RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Page: << < prev 82 83 [84] 85 86 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/2/2016 9:09:24 PM

SASR

Posts: 82
Joined: 3/1/2015
Status: offline

[ADDED DB v443]

Two of Russia's refitted Kirov-class battle cruisers will get the 3M22 Zircon Hypersonic Anti-Ship Missile

Used in the 3S-14-11442M VLS

From: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3587
As was reported in the press, the Sevmash Shipyard and the Special Machinebuilding Design Bureau (KBSM, a subsidiary of Almaz-Antei) made a deal for 10 3S-14-11442M vertical launch systems (VLS) to equip the Project 11442M Admiral Nakhimov missile cruiser being upgraded now. Thus, the ship�s 20 inclined below-deck launchers of P-700 Granit antiship missiles (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) will be replaced with 10 VLS modules of the UKSK versatile ship-based launch system. The VLS modules will total 80. The same solution is expected to be applied to the Pyotr Veliky cruiser.

The 3S-14 VLS can launch the missiles of the Kalibr family (SS-N-27 Sizzler). In addition, the equipment for testing the VLS using mockups of the 3M-54, 3M55 and 3M22 antiship missiles is to be ready be December 2016.

Both the Pyotr Velikiy and Admiral Nakhimov will get the 3M22. The Pyotr Veliky is scheduled to to finish refitting in late 2022. Since the Admiral Nahkimov will be equipped with the same VLS, it will probably be fitted the 3M22 around the same time the Pyotr Velikiy gets it.

From: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-monster-battlecruisers-are-getting-hypersonic-anti-15263
"Both Pyotr Velikiy and its sister ship Admiral Nakhimov�which is currently being refurbished�are being upgraded with the new hypersonic weapon. Admiral Nakhimov, which will reenter operational service in 2018, will be the first of the Russian goliaths to be equipped with the Zircon."

From: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3587
The Pyotr Veliky cruiser will start its repairs in the third or fourth quarter of 2019. Its repairs and upgrade are planned to be complete in late 2022, with the ship to be equipped with Zircon hypersonic antiship missiles.

250 mile range, with speeds above or around Mach 5

From: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-monster-battlecruisers-are-getting-hypersonic-anti-15263
There is very little information available about the performance of the Zircon missile. However, the weapon has a range of at least 250 miles and will likely be capable of speeds greater than Mach 5.0.

IMO the missile will likely be high-diving (with terminal maneuvers) instead of sea-skimming simply because trying to sea-skim at Mach 5 in the dense water-level air is going to heat the surface material of the missile past its tolerance level pretty quickly. There is a reason USAF flight-tested the X-51 at 70,000 feet!

In addition, both ships will also get the Naval S-400 and Poliment-Redut missile systems

From: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-monster-battlecruisers-are-getting-hypersonic-anti-15263
Meanwhile, both ships will also receive an upgraded air defense capability with the addition of a naval variant of the long-range S-400 and the mid-range Poliment-Redut missile systems.

The Russian members here could probably give much better information and much more details about this weapon than I can.

Wouldn't this be the first non-RV hypersonic missile system we have in the DB?

Thank You

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/14/2016 8:32:42 PM >

(in reply to blh42)

Post #: 2491

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/3/2016 3:42:21 AM

Triode

Posts: 283
Joined: 9/26/2014
Status: offline

[UPDATED DB v443]

quote:

ORIGINAL: SASR

Two of Russia's refitted Kirov-class battle cruisers will get the 3M22 Zircon Hypersonic Anti-Ship Missile

250 mile range, with speeds above or around Mach 5

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3955730

quote:

From: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-monster-battlecruisers-are-getting-hypersonic-anti-15263
Meanwhile, both ships will also receive an upgraded air defense capability with the addition of a naval variant of the long-range S-400 and the mid-range Poliment-Redut missile systems.

Not exactly, 48N6DMK (Navy version of 48N6DM, "basic" missile for S-400,some people claim this missile also have ARH)
also there is no sign of Poliment-Redut
maybe we can expect return of SA-N-9 to it rightful place (places "reserved" for SA-N-9 are open and there is some work )

P.S. In database 48N6DM (48N6E3 for export) have wrong range , should have 250km

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/14/2016 8:45:28 PM >

(in reply to SASR)

Post #: 2492

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/3/2016 7:05:10 AM

SASR

Posts: 82
Joined: 3/1/2015
Status: offline

Thank you for those corrections Triode. I knew you would probably have better info than me

(in reply to Triode)

Post #: 2493

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/3/2016 11:22:01 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

http://www.popsci.com/new-chinese-ballistic-missiles-crashes-battlefield-party-with-cluster-munitions

since some improvements on chinese missiles are announced, is there a chance for a DF-16 (and other SRBM/MRBM) variants equipped with both guided and unguided cluster warheads for runway cratering and destroying groups of mobile soft-targets? It seems that this capability has been confirmed of some sort for the 1000km ranged DF-16B.

Sub-munition variant of DF-1/2x series, especially some latest types after the military reform, is very likely developed and demonstrated their effectiveness.

The main question is, how much cluster bombs inside the RV? Using generic setup or based on Russian equivalents are ambiguous, because nobody can certain the exact damage and how they spreads when launched.

Let's say DF-16B and DF-26 are not in DB3000, so we need time to do some research for them.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hongjian)

Post #: 2494

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/3/2016 6:52:17 PM

Zaslon

Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline

quote:

In database 48N6DM (48N6E3 for export) have wrong range , should have 250km

And always, export versions have less range than russian versions, so 48N6DM is not equal to 48N6E3. Same for Club vs Caliber.

_____________________________

Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 2495

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/4/2016 5:23:48 AM

Triode

Posts: 283
Joined: 9/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

quote:

In database 48N6DM (48N6E3 for export) have wrong range , should have 250km

And always, export versions have less range than russian versions, so 48N6DM is not equal to 48N6E3. Same for Club vs Caliber.

unlikely, ballistic max range for 48N6DM is ~300 km and missile not under MTCR

< Message edited by Triode -- 3/4/2016 5:26:00 AM >

(in reply to Zaslon)

Post #: 2496

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/4/2016 9:06:27 PM

F4U7Corsair

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/16/2015
Status: offline

Request on the ASTER family.

#133, #578 � ASTER 30
- Increase top speed to 4,5 M (3000 kts)
- Increase acceleration (top speed reached in around 3 seconds)

#134 � ASTER 15
- Increase top speed to 3,5 M (2300 kts)
- Increase acceleration (top speed reached in less than 3 seconds)

Having seen ASTER 15 simulated shot procedures, the thing accelerates much faster than in Command.
Also, there is no data about this in Command, but the missile terminal (thrust-less) maneuverability is 70+ G.

(in reply to blh42)

Post #: 2497

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/5/2016 3:41:37 PM

Zaslon

Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Triode

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

quote:

In database 48N6DM (48N6E3 for export) have wrong range , should have 250km

And always, export versions have less range than russian versions, so 48N6DM is not equal to 48N6E3. Same for Club vs Caliber.

unlikely, ballistic max range for 48N6DM is ~300 km and missile not under MTCR

But a ballistic projectile need propellant. They can sell missiles with propellants with less energetic density or missiles with less volume of propellant.
You know that Soviets and now Russian often sell downgraded weapons not only because MTCR.

< Message edited by Zaslon -- 3/5/2016 3:43:15 PM >

_____________________________

Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China

(in reply to Triode)

Post #: 2498

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/5/2016 6:13:20 PM

Triode

Posts: 283
Joined: 9/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

You know that Soviets and now Russian often sell downgraded weapons not only because MTCR.

Well, it is mostly Soviet thing , only export downgraded things from Russia that came in mind is radars for S-300 in China
wich is 2-3 times less resist to jamming

others customers recive what they want, as example

All that Su-30xxx with radar N-001VE,N-001VEP , all countries that buy them know what they do

and all of them buying RVV-AE missile know what they do

from other hand Russian Air Force never buy RVV-AE , insteaad they wait for RVV-SD

even while have Su-27SM/Su-30M2 with N-001VP ,that capable of using RVV-AE

why RuAF dont whant RVV-AE for this fighters? answer is simple, from NIIP official site for N-001VEP radar :

"- operation range of RVV-AE radiocorrection channel, km - up to 40"
http://www.niip.ru/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13:-l-r-l-r-lr&catid=8:2011-07-06-06-33-26&Itemid=8

So, 40km datalink + 16km ARH against 5m2 RCS rargets and than missile go "dumb" ,for RVV-AE + N001VEP radar

from other hand RuAF wait for RVV-SD with combinrd active/semiactive seeker

so, for RVV-SD + N-001VEP radar it is
40km datalink + 40-60km semiactive regime(3m2 target RCS,pseudodatalink

) + 20km ARH

in RuAF it is Mig-29SMT(N-010M "Zhuk-M") also benefits from RVV-SD SARH with his 50km datalink range, other russian planes not so:

Mig-31BM (Zaslon-M radar) have datalnk with range ~150km (Mig-31 100km only for R-33)

Su-30SM (N-011M Bars-R radar) >80km

Su-35S (N-035 Irbis) >100km

also there is Su-30MKx with N-011M "Bars" radar
and Su-35S with N-035E "Irbis-E" for export

does that means that russians sell downgraded models of missiles and radars,while keep good things for themself?

I think no, customers recive exactly what they pay for, if they dont like RVV-AE+N001VEP performance they can always pay more and buy RVV-SD

So,
Soviet = downgraded models
Russia = you recive what you buy,if you dont like it pay more and we fix this

(in reply to Zaslon)

Post #: 2499

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/6/2016 2:17:35 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

[TOO MUCH CONFLICTING INFO, NEED DETAILS]

http://military.china.com/news/568/20160304/21673772.html (Simplified Chinese)
http://m.wanhuajing.com/d211303 (Simplified Chinese)
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Badger.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/h-6-variant.htm
(...-six wing pylons for cruise missiles, possibly one centerline pylon, and a bomb bay fuel tank.)

Contradicted sources:
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/h6k.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6
(The bomb bay was eliminated in favor of extra fuel for a longer range.)

---

More and more Chinese sources suggest the H-6K does still have bomb bay, not entirely removed and converted into internal fuel tank. Rather, it was suggested to use the non-refueling variant of bomb bay fuel tank deviated from H-6U, but removable and not designed for buddy refueling.

It may be true that putting one more KD-20/YJ-62/YJ-100 inside the bomb bay is less likely happens, due to the excessive weight to make it have even shorter duration. However, it still have the conventional bomb-dropping ability with it as older variants. With the benefit of turbofans, it can provide longer cruise range with up to 9000-10000kg sorties (10000kg is based on the assumption of higher thrust of engines).

That said, it can load up to 20 (or 18 based on the older variants) 500KG bombs in theory, but the bomb bay is still at the same size, and that will limit to carry only 12 internally. It still can barely load 2 more ALCMs at pylons to capped the 10000kg capacity (some sources said that KD-20 has 2 tons, unlike 1.25 tons in CMANO database, but will becomes 12000kg for 6x KD-20 loadout, and that's definitely overloading).

Of course it's still more beneficial for using full missiles with a removable bomb bay fuel tank, or internal bombs-only packages instead of the mix.

H-6K, older sources claimed the bay doors are bolted for internal fuel, but newer photos suggests the obvious gaps make it still have the functionality, and doesn't have 'bolts' like H-6U does.

H-6U, notice these 4 large 'bolts' at the bomb bay, it was suggested a fixed design to specially for refueling only.

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/14/2016 8:58:43 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Triode)

Post #: 2500

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/6/2016 4:11:08 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Fixed v442, thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: nudnik

When you are back please have a look into this.
I`ve found some odd range numbers for AGM88 loadouts in the DB3000 Build 440:

F/A18C+D AGM88E Short Range: 500nm
F/A18C+D AGM88C Short Range: 340nm
and:
F/A18E+F AGM88E Short Range: 405nm
F/A18E+F AGM88C Short Range: 560nm

The actual fuel consumption (cruise, 10km) seems to match with the given range.
But as weight and size of the loadouts is the same, should the Range not be the same?

Also i found:
F/A18C+D AGM88E: 500nm

Same range as short range but 732 kg more payload.

Thanks.

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to nudn1k)

Post #: 2501

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/6/2016 4:24:56 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DESRON420

Some F-35-related suggestions:

1. External short-range 24x and long-range 16x SDB and SDB II loadouts

Thanks for your input Desron, do you know if this will be an operational loadout?

quote:

2. Removal of internal gun from B and C variants and replacement with a gunpod for certain external stores loadouts

Fixed in DB v442

quote:

3. The Navy has an RFI out for an AARGM range extension with objective IOC 2021 and threshold IOC 2022, mandating internal carriage on F-35A/C and compatibility with all Hornet variants A-G. The goals are range and survivability improvement without changes to the seeker, warhead, terminal behavior, aerodynamic profile, or mass. I don't know if this crosses the threshold into adding an AARGM-ER yet, as this is going pretty far out into the 2021 time frame and the missile's performance can only be guessed at. (I'd link the RFI but this post was eaten once already for containing a link)

Interesting stuff indeed, would be great if you could post more info.

quote:

4. If #1 and #3 are acceptable, Block 4 F-35 SEAD and DEAD loadouts. Internal might be 2x AARGM-ER or 1x AARGM-ER 4x SDB-II (can the F-35 carry asymmetric stores in the bay?) and external might be 2x AARGM 8x SDB-II.

Again, more info would be appreciated

quote:

Re: the below I have had a perfectly wonderful time with Command and am telling all my friends about the sale. I have been a fan since back when it was called DB2K, but I didn't find out about Command until the past summer. I have been delighted with the direction you have taken the game and the improvements afforded by modern computers. Much more fun than watching my old P2-400 suffer grimly at the hands of H2AE!

Thanks Desron, glad to hear you like the sim

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/6/2016 4:26:07 PM >

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to DESRON420)

Post #: 2502

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/6/2016 4:30:54 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

The NGJ pod is already in there on the EA-18G. The F-35 installation sounds much like wishfull thinking to be honest, and think we should wait until more info becomes available

quote:

ORIGINAL: FTBSS

Put NGJ OECM loads on f-35c from 2022 and Growler atrcraft ioc 2021. The loadout is conformal and based on AESA which should allow for Use on F-35c without adversely effecting its stealth capabilities to a great extent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Jammer

Capabilities greatly increased performance over the AN/ALQ-99 based systems currently in service.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/we-be-jammin-the-usas-next-generation-strike-jammer-015217/

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/6/2016 4:31:23 PM >

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to FTBSS)

Post #: 2503

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/6/2016 6:40:04 PM

SASR

Posts: 82
Joined: 3/1/2015
Status: offline

quote:

Interesting stuff indeed, would be great if you could post more info.

AARGM-ER RFI docs here: http://documents.tips/documents/aargm-er-rfi-5608d9faafe23.html

Will have a rocket-ramjet with doubled range over AARGM

From: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35cs-cut-back-us-navy-invests-standoff-weapons

"Two new initiatives cover standoff weapons launched outside the range of surface-to-air threats. The new-start Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile � Extended Range (AARGM-ER) gets $267 million in development funding across the 2016-20 FYDP and will mate the existing guidance system and warhead of the AGM-88E AARGM with a new motor. Two motor options were studied: dual-pulse for a 20-50% range improvement, or solid integrated rocket-ramjet for doubled range. Budget documents indicate that the Navy has chosen the rocket."

As posted by DESRON420, internal carriage on the F-35A/C as well as EA-18, Hornet, and Super Hornet with IOC objective of 2021, but the threshold is 2022

From the Table on page 2 of the RFI

"Platform F/A-18A-F, E/A-18G F-35A/C (internal carriage)"

From RFI page 1

"The Government desires information concerning improvements for the AGM-88E missile that meet a fielding requirement of Government Fiscal Year (GFY) 2022 Threshold (T)/2021 Objective (O) following funding start in GFY2016. Production quantity for AARGM is estimated to be between 200 and 1,000 units. Industry recommendations should discuss concepts and designs that leverage existing AARGM hardware and software to the greatest extent possible"

No modifications to the seeker or warhead. Also from RFI page 1

"No capability improvements to the AARGM seeker and warhead performance are desired at this time, and any modifications to the seeker or warhead to support range improvement that adversely affect those two subsystems are to be avoided."

Let me know if you need more info

< Message edited by SASR -- 3/6/2016 6:41:45 PM >

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 2504

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/6/2016 6:58:43 PM

SASR

Posts: 82
Joined: 3/1/2015
Status: offline

ESSM Block II will be able to engage ASBMs. The current DB "Target Speed" of the Block II of 2300 kts does not support ASBM engagements.

from: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013IAMD/Horn.pdf

"ESSM Block 2 upgrade replaces the largely obsolete guidance section with a dual
mode Active/Semi-Active X-Band seeker capable of defeating future threat capabilities
within the existing envelope, including;
Increased raid sizes and adverse environments including countermeasures.
Threat types include; advanced ASCMs, ASBMs, surface and asymmetrical."

Thank you

< Message edited by SASR -- 3/6/2016 6:59:37 PM >

(in reply to SASR)

Post #: 2505

RE: Harpoon Block II+ - 3/6/2016 9:20:23 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuaveWatermelon

Hello

I have recently been looking around for any resources that mention F-35 EFTs (or CFTs) but have been unable to find any from anything newer than 2013
(That link here)

When looking through weapons testing, I have also noticed the conspicuous absence of any EFT drop testing or any other kind of EFT testing for that matter.

On top of this, while searching through f-16.net, I have heard many say that no EFTs have been ordered by any of the F-35 countries.
Search results here.

I even searched the LM site and the only thing that popped up was this:

https://www.f35.com/search/site/search&keywords=External+Fuel+Tank/

The article that comes up is a January 2016 response to a DOT&E report and in listing the accomplishments of the F-35 Development program mentions two things

1.
quote:

" As of Dec. 31, the program completed 80 percent of SDD test points and is on track for completion in the fourth quarter of 2017."

2.
quote:

"Completed GAU-22 25mm ground gun fire testing and began airborne testing on the F-35A.

- To date, completed 90 weapon separations - GBU-12, GBU-31, GBU-32, AIM-120, GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, U.K. Paveway IV, and first F-35 AIM-9X. This includes 18 for 18 successful live fires of AMRAAM, JDAM, and GBU-12s.

- To date, completed 17 Weapon Delivery Accuracy events (GBU-12, GBU-31, GBU-32, and AIM-120)"[Notice: no fuel tank separation tests]

I know this isn't definitive but I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that any variant of the F-35 will be using EFTs

Perhaps this might be grounds to consider removing them from all variants of the F-35 currently in DB 3000?

Does anyone else here know whether or not the F-35 will be receiving any EFTs?

Hm.

Hmmmmm.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Been thinking about this for a week now.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Double-hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

Your links, plus shifting through tons of F-35 photos on the web, have convinced me. Plus there's the fact that the aircraft carries more fuel than the F-14 did.

So I've given the F-35 loadouts a workover, and removed all fuel tanks

quote:

Also another note:

Noticed that in DB 3000, F-15K has AGM-130A in some of its loadouts, but I'm fairly certain that AGM-130 is only a USAF weapon.

While the F-15K AF Technology and Boeing pages says the F-15K can carry the AGM-130A, there doesn't appear to be any pictorial or other evidence to suggest that the ROKAF uses it. Wikipedia also says that AGM-130 is only a USAF weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-130#Operators

Boeing Documentation for the F-15 Strike Eagle and AGM-130 make no mention of the ROKAF purchasing AGM-130

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/key_orgs/boeing-international/pdf/koreabackgrounder.pdf

http://www.boeing.com/history/products/gbu-15-agm-130-weapon-system.page

Perhaps not definitive either, but I can say that I am confident that ROKAF does not have any AGM-130 if even Boeing's pages don't mention an actual sale.

Thanks, have removed the AGM-130 from the F-15K

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to SuaveWatermelon)

Post #: 2506

RE: Harpoon Block II+ - 3/7/2016 2:37:25 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

[FIXED DB v443]

I noticed a possible error for #2594 (2017 version of LCS 1 Freedom) and #2595 (2017 version of LCS 2 Independence). I was wondering where the Hellfire missiles were going to go, and according to http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1900 there should only be 24 Hellfire missiles, not the 48 listed. (Each surface warfare module supposedly has 24 missiles and if you keep the two 30-mm. cannons, there is only room for one more surface warfare module, which means only 24 missiles).

I hope this helps.

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/14/2016 9:04:46 PM >

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 2507

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/7/2016 11:43:00 AM

Hongjian

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SASR

ESSM Block II will be able to engage ASBMs. The current DB "Target Speed" of the Block II of 2300 kts does not support ASBM engagements.

from: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013IAMD/Horn.pdf

"ESSM Block 2 upgrade replaces the largely obsolete guidance section with a dual
mode Active/Semi-Active X-Band seeker capable of defeating future threat capabilities
within the existing envelope, including;
Increased raid sizes and adverse environments including countermeasures.
Threat types include; advanced ASCMs, ASBMs, surface and asymmetrical."

Thank you

I wonder how they did it if they only changed the seeker. In the end, an evolved sparrow with Mach 4 top speeds needs at least a new rocket engine to make it fast enough to intercept an incoming Mach 10 RV at sensible altitude.

In the end, I believe that the Block II ESSM, even if workable against ASBM, will only be a last ditch defense weapon, as the altitude and range are still quite limited. But with quad-pack capability, the USN could hope that a quickly spammed missile swarm at the inner-most defensive layer might defend against the ASBM RVs at terminal stage.

And at that range, it is questionable whether a 39kg warhead would have enough power to bring an ASBM RV off-course before crashing on deck.

< Message edited by Hongjian -- 3/7/2016 11:48:39 AM >

(in reply to SASR)

Post #: 2508

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/7/2016 1:59:24 PM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian
...-the USN could hope that a quickly spammed missile swarm at the inner-most defensive layer might defend against the ASBM RVs at terminal stage.

Hell, maybe they will unleash a hoard of RAMs, too. If based on the 116C with extended ranged to 10nm, then it got 7 seconds to fire as many as they can, if the initial impact from maximum RAM distance is Mach 8.

I'm very sure the RV will be as hot as a sun at this altitude, so IR seekers will truly looking for 'artificial suns'. And RAM do have insane maneuverability as well.

The issue would be: Can those puny warheads that only weighted 9kg could change the fate of the CVN?

< Message edited by Dysta -- 3/7/2016 2:00:10 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hongjian)

Post #: 2509

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/7/2016 2:03:12 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

None of this matters. We'll only implement this if it's proven to be an ABM capable system. We need more evidence of that I think.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 2510

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/7/2016 8:48:02 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Keep in mind that the ESSM is a 280kg weapon while the PAC-3 is a 320kg weapon. So not much difference between the two, really.

Still, would love to have more info on the ARH version before making it a ASBM-killer

Would the weapon be fuzed or do a hit-to-kill intercept?

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 2511

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/8/2016 3:17:29 PM

Triode

Posts: 283
Joined: 9/26/2014
Status: offline

[UPDATED DB v443]

About R-40TD,R-40TD1 and R-24T missiles
in database this missiles is "Rear-Aspect" only ,wich is wrong

As 35T1 (IR seeker from R-40TD,R-40TD1) based on 23T4 (IR seeker from R-24T)
from "�ethodology of combat use guided missile R-24 from Mig-23ML"
part 1.1 "Guided missile R-24T" page 4
"range of IR seeker lock-on for various targets , in km "

first column type of target (bottom is UH-1 helicopter)
second engine regime (Afterburne , maximal,minimal )
third target height ( in m)
fourth target speed (in M)
0,30,60,90,180 degree is target aspect, below range of lock-on in km

So,R-40TD,R-40TD1 and R-24T IR seekers is "all aspect"

also maybe can you add new loadouts for Mig-23 with R-23T and R-24T

there is two communication unit between missile and radar/IRST, 23T-BS for R-23T and RBS-23 for R-23R, Mig-23S should have two of them (onne for wings pylons ,one for under fuselage pylons) with radar RP-23"Sapfir-23" and IRST TP-23
and able to use R-23T and R-23R in configurations 2xR-23T (only on wing pylons, accordingly 23T-BS placed in wing) 2xR-23R ,or 4xR-23R (with second RBS-23 instead of 23T-BS ) like on this prototype:

But beacause problems with radar and R-23 is not ready instead Mig-23S(MS) recive radar RP-22 and R-3S missile

Then came Mig-23M(MF), installation of radar RP-23 "Sapfir-23" "eat" space reserved for RBS-23
R-23T for Mig-23M was ready in 1970 ,Mig-23M enter production 1972 ,R-23R in 1975 so some time Mig-23Ms fly with 2xR-23T and 4xR-60T
Mig-23M(MF) can use 2xR-23T or 2xR-23R only, no mixed loadouts

Mig-23ML recive R-24R/T , missiles with INS and LOAL ability
also Mig-23ML recive ability to use Kh-23 missile with pod "Delta-NG" (so, maybe you can add this to?)
also big change Mig-23ML (and Mig-23P wich is basically Mig-23ML without ability to ground attack) finaly recive ability to mix R-24T and R-24R (like 1xR-24R 1xR-24T and 4xR-60TM)

Mig-23MLD(MLA) recive DECM station SPS-141 and new missiles,R-24MR instead of R-24R,and R-73 instead of R-60TM

So,if it is possible, can you consider possibility of:
- fix R-40TD,TD1 and R-23T,24T IR seekers to "All aspect"
- fix R-24T/R(MR) should have INS and LOAL (10 sec flight vs mathematically predicted target course than turn on seeker and find target)
- add to Mig-23M and MF loadout with two R-23T
- add to Mig-23ML ,P and MLD "mixed" loadout (1xR-24T ,1xR-24R (or in case of MLD R-24MR) and 4xR-60TM or 2xR-73)
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/matchast/55931d1407835125-u0025d0-u00259f-u0025d0-u0025b5-u0025d1-u002580-u0025d0-u0025b2-u0025d1-u00258b-u0025d0-u0025b9.jpg
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/matchast/55929d1407833171-071.jpg
and loadouts with two R-24T
- add to Mig-23ML and MLD loadout with Kh-23 and "Delta-NG" pod
- add to Mig-23MLD SPS-141 DECM station
- remove from database Mig-23PD or move him "into hypothetical" , this is prototype short take-of plane with only 14 flight

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/14/2016 9:10:16 PM >

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 2512

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/8/2016 3:33:33 PM

Triode

Posts: 283
Joined: 9/26/2014
Status: offline

oops, doblepost ,sorry

< Message edited by Triode -- 3/8/2016 3:57:56 PM >

(in reply to Triode)

Post #: 2513

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/9/2016 1:44:59 PM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

[ADDED J-10C with PL-10 in DB v443]

#3300 - J-10B

Suggestions:
- Add PL-10 in J-10B's aircraft stores list
- Add WVRAAMs loadout [A/A: PL-8C (x2) & PL-10 (x2)] and [A/A: PL-10 (x4)] in J-10B aircraft loadout list
- Add other loadout configurations which is armed with PL-10.
- Change aircraft loadout ID #17462 to [A/A: PL-8C] (Typo found which is wrote PL-9]

Recent photography captured the batched production of J-10B with PL-10 during the test flight:

Older picture also shown the J-10B have 4 SRAAMs (2 PL-8 and 2 PL-10, the finless one is a dummy) without any external fuel. Some military enths suggest it's a defensive dogfight configuration:

Source: http://tuku.military.china.com/military/html/2016-03-09/234522_2713874.htm (Simplified Chinese)

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/14/2016 10:51:24 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Triode)

Post #: 2514

HMCS Provider (AOR 508) missed for DB 3000 - 3/9/2016 1:47:51 PM

jun5896

Posts: 216
Joined: 1/17/2015
Status: offline

[ADDED DB v443]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Provider_(AOR_508)

HMCS Provider at Pearl Harbor for RIMPAC 86

It was decommissioned in 1998, DB 3000 has only Protecteur-class Ships (AOR 509, AOR 510)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecteur-class_replenishment_oiler

Provider is different from Protecteur.

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/23/2016 8:18:14 AM >

(in reply to Triode)

Post #: 2515

RE: HMCS Provider (AOR 508) missed for DB 3000 - 3/9/2016 3:11:59 PM

Skjold

Posts: 240
Joined: 9/29/2015
Status: offline

[UPDATED DB v443]

I don't wanna come off as rude as i am very happy that you guys added these to begin with and i am already using them in missions, but i noticed some minor errors.

#4522 was a SAR helicopter exclusivly for over a decade, so SAR loadout would be nice.
#4531, #4532, #4533, #4534 are all Navy helicopters, not Army.

Thanks.

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/23/2016 9:29:05 AM >

(in reply to jun5896)

Post #: 2516

RE: Harpoon Block II+ - 3/9/2016 3:58:06 PM

DrRansom

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/14/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Your links, plus shifting through tons of F-35 photos on the web, have convinced me. Plus there's the fact that the aircraft carries more fuel than the F-14 did.

So I've given the F-35 loadouts a workover, and removed all fuel tanks

<duck and run for cover!>

I have a question about the F-35 loadouts / performance. It seems like the plane is over-modeled kinematically, it cruises too high and too fast.

Currently, the F-35 has thermal management restrictions preventing sustained supersonic flight below 25,000 ft. There have also been decreases in plane acceleration and range.

I don't know if the current performance is justified one way or another.

For the ABM on ESSM-II, maybe it is a last-ditch point defense capability? Low probability of interception, but better than nothing.

< Message edited by DrRansom -- 3/9/2016 3:59:05 PM >

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 2517

Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/10/2016 5:47:57 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ojms

As per this post:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3953101

I was just looking at the fuel level on this ship and it's reporting 123 tons of diesel fuel for a 37k ton ship, compared to the A 1411 Berlin which is a 20k ton ship with 7600 tons of diesel fuel.

Is this a typo or something else?

quote:

It is a lack of info Ships that we do not know the actual fuel quantities for have 'fuel points' rather than 'fuel tons'.

If you know the actual fuel capacity please post up and we'll update the database.

Thanks!

Additionally the R 08 Queen Elizabeth has "Gas" rather than "Diesel". The ship is CODLAG (or possibly CODLOG) so it would definitely be Diesel.

According to wiki the engines are electric (four GE Power Conversion's 20 MW Advanced Induction Motor (arranged in tandem) electric propulsion motors that drive the twin fixed-pitch propellers) and powered by these power units:

2 � Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 36 MW (48,000 hp) gas turbine
4 � W�rtsil� 38 marine diesel engines (2 � 12V38 8.7 MW or 11,700 hp & 2 � 16V38 11.6 MW or 15,600 hp)

Please can you update the engines and also fuel stats.

Thanks.

Updated, thanks!

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/13/2016 10:50:26 PM >

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to ojms)

Post #: 2518

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/10/2016 6:37:54 PM

Posts: 11
Joined: 12/29/2014
Status: offline

[UPDATED DB v443]

Hi Devs,

First, thank you not only for a REALLY great game, but also your great continued support of updating it and adding new features. It�s this updating and consistent new features that MAKE this game not only relevant but continuing to be so good and playable. I particularly love using and making the �cutting edge� or hypothetical units and scenarios.
The only correction, (which is minor so no rush), I can find is with the Trident missile. In the game, it carries the W76 warhead when it should carry the W88 warhead.

Again, great job Devs! Keep it up.

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/23/2016 9:48:55 AM >

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 2519

RE: zhuk-me, updates or issues - 3/10/2016 8:07:57 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Great job Supreme, very well done!

All suggested changes have been made to the database

quote:

ORIGINAL: Supreme 2.0

Evening!

While doing pictures for my DB, I noticed that a lot of specifications and designations of the Tarantul I/II/III-classes are wrong and/or twisted. I put a good amount of time into research but as a result, I think I got it right now. Working with images helped a lot figuring out what weapons and sensors belong to which class. I highly recommend correcting the designations first as it makes distinguishing between the different names and platforms a whole lot easier.

#133 - RK Tarantul III [Pr.1241RE Molniya] (Soviet Union)

- Rename to RK Tarantul III [Pr.1241.1M]
- Replace Cross Dome [MR-352 Positiv] with Band Stand [Monolit]
- Remove both Wine Glass [MP-407]
- Add Light Bulb?
- Remove 2 x PK-16 DL
- Add 4 x PK-10 DL
- Increase SA-N-5 Grail magazine size to 12 missiles (Some sources say 16)

#594 - RK Tarantul II [Pr.1241.1M Molniya] (Soviet Union)

- Rename to RK Tarantul II [Pr.1241.1T]
- Replace Plank Shave [3Ts-25 Garpun] with Band Stand [Monolit]
- Add 2 x Half Hat [MP-405]
- Add Light Bulb?
- Replace SS-N-2d Improved Styx [P-20M] with SS-N-2c Improved Styx [P-15M]
- Increase SA-N-5 Grail magazine size to 12 missiles (Some sources say 16)

#823 - K 40 Veer [Pr.1241.1T Tarantul I] (India)

- Rename to K 40 Veer [Tarantul I, Pr.1241RE]
- Increase SA-N-5 Grail magazine size to 12 missiles (Some sources say 16)

#943 - HQ 371 [Pr.1241RE Tarantul III] (Vietnam)

- Rename to HQ 371 [Tarantul I, Pr.1241RE]
- Replace Cross Dome [MR-352 Positiv] with Plank Shave [3Ts-25 Garpun]
- Remove both Half Hat [MP-405]
- Remove both Wine Glass [MP-407]
- Remove 2 x PK-16 DL
- Replace SS-N-22 Sunburn Twin mount with 2 x SS-N-2d Improved Styx Twin launchers
- Increase SA-N-5 Grail magazine size to 12 missiles (Some sources say 16)

#1371 - RK Tarantul III [Pr.1241RE Molniya] (Russia)

- Rename to RK Tarantul III [Pr.1241.1M]
- Replace Cross Dome [MR-352 Positiv] with Band Stand [Monolit]
- Remove both Wine Glass [MP-407]
- Add Light Bulb?
- Remove 2 x PK-16 DL
- Add 4 x PK-10 DL
- Increase SA-N-5 Grail magazine size to 12 missiles (Some sources say 16)

#2476 - U 155 Prodniprovja [Tarantul II, Pr.1242.1M Molniya] (Ukraine)

- Rename to U 155 Prodniprovja [Tarantul II, Pr.1241.1T] (Commissioned as Nikopol)
- Replace Plank Shave [3Ts-25 Garpun] with Band Stand [Monolit]
- Add 2 x Half Hat [MP-405]
- Add Light Bulb?
- Replace SS-N-2d Improved Styx [P-20M] with SS-N-2c Improved Styx [P-15M]
- Increase SA-N-5 Grail magazine size to 12 missiles (Some sources say 16)

#2469 - 124 [Pr.1241RE Tarantul I] (Yemen)

- Rename to 124 [Tarantul I, Pr.1241RE]
- Remove both Half Hat [MP-405]
- Replace SS-N-2c Improved Styx [P-15M] with SS-N-2d Improved Styx [P-20M]
- Increase SA-N-5 Grail magazine size to 12 missiles (Some sources say 16)

#2963 - RK Tarantul III Mod [Pr.1242.1 Molniya] (Russia)

- Add Plank Shave [3Ts-25 Garpun-Bal]
- Remove both Wine Glass [MP-407]
- Replace SS-N-22 Sunburn [P-80 Zubr] with SS-N-22M Sunburn [P-270 Moskit]
- Increase SA-N-10 Gimlet magazine size to 12 missiles

#2964 - 832 [Tarantul III Mod, Pr.1242.1 Molniya] (Egypt)

- Add Plank Shave [3Ts-25 Garpun-Bal]
- Remove both Wine Glass [MP-407]
- Replace SS-N-22 Sunburn [P-80 Zubr] with SS-N-22M Sunburn [P-270 Moskit]
- Increase SA-N-10 Gimlet magazine size to 12 missiles

Generic changes:

- Please remove all Half Hat [MP-405] and/or Wine Glass [MP-407] systems aboard all ships of the RK Tarantul I [Pr.1241RE]-class in the DB.
- Appearantly, the Wine Glass [MP-407] ECM system does not seem to be installed on any vessel of the various Tarantul-classes. I could pinpoint the MP-405 EW system using images but I struggled to find any MP-407 components.
- All vessels of RK Tarantul II [Pr.1241.1T] and RK Tarantul III [Pr.1241.1M] should be equipped with a Light Bulb [Pricep] datalink antenna, not sure how much sense this makes since it's just a datalink antenna without any further function tho.
- Also, please replace the SS-N-2c Improved Styx [P-15M] with SS-N-2d Improved Styx [P-20M] aboard all craft of SKR Tarantul I [Pr.1241RE].

There's a lot of conflicting information regarding the true naming convention of the different subclasses. Some sources claim that all vessels of Project 1241 or just the vessels of Project 1241.1 are named as "Molnyia" or "Molnyia-1" while others say that only Project 1241.8 and 1242.1 vessels were designated "Molnyia". For the life of me, I couldn't figure out what's the right way... Maybe Triode can help us out here.

In the process of collecting data I found these two additions I'd like to include in the Russian DB. One of them is the R-60, requested by Pancor above.

RK Tarantul III [Pr.1241.1MR] for Russia

After construction of the first nine ships of Project 1241.1M, the SS-N-22 Sunburn [P-80 Zubr] ASMs were replaced by more modern SS-N-22M Sunburn [P-270 Moskit] as well as two Half Cup [Spektr-F] Laser Warning Receiver (the game says these are RWRs) were installed above the MP-405 EW domes. These changes were standardized accross all 23 remaining vessels to come, therefore creating Project 1241.1MR. First vessel of Project 1241.1MR was R-293 (874) which was laid down on 30.04.1991 and commissioned on 23.03.1992.

- Year: 1992
- Add 2 x Half Cup [Spektr-F]
- Replace SS-N-22 Sunburn [P-80 Zubr] with SS-N-22M Sunburn [P-270 Moskit]

RK Tarantul III Mod [Pr.1241.1M] for Russia (1)

Regalur Project 1241.1M missile boat R-60 on which both AK-630 as well as all four PK-10 DL were removed and a single Palma CIWS was added instead.

- Year: 2005
- Remove both AK-630M
- Remove all PK-10 DL
- Add Palma CIWS

http://russianships.info/eng/warfareboats/project_12411.htm
http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/1002049/22/Apalkov_Yuriy_-_Korabli_VMF_SSSR._Tom_3._Protivolodochnye_korabli._Chast_2._Malye_protivolodochnye_korabli.html
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/12411-rka/
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/12421-rka/
http://www.warships.ru/Russia/Fighting_Ships/Missile_Boats/12411.html
http://russ-flot.narod.ru/x-0012_pr-1241.htm
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2015-news/august-2015-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/3005-russia-transferred-a-tarantul-class-missile-corvette-p-32-project-12421-molniya-to-egypt.html
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarantul-Klasse#Projekt_1241.1_.28Tarantul_II.29

Thanks in advance!!!

Supreme

PS: I wanted to include some high-res images but the folder unfortunatly was way too large. I have now resized them to about 75 percent of their original resolution. Please message me when you need the images. I can send them via PM.

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/10/2016 8:26:00 PM >

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to Vici Supreme)

Post #: 2520

Page: << < prev 82 83 [84] 85 86 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues