On holidays near Arles, France, thanks for the new Soviert/Russian subs. Very diffucult for me to write with the smartphone, more comments on ten days or so

HCDB-110908: Airborne radars APG-77(v)1, APG-79 AESA and APG-81 AESA have the flags 'SS (airborne)' and LDSD. Since these are radars for the F-22, F-18, and F-35, respectively, I would have expected them to have the 'AS (airborne)' flag as well? Or does 'LDSD' take care of that already?

HCDB-110908: Airborne radars APG-77(v)1, APG-79 AESA and APG-81 AESA have the flags 'SS (airborne)' and LDSD. Since these are radars for the F-22, F-18, and F-35, respectively, I would have expected them to have the 'AS (airborne)' flag as well? Or does 'LDSD' take care of that already?

[emphasis mine]

 

Yes.

Very, very impressive the latest work of Brad improving the DB, thanks, Brad.

Now we can count with a greater and updated number of naval platforms and historical versions of previous vessels. The standard DB 1980-2015 has been cleaned-up and improved a lot from the latest months, if you have not aware of it, and is a far better than a year ago

Brad ever has introduced the first submarine decoys in some submarines !!!

I'm thinking in all those issues, but with little spare time these weeks (I will be from tomorrow the next week at http://cud.unizar.es/CursoDefensa , I will present the little paper La Expansion del Estado del Miedo ).

 

I've see Brad has corrected also some errors present in the DB from years from his origin, thanks (as some previous very improbable and "copious" loadouts ).

As I copy manually the new entries in my personal version of the standard DB, I can see some minor error and issues I will post here :

- The RF-4B Phantom II lacks the carrier capable flag and is unusable as carrier aircraft.

- The B767 CRAF has not deleted the now ASW loadout 55339 used on the P-2J.

- The Decatur DDG (1971-1983) has a missile launcher Mk13 (59688) with SM-2MR Block III (1988+), but I suppose she was equipped with SM-1MR, perhaps we can employ the mount 59684 with SM-1MR Block II/III (1968+).

- Kongo class DDG is equipped in the DB for one or two helicopters and large helipad, her helicopter capability should be zero, has not hangar facilities, coherent with other ships in the DB with helo pad but without hangar.

- The two Azov have interchanged her SA-N-6a and SA-N-6b mounts, also the older variant Azov (1134BF/80) should have SA-N-4a and SA-N-3a, and the newer Azov (1134BF/92) SA-N-4b and SA-N-3b.

- The Sverdlov (68A) is without sensors and weapons.

- The Sverdlov (70E) has the SA-N-2 launcher duplicated (and probably only 10 SA-N-2 per launcher).

- The Russian Sovremenny 956A lacks the aft 130mm mount, only the 956EM (Chinese) variant lacks the aft mount, as reflected in the DB.

- The Golf SSQ/Project 629R retains her forward TT, as in:

http://russian-ships.info/eng/submarines/project_629.htm

- ZQQ-5/5B quoted ranges are A:2,6, P:3,4, CZ:1, but in the more modern ZQQ-6 A:3,4, P:2,6, CZ:2, not very congruent.

- The Soryu class SS has ZQQ-7 or ZZQ-7B sonar, not ZQQ-6.

 

 

More ideas later, ordered by sections ...

Very, very impressive the latest work of Brad improving the DB, thanks, Brad. Now we can count with a greater and updated number of naval platforms and historical versions of previous vessels. The standard DB 1980-2015 has been cleaned-up and improved a lot from the latest months, if you have not aware of it, and is a far better than a year ago

 

Thanks, Enrique. I have begun a serious overhaul of the entire DB, so you can expect incremental improvements as time passes.

 

Brad ever has introduced the first submarine decoys in some submarines !!!

 

Hehe, it will be interesting to see how my rudimentary attempt at mimicking "decoys" work out. (I expect they will, at least, garner some attention during play).

 

- The RF-4B Phantom II lacks the carrier capable flag and is unusable as carrier aircraft.

- The B767 CRAF has not deleted the now ASW loadout 55339 used on the P-2J.

- The two Azov have interchanged her SA-N-6a and SA-N-6b mounts, also the older variant Azov (1134BF/80) should have SA-N-4a and SA-N-3a, and the newer Azov (1134BF/92) SA-N-4b and SA-N-3b.

- The Sverdlov (68A) is without sensors and weapons.

- The Sverdlov (70E) has the SA-N-2 launcher duplicated (and probably only 10 SA-N-2 per launcher).

- The Russian Sovremenny 956A lacks the aft 130mm mount, only the 956EM (Chinese) variant lacks the aft mount, as reflected in the DB.

- The Golf SSQ/Project 629R retains her forward TT ...

 

Thanks. I'll check em out.

 

- The Decatur DDG (1971-1983) has a missile launcher Mk13 (59688) with SM-2MR Block III (1988+), but I suppose she was equipped with SM-1MR, perhaps we can employ the mount 59684 with SM-1MR Block II/III (1968+).

 

The Standard Missile is one of those items that is on the "to do" list. You will see changes here in due course.

 

Kongo class DDG is equipped in the DB for one or two helicopters and large helipad, her helicopter capability should be zero, has not hangar facilities, coherent with other ships in the DB with helo pad but without hangar.

 

Can't remove naval aviation capability for fear of breaking already released scenarios, so these are the kind of issues that unfortunately must remain.

 

ZQQ-5/5B quoted ranges are A:2,6, P:3,4, CZ:1, but in the more modern ZQQ-6 A:3,4, P:2,6, CZ:2, not very congruent.

 

Looks like a typo.

 

The Soryu class SS has ZQQ-7 or ZZQ-7B sonar, not ZQQ-6.

 

Simply because we don't have H4 data for the ZQQ-7 suite from Carlson and the boyz, as you've seen on Admiralty Trilogy, so using ZQQ-6 for now.

About the submarine decoys:

 

Some years ago in HC Gold Edition I experimented with similar submarine decoys.

I've reproduced both sides torpedoes with the same designation and speeds (i.e. a named USET-80 real torpedo and a named USET-80 decoy, because in the tactical screen sometimes you can see the name of the enemy torpedo, with the same speed and ranges, but without damage points and the same PH), to try to confuse me about if the submarine was firing real torpedoes or decoys, but can be better a slow running torpedo simulator with greater endurance, as modelled by Brad.

 

I think the decoy must be targetable both to submarines and ships, not only to submarines, for creating more confussion and decoys possibilities.

Other possibility can be to create torpedo decoys for surface ships, but I've not thinked on it yet ...

 

I don't remember the real/historical names of the decoys employed, but here some of the load of decoys in some submarines in my HC Gold DB, based on personal research. I think I only added decoys launched by ad-hoc mounting:

 

US submarines:

 

- San Juan and Virginia class SSN: 7xDecoy Launcher Mk.2, with 2xdecoys (Mk 48 Mod 5 ADCAP) each (now I see my answer was the same as Brad's !!! PH=1, DP=1).

 

- Seawolf class SSN: 8xDecoy Launcher Mk.2, with 2xdecoys (Mk 48 Mod 5 ADCAP) each.

 

- Jimmy Carter class SSN: 10xDecoy Launcher Mk.2, with 2xdecoys (Mk 48 Mod 5 ADCAP) each.

 

- Lafayette class SSBN: 4xDecoy Launcher Mk.2, with 2xdecoys (Mk 48 Mod 5 ADCAP) each.

 

- Ohio class SSBN and SSGN: 4xDecoy Launcher Mk.2, with 2xdecoys (Mk 48 Mod 5 ADCAP) each.

 

Russian submarines:

 

- Akula II and Improved Akula I, and Yasen class SSN: 6xDecoy Launcher USET-80, with 2xdecoys (USET-80) each.

 

- Akula I and Mike class SSN: 1xDecoy Launcher USET-80, with 2xdecoys (USET-80) each. I think this only double mount in some Russian submarines was hypothetical, replacing the infamous twin 533mm BGT Tube with 2xShkval E fast unguided torpedo.

 

- Oscar I/II class SSGN: 1xDecoy Launcher USET-80, with 2xdecoys (USET-80) each.

 

- Sierra I/II class SSN: 1xDecoy Launcher USET-80, with 2xdecoys (USET-80) each.

 

- Victor III class SSN: 1xDecoy Launcher USET-80, with 2xdecoys (USET-80) each.

 

- Delta I/II/III/IV class SSBN: 1xDecoy Launcher USET-80, with 2xdecoys (USET-80) each.

 

- Typhoon class SSBN: 1xDecoy Launcher USET-80, with 2xdecoys (USET-80) each.

 

- Yankee Notch and Yankee C class SSGN and Yankee I SSBN: 1xDecoy Launcher USET-80, with 2xdecoys (USET-80) each.

 

UK submarines:

 

- Vanguard class SSBN: 6xDecoy Launcher Tigerfish Mk2, with 2xdecoys (Tigerfish Mk2) each.

- We should assume the British SSN Trafalgar, Astute and Swiftsure (post-1997) as with the same level of decoys than Vanguard (Edited 31 October 2011, for keep a record about submarine decoys).

About the submarine decoys: Some years ago in HC Gold Edition I experimented with similar submarine decoys.

I've reproduced both sides torpedoes with the same designation and speeds (i.e. a named USET-80 real torpedo and a named USET-80 decoy, because in the tactical screen sometimes you can see the name of the enemy torpedo, with the same speed and ranges, but without damage points and the same PH), to try to confuse me about if the submarine was firing real torpedoes or decoys, but can be better a slow running torpedo simulator with greater endurance, as modelled by Brad. I think the decoy must be targetable both to submarines and ships, not only to submarines, for creating more confussion and decoys possibilities. Other possibility can be to create torpedo decoys for surface ships, but I've not thinked on it yet ...

 

Good to know someone else has toyed with the idea. I would very much prefer an actual functional decoy, of course, but wondered if this 'sub simulator decoy' might serve as at least a reasonable facsimile until that happens.

 

I didn't want to make the 'decoy' ASuW capable, because I am wary of submarines taking potshots at ships with the decoy and giving away their presence too early. Especially as the 'decoy' tends to have a long range. This longer range might mean that going with a single, generic type, with a short range, might be the better approach too.

 

Waiting to see what experience folks report before proceeding further ...

Some little comments about the ships in the new entries of the Spruance-class DD:

 

- The DD-976 Merrill was never converted with VLS and should be deleted from entry 3302, but equipped with the ABL from 1981 (test ship, IOC late 1984 as in Conway’s) to the end.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/976.htm

 

- Also the DD-965 Kinkaid was not converted with VLS at least in June 1992, and as the SQR-15 was retired from the Spruances in 1992, I suppose she should deleted from entry 3302.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/965.htm

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0596517.jpg

 

- Also we should delete the names O’Bannon, Fletcher, John Young, Nicholson, Briscoe and Oldendorf from the entries 2395 Imp Spruance (1993) and 2396 Imp Spruance (1994) because they are RAM-equipped ships, reflected for the same time period on the entry 3304 Imp Spruance (1997).

 

- Also we should delete the names Fletcher and Thorn (No Mk23 TAS ships) from the entry 2397 Imp Spruance (88/1) because they are RAM-equipped ships, reflected for the same time period on the entry 3303 Imp Spruance (88/3)

 

But those are not transcendent details

Also we should delete the names O’Bannon, Fletcher, John Young, Nicholson, Briscoe and Oldendorf from the entries 2395 Imp Spruance (1993) and 2396 Imp Spruance (1994) because they are RAM-equipped ships, reflected for the same time period on the entry 3304 Imp Spruance (1997). Also we should delete the names Fletcher and Thorn (No Mk23 TAS ships) from the entry 2397 Imp Spruance (88/1) because they are RAM-equipped ships, reflected for the same time period on the entry 3303 Imp Spruance (88/3) But those are not transcendent details

 

As you know, I cannot delete names from older entries in the DB because it would fundamentally break pre-existing scenarios. This is a well established tenet of the HCDB. What I have been doing, instead, is to assign the pennant number instead of the commissioned name, to help discern the difference.

Also we should delete the names O’Bannon, Fletcher, John Young, Nicholson, Briscoe and Oldendorf from the entries 2395 Imp Spruance (1993) and 2396 Imp Spruance (1994) because they are RAM-equipped ships, reflected for the same time period on the entry 3304 Imp Spruance (1997). Also we should delete the names Fletcher and Thorn (No Mk23 TAS ships) from the entry 2397 Imp Spruance (88/1) because they are RAM-equipped ships, reflected for the same time period on the entry 3303 Imp Spruance (88/3) But those are not transcendent details

 

As you know, I cannot delete names from older entries in the DB because it would fundamentally break pre-existing scenarios. This is a well established tenet of the HCDB. What I have been doing, instead, is to assign the pennant number instead of the commissioned name, to help discern the difference.

 

Yes, I know Brad, thanks, it's only a comment as obsessive problem for me

 

This week I'm not at home, but looking in the spare time for something about the Knoxes ....

At last I've finished the work of translate the new platforms implemented by Brad in the DB (I'm thinking Brad has learned good Russian language in the last gigantic task, full of new Soviet/Russian units, and a lot of clearing in fixing in old Soviet/Russian units )

 

Some very minor issues:

 

Sverdlov 68A (3333) is without sensors.

 

The project designation of the ship 3347 entry Mukha (1141.1) should be Mukha (1145.1).

 

The ship entry (3348) Slepen (205PE) lacks the name of the only one ship of the class, AK-225.

 

The missile used by the mounts named SA-N-5 Grail should be the Strela-2M/9K32MF variant of the SA-7b Grail/Strela-2M/9K32M (1970), not the SA-7a Grail/Strela-2/9K32 (1967).

The missile used by the mounts named SA-N-8 Gremlin should be the Strela-3F variant of the SA-14 Gremlin/Strela-3/3M56 (1974), not the SA-18 Grouse/Igla/9K38 (1983).

The missile used by the later mount SA-N-10 Gimlet should be the Igla-M/9K38M variant of the SA-18 Grouse/Igla/9K38 (1983), not a variant of the initial SA-16 Gimlet/Igla-1/9K310 (1981). The mount should be renamed SA-N-10 Grouse.

 

The initial production missile was the SA-16 Gimlet/Igla-1/9K310 (1981), superseded by the SA-18 Grouse/Igla/9K38 (1983) a pair of years later.

As alternative, and because the apparent existence in the real world of SA-N-14 Grouse mounts, we can introduce SA-N-14 Grouse mounts with SA-18 Grouse/Igla/9K38 (1983).

 

Confussion between the Neptune and Neptun radars:

The DB apparenlty confuses the French Triton/Neptune radar, used by many Combattante series of patrol boats and a great number of Israeli warships, with AS and SS capabilities, with the old USSR Neptun radar, only with SS capability (i.e., in the DB many modern israeli warships are sharing the radar named Neptune with old USSR patrol boats of the 1950s !!!!)

I know the endemic problem of slots shortage for loadouts, but two ideas can be:

 

The French UAV Harfang, I'dont like it very much, and apparently only four units produced, but it has operated in Afghanistan and Libya. I was thinking in some generic blank loadout with a 540 nm range but I've finded none !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Harfang

 

About the Israeli Kfir:

The present in the DB Kfir C.7 was employed by the Israeli Air Force between 1983 and 1996, and perhaps can represent the previous Kfir C.2 (1976-1991), but I see some minor errours in the present entry:

- Kfir has RWR.

- Kfir C.7 should carry Python 3 (1978), not Python 4 (1993).

- The ARM missile should be the AGM-45 Shrike, not the heavier AGM-78 Standard.

 

Perhaps we can add the Kfir C.2, using only the dumb loadouts of the Kfir C.7 and the Shrike loadout (but Kfir C.2 has slighty shorter range and as AAM the Shafrir 2 and the AIM-9D/G), but it's not important.

 

Tomorrow other ideas more constructive, I hope ...

Sverdlov 68A (3333) is without sensors.

The project designation of the ship 3347 entry Mukha (1141.1) should be Mukha (1145.1).

 

Thanks for finding these.

 

The ship entry (3348) Slepen (205PE) lacks the name of the only one ship of the class, AK-225.

 

My copy appears to show AK-225 just fine.

 

The missile used by the mounts named SA-N-5 Grail should be the Strela-2M/9K32MF variant of the SA-7b Grail/Strela-2M/9K32M (1970), not the SA-7a Grail/Strela-2/9K32 (1967). The missile used by the mounts named SA-N-8 Gremlin should be the Strela-3F variant of the SA-14 Gremlin/Strela-3/3M56 (1974), not the SA-18 Grouse/Igla/9K38 (1983). The missile used by the later mount SA-N-10 Gimlet should be the Igla-M/9K38M variant of the SA-18 Grouse/Igla/9K38 (1983), not a variant of the initial SA-16 Gimlet/Igla-1/9K310 (1981). The mount should be renamed SA-N-10 Grouse. The initial production missile was the SA-16 Gimlet/Igla-1/9K310 (1981), superseded by the SA-18 Grouse/Igla/9K38 (1983) a pair of years later. As alternative, and because the apparent existence in the real world of SA-N-14 Grouse mounts, we can introduce SA-N-14 Grouse mounts with SA-18 Grouse/Igla/9K38 (1983).

 

I suspect this one has been kicking around for a long time without being noticed. There have been, btw, variants of SA-N-5 using both the SA-7a and SA-7b versions of the Grail, reflected in the MTU-4S (using SA-7a) and MTU-4US (using SA-7b) quad launchers. Given the target period of 1980 onward, however, I expect I will use only the SA-7b variant. Thanks for highlighting these issues. I will probably use the opportunity to clean up some unneeded entries.

 

Confussion between the Neptune and Neptun radars: The DB apparenlty confuses the French Triton/Neptune radar, used by many Combattante series of patrol boats and a great number of Israeli warships, with AS and SS capabilities, with the old USSR Neptun radar, only with SS capability (i.e., in the DB many modern israeli warships are sharing the radar named Neptune with old USSR patrol boats of the 1950s !!!!)

 

Another one of some vintage. Thanks.

Thinking in a new scenario, I see the elemental and widely exported Komar PTM is not in the DB

http://russian-ships.info/eng/warfareboats/project_183r.htm

( ... and the SS Barbel-class )

When I finished the scenario, I will post new structured (and easy) requests ... thanks !

I know the endemic problem of slots shortage for loadouts, but two ideas can be: The French UAV Harfang, I'dont like it very much, and apparently only four units produced, but it has operated in Afghanistan and Libya. I was thinking in some generic blank loadout with a 540 nm range but I've finded none !

 

And over Libya too. I will find room for it. Any idea of the identity of the SAR/MTI radar in use with Harfang?

 

About the Israeli Kfir: The present in the DB Kfir C.7 was employed by the Israeli Air Force between 1983 and 1996, and perhaps can represent the previous Kfir C.2 (1976-1991), but I see some minor errours in the present entry:

- Kfir has RWR.

- Kfir C.7 should carry Python 3 (1978), not Python 4 (1993).

- The ARM missile should be the AGM-45 Shrike, not the heavier AGM-78 Standard.

Perhaps we can add the Kfir C.2, using only the dumb loadouts of the Kfir C.7 and the Shrike loadout (but Kfir C.2 has slighty shorter range and as AAM the Shafrir 2 and the AIM-9D/G), but it's not important.

 

I think we can do all of this.