broncepulido

A bit scarce text, but very nice (and representative) photos and memoires

Interesting. Effectively, considering the aircraft to be rectangle-shaped, this is the same as Y = (side area) x (wing area) Note that wing area has units of square meters, not meters. Instead of wing area, you should probably use top area, which is not exactly the same. But mainly, I think you should not be multiplying these two areas, but rather averaging them. This would be important for planes that are significantly larger in one view than the other. Or maybe it would have no practical effect at all. Clearly you're right, in my original formula: - The area size is in square meters. - The values lenght+height+wing area are ADDED, not multiplied. For me is clear issue ... the problem was to explain it (for sake of that, I've send the examples...) It seems to me that simulating visual detection is pretty hard as there are so many factors and some aren't modelled (eg sound). Things like detecting a glider head on is difficult, but from above or below it is much easier. Also detecting a plane that is right behind the searcher as against one right in front, I'm sure there will be some things used in determining detection that are found to work but the explanation is not clear. Don Yes, but counting with the limitations of the Game Engine, as it's not discrimination in the relative "facing" of any the platforms (the sound issue is a different question), we can considerer a middle "visual impact/radar cross section" value in all the platforms, as all the platforms are in the same relative case (i.e. none of the platforms are discriminated by a differente "facing" in any case). Mmmm, I see my explanation is a little confuse ...

Interesting. Effectively, considering the aircraft to be rectangle-shaped, this is the same as Y = (side area) x (wing area) Note that wing area has units of square meters, not meters. Instead of wing area, you should probably use top area, which is not exactly the same. But mainly, I think you should not be multiplying these two areas, but rather averaging them. This would be important for planes that are significantly larger in one view than the other. Or maybe it would have no practical effect at all. Clearly you're right, in my original formula: - The area size is in square meters. - The values lenght+height+wing area are ADDED, not multiplied. For me is clear issue ... the problem was to explain it (for sake of that, I've send the examples...)

Some examples of values/signatures obtained using the aformentioned formula: Very Small: WWI fighters, WWII fighters, Il-2, Me-262, Ar-234, Gripen, Tiger ARH, Mangusta, UH-1, MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-19, MiG-21, AV-8B, Ka-50, J-10, AH-64, Mi-28, Lyn, Sea Hawk, Hawk, A-4 Skyhawk, Mitsubishi F-1, Jaguar, OV-10, F-5A/E, A-37, Yak-38, SH-2 Seasprite, F-104, Mirage F1, Vampire, Strikemaster, Ajeet, JF-17, Bearcat, Sikorsky 55, Ka-15 Hen, Magister, Alouette II/III, F-82, F-94, Ouragan, T-6 Texan (WWII), Sea Fury, F2H-2 Banshee, F9F-2 Panther, F11F Tiger, OH-23 Raven, H-13 Sioux, Sycamore, Po-2 Mule, Yak-15, Yak-23, FJ-1 Fury, F-84D/G Thunderjet, Jastreb, Galeb, Alpha Jet, L-39 Albatross, SF.260W Warrior, Super Galeb. Small: Me-110, Mosquito, He-219, Ju-87, F/A-18A/E, Rafale, F-16, UH-60, EH-101, Su-7/17/22, Mi-8, SH-3 Sea King, A-10, Mi-25, Super Frelon, CH-53, Mirage III/5, Mirage 2000, Etendard, Super Etendard, MiG-23/27, MiG-29, Su-15 Flagon, A-7 Corsair II, F-8 Crusader, Draken, Tornado, Yak-25M, Yak-28P, Su-25, F-101, Alize, King Air, RQ-4, S-2 Tracker, Hunter, Marut, F-86 Sabre, A-1 Skyraider, F-82, Skynight, Su-11, F-100 Super Sabre, Mi-17, Skyray, Vatour, F-105, Gannet, Sikorsky 58, U-2A, Scimitar, Ar-196, Me-410, Fw-189, Mystere IV, Super Mystere, Il-10 Beast, F2H-3 Banshee, F9F-8 Cougar, Fairey Firefly, FJ-3 Fury, R/F-84F Thunderstreak/Thunderflash, TBF-3 Avenger, IAI Westwind, Skyvan, Tejas. Large: Ju-88, B-25, Ju-52, F-102, A-6 Intruder, CH-47, Yak-25RV, Viggen, F-4 Phantom, Mirage IV, S-3 Viking, Su-24 Fencer, Su-27/30/34/35/37, F-15 Eagle, Il-28 Beagle, RB-66C, A-3 Skywarrior, F-111, Mig-25, F-3 Demon, Savage, Gotha (WWI), Constellation, F-106 Delta Dart, E-2 Hawkeye, A-12/SR-71, U-2R, CH-54 Tarhe, Javelin, Sea Vixen, Lancaster, B-17, B-52, B-58, Tu-16, Tu-22 Blinder/Backfire, Fw-200 Condor, C-82, C-119, C-123, B-36, Il-14 Crate, Il-18 Coot, F7U Cutlass, B-47 Stratojet, YS-11, Yak-24 Horse, AF Guardian, HU-16 Albatross, Tu-14 Bosun, F-89 Scorpion, CF-100 Canuck, B-26 Invader, C-47 Dakota, Privateer, Buccaneer, B-29, Tu-4, Eurofighter.

Other adjustments beside (for stealth, attack helicopters and perhaps small UAVs) I use this formula: Aircraft Height (in meters) X Aircraft Lenght (in meters) X Aircraft Wing Area (in meters, in helicopters Rotor Area/10)= Y If Y <= 45 (if Y equal or smaller than 45), signature Very Small. If Y between 45 and 70, signature Small. If Y > 70 (if Y greater than 70), signature Large.

Another link, but without details: http://www.eleven-bravo.co.uk/the-war/orde...ttle/USNPub.pdf USS Midway link: http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway/cruises04.html Another curiosity (Perhaps perousing on that site ..... but I doubt it): http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/239/2391212004A.pdf http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/virtualarchive/index.htm#in

Here is a news report from yesterday about the seven Libyan aircraft destroyed by French forces (it seems the aircrafts were destroyed in the ground in the zones of Misrata and Zintan). In short: - Artillery destroyed (near Ajdabiyah) by GBU-12 launched from Mirage 2000D-R2 (variant in use from 2001). - Five Galeb destroyed. - Two Mi-35 Hind destroyed. http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=115743

At last a glimpse of the truth is revealing now: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...aeda-links.html And as is reflected in Blackfive: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/03/givi...%28BLACKFIVE%29

Its the other way around. The AI can launch strikes of its own accord against surface groups, but they must be 'scripted' to carry out strikes against installations. And a group of planes orbiting a base/carrier group in Antisurface Patrol can easily attack an enemy surface group.

Thanks !

Very interesting. Do you known Silent Hunter the concrete documentary's title, perhaps surfing in the Net I would find it ....

With an AASM inmediatly after the Galeb is landed. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/...E72N60320110324

Very, very interesting issues, but I've a very small amount of spare time the next months. But from early experimentations in another game iterations, I remember some doubtious aspects (some of it experimenting a WWI DB, without radar neither sonar) worth of verification in the recent iterations: - I don't remember to have detect visually a periscope never (only the whole submarine at periscope depth). - I add a sonar named "Periscope" to the SSs, as after repeated experimentation, because the SS without sonar detects visually nothing (and the range of the sonar named "Periscope" was only a minumum 0,1 nm). After added the "Periscope" sonar, the SS apparently detects visually targets at long range (range very higher than 0,1 nm.). - I want to reproduce historical situations as the MAS 15 attacking Szent Istvan , but the apparent imposibility of approaching undetected (only visually, of course) the PT boat to the battleship determines the long-range destruction of the PT boat (the battleship detects EVER the PT boat at long range, she can never approach the battleship and fire the torpedoes), the failure of the scenario, and it dissapointed me as for forget all the episode. I think we need a lot of comprobations and perhaps to reduce the visual detection range, but I'm not sure of it or about how to reach our aim. But it can be worst, I remember some years ago comments in the fora about the CGN Long Beach detecting visually in bad weather a PT boat at 70 nm or so (very far away of the horizon limit of 27 nm ), but it was in some iteration of ANW, not in a version of Harpoon Classic .....

Perhaps here ... http://thedailynewsegypt.com/region/qaddaf...ir-strikes.html http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/q...fis-next-moves/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/on-a-l...Yep3_story.html But the affirmation is very doubtious, a very high risk for a small number of fighters nearing ground for a straffing round and with small amounts of ammo (Rafale ammo=1X30mmX125 rpg, Mirage 2000C/5F ammo=2X30mmX125 rpg, Mirage 2000D/N ammo=none) and the French Air Force had retired (as the great majority of updated airforces) the ground attack rockets some years ago. I think it can be only journalist imagination. And not strictly related, journalits used as human shields: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/21/ex...human-shields/#

The 3xNimrod R.1 will be replaced by 3xRC-135 Rivet Joint ... in 2014 with another three years gap, but the only credible replacement to the ill-fated Nimrod MR.4 is the P-8 Poseidon ... http://www.glgroup.com/News/3-year-gap-bet...atre-48987.html

At last was in the same link http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=115649

The Charles de Gaulle has a very limited air wing in the operation: http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=115649 The Charles de Gaulle for this operation carries at least 2xCaracal and 1xPuma of the Armee de l'Air, and probably 2xPanther (I've read this data about helicopters some minutes ago, but I don't find now the source !!! ).

But we must remember the mast height matters in relation to the active/visually searching unit, at more mast height, more visual detection range. with range values similar to that in the paper rules.

The same time values here: http://www.okieboat.com/Talos%20firing%20operations.html

Another ideas: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=81389

I've send a e-mail to Phillip Hays requesting about the particular ...

Actually a phantom submarine !!!! Probably not, what a pity !!! http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/art...s/20110313.aspx Probably was

This will be a very long week-end in Libya. http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212699 I see the future Libya splited in two countries, Libya and Cyrenaica, UN sponsored ...

That's a very impressive proclamation Also quite true. Buddha I've not the lesser doubt about it

Effective ESM was only added from the E-2C Hawkeye variant.