Matrix Games Forums

First I would like to say that I feel like an ungrateful bastard for quibbling about anything to do with this game. I think I have found a small thing though that I think may be having a disproportionate effect on many scenarios. This is the F-35s range. I found this doc recently: http://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf#page=16

It seems to me that the game uses the old, unrevised specification for the F-35bs range (I haven´t checked the others yet): the old specification was 550nm radius with 2 1000lb JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs, and in the game it is 567. The new specification however is 450, and the current expectation is 467, exactly 100nm less than in the game.

If this was any other platform than the F-35 I wouldn´t have said anything, but it seems to me that since it will be involved in a large proportion of the post-2015 scenarios, this increase in range may be making things too one-sided in West vs the rest confrontations. All I am saying is, give China and Russia a chance!

Any idea what the profile is for that range...altitude, speed, etc.

OK, I'm missing something. I looked at all 4 F-35Bs and with two Mk 83 JDAMS and two AIM-120s, combat radius is 420 nm, not 567. I must just not be comparing the dame thing.

ORIGINAL: marksi10

First I would like to say that I feel like an ungrateful bastard for quibbling about anything to do with this game. I think I have found a small thing though that I think may be having a disproportionate effect on many scenarios. This is the F-35s range. I found this doc recently: http://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf#page=16

It seems to me that the game uses the old, unrevised specification for the F-35bs range (I haven´t checked the others yet): the old specification was 550nm radius with 2 1000lb JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs, and in the game it is 567. The new specification however is 450, and the current expectation is 467, exactly 100nm less than in the game.

If this was any other platform than the F-35 I wouldn´t have said anything, but it seems to me that since it will be involved in a large proportion of the post-2015 scenarios, this increase in range may be making things too one-sided in West vs the rest confrontations. All I am saying is, give China and Russia a chance!

Mark can you verify what Db you're looking at.

My understanding is the external tanks are being replaced with something internal.

Mike

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

According to...

http://jsw.newpacificinstitute.org/?p=10821

...and...

https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.word ... pine-navy/

...there is a plan to convert four retired Japanese destroyers into uber-cutters for the Japanese Coast Guard. Unfortunately, as the second article points out, there does not appear to be an English-language confirmation of this. (At least I could not find one. Anyone have the newest edition of Jane's? Maybe it is in there?)

The biggest issue here is the lack of information. The Hatsuyuki-class destroyer is already in the database, and the articles say her missiles and torpedoes will be removed...but...there is not much else to go on. I'm assuming her sensors will remain intact, but will she keep her ECM equipment, or her CIWS? And there is no information on the service dates...these ships may have already been transferred and converted--how long would this process take...a few months?--, but there is no confirmation either way.

Maybe just put in a basic version of the platform--yank all weapons but the 76mm gun and assume service dates of 2016-present?

Again, I'm thinking of working up some scenarios involving the Japanese coast guard (and eventually some others involving the Indian coast guard, but that won't be for a while), so I hope this will be considered, but I understand the information on it is still pretty sketchy.

(P.S. I agree with Supreme. New new database is awesome! [:)])

These articles are pretty old. Will see if I can find something in Combat Fleets on it. In the meantime just add the ships and remove the mounts.

Mike

ORIGINAL: Supreme 2.0

I stumbled across something weird with loadout #7572 of the Venezuelan Su-30MK2. The loadout is the only one that uses the R-73M while all other loadouts use the R-73 or R-73M1. Is this deliberate?

Fixed

[ADDED Docking to Zumwalt. Rest needs verification.]

ORIGINAL: Rudd

A few minor ones

1. Zumwalt needs docking facilities
article
video

The Zumwalt's large boat bay can carry two 11-meter rigid-hull inflatable boats, one of which is in the foreground. The RHIBs launch through a stern door, visible in the distance. (Photo: Christopher P. Cavas/Staff)

2. Possibly an AN/SPS-73 navigation radar, I've speculated previously that the nav radars on the hangar were just temporary for the builders sea trials, but this one doesn't sound temporary, from same article.

The ship moved out of the harbor with an SPS-73 navigation radar rotating atop a mast on the foredeck, but as it began to sway with the sea the mast was retracted, periscope-fashion, into the hull.

3. Notice of a potential sale
GBU-39/Bs to Australia for F-35A

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: marksi10

First I would like to say that I feel like an ungrateful bastard for quibbling about anything to do with this game. I think I have found a small thing though that I think may be having a disproportionate effect on many scenarios. This is the F-35s range. I found this doc recently: http://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf#page=16

It seems to me that the game uses the old, unrevised specification for the F-35bs range (I haven´t checked the others yet): the old specification was 550nm radius with 2 1000lb JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs, and in the game it is 567. The new specification however is 450, and the current expectation is 467, exactly 100nm less than in the game.

If this was any other platform than the F-35 I wouldn´t have said anything, but it seems to me that since it will be involved in a large proportion of the post-2015 scenarios, this increase in range may be making things too one-sided in West vs the rest confrontations. All I am saying is, give China and Russia a chance!

Mark can you verify what Db you're looking at.

My understanding is the external tanks are being replaced with something internal.

Mike

Ah, sorry, I´m using database 1.08 (I´ve been waiting for the final 1.11 to come out to upgrade). From what theWood1 says it sounds like it has already been revised, I thought I´d looked through the lists of recent changes but I must have missed that one. Just out of curiosity (I´m not asking you to change it again) it now seems to be below the current official estimate, is that because the mission is slightly different (for instance, no 100-nm Mil dash in reality?) or is it just a product of how you work out the ranges for each aircraft?

Why the heck are you using 1.08? There have been at least 2 official upgrades (1.09 and 1.10). I think 1.08 is over a year old. Not to mention the latest dayabase is part of the 1.11 beta.

The policy for reporting issues is put a save game up, state what version you are using, and make sure you have the latest version. That way devs aren't chasing things around.

btw, before asking questions like tha last one, please upgrade. You never know what parameters are being considered and what variations in flight profile you might see in the newest db.

Unit Request:

Quite reluctant to ask anything of CMANO's already superb dev support but any chance of adding in the C-146A Wolfhound (Modified Dornier 328), used for SpecOps

"It is deployed with the 524th Special Operations Squadron of the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) at Cannon Air Force Base to conduct infiltration, exfiltration, cargo resupply, airlift and other military missions in prepared and semi-prepared airfields across the globe."

Have browsed the latest DB and couldn't find it in there. Fully appreciate there are more important things to be worked on, so if it can be done there is no rush.
I've been looking at some scenario's that require providing cover for the sort of missions this a/c performs .... however other units could be used for the exfil/resupply etc



http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/467729/c-146a-wolfhound.aspx
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c-146a-wolfhound-transport-aircraft/

Playing back some of the recent flight routes around the E. Med / Middle East shows some interesting routes
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n360ef/#

Thanks

Hello

it looks like the #2360 - Kolkata Class and #2361 - Visakhapatnam class has different gun

for the Kolkata class
it should be 76mm/62 OTO Melara Super Rapido not the 100mm/59 A-190
Plus it has Kavach chaff decoy and Nagin Active towed sonar array and Humsa-NG not HUS-003 and DSBV 62C
For more information see below

While for the Visakhapatnam Class
has 127mm/64 OTO Melara Vulcano not the 100mm/59 A-190

the sources for Kolkata Class is from:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ct-15a.htm
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.co.id/2 ... lkata.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata-class_destroyer
http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/aegisv ... olkata.htm

while the sources for Visakhapatnam Class:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ct-15b.htm
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/ne ... ra-4483561
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=id
http://defence.pk/threads/indian-navy-s ... un.352077/

Thanks

Well, I didn´t play much Command for a while, and then when I came back to it 1.11 looked like it was going to come out soon so I thought I would skip a couple of versions.

I won´t query anything else until I update, don´t worry, but I am still curious about what the current specs are based on.

Please add variants for the Augusta AW.139...

AW.139 (Commercial) <-- can use the same stats as #4098, but remove the weapons and add a "passengers" loadout and an SAR loadout (this version is used by a lot of coast guards, including Japan's, which is why I started looking into this platform, air ambulance services, police forces, etc...several hundred are in use around the world).

AW.139M <-- an armed version capable of carrying gun pods, rocket pods, etc. Changes include the addition of "a high-definition FLIR, infrared detection and countermeasures and heavy duty landing gear." (http://www.helis.com/database/model/955/) Along with the armed loadouts, it should also have an unarmed SAR loadout, as it is used for that, too.

I'm guessing the armed loadouts are...

2 x 12.7mm MG pods (#630?)
2 x 7 x 70mm HYDRA rockets (#1929?)

Some more information...

http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... elicopter/
http://www.finmeccanica.com/-/aw139m
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo ... =index.php


Cyprus National Guard
Service dates: 2011-present

Italian Air Force (as HH-139A)
Service dates: 2012-present

Algerian Air Force
Services dates: 2013-present

Maltese Armed Forces
Service dates: 2014-present

Egyptian Air Force
Service dates: 2012-present

(According to http://www.helis.com/database/model/262/ there are also "long nose" and "7000MTOW" variants, but I do not think these do anything that would affect gameplay so these variants probably do not need to be added.)

Thanks for considering these!

A bit of extra information for the AW.139 variants...

AW.139 (Commercial)
Service dates: 2006-present

AW.139 (Japanese Coast Guard) <-- identical to the commercial version as far as I can tell
Service dates: 2008-present

Information for Japanese Coast Guard from http://www.helis.com/database/modelorg/927/

4 MQ-9 Predator-B Block 5 for Spanish Air Force. Since 2017
DCSA authorization
Jane's info about the deal.

2 Sikorsky SH-60F for Spanish Navy. Since 2016 (not delivered yet).

NAVAIR news release

SH-60F for tactical transport. No ASW equipment.[HS.23B]

Thanks!

I have noticed that helos, specifically AH-64s and Pave Low IIIs, nap of the earth flights are always 500ft AGL regardless of day or night operation. Sorry to say i haven't noticed this with other countries aircraft. There are not enough hours in the day to investigate a program so complex. I was using the excellent "Task Force Normandy, 0.95" scenario in this sub-forum.

Is this altitude a function of the database, or the program itself?

A friend of mine, who flew Apaches in Desert Storm and later in Iraq, and I were discussing this, and he stated they operated much lower when there were threats to be avoided. Sometimes as low as 10 feet! I think that might be an extreme case, but 50 feet might be more "normal" for NOE operation for TFR equipped aircraft. There are not any official sources for that. Even so I am curious.

I know there are bigger fish to fry, but thanks for the excellent work and time invested.

Unit request

A couple of days ago China conducted another test of their hypersonic glide vehicl
e called DF-ZF (also called WU-14 by western sources): http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... on-system/

DZ-FZ is a high speed / high maneuverability reentry vehicle vor ballistic missiles. Put on an IRBM/ICBM its capable of reaching up to Mach 10.
It still a couple of years away from being an actual weapon, but given its game changing potential i'd love to see it in Command.

The easiest way to do it would be to add another DF-21 variant:
SSM Bn (DF-21D [CSS-5 Mod-4) ASBM DZ-FZ Mod)- China, 2022 (hypothetical)

Just increase the reentry speed and make it basically untouchable for terminal BMD missiles (ERAM, THAAD).
SM-3 Blk IIA and GBI should be capable of intercepting it though.

South Korea DDG KDX-3 Sejong the Great-class should have MK41 48+32 cells instead of 48+48

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_th ... _destroyer
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... tries-hhi-
https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%84%B8 ... 5%ED%95%A8

A little more information for the Japanese Coast Guard...

Bell 212
Service Dates: 1981-present
As far as I can tell, this is almost identical to the Bell 212 Utility (#1459), but does not have the Commando loadout; instead it would have a Passenger loadout ("a fifteen-seat configuration, with one pilot and fourteen passengers," according to Wikipedia).

Bell 412EP
Service Dates: 1995-present
As far as I can tell, this is almost identical to the Bell 412EP used by the Indonesian navy (#4094), except it is not armed.

Sikorsky S-76D
Service Dates: 2015-present
Wikipedia lists its characteristics as follows:
General characteristics

Crew: two
Capacity: seats 12–13
Length: 52 ft 6 in (16.00 m) from tip of main rotor to tip of tail rotor
Width: 10 ft 0 in (3.05 m) at horizontal stabilizer
Height: 14 ft 6 in (4.42 m) to tip of tail rotor
Empty weight: 7,005 lb (3,177 kg) in utility configuration
Gross weight: 11,700 lb (5,307 kg)
Fuel capacity: 281 US gallons (1,064 liters), with 50 or 102 US gallons (189 or 386 liters) available in extra auxiliary tanks
Powerplant: "S-76D : Powered by two Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S. Also features a Thales Topdeck avionics suite and improved noise signature over all previous variants"
Main rotor diameter: 44 ft 0 in (13.41 m)

"Development of the follow-on S-76D was subject to four years of delays due to technical problems in expanding the flight envelope. The prototype made its first flight on February 7, 2009 and type certification was initially expected in 2011, with deliveries forecast for the end of that year. It was FAA certified on 12 October 2012. Three prototypes were used in the certification program, with one aircraft used to certify the optional electric rotor ice-protection system. The "D" model is powered by 1,050 hp (783 kW) Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S engines driving composite rotors and incorporates active vibration control. Performance is substantially improved with the added power, but initial certification retains the same 11,700 lb (5,307 kg) gross weight and maximum 155 kn (287 km/h) cruise speed as earlier models.[14][15][16] Changhe Aircraft Industries Corporation was contracted in September 2013 to produce the S-76D airframe" --Wikipedia

Performance

Maximum speed: 155 kn (178 mph; 287 km/h) at maximum takeoff weight at sea level in standard atmospheric conditions
Cruise speed: 155 kn (178 mph; 287 km/h) maximum cruise speed is the same as maximum speed
Range: 411 nmi (473 mi; 761 km) no reserves, at long-range cruise speed at 4,000 ft altitude
Service ceiling: 13,800 ft (4,200 m)

Avionics

Honeywell four-tube EFIS and Collins Proline II avionics suite
Four-axis fully coupled autopilot
Integrated Instrument Display System (IIDS)
Honeywell ground proximity warning system
Honeywell Primus weather radar
Dual comm/nav radios
Automatic direction finder
Dual attitude and heading reference system and air data computers
Radio altimeter
Mode C transponder
Dual VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) and Instrument landing system (ILS)
Distance measuring equipment
Cockpit voice recorder

Thanks for considering these!

I wanted to post the following message - which I attached as an image here - but it kept saying
"You are not allowed to post links, emails or phone numbers for 7 days from the date of your tenth post."