What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: RoccoNZ
Weapon request - GBU-62B(V-1)/B Quickstrike-ER
GBU-62B(V-1)/B Quickstrike-ER
ORIGINAL: peterc100248
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.
Well, there are 5 issues out there:ORIGINAL: Nightwatch
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/
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.
Well, there are 5 issues out there:
1, what does DF-ZF looks like? Without an official pictures out there, even hypnotically added will not be agreed.
2, what is the flight characteristic and guidance of it?
3, is DF-21 a true launching platform? Any other platform/warhead devirates?
4, what is its intended target to be use against with? Land unit? Surface vessel? Airfield?
5, any other functionality, as well as intercept/countermeasure resistant systems in it?
If we can fill out these questions with reasonable answers, then we might think about it.
Notice the 8-12x and 1996, #2928 is probably the Ka-50N/50ShORIGINAL: Galahad78
Got this request from a colleague:
#2371: SU-25SM/SM2, no AT-16 (AT-16 only compatible with Shkval system, only for KA-50 and 25T/TM)
#2928: Ka-50: no radar, no LLTV, no FLIR, no DECM, no RWR, add UPK-23 pod, no night capabilities, laser designator SHKVAL like 25T (compatible with AT-16), bomb sight shkval.
Source: DCS: KA-50 manual (approved by the manufacturer) and references.
I'll try to get more references.
from http://www.airvectors.net/avka50.html not sure about sourceThe initial version of the Ka-50 was effectively a day-only / clear weather machine, the intent being to then enhance its night / all weather combat capability, to produce a "Ka-50N" -- "N" for "Nochoy / Night. Work was done from early in the program to evaluate low light level TV (LLTV) and forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imaging systems, but they simply couldn't be made to work right, with social chaos bringing development to a crawl. In the mid-1990s, work was done to evaluate FLIR sensors from Thompson-CSF of France, but that was seen as only an interim step.
By late in the decade, the Urals Optico-Mechanical Plant (UOMZ in the Russian acronym) of Yekaterinburg had developed a series of workable imaging / targeting turrets -- "gyrostabilized optronics systems" or "GOES" in the Russian acronym. From 1997, a Ka-50 was evaluated with a nose-mounted GOES turret designated the "Samshit-50", which featured an LLTV, FLIR, laser rangefinder / target designator, and Vikhr laser guidance system. This demonstrator was eventually fitted with a mast-mounted Phazotron-NIIR Arbalet air defense radar and a full "glass cockpit", with three large color flat-panel displays. A second demonstrator was kitted up, featuring a second, smaller GOES turret for navigation in the nose forward of the targeting turret. The Ka-50N demonstrators with the ball sensor system were also known as "Ka-50Sh", with "Sh" standing for "Shar (Sphere)".
ORIGINAL: DESRON420
Couple AARGM-related links:
Orbital ATK awarded contract modification to convert AGM-88B HARM to AGM-88E AARGM Lot 5 standard
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/C ... cle/742294
"Orbital ATK Inc., Defense Electronic Systems, North Ridge, California, is being awarded $121,370,003 for modification P00002 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-15-C-0123) to exercise an option for the conversion of U.S. government-provided AGM-88B high-speed anti-radiation missiles into 145 full-rate production Lot 5 advanced anti-radiation guided missile all-up-rounds and 12 captive air training missiles, including related supplies and services necessary for manufacture, sparing, and fleet deployment of the missiles, for the Navy and the government of Italy. ..."
US Navy extends Orbital ATK AGM-88E production
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-423546/
"The US Navy has extended production of AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) multi-mode seekers, built by Orbital ATK, by three years to fiscal year 2023 with an added requirement for 556 more units. ..."
ORIGINAL: peterc100248
...-but in forest conditions, that meant normal altitude was 50 ft above anything like trees or other natural obstacles. However normal attack runs often dipped below tree level for visual and radar concealment.
Just me...but that would seem like a whole lot of work for an overall minor issue. Maybe just changing the 500ft minimum flight level to 100ft would suffice. That alone would change the radio horizon from 32 statute miles to 14 (assuming 0 ft elevation for the radar antenna), about a 50% decrease in vulnerability. 50ft would change it to 10 miles. That's a significant change from 32. And it wouldn't take but a minute to re-code.ORIGINAL: Dysta
ORIGINAL: peterc100248
...-but in forest conditions, that meant normal altitude was 50 ft above anything like trees or other natural obstacles. However normal attack runs often dipped below tree level for visual and radar concealment.
That means we need something like forest or natural obstacles module(s) in the future, to simulate natural objects as concealments and covers.
ORIGINAL: Galahad78
Got this request from a colleague:
#2371: SU-25SM/SM2, no AT-16 (AT-16 only compatible with Shkval system, only for KA-50 and 25T/TM)
#2928: Ka-50: no radar, no LLTV, no FLIR, no DECM, no RWR, add UPK-23 pod, no night capabilities, laser designator SHKVAL like 25T (compatible with AT-16), bomb sight shkval.
Source: DCS: KA-50 manual (approved by the manufacturer) and references.
I'll try to get more references.
ORIGINAL: Rudd
Notice the 8-12x and 1996, #2928 is probably the Ka-50N/50ShORIGINAL: Galahad78
Got this request from a colleague:
#2371: SU-25SM/SM2, no AT-16 (AT-16 only compatible with Shkval system, only for KA-50 and 25T/TM)
#2928: Ka-50: no radar, no LLTV, no FLIR, no DECM, no RWR, add UPK-23 pod, no night capabilities, laser designator SHKVAL like 25T (compatible with AT-16), bomb sight shkval.
Source: DCS: KA-50 manual (approved by the manufacturer) and references.
I'll try to get more references.from http://www.airvectors.net/avka50.html not sure about sourceThe initial version of the Ka-50 was effectively a day-only / clear weather machine, the intent being to then enhance its night / all weather combat capability, to produce a "Ka-50N" -- "N" for "Nochoy / Night. Work was done from early in the program to evaluate low light level TV (LLTV) and forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imaging systems, but they simply couldn't be made to work right, with social chaos bringing development to a crawl. In the mid-1990s, work was done to evaluate FLIR sensors from Thompson-CSF of France, but that was seen as only an interim step.
By late in the decade, the Urals Optico-Mechanical Plant (UOMZ in the Russian acronym) of Yekaterinburg had developed a series of workable imaging / targeting turrets -- "gyrostabilized optronics systems" or "GOES" in the Russian acronym. From 1997, a Ka-50 was evaluated with a nose-mounted GOES turret designated the "Samshit-50", which featured an LLTV, FLIR, laser rangefinder / target designator, and Vikhr laser guidance system. This demonstrator was eventually fitted with a mast-mounted Phazotron-NIIR Arbalet air defense radar and a full "glass cockpit", with three large color flat-panel displays. A second demonstrator was kitted up, featuring a second, smaller GOES turret for navigation in the nose forward of the targeting turret. The Ka-50N demonstrators with the ball sensor system were also known as "Ka-50Sh", with "Sh" standing for "Shar (Sphere)".
Also, google Ka-50Sh and pretty much all the pics of single seat Hokums have a "Samshit"[;)]
ORIGINAL: peterc100248
Just me...but that would seem like a whole lot of work for an overall minor issue. Maybe just changing the 500ft minimum flight level to 100ft would suffice. That alone would change the radio horizon from 32 statute miles to 14 (assuming 0 ft elevation for the radar antenna), about a 50% decrease in vulnerability. 50ft would change it to 10 miles. That's a significant change from 32. And it wouldn't take but a minute to re-code.ORIGINAL: Dysta
ORIGINAL: peterc100248
...-but in forest conditions, that meant normal altitude was 50 ft above anything like trees or other natural obstacles. However normal attack runs often dipped below tree level for visual and radar concealment.
That means we need something like forest or natural obstacles module(s) in the future, to simulate natural objects as concealments and covers.
I didn't want to make a giant programming issue of it. If the minimum altitude thing is a database issue, it would be even more work. You guys know what is possible and practical.
Pete