broncepulido

Thanks for the last update Brad. I will work in some 1976-1978 scenarios!!!

Interesting. We can live with it if we considere the irregular values in bold as random atmospheric events.

From my working tables about aircraft performances, not cited sources, but all the data obtained in serious aviation books or magazines: Kfir C.1: máximum speed Low 702, High 1317, climb rate 238. Kfir C.2: Low 750/756, High 1233/1258, climb rate 176. Kfir C.7/C.10/C.12: Low 750, High 1319, climb rate 233.

Cold war, spooks, Sci-Fi and Lovecraftiana in a little instant classic, including the hypothetical nuclear-powered B-39 Peacemaker, in service 1955?-1985?, launcher of XK-Pluto: http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm

Very probably a typo, not at home and without computer neither my tables today, I will see it tomorrow, very late in the day ...

:D

Aside the previously mentioned: Ka-25Ts Hormone-B (1967-1995?), as target designator and search in missile cruisers and other Soviet warships.

Mmmm, at this time mainly in doubt about to include 1976-1979 platforms, as CVH Kiev and Yak-38 Forger, to close the circle and to build some scenarios based on the Fleet (Sixth Fleet, etc.) series of games ...

Very interesting and realistic scenario. At this moment, some 7 hours game time played (almost all the time to 1-5 seconds elapse), Petropavlosk destroyed after the second wave of all the three carriers A-7E Corsair and A-6E Intruder and one only attack of the B-52D Stratofortress. Thanks, Brad

Good news and nice screenshots, thanks, Mark!

Casually I'm reading today a very detailed book, "Tupolev Tu-22 Blinder", by Sergei Burdin and Alan E. Dawes, Pen & Sword 2006. On page 114 and 115 showing true world ECM range numbers very similar to employed in Harpoon in the descripted Tu-22P ECM systems: SPS-4M/5M/6 range against enemy radars with 100% efectiveness: 54 to 70 nm. SPS-77 range against enemy radars with 100% efectiveness: 27 nm. SPS-44 Buket suite of Badger-J: range against enemy radars with 100% efectiveness: 81 nm. (a lot of interesting points in the book, including mention to the Krivak I FFG Storozhevoy (Baltic Fleet) mutiny attempt in 1975 and Blinder interception, but at last bombed by Su-17 or Yak-28, page 144. Another point: training in attack formatión of 31 Tu-22K, page 179. Use of Tu-22PD Blinder-E jammers in Afghanistan against the Pakistani defences and F-16 to protect the Backfire incursions, page 186).

None of the USS Long Beach CGN-9 variants is present! (One of my all-time favorite ships!). Type 82 Bristol (configuration 1973-1981) it's not present.

Some other research about the HCCW-130530: About American missile cruisers: Baltimore-class heavy cruiser Boston (and Canberra) missile conversion and derivatives (entries 2493, 2494, 2495, 2496) should be equipped with 203mm Mk15 guns, with 3-4 rounds per minute rate of fire (not Mk16, with 10 rpm), they're erroneously equipped with 152mm guns in the DB, as was in the Salem case. The 2x76mm twin mounts should be a total of 4, not 6. Also, as per picture evidence in navysource.org, the 76mm were keep to the ship decomm. Also, the each twin Terrier launcher in Boston and Canberra should be armed with 72 missiles (not 36), for a total of 144 Terrier missiles, as states Conway's and other sources. The Terrier missile types carried by Canberra and Boston to the end of her career should be limited to the RIM-2A/B BW-0/1 (Beam Rider-Wing control), as per picture evidence. USS Galveston CLG variants (2547, 2548, 2549) lacks another 152mm Mk16 triple fwd as B mount. Albany class variants (2479, 2480, 2481, 2482) lack the RIM-8 Talos magazines below deck, with another 2x29 RIM-8 Talos on each ship (now are only equipped with the 23xTalos above deck in-mount missiles) The Belknap (And Truxtun) variants should be armed with 2x1 76mm/50 Mk34 single mounts, not 2x2 76mm/50 Mk33 twin mounts. The Charles F. Adams variants have her Tartar/Standard Mk11(twin arm) and Mk13 (single arm) missile launchers interchanged. The older ships (DDG-2 to 14) should have the Mk11 (twin arm, 42 missiles) launcher, and the newer ships (DDG-15 to 24) the Mk13 (single arm, same rate of fire, 40 missiles). The radars are ever a compromise, difficult to trace even in individual ships (navsource.org is a very good and easy source), and some types are very proclive to identification errour, and I don't want to deep on it. But one of the few clear issues is this: some cruisers are equipped at same time with SPS-37 and SPS-43 radars. I think, after some study and reading Norman Friedman "Naval Radar", they are two long range AS radars replacement sequences, with very similar or technically identical antennas in some types: SPS-17 (employed in CLG, range 233, P=D45) to SPS-37 (r=233, PD=55) to SPS-43 (r=300, PD=60; square bedstead in the three types) as employed in DLG frigates reclassified in 1975 as CG and small converted missile cruisers/CLG. SPS-17A (employed only in YAGR,range 300, PH=45) to SPS-37A (r=300, PD=55) to SPS-43A (r=300, PD=60; very elongated rectangular antenna in the three types), as employed in aircraft carriers, large missile cruisers, as Albany-class (CG-10 to 12), Long Beach CGN-9, Los Angeles, Boston and Canberra (CAG-1 to CAG-2) or converted Galveston CLG-3 to CLG-8. As conclusion the simultaneous presence of SPS-17, SPS-17A, SPS-37, SPS-37A, SPS-43 or SPS-43A in the same ship at the same time is incompatible (the range and PD values are only my estimates).

Yes, the Alfa theorically can do máximum speed all the way, up the limit of mechanical breakout (probably only time limited by metal fatigue of the steam generator pipes). But running at that speed probably she should sonar blind also all the way. To deal with it was partly designed the at least 55 knots (in his early marks) Mk48 heavyweight torpedo, but of course not capable of be air launched .... Another clear countermeasure were the nuclear depth bombs Ed: another option was the wire guided Mk45 nuclear single-wire guided ASW torpedo, in service 1963-1976, with an estimated PK=2 (generating two kills, the probably targeted Soviet submarine, and the US firing submarine!!!)

it sounds as great news! Thanks by the report, Grumble.

Smmurprising and funny face for a future scholar! Go Maria, go!

The removed Mk13 is represented in the entry 2727 O.H. Perry (Mod) (2004+), the remanent SM-1MR were retired from the USN and sent to allied countries. Beware building scenarios!!!

Now "al fresco", as almost every summer night, but the number crunching is in the issue report, hehehe

Another target achieved, now, only one week ago from when the scenario was published, when someone types "Attain Document III" in Google search he or she should find in fifth position my HCE scenario, hehehe https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=attain+document+iii&rlz=

Ok, after some testing with the 76mm gun, the surface-to-air and surface-to-surface gunnery arcs are recovered!!!

Other thing OK: tested the Perry Mk13 missile launchers without fire arcs, all OK, the missile launcher is uncapable to shoot.

Errr, the Mk13 in the Perry is in the forward position ... About if it can fire in the aft arc, as a SARH missile requieres only terminal illumination of the FCR the latest 5-15 seconds, but to be fired in the general target direction, the SM-1MR can't be fired in the aft arc, because the Mk13 angle of fire limitations (it can't be fired in the aft direction), if not, it could be enganged later, near to the target, by the FCR. But I think a SM-2MR/ER can do it, as is command guided (many times by the SPY-1 employed also as tracking radar), as the SM-2 can change his general direction in flight guided by the SPY-1 or other tracking radar, and after, in the general target direction, engage the FCR terminal illumination to hit the target. As conclusión: an O.H. Perry with SM-1MR can't fire in the aft arc, an O.H.Perry with SM-2MR (as the Australian Adelaide), can fire his SM-2MR in the forward and p/s arcs, guided it in flight to the aft arc before engaging the target, and later, near the target, receive the FCR illuminated-target signal and hit it on the ship after arc. At least, that's what I think today ...

Just constated the same some few minutes ago with a O.H. Perry, after the painful and long explanations about this other issue, with the attached test scenario : http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/tracker/issue-26-chaotic-sam-rate-of-fire/ (I tested it reducing the Perry launcher to only the two frontal fractions of arc). About the real fire arcs, I was thinking the same just in this moment: The Charles F. Adams have only two aft SPG-51 FCR illuminators, I think it's true for Charles F. Adams class the after arc firing limitation. But in the High Tide annex we can read the frontal Mk68 FCR (frontal arc) for the 127mm gun was replaced in some units from 1984 with a Mk86 GFCS, capable of direct an additional Standard missile, apparently also in the frontal arc. Conclusión: earlier probably 2(BR)/4(SARH) simultaneous missiles only in the aft arc and p/s, and after 5 or 6 simultaneous missiles also in the frontal arc (A Beam Rider or command guided missile, as the earlier Terrier, earlier Masurca, earlier Sea Slug, SA-N-1, SA-N-2, SA-N-3, SA-N-4 need all the way guidance, a SARH missile needs only terminal guidance, and to be illuminated coherently only the last 5-15 seconds near to the target, I represent that duplicanting the number of missiles in the air per FCR in the SARH missiles in relation to BR/command guidance missiles). The O.H. Perry is a more complex issue, his Standard (SARH) missiles can be illuminated with a frontal arc Mk92 FCR (Netherlands WM-28 variant, egg-shaped radome), and with a mid-ship Mk82 STIR FCR mainly for the gun and forward the 76mm gun placement, but also capable of illuminate the Standard missiles, with at least p/s arc, and probably aft arc over the very low height (I think now it was not present in all the ships). Conclusión: probably 4 missiles in the frontal and p/s arcs, 2 for each FCR. More data here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_92_Guided_Missile_Fire_Control_System

Ok, I saw that nice drawing many times, but it's now operative? More important, are now operative the gun arcs? (We only need a Knox or similar, with only a forward gun, to test it)