Kh-32

[nimitz98]

This is the Kitchen variant that should be used in NWAC. I trust you can make the necessary changes to the database.

The Kh-32 is basically the same as the Kh-22, with the following upgrades:

-Increased range: 600-1000km

-Increased speed: Probably to mach 5. :ninja:

-Improved seeker: Longer lock-on range, and more resistant to countermeasures.

-Ground Attack capability :blink:

-Improved attack profile: Upon launch, the missile accelerates to maximum speed and climbs to a height of 44 kilometers. The seeker then can look over the horizon to acquire its target.

From prior knowledge, the NATO designation for the Kh-32 will probably still be 'Kitchen'.

Hope this helps!

 

[ikalugin]

And your sources? :trollface:
Over all we have several programs for arms development (for the airpower).

First is the "red carrot" aka Kh 101/102. I think those should be the primary long range attack weapons on Tu160 and Tu95 bombers.

Second familily are the weapons for tactical aviation, developed with T50 in mind. Those would be: R77M (aka izd 180) R74M (do not have index from open sources for this one) Kh58ushk Kh38 (variants of) KAB 250. Other munitions would be (not for internal T50 carriage) KAB500/1500, Kh31AD/PD, Yahont (Hupersonic follow up) Kh59 (variants of) Kh35 (not very popular, variants of) Klub family of weapons, gliding sub-munitions dispenser.

Third is the weapons for helicopters - namely the Hermes missile, to work in system with Arbalet radar on Ka52.

Last one would be refits or developments of older weapons - Kh32, Kh555, Kh65 all fall into this category.

Suggestions for load outs.
- Tu160/95 land attack - 10/12 Kh101/102 (you can have conventional variant)
- Tu22M3 land attack with 4 Kh 101/102, or 10 Kh 65.
- Tu22M3 anti ship attack with 4 Yahonts or 3 Kh32.

For the airplanes.
- Replace A50U with A100 (name change, you can use the older model)
- Replace Tu22M3 with Tu22M4/5 (engine refit and electronic refit)

If you need a good guesstimate on Pak Da or LFMS I can get you one

 

[ikalugin]

Btw all such missiles Kh15/22/32 would use in most cases semi ballistic trajectory. The advantage of Kh32 is that it can use low level trajectory, but with much decreased range.

 

[nimitz98]

And your sources? :trollface:

Yefim Gordon's Russian Strategic Aviation Today, and you. And I may bump your first post if Jan does not reply to it. Also, I believe the maximum of any 'Kent' variant for the Backfire is 8 missiles.

 

[unmerged(117319)]

Could you two stop spamming the devs demanding database changes, i'm pretty sure they're allowed to do their own research, and the game's closing rapidly on release. This isn't a virtual version of a Jane's book, it's a game!

 

[unmerged(460343)]

IIRC, A-100 isn't a simple name change, it's a more than substantial upgrade to the platform. For one, it will use Il-476, which is a major upgrade to the workhorse that is Il-76, and will have a significantly increased loiter time without refueling. It will also feature radically new onboard computers that will allow to reduce the number of operators even compared to the A-50U, and also a new AESA radar (A-50U uses the old radar and rotordome but new computers). Another planned feature was controlling the UAV/UCAV, for which, it seems, the freed operators stations will be repurposed.

 

[unmerged(255172)]

Thanks for your feedback, gentlemen.

I take this the right way, as suggestions and not demands The publicly available data about the Russian air force especially have been a bit of a mess, so these clarifications are really helpful.

Bear in mind, however, that we are very close to closing the database for balance, so some of these good suggestions will be implemented, some will only come later, and others may never happen at all.

 

[ikalugin]

IIRC, A-100 isn't a simple name change, it's a more than substantial upgrade to the platform. For one, it will use Il-476, which is a major upgrade to the workhorse that is Il-76, and will have a significantly increased loiter time without refueling. It will also feature radically new onboard computers that will allow to reduce the number of operators even compared to the A-50U, and also a new AESA radar (A-50U uses the old radar and rotordome but new computers). Another planned feature was controlling the UAV/UCAV, for which, it seems, the freed operators stations will be repurposed.

The model they use would not change nor would the stats, as those need to be balanced (that is what I meant), but otherwise you are correct.

Yefim Gordon's Russian Strategic Aviation Today, and you. And I may bump your first post if Jan does not reply to it. Also, I believe the maximum of any 'Kent' variant for the Backfire is 8 missiles.

You know that Kh55 is a large family and that the missile length/mass differs a lot? In general you can get the same, as Kh15, provided you use smaller versions (such as Kh65).
Also note that Kh65 and Kh101/102 have special shape, to fill the revolver launcher better than round missiles, and thus expanding their range.

 

[nimitz98]

I hope the Kh-32 replaces the standard Kh-22 in the database! It sound like it will be much better at penetrating enemy air defenses than the Kh-22. The original Kitchen is getting old, and I am doubting its combat effectiveness. In fact, in Fleet Command, with about 30 Backfires with 2 Kh-22s each against a 12-ship battlegroup, not a single missile got through. The Kh-32, however, will be more of a challenge.

 

[ikalugin]

I hope the Kh-32 replaces the standard Kh-22 in the database! It sound like it will be much better at penetrating enemy air defenses than the Kh-22. The original Kitchen is getting old, and I am doubting its combat effectiveness. In fact, in Fleet Command, with about 30 Backfires with 2 Kh-22s each against a 12-ship battlegroup, not a single missile got through. The Kh-32, however, will be more of a challenge.

From the replies by the developer we can see that the projectiles in game do not support ballistical trajectories or Pro Nav homing. Hence there would be no real difference, especially eye candy wise.

Also - for the radars.
Mig29K would use Zhuk-A radar set. It would also use an updated optical sensor set (frontal scanning sensor, spherical coverage staring sensors)
T50 would use advanced radar set with 5 apertures (1 main X band, 2 cheek, 2 L band IFF) called SH121 I believe, as well as advanced optical set (with addition of scanning sensor on the top to the Mig29K described one).
Both of those aircrafts (especially T50) have advanced ELINT equipment. T50 has internal ECM apertures.

Also - avoid using E designations (Irbis E for example, Kh35E and so on), as those are for export variants only.

 

[ikalugin]

Personally I want to see refitted Oscar II with 72 Yahonts.
And supersonic Yahont.

2 such subs + regiment of T50 + regiment of Tu22M4/5 would completely negate, say a British carrier group.

 

[nimitz98]

From the replies by the developer we can see that the projectiles in game do not support ballistical trajectories or Pro Nav homing.

Really? What I have seen suggests the opposite. The Kh-15 is in the game, so ballistic trajectories must be supported.

 

[unmerged(255172)]

Just to clarify: the engine supports pseudo-ballistic trajectories. It simulates the trajectory without doing real physics - doing a physics simulation of the entire northern hemisphere is pretty much out of the question. For anti-air missiles, we have chosen a non-ballistic trajectory since that is easier on the system and not that much of a difference to the player.

For high-altitude cruise missiles, we do use trajectories that resembles ballistics. Obviously, the same would apply to long-distance ballistic missiles, but we don't have any in the game right now.

 

[nimitz98]

Just to clarify: the engine supports pseudo-ballistic trajectories. It simulates the trajectory without doing real physics - doing a physics simulation of the entire northern hemisphere is pretty much out of the question. For anti-air missiles, we have chosen a non-ballistic trajectory since that is easier on the system and not that much of a difference to the player.

For high-altitude cruise missiles, we do use trajectories that resembles ballistics. Obviously, the same would apply to long-distance ballistic missiles, but we don't have any in the game right now.

Thats what I thought. Anyway, will the upgrades to the Backfire (addition of Kh-32, new number designation, new engines, etc) possibly be implemented before launch? And ikalugin, the Yakhont (oniks) already has a top speed of mach 2.5.

 

[ikalugin]

2.5 M is not enough for us, we want it huper sonic and with improved range.

As for the missiles - can this be implemented/modded at the later date? I have access to advanced missile mover code (doing all relevant physics and guidance things for missiles), but it is done in Python for WiC .

 

[unmerged(255172)]

ikalugin,

Modding in new missile trajectories would be non-trivial. But we can certainly improve the approximation of these trajectories.

 

[ikalugin]

In WiC we have done so even with existing code wall and no support from developers (they were not even patching the game at this point)

 

[General Baker]

Fortunately, even if Turbo Tape Games don't patch the game often, the only reason they should have to is to add new features, as even the beta seems 99.9% stable

 

[unmerged(255172)]

In WiC we have done so even with existing code wall and no support from developers (they were not even patching the game at this point)

Yes, when I say "non-trivial" I mean for such mods, you will have to be a programmer, and we can't really promise any assistance or that it will be compatible with future patches, etc. We are not opposed to such mods, by all means.

Thanks, Baker. Yes, the game is pretty stable and has been for a good time *knock on wood*.

 

[ikalugin]

Having very simple graphics helps I guess with stability. Do you plan to support scripting? It would be nice if you can disclose the mod tools that you plan to add at some later point.