JanMasterson

lol, roger that Brad, thx for ur advice

After a nice discussion with Myk and danh yesterday night, it seems that a more "realist" reason for the US absence would add "credibility" to the background. So, what can be a good/realistic reason for the US to not be active in this part of the world? My own, non researched, possibilities: - EMP strike paralized the country, lots of riots everywhere, a kind of civil war; - actual president and some high VIP have been killed by a terror nuc strike when they was visiting a european/asian/african (make ur choice), there's no real leader ATM, so UN is the only "world policeman" ATM; - a major chinese/NK operation strike taiwan/SK, all US forces are defending the region; - well know terorrists have warned the world that if US forces come back in the persian gulf region, many nuc terror attack will strike major cities in the whole world, so there is an enormous political pressure on USA (from every country this time, not just some europeans). What are yours?

After reading this news, i thought about a scen background: off course, US and Israel aren't agreeing and they told us loud and clear, about 1 month after the official annoucement that an iranian perseverance in the nuc way will "invite" US to neutralize the installs, 5 EMP over US territory paralized the whole country, USA is KO. The UN mandate a inspectors team and mandate France to provide armed escort, it consist of the Charles de Gaulle group, they come into he persian gulf via oman strait, at about 50km from Bushehr, the inspectors just taked off from CDG in a helo, just before they reach Bushehr (let's say at about 10nm, 4 israelis SUfa (F-16I) bombard Bushehr (do u remind the raid versus Iraki reactor?) ), iranian are now convinced that french are "hostiles", in fact, they think that every stranger is now "hostile", The orders, commander, is to drive ur CVBG outside the persian gulf ASAP and without loosing ur ships with everything speaking farsi trying to kill u)

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B7D...90095339D5A.htm Thursday 17 February 2005, 16:54 Makka Time, 13:54 GMT An Iranian official has said a key agreement with Russia on the return of spent nuclear fuel will be signed by the end of the month. The deal will pave the way for Iran's first nuclear power plant. Asadollah Sabouri, a deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation, was quoted by state television as saying that the agreement would allow Russia to provide Bushehr's power reactor with fuel, and would be signed on 26 February. The signing of the agreement, which obliges Iran to return spent nuclear fuel to Russia, will take place during Russian atomic energy chief Alexander Rumyantsev's three-day visit to Tehran, starting on 25 February, he said. "Under the agreement, Russia will provide Bushehr power plant's fuel for the next 10 years," Sabouri said, with the first shipment of fuel due to be delivered by plane three months after the signing. An agreement on the return to Russia of spent nuclear fuel has remained the key impediment to the $800 million project to build the plant in Bushehr, southern Iran. Vigorous denial Tehran has in the past used various arguments to avoid signing the agreement. It has said the material was too volatile and dangerous to transport back to Russia and also that Moscow was charging too much for the fuel itself. The United States and Europe have raised alarm that Iran could reprocess the spent fuel delivered from Russia by upgrading it through centrifuges for weapons development instead, a charge Tehran has vigorously denied. Both the US and Israel have jointly campaigned against the Bushehr project, but Moscow - considerate of the huge monetary gains from the deal - has countered that it would make sure the plant remained harmless to protect its own security interests. The announcement of the nuclear fuel deal comes just weeks after the US administration said it could not rule out the use of military force if Tehran failed to drop its alleged efforts to develop an atomic weapons capability. AFP

Did someone have tested it? ANyone have a feedback for me?

About database structure, IMHO, each databse should have a common core, about 500-1000 entries with the most common platforms that can be seen everywhere in the world like civilian ships but also and mostly, the capital ships of the most powerfull navies. Then, each specialized DB add his own layer off specialized platforms over the common core. I know that the main obstacle is IDs. So to avoid to create gaps and clones, we should start with DB full of generic and even cloned platforms that fill the DB to have an ID. So every "new" platfrom just replace the datas but keep the ID number of the generic. And about "space" management, we should decide before doing any concrete work how much platforms each parts need. Exemple, let's say that the common core will represent hundreds ships because we want to be able to fight with the whole NATO fleet everywhere in the world. Then we "reserve" 1000 ID numbers to the common core. Idem for each specialized layer. What do u think about it? Jan

It seems that these answers are pretty well know by many people, so can someone tell me what are the range of ESM, RWR, FLIR, IRST and TCS codes that can be seen in the Aicraft Annex, under the "Flags" field. Thx by advance.

About SEAD mission, what i recommend is to micro-manage ur units. It can be very hard when u have plenty units but it's far more effctive than what AI can do. SEAD raid is the first step and if it fail, the whole raid should be cancelled if u won't scarify ur units.

Nice initiative! My mods are particulary focused on 2005+ period but feel free to insert it into ur DB. If u want a partner to manage this period datas, we can meet to talk about it more indeep.

Sea King AEW.7, id.10362 Name his official designation seems to be Sea King Mk7 ASaC but AEW.7 is very common too. Size, from Small to Large MaxAlt: real life ceiling is 4250, so MaxAlt should be High because Medium is up to 3500m, but High is up to 20000m. Pretty higher for an helo, don't u think? So let's keep it at Medium. Range: from 700 to 664 DATA: from 5,0 to 10,0 Pic: id: 240 http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jansfiles/harpoon/res394.bmp Flags: Blip Enhance? U sure? Alt/Speed: Cruise Speed: from 90 to 112, Mil. speed from 110 to 131 Loadouts: Loadout "Patrol #55768 (664 nm)" updated to match Range and Data corrected values. Sensors: The "Searchwater LAST" (Low Alt. Surveil. Task) was accrried by Sea King AEW.2A, the AEW.7 carry the Searchwater 2000AEW (different from Searchwater 2000MR, this one is fitted on the Nimrod MRA.4) Peter Grining described it"Searchwater 2000 radar (AS, SS, modes and adds over land capability, range increased 30-40%. Use ranges 230/147/92/41.4/23)" Thales specified that it have a "look up/look down capability". Text: After being stung badly during the 1982 Falklands conflict, the British Royal Navy had 10 of its Sea King HAS Mk2 helicopters initially retrofitted with Thorn-EMI (later Racal and now Thales Avionics) Searchwater radars to provide airborne early warning (AEW) of attacks against its ships by sea-skimming missiles. The AEW response, rapidly contrived by the Royal Navy and British industry, was effective. And with some 13 airframes eventually modified to carry the distinctive bulbous swiveling radome and house an interior sensor operator workstation, the Sea King AEW Mk2 remained in service substantially unaltered. Until recently. The 13 Royal Navy airborne early warning AEW.2 helicopters are being upgraded to AEW.7 standard with the Thales Defence Searchwater 2000 radar and Cerberus mission system. The helicopters' designation has been changed to Airborne Surveillance and Area Control (ASaC Mk 7). The Searchwater 2000 radar processing system incorporates a new pulse Doppler mode and Link 16 JTIDS (Joint Tactical Information Distribution System) datalink. The upgrade programme also includes the installation of an additional HaveQuick II secure radio communications system together with an AN/APX-113(V) interrogator transponder from Hazeltine and a video recorder unit. The first two upgraded Sea Kings were delivered in May 2002 and the programme is scheduled for completion in 2005. ASaC Mk 7 helicopters were deployed for the first time onboard HMS Ark Royal as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. Two helicopters were lost in a mid-air collision during the conflict and it is expected that two RN Sea King HAS Mk 6 ASW helicopters will be upgraded to ASaC Mk 7configuration. Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20030202120030/...ukaircraft.html http://h4eur.free.fr/gb/2002/seakingaew7.pdf http://www-v3.thalesgroup.com/all/pdf/searchwater2000aew.pdf

Here are the mods i applied on french platforms: PS: sorry for the "telegraphic" spelling, it's late here and i'm tired.

I backed up the original commondb.res in another folder, created a new one called "actual DB", placed the new commondb in it and renamed it with the complete name and dezipped the fresh new version unto the root folder. I launched the PE, clicked on Import and u know what followed. Can u pot a good old "pfData2002.mdb" somewhere? I want absolutely check the new french AGI

I've a problem with the new DB, when i import it, even with a fresh new install, in the PE editor REV.2003.16b5, it prompt an error "Execution error 3061, not parameters enough, 1 waited". When in chosse "end" ("FIn" in french version), it seems to freeze (waited 35 minutes). What is it and what can i do to resolve it? Thx

Here is a little xls sheet (office 97/2003) created to help loadout designers by converting real life datas into multipliers directly applicable to loadouts. All instructions incorporated. the file is free of know viruses. http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jansfiles/har...liers_table.zip (3,758 Ko)

Okay, i just redisigned all the Rafale's loadouts (every version) and it seems that dividing payload multipliers by 10% steps are far more accurate than the former solution (0-15, 16-60, etc.) It results in a better representation of versions differences (between land and carrier based versions, there is now a real difference in loadouts ranges and DATA).

Here are the facts: I learned just yesterday that refuel pods are just an interface, between the "tanker" and the "client", that allow to ransfer the fuel contained in the tanker fuel tanks to the client. Before yesterday, i was conviced that refuel store just transfered the fuel that it contain, nothing more. So, since i know this fact, i'm asking myself if, in Tanker configuration, drop tanks shouldn't be considered as "fuel store" only for "clients", not for the tanker, since, AFAIK, it's almost impossible into Harpoon (any version) to have an accurate fuel store management. (basically sahring fuel between tanker and "clients" and update the tanker's radius) So, in the loadouts i will design from now, in every "Tanker" configuration, the drop tanks weight will be took in account bur NOT the range bonus that they gives because i'll consider that all the fuel it contains will be for "clients". What do u think about that?

After designing some loadouts, it seems that this rules should have more "steps" because there is a hughe gap between 16 and 60% and the loadouts that 59% of the payload only have the same multipliers that a loadout that weight 17%. IMHO, it should have a step every 20%, or even 10%. What do u think about it?

Here are the modifications i applied to "my" DB (in fact, HCDB-050124 on my HDD). I verified sources, at least, twice, most figures comes from Jane's publications, H4 or real life professionnams working with this plane. U can see the loadouts i designed for my own usage here, feel free to use it They are based from real life rafale's validation videos, pilots indications and Jane's publications. I used the rule i exposed on this forum (loadout multipliers) to match as close as possible the effects on range and DATA that specific loadouts can have. http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jansfiles/har..._C_loadouts.htm http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jansfiles/har..._B_loadouts.htm http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jansfiles/har..._M_loadouts.htm PS: Here are pics u can add in ur own "C:\Games\Harpoon 1 Classic 2002 Gold\commondb\rsr" folder, modify the pic ID in the PE and u'll have some nice pics in the ingame Platform Display. Rafale M, pic id.232 http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jansfiles/harpoon/res386.bmp Rafale C, pic id.233 http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jansfiles/harpoon/res387.bmp Rafale B, pic id.234 http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jansfiles/harpoon/res388.bmp

Nice to see that the ASW family is more pragmatic than other military branches that needs to see soldiers dying to understand that their concept aren't goods. About these new tactics, as far as i understand, it's central element is strategic surprise, right? In this case, u have two choices: have forces everywhere to let your ennemy ask himslef "where do they will attack?" or to be very discreet about ur strategic choices (exemple: don't say to the whole planet that a certain country will be ur next target). Apart this low rated philosophy, i think that this new approach will require better and unmanned sensors, like Underwater Unmanned Recce Vehicle.

Terrorists thesis or Secret Services? A such event is a call for a military reinforcement in the region. Hope that the missiles won't be used versus civilians.

Since i'm definitely an expert of this kind of weapon, let me define what is "CIWS", mostly for myself. Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/close-in-weapon-system Now, let's proceed methodically: - Is it a naval shipboard weapon system? Yes; - "destroying incoming anti-ship missiles and enemy aircraft"?: Yes, without ambiguity; - at short range, (when) the threat(s) having penetrated the ship's available outer defences? It have a range, at least, twice than Goalkeeper and Phalanx systems, but yes, it's still the last line of defence. So, after a short and unexhaustive analyse, it can be said that this system can be considered as a CIWS. U'll ( or someone else) will certainly argue that it's ROF is about 4 times smaller than an usual CIWS. True, but what it should be considered here is the ammo used. Goalkeeper and Phalanx sytems uses AP rounds ( depleted uranium or tungsten ) that mean that the ammo must directly hit the vampire to obtain an hard kill. The Millennium gun system use air-bursting munitions (each round consisting of 152 sub-projectiles, weight of each sub-projectile 3.3 g, muzzle velocity 1,050 m/s). Thanks to this, it's "Kill distance" (distance where it's capable to defeat high speed vampires) is, at least, 1,2 Km (0,648nm), that is more than twice than Goalkeeper (500m, 0,27nm) or Phalanx (300m, 0,162nm). It's like comparing a machine gun (like M240B) with an automatic grenade launcher (like Mk19). About CIWS, here is an interisting anecdotes: "Because of the inefficiency and balkiness of the original CIWS units, the acronym received the facetious expansion of "C****t! It won't shoot!" And about the origin of the concept: "The concept of a CIWS came in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 when an Indian anti-ship missile penetrated the tanker PNS Dacca's outer defences. Despite this, Leading Seaman Muhammed Hanif, manning his anti-aircraft gun, kept firing at the incoming missile till the last. Though he destroyed the missile and managed to save the ship, he was himself killed by the explosion. Muhammad Hanif left a legacy that gave birth to a new concept in naval warfare, the Close-in Weapon System, for defence against low flying anti-ship missiles." (Same source as above). Hope it helps, Jan

Type of cannon: gas-operated revolver cannon with four chambers Max range: 3500 metres ( 1,890nm) Caliber: 35mm ROF: 1000 rounds per minutes (16rounds/s). Basic load: 200 rounds Capability to fire Ahead ((Advanced Hit Efficiency And [10:30] <JanM> Destruction) air burst munition (ABM)) ammunition (each round consisting of 152 sub-projectiles, weight of each sub-projectile 3.3 g, muzzle velocity 1050 m/s) It's a kind of improved airbust since it can be programmed (when and how detonate) http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/product.php?lang=3&fid=1570 http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00218001 http://proceedings.ndia.org/3500/Bradick_NL_NDIA.pps (powerpoint doc) Jan

What about their AirForce? Heard that their last squadron was disbanded some years, true?

Hm, ur explanation sounds very good but how can the detection range variations been so low with so differents PD values? (no more than 7nm with PD 90 and 9).

In fact, i think that if a specific time period and/or area require a lone DB to be exhaustive, why don't just dedicate an entire DB? Off course, i don't have very precise idea about how many entries that are required to be exhaustive for a giventime period/area. So, yes, at least for now, we can just dedicate a DB to a specific geographic region. Are u suggesting that the Rene's DB should be a good basis for a European DB? It's thrue that his work on former FGR SAM net is very impressive. IMHO, we should start form scratch a redesign everythings rather than just "modify" an existing DB. Off oucrse, it will be very time consuming but it will aslso make us "immunated" versus bad surprises in the case of an old entry become an obstacle.