Alfa

Yes its conversion from m/s to km/h, but as the commentary says, this is just for displaying the speed in the Editor. The "db_units_ships.lua" file isn't really interesting in terms of adding new ships - it has to do with how this class of objects as such is defined in the Editor :) .

BTW - I made a quick test on the "GT.X_nose" and "GT.X_tail" values and they do indeed move the position of bow spray and wake in relation to the hull. Furthermore, the "GT.Tail_Width" sets the width of the wake, but doesn't seem to affect cavitation(width between spray from propellors), so this may be fixed to "GT.Width".

Ah ok thanks - the clouds are lifting :D

Yes I figured as much(it would have to be for the value to make sense), but I just wondered about the format :)

Meters per second seems correct for speed - e.g. in Silver_Dragon's example, max speed of some 14.9 m/s would translate to some 29 knots. The "economy_velocity" of ~ 10.3 m/s equals some 20 knots, which is the speed often used when stating max range(endurance) at economy speed for warships. But what do figures like: "4.1e+006" mean? For the Ticonderoga class "GT_mass" is set to "9.59e+006" - the displacement of this type of ship is some 9.600 tons(standard load), so I can see the relation with the "9.59" bit, but what exactly does the remaining "e+006" denote? BTW I believe that the: "GT.X_nose = 59.1924" and "GT.X_tail = -64.9268"(in Silver_Dragon's example - OHP class) have something to do with the position for bow spray and stern wake repectively - i.e. distance in meters from center point of ship, where positive value= forward and negative=towards rear. At least that seems to fit perfectly with the length of the OHP class frigate at waterline level(some 124 m). The full length of the hull is some 136 m, so the difference in distance from centerpoint is down to the "over hang", which is more pronounce at the bow - hence shorter distance to "spray point".

Yeah its definately a nice new feature :)

Ok I must admit that the procedure to add a new entry to DCS world is so simple that it can't pay to look for old existing entries at all :D .

I am certainly "out of date" on many things concerning the sim these days, but exactly this I am pretty confident about. What we are talking about here are CLSIDs for active game entries - entries that have been sitting in the code since Flanker through all iterations of Lock-on as well as DCS: Black Shark and FC2. Now it is of course possible that for some mysterious reason, Eagle decided to remove these ship entries from the code with the progression from Black Shark to DCS: A-10C or DCS: World, but I seriously doubt it. :) For a start there would be absolutely no reason for it and Eagle is quite particular about not allocating development time to aspects that aren't in the focus of the immedeate project - even the active naval contingent in the sim is clearly in a state of "WIP". Why - whats the big "danger" in that? :D . Again we are not talking about "things", but about something very specific - namely particular ID addresses left in the code to which additional ship scripts can be assigned. Besides, it would be pretty simple to test whether I am right or not - just copy one of the existing ship scripts, replace the IDs with one of the old inactive slots and then add this "new" entry to the database.....then see what happens.

No you just need to understand how to write the scripts concerning proper armament assignment. The CLSIDs to use can be found in the Meinit.xml of older Lock-on versions - they are in hex format, but its easy to convert them to the decimal format used in the FC2 scripts.....and its not even necessary as the hex format works ok in the FC2 scripts.

Exactly aircraft carriers is a problem, because these entries have some additional code concerning flight operations/deck routines assigned to them. Only the "Vinson" and "Kuznetsov" slots have these and they are "tailored" for each of those types, so even if you can find a way to associate other ship slots with those "routines", they will not fit a vessel of different size and configuration such as the Charles de Gaulle.

There is no need to overwrite existing ship entries nor to go through complicated procedures to add new ones. The code already contains multiple unused CLSIDs for ships left from the days of Flanker(which had some 29 ship slots). These can be activated in FC2 - I don't know if this is also the case with DCS World, but I assume it is.

I don't get it - as far as I can see its just this cataloque from Rosboronexport: http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/air_def/air_def.pdf These catalogues have been around for ages and are easy to find - e.g. : Navy(export units and weaponry): http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/navy/navy.pdf Land(armour and vehicles): http://www.military-today.com/russian_land_forces.pdf Air(aircraft and weaponry) http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/airf0rces_cataloque.html

Awesome! :) Yes the headrest is a pain - lots of tricky curvature.

The Vodopad ASW missile has a range of more than 100 km, ADCAPs less than half that, so you could reverse the argument :) . The morters are for defending against incoming torpedos - not the submarine firing them.... ...a torpedo in at terminal homing stage is not silent. Right :D No that single person who is driving the Kirov cannot possibly get his head around all those things at the same time. This discussion is getting ever more silly, not to mention 100% off-topic to the thread subject, so I think I am done :D

I don't know about that JCamel, but the Velikiy is bristling with ASW systems. As mentioned earlier it has a very powerful and sophisticated sonar suite, has automated ASW morters(which can fire guided projectiles, mines and decoys) for self protection against torpedo attacks, anti-subarine missiles(launched through torpedo tubes) and of course carries dedicated ASW helicopters.

You think that if a missile has been out of inventory for two decades, the navy can just "call up a lot of them really fast"....I see :D . Besides, could it be that there was a good reason for retiring them?

Another wild claim fired from the hip huh? Surface ships actually have means to combat submarines - and few has as many such means as the Pyotr Velikiy.

Yes I realise that this was the mission setup, but I responded to your claim that a couple of "CG could easily overwhelm the AD of Pyotr Velikiy with Harpoons" I am not forgetting, but I find the idea of taking on the most powerful missile cruiser in the world with AD missiles as the main offensive armament rather silly to be honest :D . Like I said earlier, many long- and medium ranged SAM systems(including the Russian Rif and Shtil) can be used in this fashion, but it is quite frankly something of a "curiosity" - a very last resort when everything else has failed.....just before having the crew throwing their lunch boxes and coffeee mugs at the enemy :D No you can say that again.....the warheads are minute. How can they "do the same trick" as HARMs....anti-radiation missiles are equipped with passive radar seekers designed to home on radar emmissions - i.e. have the ability to actively seeking out radars. Using dedicated SAMs in the way you propose, you are just "pelleting" the ship without having any control over where and what they hit.....just hoping that some might hit some sensitive sensory top-side. Like I said the Rif missiles(48N6) can also be used in this way - although it is a little hard to imagine that being necessary considering that the Kirov class packs 20 massive supersonic Granits :D . Which BTW is one of my gripes with the situation in question......the Granits can be launched more than 500 km from target, which in turn means that a scenario where the opposing surface ships get close enough to start using their SAMs and guns against eachother is highly unlikely. Well I am pretty sure they were retired - long ago actually(sometime during the early nineties). I also remember reading that the remaining stock was converted to TLAMs. Whatever :D No the question(as you put it) was two - doesn't change anything as far as I am concerned :) .

Nothing wrong with the Harpoon - its a great missile and for what its worth I am not even sure that the basic Rif/Fort system would be all that effective against it - i.e. a small sea-skimming target hard to spot at range. But exactly the PV has the new Rif-M system, which apart from having a new radar, was modified to handle "layered defence" - i.e. in addition to the long range missiles it also has smaller medium and short range missiles....and of course the dedicated short range AD(Klinok and Kashtan) is *very* dense. Yes most long- and medium range SAMs do. Heh yeah - but then again the PV would have the advantage with that AK-130 monster :D

Yes of course, but the poster talked about the ability of the Ticonderoga class to "overwhelm" the air defences of the PV - not the other way around :) As far as I am aware the anti-ship variant(BGM-109B TASM) is actually no longer in the inventory - only land-attack(TLAM) versions. Eh not quite - the firing rate of an AK-630 is ~ 4000-5000 rounds a minute. Only the two first units of the Kirov class(Ushakov and Lazarev) have AK-630s, while the two last units(Nakhimov and Pyotr Velikiy) have Kashtan combat modules instead - since these each have two such guns, the combined firing rate would be double that of an AK-630 mount.

No thats the thing - the Ticonderoga class is more oriented towards AD and land attack. The main attributes of the class is the AEGIS radar and standard missiles which were derrived exactly with the aim of maximising the AD capability against saturation attacks involving supersonic ASM and SSMs - i.e. the ability to detect and designate multiple threats and engage them at range with long range missiles fired at high rate via the VLS launcher blocks(MK-41). Compared to the weapon's stock for AD and land attack, the anti-ship capability is actually quite weak and seems almost like a self-defence item. Even submarines would have a hard time GG - the PV is extremely well equipped for ASW(monster sonar suite, ASW missiles, torpedoes, automated ASW morters and ASW helicopters). I think if you have to pick a single approach the best bet would be air raids, but obviously a coordianted effort would have a higher liklihood of success. But returning to a direct encounter - I don't believe for one second that a couple of Tico's would stand much of a chance of "taking down" a Kirov class on their own - they may well be capable of defending themselves against it(since this was the type of thing they were designed to do), but "overwhelming its ADs" with a few Harpoons......no way :D .

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black :D Harpoons are not loaded in the VLS blocks, but in two separate quad-tubes on deck - each CG-47 class ship carries 8 Harpoon missiles, so two Ticonderoga's makes 16 Harpoons in total. The Velikiy has three separate AD systems; Long range Rif/Fort-M VLS, medium-short range Klinok/Kinshal VLS and six Kashtan/Kortik gun/missile modules.....some two hundred ready-to-fire AD missiles of varies types and 16 gatling type guns. I could possibly understand if your claim was for the reversed situation - i.e. that two Tico's could "easily" deal with ripple fired Granits of the Veliky, but that the *massive* AD suite of the Velikiy shouldn't be able to deal with 16 Harpoons...... :D

No - not for ground vehicles at least(might work against ships). TV guidance is completely "fire & forget"(no post-launch guidance). It works by taking a snap-shot of the target+background, which is passed on to the missile seeker - the seeker then homes on this picture after launch, so if the target's background changes(as it would with a moving vehicle) then there is no match to home on. With ships however, the sea is a much more uniform background and the seeker may not pick up on minor differenences(e.g. waves) as the ship moves along.

Yes, but again its a multifunctional radar similar in design and functionality to e.g. the APG-73(of F/A-18C). The "Kopyo" radar is a smaller version of the Zhuk-M(for MiG-29M/K and SMT) - smaller because it was meant for multirole upgrading of aircraft such as MiG-21 and MiG-23 for which the Zhuk-M would be too large. In the case of the Su-25TM there was no room in the nose for such a radar since this space is occupied by the Skhval, so it was instead installed in a an external pod.

The radar in question is called "Kopyo"(small version of Zhuk-M) and is carried in a belly-pod - it is a multifunctional set with both air-to-air and air-to-ground mapping modes and as such actually much more sophisticated than those installed in base-line MiG-29 and Su-27 versions. The air-to-air modes would provide the Su-25TM with "self-escort" capabilities, but the air-to-surface modes in combination with a further developed version of the Skhval system are more important for its role as attack aircraft - ability to find targets by itself at longer range. The radar also support radar guided anti-ship missiles in these modes.