Pappystein

Oh, I should add the DATA rating for the YF-12A Blackbird would be 0.5/0.0 in Paper Rules. Meaning if it can't out run the missile or gun it is D.E.D. dead. As far as maneuverability? How about taking the state of Wisconsin to turn 180 degrees? Most any fighter could turn inside of that. The ONLY advantage the Blackbird would have had was the near 100nm launch range vs closing targets of the AIM-47 Falcon. BTW the AIM-47 was developed into..... The AIM-54 Phoenix. In-Fact, Snoopy (The B-58 modified to test the AN/ASG-18 Radar and AIM-47 Falcon missile for the YF-12A, was also used to test the later AN/AWG-9 Weapon system and the AIM-54 Phoenix.

It really depends on this question. What are you using the platform for? If it is just to clutter the airspace then no, they are dimensionally similar and while not the EXACT same performance they are close enough to serve as clutter. If you are trying to use them in Scenarios where the player will be controlling them then yes they will probably need atleast 2 entries. IIRC the CH-146 Griffon is used in armed rolls where as the civilian Bell 412/414 would be just that purely Civilian.

Photo-reconnaissance is severely DEAD in the CH2/CH3 family. The Game does not attach much importance to Poto-int due to the fact the developers thought you would spend most of your time dueling it out on the high seas. AKA there is little reason to create a ton of entries. Most of these aircraft types can be lumped together data entry wise. Just unique country.dat entries for each of the sub designations.

Ok I don't have the Database in front of me ATM but I thought the F-15S was already in. I KNOW I made it at one point. Wikipeda is mostly wrong on the -15S however. Yes the Synthetic Aperature mode was not initially shipped (No Classification Flag for the APG-70 in this case) HOWEVER just two years later it was added in as part of the deal that lead to the F-16I. The MAIN difference is the substitution of LANTRIN with a less capable export system (AN/AAQ-19/20 Sharpshooter / Pathfinder combination) Oh not that it matters much with the F-15 but the AGM-65 capability is deleted from the Sharpshooter/Pathfinder pods.

First off; "Shortly before December 2012, the Army decided they would recommend proceeding with the AAS program" That statement means the Block II has to win a competition before it will be purchased by the US Army. At this point Gunny, would be doing a bit of work for no gain and the possiblity of MORE work down the line. The Sikorsky entry and the EADS entry will likely be the First choices for the US Army. I think it is safe to wait this one out for at least a few months to get a feel or more importantly a look at the actual RFP from the US Army to see what way they are leaning. Given Bell's shoddy work on the ARH-70 I doubt we will see Bell win this contract. Oh And Secondly, It is close enough to the OH-58D+ Kiowa Warrior to not need a new entry (it would be a simple sensor swap once we know what new sensors will be used.)

There are so many variants of the Fletchers in service right up to the new century. Gunny would almost have to devote a couple months to making them all. Almost every Fletcher is going to be unique from the waterline up. Some even have various different sonars. I can't help much with the moder side (no sources) but again I can create a propulsion file if I have not already done so based on Stock WWII data.

Also Contrary to what Wikipedia says the class is NOT the Cannon class. it is the "Destroyer Escort" class. Or more commonly the DET sub-class or flight of the Destroyer Escort Class. Cannon was the first ship taken into US Navy service, it was NOT the class lead, nor was it one of the first of class finished. Cannon is poorly attributed as the class name by the lay person who did not pay attention to how the US Navy was handling "Disposable" ships. These ships were designed to last ~5 years max of wartime level of usage before being scrapped. It is a miracle that they lasted as long as they did. All have a basic common hull form (in two lengths) but various weapon combinations, sensor combinations and propulsive combinations. The Sub classes (Flights) are; 5" armed WWII DEs Destroyer Escort DET or Diesel Electric Tandem drive on long hull (commonly associated with "Cannon") Destroyer Escort GMT or General Motors Tandem Diesel on a short hull (commonly associated with "Evarts") Destroyer Escort TE or Turbo-Electric on a Long hull (commonly associated with "Buckley") Destroyer Escort FMR or Fairbanks-Morse Reduction geared in a Long hull (commonly associated with "Edsal") 3" Armed WWII DEs (have a lower bridge and better stability) Destroyer Escort TEV or Turbo-Electric 3": armament on a Long hull (commonly associated with "Rudderow") and lastly Destroyer Escort WGT or Westinghouse-geared Turbine (commonly associated with "John C. Butler") Sorry to jump on this but to call these boats the "Cannon" Class is to do a disservice to the other 5 flights of the Destroyer Escort Class. It would be like calling your entire family by your first name. Kind of insulting to the other family members who's name wasn't picked. Oh and If I knew more about re-structuring a wiki page wikipedia would have already been changed. Gunny I do not remember if I already shipped your propulsion files for the entire class. If I have not let me know I have the fuel load/engine performance all from Norman Friedman's epoch book "US Destroyers Revised ed" published a couple years ago. Likewise I have the same book for both WWII fleet submarines and Battleships. I am trying to find the modern version of the submarine book but no one wants to sell it under $300. Or if they do they refuse to answer e-mails.

Communications issue actually causes several others. For example if a platform detects a target, but is out of range of the target, there is no reporting of the target when it gets back in range. I am still working on my WWII database and this is the major issue thusfar. Most aircraft radios in WWII had a range of 150-250 miles at most. Berlin is a lot longer distance away from England than 150 miles

I have not yet seen an IOC for the derby with The IAF. Currently Every Loadout I see has either AIM-120 or AIM-7 still. It appears to date that the Derby is an export only missile since the IAF can purchase AIM-120Cs just fine. F-15s can carry a total of 2 Python 4 or Python 5 Missiles (Outer shoulder pylon only.) That means the other two shoulder Pylons need to have AIM-9L/M Onboard. Hope that helps

Ducting always slows airflow down. I have a formula for calculating it here somewhere. This formula PREDATES the design of the XFV-12 fighter.... It is AMAZING to me that no one ran the numbers or made THAT big of a mistake with the numbers. I It is a beautiful airplane but since the cockpit is that of an A-4 Skyhawk, the Avionics level should be that of an F-16A not an F-4 Phantom. The APG-53 radar of the earlier HHRs (Heinemann's Hot Rod for you not knowing the history of the Skyhawk) were significantly smaller than any of the APQ-50 based radars in any variant of the Phantom II. If this aircraft is to be added suggest the following. FLAGS: Short takeoff and landing (STOL) NOT VTOL! Size, Small Fly By Wire Range Avionics: AN/APG-66 Radar no ESM as built. Loadouts: 4 AIM-9H/L/M Sidewinder, 1 300 USG Jetfuel Droptank. 2 AIM-9HLM, 2 GBU-12A, 1 Pavespike. OR 1 GBU-12A, 1 PAVESPIKE, and 1 300 USG Jetfuel Droptank. 2 AIM-9HLM, 3 Mk82 (any) OR 2 Mk82 (Any) and 1 300 USG Jetfuel Droptank. 2 AIM-9HLM, 2 AIM-7F/M, 1 300USG Jetfuel Droptank. Incidently the engine used in the XFV-12 is a naval version of the PW F100-PW-100 engine for the USAF. Changes include larger first stage, and different metals to reduce issues of corrosion. This engine was also to power the F-14B and F-14C Tomcats (first use of both designations.) Incidently the Correct designation for the XFV-12 should have been F401-PW-410. The Engine for the F-14 Tomcat was the F401-PW-400 engine. The Afterburner was different on the -410 for the XVF-12 fighter and the -410 denotes that. The Prototype engines actually fitted were converted for use "at depot maintenance" and thus were designated -400.

Japan and Italy fly it. In game terms they are almost identical (radios and ESM being different only.) The USAF Version is based on the 767-300 family with improvements from other aircraft as well. The KC-767 is the designation for the Italian version only. I am not 100% certain on Japan's designation.

J-5/F-5 are almost identical. It is the J-6/F-6/MiG-19 that you have to worry about. China made some interesting versions of the MiG-19.... eg the J-6-III which has a fixed shock cone instead of the blunt air splitter of a standard MiG-19. Man-Rtg is up by ~0.25 (computer only not a table top change.) However Max sped is cut by almost 100Kts and max altitude by almost 1500meters. This version was still in service just 10 years ago and it was considered a failure. I will try to get some info to Gunny if he dose not already have it but it is a low priority. I have 9 higher priority reaserch projects for various Computer/Tabletop people in front of this.

YF-12A Blackbird (that is the offical name.) was a Real dog, just like the SR-71 and the even faster A-12. YF-12A topped out at ~1760kts vs the SR-71A's ~1824Kts. The A-12 single seat Recon plane had a sped of ~1950kts. Please note that no offical sped has ever been reported for either the A-12 or YF-12A. The SR-71A Speed records of note are likely lowballed to hide acutal performance of the aircraft. Hope that is heplfull.

Ain't that the way of the interwebz? I no sooner than post the previous post and viola, I found DE-1. DE-1, the First of the War Production Board Destroyer Escort Class, was the USS Bayntun. Bayntun however is a Royal Navy name, not a name that would have been used in the US.

I just picked up the revised edition of US destroyers, an illustrated design history by Norman Friedman. I already have the propulsion made for the entire class of DEs. For the Record there is no Buckley class, is actually a SUB-CLASS of what would be called erroneously Evarts class, DE-1 to DE-4 were Lend Leased to the United Kingdom, DE-5 is the Evarts, the class name should be DE-1's name but I find no record online of what that ship name was. The Destroyer Escort class was made with what ever propulsion and armament available at the time. The Sub-Classes are denoted by their propulsion, not the name of the first ship made so it starts with GMT (General Motors Tandem Diesel) AKA Evarts, TE (Turbo Electric Steam) aka Buckley, DET (Diesel Electric Tandem) aka Cannon, FMR (Fairbanks-Morse Reduction) aka Edsall, the TEV (Turbo Electric Fast) aka Ruddrow, and WGT (Westinghouse Geared Turbine) aka John C . Butler. Note that there were two hull sizes based upon propulsion, (Short hull and Long Hull.) Confusing huh? That is what I thought too, I had to re-read the chapter 4 times before it sank in that these were not ordered by the US Navy, rather they were ordered by the War Production board FOR the US Navy, thus different class naming nomenclature.

For as long as I have been involved with database editing, I can see both sides to the comments above. 1) I don't have the time nor does my ADD make it easy for me to do a Database by myself. YES I am making a World War II database that MIGHT revolutionize how Future Harpoon games are built, But it might blow up as a big waste of time too. 2) Francois is exactly right when it comes to editing a Database, the more hands involved the LONGER time spent discussing and the less time actually doing. However that is an issue of personality and organization and not an issue of every one every time. And then you have issues when someone copies your work and makes it "their own." 3) The existing Access editor for Harpoon3 is GOOD. But it is not GREAT. Tony is exactly right that a web-based change logging Access type editor would be better, actually allow colaboration and more importantly allow the lead to follow up with people and help them improve and work into the DB the way the lead DB programmer (because that is what we are) wants. 4) the most important point I would like to bring, While there have been MILES of improvement in Harpoon3 ANW it is still very buggy(realism wise.) It is based on the Miniature Harpoon3 rules which themselves were not completely implemented. Now I do NOT think Any future Computer Harpoon should turn into a number crunching version of the Miniature game. HOWEVER, programers, developers and we the players need to be cognizant to the fact that things WILL be different between the table top and the computer game. The Computer game has the potential of so much... MORE, yet in my experience everyone wants to limit it to the table top game. The Harpoon4.1 and upcoming Harpoon5 rule-sets have many miles of improved realism vs the old Harpoon 3 Mini rules, yet little of that can be supported by the Current game engine. In short a major change needs to be done to the GAME before Others will have the inertia to overcome the PDB in-so-far as the following of players. Now where is my winning lottery ticket.

Most all CF-5/F-5As were updated to that standard in the 70s/80s (Re the new wing.) Likewise the USAF T-38 rebuild program has integrated the new wing into the Talons. However in Game terms there is not enough difference in the handling between the CF-5A/the F-5A and the NF-5A to need special versions. HOWEVER that does not mean it does not need to be done for load-out reasons. Just my two cents

CF-5 is a F-5A made in Canada. There are many detail changes but Harpoonwise it is identical to a stock F-5A. The Orenda made J-85 engines are reportedly more reliable than those of other engine manufactures but that is likely due to handling of the engines and not due to the manufacturing process itself. The CF-5D and CF-5B are two seat versions. The CF-5D having more advanced instruments (again no need for a different variant in game.

Actually the issue is simpler than all of that. The Royal Navy never purchased enough Phalanx or Goalkeaper systems for all their ships. They remove the CWIS from one ship and add it on another ship during yard work etc. This is why the Invincible seem to switch CWIS gear every so often. At least it WAS. Craig P

A couple of things here. Since early 1974ish the VVS did away with many old designation systems and made a simpler in service designation system. Fighter attack radars now begin with the letter N. The First Radar to get an N Designation was the Meych radar used on the Su-27 Flanker. However only a few MiG-23 radar systems that were still in production were re-designated. Non production radars (and other electronic devices) never got re-designated. Confusing? Yep The Designation for the Zaslon family of Radars is N-007 or sometimes written N007. The the Zaslon-AM radar would be N-007AM Zaslon. Secondly, while the BM is a "Major upgrade" to the Basic MiG-31BS, that does not mean they could not change the pylon locations on the fuselage. There is an admittedly small possibility that the two extra CL pylon hardpoints are added to the BM and all that needs to happen is the R-37M to enter production (It is in test firing stage and reportedly doing well.) Lastly the MiG-31BM should already be in service with the R-77-1 RVV-AE(Russia) Missile. Hope that helps PS, there is also rumor of the MiG-31M attaining production status still but equipped with a new AESA radar with an antenna sized to that of the N-007M it was intended to carry. It would likely be designated MiG-31MS (Much like the Basic MiG-31B was named BS after the initial production batch and some minor re-designing. Craig P

Yes, I do the same thing for the more modest data of my personal use HCDB for climb rate, ranges and cruise speed, speed at military power and speed at different heights ... P-51D/K Mustang HCF submitted. Corsair and Thunderbolt are both work in progress yet and not ready to submit (Working on Bf-109G/K Family ATM.)

Thanks for the feedback on this one. I wasn't sure about some of the specifics, and clearly I was wrong about some of them. I did like the main idea...if you can't beat the Americans in a straight fight, get your little brothers to pile up on him from other directions and then beat him down. But you're definitely right that keeping this a secret AND coordinating the whole thing would probably be impossible. Oh well...back to the drawing board! I do like the idea of a China-India war perhaps getting out of hand...how about this... 1) India and Vietnam get mad at China and blockade their shipping 2) China gets mad and sends lots of ships and submarines to blow up Indian and Vietnamese shipping--especially submarines; they have a lot of submarines and even the old ones can still sink ships 3) Pakistan and Iran decide to help China; other Arab and African nations join in, although they do not do much besides cancel oil shipments, close ports, etc. Even so, that's significant. And some nations like Syria might move ships, subs, or aircraft to Iran or Pakistan to help out in the Gulf. 4) The US decides to send escorts to protect oil shipments; they are helped by Japan and Europe and South Korea, who all need the oil to flow 5) Someone sinks a US or European ship (like you didn't see THIS train wreck coming a mile away...) 6) US starts putting more direct pressure on China, who responds by making air and missile strikes on Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (no invasion, but they're trying to cripple any air power the US and its allies might have) 7) Just because it seems like a good time to do it, North Korea attacks South Korea 8) US, India, and allies take the fight to China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and their allies...the goal again is not invasion but simply the destruction of their warfighting capabilities. Once those are gone, after all, China and its allies can say what they want; they cannot threaten their neighbors or the sea lanes anymore. Of course, getting there might take some time... How does this sound? Any better? Any steps or details that need revision? Other than the fact that it would take a Nuclear strike to wipe out much of the Republic of China's air force (they, like the Swiss DO have under mountain airbases right?) Red China will have too much on it's plate to successfully pull off all of the above points. Also India involvement will, indirectly set Russia as a close friend to the US due to the India-Russian treaties that have been in force since the 1970s. Also even today with all the issues the US has with Pakistan, I do not see the US giving up so easily on Pakistan. Lastly there is no way that North Korea could sustain an attack against South Korea without the three following items 1) Russia remains completely neutral and is NOT friendly to western powers 2) China must support the attack with their own forces 3) and this is not mutually exclusive to the above but it is the only way to guarantee short term success. North Korea must deploy their nuclear weapons just south of the DMZ to wipe out 2/3rds of the South Korean defensive forces and infrastructure. Ok I am not 10000000% certain on the under mountain bases for Republic of China but other than that I think the above statements are pretty accurate. Craig P

Ok, Re-acquired my AWACS book from it's storage place (I have too many aviation books to keep them all near the computer.) The original Kvant radar (the Kvant-M is used by the Yak-44) should have the following performance stats: Air Search: Instrumented Range is 230NMiles (H4 Data annex is incorrect with it's 190nm Instrumented range) Kvant-M should have an instrumented range of 320NMiles by the way! Power Output should be 490 Search Input should be -2055 Surface Search Instrumented range is again 230 Nmiles Power Output is 490 Search Input should be -2064

An-72/-74 and civil versions will be pretty simple to make and HCF so I will send a HCF soon with all the versions I can make. This will likely include the An-71 Madcap for the VVS (And no it was NOT meant to be carrier based!) I have sent Francois the An-72 [Coaler-C] the An-74 [Coaler-B] the An-74TK [Coaler-B] the An-74TK-300 [Coaler] and the An-71 [Madcap]. I ended up using the Yak-44 Monitor's radar for the Madcap until such a time as I can fully investigate the Vega-M radar for the Madcap Craig P

South Korea would go to full defensive alert. Remember it is 1) an close aly of the United States and 2 there are several Soviet Air bases within EASY flight distance. I think the Korean Air Force and the 56th Fighter Group and attendant forces would be bottled up right from the start providing defense to South Korea. North Korea in this timeframe had a pretty poor food production to begin with. I doubt their army could last more than a few days in the field. It would all depend on how Red China acts. IF Red China acts. Remember we are talking pre- Tineman Square so China won't nearly be as cut off from the West as it is today. Indonesia would completely depend on how Islam is being treated by both the Soviet Union and Iraq. If the Islamic faith is being treated with respect and involved in an open and honest relationship, they would be Neutral leaning pro Soviet (eg Soviet forces would not be actively perused by Indonesian forces. However if Islamic faith is not being treated as well as described above then Indonesia would fully come into the western powers. Remember Indonesia had a serious falling out with the USSR in the late 1970s. Argentina and Brazil would form their own power block. They would quietly support the US and I believe both would receive support from the US for doing that. Aftermath time-frame I see a normalization between Argentina and the UK. Argentina would NOT invade the Malvais islands again unless the UK GAVE them a reason to do so, Simply because Brazil and the US would smack em down. Cuba would be bombed almost immediately after the start of the war. There are enough forces in SAC and TAC based around the Gulf of Mexico in this time-frame to wipe out most of Cuba's defenses within 48 hours of start of war. I think the rest of your countries you are asking about would act like they do normally. Hope that helps Craig P