near_blind

My own understanding is that a hard target would be something like a bunker or a tank: heavily armored and resistant to most forms of attack. Something like a BMP, BTR, MTLB would qualify as soft targets: they are sufficiently armored to protect against small arms and artillery shrapnel, but are vulnerable to direct fire by HMGs or autocannons. Regardless of naming semantics, the BLU-97 submunition is designed primarily as an anti tank weapon. It's primary weapons effect is courtesy of a shaped charge, as opposed to earlier purpose built HE-Frag sub munitions designed for use against unarmored targets and infantry. Its utility against hardened targets like MBTs is debatable, but it should have no problems penetrating most APCs fielded by the former Soviet Union.

With respect the BTR series of armored personnel carriers are certainly soft targets. They were designed to protect embarked crewmen and infantry from artillery fragments and small arms. The BTR-80 features slightly more armor, to the point it can supposedly deflect 12.7mm projectiles, but by no means would that make it a hard target, nor should its top armor be in anyway capable of preventing a BLU-97/B shaped charge from achieving penetration. While I'll grant they're less effective against heavily armored hard targets like MBTs, The BTR and BMP are precisely the sort of targets the CBU-87 was designed to defeat.

No. The F-14A/A+/B of the era we're getting all used the same HUD. As Gyrovague described above, the HUD used a combination of vector and raster rendering, which means different elements refresh at different rates. Likewise the more vector elements present (E.G. landing mode, where the HUD ladder, FPM, radar altitude, vertical velocity and heading tape are all present), the slower the rendering. The F-14D would use a modern HUD, and the F-14B would eventually receive a more modern HUD around 2000.

Blame the Soviets. I'm sure if they had acquired ocean going T-80s, the Navy would have invested in AGM-65Ds. As it is you get the big anti bunker/anti ship ones. As it is, the F/A-18 goes fast enough your GBU's will have longer range than you're used too, and you'll be able to artificially extend that further in ways you couldn't in the A-10 (Lofts, Tosses, etc.).

Forrestals don't have JBDs on the waste catapults. The aircraft in back taxied too far forward into the jetwash of the aircraft on the cat. Also "I'm being blown! AAAAAGH!" is probably my favorite radio dialogue of all time.

I believe the top image is a MiG-29K landing on the INS Vikramaditya, the bottom would be a J-15 landing on the Liaoning.

That would be incorrect. A separate control stick needed to be added on the left side of the cockpit for the RIO to be able to control the LANTIRN. More importantly you theoretically might have been able to route the LTS display through the original "Fishbowl TID", but the resolution would have been so poor there wouldn't have been any point. You'd need to model the functionality of the upgraded Programmable TID, or PTID, which has a higher resolution and has functionality much closer to what we would consider a traditional MFD. Besides the upgrade work to the aircraft itself, there HB would have to do a great deal of research and work to get the LANTIRN itself working properly. FWIW they have not entirely ruled out the possibility of adding it, but it would be part of a later release that brings the F-14 up to the late 90s "Upgrade" standard.

Would it not be more logical to use the AGM-65G? It and the F are pretty similar, use a similar seeker, and have the same heavy warhead.

Any reasons why the AGM-65D is being used? I've never found any evidence the USMC (or Navy for that matter), ever purchased any Maverick variant other than the E and F.

That's awesome! Out of curiosity, how many baby goats do I need to sacrifice to get an Austin class LPD and/or a Whidbey Island class LSD?

This is an excellent reply. Contrary to popular belief, the Bombcat is not any sort of official designation, it was a moniker thought up by the community once their role transitioned from Fleet Defense / Tactical Reconnaissance to include long range strike. Generally speaking, apart from the engines every upgrade the F-14B received (The Sparrowhawk Hud, the PTID, the Lantirn, etc.) Surviving F-14A squadrons also received. There was an F-14A Upgrade as well as an F-14B Upgrade. Cobra has confirmed that we will be getting the F-14B as it was from 1987 through the very early 90s, with the most rudimentary of early A/G programming enabled. Heatblur has apparently not ruled out releasing an upgrade at a later date that will include LANTIRN, the HUD, etc. at a later date, but it is not considered viable for the initial release. You'll still be able to release the Mk-80 series of bombs (Mk-82/83/84), Rockets, and Rockeyes. You can release LGBs, but like the Mirage an F-5 you'll need either a JTAC or another aircraft to buddy lase. Sadly this isn't really feasible. Unlike the USAF, the USN doesn't put flight controls in the backseat of their aircraft. There's no way for an F-14 RIO to fly the aircraft.

We're not talking about dodging missiles, we're talking about orienting the ship to reduce exposure of vital areas to a threat while maximizing its ability to return fire. EDIT: I can see I'm dragging the discussion OT, and that's not what I'm aiming for. I would point out I'm admittedly somewhat ignorant regarding soviet surface combatants of the era, and the capability of their SAM armament. I'm approaching this from the perspective of later US Standard equipped ships where the SAM is a much more potent determinant in the success or failure of an engagement. If you are down to CIWS during a massed ASM attack, you're already at a disadvantage.

Valid, but what prevents the ship from maneuvering to unmask its other weapon mount to a single axis attack? For example if an attack comes from the rear, what prevents the captain from turning to place the missile on his beam, and having both the forward and aft missile launchers engage? Mind you I'm not an expert on the Kashin, or really any of the 60s/early 70s Russian surface combatants.

On the converse, If all threats are from a single bearing, the ship can maneuver to bring more weapon mounts and countermeasures to bare, as well as minimize it's aspect. Also on older ships that don't use VLSs, it reduces the amount of missiles the ships SAM's can effectively engage as the launcher must physically pivot to engage new targets.

Hyper valid reason is hyper valid :thumbup:

It is most certainly not a Forrestal. It has two elevators forward of the island rather than aft, and the island and flight deck shapes are incorrect. I'm 99.99% sure it's a Nimitz of some sort. I'm more curious if it's this model... Or if someone in the ED pipeline was being sneaky. It's not a big deal either way.

Thanks for the picture! One question. Is that the old CVN-77 model mod, or are you guys being cheeki breeki and showing off even more new stuff? Because that doesn't look like the stock Vinson :punk:

I presume GG is referring to this? https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/126521-OTHER-001-001.pdf

Which SAM? the MIM-72? The HAWK? The PATRIOT?

So I made a scenario in the great southern wastes. The SA-10 performed slightly better. 3 out of 32 successfully hit, and I'd say another six made it physically to the CALCMs, but missed for various reasons. The SAM is engaging at ~22 NM, but the first eight or so missiles self destruct after launch. The first successful missile made hit when the targets were ~15NM away. I think it's because the Tracking Radar has a slightly lower mast than the Search Radar, and isn't able to acquire the in bounds, but I have no proof of that. Track attached. SA-10.trk

Of note, just to rig things in favor of the SAMs, the Red side did have an EWR set, and each of the SHORAD batteries was set to be alert, and had a Dog Ear radar set to increase their SA. I'll try this out tonight. I had set up the mission so the CALCMs were flying up the Rioni River delta from the coast towards Kuitasi air base. The terrain was mostly flat but there were a number of structures that may have effected things.

I ran a few tests with B-52s ripple firing AGM-86 CALCMs. SA-8s, SA-15s, the SA-19 were all able to successfully engage. Advanced long range systems such as the MIM-104 and SA-10 ought to be able to successfully engage, and they certainly tried, but most missiles seemed to self destruct ~3 to 5 miles away from the CALCMs. Perhaps this is a problem with terminal guidance or the tracking radar set? Out of 32 shots, one Patriot successfully destroyed a target. 0 out of 32 SA-10s connected. SA-11s oddly did not attempt to engage, though they should be capable. I did not attempt an SA-6 or HAWK.

Would an LSD and an LPD be included in this hypothetical DLC? These are the three primary components of an Amphibious Ready Group. You generally would not see an LHA without both, and vis versa.

Agreed. For the time frame of the AV-8B NA and the B+, the Wasps make the most sense.

The LHA stands for Landing Helicopter Assault, which is generally a general term that encompasses an amphibious warfare ship that is capable of handling rotary wing and V/STOL aircraft. In US service, this has traditionally meant the Tarawa class of LHAs, which were designed in the 1970s as a response to declining enlistment rates by combining the roles of what would have traditionally been two classes of ships (Landing Platform Docks "LPDs" and Landing Platform Helicopters "LPH"). They were equipped with a spacious flight deck designed for mass sorties of marine laden troop helicopters, and could also facilitate AV-8 Harriers and even OV-10 Broncos. In addition to their flight decks they were also equipped with a well deck, capable of operating all existing types of amphibious vehicles, as well as what was then the brand new LCAC. There is also the new America class of LHAs, which are based directly off the Wasp class hull, but feature various improvements. The first (only) two ships of this class omit the traditional well deck for an expanded hanger deck, and essentially function as LPHs. They're specifically designed to handle large numbers of F-35Bs and MV-22 Ospreys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Helicopter_Assault Related are the Wasp class of LHDs, or Landing Helicopter Docks. This is a follow on to the LHAs that aimed to a series of problems and complaints that the Navy had uncovered with the previous class. Examples of changes include enlarging the flight deck, removing the obsolete cheek mounted 5'' naval cannons, relocating the rear deck elevator to the aft port quarter of the flight deck, reducing the size of the island by relocating Marine C2 spaces deeper within the hull to better protected spaces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship In practice these ships will be paired with an LPD (Landing Platform Dock), and an LSD (Landing Ship Dock), as well as a CRUDESRON (Cruiser Destroyer Squadron) to form an Amphibious Ready Group or ARG. This will form the transport of a Marine Expeditionary Unit or MEU(SOC). Three of these are deployed globally at anytime, and act as America's primary global contingency force. Operationally generally the LHA/D will carry the aviation component of an MEU (duh), as well as a company of marines specializing in air assault. The LSD, which carries the majority of supplies for any operation will stay in general proximity to the LHA/D. The LPD, which carries the marine's AAV-7 "Amtrak" contingent, as well as two infantry companies, one specializing in boat assaults, will be given more leeway in it's operational discretion. If for some reason the force needs to be split, the LPD will be the one wandering off on its own. Finally these ships are all expensive as being of the utmost strategic significance to US foreign policy, so the Navy attempts to keep them as insulated from harm as possible. In event of an amphibious operation, doctrine generally emphasizes using helicopters, LCACs, and LCMs to ferry troops to the shore while the amphibious ships stay over the horizon from any threats. Once a beach head is secured and any artillery or surface missile threats have been dealt with, the ships will approach closer to shore (obviously this is not hard or fast). If any Gator Navy vets want to come in and school me on how wrong I go these points, feel free to :D