missile and close-in-defence unit. These integrated units are, in turn, tasked with defending HQ-9A batteries and important installations.
A PR shot from some years ago, showing the (now confirmed) deployment scheme of this system:
So, maybe add a HQ-64/HQ-6A launcher battery to each LD-2000 equipped SAM unit as well?
RE: AL-1A Airborne Laser COIL shot
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:41 am
by ComDev
This will be fixed in Command v1.10. Complex stuff so need time to test.
ORIGINAL: Kitchens Sink
Just a minor issue with a platform not often used.
The Laser COIL Shot weapon on the AL-1A plane has a valid altitude for firing of 36,000 ft. (No range, just 36,000 ft). This means the AL-1A cannot loiter over land (where Ground Level varies); it must be hovering at exactly 36k ft AGL for the laser COIL shot to fire. If it's over water (where Ground Level is always 0) with plane set at 36,000 ft altitude, the laser works as designed.
Maybe give the Coil Shot weapon a range of altitudes that it can be fired? Again, a low priority issue.
RE: Brimstone BOL
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:47 am
by ComDev
Okay but are we close enough?
Thanks [8D]
RE: Miscellaneous AIM-9 issues
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:01 am
by ComDev
ORIGINAL: CV60
I'm working on some description files on the AIM-9 series. As I find discrepancies between the database and my research on the AIM-9, I'm going to note them here. One thing I'm seeing right away is that there are disagreements between respected databases on some key AIM-9 specs, especially with the earlier (AIM-9A through AIM-9J):
Just a suggestion for a possible modification to Weapon_945, the AIM-9X sidewinder. In 2009-10, it was demonstrated to (with a software modification) to have an anti-vehicle and anti-small boat capablity. See
http://archive.airforcetimes.com/articl ... nd-targets
Not sure the software change was ever actually fielded.
The AIM-9X capability was never fielded as far as I know, but there have been some attempt to market a new air-to-ground variant created by modifying existing stocks of AIM-9Ls.
Don't think we should add these until actually operational, though.
One minor nit-pick, which may be beyond the ability of the game to simulate: The AIM-9B/E had significantly different ranges, depending on the altitude it was fired at. At sea level, it was only about 1 nm in range, while at 30,000 it was 2.5 nm. Right now, the game used the 2.5 nm range. See
http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits ... nder.shtml
The sim already takes altitude into account, and the range at low level is significantly shorter?
Is that miles or nautical miles? [8D]
Thanks for your input!
RE: ROKAF update
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:09 am
by ComDev
Thanks Jun, have added the MRTT and Taurus.
Do you have more info on the in-service date for the RF-16 upgrade? And also the ALQ-200K Pod?
Seems South Korea have also integrated JDAM on their F-16s. Wikipedia claims the SK JDAMs also carry wing kits. Is this correct?
I'd appreciate any additional information you can provide on this.
Thanks!
RE: ROKAF update
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:11 am
by jun5896
19th Fighter Wing, based at Jungwon Air Base
159th Fighter Squadron was changed 159th Tactical Reconnaissance squadron on early 2014(RKF-16C procured in 2012), This squadron employs KF-16C (Block 52), but some F-16C replaced RF-16C. Still 159 TRS is replacing RKF-16C squadron.
http://www.f-16.net/units_article385.html
When see this page, look tail-wing number ROKAF 93 numbering is 159 FS(Now changed 159 TRS).
lig nex1's alq-200k ecm pods - It procured in 2005.(F-4D/E, RF-4C, F-16C/D Block 32 and KF-16C/D Block 52 can equip.)
Also I upload some pictures.(First pic is test ALQ-X in 2004)
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/htm ... 00422.html
quote from
http://tacticalmashup.com/jdam-a-gps-in ... irstrikes/
Feb 8/11: F-15K integration. The Chosun Ilbo quotes the South Korean ROKAF, who says it has integrated the 2,000 pound GBU-31 JDAM with its KF-16 fighters, as well as its F-15K “Slam Eagles.” After developing the software, the ROKAF successfully carried out 3 tests, and finished pilot training at the end of January 2011.
The report also mentions wing kits, which are absent from normal JDAMs – but not from the 2,000 pound JDAM Extended Range kit, which was being developed by Boeing and South Korea.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sou ... 16s-05404/
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... force.aspx
ROKAF isn't decided KF-16 upgrade business partner yet. BAE systems withdrew KF-16 upgrade program, Still ROAKF is negotiating with Lockheed Martin.
RE: JMSDF 27DD New Atago, 2020 x2
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:15 am
by Hydrolek
Finalisation of the Zl13 billion ($3.5 billion) contract is anticipated in the third quarter, with deliveries commencing in 2017.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... al-412409/
RE: Miscellaneous AIM-9 issues
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:45 am
by CV60
The AIM-9X capability was never fielded as far as I know, but there have been some attempt to market a new air-to-ground variant created by modifying existing stocks of AIM-9Ls.
Don't think we should add these until actually operational, though.
I agree.
quote:
One minor nit-pick, which may be beyond the ability of the game to simulate: The AIM-9B/E had significantly different ranges, depending on the altitude it was fired at. At sea level, it was only about 1 nm in range, while at 30,000 it was 2.5 nm. Right now, the game used the 2.5 nm range. See
http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits ... nder.shtml
The sim already takes altitude into account, and the range at low level is significantly shorter?
I wasn't aware that the game takes altitude into account on missile ranges. Weapon_396 (AIM-7B) shows 1 fuel point/second on the "Performance Details" listed in my Database Viewer for all altitude bands.
The China Lake site doesn't state whether it is nautical miles or miles, and I haven't been able to get any other range figures. I'm assuming the China Lake numbers are in miles. If so, that would give a 9.5 nm range for the AIM-9D.
RE: Miscellaneous AIM-9 issues
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:51 pm
by ComDev
Yes the weapons have the same number of 'fuel points' (i.e. flight time) but the speed is lower, so the range is shorter.
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:55 pm
by Mgellis
[ADDED DB v441]
ORIGINAL: Mgellis
Just curious...what is the difference between a Building (TV Mast) and a Structure (Mast)? Is Structure (Mast) just meant to be a generic structure to cover all kinds of masts and towers (cell phone towers, etc.) or is it something else?
If it isn't too late to add another request for the database, I would like to see this added...
Water Tower (750k Liter Tank)
This can probably just use the statistics for the diesel 750k liter tank (database #76). Water towers, of course, come in all shapes and sizes, but this seems to be a good "average" size. One technical paper at
http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/techbrief.cfm says a typical residential water tower is 120,000 gallons, but some are much larger, sometimes as much as a million gallons or more. 200k gallons, more or less, seems like a good compromise for a generic one.
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:14 pm
by DeSade
[SEEMS OK, DB v440]
It looks like chinese LACM #2039 - KD-20 [CJ-10A] ALCM -- 2011, Air-Launched lacks surface min and max ranges in DB.
I didn't test it but I guess it could confuse AI
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:29 pm
by Mgellis
[ADDED DB v441]
Water Tower (5000k Liter Tank)
At a little over a million gallons, this is a typical large water tank. Using the statistics for various diesel tanks as a guideline, I would say the important statistics are...
Length: 30 m.
Width: 30 m.
Area: 900 m.
Damage Points: 600
Thanks for considering these!
(Just curious, in case anyone knows...is it a war crime to go after water supplies?)
(Later edit...the reason I did not use a straight multiplication for the dp--which would give a dp value of about 1,300--was I figured that, with water tanks, there is a point of diminishing returns where it does not matter how massive it is...if you punch enough holes in it, it will not hold water. Literally. I figured 600 was a good compromise.)
