Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VictorInThePacific

  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.
  15. I don't claim to be an expert in this, but I think there would be physical limitations. The propagation of sound waves in air and water is rather different due to the huge density difference. Getting the signal through the interface in a useful way is the issue. Note that when you use sonobuoys from aircraft, you drop the detector into the medium of interest. Detectors in air can detect objects in the air. As long as the sub is underwater, it probably can't detect sound sources in the air.
  16. What are the numbers for this? I was figuring longer than that... In fact, when I calculated, I was getting a two-and-one-half hour round trip... er, well, up to the point where they ran out of gas; not for the complete round trip. OK, so with the corrected values: So you are flying an atack mission with Hornets. Now the way BINGO fuel works in Harpoon, approximately, is that when the amount of cruise fuel left is somewhat more than the distance to base (source base or any base ?), the plane wants to RTB. Somewhat earlier, the plane will attempt to refuel if it can. Maximum ONE-WAY range for these Hornets is 584 nm. So BINGO happens when they have flown OUT about 500 nm. Assuming that these Hornets are carrying Harpoons, and since the target is about 500 nm away, the attack point is about 450 nm from the source base. This is also approximately the point where automatic refueling would start. Note as well that the combined group flies at 415 nm, so refueling starts just about when the Falcons launch missiles, about an hour out from their base. Preliminary calculations: With a range of 1168 nm, at 490 kn, these planes can fly for 2.38 h. Subtract .2 h for launching the full group. Since they actually fly at 415 kn, their range is now 906 nm. However, they only flew 450 nm x 2, and they had some extra fuel from tanking, so the full group won't die UNLESS there is some further critical information that was not stated. Once again, there is an internal contradiction in the numbers provided, so there's no point in me continuing this calculation with the data available.
  17. Please allow me to introduce myself ... I've been around for a long, long year Stole many a man's soul and faith ... Pleased to meet you Hope you guess my name (Sympathy for Mr. Grumble) Actually, there are things you can do ... Study this ... and I do mean STUDY http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2032492
  18. Donald (post 7, this thread), has given some specific numerical results. I have proposed that you do a measurement (post 17, this thread). We need to be comparing specific narrow measurements, because nobody can do anything useful with anecdotal reports.
  19. The conditions of the situation were not properly stated. The numbers you gave appear to be internally self-contradictory. That is why you have not been given a clear response. But consider this: If you try to launch an IFR-capable plane beyond its range, you can't. If you include a tanker in the group, you can now launch. It's like removing the safety mechanism from a machine. Safety is now your personal responsibility. BTW, once you include the tanker in the group, you can then remove it, and your first plane will launch to a place it can't actually get to. Also ... see above. First, what numbers are self-contradictory, and how? "For example, yesterday, I lost 24 F/A-18s after launching them, along with a KA-6 tanker, at a carrier group that was nearly at the limit of their un-refueled range (I think the numbers were 1168 nm range, and 1026 sepration between the carrier groups). So, I threw in my only tanker "just to be safe". However, as the group reached its attack point, I noticed that the tanker was still attached, yet the report showed that it had no re-fuel stores. The group completed its attack and turned back but the tanker remained attached. The fuel range circle indicated at that time that there was still enough fuel to reach base. I then became distracted by other engagements, and next thing I knew, there was a report of 24 F/A-18s running out of fuel and crashing - about 150 nm from their carrier. So, apparently, including the tanker didn't ensure there was enough fuel. I wonder whether the re-fueling process was interrupted by the attack itself, although the group report already showed no re-fuel stores awhile before the weapons launch point, so...??? Oddly enough, I had launched my other 24 F/A-18s at the same target shortly after the large group, but in two groups of 12 planes each, with no tankers... and those groups got back with plenty of of fuel to spare, despite not being re-fueled at all." You mention 2 carrier groups. You mention attacking. Thus we conclude that the planes are flying from your carrier to attack an enemy carrier group. This is not a ferry mission. Apparently the range of your attack planes is 1168 nm. As someone has already stated, this means there AND BACK, so the furthest out one plane could fly is 584 nm. Yet you say that the carrier groups are separated by 1026 nm. So this is impossible; the GE won't let you do it ... UNLESS you add a tanker to the group (even if you later remove it, heh, heh). That is only one example of an internal contradiction in this anecdotal report, which leads me to conclude that there are errors in the report, and neither I or anyone else has the time and energy to figure them out. So we can't do anything with it. Notwithstanding the contradictions mentioned, consider the game mechanics. Your attack group flies to near the target. This takes about an hour. The planes are at about 50% fuel, and probably would have reached the request-for-fuel state sometime earlier, so tanking starts. And continues ... and continues ... for more than an hour, while the planes complete the attack, turn around and head for home. Unfortunately for them, the fuel they get is very limited, and that damn attached tanker slows them down, so while the tanker is still busily refueling plane 20 ... 21 ... they all run out of gas (except the tanker). Since the process was never completed, the tanker never splits off. And in any case, as soon as the group starts to head for home, the tanker has no reason to split off, because it's going there too. Are you sure? A plane's stated range must account for there AND BACK, so the GE should only allow you to launch an attack at half that distance. Incidentally, in this situation, you really do need to be launching your planes in smaller groups so the big blob doesn't waste so much fuel, especially if you're only using up defensive SAMs anyway.
  20. It is critical to match scenarios with the databases and battlesets that they use. Each scenario uploaded to HarpGamer should have the appropriate database listed on the same page where the scenario is posted for download. The available databases are likewise posted in the Downloads section of this website, appropriately enough called Databases. Just want to point out that, while the draft documentation is just that, this particular point is covered there. Tony's launcher seems to cover the automation aspect. Documentation for that will be available at some point.
  21. draft instructions http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=13349
  22. this is just a draft right now, give me a week or so to finish it. people have been asking recently, so may as well post the draft. user_scen.pdf
  23. I think that is incorrect. The critical issues are new contacts, where you have the "show" and "select" options, and ditto for "new orders wanted" situations. Keep in mind that the SA window can be moved to expose the map underneath. Did I mention that you should have some paper handy to write things down on?
  24. Not only extreme, but the real-life equivalent would be you ordering a group of planes to fly on a mission that they don't have the range for, and when someone points this out (and the game engine refuses the mission), you promise them tanker support, but then you only give them a fraction of what they need, and they all die. Not that that never happens in real life. I claim that the reason the split never happened was that the process took so long that it was never completed or ... see below. You can test this by launching the same 25-plane group to any patrol point. Wait for them to run out of fuel and start tanking. When they want to return to base, refuse. 72 min. after tanking starts, the tanker should split off. Try this experiment, exactly as stated, and report the results. Roger that. Not in any meaningful way. The conditions of the situation were not properly stated. The numbers you gave appear to be internally self-contradictory. That is why you have not been given a clear response. But consider this: If you try to launch an IFR-capable plane beyond its range, you can't. If you include a tanker in the group, you can now launch. It's like removing the safety mechanism from a machine. Safety is now your personal responsibility. BTW, once you include the tanker in the group, you can then remove it, and your first plane will launch to a place it can't actually get to. Also ... see above. Maybe the point is that in all these examples, the group is already doing the thing the tanker wants to do (returning to base), so there's no reason to split, while in the first example, the non-tanker planes are still out-bound.
  • Create New...