Pappystein

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!)

Uh, Jon had a version that was floating out there in Beta that allowed some of the above. He was attempting to develop an Access editor internal SVN type device. I no longer have this beta (Too many hard drive crash and burns over the years and it was VERY Buggy.) But if that could be found again could it now be used to work out a modified editor to further support SVN? Just a thought Craig P

File Name: Blank Aircraft loadout sheet for Excel File Submitter: Pappystein File Submitted: 4 Jun 2012 File Category: Tools/Docs Authors: No Information This file allows a person to submit to the database editor a complete loadout by loadout walk-through for a specific aircraft. There is a section at the bottom for weapons quantity per store position. All locations except CL are duplicated (EG Fus1 would have 2x the number of weapons listed on this sheet because there are TWO fus1 pylons.) It is suggested that the creator of the file fill out as much data as possible. It is also suggested that the creator of the file know how to insert/copy and paste rows in Excel before filling this sheet out. For sub-variants of the same aircraft (EG F-15A, F-15B, F-15C, F-15D, F-15E) that you use a separate tab for each variant to make things simple. Click here to download this file

My thoughts on this are that the Reimer editor should be held in the SVN server I use for HC, one editor checks it out, makes their edits, checks it in. The next editor comes along and does the same. The nice thing about using a source code control server for this is that you can go back to any previous checked in version. Certainly Gunny would only want to approve write access to those he trusts not to cause more harm than good but otherwise it relieves some bottlenecks, not to mention allows you to play around with ideas and share them if they end up being valid. There are other neat add-ons we could do at that point such as automated nightly database builds and setup file creation but that's an advanced topic if using a source code control system for distributed DB editing gets off the ground. Now I wish I knew even a smidgen of Access or SVN programming... This kind of tool could have saved many great DB projects in the past. Tony, How much coding would be required to covert the Reimer editor to allow this?

I wish Gunny's stance was about the database itself. Rather it is about the ego's and personalities of the editors I alluded to before. Both the World War III and the Common Database projects were crushed/crashed by the egos of the editors. I will own my own part of the blame (I am a Stubborn Irish-German after all!) However many others were involved in both. At it's height the World War III database had 16 editors. 4 of whom were prodigious producers of platforms. One of the editors took the world war III database and made it his own, released it and then proceeded to play political games to cause descention in the ranks of the World War III project and Harpoon2 as well. I won't go further into details but said editor was LEGALLY within the rights and culture of his home country. But, both Ethically and within the rest of the world regulations (US, Canada, Germany and Japan where all the remaining editors resided,) was highly unethical and highly illegal. The common database was an attempt by many of us editors and political players in the Harpoon community of the late 1990s to heal the wounds of the theft and political firestorm caused by the WWIII database theft. It fell under the pressure of it's own weight. Ok enough on that subject. Still a sore spot of mine 14 years later... Craig P

The last week I penetrate in Moroccan fora looking for data about the Mirage F1EM VI/MF2000, but I don't saw nothing about the Tiger III data. I will see again ... http://far-maroc.forumpro.fr/t396-f-5a-b-e-et-f-des-fra Probably with FIAR Grifo M radar (as in the Pakistani Mirage III/5, but sometimes is mentioned the more probable Grifo F (I keep with it), as in the Brazilian and Singaporean F-5E, and the Grifo F/X Plus), as is mentioned with insistency in the Moroccan fora (see below, but sometimes is mentioned the EL/M-3032), as the Chilean and Thailandese upgraded aircraft. Flight Global states the radar is EL/M-3032: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/...-upgrade-64402/ If it is the EL/M-3032 it is one with a smaller than normal Antenna. The Nose of the F-5E/F Tiger is too small for the full size (F-16 sized) antenna without removing the guns and completely re-profiling the nose shape. Although that is not too much of a problem as the EL/M-3032 is a modular radar system and has a scanner large enough for the F-15 Nose and smaller to the F-16 sized nose. No reason it couldn't have a scanner small enough for the F-5E Tiger. Craig P

Some people also state that the well used and near life expired MiG-23S was issued to Cuba prior to 1984. MiG-23S is the first full production version of the MiG-23 and features same radar as MiG-23MS. Given at a glance these aircraft look the same if the sources are correct about the MiG-23S it could lead to confusion with most of the worlds press citing the MiG-23MS which was not delivered. However the MiG-23S was only ever fitted with the type I or 1 non air combat maneuvering wing and has a much lower ManRtg (DATA) Craig P

Do you have a source specifically identifying the type as MiG-21bis (Fishbed L or N?) ? Per Yefim Gordon's book "Famous Russian Aircraft MiG-21" it is both (pg 612.) But truth be told the Izdelye 75A (OR Fishbed L if you are counting) is a Warsaw pact version. The Izdelye 75 is the Russian version (Better Radar, Better guided weapons.) And the 75B (Fishbed N) is for export to countries outside the Warsaw pact like Mozambique (pgs 159-165.) So in truth there should be THREE versions of the MiG-21Bis as factory built. MiG-21Bis (Izdelye 75) Fishbed L for Soviet Air Force. MiG-21Bis (Izdelye 75A) Fishbed L for Warsaw Pact Airforce. And MiG-21Bis (Izdelye 75B) Fishbed Nfor Rest of World Export Craig P

Maybe I am spoiled by all the books I own, or my near eidetic memory about what is in them but for me it isn't a matter of the research in so much as it is the taking that data and compiling it into something that works within the limitations of the game. Even with all the spreadsheets that Were developed by myself and my peers, I still struggle to get everything to "fit" in the game. For example today I was making the B5N-2 [Kate]. I have several great sources on Japanese aircraft in WWII including the preeminent work by Rene J Francillion. However none of my sources have the correct capacity for Fuel, nor are any types/quantity of bombs mentioned... AT ALL. Thankfully I know the B5N-2 [Kate] has the same bomb racks and the same warload capacity as the G3M2 [Nell.] Cut and paste. To make the B5N-2 Took me about 1.5 hours total. Sure I made up a spirituous number for the amount of Gas but in the end of it all I have the cruise speed and the range... those are the important part of it right? Now I already had all the weapons created (Thank you Nell!) so that went a mite quicker than average. Craig P

Naval Sitrep 42 discusses the new Damage Point model used in Harpoon 5 http://www.clashofarms.com/sitrep.html

Ok, As an old hat here with throwing platforms out left and Right as well as a long time database editor let me answer this one. 1) HCF files are not pretty and they are not perfect. Each HCF would generate lots of duplicate entries into the database. Then Gunny would have to go through and manually re-edit EACH entry added to the game. Dale, Darren and I learned this the hard way back in the early days of the Reimer editor. The one thing Darren spent the most of his time on in the HUD3 was getting rid of duplicates. The world War III database that Dale and I were working on got so big that it far outstripped our editing capabilities. To avoid that I have started a program I call "Green" HCFs. A Green HCF is simply a bare bones HCF of the platform with only Unique items included (Engine, Fuel load and basic data only.) I then send a "Loadout" or "Warload" Excel sheet that lists all loadouts or magazine/Mounts needed with what quantities of weapons. If Items are still missing (Say a Fin Stabalized Discarding Sabot 8" Shell for Harold's Iowa class upgrade proposals) then the lead editor will e-mail back saying "Please HCF the following additional items and send them for completion of your platform...." The new items can not have any sort of designation system set up in the Green form. Designators will be added only by the lead editor. As you can see, even a HCF is time consuming. 2) Before embarking on a bunch of new platforms, you have to realize that even with all the editing that Saul, Darren and Gunny have done, there is a TON of crap still left in the DB. That is to say platforms that are "Wrong" "Bad" or otherwise in-correct. I have sent Gunny a list of platform data that Darren never got around to fixing (due to limited time.) I am certain that the information I have sent him will keep Gunny occupied for a bit of time as well. The best thing that can be done to answer the request is to START a new database that runs from 1960-1980. In combat aircraft alone you will have close to 8000 entries for that time frame. I count 32 versions of the F-4 Phantom alone! EC-121 Warningstar (predecessor to the E-3 AWACS) has 18 versions. B-52? 13 versions. B-47 Stratojet, 8 versions. F3H Demon? 6 Versions. F4D Skyray 2 versions. MiG-15 Fagot 16 versions atleast (I might have missed a few!) 3) To do a correct database we would have to have several variants of aircraft to meet specific time frames/weapons availability. A perfect example is the F-14 Tomcat: Did you know that in 1982 the VMax(SL) speed restriction was lifted from the F-14A to fly photo-recon missions over Beirut Lebanon at speeds so fast the plane could not be shot down? 4 F-14s were equipped with special latches on their hatches (sorry for the rhyme) and they did not carry their drop tanks. The planes reportedly flew at 850 Kts IAS (indicated Air Speed) at 100 foot altitude. That is about Mach 1.25 at Sea level essentially. What that causes the DB editor to do is 1) create a new version of the TARPS pod that only works at low level. 2) Create a new TF-30 Engine entry that supports 850Kts at Sea level. 3) Create a new F-14 that uses the new TF-30 Entries. 4) Create a new loadout for the new TARPS pod that does not have the drop tanks (they wouldn't survive at that speed.) and 5) Add said entry into the Country.dat file with a proper IOC of 1982 and an OOC of 1982 meaning the airframe can only be used in the year 1982. Ok, Now that I have explained that let me go back and say this. I am certain Gunny will add any platform that will be used and is requested (provided he has the time to do so.) I personally do not have a lot of time myself and have been slowly building my own Database as well as helping Gunny by double checking things for him at his request. If there was a way that we could get paid to do this kind of work full time (and it was enough to live comfortably doing so) it would still be tough to add all the platforms you would need to meet this request. HOWEVER please keep sending information in. Your requests, for platforms that you intend to use are like a spotlight to the editor. IE you are guiding the editor to what is important for them to work on next. Hope that helps you understand why your request are not just instantly met as well as why we still WANT you to send us requests. Thankfully Harpoon3 is not size limited like Commanders Ed of Harpoon is. HOWEVER Logistics causes many issues if not handled correctly. HUD and HUD II did not support logistics at all (they didn't work right back then.) HUD III was started to address the issue with Logistics. The original intent of Darren was to have HUD II and HUD III run simultaneously. First he would create/change the platform in HUD II and quickly get them out, then he would go through and make them work with logistics. That lasted all of one month when the amount of work to make HUD III viable became known. Gunny, Hope I didn't overstep my bounds on this but it is an age old question that has rarely been addressed. Craig P 3rd Editor World War III Database (Dead but inspired two other databases) Editor and Creator World War II Database (Work in Progress) Editor and Creator Common Database (1956-1970) (Canceled) Contributor Common Database (1970-2010) (Canceled.) Contributor HUD I/II/III/IV database Auditor HUD III/IV Database Fact Checker (on request) ADB Database

The reference to how the HPS-106 and the AN/APY-10 works is in regards to the modes of search (Track While Scan, Synthetic Aperature, Moving Target Mode, etc.) The HPS-106 is not in the same category as the AN/APS-137(V)10 AKA the AN/APY-10 radar. Other than that little bit I find this Microsoft Flight Simulator site to be chock full of good information on Japanese aircraft. I have bookmarked it and thanks for sharing it! Craig P

Mark, I am already in a collaborative effort with Francois. However that means I feed him data that he still has to enter. I was in a similar effort with Darren before Francois so... The DB editor has no way to collaborate built into it. This leads to DB errors down the line. Before Jon R left the community in 2000-2001 he was working on developing a collaborative version of his Editor for me. This collaborative editor was never finished, but it allowed a more graphical import functionality that would have allowed multiple editors for the same database. That being said the final version of that editor had a lot of issues still that needed to be worked out but real life got in our way. Thus all I can do is generate Statistics and send them to Francois. IE validate the work he is doing. I sent him an Audit of the Entire MiG-23/-27 family the other day, including two Hypothetical subvariants of the -23MLD, along with a full construction of the entire Su-17 family (-17,-17M,-17M2,-17M3,-17M4, -20, -22, -22M -22M3, and -22M4 along with 2 hypothetical versions.) Oh and the Yak-28 family (Firebar, Brewer.) At the same time I am trying to figure out how to downgrade the radar Cross section performance on most of the "Stealth" Aircraft to be more realistic. Currently all the "Stealth" aircraft in the database excluding the F-22 and B-2, are TOO Stealthy... None of those other aircraft are actually Stealthy per Harpoon4 Mini rules. Besides, my current personal project is yet again a World War II Database. But that will be a long time coming. CHarpoon3 still has a lot that needs to be improved before WWII will be playable (Game intelligence/ Intelligence sharing primarily.) Tony, I am going by old information here but IIRC Russel said Pilot experience and or Squadron grouping (rather than Aircraft type grouping) would both be rather hard to implement due to many factors. But That was almost 5 years ago now (Shortly after he first came on board) when we talked about that. Hope that clears up everything. BTW in tests I was able to reproduce the 1 Shiden V 10 Hellcat Scenario the other day. A historical fact of World war II that one flight Ensign of the IJN in 1945 flying a single N1K2-J Shiden-Kai fought off 10 F6F-5 Hellcats and shot down one or two of those numbers. In my scenario the Ace Shiden shot down 4 Novice Hellcats before he was shot down as well. Craig P

I am requesting the Real world F-14E Super Tomcat 21 in it's final form. Below is a list of changes from the F-14D as it is closer to the F-14E than the currently existing F-14E in the Game is. 1) Engine is F110-GE-429 1% More fuel efficient than F-110-GE-400, Tomcat can now Supercruise. Max Range in SuperCruise (Full Speed) is ~1250 NMiles. Max Cruise Range is: 2025 NMiles 2) +1134kg Internal Fuel for a total of 8453kg of Fuel. 3) RCS is V-Small front and Side aspect (Rear aspect stays the same.) Same RCS range as the JSF, the F/A-18E hornet, the Typhoon, Rafael, PAK-FA and J-20. 4) Addition of AIM-152 AAAM. Can carry a total of 8 AIM-152s in addition to 2 AIM-120/AIM-9s on the Winder rails. Total AAM rails (Including Y Adapter on under-wing Sparrow pylon) 12 AIM-120/AIM-9 Sized, 8 AIM-152 Sized, 6 AIM-54 Sized. 5) Built in LANTIRN system. Use the Nav/Attack pod (-25) from the F-14D loadouts. PGM loadouts no longer have Lantrin pod. 6) PGM mission would be 8x Max GBU-12/16. That is 6 in the tunnel between the Nacelles of the engines, and 2 on the under-wing Sparrow pylons. This would leave 2 Sidewinder rails free for AAMs. 7) Radar is AN-APG-71(V)1 which is a 1st Generation AESA antenna. New Search output power of 491 Search Input power of -2066, Max Range is 200nm. Up from 100nm of Base AN-APG-71. AESA flag would be granted by new antenna and ISAR modes adding Classifcation/IFF flags. As Harrold and others have several scenarios with the pre-existing F-14E Super Tomcat, I ask that you not replace it but Augment it with a new itteration that is "Right." I am using the Middle Ground F-14E Super Tomcat 21 from the following Webpage as part of the above specs. I have close to 30 different sources and the above is a good fit from between all those sources. http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/tomcat21.htm Please note: Sparrow Loadouts should be limited to a maximum of 6 Sparrow Missiles, Leaving the two Sidewinder Rails for either AMRAAM or Winders. Any Phoenix Loadout should have a maximum of 6 Phoenix Missiles (4 in the Fuselage Tunnel, 2 under wing on the Sparrow pylon.) Replacing 2 Phoenix can be either 2 Sparrow or 4 AMRAAM. Replacing 4 Phoenix can either grant 4 Sparrow or 4 AMRAAM. The two remaining Phoenix Missiles are on the wing so there is no Double AMRAAM launcher. I THINK that is all the information you would need. No 2000lb Class bombs (Same is true of the Hornet BTW,) HARM is in Reaction mode only so max 25nm Range. Craig P

Ok, Here is the skinny on the AIM-9E numbers game as I understand it. 1) the number PRODUCED as in MADE NEW was ~5,000. 2) The Numbers in USAF Service are MUCH higher, on the order of 8,000-12,000 Missiles. Converted from AIM-9B + New Built AIM-9E. Why the Huge Discrepancy? Simple for many of the missiles the USAF, was the Primary contractor for. Since it was a modification by inserting new parts from a sub-contractor, there was no "production." It is the same in regard to an Aircraft being modified to carry a new weapon. A New pylon/Weapon release device may be installed, and maybe a new piece of Software is added to the computer. But that does not mean it is a new aircraft. I don't have my book handy but IIRC the number of AIM-9E Seeker/Control Heads made (the important part of our discussion,) was on the order of 16,000 total heads. Hope that helps. PS Many documents do not cover all the Variants of the AIM-9P because they never went into production. But they are in use around the world today... even though they never went into production..... I hope you see the conundrum this can create.

Actually I have to duplicate the loadouts 4 times because each WEAPON has it's own rating as well (Eg Novice, Experienced, Veteran and Ace.) Currently I am building an airplane for my private WWII database, the TBY Sea Wolf which entered into service at the end of World War II. I have 12 Bomb Loadouts for the Novice version of the Plane, 12 Bomb Loadouts for the Veteran version etc. I have never delved into Classic enough to understand HOW bombing and what not is done, But in CH2/CH3/ANW the Game engine does calculations completely based upon the weapon. Thus I need to create 4 of every weapon used on aircraft.

Whoops! Maybe I should CHECK the database before I make a bunch of statements like the above. Sorry about that. I don't know where I got my AN-72 back in the day from.

Hi all. I am seeking opinions from people who create or would like to create scenarios for ANW. The purpose here is to see if all the development work I have put into a new Database is for naught or is there something that I could improve to make it better. The subject in question is an Optional Rule that has been in the Miniature game since I got involved in that side (Harpoon 4 in the late 1990s.) Pilot Experience. Bringing Pilot Experience to Computer Harpoon would greatly increase the realism and allow things like the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, MiG Alley in Korea, or how about the Six Day War in 1967. In each of the examples above, and in many others I can name, Pilot experience is the PIRMARY reason one side defeated the other. For example, the altitudes where the Marianas Turkey shoot occurred, the Zero was a more Dominant aircraft than the Hellcat it fought against. A reverse example is an IJN Flight Ensign in a SINGLE N1K2 Shiden-Kai fighting off an ENTIRE SQUADRON of novice F6F Hellcats, killing one and escaping. In the Minis version of the game the Pilot experience affects chance of accidents, range performance and to a lesser extent combat performance. Now I cannot represent many of those factors in ANW but there are some that I can expand that were limited in the Mini rules because of the amount of math involved . After all, we play the game on some of the best calculators in the world right? I will use the Chinese J-20 "Stealth" Fighter as an example of what I am doing. 1) Instead of a single J-20 Entry, there are FOUR J-20 Entries; J-20|Novice, J-20|Experienced, J-20|Veteran, J-20|Ace. Anything after the "|" Symbol will not show up in the basic Harpoon3.exe, only in after action reports and in the editors. 2) Each entry has a Different DATA (ability to escape attack,) Each weapon (be it built in like a mount or launch-able like a Missile,) has it's own version as well. to Describe how this looks: J-20|Novice has a DATA of 4.0, Gsh-301 (PRC)|Novice has a ATA (Ability to hit an air target) of 2.0, a Rate of Fire of 15, and a maximum number of shots of 4. J-20|Ace by comparison has a DATA of 5.25, Gsh-301 (PRC)|Ace has an ATA of 4.0, a Rate of Fire of 10, and a Maximum Number of Shots at 7. In the above Examples, during a Dogfight the Ace version is 4+ times more likely to shoot down the Novice version than the Novice is the Ace. That being said, as a Scenario designer, this would increase realism of Air combat, at the cost of some small issues. Issues: 1) Logistics in the game becomes much harder to implement. There is FOUR of every weapon type to stock in Magazines and depots. 2) 4x weapons = 4x work to create weapons (well not really.) but still that is a LOT more entries that need to be tracked, validated, adjusted etc by the Database editor. 3) The Game engine will not allow mixed groups of aircraft to fly together. Thus a J-20|Ace will not be in the same formation as the J-20|Novice. They can be on the same mission together but now on the same “group” So with that being said, What do you all think about this? Craig P Database Editor Database Auditor

Uh, An-72 and An-74 are already in the Database, arn't they? I KNOW I modified the AN-72 into the AN-71 Madcap AWACS aircraft for the World War III Database. BTW Gunny, I have stats for the Kvant and Kvant-M AWACS radar if you need them. IIRC you have the Yak-44 in the DB which used the Kvant-M Radar suite.

IIRC the Basic BN aircraft series (Islander/Trislander are already in the DB. Belize has no specific weapon/sensor fit that I am aware of.) Use the existing aircraft as a place holder for the future??? Just a thought craig P

Sensors is going to be... Tough. I will send what Little I have via e-mail. I will also Green up an Airframe and HCF and send that to you as well.

I have the engines done for these for my WWII Database. However I can't HCF the whole aircraft because I am using a completely different structure than has been used in the past (Pilot Experience.) Also my weapons will be significantly different. But the Engines are free to use if you need them Gunny. I have the V-1650-3 (P-51D/K) and the V-1653-5 (P-51H) as well as the late war Alisons for the P-51J The engines are based upon the actual performance graphs from the flight manuals for the aircraft. More accurate than pulling them from the Annexes or history books. The P-47D/N were also used into the 80s as were the F4U Corsair. Again I have performance graphs available for them. Let me know if you need any of this data.

I have the engines done for these for my WWII Database. However I can't HCF the whole aircraft because I am using a completely different structure than has been used in the past (Pilot Experience.) Also my weapons will be significantly different. But the Engines are free to use if you need them Gunny. I have the V-1650-3 (P-51D/K) and the V-1653-5 (P-51H) as well as the late war Alisons for the P-51J

Gunny, Wanted to get this out now since It is fresh on my mind. Had a nice conversation with Chris Carlson and Larry Bond about this about 2.5 years ago and again more recently when I was in the editing phase of my articles on the Su-27 Flanker for Naval Sitrep Magazine. The following aircraft are commonly called stealthy and are NOT STEALTH! US: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter family. Stealth only from the FRONT Aspect ratio and then only just (the old F-117 is Stealthier from the front!) Any 4+ Generation Fighter (F/A-18E/F and earlier, F-16C/D F-15 Silent Eagle etc.) All these aircraft have a VERY LOW radar cross section size per Harpoon 4.1/5.0 rules. Europe: Eurofighter, is Very Small RCS Russia: Su-35S (Formerly Su-35BM) is V Small RCS T-50 aka PAK-FA is V SMALL RCS. Earlier "Stealth" Russian Fighters are also V Small Su-27SM is SMALL RCS All other Su-27 Family members are MEDIUM RCS Asia: All Su-27 Variants made in China are Medium (J-11 and J-15) RCS. J-10 is mid-range Small RCS. J-20 is VSmall RCS. In the end, other than Fictional aircraft and Drones the only STEALTH aircraft that should be in the Database are the F-117 Nighthawk, The B-2 Bomber and the F-22 Lightening. It could be argued that the F-117 is also VSmall RCS but it is right on the cusp between the two (Vsmall and Stealth.) F-22 is in the Middle of the Stealth RCS area and the B-2... Down near the bottom of it. Hope that helps you. Craig P