CV32

37 minutes ago, Byron said:

And the details are things that I can’t talk about. Not that an old yardbird knows diddly about radar or weapons but I do still have to be careful about what I talk about. I will tell you this in case you guys want to add it to a Db: the San Antonio class LPD has a space below the main deck forward of the deckhouse that arraingement drawings (not drawings to build by) that shows a VLS. There is talk that the next subclass will have a VLS in this space. 

Yes, a 16 cell Mk 41 VLS was part of the original LPD-17 design.

And Hughes let slip at a Navy League show circa 1996 that there was also room for more VLS cells forward of the bridge.

IIRC, the original DB entry for the LPD-17 included the 16 cell VLS.

One tends to collect this kind of information as a DB editor. 😉

20 minutes ago, Byron said:

Mea culpa… at 70 I really shouldn’t try to watch TV, talk to my wife and keep up with a thread. Sorry, Brad, I shot my mouth off before reading your post correctly. You guys are as professional as anyone in the business, more so, and I should have trusted what you said 

No worries. And no apologies necessary.

There are a undoubtedly a multitude of details that only a shipyard worker would know, and which impact the real life capabilities of a warship, but which never make it to a Harpoon database.

Unfortunately, because I truly love the details! 🙂

1 hour ago, TonyE said:

Brad is pointing out that that Flight II ships don't have hangars.  The follow-on Flight IIA Burkes such as Farragut do have the hangar bays.

 

Correct.

2 hours ago, Byron said:

Brad, I have walked, climbed and crawled all over the Farragut and have been in both hangar bays. You going to believe a picture or someone has, you know, been on the actual ship?

In this case, it has to be the photo, because that is how USS Mahan (DDG-72) - like other Flight II Arleigh Burkes - is configured. No hangars, just the pad.

USS Farragut (DDG-99), meanwhile, is a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke, with the pad and the dual hangars.

China’s Hypersonic Mystery Weapon Released Its Own Payload And Nobody Knows Why (The War Zone)

The pessimist in me thinks 'warhead', and more particularly, potentially an EMP weapon.

15 hours ago, Byron said:

I'm writing a scenario with the database that came with the game and I discovered that the Flight II Burkes could not carry Helos. Since I've actually been aboard the Farragut, I can attest to the fact that it has two helo hangars  Starting with the Mahan they all have helo hangars.

Byron

USS Mahan (DDG-72) certainly has a helicopter pad but perhaps have a closer look at the aft end of that destroyer. 😉

USS Farragut (DDG-99), btw, is a Flight IIA Burke. 🙂

12 hours ago, Byron said:

What killed me was 16 Phoenix with no hits (from two different flights of 3 each) and the last ditch was a pair of Sparrows and the Sparrows did the trick.

 

Unlucky die rolls. 😊

22 hours ago, Retro Viator said:

Though I'm no expert, I have done my best to put together a history of Harpoon.  It's posted at my blog: Harpoon – Retro Viator. I have had a wonderful time pouring through old forums, abandoned websites (thanks to the Internet Archive: Wayback Machine), and reading through manuals and strategy guides.  Besides, this gave me an excuse to pick up all the boxed Harpoon software I could find! If you notice any egress errors or omissions, please let me know in the comments.  Thank you!

Excellent piece of work.

I would note that this comment - "By mid-2013, essentially all community-driven Harpoon database and scenario work had ended." - is more about Harpoon 3/ANW than about the Harpoon Classic/HCE stream.

There is the issue of perception during game play (because of the effect of die rolls, principally.)

And then there is the DB reality:

Rafale (all versions), ATA/DATA values are 55/30 (the same as Eurofighter, for example.)

By comparison, the F-14B/D is 45/25.

As for Mica (all versions), its hit probability (pH) is 75.

By comparison, the AIM-54C Phoenix is 55.

Send an early fourth generation fighter up against a late 4.5 generation fighter, get bad die rolls, and viola ... these kind of results.

One of the worst offending annexes when it comes to the hard ceiling of the annex limits is the Loadouts annex.

The HCDB/HCDB2 has tried to alleviate the pressure on total number of entries in that annex by sharing Loadout entries across multiple platforms when it comes to their 'Ferry' mission.

In other words, multiple aircraft of varying types with a roughly similar ferry range value now share a single Loadout annex entry.

Assuming annex limits remain, one way to potentially alleviate the pressure would be to create a new field in the Aircraft annex for 'Ferry range'.

This would eliminate the need to create 'Ferry' loadouts altogether, and free up hundreds of Loadout entries in that annex.

Its kinda ugly, it has potential side effects, and its just one example of where the annex limits create headaches for DB editors.

Random thought.

Aircraft Carrier Killer: What Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles Are, And Who Has Them (Naval News)

A topic that came up during the recent Zoom get together.

Hey Don, this thread reminds me of the work done for Zones of Control: Perspectives on Wargaming.

11 hours ago, eeustice said:

I hope we generate enough interest in new platforms to get Brad interested again to generate an updated db.

If that's all it was, the DB would be updated regularly as before. The annex ceiling limits are well known as the primary obstacle at the moment.

On 11/6/2021 at 10:17 PM, donaldseadog said:

I've been using these in the belly of F35s against ships with devastating results. They seem like  cheating. One thing I quickly noticed was that you can launch them at the max range from any altitude, the limited data I could find specified that the range is significantly reduced when lunched from lower altitudes (as expected). Maybe some twweeking of database would be good now this sort of weapon is getting significant range (~60nm), or is it a game engine thing? Its so long since I looked at databases I can't remember if range against launch height can be specified, or is it a 'simulation thing' where the aircraft quickly climbs, releases weapon then descends so is effectively still low? They also seem to be very effective on large ships although only a relatively small payload, ?

The GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II (now called StormBreaker) is probably living up to its manufacturer's claims.

Tri-mode seeker, long range glide, small signature, etc make it a very versatile weapon.

HCDB2 does not (yet) use H5 values, but still employs H4 values where available, giving the range 40 nm and DP 37.

Latest Images Of Russia’s Checkmate Fighter Shows Us Just How Big It Really Is (The War Zone, 13 November 2021)

China Is Using E-3 Sentry Mockups For Targets On Its Ballistic Missile Impact Range (The War Zone, 11 November 2021)

Watch out Kadena.

China’s Massive New Aircraft Carrier Is As Big As It Can Be (Naval News, 27 Oct 2021)

No ski jump. Three catapults. The angled deck is evident, but whether a Chinese version of EMALS will ultimately be fitted seems uncertain.

How Powerful Is China’s Military? The Pentagon’s New China Report Offers Answers (1945)

Link to the CMPR:

Military and Security Developments Involving the PRC 2021 (DOD, pdf)

The Pentagon’s 2021 China Military Power Report: My Summary (Andrew Erickson)

Interesting discussion on the Taiwan question and the extent of Chinese military power in the region. 🙂

The Nyayo already exists. ID 3323.

Already exists. ID 6300.

Both the A-4M and OA-4M already exist. ID 11103 and 11104.

Most if not all of the Mirage F1 variants already exist, including those operators you mention.

The same is true of the Mirage 2000, including the Egyptian version.

The Petya II already exist. ID 2893.

The international Turya entry, ID 2431, was being worked on but contains the Ethiopian vessels.

Already exists. ID 6297.