I have acquired the motherlode
 

Yesterday, I got a package in the mail from Neal for the latest book to review.

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

This book is absolutely huge, and retails for $250. It covers everything from electroptical systems, minehunting systems, command and communication gear, radar, sonar, jammers, electronic warfare systems, mines, countermeasures, guns, missiles, ASW rockets, torpedoes, to sonobouys... basically every weapon and electronic system used aboard modern warships and naval aircraft or currently in development, in more detail than you could possibly need. The scope is enormous, and my finished review will probably push 3,000 words... I better hop to it!

Even on a flat screen it looks like a thick brick. :o

WOW ! Subnuts I guess the post I was going to do on the GWX manuel
I just printed up is now kind of puny compared to that gigantic book.:oops:

Will be looking forward to your reveue. :up:

7.10 lbs shipping weight. :)

I hope that book is more accurate than the information the USNI provided for the DW database. :nope:

Cheers,
David

Can you give me a couple examples? :hmm:

You mean examples where they got it right or examples where they got it wrong?

I'm not sure which one would last longer...

How about maximum number of missiles in the air at any given time for the SPY-1B and SPG-62/SPQ-9 AEGIS search and fire control radar systems being exactly 2, with a maximum effective range for guiding SM-2's being set at 36.57km, for the Tico and Burke?

How about the max speed of the 688i being set at 35kts?

How about the imaginary 65cm ASW torpedo?

The list is endless... and I'm not sure exactly what is SCS's fault and what is the USNI's fault, but all of the information in the DB is sited to the USNI to cover SCS's butt on classified information, so officially it's all USNI.

Cheers,
David

Not just to argue but... what sources does one use to dispute ISNI, SCS, Friedman...etc?

I've never been concerned about sources outside of my academic life, at least not "legitament" uses of them, so that saves me a lot of time defending any one thing or another.

Most of the sorts of things that I'm looking at fall into the realm of plausibility, consistency, and "common sense."

Basically, I take three datapoints, what's there, what I can find (which is usually either bunk info, or operational requirements), and what would be the ideal in the sim, and then find a point somewhere in the middle and call it solution.

I'm no military hardware expert, it'd be nice if someone wanted to float my way... I could use the help. :up:

Cheers,
David