Matrix Games Forums

Some of the later american Galveston class cruisers (CLG 3 to 8) in the DB have an open parking space with a capacity of 24 large aircraft attached. That seems a bit odd. In fact they never had that capability. Therefore it should be a parking space for just one large aircraft (helicopter) instead.

Noted

Can we get the OV-1C Mohawk please? It is the most numerous version built and has a very useful IR sensor built in. In contrast to the JOV-1A there was no armament. Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_OV-1_Mohawk

Someone managed somehow to forget coal burning power stations in both facility DBs. So please add them.

All versions of the venerable F-100 had four 20mm M39 cannon except the F-100F which had only two of them. So please change this accordingly.

#597 - F-100F Super Sabre in the DB has the AN/ALQ-71 DECM Pod listed in the loadout name at #2847 and #2846. But it's actualy not part of the loadout.

ORIGINAL: jimmyblond

All versions of the venerable F-100 had four 20mm M39 cannon except the F-100F which had only two of them. So please change this accordingly.

The F-100 All versions except F,RF and Q have 4 20mm already

ORIGINAL: jimmyblond

#597 - F-100F Super Sabre in the DB has the AN/ALQ-71 DECM Pod listed in the loadout name at #2847 and #2846. But it's actualy not part of the loadout.

Fixed

ORIGINAL: jimmyblond

Some of the later american Galveston class cruisers (CLG 3 to 8) in the DB have an open parking space with a capacity of 24 large aircraft attached. That seems a bit odd. In fact they never had that capability. Therefore it should be a parking space for just one large aircraft (helicopter) instead.

Fixed

ORIGINAL: jimmyblond

Someone managed somehow to forget coal burning power stations in both facility DBs. So please add them.

Fixed

ORIGINAL: jimmyblond

Can we get the OV-1C Mohawk please? It is the most numerous version built and has a very useful IR sensor built in. In contrast to the JOV-1A there was no armament. Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_OV-1_Mohawk

Added

Hi, awhile ago I posted a bunch of requests for fixes to Soviet nuclear weapons platforms and said I needed to ask for a few more things. I have finally gotten around to getting the info together.

I originally said I would request some changes to the Tu-95Ks, but they are rather miniscule and have a small effect on performance so I won't for now.

I also said I needed to research the fuel loadouts for the Tu-4 and Tu-95M. I haven't been able to find any info on it, so I will leave it up to the DB manager for the loadouts I requested. One thing to make sure though is that the Tu-95M has enough range to get from Anadyr to the entire continental US. It is available in the DB3000 import/export files that come with the game, so if you load it up you can measure the distance.

I also said I would ask for different variants of the Tu-95 and Tu-16 due to one having nuclear weapons capability and the other being a conventional bomber. However there is little tangible difference in the game apart from the loadouts, so this is not necessary. The Tu-16 bomber we have in game should become the Tu-16A and the Tu-95M should become the Tu-95MA however.

Here is my request for the R-9 ICBM.

SSM Bn (SS-8 Sasin) -- Soviet Union [-1991] (Red Army), 1965-1978

Category: Building (Surface)

Damage Points: 0

Length: 0

Width: 0

Area: 0

OODA Cycle: Same as DBID #1673 SSM Bn (SS-6 Sapwood)

Missile Defence: 3 Harpoon/SLAM/Maverick equivalents

General Armor: None

Mast Height: 0 meters

Vehicle/Component Dispersion Radius: 80 meters

Mount/Stores/Weapons:

Mounts/Guns/Launchers/Ejectors etc.-

Mount- 2x SS-8 Sasin [R-9A] TEL Capacity- 1 Launch Interval- 15 Armor- None Onboard Sensors- None Weapons (Per Mount)- 1x SS-8 Sasin [R-9A, 2.5mT Nuclear]

Info for the SS-8 Sasin [R-9A, 2.5mT Nuclear] weapon-

SS-8 Sasin [R-9A, 2.5mT Nuclear]

General Data-

Type: Ballistic Missile

Length: 26.5 meters

Span: 2.68 meters

Diameter: 2.68 meters

Weight: 74389 kg

Burnout weight: N/A

Cruise altitude: Unsure, I will leave this up to the DB manager (no data available)

Climb rate: Unsure, I will leave this up to the DB manager (no data available)

Launch altitude: N/A

Launch speed: N/A

Target altitude: N/A

Target speed: N/A

Range for anti-air, anti-surface and anti-submarine is not applicable

Range (anti-land): 5562 nautical miles

Air PoH, Sub PoH, and Surface PoH/Reliability is not applicable

Land PoH/Reliability: 70%

CEP, Surface (nominal): N/A

CEP, Land (nominal): 8000 meters

Signatures-

Unsure, I will leave this up to the DB manager (no data available)

Properties-

Ballistic Missile (ICBM/IRBM/SRBM)

Weapon - INS Navigation

Warhead - Single Reentry Vehicle (RV)

Level Cruise Flight (The SS-6 Sapwood (R-7) has this, I am unsure if it should really be there or not)

Warheads-

SS-8 Sasin RV [2.5mT Nuclear]

Valid targets-

Land Structures (Hard)

Land Structures (Soft)

Mobile Units (Hard)

Mobile Units (Soft)

Runways

Weapon Release Authorization [DEFAULT], Propulsion, and Performance Details are identical to DBID #1590 SS-7 Sapwood [R-7]

Fuel should be amended so as to allow for the range given in the General Data section

Default carrier platform is only the one I suggested

Now, DBID #81 MiG-17 Fresco A has an ahistorical issue. It has too much speed. It uses a VK-1F engine, which in real life was not used until the MiG-17F variant. The version DBID #81 represents is the MiG-17 with no letter suffix, the first production variant that was also the most widely produced. It used a VK-1 engine (also with no suffix). However the MiG-15bis also used the VK-1 engine, and because the way CMO models aircraft performance is based on the engine and not the airframe this creates a problem. So I propose that DBID #81 be changed to the MiG-17A. This version was virtually identical to the MiG-17 with no suffix and had identical performance. It used a VK-1A engine which had a better lifetime. This would allow for the MiG-17 to have its historical speed without messing up the MiG-15bis. The following changes will be made-

Rename DBID #81 MiG-17 Fresco A -- Soviet Union [-1991] (Frontal Aviation [VVS]), 1952 to MiG-17A Fresco A -- Soviet Union [-1991] (Frontal Aviation [VVS]), 1952, MiG-17

Create a copy of the Klimov VK-1 #1 engine from DBID #797 MiG-15bis B Fagot, renamed to Klimov VK-1A #1. The data for this new engine is- type is turbojet, and the max speed should be 602 knots. This engine should replace the current engine on DBID #81.

Everything else is unchanged, apart from one thing- the 8x S-21 rocket loadout should be reduced to 2x S-21s.

All of these requests are needed for scenarios I plan to make.

Thanks!

The Israeli version of the Skyhawk the A-4H, had 2 x 30 mm DEFA cannons with 150 rpg instead of the 2 x 20 mm MK12 cannons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-4_Skyhawk

The North American F-108 Rapier had no gun armament at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ame ... 108_Rapier
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-108A ... e_1959.pdf

Hi all on the to do list

ORIGINAL: jimmyblond

The North American F-108 Rapier had no gun armament at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ame ... 108_Rapier
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-108A ... e_1959.pdf

I was using poetic licence to add them [:)]

There's a whole chunk of mostly American cruisers that have their fuel capacity/fuel efficiency messed up.

On the DB list, between CA 124 Rochester and CBMG 1 Alaska, 90% of the ships have the lower, simplified ~40 ton capacity (not their real capacity), but use their real-life fuel efficiency. There are a few of them that have their capacity updated to the true value, but most of them have extremely high fuel usage to their capacity. Most of these ships now have less than 1 day endurance.

Ideally, they should have their actual efficiencies and capacities, but a short term fix should be just to reduce their fuel usage to abstract it like many other ships.

(CWDB Build 472) #2249 CVA-7 Hornet
Hull number mistaken: it should be "CV(A)-8" instead (CV-7 is Wasp).

I've noticed that almost all F-105 Thunderchief versions in the current CWDB have 2x J75 engines. The F-105 should have only one J75:

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit ... nderchief/
https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit ... nderchief/

ORIGINAL: BuckDashing

There's a whole chunk of mostly American cruisers that have their fuel capacity/fuel efficiency messed up.

On the DB list, between CA 124 Rochester and CBMG 1 Alaska, 90% of the ships have the lower, simplified ~40 ton capacity (not their real capacity), but use their real-life fuel efficiency. There are a few of them that have their capacity updated to the true value, but most of them have extremely high fuel usage to their capacity. Most of these ships now have less than 1 day endurance.

Ideally, they should have their actual efficiencies and capacities, but a short term fix should be just to reduce their fuel usage to abstract it like many other ships.

This issue was pointed out over a year ago but unfortunately has never been fully addressed.