Yu-6 Chinese 533mm dual-role submarine-launched torpedo, IOC 2005:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu-6_torpedo

Su-30SM Flanker-H

Apparently based on the Indian SU-30MKI, reputed as more advanced than Chinese variants.

Two batches, 30+30, IOC 2014?

Scarce data, no mention to radar or weapons. With thrust-vectoring and canards.

 

Some analysis, with few data (I think is the same text):

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20120323/172357523.html

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories1433_Sukhoi_SU30SM_an_Indian_gift.htm

QUOTE OF INDIA STRATEGIC:

The family is further subdivided into two parts: the “Chinese” Su-30MKK/MK2, which were produced in Komsomolsk-on-Amur and exported to Venezuela, Indonesia, Uganda, Vietnam, and of course China; and the “Indian” Su-30MKI, manufactured in Irkutsk and purchased by India, Algeria and Malaysia.

The model ordered by the Russian military is a “localized” version of the “Indian” Su-30MKI. Earlier, Komsomolsk-on-Amur delivered to the Air Force four “localized” Su-30MK2’s.

...

The Su-30MKI sports a Russian radar and optic locator, French navigation and heads-up display systems, Israeli EW and weapon-guidance systems, and Indian computers.

 

The “Chinese” line is based on a different logic that prescribes parallel installation of new systems that fall short of full integration.

 

Most likely, the military is attracted by how easy it is to add different weapons and equipment to the Su-30MKI, transforming it into an attack fighter-bomber, a heavy interceptor aircraft, or something else.

END QUOTE.

 

 

 

Multiple links on RIA Novosti:

http://en.rian.ru/tags/tag_Su-30SM/

Mention only to the first batch and some photos:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-russian-air-force-receives-first-su-30sm-fighters-380051/

Comments about the second batch:

http://twocircles.net/2012dec20/russia_get_30_more_su30sm_fighter_jets.html

Details about the program genesis:

http://www.mars.slupsk.pl/fort/sukhoi/su-30-ru-30sm.htm

To change the Ghibka (SA-24) mount from twin to quad, as stated in :

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=529

To change the Ghibka (SA-24) mount from twin to quad, as stated in :

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=529

Already done.

Mmmm, to increase the aircraft capacity in almost all the carriers, as they is too reduced in some cases in relation to her actual capacity, to avoid crashes in case of use of a player modified DB.

After, it will be personal work to compose historical accurate air wings

As instance, some 110 planes in the big American carriers and some 60 planes in Essex, Ark Royal, Eagle and other light British or French carriers (this idea comes from problems making modern or old scenarios, most with the Cold War DB)

A couple of requests for the next iteration:

a) USMC Harriers with Amraam http://defensetech.org/2011/12/08/harriers-now-armed-with-amraams/

Indian Navy Mig29's with a wider array of weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MiG-29K_on_the_MAKS-2009_%2802%29.jpg

(I know, but do what you can..)

c) An AEW variant of the V-22

d) A version of the "sea apache" concept. http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/mcdonnell_sea_apache.php

 

Most of these requests have to do with modeling a "sequestered" USN/USMC in the years to come, with traditional carriers unavailable. BTW, I think removing the AARGM capability from the F-35 is a great idea. THANKS

As instance, some 110 planes in the big American carriers and some 60 planes in Essex, Ark Royal, Eagle and other light British or French carriers (this idea comes from problems making modern or old scenarios, most with the Cold War DB)

As example, the entry 2050 Enterprise (1961) in the HCCW database has a capacity of only 72 planes, when her own text description says

Her air wing at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in late 1962 comprised 12 F-8E Crusader, 13 F-4B Phantom II, 36 A-4C Skyhawk, 12 A-1H Skyraider, three RF-8A, six E-1B Tracer and two UH-25B Retriever helicopters.

Added it = 84 planes !

(Just now watching on TV a very attractive tall ship movie, figuring near Cuba in 1961, and the movie has motivated on me some scenario ideas ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Squall_(film) )

As example, the entry 2050 Enterprise (1961) in the HCCW database has a capacity of only 72 planes, when her own text description says

Her air wing at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in late 1962 comprised 12 F-8E Crusader, 13 F-4B Phantom II, 36 A-4C Skyhawk, 12 A-1H Skyraider, three RF-8A, six E-1B Tracer and two UH-25B Retriever helicopters.

Added it = 84 planes !

 

Enrique, if you would be so kind, can you post a list of the carriers where you think capacity needs to be adjusted, and some authority for the requested change. (And, as you know, HCCW has its own thread). Thanks.

Ok, good idea, I hope I can do it this weekend or later, too many issues in my real life this week ...

Thanks, Enrique. There will be a new release of the HCDB in the near future.

A couple of requests for the next iteration:

a) USMC Harriers with Amraam

Grappled with this one before, because the AIM-120 loadout was very rare, but since they've appeared recently, I've decided to put the AIM-120 option back in there.

 

 

Indian Navy Mig29's with a wider array of weapons ... (I know, but do what you can..)

Unless modifications of existing options, further loadouts are unlikely. Sorry.

 

 

c) An AEW variant of the V-22

Doesn't meet the criteria.

 

 

d) A version of the "sea apache" concept.

This is possible, but only (maybe) if we use the existing 'fictional' MH-64J Apache Scout entry. What say you?

 

A couple of requests for the next iteration:

a) USMC Harriers with Amraam

Grappled with this one before, because the AIM-120 loadout was very rare, but since they've appeared recently, I've decided to put the AIM-120 option back in there.

 

 

Indian Navy Mig29's with a wider array of weapons ... (I know, but do what you can..)

Unless modifications of existing options, further loadouts are unlikely. Sorry.

 

 

c) An AEW variant of the V-22

Doesn't meet the criteria.

 

 

d) A version of the "sea apache" concept.

This is possible, but only (maybe) if we use the existing 'fictional' MH-64J Apache Scout entry. What say you?

 

a) Thanks

OK, I understand

c) Waaah.

D)You bet, that's what I did to test the idea.

Some minor issues in the HCDB-13050 iteration:

 

Entry 3963 Grigorovich (1135.6) lacks the sensors.

(Also, she should had 3xSA-N-12 Grizzly VLS x12, not only 2. I think russian-ships.info is erroneous on this point, it's a non sense the installation of VLS for the same amount of missiles, and the 3xSA-N-12 Grizzly VLS x12 is confirmed in the Russian and English Wikipedia, at least).

 

Entry 19060 SM-6 ERAM has the ranges interchanged, and stated as "air range =1,5, surface range=130", it should be somethng as "mínimum range=1,5, air range=130".

(Also the air range probably should be near 200 nm, as in the others SM-2ER Block IV derivatives, with shorter and wider booster, and stated by the own USN in their Fact File http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1200&ct=2 )

 

Entry 6472 Type 095 has the same 55 damage points as the precedent Indian Kilo, a typo clearly, it should be some 100, or not? Now I see in the Type 093 and other Chinese submarines damage points smaller than expected, they're some modification added to hull construction of Chinese vessels?

 

Oh, and great entry the Chinese Yu-6 (2005+) heavyweight torpedo, thanks!

Some minor issues in the HCDB-13050 iteration: Entry 3963 Grigorovich (1135.6) lacks the sensors.

Oops!

 

(Also, she should had 3xSA-N-12 Grizzly VLS x12, not only 2. I think russian-ships.info is erroneous on this point, it's a non sense the installation of VLS for the same amount of missiles, and the 3xSA-N-12 Grizzly VLS x12 is confirmed in the Russian and English Wikipedia, at least).

I naturally distrust Wiki when there are other, usually better, sources available. But in this case found a pic:

 

 

So, 3x12 cells it is.

 

Entry 19060 SM-6 ERAM has the ranges interchanged, and stated as "air range =1,5, surface range=130", it should be somethng as "mínimum range=1,5, air range=130".

(Also the air range probably should be near 200 nm, as in the others SM-2ER Block IV derivatives, with shorter and wider booster, and stated by the own USN in their Fact File

Mixed up fields. Fixed, thanks. I have 200 nm in my H4 sources for ERAM, but just 81 nm for the short lived Block IV. I don't recall where I got the 130 nm figure off hand, but I am going to keep it for now.

 

Entry 6472 Type 095 has the same 55 damage points as the precedent Indian Kilo, a typo clearly, it should be some 100, or not? Now I see in the Type 093 and other Chinese submarines damage points smaller than expected, they're some modification added to hull construction of Chinese vessels?

Typo. Thanks.