domingo, 26 de septiembre de 2010
Persian Incursion Jeff Dougherty Q&A
Un extenso reportaje posteado en Comsimworld
A extend report posted in Comsimworld
------------------------
Before we move on to the operational air part of the game, let's open the mailbag and answer a few miscellaneous questions and issues that have come up.
Q. Where's the naval component of the game?
A. What we're really looking at in PI is an Israeli air campaign against Iran and all the political cans of worms that would be opened around that. As other people on the thread have noted, Israel doesn't really have the capability to project naval power into the Persian Gulf. About the only units they have that could reach that far and hope to survive are their submarines.
Q. Okay, so what about the subs?
A. They're not in the game, for two reasons:
1. Their ability to make it to the Persian Gulf is dependent on Egypt letting them transit the Suez Canal both coming and going. To really simulate that we'd have to add another opinion track to the game, with all the complications that entailed. It didn't seem worth complicating the game to do it, especially since:
2. We did some digging, and it's not at all clear what kind of land attack capability the Israeli submarines have. Popeye Turbo missiles get talked about a lot, but with nuclear warheads. There are rumors of the Israelis modifying Harpoon missiles for land attack work, but again nobody's really sure. It made it really tough for us to determine just what capability to give the submarines, and we didn't want to just make something up.
There's been discussion of doing some H4 scenarios based on Persian Incursion later on. Should that happen, it's possible that we'll revisit the Israeli submarines in more detail and put something in there.
Q. Uh, how about those nukes you mentioned?
A. One of the baseline assumptions for the game is that Israel is not going to engage in a first use of nuclear weapons against Iran. They might be able to get away with a preemptive air campaign against Iran, but the world isn't going to tolerate them using nuclear weapons on a country that hasn't attacked them. We're also assuming for the sake of the scenario that the Iranians do not actually have nuclear weapons yet.
Q. Will the game include SSMs and the weapons to shoot them down?
A. Yes and no. There is an abstract system included in the strategic game for the Iranians to try to block the Strait of Hormuz. Depending on how much in the way of resources (read Military points) they commit to it, the attempt may succeed, it may partially succeed, or it may fail. If it does have some level of success, that may be good for the Iranians (the rest of the world decides that the quickest way to unblock their oil is to lean on the Israelis) or bad for the Iranians (the rest of the world gets angry and decides to stage Operation Praying Mantis II: The Wrath of Khan).
A detailed interplay of SSMs, torpedoes, and other tools of asymmetrical naval warfare is unfortunately beyond the scope of the game. We had to stop somewhere. Sorry if that disappoints anyone.
Q. What's with the F-18s on the cover?
A. As mentioned above. there are opinion tracks covering various regional and world powers in the game. If the Israeli player can manage to get the U.S. track all the way over to his side (not easy to do), the U.S. enters the conflict on the Israeli side. In that case the Israeli strikers may be joined by F/A-18s, F-22s, B-2s, and other fun examples of American tax dollars at work. Needless to say, this is a Really Bad Thing for the Iranian player.
Allright, I'm back. You know deep down you really did miss me.
Okay, when last we left our players the Israelis had decided to officially inaugurate their celebration of "Take Your Air Force To War" week by launching an airstrike against the Iranians. What happens now?
Mission planning is a complex subject, but we've done the best we can to simplify it in Persian Incursion. Each target has 2-3 pages of information listing what buildings are present, how much damage they can take, and how critical each one is to the overall functioning of the target. There's also information about air defenses around the target: air defense sector, which long-range SAMs have the range to fire on aircraft approaching it, and what (if any) shorter ranged systems and AAA cover it. We also have tables listing which Israeli aircraft can reach which target for a given combination of route and ordnance loadout, and how many tankers they will need per squadron to get there. Even with midair refueling the Israelis are at the limit of their range, so we were able to get the planes down to 3-4 ordnance loadouts each. There just aren't that many smart ways to load your plane out once you're carrying that many gasbags.
Based on that information, the Israeli player plans his strike. He has to consider the number of strike aircraft available, which targets he plans to attack and how much boom-boom will be needed to knock them out, how much he'll need in the way of SAM suppression, fighter suppression, close air to air escort, and SEAD, and how many tankers he has available.
Yes, I did mention SAM suppression and SEAD as separate tasks. More about that later.
Meanwhile, the Iranian player is setting up his defenses. A lot of them are fixed and frankly not very good, but Iran does have a small number of modern mobile systems as well as the chance to buy more as upgrades. The Iranian player also sets the alert level of his fighter squadrons- is it better to keep them on the ground and preserve them for a big push later on when the Israelis attack something major? Or do you fly everything, knowing you're going to take losses, hoping that you can score political points by downing an Israeli jet?
As the strike approaches Iranian airspace, we resolve something called a Suter attack. This is a relatively new capability that the Israelis used in their 2007 strike against a mysterious Syrian installation, which apparently allows them to intercept line-of-sight data links and hack into an air defense system. This in turn allows them to eavesdrop on fighter controllers, introduce spurious contacts into the system, delete real ones, and possibly even crash the entire air defense network. It's seriously cool, but we handle it in an abstract way- the Israeli player decides how many of his Shavit special-mission airframes and Eitan UAVs he wants to allocate to the mission, and rolls on the table to see how badly he manages to trash the Iranian air defenses.
Okay, back to the air strike and why SAM Suppression and SEAD are two different things. The air strike system in Persian Incursion is nodal, and in some ways very similar to the system used in High Tide to game out strikes against the Kola Peninsula. Aircraft allocated to SAM and fighter suppression could be doing a number of things- they could be launching decoys, making diversionary runs with ECM pods, knocking out communications centers, or blowing up Iranian air defense sector headquarters. Regardless, they're allocated to tankers and then just disappear- the Israeli player rolls some dice and determines whether or not a given site is suppressed. Something similar happens with fighter suppression, with an Israeli roll on a table generating negative modifiers for a GCI intercept.
SEAD and escort aircraft, by contrast, are tracked individually and travel with the main strike package. Their job is to engage anything that makes it through the suppressors and prevent it from hitting the strikers.
As the strike nears its target, it passes through nodes for long-range SAMs (strategic-range stuff, like the S-200/SA-5 and S-300/SA-20 systems), Iranian GCI fighters, and medium and short range SAMs. At each node, the Israelis check to see how effective they have been in suppressing the defenses in it, then resolve any SAM shots or fighter intercepts that take place. If Iranian SAMs or fighters do come up, SEAD or escort aircraft can engage them and attempt to destroy them. Note that this is the only way to actually wear down the Iranian air defense assets- if a system is "suppressed" it comes back up the next time you encounter it, but if the Israelis try to destroy it they have to deal with the unsuppressed system. Decisions, decisions.
After making it through the Iranian defenses, the Israeli strike approaches its' target. Rather than having to make a ton of to-hit rolls and add up lots of DP, there are tables to handle, say, 8 bombs launched at a given size target, and the damage system has been reduced to boxes- each building has around 2-5 hits, and each bomb does a certain number of hits. After dropping their ordnance, the Israelis make their way back out through the Iranian defenses. Both sides roll to see if any aircraft are "down" due to unrepaired damage, and the campaign goes on.
As you can probably tell, the operational air system was more Larry and Chris' creation- I was responsible for designing the strategic game- and so I haven't been able to provide as many details about it as for the other part of the game. Hope this still helps, and please post any questions you have. I'll be answering a couple more in my next post.
Couple of answers to questions before I head offline for a bit:
Q. Do I need Harpoon 4.1 to play Persian Incursion?
A. No. At one point that was the plan, and there are still some old/inaccurate pieces of information floating around to that effect. To be clear: Persian Incursion is a completely self-contained game. Its combat system is based on Harpoon, but the game *does not* require any additional products or supplements to play. It is completely self-contained and has all rules needed to play through the game.
Q. So what's this about "hits"? Where's my DP?
A. PI runs on what I'd call a streamlined version of Harpoon, with a number of changes made to speed play with a lot of aircraft and pieces of ordnance whizzing around. With very few exceptions, the Israelis are hitting unhardened building and exposed machinery type targets of fairly uniform construction, and only using a few types of ordnance to do so. Since we were dealing with such a restricted set of weapons and targets, we were able to simplify the DP system without doing major violence to reality. That in turn eliminated a lot of bookkeeping the Israelis had previously needed to do after each strike, adding up the hits from 3-4 bombs per building and seeing what was still standing and what wasn't.
Q. Will there be solitaire as well as multiplayer support?
A. Unfortunately, no. Both sides have too many decisions to make in the political, strategic and operational arenas for us to come up with a robust solitaire system. One of the goals of Persian Incursion is to allow players to test various assumptions about how Israel and Iran will react in various situations. Designing a solitaire system would have required us to decide in advance how one side or the other would react, and then impose that on the players. It would also have added a lot of complexity and length to what's already a pretty big product.
Q. How about scenarios?
A. The basic scenario for each play of PI is the same- Israel is bombing Iran for one week. The game does have a number of political scenarios that affect the starting position of the opinion tracks (which has a major effect on what the two players can do at the start of the game, and how difficult it is to change those tracks), as well as an upgrade system that lets the participants play around with the many rumors that have swirled around this confrontation. Has Israel been secretly purchasing enhanced bunker busters or converting extra tankers? How many IRBM launchers do the Iranians have that can reach Israel? What if the Iranians have secretly been buying advanced SAM systems or GPS jammers on the black market? The intent is to let players experiment with different circumstances through multiple plays of the game, in order to figure out who the real key players are and what centers of gravity exist in the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Or for those whose eyes glazed over at that paragraph: yes, there are multiple scenarios. Sorry, I went to a liberal arts college...
Q. How long does the game take to play?
A. That depends on how quickly the Israelis are able to achieve- or not achieve- their objectives. The best answer I can give is that you can probably get through a play of PI in two evenings, or one long weekend marathon session. The Israeli strikes slow the game down a lot, but otherwise the turns go by pretty fast- nobody really has the points to take a ton of actions unless they're pretty close to winning anyway. The players can also save time by talking beforehand about what scenario they'll play, deciding on their list of upgrades, and possibly even planning out their air defense dispositions and initial strikes ahead of time.
I'm not going to lie- this is a long game. But it's not impossibly so.
EDIT: Question added from the Harpoon forum.
Q. Besides the F-22, what other types of planes does the U.S. get?
A. The following aircraft show up in the game:
Israel- F-15I, F-16I
Iran- MiG-29A, F-14A, F-4E, F-5E, F-7M (derivative of Chinese J-7 Fishbed)
U.S. (possible Israeli ally)- F/A-18E/F, EA-18G, F-22A, B-2
Russia (possible Iranian ally)- MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-27, A-50 Mainstay AWACS
China (possible Iranian ally)- J-10, J-11 (Chinese-produced Su-27), AWACS aircraft. (Can't remember the designation offhand and don't have my PI notes here at work)
A extend report posted in Comsimworld
------------------------
Before we move on to the operational air part of the game, let's open the mailbag and answer a few miscellaneous questions and issues that have come up.
Q. Where's the naval component of the game?
A. What we're really looking at in PI is an Israeli air campaign against Iran and all the political cans of worms that would be opened around that. As other people on the thread have noted, Israel doesn't really have the capability to project naval power into the Persian Gulf. About the only units they have that could reach that far and hope to survive are their submarines.
Q. Okay, so what about the subs?
A. They're not in the game, for two reasons:
1. Their ability to make it to the Persian Gulf is dependent on Egypt letting them transit the Suez Canal both coming and going. To really simulate that we'd have to add another opinion track to the game, with all the complications that entailed. It didn't seem worth complicating the game to do it, especially since:
2. We did some digging, and it's not at all clear what kind of land attack capability the Israeli submarines have. Popeye Turbo missiles get talked about a lot, but with nuclear warheads. There are rumors of the Israelis modifying Harpoon missiles for land attack work, but again nobody's really sure. It made it really tough for us to determine just what capability to give the submarines, and we didn't want to just make something up.
There's been discussion of doing some H4 scenarios based on Persian Incursion later on. Should that happen, it's possible that we'll revisit the Israeli submarines in more detail and put something in there.
Q. Uh, how about those nukes you mentioned?
A. One of the baseline assumptions for the game is that Israel is not going to engage in a first use of nuclear weapons against Iran. They might be able to get away with a preemptive air campaign against Iran, but the world isn't going to tolerate them using nuclear weapons on a country that hasn't attacked them. We're also assuming for the sake of the scenario that the Iranians do not actually have nuclear weapons yet.
Q. Will the game include SSMs and the weapons to shoot them down?
A. Yes and no. There is an abstract system included in the strategic game for the Iranians to try to block the Strait of Hormuz. Depending on how much in the way of resources (read Military points) they commit to it, the attempt may succeed, it may partially succeed, or it may fail. If it does have some level of success, that may be good for the Iranians (the rest of the world decides that the quickest way to unblock their oil is to lean on the Israelis) or bad for the Iranians (the rest of the world gets angry and decides to stage Operation Praying Mantis II: The Wrath of Khan).
A detailed interplay of SSMs, torpedoes, and other tools of asymmetrical naval warfare is unfortunately beyond the scope of the game. We had to stop somewhere. Sorry if that disappoints anyone.
Q. What's with the F-18s on the cover?
A. As mentioned above. there are opinion tracks covering various regional and world powers in the game. If the Israeli player can manage to get the U.S. track all the way over to his side (not easy to do), the U.S. enters the conflict on the Israeli side. In that case the Israeli strikers may be joined by F/A-18s, F-22s, B-2s, and other fun examples of American tax dollars at work. Needless to say, this is a Really Bad Thing for the Iranian player.
Allright, I'm back. You know deep down you really did miss me.
Okay, when last we left our players the Israelis had decided to officially inaugurate their celebration of "Take Your Air Force To War" week by launching an airstrike against the Iranians. What happens now?
Mission planning is a complex subject, but we've done the best we can to simplify it in Persian Incursion. Each target has 2-3 pages of information listing what buildings are present, how much damage they can take, and how critical each one is to the overall functioning of the target. There's also information about air defenses around the target: air defense sector, which long-range SAMs have the range to fire on aircraft approaching it, and what (if any) shorter ranged systems and AAA cover it. We also have tables listing which Israeli aircraft can reach which target for a given combination of route and ordnance loadout, and how many tankers they will need per squadron to get there. Even with midair refueling the Israelis are at the limit of their range, so we were able to get the planes down to 3-4 ordnance loadouts each. There just aren't that many smart ways to load your plane out once you're carrying that many gasbags.
Based on that information, the Israeli player plans his strike. He has to consider the number of strike aircraft available, which targets he plans to attack and how much boom-boom will be needed to knock them out, how much he'll need in the way of SAM suppression, fighter suppression, close air to air escort, and SEAD, and how many tankers he has available.
Yes, I did mention SAM suppression and SEAD as separate tasks. More about that later.
Meanwhile, the Iranian player is setting up his defenses. A lot of them are fixed and frankly not very good, but Iran does have a small number of modern mobile systems as well as the chance to buy more as upgrades. The Iranian player also sets the alert level of his fighter squadrons- is it better to keep them on the ground and preserve them for a big push later on when the Israelis attack something major? Or do you fly everything, knowing you're going to take losses, hoping that you can score political points by downing an Israeli jet?
As the strike approaches Iranian airspace, we resolve something called a Suter attack. This is a relatively new capability that the Israelis used in their 2007 strike against a mysterious Syrian installation, which apparently allows them to intercept line-of-sight data links and hack into an air defense system. This in turn allows them to eavesdrop on fighter controllers, introduce spurious contacts into the system, delete real ones, and possibly even crash the entire air defense network. It's seriously cool, but we handle it in an abstract way- the Israeli player decides how many of his Shavit special-mission airframes and Eitan UAVs he wants to allocate to the mission, and rolls on the table to see how badly he manages to trash the Iranian air defenses.
Okay, back to the air strike and why SAM Suppression and SEAD are two different things. The air strike system in Persian Incursion is nodal, and in some ways very similar to the system used in High Tide to game out strikes against the Kola Peninsula. Aircraft allocated to SAM and fighter suppression could be doing a number of things- they could be launching decoys, making diversionary runs with ECM pods, knocking out communications centers, or blowing up Iranian air defense sector headquarters. Regardless, they're allocated to tankers and then just disappear- the Israeli player rolls some dice and determines whether or not a given site is suppressed. Something similar happens with fighter suppression, with an Israeli roll on a table generating negative modifiers for a GCI intercept.
SEAD and escort aircraft, by contrast, are tracked individually and travel with the main strike package. Their job is to engage anything that makes it through the suppressors and prevent it from hitting the strikers.
As the strike nears its target, it passes through nodes for long-range SAMs (strategic-range stuff, like the S-200/SA-5 and S-300/SA-20 systems), Iranian GCI fighters, and medium and short range SAMs. At each node, the Israelis check to see how effective they have been in suppressing the defenses in it, then resolve any SAM shots or fighter intercepts that take place. If Iranian SAMs or fighters do come up, SEAD or escort aircraft can engage them and attempt to destroy them. Note that this is the only way to actually wear down the Iranian air defense assets- if a system is "suppressed" it comes back up the next time you encounter it, but if the Israelis try to destroy it they have to deal with the unsuppressed system. Decisions, decisions.
After making it through the Iranian defenses, the Israeli strike approaches its' target. Rather than having to make a ton of to-hit rolls and add up lots of DP, there are tables to handle, say, 8 bombs launched at a given size target, and the damage system has been reduced to boxes- each building has around 2-5 hits, and each bomb does a certain number of hits. After dropping their ordnance, the Israelis make their way back out through the Iranian defenses. Both sides roll to see if any aircraft are "down" due to unrepaired damage, and the campaign goes on.
As you can probably tell, the operational air system was more Larry and Chris' creation- I was responsible for designing the strategic game- and so I haven't been able to provide as many details about it as for the other part of the game. Hope this still helps, and please post any questions you have. I'll be answering a couple more in my next post.
Couple of answers to questions before I head offline for a bit:
Q. Do I need Harpoon 4.1 to play Persian Incursion?
A. No. At one point that was the plan, and there are still some old/inaccurate pieces of information floating around to that effect. To be clear: Persian Incursion is a completely self-contained game. Its combat system is based on Harpoon, but the game *does not* require any additional products or supplements to play. It is completely self-contained and has all rules needed to play through the game.
Q. So what's this about "hits"? Where's my DP?
A. PI runs on what I'd call a streamlined version of Harpoon, with a number of changes made to speed play with a lot of aircraft and pieces of ordnance whizzing around. With very few exceptions, the Israelis are hitting unhardened building and exposed machinery type targets of fairly uniform construction, and only using a few types of ordnance to do so. Since we were dealing with such a restricted set of weapons and targets, we were able to simplify the DP system without doing major violence to reality. That in turn eliminated a lot of bookkeeping the Israelis had previously needed to do after each strike, adding up the hits from 3-4 bombs per building and seeing what was still standing and what wasn't.
Q. Will there be solitaire as well as multiplayer support?
A. Unfortunately, no. Both sides have too many decisions to make in the political, strategic and operational arenas for us to come up with a robust solitaire system. One of the goals of Persian Incursion is to allow players to test various assumptions about how Israel and Iran will react in various situations. Designing a solitaire system would have required us to decide in advance how one side or the other would react, and then impose that on the players. It would also have added a lot of complexity and length to what's already a pretty big product.
Q. How about scenarios?
A. The basic scenario for each play of PI is the same- Israel is bombing Iran for one week. The game does have a number of political scenarios that affect the starting position of the opinion tracks (which has a major effect on what the two players can do at the start of the game, and how difficult it is to change those tracks), as well as an upgrade system that lets the participants play around with the many rumors that have swirled around this confrontation. Has Israel been secretly purchasing enhanced bunker busters or converting extra tankers? How many IRBM launchers do the Iranians have that can reach Israel? What if the Iranians have secretly been buying advanced SAM systems or GPS jammers on the black market? The intent is to let players experiment with different circumstances through multiple plays of the game, in order to figure out who the real key players are and what centers of gravity exist in the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Or for those whose eyes glazed over at that paragraph: yes, there are multiple scenarios. Sorry, I went to a liberal arts college...
Q. How long does the game take to play?
A. That depends on how quickly the Israelis are able to achieve- or not achieve- their objectives. The best answer I can give is that you can probably get through a play of PI in two evenings, or one long weekend marathon session. The Israeli strikes slow the game down a lot, but otherwise the turns go by pretty fast- nobody really has the points to take a ton of actions unless they're pretty close to winning anyway. The players can also save time by talking beforehand about what scenario they'll play, deciding on their list of upgrades, and possibly even planning out their air defense dispositions and initial strikes ahead of time.
I'm not going to lie- this is a long game. But it's not impossibly so.
EDIT: Question added from the Harpoon forum.
Q. Besides the F-22, what other types of planes does the U.S. get?
A. The following aircraft show up in the game:
Israel- F-15I, F-16I
Iran- MiG-29A, F-14A, F-4E, F-5E, F-7M (derivative of Chinese J-7 Fishbed)
U.S. (possible Israeli ally)- F/A-18E/F, EA-18G, F-22A, B-2
Russia (possible Iranian ally)- MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-27, A-50 Mainstay AWACS
China (possible Iranian ally)- J-10, J-11 (Chinese-produced Su-27), AWACS aircraft. (Can't remember the designation offhand and don't have my PI notes here at work)
Sea Tentacle MSO
Sea Tentacle MSO class
Basic Ship Data:
Displacement: 4146 full
In class: 1
In Service 1
Acoustic Counterm: None
Electronic Counterm: 4th Gen D
Electronic Support: 3rd Gen
Propulsion: COGAG/Waterjet
Crew: 110+20
Size class: C/Small
Signature Class: VSmall/Quiet
Advance per 45º turn: (Speed lost)
Standard rudder: 200 yards (2)
Hard rudder: 100 yards (3)
Accel/Tac Turn from 0-50% Max Speed 18
Accel/Tac Turn from 51-100% Max Speed 9
Deceleration/Tac from any speed 18
Sensors:
Radars:
SPY-1K J
BridgeMaster (Decca 2000 series) J
Sonars:
DE-1160
SLQ-32
Inflared:
TISS II (4rd Gen EO)
Weapons
F/A(1)2 Millenium Gun 35mm//1 EO C
F&A(4)2 Mk-156 VLS launcher w/32 ESSM
F&A(16)2 Mk-48 VLS launcher w/ see remarks D
PB/SB/PA/SA(2)4 M240C 12,7mm MG C
A(1)1 Aft Hangar w/2 MH-60R & 2 MQ-8B
A(1)1 Aft Pad
Remarks:
NPS 2005 Catamaran design http://www.nps.edu/Academics/GSEAS/TSSE/subPages/2005Project.html. ESSM and Millenium Gun has autonomous. 5400Nm @ 20 kts or 1045 @ 35 kts. Catamaran ship, special damage modifier of -10%; Amphibious ship, special damage modifier of -25%.
- Aviation: Fitted with helicopter recovery system and dual stabilizers. Flight deck can spot one MH-60. Carry two MH-60 and 2 MQ-8B in aft hangar. Can also carry 2 OH-58B/AH-6/MH-6 or 3 MQ-8B vice 1 MH-60. fitted to HIFR (Helicopter in Flight Refueling)
- Mission Deck: 50 Sea Tentacle UUVs, 2 WLD-1, 2 RHIB 7m, 2 USV 12m w/ 2 Side doors, 1 Keel ramp and 1 Aft Ramp. Can launch or recovery 1 vessel in 2 tactical turns by a door or ramp.
- VLS: Can carry ASROC and SSM. Typical configuration has 8 ASROC and 8 SSM.
Damage and speed Breakdown:
Dam Pts: 0/21/42/63/76/84
Surf Speed: 43/32/22/11/0/Sinks
Sea Connector LST
Proyecto basado en los estudios de TSSE de 2004/Poject based in 2004 TSSE postgraduade study: TSShttp://www.nps.edu/Academics/GSEAS/TSSE/subPages/2004Project_2.html
----------------
Sea Connector LST class
Basic Ship Data:
Displacement: 4146 full
In class: 6
In Service 6
Acoustic Counterm: None
Electronic Counterm: 4th Gen D
Electronic Support: 3rd Gen
Propulsion: COGAG/Waterjet
Crew: 75+135
Size class: C/Small
Signature Class: VSmall/Quiet
Advance per 45º turn: (Speed lost)
Standard rudder: 200 yards (2)
Hard rudder: 100 yards (3)
Accel/Tac Turn from 0-50% Max Speed 18
Accel/Tac Turn from 51-100% Max Speed 9
Deceleration/Tac from any speed 18
Sensors:
Radars:
SPY-1K J
BridgeMaster (Decca 2000 series) J
Sonars:
None
Inflared:
TISS II (4rd Gen EO)
Weapons
F(1)1 Bofords Mk-3 57mm/70//1 EO C
F&A(16)2 Mk48 VLS launcher w/ 32 ESSM D
PB/SB/PA/SA(2)4 M240C 12,7mm MG C
A(1)1 Aft Hangar w/1 MH-60R
A(1)1 Aft Pad
1 Elevator
Remarks:
NPS 2004 trimaran design. ESSM is autonomous. 3380Nm @ 20 kts. Multi-hull, special damage modifier of -10%; Amphibious ship, special damage modifier of -25%.
- Aviation: Fitted with helicopter recovery system and dual stabilizers. Flight deck can spot one CH-53 or one MH-60. Can carry two additional MH-60 in cargo deck if has empty . Can also carry 2 OH-58B/AH-6/MH-6 or 3 MQ-8B vice 1 MH-60. fitted to HIFR (Helicopter in Flight Refueling)
- Cargo Deck: Upper and Lower cargo deck, lower deck carry M1A2s and EFVs, 46 vehicles: 37 7t trucks, 7 EFV and 2 M1A2 tank. Take one hour to load USMC mechanized battalion via stern gate and 2 hour unload via stern gate and bow ramp.
Damage and speed Breakdown:
Dam Pts: 0/23/46/68/82/91
Surf Speed: 43/32/22/11/0/Sinks
----------------
Sea Connector LST class
Basic Ship Data:
Displacement: 4146 full
In class: 6
In Service 6
Acoustic Counterm: None
Electronic Counterm: 4th Gen D
Electronic Support: 3rd Gen
Propulsion: COGAG/Waterjet
Crew: 75+135
Size class: C/Small
Signature Class: VSmall/Quiet
Advance per 45º turn: (Speed lost)
Standard rudder: 200 yards (2)
Hard rudder: 100 yards (3)
Accel/Tac Turn from 0-50% Max Speed 18
Accel/Tac Turn from 51-100% Max Speed 9
Deceleration/Tac from any speed 18
Sensors:
Radars:
SPY-1K J
BridgeMaster (Decca 2000 series) J
Sonars:
None
Inflared:
TISS II (4rd Gen EO)
Weapons
F(1)1 Bofords Mk-3 57mm/70//1 EO C
F&A(16)2 Mk48 VLS launcher w/ 32 ESSM D
PB/SB/PA/SA(2)4 M240C 12,7mm MG C
A(1)1 Aft Hangar w/1 MH-60R
A(1)1 Aft Pad
1 Elevator
Remarks:
NPS 2004 trimaran design. ESSM is autonomous. 3380Nm @ 20 kts. Multi-hull, special damage modifier of -10%; Amphibious ship, special damage modifier of -25%.
- Aviation: Fitted with helicopter recovery system and dual stabilizers. Flight deck can spot one CH-53 or one MH-60. Can carry two additional MH-60 in cargo deck if has empty . Can also carry 2 OH-58B/AH-6/MH-6 or 3 MQ-8B vice 1 MH-60. fitted to HIFR (Helicopter in Flight Refueling)
- Cargo Deck: Upper and Lower cargo deck, lower deck carry M1A2s and EFVs, 46 vehicles: 37 7t trucks, 7 EFV and 2 M1A2 tank. Take one hour to load USMC mechanized battalion via stern gate and 2 hour unload via stern gate and bow ramp.
Damage and speed Breakdown:
Dam Pts: 0/23/46/68/82/91
Surf Speed: 43/32/22/11/0/Sinks
domingo, 19 de septiembre de 2010
AAR AP Turn 2
H+40 grupo Gavilan Pollero (GP) enciende sus APQ-100 AI 40/25/19/8/2
GP acelera a Cruise Med 524knt (26.2/2.18)
H+0:43 grupo comadreja (CO)
CO acelera FMP Low 540knt (27/2.25)
Tirada de detección de los F-4C 90% [11], detecta dos blancos (Boguie I y II)a High al Este de M’diq (18.68).
Misiles de F-4C
AIM-7E SARH 2 4 16.1 205 2295 A N N 1963
AIM-9B IRH 1 1.5 2.5 70.4 1147 N Y N 1956
Lider y Lider Wingman se preparan para atacar separándose una milla nautica, Punto Lider y Punto Wingman se retrasan tres millas náuticas por detras con una separación de una milla náutica.
H+0:43.5 Distancia F-4C<->Boguie II y II (15.20)
Lider y Lider Wingman disparan un AIM-7E a cada blanco [6/8] uno de los misiles falla.
AIM-7E 2295 (114.75/9.56)
H+0:44.0 F-4C<->Bogie I y II (11.44) AIM-7F<->Boguie I(3.89)
Lider Wingman dispara un AIM-7F a un blanco [0] misil falla
H+0:44.5 F-4C<->Bogie I y II(7.42)
AIM-7E llega al blanco:
Sorpresa 1 vs 2 (30%) [32] No hay sorpresa
AIM-7E ATA - Mig-17F ATA: 4-2.5=1.5
Diferencia de altitud 1.5-1.0=0.5 (35%)
Modificador por habilidad (un nivel) 0.5+0.5=1.0 (40%) [4] blanco impactado, una bola de fuego llena el cielo
Lider Wingman dispara un AIM-7F a un blanco [5] misil funciona
Detalle:
Ceuta, Tropas de tierra propias:
1xBtl (1)6 Oerlikons 20mm
Guarnición:
1xBtl (1)6 Bofors 40mm/70
1xBtl (1)6 Oerlikons 20mm
En el siguiente turno se estara a distancia para declarar DogFight (6- Nm)
Google Earth map files (aqui/here)
Mas información de alacranes peligrosos (aqui)
sábado, 18 de septiembre de 2010
Persian Incursion News
Los contadores traen todas gran cantidad de unidades aéreas de la región, entre ellas podemos enumerar F-4E, F-5, Mig-29, F-7 y F-14 iraníes, Mig-31, Su-27 y Mig-29 rusos, J-10 y J-11 Chinos, F-15I y F-16I israelíes y F-18 Americanos. Ademas, hay contadores de banderas, políticos, de turno, y unidades SAMs y AAAs.
Con respecto al mapa, no la versión definitiva , muestra toda la zona del golfo pérsico, desde la costa de arabia saudí hasta la frontera con Rusia, una linea de contadores de turnos, varias lineas de contadores para indicar la influencia y/o puntos de victoria de los diferentes países, el estado de los escuadrones israelíes y el estado de los diferentes sectores y escuadrones iraníes.
------------------------
Wimble Ed has posted new images in ConsimWorld concerning Persian Incursion. In this case, we have an image of the game counters, the game map, as will the mechanism glimpse of the new addition of Harpoon and a F-22 Game card.
The counters bring all lots of air units in the region, among them we can enumerate Iranian F-4E, F-5, Mig-29, F-7 and F-14. Russian Mig-31, Su-27 and Mig-29. Chinese J-10 and J-11. Israeli F-15I F-16I and American F-18. Furthermore, there are counters flags, politicians, in turn, and drives SAMs and AAAs.
With respect to the map, no the final version, shows the entire area of the Persian Gulf, off the coast of Saudi Arabia to the border with Russia, a line of shift counters, several lines of counters to indicate the influence and / or victory points in different countries. The state of the Israeli squad and the state of the different sectors and Iranian squad.
Contadores/Counters
Tablero del Mapa/Table Map
Tarjeta de Avion / Airplane Card
Referencias / References
ComsimWorld (aqui/here)
BGM-34C Form
Este form esta basado en informacion de internet y la wikipedia. Combustible interno y el alcance de los tanques lanzables especulativo, es un form no oficial hasta que pueda ser constractado con fuentes mas fidelignas.
-------------------
This form is based in internet info, internal fuel and drop tank range speculative, unoficial until can math with objetive sources.BGM-34C
In Service: 0 [3?]
Gun Atk: None
Man Rtng: 1.0/0.5
Damage Value: 15 (3750^(1/3)*1^(1/2)*1*1=15.11*1*1*1=15.11)
Size/Signature: Small/Small
Bombsight: Ballistic
Counterm: None
Inflight Refuel: None
Sensors: See Remarks
Gun Atk: None
Man Rtng: 1.0/0.5
Damage Value: 15 (3750^(1/3)*1^(1/2)*1*1=15.11*1*1*1=15.11)
Size/Signature: Small/Small
Bombsight: Ballistic
Counterm: None
Inflight Refuel: None
Sensors: See Remarks
Throttle Setting (Speed in knots)
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 420 560 --
Med: 420 560 --
High: 420 560 --
Ceiling: 15000 m Engine Type: TF
Cruise Range: 725 nm Int Fuel: 1500? kg
Additional Fuel Fuel Wt. Range Add.
36 USG drop tank 247kg 123nm
Ordnance Loadouts:
Payload: 1080 kg
Off Guns: None
Def Guns: None
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 420 560 --
Med: 420 560 --
High: 420 560 --
Ceiling: 15000 m Engine Type: TF
Cruise Range: 725 nm Int Fuel: 1500? kg
Additional Fuel Fuel Wt. Range Add.
36 USG drop tank 247kg 123nm
Ordnance Loadouts:
Payload: 1080 kg
Off Guns: None
Def Guns: None
- 2 AN/ALE-2 Chaff Pods or 2 AN/ALE-38 Chaff Pod
- 2 mk-82/Snakeye
- 2 GBU-8/9/12
- 2 AGM-65A/B
- 4 Sismic Sensors
- 2 Ilumination bombs
- Attack Version: EO (DN, DN) camera, Laser designator, Rangefinger
- ECM Version: Offensive Jammer 1st Gen
- Recon Version: EO (DN, DL) Camera
Referencias/References:
Rob Debie Web page: (aqui/here)
US Designation page: (aqui/here)
viernes, 17 de septiembre de 2010
CGH-67 Crucero de Batalla/ Battlecrusier Form
Este form esta basado en la única imagen disponible del proyecto y el nombre viene dado por el gran cañón y el estado de la union, centrado en las montañas rocosas. Todas las configuraciones son hipotéticas, y se considera no oficial hasta que pueda conseguir alguna información actualizada de dicho proyecto. Aun así, dicho buque es muy interesante de participar en un escenario ASW o de escolta de convoy.
------------------
This form is based on the only image available from the project and the name comes from the Grand Canyon and the state of the union, centered in the Rocky Mountains. All settings are hypothetical and are considered unofficial until it can get some updated information about the project. Still, the ship is very interesting to participate in a scenario ASW escort or convoy.
Colorado CGH class
Basic Ship Data:
Displacement: 16000 full
In class: ?
In Service ?
Acoustic Counterm: 2nd Gen Twd
Electronic Counterm: 3rd Gen J&D
Electronic Support: 3rd Gen
Propulsion: COGAG/CPP
Crew: 650
Size class: B/Medium
Signature Class: Medium/Quiet
Advance per 45º turn: (Speed lost)
Standard rudder: 300 yards (2)
Hard rudder: 200 yards (3)
Accel/Tac Turn from 0-50% Max Speed 15
Accel/Tac Turn from 51-100% Max Speed 8
Deceleration/Tac from any speed 18
Sensors:
Radars:
SPY-1A J
SPS-67 J
SPQ-9 J
Sonars:
SQS-56 M
Inflared:
None
Weapons
F/A(1)2 Mk-45 mod1 127mm/70//1 SPY-1A & SPQ-9 C
P/S/A(R)3 Mk-15 Phalanx w/5 bursts C
F&A(148)1 Mk-41 VLS w/148 See Remarks//4 SPG-62 (20) D
PB/SB/PA/SA(1)4 MG 12,7mm MG C
PB/SB(3)2 Mk-32 324mm TT w/Mk-46 F
(4)1 Hangar w/4 MH-60R/S
(3)1 Aft Pad
Remarks:
Catamaran SWAT design. 6500Nm @ 16 kts. Multi-hull, special damage modifier of -10%
VLS weapons: Tomahawk, VLS Asroc, SM2MR Block III, SPS-67 control Mk-45, SPY-1A control VLS missiles
Aviation: Fitted with helicopter recovery system and dual stabilizers. Flight deck can spot two CH-53 or three SH-60B LAMPS III. Can also carry 2 OH-58B/AH-6/MH-6 vice 1 SH-60B. Fitted to HIFR (Helicopter in Flight Refueling).
NBC protection, All Steel construction. Fitted with Praire/Masker
Only conceptual design, never build. Name, Displacement, range, weapons, sensors and endurance speculative. Ideal to Hunter Killler ASW groups command ship or Convoy Leader
Damage and speed Breakdown:
Dam Pts: 0/81/161/242/290/322
Surf Speed: 32/24/16/8/0/Sinks
domingo, 12 de septiembre de 2010
AAR Rolling Fire Ep1
0230Z, costa norte de Polonia, 26 de enero de 1981, día 65 de la tercera guerra mundial, a 40 millas náuticas al norte de la ciudad de Swinemünde.
Fox I y II volaban a muy baja altura sobre las aguas encrespadas del báltico, azotadas por una tormenta invernal. Los F-111F eran zarandeados por el cruel viento mientras los sistemas de seguimiento del terreno y navegación se esforzaban en ayudar a los pilotos a mantener un vuelo mas o menos estable. Los dos aparatos habian tenido dias mejores, y habian perdido todo su lustre de otro tiempo.
Fox I habia sufrido el impacto de un Sa-8 sobre la zona norte de Hamburgo, habia perdido un 13% de su semiala derecha, un Slart, y los soportes subalares del ala de babor. Con habilidad el piloto habia llevado el maltrecho avión a un aerodromo en Belgica, aterrizándolo de una pieza.
Fox II fue despedazado por la AAA sobre sobre Rostock, el piloto había muerto y comenzó a perder altura y combustible, su navegante y bombardero cogiendo rápidamente los controles, pudo con habilidad sacar el aparato de ese infierno e internarse en el Báltico, hasta realizar un aterrizaje forzoso cerca de la población de Maribo en la isla de Lolland, Dinamarca. Los dos aparatos, aunque muy dañados, pudieron ser recuperados, pero estuvieron semanas fuera de servicio. Mientras las tripulaciones se recuperaban de sus heridas y descansaban antes de volver al frente.
Ahora, con los rusos estancados a las puertas de Hamburgo y duras luchas en Magdeburg, la OTAN intentaba por segunda vez cortar las lineas de comunicacion sobre el rio Oder. Dichos puentes habian sido atacado los primeros dias de la guerra con duras perdidas por ambos bandos, dejando seriamente dañada las lineas de aprovisionamiento del Pacto de Varsovia. Varios puentes clave se mantenian intactos por lo que habían sido fuertemente reforzados con Antiaerea y SAMs.
Una unidad mixta de 9M31 [SA-9B "Gaskin-Mod0"] y dos ZSU-23-4 vigilaban el puente de Mescherin, en la frontera germano polaca, uno de los pocos puentes supervivientes desde el principio de la guerra. El vehículo de mando de la batería, un BTR-60PU-12, se encontraba camuflado en las cercanías de una fabrica al sur del puente junto a cuatro vehículos de servicio. Dos BTR-70, uno a 50 metros de cada extremo del puente, se ocupaban de la seguridad y seis secciones de dos infantes armados cara una con misiles portátiles 9K32M “Strela-2M” [SA-7b Grail] completaban el perímetro defensivo antiaéreo.
Wiskey I y II se abrieron hacia el sureste y el oeste sobre la población de Goleniów, Wiskey I mantendria su radar encendido como señuelo, girando al sur sobre la poblacion de Tanowo dirigiendose hacia es su, mientras Wiskey II volaba a baja altura gracias a sus gafas de visión nocturna, giro hacia el sur sobre Sawno y hacia el este sobre el lago Miedwie acelerando hacia el blanco. Los F-111F se encontraban sobre el lago Dąbie armando sus bombas y preparándose para atacar el puente.
El Sa-9B mas al norte comenzo a detectar las emisiones del radares APG-120 de Wishkey I mediante sus sensores pasivos de radar 9S16 "Flat Box", el comandante comunicó rápidamente la situación al vehículo de mando de la batería y dio ordenes al artillero que girase la torreta de misiles en esa dirección para conseguir un buena posición de tiro, mientras, el comandante de la batería retransmitía a todos los efectivos la dirección de la amenaza, los otros vehículos antiaéreos giraron en esa dirección energizando los radares de tiro RPK-2 "Tobol" de los ZSU-23-4, comenzando a detectar al F-4F aproximandose.
La noche se ilumino mientras las trazadoras y los misiles surcaban el cielo, Whiskey I al ver el fuego activo sus lanzadores descargando cientos de tiras metálicas y bengalas desde los lanzadors AN/ALE-29 y AN/ALE-39. Los misiles volaron raudos en su dirección.
ATA (tirada para impactar) [Tirada de dado]
F-4F: 3.5+1.0(maniobra defensiva)+0.5(ECM 1st Gen)+1.5(Decoy 2nd Gen):6.5/6.0
Sa-9B: 3.5 - 6.0 = -2.5 (07%) [48/36]
Sa-7B: 3 - 6.0 = -3.0 (05%) [62/55/39]
Todos los misiles se pierden en la noche, ya sea por efecto de las bengalas como por la maniobra defensiva del aparato, mientras, Wiskey II desciende con los posquemadores encendidos y dispara tres de sus contenedores de cohetes hacia el blanco designado desde una distancia de dos millas náuticas, una de las dotaciones al sur lo ve y rápidamente le dispara otro Sa-7b. Wiskey II gira hacia el sur, con todas las contramedidas encendidas y se pega al terreno, los cohetes Hydra70 vuelan raudos y alcanzan la posicion del Sa-9b, el Sa-7b se acerca rapidamente al phantom.
ATA (tirada para impactar) [Tirada de dado]
F-4F: 3.5+1.0(maniobra defensiva)+0.5(ECM 1st Gen)+1.5(Decoy 2nd Gen):6.5/6.0 contra IR
Sa-7B: 3-6.0 = -3.0 (05%) [43]
Ataque con cohetes desde Low, contra un blanco Small y >50% alcance de los cohetes (3.5 max/2.0)
F-4F: .40 (40%) [21/03/56]
El Sa-7B se pierde confundido por las bengalas mientras los Hydra aniquilan el Sa-9 por los impactos de sus cabezas de alto explosivo. El vehiculo salta por los aires, haciendo que metralla y fragmentos vuelen por todas partes.
FOX I y II se aproximan al blanco y se elevan rápidamente a siete mil pies (banda Med), fijando los blancos con sus barquillas ALQ-26 sobre el puente, atacaran en picado, hasta una altura de cuatro mil pies en la que soltaran su carga de doce bombas Mk-82. Wiskey I regresa desde el este para soltar sus bombas de racimo en una larga pasada de bombardeo, intentando llevarse por delante algún AAA.
Las tripulaciones de los vehiculos y las patruyas estan desconcertadas mientras su comandante da ordenes furiosamente por la radio. Los ZSU detectan a los F-111F entrando por el noreste y los comunica, mientras otra de las dotaciones detecta a Wiskey I entrando por el este.
FOX I y II se lanzan contra el blanco, ayudados por la computadora de bombardeo, lanzan su carga, mientras que el ultimo Sa-9b dispara otro misil contra FOX II. Wiskey I se arriesga a lanzar desde muy baja altura (Vlow) dos Mk-20 Rockeyes contra el ZSU mas al sur mientras la dotación que le seguía le lanza un Sa-7b.
Ataque con 16 bombas desde Low en picado, contra un blanco medim (dos grupos de seis bombas)
F-111F [Fox I]: .46 (45%) [94/80] un solo impacto
F-111F [Fox I]: .46 (45%) [94/80] un solo impacto
F-111F [Fox II]: .46 (45%) [11/55] cuatro y dos impacto
Daños
Puente: 70 DP
Fox I: 17 DP x 1 = 17 DP
Fox II: 17 DP x 6 = 102 DP
F-4F: 0.0(No maniobra defensivamente)+0.5(ECM 1st Gen)+1.5(Decoy 2nd Gen):2.0/1.5 contra IR
ZSU-23-4: .51(dos vehiculos disparando)/2 (esta usando ECM) = (25%) [21/3] dos impactos
ZSU-23-4: .51(dos vehiculos disparando)/2 (esta usando ECM) = (25%) [21/3] dos impactos
Daños 54/95= Heavy damage / Light damage = Critical Damage
La antiaerea despedaza a Wishkey I, los indicadores de alarma saltan en la cabina, el aparato se escora hacia el suelo, pero una maniobra acertada del piloto lo recupera, inmediatamente suelta toda la carga y como puede, pone rumbo hacia el norte en un intento deseperado de llegar a una zona segura.
ATA (tirada para impactar) [Tirada de dado]
F-111F: 3.0+0.5(ECM 1st Gen)+1.5(Decoy 3rd Gen):5.0/4.5 contra IR
Sa-9B: 3.5 - 4.5 = -1.0 (20%) [10] un impacto
Sa-9B: 3.5 - 4.5 = -1.0 (20%) [10] un impacto
Daños 56= Heavy damage
El Sa-9B estalla contra la tobera de FoxI destrozando un motor, el piloto lanza los extintores controlando el incendio, pero su sistema hidraulico se ve comprometido y debe abortar, esta parece que no es una buena noche.
Whiskey II lanza la ultima endanada contra uno de los ZSU, ninguna dotacion Sam le dispara girando hacia el este para escoltar a los maltrechos compañeros
Ataque con cohetes desde Low, contra un blanco Small y >50% alcance de los cohetes (3.5 max/2.0)
F-4F: .40 (40%) [43,8,24]
El ZSU mas al oeste vuela por los aires. Mientras las dotaciones intentan ayudar a los supervivientes y piensan como se reuniran con los compañeros del otro lado del río. El comandante de la bateria, comunica con su alto mando dando parte de la situación y espera que los ingenieros puedan venir a reparar este puente antes de que la situación empeore.
Los cuatro aparatos, a baja altura se internan en el báltico sin oposición. En pocos minutos y con la escolta de dos F-16A y 2 F-104 Starfighters Daneses, llegan a la de la base aerea de Karup (EKKA), donde todos los aparatos llegan sanos y salvos.
Las tripulaciones se reúnen y se dirigen a los barracones de dispesin para descansar
---------------------------
The following scenery is constructed to test the ability of the methods of bombing and quick resolution rules appeared in the issue The Naval SITREP # 31.
0230Z, north coast of Poland, January 26, 1981, day 65 of the third world war, 40 nautical miles north of the city of Swinemünde.
Fox I and II flying very low over the choppy waters of the Baltic, hit by a winter storm. The F-111F were buffeted by the cruel wind as field monitoring systems and navigation strove to help the drivers to operate a more or less stable. Both bombers had had better days, and had lost its luster once.
Fox I had suffered the impact of a Sa-8 on the north of Hamburg, had lost 13% of its right wing, a Slart, and the port underwing supports. With skill the pilot had brought the battered aircraft to an airfield in Belgium, landing in one piece.
---------------------------
The following scenery is constructed to test the ability of the methods of bombing and quick resolution rules appeared in the issue The Naval SITREP # 31.
0230Z, north coast of Poland, January 26, 1981, day 65 of the third world war, 40 nautical miles north of the city of Swinemünde.
Fox I and II flying very low over the choppy waters of the Baltic, hit by a winter storm. The F-111F were buffeted by the cruel wind as field monitoring systems and navigation strove to help the drivers to operate a more or less stable. Both bombers had had better days, and had lost its luster once.
Fox I had suffered the impact of a Sa-8 on the north of Hamburg, had lost 13% of its right wing, a Slart, and the port underwing supports. With skill the pilot had brought the battered aircraft to an airfield in Belgium, landing in one piece.
Now, with the Russians stuck to the doors of heavy fighting in Hamburg and Magdeburg, NATO tried a second time to cut the lines of communication on the river Oder. These bridges had been attacked first days of war with heavy losses on both sides, severely damaged, leaving supply lines of the Warsaw Pact. Several key bridges remained intact for what they had been heavily reinforced with anti-aircraft and SAMs.
Ahead of the Fox group, Wiskey I and II were close to the shore, two F-4F Luftwafe armed with rockets and cluster munitions were trying to detect and destroy air defenses between the bombers and their target. The Phantom equipped with ESM nacelles, scoured the coast in search of safe corridors in which penetrate the Wiskey II radar operator found one between two S-75M units in the Polemaria Polish coast, passing rapidly FOX and boarding group by at full speed.
A mixed unit 9M31 [SA-9B "Gaskin-Mod0"] and two ZSU-23-4 guarding the Mescherin bridge on the border between Germany and Poland, one of the few surviving bridges since the beginning of the war. The command vehicle battery, a BTR-60PU-12, was camouflaged in the vicinity of a factory south of the bridge with four auxiliar vehicles. Two BTR-70, a 50 meters from each end of the bridge, dealing with security and six sections of two infants a face armed with portable missiles 9K32M "Strela-2M" [SA-7b Grail] completed the air defense perimeter.
Wiskey I and II were opened to the southeast and west on the population of Goleniów, Wiskey I keep its radar on as bait, turning south on Tanowo Turning back toward the population of is her, Wiskey II while flying at low altitude due to its night vision goggles, turn south on Sawn and eastward over the lake Miedwie accelerating toward the target.The F-111F were on the lake Dąbie arming their bombs and preparing to attack the bridge.
The Sa-9B farther north started to detect the emissions of APG-120 radar Wishkey I through its passive radar sensors 9S16 "Flat Box", the commander quickly reported the situation to the vehicle battery command and gave orders to the gunner to issue notices missile turret in that direction to achieve a good shooting position, while, the battery commander retransmitted to the staff address the threat, the other anti-aircraft vehicles turned in this direction radar shot energizing RPK-2 "Tobol" of the ZSU-23-4, starting to detect the F-4F approaching.
Wiskey I pilot descended below 30 feet, its car lit AN/ALQ-119 countermeasures and prepare to make a move for dismissal. Wiskey II approached undetected. As the navigation system Wishkey I under two nautical miles, the pilot pulled heavily on the lever activated the afterburners and turn right on German territory. The gunners of the two vehicles SAMs discovered the afterburner fire of Phamton II and fired one missile each, as did the three envelopes of Sa-7b further north and finally the Shilka opened fire with their quadruple twenty-three millimeters 2A7 guns. Whiskey II saw the shots and chose a white, SAM battery further east, awaiting the right moment to unload their trays rocket M261 on it.
The night was illuminated while the tracers and rockets across the sky, saw Whiskey I active fire their launchers downloading hundreds of metal strips and flares from AN/ALE-29 and AN/ALE-39 launchers. The missiles flew swift in their direction.
ATA (roll to hit) [dice roll]
F-4F: 3.5 +1.0 (defensive maneuver) +0.5 (ECM 1st Gen) +1.5 (Decoy 2nd Gen): 6.5/6.0
Sa-9B: 3.5 - 6.0 = -2.5 (07%) [48/36]
Sa-7B: 3 - 6.0 = -3.0 (05%) [62/55/39]
All missiles are lost in the night, whether the effect of the flares as a defensive maneuver by the apparatus, while, Wiskey II decreases with the afterburners lit and shot three of their containers to the designated target missiles from a distance of two nautical miles, one of the allocations to the south and quickly see what shoots another Sa-7b. Wiskey II turns south, with all countermeasures on and sticks to the ground, rockets fly Hydra70 swift and reach the position of Sa-9b, the Sa-7b is about quickly to the phanton.
ATA (roll to hit) [dice roll]
F-4F: 3.5 +1.0 (defensive maneuver) +0.5 (ECM 1st Gen) +1.5 (Decoy 2nd Gen): 6.5/6.0 against IR
Sa-7B: 3-6.0 = -3.0 (05%) [43]
Low rocket attack against a target Small and> 50% range of the rockets (3.5 max/2.0)
F-4F: 40 (40%) [21/03/56]
The Sa-7B is lost confused by the flares while the Hydra annihilate the Sa-9 by the impacts of high explosive warheads. The car blows up, causing shrapnel and fragments flying everywhere.
FOX I and II are close to the target and rapidly rising to seven thousand feet (band Med), setting targets with its ALQ-26 nacelles on the bridge, dive attack, to a height of four thousand feet on to drop their load of twelve Mk-82 bombs. Wiskey I returned from the east to release their cluster bombs in a bombing last long, trying to get ahead some AAA.
The crews of the vehicles and are embarrassed while their commander gives orders furiously on the radio. The ZSU detected the F-111F, entering through the northeast and the community, while another of the envelopes Wiskey I caught entering the east.
Attack with 16 bombs from Low dive bomb, against a white Medimed (two groups of six bombs)
F-111F [Fox I]: 46 (45%) [94/80] a single impact
F-111F [Fox II]: 46 (45%) [11/55] four two impact
Damage
Bridge: 70 DP
Fox I: 17 x 1 = 17 DP DP
Fox II: 17 x 6 = 102 DP DP
Bridge collapses on the waters of the Oder, while the F-111F turn westward and descend Vlow.
Whiskey I goes into the danger zone, while trying to reach ZSU. The SA-7b pied Due to not ready for that band of altitude.
F-4F: 0.0 (No maneuver defensively) +0.5 (ECM 1st Gen) +1.5 (Decoy 2nd Gen): 2.0/1.5 against IR
ZSU-23-4: 51 (two vehicles firing) / 2 (is using ECM) = (25%) [21 / 3] two impacts
54/95 = Heavy Damage damage / Light damage = Critical Damage
The anti-aircraft tears apart Wishkey I, the alarm indicators jump in the cab, the unit heel toward the floor, but a successful pilot maneuver it back, immediately release all the cargo and as you can, put
heading north in a desperate attempt to reach a safe area.
ATA (roll to hit) [dice roll]
F-111F: 3.0 +0.5 (ECM 1st Gen) +1.5 (Decoy 3rd Gen): 5.0/4.5 against IR
Sa-9B: 3.5 - 4.5 = -1.0 (20%) [10] impact
56 = Heavy damage Damage
The Sa-9B nozzle Fox I bursts against destroying an engine, the pilot releases the controlling the fire extinguishers, but the hydraulic system is compromised and to abort, this seems not a good night.
Whiskey II launches the latest endanada against one of the ZSU, no endowment shoots Sam turning east to escort the battered colleagues
Low rocket attack against a target Small and> 50% range of the rockets (3.5 max/2.0)
F-4F: 40 (40%) [56,43,8,24]
The further west ZSU flies through the air. While allocations are intended to help survivors and will meet with like-minded peers from across the River. The commander of the battery, communicates with his high command giving part of the situation and hopes that engineers can come to repair this bridge before the situation worsens.
The four aircraft at low altitude into in the Baltic unopposed. In a few minutes with the escort of two F-16A and two F-104 Starfighters Danes, arriving at the Air Base Karup (EKKA), where all arrive safe and sound equipment.
The crews get together and go to the barracks to rest dispesin.
Referencias / References:
ZSU-23-4: (aqui/here)
F-111: (aqui/here)
F-4 Phamton II (aqui/here)
9M31 [SA-9B "Gaskin-Mod0"] (aqui/here)
9K32 “Strela-2” (aqui/here)
sábado, 11 de septiembre de 2010
Small Diameter Bomb II GBU-53/B
Raytheon esta realizando los testeos para el comienzo de la futura producción de su nueva versión de las bombas SBD, la GBU-53/B. Dichas bombas de peso ligero han sido actualizadas con un buscador de blancos móviles de tres modos conjuntos, estos son:
- Buscador Radar milimétrico
- Buscador laser semiactivo
- Buscador Inflarojo
Este nuevo modo de búsqueda permite realizar ataques contra blancos fijos y móviles sin perder las prestaciones del anterior modelo GBU-39.
La GBU-39/B puede ser transportadas a bordo de los F-15E, F-22 y F-35, aunque en este ultimo, en la versión de los marines, hay problemas para integrarlos dentro de la bodega, viendo reducida su capacidad de ocho unidades a seis.
------------------------
Raytheon is doing the testing for the beginning of future production of its new version of the SBD bombs, the GBU-53 / B. These lightweight pumps have been updated with a mobile homing modes of three sets, these are:
The GBU-39 / B can be carried on board the F-15E, F-22 and F-35, although in the latter, in the version of the Marines, there are problems integrating them into the cellar, seeing reduced capacity six to eight units.
----------------------
- Millimeter Radar Seaker
- Semi-active laser Seaker
- Infrarred Seaker
The GBU-39 / B can be carried on board the F-15E, F-22 and F-35, although in the latter, in the version of the Marines, there are problems integrating them into the cellar, seeing reduced capacity six to eight units.
----------------------
El siguiente form es solo orientativo hasta la salida del oficial / The following form is only for guidance to the officer's departure:
GBU-39/B USA I&GPS 3 0.5 60 528 Ballistic Med Low 130 23 5 Vsmall 2006
GBU-53/B USA I&GPS/TARH&SALH&EO(DN,DL) 3 0.5 60 528 Ballistic Med Low 130 23 5 Vsmall 2013
Raytheon GBU-53/B (aqui/here)
Daeger (aqui/here)
Wikipedia (aqui/here)
viernes, 10 de septiembre de 2010
Rockwell B-1R Bomber Form
El Rockwell B-1R, fue una propuesta de modernización para la flota de B-1Bs. Sus cambios externos incluian la adopcion de una cola en "V", nuevos motores Pratt & Whitney F119, los mismos motores que lleva el F-22, pero sin vectorización de empuje.
Los cambios internos incluian la adpcion de un radas APG-80, llevado por el F-16 Block60. Otro de los cambios incluia una actualización de la capacidad de armamento del bombardero, incluyendo misiles aire aire como el AIM-120 AMRAAM y dos contenedores de contramedidas electronicas AN/ALQ-99, como los llevados por el EA-6B Prowler o el EA-18G Growler.
Las prestaciones de este nuevo bombardeo le permitian mantener una velocidad de supercrucero durante el vuelo (Mach 2+). El proyecto no paso de las mesas de diseño
------------------------------------
The Rockwell B-1R, was a proposal to modernize the fleet of B-1Bs. Its external changes included the adoption of a tail assembly "V", new Pratt & Whitney F119, the same engine that carries the F-22, but without thrust vectoring.Internal changes included adpcion an APG-80 AESA radar, carried by the F-16 Block60. Another change included an update of the bomber's weapons capability, including air-air missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM and two electronic countermeasures AN/ALQ-99 containers, such as those carried by the
EA-6B Prowler and EA-18G Growler.
EA-6B Prowler and EA-18G Growler.
The benefits of this new bombing permitted him to maintain a speed of supercruise during flight (Mach 2 +) with a reduction of 20% of its maximum range. The project does not pass the design table
Rockwell B-1R Bomber
Gun Atk: None
Man Rtng: 1.5/1.0
Size/Signature: Large/VSmall
In Service: ? [2018]
Counterm: 3rd Gen J&D
Bombsight: Advanced
Damage Value: 76
Gun Atk: None
Man Rtng: 1.5/1.0
Size/Signature: Large/VSmall
In Service: ? [2018]
Counterm: 3rd Gen J&D
Bombsight: Advanced
Damage Value: 76
Sensors:
Radar
Name large medium small Vsmall Seathly function
APG-80 160 113 84 36 11 LD/SD
160 133 76 43 24 SS,TF
Performance: Speed in Knots
Throttle Setting
Altitude Cruise FullMill Reheat
V/Low: 650 650 792
Med: 700 780 1020
High: 807 920 1260
Ceiling: 16000 meters
Engine Type: TF
Endurance Data
Inflight Refuel: Y/B
Cruise Range: 5182 nm
Int Fuel: 88452 kg
Drop Tank Desc Fuel Wt. Range add.
Standard Int Bay Tank 5559 kg 625 nm
Small Int Bay Tank 3789 kg 280 nm
Ordinance Loadouts:
Payload:
34020 kg 3 Internal Bomb Bay
27040 kg 6 under fuselage pilons
Off Guns: None
Defensive Guns: None
Bomb Bay Weapons:
96/144 GBU-39/40 SDB (4 or 6 packs)
84x Mk-82 GPB, Mk-62 Naval mines
30x CBU-87/89/97/103/104/105 cluster/sensor-fused/WCMD munitions
24x GBU-31 JDAM, AGM-158 JASSM
15x GBU-38 JDAM
12x AGM-154 JSOW
8x Mk-65 Naval mines
under fuselage weapons:
1x Sniper Pod in Right Forward pylon
22x AIM-120B/C AMRRAM
16/24x GBU-39/40 SDB (4 or 6 packs)
24x CBU-87/89/97/103/104/105 cluster/sensor-fused/WCMD munitions
12x Mk-82 GPB, Mk-62 Naval mines, GBU-22
10x GBU-31 JDAM, AGM-158 JASSM, GBU-23, AGM-154 JSOW, GBU-24, GBU-38 JDAM
4x GBU-28
Additional Pylons
2x AN/ALQ-99 offensive Jammers
Remarks:
Proposal bomber by Rockwell to 2014-18 regional bomber, no enter in service. Fitted with DataLink, ESM, Satcom. Rememorized by F-22 Power Plant, no vectorized Trust capable. Super cruiser speed allowed, combat range reduced in 20%. New radar with AESA capability, AIM-120 AMRRAM and other Air to Air missile allowed. Reduce range of hostile radars within the radar horizon by 40%.
References:
Un dibujo del B-1R en Deviant/ A interesting desing of B-1R in Deviant (aqui/here)
Wikipedia: (aqui/here)
Radar
Name large medium small Vsmall Seathly function
APG-80 160 113 84 36 11 LD/SD
160 133 76 43 24 SS,TF
Performance: Speed in Knots
Throttle Setting
Altitude Cruise FullMill Reheat
V/Low: 650 650 792
Med: 700 780 1020
High: 807 920 1260
Ceiling: 16000 meters
Engine Type: TF
Endurance Data
Inflight Refuel: Y/B
Cruise Range: 5182 nm
Int Fuel: 88452 kg
Drop Tank Desc Fuel Wt. Range add.
Standard Int Bay Tank 5559 kg 625 nm
Small Int Bay Tank 3789 kg 280 nm
Ordinance Loadouts:
Payload:
34020 kg 3 Internal Bomb Bay
27040 kg 6 under fuselage pilons
Off Guns: None
Defensive Guns: None
Bomb Bay Weapons:
96/144 GBU-39/40 SDB (4 or 6 packs)
84x Mk-82 GPB, Mk-62 Naval mines
30x CBU-87/89/97/103/104/105 cluster/sensor-fused/WCMD munitions
24x GBU-31 JDAM, AGM-158 JASSM
15x GBU-38 JDAM
12x AGM-154 JSOW
8x Mk-65 Naval mines
under fuselage weapons:
1x Sniper Pod in Right Forward pylon
22x AIM-120B/C AMRRAM
16/24x GBU-39/40 SDB (4 or 6 packs)
24x CBU-87/89/97/103/104/105 cluster/sensor-fused/WCMD munitions
12x Mk-82 GPB, Mk-62 Naval mines, GBU-22
10x GBU-31 JDAM, AGM-158 JASSM, GBU-23, AGM-154 JSOW, GBU-24, GBU-38 JDAM
4x GBU-28
Additional Pylons
2x AN/ALQ-99 offensive Jammers
Remarks:
Proposal bomber by Rockwell to 2014-18 regional bomber, no enter in service. Fitted with DataLink, ESM, Satcom. Rememorized by F-22 Power Plant, no vectorized Trust capable. Super cruiser speed allowed, combat range reduced in 20%. New radar with AESA capability, AIM-120 AMRRAM and other Air to Air missile allowed. Reduce range of hostile radars within the radar horizon by 40%.
References:
Un dibujo del B-1R en Deviant/ A interesting desing of B-1R in Deviant (aqui/here)
Wikipedia: (aqui/here)
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)