Jump to content

VictorInThePacific

Members
  • Posts

    261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

4,027 profile views

VictorInThePacific's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. I find it interesting that there are no pictures of perhaps the most important weapons system - the Grumble launchers. Were they off limits? Or perhaps not photographed because there isn't actually much to see.
  2. I stole all these pictures. Please don't tell the police. Big ones: Varyagstern.jpg lookingaftSBside.jpg mainarmamentSB.jpg masts.jpg radar.jpg topdome.jpg abitrusty.jpg V1-02.jpg V2-01.jpg V2-02.jpg V2-03.jpg V2-04.jpg V2-05.jpg V2-06.jpg alldressedup.jpg
  3. See, this is what happens if you permit texting while flying.
  4. Continuing ... So you were not on the actual plane? But in continuous contact? The plane is dropping a field of 16 buoys, covering 32 sq. miles, or perhaps 60-odd? Can you estimate the found/not found proportion? KSA = Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Kosher Supervision of America?
  5. Well, I could debate this point, based on how large an area you want to search, but it occurs to me that I should really be asking you questions based on your experience. 1) I guess that all your experiences would qualify as peacetime ones? 2) Did you go out to locate specific contacts or for more general reasons? 3) Did you actually find things? Incidentally, I just googled "He who beats his swords into plowshares shall forever plow the fields of he who did not." Looks like you're famous.
  6. A couple of comments that have nothing to do with the original question. 1) Assigning a plane to a formation patrol at a base where it doesn't belong for any reason ... this cannot be considered "wrong" in any sense. In real life, you could always give that plane orders to patrol a particular area. In Harpoon, you are only using this technique to allow an automatic routine to take care of the machanics of patrolling, and there is no routine that allows you to patrol a general area, unless there is a base or ship nearby, so you are simply using the base as a convenient reference point. 2) Having said that, bear in mind that an Orion or similar plane flies for a very long time, much longer than it takes to use up all its sonobuoys in a formation patrol. So you probably only have about 2 hours of meaningful patrol in any case. 1 hour to drop buoys, and 1 hour until they die.
  7. For fighter units that are low on missiles eg. a pair with only one missile left, you may want to send some of them home early, assuming you have the resources to micromanage it. It may not be worth the bother.
  8. Here are some results from a refueling test. This is not by any means an exhaustive test, either by considering all variables, or by considering any variable completely. The air groups were formed up and sent to a distant patrol location. Fueling happened automatically in all cases. Note that air groups contain at least one unit, each of which has at least one plane. All planes in a unit are identical, except that they can have different numbers of weapons remaining. 1) 1 x F/A-18C plus 1 x F/A-18C tanker. At some point, the message log stated that the refueling process was beginning. 30s later, the message log stated that a particular unit was being refueled. 3 min later, the tanker asked to be sent home. 2) 5 x F/A-18C plus 2 x F/A-18C tanker. The group consisted of 3 units: one with 2 tankers, one with one regular Hornet, and one with 4 regular Hornets. At some point, the message log stated that the refueling process was beginning. 30s later, the message log stated that the first unit (1 plane) was being refueled. 1.5 min later, the message log stated that the second unit was being refueled. 6 min later, the tanker asked to be sent home. As soon a unit starts refueling, its fuel status jumps, i.e. the fuel is transferred instantaneously. There is a significant delay before the next unit gets its fuel. These numbers are completely consistent with all previous results in this thread, except Brad's. But Brad's results are also consistent if he did not report the 3-min delay after fuel transfer and tanker splitting. This means that type of tanker and fuel transfer rate are not modelled. Summary: Time to refuel a plane unit = 3 min x number of planes / number of tankers. Because the fuel is transferred instantaneously, you can cheat by splitting the tanker off before the final delay period is complete. There will be cases where this does not make sense, because in RL, only one tanker can refuel a plane at a time. Incidentally, when launching the 7-plane group, because the patrol point was beyond the range of the basic Hornet, I had to add the planes in the following order: tanker, Hornet, Hornet, tanker, Hornet, Hornet, Hornet, after which another tanker would have been required. The conclusions are obvious. It also appears to be the case that the "bingo"status in the group window is the same as the "bingo" status for the first unit in the unit window.
  9. OK, this is pretty complicated stuff, but I think I can address some of it. I was running a refuelling test and saw some of this information. First, multi-plane groups exist as GROUPS, which are composed of at least one UNIT, each of which has at least one plane. All planes in a unit probably need to be identical. A great deal of information is available in the unit window. Second, I am not saying how or why things are calculated, merely what you can see. 1) All planes in a unit have the same fuel status. No idea how weapons remaining are allocated. Each unit is tracked individually. Resources are probably not ever transferred between units. 2) You can split planes out of a unit at will. This may affect weapons available. For example, if the unit has 5 bombs and 4 planes, probably one particular unit gets an extra bomb.
  10. 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.
  11. Take a look at the surface of the water under the helo. Do you really think a sub won't be able to hear *something* from that? Fair enough, but I was thinking about a sound source in the air, at some significant vertical and horizontal separation from the sub. This example is a large physical disturbance on the surface of the water, not an acoustic response to the flying object.
  12. I literally know SFB as well as anyone, "fighter sea" must have been a local phrase used by you group. But I can imagine what you are referring too. FED CV launches 12 F-15's, 12 F-15's each launch six drones... you now have 84 more individual units to keep track of! I don't think most people have a frame of referance to understand just how out-of-control SFB can get. In a big fleet battle like that it can wind up taking you 80 hours of play time to resolve what would be about 6 minutes of real-life action. As Maxwell Smart would say: "And loving it..." :-) Oh, no, one CVA does not a fighter sea make. You must think in grander terms. Much, much grander.
  13. Kavik Kang ... hardcore SFB ... then you will be familiar with the term "fighter sea"? Glory days, man, glory days. Why, I remember the time ...
  14. This is somewhat inconsistent with Donald''s result (post 7, this thread). This would suggest that there is one MORE variable: the nature of the tanker i.e. fuel delivery rate depends on the source. To recap his results, the tanker refuels planes one after the other, and each one needs 3 min.
×
×
  • Create New...