Jump to content

Northstar98

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7617

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Northstar98

  1. Northstar98
    Next up, Type 12I (Leander-class) Batch 3B frigates. This is currently common to the HMS Achilles, Andromeda and Ariadne in DCS World. Note that Andromeda IRL is a Batch 3A ship and was extensively upgraded from 1977-1980 (see here for more details). Also note that HMS Ariadne IRL has a significantly different HF/DF antenna (UA-13 as opposed to FH-5 - see this for an annotated real-life image). See the spoiler below for a general overview and notes:
  2. Northstar98
    +1
  3. Northstar98
    I think this is a known issue - it will also fire despite the fire-control radar being masked by the mast. The Seacat system we have is the GWS 22, which is radar-directed ACLOS (though likely has the previous SACLOS and/or MCLOS modes), it might be that it does this so they can be acquired and tracked by the Type 904 FCR. Do note though that it was the first naval SAM system and if its real life performance is anything to go by, it should be pretty trash. Agreed - the thing is manually loaded, requiring the launcher to train appropriately and then 2 guys need to go to the magazine, bring it up to the launcher and load it on the launcher, all by hand. Also for Sea Dart, the launcher should need to train to the load position in order to reload missiles. Not sure about its true performance, but the C:MO database states a 3500 ft maximum target altitude, my guess is that it has to do with the elevation limits of the fire-control system and not the missile.
  4. Northstar98
    Now that the first round of assets for the South Atlantic map has been released, I thought I'd do some annotations, as I did previously with the Arleigh-Burke. I'll start with the Castle-class OPV: Castle-class OPV c. 1981 - 1989:
  5. Northstar98
    Ariadne is a Type 12I (Leander) Batch 3B, not a Type 21.
  6. Northstar98
    +1
  7. Northstar98
    Try turning historical mode off completely - it's the little wristwatch looking icon, roughly in the middle of the bottom tab of the mission editor. On my end, with historical mode on none of the assets appear, regardless of date. With it off, all are present.
  8. Northstar98
    Hi everyone, The Castle-class OPV has an incorrect primary armament (I don't mean to be harsh, but it's kind of a mess). The current ship is depicted in its initial fit, accurate for the early to late 1980s. Within that timeframe the primary armament was the Bofors 40 mm L/60 (OQF 40 mm Mark III) in a Mark IX mount, which can be clearly seen in this image: And here's what an example looks like close up (this might be a Mark VII or a Mark IX but as I understand it, they're more-or-less identical externally (the main difference being that the Mk VII is hydraulic and the Mk IX is electric): In 1989/1990, this was replaced by a DS30B Mark I, mounting a 30 mm/75 Oerlikon KCB autocannon, which looks like this (these might actually be Mark IIs, but again, they're essentially identical externally, the difference being that the DS30B Mark II can also be fired remotely as opposed to just locally on the Mark I): In DCS though, the current primary armament is depicted as a BMARC GAM-BO1, which IRL mounts a 20 mm/85 Oerlikon KAA (or possibly KAB) autocannon: I can find nothing online supporting this gun being present on either of the 2 Castle-class OPVs and in any case, the gun was introduced in the mid 1980s, after both Castle-classes had been commissioned. However, it unfortunately gets even worse; the depicted GAM-BO1 is actually modelled as a 25 mm M242 Bushmaster, firing M792 HEI-T. So not only have we got the wrong gun, the modelling of that gun is also wrong. As a comparison, the 20 mm Oerlikon Mk 7 on the Leanders is modelled as a Mk 20 Rh-202.
  9. Northstar98
    Awesome! Sorry about that everyone
  10. Northstar98
    That's the thing, I did reupload the image, as it was incorrect for the camera position provided. I'll try again and clear my cache.
  11. Northstar98
    Hmm, strange, I can see it - I'll try to re-embed it. EDIT: This was actually the wrong image for the camera position - corrected.
  12. Northstar98
    I'm not seeing an issue on my end, would you mind PM-ing me what you're seeing?
  13. Northstar98
    Hi everyone, Found these 2 jems from the Imperial War Museum, the systems are relavant to the Leander-class frigates we now have in the South Atlantic map (technically they should have the 668, which is an improved 667, though is I-band only). UA-8/9 ESM Type 667 OECM Operator's Drill
  14. Northstar98
    So far the only thing I can find is the Type 2031(I) passive-only, VLF, towed array, its definitely not the Type 199 VDS (which is active-only, HF). I wonder if it could be the Type 182 towed torpedo decoy, though there is also port in the stern. EDIT: It's the Type 182 towed torpedo decoy
  15. Northstar98
    Apart from the name, they all have the same mesh, worse is that Andromeda is not in the appropriate fit for the Falklands War (which is drastically different for both weapons and sensors, not that the latter is modelled with much fidelity) The British frigates are Leander Batch 3s (Achilles and Ariadne should be Batch 3Bs and Andromeda a Batch 3A, fun fact, my Dad served on Ariadne in the early 90s), the Chilean ships are Condell-class frigates (which is a modified Leander), unfortunately they also fire the wrong AShM. Agreed on both counts.
  16. Northstar98
    Hi everyone, All 3 members of the Leander-class are missing their ESM and ECM antenna. The ESM antennas are located directly below the FH-5 HF/DF antenna, located at the very top of the foremast (as a side note, on HMS Ariadne the FH-5 is replaced by UA-13 - same electronics, but drastically different antenna, which kinda look like 4 Yagi-Uda antennas in an X-shaped configuration, with a cone on top. In DCS, they all have the same antenna). Immediately below the FH-5 antenna, there is the UA-8/9 bearing receiver, to the left of that is the UA-8 frequency analysis receiver and on the opposite side the UA-9 frequency analysis receiver. See the linked video below for a source. For the Type 668 OECM antennas, these are mounted on either side of the foremast, at roughly the level of the funnel. [source] All of the mountings are there, but the antennas are not. See the spoiler below for images: Before anyone says anything about sensitive information, classification or whatever - everything about the UA-8/9 ESM system (not only what the antennas look like and where they are, but how it works, what it can do, how to operate it and what its frequency range is) can be found here, in a publicly available video, provided by the Imperial War Museum. The same can be said for the Type 667 ECM system (which the 668 is an improved version of), video here - again from the IWM. In any case the shape of the antennas are absolutely not classified (anyone with a photo can see them) and its not like ships in DCS have functional ESM and ECM systems present. Not only that, but HMS Invincible has its ESM antennas present in the current version and the Condell-class frigates have their ECM systems present.
  17. Northstar98
    Yeah, I'm trying to find what that sonar system is, is it definitely a towed array or is it a VDS?
  18. Northstar98
    I didn't say these should take anything like high priority and I did describe them as "minor". I'm also not after perfection per se, it would be fantastic if we could get a 1:1 replica of the real thing, but given that we're working with free assets for the time being, I'll take whatever small corrections I can. The thing is though, RAZBAM have done an absolutely amazing job on the Oerlikon Mk 7 20 mm guns, to the point where I'd describe them as perfect: they're incredibly well detailed and their models and textures are incredibly high resolution - it's one of the highest quality objects in DCS (even surpassing very similar guns in the WWII asset pack). I'd also say the same for the Type 965M and Type 1022 radars - RAZBAM have done an outstanding job there. I'm sure you don't fly enough to notice these but it does go to show some inconsistencies with the quality - not only compared to other free assets (such as the La Combattante IIa, whose OTO Melara 76 mm gun is very well modelled), but also compared with other elements on the exact same ship. And personally, I'd say the 4.5" Mk 6 is way more noticeable than the quality of the Oerlikon Mk 7 or 965M. I am also fairly certain that this exact model will be copied and pasted onto the County-class destroyers (which have at least been teased) which is supposedly coming as part of the paid-for asset pack. While I own the South Atlantic map, I expect paid-for assets to be as accurate as possible and at least be as high quality as free assets (again, look at the La Combattante IIa's OTO Melara 76 mm compact, compare it to a real one and then do the same for the 4.5" Mk 6). The good thing is that RAZBAM only has to make a corrected model once, once they've done that it can be copied and pasted to every unit with a 4.5" Mk 6. It should also go without saying that the effort needed for the model corrections would almost certainly be far less than creating a brand new asset, especially when hardly any of the ships present exist today, whereas a 4.5" Mark 6 survives in the museum of naval firepower in the UK. As for noticing stuff or not - I didn't need to be up close to it to notice that the barrels that are completely out of proportion with the turret. Having a family member who served on Ariadne doesn't help either. With all of that said though, I'd also put the fact that it fires completely the wrong rounds as a bigger issue than the model.
  19. Northstar98
    Hi everyone, I've noticed some minor model issues with 4.5" Mark 6 naval gun, common to all of the Leander-class ships and the 2 Condell-class ships introduced in the new asset pack. Starting with the gun rounds, the 4.5" Mark 6 naval gun, as the name suggests, has a calibre of 4.5 inches (114.3 mm), at the moment however it's firing 130 mm rounds (presumably copied from the Slava class' AK-130). The real gun should have HE, SAP, AA (not sure if it has a timed or proximity fuse) and possibly, illumination. Secondly, there's the 3D model of the turret itself, which looks a fair bit off; the gunhouse is largely the correct shape (though roof doesn't look as sloped), but the main problem are the barrels, which are way out of proportion and serve to make the turret look more cartoony IMO:
  20. Northstar98
    Hi everyone, The ARA Santa Fe is current capable of achieving 29 knots in the mission editor. As the ARA Santa Fe is a Balao-class (Guppy II - North Atlantic/Northern Sail) it should have the following performance characteristics (note that wiki gives performance figures for the Balao-class as built): Diesels: Surfaced: 18 knots Submerged (snorkelling): 6 knots (though C:MO says 12 knots) Electric motors: Surfaced: 10 knots Submerged: 16 knots
  21. Northstar98
    Hi everyone, The 2 Condell-class ships we have have a couple of errors in their weaponry: On either side of the hangar, there are 2 launchers for MM40 Exocet Block 1. Currently, these fire the RGM-84D Harpoon Block IC. The MM40 Block 1 has roughly half the range of the Harpoon (powered by a solid rocket motor as opposed to a turbojet) and a smaller warhead (165 kg HE as opposed to 221 kg penetrating blast-frag). On top of the hangar there's currently a Mk 15 Phalanx Block 1B (PSuM) CIWS. On real images this is actually a Mk 15 Phalanx Block 0, which looks like this (I believe this is an image taken from Invincible post Falklands): Note the shorter, unclamped barrels, lack of Phalanx Thermal Imager and the smaller magazine. Compared with the Block 1B, the Block 0: Has a lower rate of fire (3000 rpm as opposed to 4500 rpm) Has a smaller magazine (989 rounds as opposed to 1550 rounds) Takes far longer to reload (~30 minutes as opposed to <5 minutes) Lacks Phalanx Thermal Imager and so lacks surface-engagement capability (aerial targets only) Has a far smaller elevation range for the acquisition radar (0-5°) as opposed to 0-75° for Block 1 onwards. Has a smaller elevation range (-10°/+80° as opposed to -20°/+85°) Has a slower traverse rate (100°/s as opposed to 115°/s) Has a slower elevation rate (86°/s as opposed to 115°/s) Has shorter (1520 mm as opposed to 2000 mm), unclamped barrels (likely slower muzzle velocity and higher dispersion - though all Phalanx systems have the wrong dispersion in DCS), note that the current muzzle is inaccurate, even for the Block 1B. Fires Mk 149 APDS as opposed to the newer Mk 244 APDS (though, once again, all Phalanx systems fire the wrong rounds in DCS). [source]
  22. Northstar98
    Hi everyone, The current HMS Andromeda is depicted in its initial, pre-1977 configuration; with 4.5"/45 Mark 6 twin naval gun, GWS 22 Sea Cat, Oerlikon Mk 7 20 mm L70, Mk 10 Limbo as well as the original sensor fit (965, 993, 975, 903, 904). From 1977-1980 Andromeda was significantly modified and upgraded. See the spoiler below for a comparison. Is there any chance we can get the post 1980 upgraded HMS Andromeda? It would be much more appropriate for the Falklands War, not to mention being vastly more capable in both air defence and anti-ship (and ASW). Here's HMS Andromeda during the Falklands war, the sextuple Sea Wolf launcher and Exocet launchers are just about visible, also note the completely different sensors and that Sea Cat and its FCR has been deleted. And here's better view, clearly showing the new weapons and sensors (note, this is post Falklands - Type 670 antenna can be seen on the foremast at a height just above the bridge):
  23. Northstar98
    In the manual it says "when a threat is detected" but the modes described are all track breaking modes (only one I'm unsure of is mainlobe blanking though I assume that's a noise jamming mode). To my understanding, these should only transmit (i.e set the ECM flag on) when a radar in a track or fire-control mode is detected, or the seeker head of an ARH missile is detected. What seems to be happening in that case though isn't a DECM track breaking technique being emulated per se. What's seems to be happening is that the MiG-29/Su-27 radar is establishing a range gate over the target in order to track it, however, when noise jamming overcomes the skin return, the range gate cannot function properly and so the radar drops its track. What you can do with the MiG-29/Su-27 though is establish an angle-only track with no ranging (which you can do by locking up the strobe), which will still permit weapons guidance. DCS' ECM doesn't support angle deception jamming, so in that case all the F-14's jammer is doing is presenting a nice juicy target for any HOJ missile.
  24. Northstar98
    Wikimapia seems to think its an airfield: Though I've found no images of it, as depicted in DCS World. But this image (showing an IA 58 and a T-34) is clearly at the larger one (towards the southern end, the runway the aircraft are parked on being the smaller one running east to west): This image looks much closer to the coastline, so I'm more inclined to say the larger one: This is also clearly the larger one: Also note how the airstrip seems to be left more-or-less as is, with no new structures. Either way, it looks like I'll be using some scenery remove object triggers to remove the smaller site.
  25. Northstar98
    Because it was never operational on any Tomcat and is a test and evaluation thing only. People always like to use these examples, but what they never seem to do is answer the question: "how is x being unrealistic an argument for making y unrealistic too?". No there isn't, there's clear evidence that specifically modified NF-14A Tomcats used for test and evaluation can carry and fire test and evaluation AMRAAMs. [source]
×
×
  • Create New...