JMS

There's something with detections, I get them all right, but all are from sonobuoys, even if there's not a single sonobuoy...

I agree too, from the usually breathless AUSA: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html And from the China Naval and Air power, 2 salient points: Size - I think one thing that really shocked a lot of people is how large J-20 is or at least how large it appears to be. The original photos lead certain people like Bill Sweetman to conclude that J-20 has "overall length of 75 ft. and a wingspan of 45 ft. or more, which would suggest a takeoff weight in the 75,000-80,000-lb. class with no external load". With those assumptions, many concluded this to be designed in the role of fighter-bomber as F-111. However, recent analysis on Chinese bbs of the size of J-20 vs truck beside it compared to the size of J-10 vs the same truck yielded the conclusion that J-20 is more likely around 19 to 20 m long, which would make it shorter than flankers. Even when we factor in what appears to be greater fuel load and internal weapon bay, it should still be about the same size as flankers. Personally, I kind of see J-20 as replacing the role of flankers in PLAAF in the future. It would have to be capable of handling more long range strike missions than flankers, but it would most likely serve as the heavy fighter jet in hi-lo combination. Engine - This is probably one of the biggest mysteries surrounding J-20. What is the engine that it is using right now? We know that WS-15 is still years away from being ready. We know that AL-31F and FWS-10 would be vastly underpowered options for J-20. So, I would think the most obvious solution in the early stages of testing would either be 117S or some upgraded variants of FWS-10. Since upgraded variants of FWS-10 are not ready yet, 117S is most likely the engine on the first prototype. There has been a lot of talks about worsening China/Russia military relationships due to cloning issues, but I do think turbofan engine is one area where the cooperation is still quite beneficial for both sides. As we move forward, I think it will be interesting to see how the engine situation will change over time. Will 117S be the engine for J-20 until WS-15 becomes available? Will the initial production J-20s use upgraded variants of FWS-10? When will WS-15 be ready and how long will it take to do so? These are all important things to look forward to.

While at it, give it some mud moving capability, please We don't know what the Casino may use its complement for...

I would be careful about this point. In an old version of HII a red a/c had only to launch a missile and the blue a/c turned back home even the blue a/c is not in range of the red missile. Maybe as an option by the game start, or as individual option for a/c yes, but please not for all scenarios and all players. If a user could program the behavior individual via AI and Stadd logic, then yes. Agreed, IIRC a previous version of HCE had a similar issue, enemy air would reverse course and go afterburner if it detected a missile launch, with the end result that enemy air was going round and round until running out of fuel

In another forum, someone raised the posibility that the Chinese carriers (Varyag and the new ship they are projecting) were to be used to guarantee the access to the Persian Gulf, which raises interesting possibilities.

May I recomend: http://www.amazon.co.uk/North-Sar-Gerry-Ca...l/dp/0671855883 Best SAR book you'll find, even if it's a novel. The 3 books written by Carroll are excelent and it's too bad he passed away.

Big enough: Length: 10.70 m Diameter: 1.40 m Launch Weight: 14700 kg vs. the Shipwreck Length: 10.00 m Diameter: 0.85 m Wingspan: 2.60 m Launch Weight: 6980.00 kg That it won't fit.

She was engineless so that has to be built from scratch, I imagine it would be a steam plant anyway. DF-21 is big, probably won't fit, but also it's not navalised and probably needs a fixed launch location (DF-21 sites appear to have concrete pads for this purpose)

Yes, rather obvious from reading the article, no? And just how are you going to simulate that on HCDB...?

According to the article, it's more than that, there's also the capability to home on radar emissions, Air to air HARM?

Well, mostly the fantasies of Ruben, but at least the photos are genuine!

Hi Brad, I am pretty sure Angola did not get the MiG-23 until 1984 and then got MiG-23ML

Confirmed, scenario attached, blue ships are totally blind to red subs. HCDB + EC2003 Med battleset. TRIAL.zip

Why? it's kinf of odd when I try to get an Alfa up to 45 knots to intercept a carrier.

Were the whales set as Neutrals, or as Red/Blue? AI controlled non-neutrals will ignore preprogrammed courses and move according to the tactical situation, usually directly for the player or directly away when they detect player controlled units. Neutrals, all of them. In the case of the Red AI there was no opponent to move against (only a couple of blue bases on the board) and also wallowed with abandon...

No.. But have seen it with the last 2009 build, for the AI side... This seems to happen mostly to subs, I followed up a lot of neutrals that I had set up and surface ships more or less followed the expected courses, but "submarines" (whales, actually) seemed to change course on a base course, something like 3 steps to the North, 2 to the South, not going anywhere.

Thanks to both and René for you commitment, without it HCe would have sailed into oblivion. How are units selected in the unit window now? BTW

Correct, aircraft sent on LR Patrol missions will not attack an airbase, port, etc. They would attack a ship or sub group, and should attack a mobile land unit group. I don't know if there might be some combination of MLUs and fixed bases that would at least make it appear a multi-axis attack was underway. True scenario craftsmanship required there I bet. How 'bout, ring the base with SAM launchers within the same group? I tried a few combinations of different targets within the formation of a land base, and sent out patrols and direct attacks. The patrols will fly right over head and not attack any of the targets so long as they stay in the formation of the land base. If you 'split' any of the targets then the patrols will attack. You can have a base and a MLU group coexist at the exact same location. The MLU group can have its units spread out in its formation. If patroling enemy units detect the MLU group (and are suitably armed) they will likely attack the MLU group, but still won't attack the actual base. So as Tony says you can make it look like a multi directional attack (and you'll have to defend against it) but you will still need a long distance straight line attack of the base as well. I can't work out how the air defences (SAMs & the like) are picking their targets though, so you might need some aircraft defending the base so you can target some of the attackers directly. If you don't mind the restriction, instead of a land base, you can use a FARP (its listed as a ship under 'INTL MISC FARP') and attached other units like buildings, radar and SAM. You'll only have VTOL and helos though. Patrols will go after such a group once detected. One thing to watch is that the AI might change its aircraft load outs and directly attack once the target group has been identified. Don For the runway. the Mitchel floating base could work but then you need to add carrier capable planes

Correct, aircraft sent on LR Patrol missions will not attack an airbase, port, etc. They would attack a ship or sub group, and should attack a mobile land unit group. I don't know if there might be some combination of MLUs and fixed bases that would at least make it appear a multi-axis attack was underway. True scenario craftsmanship required there I bet. How 'bout, ring the base with SAM launchers within the same group?

2 - works for me.

Item 2 tested and seems to have been overcome, no crashes now, and the game seems to run more swiftly. Not sure if a bug but AI attack planes seem to love to loiter over targets attacked but not destroyed.

You've provided a right good challenge. I can't even load the save because of an ugly bug that isn't easy to track down (a heap corruption problem). Quite the difficult bugger so far! I think I got it. But I'll need a new saved game from you that recreates the crash in 2010.010, sorry, and thank you! Thanks Tony, be sure to chase me as I´ll be arriving late at home from work and liable to forget in the usual chaos of the weekend (children, weekly shopping, etc.)

savegame and logs attached. Version is 2010.09 with the HCDB. Error scenario is also attached HCError.zip

No version number in the title bar so I must have an older version. Where do I get the new version? Are you using the correct Database? I got one of those messages with 2010.09 when I used the 50-to-65.DB with a standard scenario (I wanted to see the platforms, even though it gave place to all kinds of wierdness)

What scenario are you using? Do you happen to have a save you can post of the game just before one of the crashes? Any more guidance on reproducing the crash would be appreciated. Thank you It's a custom built scenario, I was watching red air try to overwhelm blue air, I´ll see if I can dig up more out of the computer, it apparently saved the error file somewhere... Also, this is olde news but AI air still loiters waiting to consume cannon ammo in attack missions.