CV32

As far as open source intel goes, it pretty much started to trickle out once the Cold War ended, post 1991.

The pop bottle boat looks promising in the speed dept, but I'm concerned about the apparent lack of torpedo bulges.

Just start a new thread.

No other aircraft appear to be missing their IFR capable flags (or have flags when they shouldn't).

From Jane's Rafale set for return to MRCA contention By Jon Grevatt 22 May 2009 Dassault Aviation's Rafale is likely to be allowed to return as a contender to meet the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) multirole combat aircraft (MRCA) requirement, the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) said on 21 May. MoD spokesman Sitanshu Kar told Jane's that it was possible the aircraft could bid for the USD10 billion contest but stressed that the final decision would be made by the incoming defence minister. The Rafale was reportedly declared out of the contest in mid-April by the MoD, which said at the time that the aircraft did not meet its technical requirements. IAF and MoD sources also suggested that Dassault did not provide adequate information about the aircraft's equipment. That information is now understood to have been handed over to the MoD, although Kar did not confirm this.

19.7 nm actually (39,900 yd) I'll fix it for the next version of the HCWW.

Yes. I may be wrong, but I think you can receive the same fuel load as long as the tanker is available to give it. (Confirmed with Tony). Only if you (as the scenario author) include a tanker with the AI group of aircraft that is scripted to be launched. Individual aircraft or groups of AI controlled aircraft are not smart enough to seek out and join with a tanker for refueling.

I'd say you're getting a real nice warble tone.

Okay, history lesson aside, the E-2B Hawkeye which appears in the scenario is NOT IFR capable, nor should it be. The RA-5C Vigilante, which also appears, should be and is missing its flag. (This will be fixed in the next iteration of the HCDB). (I always aim to try and make sure whatever help that's posted here will be useful to anyone who might read it. It helps to cut down on the same questions being asked repeatedly (in theory, at least) and to eliminate the variable between the chair and the computer. So, whenever someone posts a tanker/refueling issue, it is useful to determine early on if the aircraft involved are actually IFR capable).

That's the objective, Eugene. It will no doubt take a while to put together, but many hands make light work, and if folks step forward to help write the scenarios, it'll go that much faster.

Are you sure that all the aircraft in your group(s) were actually capable of in-flight refueling? Some are not. You can only check for this in the database using the Platform Editor. Tankers offload a quantity of fuel equal to the range of the tanker's own loadout. Take a KC-10 Extender tanker, for example: Its tanker loadout has a range of 7,500 nm. Suppose you join that KC-10 to a group of B-1 bombers (say four of them). The KC-10 can give each B-1 bomber 1,875 nm worth of fuel (7500/4). You will have difficulties if you try to refuel groups of aircraft of mixed types.

The crew can use the APG-70's air to ground SAR mode to sweep the target area, and then 'freeze' that near photo quality image while they switch back to air to air mode, or examine the image for targets. The resolution is said to be something like 0.67 nm. And, yes, the APG-70 works in tandem with the AAQ-13/14 LANTIRN navigation and targeting pods. This ability has been exploited in the GWOT so that F-15Es have been used to conduct Strike Coordination And Recce (SCAR) sorties for other strike platforms.

They have definitely been moving away from the legacy Harpoon for awhile now. The antiship version of Tomahawk Block IV (Tactical Tomahawk) is only a proposal at this point, one that might be difficult to push in the face of other nations' supersonic developments. There is a lot of research going on that might eventually produce a supersonic AShM (Anti-Ship Missile) for the US Navy (look up a program called the X-51 Waverider, for example), but they are still a long way from fielding anything of this kind. In the interim, they will be continuing to rely on short range PGMs (JDAM, LGBs) and the longer range, subsonic missiles (Harpoon, SLAM-ER).

The F-14's primary role was fleet defense, meaning it had to do both jobs: (1) shooting down the missile carrying bombers (ideally before they launched their missiles); and (2) dealing with any other airborne threat, including enemy fighters. The need to do both missions simultaneously was in large part the reason for the swing wing. SHUK is also right in that the large, expensive (and precious) AIM-54 Phoenix missile was designed to shoot down bombers. Again, ideally, before they could launch their own anti-ship missiles en masse. Hence the AIM-54's long reach and multiple target capability. This is not to say that the AIM-54 could not bring down fighters, but it was not intended for that task and I expect the CAG would want to retain them in any situation where the bomber threat exceeded the fighter threat. I should add that the Phoenix requires that the F-14 keep a radar lock on the target(s) until the missile's own seeker can take over the job (supposedly around the 14 nm mark). Trying to keep lock on a maneuvering fighter can be difficult (especially in low altitude, overland or high ECM conditions), and IIRC, the Iranians found this out when they used their F-14/AIM-54 combination in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

Yes. No one wants to be anywhere nearby when one of those puppies goes off. I can see why this would be an SOP, but I'd say it could be done if the bombs were being released from widely spaced pylons, e.g. on either wing. Hehe. True, there are more effective means of delivery.

I can't see why you couldn't lob toss more than one bomb at a time if they are coming off individual pylons, i.e. one bomb from one wing and one from the other. However, multiple bombs coming off the same pylon might mutually interfere with one another?

The LANTIRN system's AAQ-13 navigation pod has both a terrain following radar and the FLIR.

If you've acquired a taste for 'monster' scenarios, I recommend you try Akula's 'From Russia with Love?' found here. It is the kind of scenario that grabs you by the scruff of the neck and gives you a rather rough shake.

Glad you enjoyed it, Terry.

FD/FH Phantom.

I took your scen for a spin and had much the same experience as Stalintc when it came to opposing air. I took Roosevelt around to the east, and for most of the game I managed to keep her undetected. That is, until I was unceremoniously torpedoed. This is (in fact) a good result. Bravo for good submarine placement! Use the 'Continuous' or 'Variable' repeat feature to maintain a constant patrol or to throw some uncertainty into when AI aircraft might appear on station. If its aircraft are equipped with ESM detections, the AI certainly will exploit ESM detections. Aircraft on formation patrol, however, particularly non-AAW/ASUW patrols, will continue to perform their patrol. For ASUW work, its often a good idea to put a group of suitably equipped aircraft on formation patrol, but beyond the range of player controlled sensors. If the AI picks up a suitable ship target, this group may leave formation to execute an attack.

The only 'III' fighter in recent memory (mine, away) is the Mirage III. (There's the Q-5 III too, but hardly classifies as a 'fighter'). Maybe there's an unwritten rule.

From Flight Global DATE:15/05/09 SOURCE:Flight International Comment: Phantom menace fading away I'm gonna be a re-con ranger! I'm gonna live a life of danger! I'm gonna fly an F-4 jet! I'm gonna waste a So-vee-yet! Well, since the collapse of the Empire so memorably dubbed Evil by Ronald Reagan, we don't hear that old marching song much any more, and that is surely a very good thing. But it's hard not to feel a little nostalgia for the days of nuclear stand-off as the operational end draws nearer for what, alongside the Boeing B-52 bomber, is the iconic piece of Cold War machinery. In service since 1960, the McDonnell Douglas F-4 may sport the most-recognised shape in military aircraft, after the Spitfire. With more than 5,000 built, it ranks numerically behind only the F-86 Sabre among Western jet fighters and was a crucial weapon for the US Navy, Marines and Air Force and for many allied nations, and even fought on TV in the Iran-Iraq war. Nostalgia plays no role in defence planning, so one of the last users, Turkey, can't be faulted for retiring its F-4s to make way for the fifth-generation Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter. Still, it will be a shame when the last F-4 stops flying. F-35 Lightnings sound fine but there will be no better name ever for a supersonic fighter than Phantom. Farewell Phantom - will there ever be a better name?

Congrats. Looks like you got a deal.

From Aviation Week's ARES Blog Iran to Procure Chinese Defense System Posted by David Eshel at 5/15/2009 9:48 AM CDT Iran will turn to China instead of Russia to acquire an advanced air defense system after relations between Iran and Russia hit rock bottom, the official Iranian news agency PressTV reported. For years Iran has been trying to purchase the S-300 anti-aircraft missile, which is considered to be one of the most advanced systems available on the market and would dramatically increase Iran's air defense capabilities against any attacks on its nuclear installations. HongQi-9/FD-2000 system credit http://www.forte.jor.br/ The S-300 surface-to-air missile system, which can track targets and fire at aircraft 75 miles away, features high jamming immunity making it harder to incapacitate the system electronically, and is able to engage up to 100 targets simultaneously. Teheran will now turn to China for the HongQi-9/FD-2000 system which combines elements "borrowed" from the Russian S-300 and the American MIM-104 Patriot system, according to the Iranian news agency. Although experts estimate that the Chinese system does not perform as well as the Russian S-300, it still presents an effective addition to bolster the Iranian air defense, which is virtually obsolete against any modern air attack on its vital strategic installations. There is no unclassified information regarding the effectiveness of western countermeasures against the HongQi-9/FD-2000 system, nor against the Russian S-300. There was unconfirmed speculation over possible electronic countermeasures used during the 2007 attack on the alleged Syrian reactor.