IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aviation Monthly
Cobretti
post 28 Feb 2014, 16:25
Post #51



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



You have my permission to use any of the descriptions I use here for the wiki.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rohan
post 5 Mar 2014, 17:40
Post #52


The Sun Hero
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 784
Joined: 22 July 2013
From: India
Member No.: 10041



QUOTE (DerKrieger @ 28 Feb 2014, 1:52) *
Going to switch gears here for a moment and do something that's not an aircraft. I have further plans for other future updates in the same vein, but I'm still taking requests in case any of y'all want to read about your favorite RotR/Generals units.


Awesome Thread. smile.gif

And I would like information on these units :-

Sentinel Tank.
Kodiak Tank.
Twin Fang.
Microwave Tank.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 10 Mar 2014, 20:24
Post #53



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



Due to request, I've decided to do something on the Kodiak and Sentinel Tanks next.

T-90M2 Kad'jak “Kodiak”: Following the reorganization of the over-budget and constantly delayed T-99 Armata program in 2017 due to the newly elected President's desire to focus on other priorities, the Russian Army searched for an affordable replacement for their aging T-72 fleet. Uralvagonzavod's ultimately successful entry was an upgraded version of their T-90A tank, currently in service with the Russian Army. Costing only a fraction of the cost of the Armata program, the T-90M2 Kodiak was a fairly conservative design featuring a 6-roller chassis, an improved 1300 hp diesel engine, & a remotely controlled turret with a 2A46M-5 125mm smoothbore maingun capable of firing the Refleks ATGM, Kord heavy machine gun, and separated turret bustle for ammunition storage. The advanced integrated tactical system, Catherine-FC thermal imaging sensor, and GLONASS navigation system on the Kodiak in addition to Relikt ERA and composite armor give it more combat effectiveness than the earlier generation of T-90 tanks.

Reports have shown lately that the Russian Army has pulled a number of T-80 tanks out of storage and given them similar upgrades to the T-90M2, as well as at least one example with its 125mm cannon replaced with a railgun, dubbed the T-80R. It is likely that the T-80 was chosen as a test bed for the railgun due to its powerful turbine engine. This tank is likely a test bed for a tank mounted electromagnetic cannon, a possibility compounded by recent reports of T-90M2s armed with experimental electromagnetic cannons and even man-portable railguns. The CIA and DIA suggest that Russian development in lightweight super-conducting materials as well as compact reactors have allowed them to miniaturize electromagnetic weapons to such an extent; previously railguns were reserved for warships such as the Zumwalt Flight II destroyers and Gangut class cruisers due to the energy requirement and scale of the weapons themselves. With the recent development of the conventionally armed T-100 Ogre and T-279 Golem, however, it seems unlikely that railguns will be standard issue on any future Russian tanks at this time.

Micro capacitors and fusion reactors have made smaller railguns as well as the practical development of directed energy weapons possible; DARPA briefly considered developing armored vehicles armed with railguns, albeit the downscaling of the railguns in order to mount them on tanks and IFVs lowered their power and range to scarcely above that of conventional chemical-powered munitions. DARPA therefore decided that it was a better plan to invest in the more effective laser weaponry for infantry and vehicles/aircraft.

NT-28M3 Ochrannik “Sentinel”: The development of the ZTZ-200 Overlord led to the development of similar super-heavy breakthrough tanks in several other nations. Two of the more notable designs coming out of Russia and Eastern Europe were Uralvagonzavod's NT-28 Ochrannik and the T-88 Bastion assault tank designed by the Charkiv Morozov Design Bureau. The original NT-28, first seen at the 2014 Victory Day parade, was generally seen by the Russian Army as a white elephant made solely to poorly counter the Chinese Overlord tank, and only saw a very limited rate production run. It was equipped with dual proprietary 160mm cannons that were seen as a logistic burden, and its turbines were at least as malfunction prone as those found on the Overlord.

Its closest rival aside from the Overlord was the T-88 Bastion, designed and built shortly before the Russian integration of the eastern Ukraine. The T-88 was also heavily based on the Overlord but was in many cases seen as a more practical improvement; featuring twin 135mm main guns derived from naval guns, dual turret mounted 30mm AA autocannons, Warden anti-aircraft missiles, and a full active defense and advanced ECM suite, the T-88 was nearly as fearsome as the ZTZ-200 Overlord in a smaller, lighter weight package. In addition, the Bastion featured a nuclear reactor as a power source by default, giving it more than enough power to run its defensive systems and engine. Regardless, the Bastion was not chosen as an successor to the first-generation Sentinel tank when the eastern Ukraine was absorbed into the Russian Federation due to the high per-unit cost of the Bastion and the Russian government's desire to support indigenous Russian designs. The T-88 Bastion would live on as a tank exported in small numbers to Russian allies in Eastern Europe such as Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria and it would end up influencing the design of the later models of the Sentinel tank.

Both Morozov and Uralvagonzavod were tasked with designing a new model of the NT-28 Sentinel from the ground up. First off was the main armament; the Overlord had originally been equipped with twin cannons as to simplify logistics, but the engineers in charge of the new Sentinel project postulated that a superheavy tank would be better served armed with a single high-calibre cannon instead of two normal tank guns. To this end a monstrous 220mm heavy gun, more akin to an artillery piece than a tank gun, was developed for the NT-28M1. A new drive train was created, based on prototype designs from the 20th century; the NT-28M1 would move on quad articulated treads that would better distribute the massive weight of the tank. As with the previous model,the NT-28M1 was powered by a miniature lead-bismuth-alloy-cooled fast-neutron reactor based on that designed for the next generation of Russian naval vessels. The Warden missile system and Arena active defense had been part of the Sentinel project since the beginning, but subsequent upgrades such as the M2 and M3 improved upon the systems. Like all Russian armored fighting vehicles it is fully compatible with Relikt ERA.

The revised Sentinel would prove its worth in conflicts in the Caucasus, Africa, and Europe. Many times ECA forces would find Sentinels a tough opponent to crack, especially in the later phases of the war as the ECA and US forces launched their counter attack. The Sentinel's slow speed was of little concern when on the defensive and when the tanks were covered by sufficient air support or SAM cover. Prior to the Russo-European War, India took interest in the Sentinel tank and purchased export models dubbed the “Vidhwansak.”


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Svea Rike
post 10 Mar 2014, 20:50
Post #54



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2491
Joined: 20 December 2012
From: My mother's womb
Member No.: 9540



Interesting backstories, there man. I was wondering what your take on the Jagdmammut Tank Destroyer is, and maybe the Leopard 3 or even the Manticore (basically any European tank)?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 10 Mar 2014, 21:00
Post #55



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5870
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



Very nice. It kinda branches off from canon, but I always enjoy the more grounded, technical and RL-inspired style of your writings. For those who've been wondering by the way, the multiple M-designations I mentioned in my official description for the Sentinel are a reference to the many iterations that the in-game model itself went through. As for the Kodiak, The_Hunter didn't want me to straight-up identify it as an upgraded T-80 or T-90 but I still snuck in a little reference to a 1.300hp gas engine, which makes it more of an upgrade to the T-80. I also wanted to differentiate it from other tanks which presumably run on some sort of (bio-)diesel, hybrid fuel, electricity or whatever else might fit the setting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 10 Mar 2014, 21:30
Post #56



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



I intended for the Kodiak to be a T-90 variant but also implied that some T-80s were upgraded to rough parity with the existing T-90s. Additionally, I was going to mention a fictional T-80 variant made by Morozov armed with twin 125mm cannons, dubbed the Voevoda. The Voevoda was another design that went the same way as the Bastion, in that it gained some interest from export markets in east Asia but fell by the wayside to to a lack of interest from the Russian government after eastern Ukraine was incorporated into the federation. In case you haven't noticed, this is a reference to the APA's main battle tank from the (mercifully) cancelled Command & Conquer reboot, and the Bastion is a reference to a tank from the in-development indie RTS (and former C&C3 mod) Rogue Republic.

I'll likely do the Twin Fang and Microwave Tank next, then I'll get to work on some of the ECA ground vehicles suggested.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TornadoADV
post 12 Mar 2014, 12:52
Post #57



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 17 December 2012
From: Good Ole' USA
Member No.: 9536
Call the Ball



There is plenty of logical reasons for the F-117 to still be present in today's battlefield. The A was about to be upgraded to the C, the Grey Dragon. Which would of given the F-117 daylight operating capability through selective system upgrades from F-22 Raptor based technology. One would assume a full digital class cockpit, uprated turbines capable of supercruise (still no afterburner) and replacing the RAM coating with a more modern Mesh that's more effective and isn't as hazardous to the health of ground crews.

Anyway, the Nighthawk had a niche just like the Thunderbolt II, it was a deep interdiction airframe focused around C2-5 neutralizing missions, paralyzing the enemy by taking out vital nodes of command and logistics. So to replace it with the F-35 is more of an insult then anything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8igDaddy8lake
post 12 Mar 2014, 16:19
Post #58



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 565
Joined: 6 February 2014
From: USA
Member No.: 10285



QUOTE (TornadoADV @ 12 Mar 2014, 6:52) *
There is plenty of logical reasons for the F-117 to still be present in today's battlefield. The A was about to be upgraded to the C, the Grey Dragon. Which would of given the F-117 daylight operating capability through selective system upgrades from F-22 Raptor based technology. One would assume a full digital class cockpit, uprated turbines capable of supercruise (still no afterburner) and replacing the RAM coating with a more modern Mesh that's more effective and isn't as hazardous to the health of ground crews.

Anyway, the Nighthawk had a niche just like the Thunderbolt II, it was a deep interdiction airframe focused around C2-5 neutralizing missions, paralyzing the enemy by taking out vital nodes of command and logistics. So to replace it with the F-35 is more of an insult then anything.



But, the F-117 IS out of service. They are still in storage, yes, but the US has been focusing on other stealth aircraft, like the F-35. Them being in service again almost 50 years AFTER being taken out of service seems ridiculously improbable. However, this could be more feasible if the Nighthawk was never taken out of service in the RotR universe, and instead upgraded incrementally over the years.

I would like to see the F-35 somewhere in game...maybe as the delivery platform for the USA's tech airport airstrike?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TornadoADV
post 12 Mar 2014, 21:13
Post #59



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 17 December 2012
From: Good Ole' USA
Member No.: 9536
Call the Ball



QUOTE (8igDaddy8lake @ 12 Mar 2014, 10:19) *
But, the F-117 IS out of service. They are still in storage, yes, but the US has been focusing on other stealth aircraft, like the F-35. Them being in service again almost 50 years AFTER being taken out of service seems ridiculously improbable. However, this could be more feasible if the Nighthawk was never taken out of service in the RotR universe, and instead upgraded incrementally over the years.

I would like to see the F-35 somewhere in game...maybe as the delivery platform for the USA's tech airport airstrike?


You just admitted you made a post out of context of the universe the game takes part in. What happened for us has nothing to do with what happened in the RotR universe. (Anyway, it'd be 33 years, not 50) The upgrade plan existed before the Nighthawk was retired obviously, so it's safe to assume for the purposes of the First GLA War in 2019, the Nighthawk inventory was already F-117C Grey Dragons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 13 Mar 2014, 13:53
Post #60



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



Back when I first started this series, I was considering creating a fictional "Nighthawk II" aircraft which was spun off from the F-35 program. I decided to go with the F-35 as it was the closest equivalent to the obsolescent F-117 and the "dedicated tactical bomber" niche was already filled by the F/B-40. I'm also going to describe the Chinese MiG as a J-20 variant and I have an idea for the Russian Berkut...thinking of describing it as a variant of the Su-47 that won the Russian 5th generation light fighter program.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TornadoADV
post 13 Mar 2014, 17:00
Post #61



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 17 December 2012
From: Good Ole' USA
Member No.: 9536
Call the Ball



QUOTE (DerKrieger @ 13 Mar 2014, 7:53) *
Back when I first started this series, I was considering creating a fictional "Nighthawk II" aircraft which was spun off from the F-35 program. I decided to go with the F-35 as it was the closest equivalent to the obsolescent F-117 and the "dedicated tactical bomber" niche was already filled by the F/B-40. I'm also going to describe the Chinese MiG as a J-20 variant and I have an idea for the Russian Berkut...thinking of describing it as a variant of the Su-47 that won the Russian 5th generation light fighter program.


There'd be no reason to use the F-35 as a replacement with the Grey Dragons present, since in the context of their battlefield (gameplay) use they use extremely heavy laser guided bombs to take out hardened underground structures and defenses. (Which the F-35 cannot carry internally but the F-117 can) Plus they can super cruise with no A/B because of using the Raptor's F119s and maintain superior all angle/aspect stealth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8igDaddy8lake
post 14 Mar 2014, 2:44
Post #62



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 565
Joined: 6 February 2014
From: USA
Member No.: 10285



QUOTE (TornadoADV @ 13 Mar 2014, 11:00) *
There'd be no reason to use the F-35 as a replacement with the Grey Dragons present, since in the context of their battlefield (gameplay) use they use extremely heavy laser guided bombs to take out hardened underground structures and defenses. (Which the F-35 cannot carry internally but the F-117 can) Plus they can super cruise with no A/B because of using the Raptor's F119s and maintain superior all angle/aspect stealth.



All variants of the F-35 can carry internally (although, the F-35B internal payload is relatively small comparatively to the other F-35s and F-117). The Nighthawks were withdrawn from service in 2008, although with the Raptors being so common in the game (far more than their ~200 production run), I don't take too much offense to that (also, when I said 50 years, I was more referring to the fact that in-game, it's still in use during the 2050s). The problem is, the Grey Dragons were not a cost-effective upgrade, and the F-117 was withdrawn because of the Raptor being introduced, which, in every respect, is far superior (albeit more expensive). Seriously, the F-22 can carry a larger payload at higher speeds (more than double!), with equivalent or better stealth. Even with the downgraded version in RotR (the F-22B), it would still be so far superior in so many aspects that the Nighthawk would be irrelevant. Same goes with the F-35 - same internal payload, better capabilities. The Nighthawk is a one-trick pony - fly in undetected, drop ordinance (which is at most two 2000lb bombs), fly back undetected. If that gig is up, then they are SCREWED. The F-35 and F-22 can jump to supersonic, fly low, or fight back with AA or AG missiles. Multirole is the game, and the Nighthawk...can't do that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TornadoADV
post 14 Mar 2014, 5:30
Post #63



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 17 December 2012
From: Good Ole' USA
Member No.: 9536
Call the Ball



QUOTE (8igDaddy8lake @ 13 Mar 2014, 20:44) *
All variants of the F-35 can carry internally (although, the F-35B internal payload is relatively small comparatively to the other F-35s and F-117). The Nighthawks were withdrawn from service in 2008, although with the Raptors being so common in the game (far more than their ~200 production run), I don't take too much offense to that (also, when I said 50 years, I was more referring to the fact that in-game, it's still in use during the 2050s). The problem is, the Grey Dragons were not a cost-effective upgrade, and the F-117 was withdrawn because of the Raptor being introduced, which, in every respect, is far superior (albeit more expensive). Seriously, the F-22 can carry a larger payload at higher speeds (more than double!), with equivalent or better stealth. Even with the downgraded version in RotR (the F-22B), it would still be so far superior in so many aspects that the Nighthawk would be irrelevant. Same goes with the F-35 - same internal payload, better capabilities. The Nighthawk is a one-trick pony - fly in undetected, drop ordinance (which is at most two 2000lb bombs), fly back undetected. If that gig is up, then they are SCREWED. The F-35 and F-22 can jump to supersonic, fly low, or fight back with AA or AG missiles. Multirole is the game, and the Nighthawk...can't do that.


The Grey Dragons exist because of the F-22, they werent competing designs for the same niche and neither is the F-35, which is more a F-16/AV-8 replacement. (FYI, the Grey Dragon upgrades were never completed in our timeline, SoD Gates stole that funding to buy more F-35s and then retired the now un overhauled Nighthawks). No other airframe in the US Inventory can carry the GBU-27 Have Void, the Nighthawks signature weapon. Also, as I stated before the Grey Dragon would have the Raptor's F119s, while it wouldn't be able to go A/B for obvious reasons, it could now super cruise (Mach 1+ without using A/B). The Raptor may be able to carry more internal payload, but it cannot carry 2,000 pounders, only 4 1,000 pounders and it cannot lase it's own target. The Lightning has the same problem with internal weapon size, but can laze it's own targets, but also suffers from inferior stealth design across all spectrums and bands compared to the Nighthawk/Grey Dragon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8igDaddy8lake
post 15 Mar 2014, 21:54
Post #64



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 565
Joined: 6 February 2014
From: USA
Member No.: 10285



QUOTE (TornadoADV @ 13 Mar 2014, 23:30) *
The Grey Dragons exist because of the F-22, they werent competing designs for the same niche and neither is the F-35, which is more a F-16/AV-8 replacement. (FYI, the Grey Dragon upgrades were never completed in our timeline, SoD Gates stole that funding to buy more F-35s and then retired the now un overhauled Nighthawks). No other airframe in the US Inventory can carry the GBU-27 Have Void, the Nighthawks signature weapon. Also, as I stated before the Grey Dragon would have the Raptor's F119s, while it wouldn't be able to go A/B for obvious reasons, it could now super cruise (Mach 1+ without using A/B). The Raptor may be able to carry more internal payload, but it cannot carry 2,000 pounders, only 4 1,000 pounders and it cannot lase it's own target. The Lightning has the same problem with internal weapon size, but can laze it's own targets, but also suffers from inferior stealth design across all spectrums and bands compared to the Nighthawk/Grey Dragon.



I'm not saying that they competed for the same niche, I'm just saying that the Nighthawk is quite irrelevant with F-22s in service. If their only plus is being able to carry the GBU-27 (which actually can be carried by a plethora of other craft, just not internally), their battlefield role is limited compared to the F-22, making it more of a novelty than a commonality. I'm pretty sure laser-guidance could be added on to the F-22 if needed (hell, it happens in-game already). But...why should I bother...there's enough strangeness in RotR that this is basically nitpicking. I can believe it being possible, I just can't really see why it would be used over other aircraft unless there was a REALLY good driving reason - maybe it's significantly cheaper, somehow? Or has more efficient production?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TornadoADV
post 15 Mar 2014, 22:40
Post #65



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 17 December 2012
From: Good Ole' USA
Member No.: 9536
Call the Ball



QUOTE (8igDaddy8lake @ 15 Mar 2014, 15:54) *
I'm not saying that they competed for the same niche, I'm just saying that the Nighthawk is quite irrelevant with F-22s in service. If their only plus is being able to carry the GBU-27 (which actually can be carried by a plethora of other craft, just not internally), their battlefield role is limited compared to the F-22, making it more of a novelty than a commonality. I'm pretty sure laser-guidance could be added on to the F-22 if needed (hell, it happens in-game already). But...why should I bother...there's enough strangeness in RotR that this is basically nitpicking. I can believe it being possible, I just can't really see why it would be used over other aircraft unless there was a REALLY good driving reason - maybe it's significantly cheaper, somehow? Or has more efficient production?


Nobody can carry the GBU-27 besides the Nighthawk, you're thinking of the GBU-24. As for the Raptors, I guess MARS and company would have to explain where the Lazing pod was mounted on the Raptor for it's LGMs (Since in RL, it has no lazing pod).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 15 Mar 2014, 23:10
Post #66



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



Allow me to step in. Recently I had the idea that the Nighthawk as of Generals/ZH was indeed a F-117B upgraded Nighthawk as during 2013-2016/7 the F-35 wouldn't be in wide service and the F/B-40 was very new. By RotR FQ-47s, F/B-40s, or F-35s would be used instead, however.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pepo
post 15 Mar 2014, 23:30
Post #67



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 517
Joined: 18 March 2013
From: Spain
Member No.: 9862



the only logical explanation would be that the USA didn't want the russians to get advanced stealth jet and the nigthhawk was reintroduced.however they are also using f-22 that are far more advanced than the nigthhawk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TornadoADV
post 16 Mar 2014, 3:10
Post #68



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 17 December 2012
From: Good Ole' USA
Member No.: 9536
Call the Ball



QUOTE (DerKrieger @ 15 Mar 2014, 17:10) *
Allow me to step in. Recently I had the idea that the Nighthawk as of Generals/ZH was indeed a F-117B upgraded Nighthawk as during 2013-2016/7 the F-35 wouldn't be in wide service and the F/B-40 was very new. By RotR FQ-47s, F/B-40s, or F-35s would be used instead, however.


Something is better then nothing!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 16 Mar 2014, 7:09
Post #69



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5870
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



Just to add some insight from our perspective: The main reason we still use the Nighthawk is a.) the fact that it was an iconic unit in the original game and b.) because it still fits the most popular image of a stealth plane whereas both the F-22 and the F-35 just look like generic modern day jets on the surface. Visual variety is important because it adds character to a unit but also because every asset in the game has to be instantly recognisable at a quick glance. If we didn't have this whole continuity thing to worry about, we'd probably use a fictional design of our own that invokes a few elements of the F-117 but call it something else.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 27 Mar 2014, 16:44
Post #70



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



And here's the second request, the Chinese Twin Fang AAA!

Type 112 Twin Fang AAA: Somewhat unusually for a Chinese anti-aircraft weapons platform, the Type 112's chassis is heavily based on that of a South African mobile howitzer, the G6 Rhino. During the Chinese invasion of East Africa a Chinese government-owned shadow enterprise managed to covertly purchase a few G6 howitzers from Denel in the hopes of using them as a basis for a new artillery piece. The project would be canceled however, as an advancement over the existing PLZ-05 series of mobile howitzers was soon found to be uneconomical at this time. Even so, the robust mine-resistant chassis of the G6 Rhino was found to be an effective basis for armored fighting vehicles.

Around this time the People's Liberation Army was searching for a new medium-range anti-aircraft artillery. The HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system was highly effective at area denial but the threat of the GLA required a more mobile and economical platform to supplement the HQ-9. Most of the aging, if not obsolete, fixed-wing aircraft of the GLA didn't require the latest in anti-aircraft hardware to defeat. Furthermore, the heavy ECM use by the PLA had an unfortunate side effect. There were reports of even friendly guided missiles malfunctioning in areas of particularly heavy ECM interference. Though the Chinese quickly managed to deal with this issue, it was enough for the PLA to consider non-missile based AA weapons for this mobile heavy AA project.

The result, named the Type 112 Twin Fang, combined a new flak-based AA system combined with powerful search & targeting radar, all mounted on a copy of the robust G6 Rhino chassis and produced at a low cost. The Twin Fang's armament consists of two 57mm flak cannons, based on those used by the Cold War era Type 80 AAA vehicle (itself based on the ZSU-57-2). However, the calibre of the cannons and the feed system are where the similarity stops. The Twin Fang's cannons have much longer barrels than the obsolete Type 59 cannons used by the Type 80, and the 57mm cartridges are considerably longer, giving the Twin Fang's cannons a much higher muzzle velocity and effective range. These modernized 57mm cannons are married to a state-of-the-art fire control computer and are lethally effective against low-flying-aircraft. Ammunition for the cannons are loaded in 6 round clips that must be reloaded by hand, a notable defect in the weapon's design given the high fire rate of the Twin Fang's cannons. While the Type 59 cannons were targeted manually using the human eye, the Type 112 Twin Fang uses a powerful AESA search and targeting radar, nearly as powerful as those used on warships, to detect and engage aircraft. Crews report having to exercise caution when utilizing the radar in the field, as the radar is powerful enough to kill or injure any wildlife in front of the array when it is active. When in conjunction with the HT-233 search radar series, also used by the HQ-9, the Type 112 has a truly impressive detection and engagement range. The Type 112's mine-resistant chassis proved to be extremely useful in Africa when facing the GLA.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 27 Mar 2014, 20:25
Post #71



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5870
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



A very nice take on the decidedly non-Chinese visual appearance of the vehicle. I should also point out that the Twin Fang is getting all new custom voice overs in 1.85.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 30 Mar 2014, 18:31
Post #72



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



A little side item for the Twin Fang:

Type 23 Personal Flak Cannon: The establishment of the millions-strong Red Guard irregular force presented the People's Republic of China with a dire logistical problem. With so many volunteers, there was no way they could all be equipped with the latest gear issued the regular forces of the People's Liberation Army. To that end, many Red Guard during the Global War on Terror and the later campaigns in East Africa were armed with surplus Cold War gear such as Type 56 SKS rifles and Type 88G tanks.

Still, the extended logistical chain necessitated by the invasion of Africa proved to be a problem. Furthermore, weapons such as the PF-89/98 rocket launchers and the QW-2 MANPADS were often seen as overkill against the lightly armored vehicles and aging aircraft used by the GLA. Having troops carry both weapons systems through rugged terrain in pursuit of more mobile GLA fighters was burdensome. All these factors led to an alternate solution to these problems in the form of the Type 23 cannon.

The Type 23, a shoulder fired recoil-less rifle, used a short version of the 57mm cartridge used in the larger Twin Fang AA vehicle. Two shells were designed for it; a HEAT round designed to be used against armored vehicles, and a flak round designed to be used against low flying aircraft. The idea behind the Type 23 was simple; though the Type 23 was less effective against armor than the PF-98 and less effective against aircraft than the QW-2, it and its ammunition were considerably simpler to produce and could be used against multiple types of targets. Any lack of performance against more modern vehicles was a moot point against the weapons used by the GLA. As a result, the weapon was issued to Red Guard units and many examples ended up in the hands of PLA troops. Though the Type 23 was far less popular among the PLA due to its lack of effectiveness compared to the more specialized anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, it had its place when logistics were tight and when PLA troops were fighting lightly equipped irregular forces.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TornadoADV
post 1 Apr 2014, 2:41
Post #73



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 17 December 2012
From: Good Ole' USA
Member No.: 9536
Call the Ball



No update for the Grey Dragon? sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
teslashark
post 1 Apr 2014, 3:44
Post #74



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 650
Joined: 1 March 2014
Member No.: 10319



QUOTE (DerKrieger @ 27 Mar 2014, 8:44) *
And here's the second request, the Chinese Twin Fang AAA!

Type 112 Twin Fang AAA: Somewhat unusually for a Chinese anti-aircraft weapons platform, the Type 112's chassis is heavily based on that of a South African mobile howitzer, the G6 Rhino. During the Chinese invasion of East Africa a Chinese government-owned shadow enterprise managed to covertly purchase a few G6 howitzers from Denel in the hopes of using them as a basis for a new artillery piece. The project would be canceled however, as an advancement over the existing PLZ-05 series of mobile howitzers was soon found to be uneconomical at this time. Even so, the robust mine-resistant chassis of the G6 Rhino was found to be an effective basis for armored fighting vehicles.

Around this time the People's Liberation Army was searching for a new medium-range anti-aircraft artillery. The HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system was highly effective at area denial but the threat of the GLA required a more mobile and economical platform to supplement the HQ-9. Most of the aging, if not obsolete, fixed-wing aircraft of the GLA didn't require the latest in anti-aircraft hardware to defeat. Furthermore, the heavy ECM use by the PLA had an unfortunate side effect. There were reports of even friendly guided missiles malfunctioning in areas of particularly heavy ECM interference. Though the Chinese quickly managed to deal with this issue, it was enough for the PLA to consider non-missile based AA weapons for this mobile heavy AA project.

The result, named the Type 112 Twin Fang, combined a new flak-based AA system combined with powerful search & targeting radar, all mounted on a copy of the robust G6 Rhino chassis and produced at a low cost. The Twin Fang's armament consists of two 57mm flak cannons, based on those used by the Cold War era Type 80 AAA vehicle (itself based on the ZSU-57-2). However, the calibre of the cannons and the feed system are where the similarity stops. The Twin Fang's cannons have much longer barrels than the obsolete Type 59 cannons used by the Type 80, and the 57mm cartridges are considerably longer, giving the Twin Fang's cannons a much higher muzzle velocity and effective range. These modernized 57mm cannons are married to a state-of-the-art fire control computer and are lethally effective against low-flying-aircraft. Ammunition for the cannons are loaded in 6 round clips that must be reloaded by hand, a notable defect in the weapon's design given the high fire rate of the Twin Fang's cannons. While the Type 59 cannons were targeted manually using the human eye, the Type 112 Twin Fang uses a powerful AESA search and targeting radar, nearly as powerful as those used on warships, to detect and engage aircraft. Crews report having to exercise caution when utilizing the radar in the field, as the radar is powerful enough to kill or injure any wildlife in front of the array when it is active. When in conjunction with the HT-233 search radar series, also used by the HQ-9, the Type 112 has a truly impressive detection and engagement range. The Type 112's mine-resistant chassis proved to be extremely useful in Africa when facing the GLA.

Great story!
A minor nitpicking: all Chinese vehicles and firearms put into survice would have a 2-digit year desination, so it would be Type 12 just like the Type 05 SPG.


--------------------
And then...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 2 Apr 2014, 21:05
Post #75



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



Ok, here's a quick one:

F-117B Nighthawk: During the Global War on Terror, the GLA saw many of their worst defeats at the direct hand of US/NATO combat aircraft. The GLA did in fact have access to combat aircraft of their own, looted from Cold War-era abandoned armories of Central Asian states, but the aging MiGs were of limited effectiveness against the more advanced aircraft and highly trained pilots the Americans and Chinese possessed. Finding or training skilled pilots and maintenance personnel was often difficult and expensive. The GLA found it more effective in many cases to rely on cheaper and easier to maintain surface-to-air missiles which were extremely easy to obtain on the black market. Extensive AA networks were set up around GLA strongholds, restricting the airspace to all but high-altitude aircraft.

Stealth aircraft were able to bypass the GLA's radar networks to deliver surgical strikes on targets. However, there was a lack of suitable stealth aircraft in the US military's inventory. The only stealth aircraft in sizable service numbers at that time was the F-22 Raptor, designed for air superiority. Though the F-22 was a passable tactical bomber when equipped with GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs, the GBU-39 and other standard JDAMs were of limited effectiveness against fortified GLA structures and could not clear out underground tunnels or fortified structures. The F-15E could carry bunker busting munitions, but its lack of stealth made it vulnerable to heavy anti-aircraft weaponry; the MQ-9 Reaper was stealthier than the F-15E but it too was unable to carry heavier munitions.

There were three new or in development combat aircraft that could carry out such missions; the F/B-40 Aurora, the F-35 Lighting II, and the FQ-47C Pegasus. However, the Aurora and Lighting II were both very new and there weren't quite enough at the onset of hostilities to fit the Air Force and Navy's demands. The US Navy's FQ-47C Pegasus program was early in development and was not complete until after the war. To this end, the US Air Force decided to refit a number of F-117 airframes with modern technology as a stopgap measure.

The F-117B Nighthawk was repainted a dark grey scheme to improve stealth in daylight conditions and was equipped with a glass cockpit, a modernized ECM suite with an AESA radar and GPS device, and a modified bomb bay, allowing it to carry missiles such as the AGM-88 HARM. The F-117Bs were forward deployed at Bagram Air Base, and aided in the counterattack in Afghanistan and Operation Stormbringer in Pakistan, operations in Yemen, and were instrumental in neutralizing enemy AA and fortifications during the Battle of Akmola.

After the war the F-117B Nighthawk was retired and placed in mothballs, its mission being performed today by the F/B-40 Aurora, F-35 Lighting II, and FQ-47C Pegasus.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 9 August 2020 - 17:28