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: Stickied thread for minor database 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: Stickied thread for minor database issues? Page: <<   < prev  178 179 [180] 181 182   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/28/2019 11:42:48 AM   
jun5896

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 1/17/2015
Status: offline
#4429 - SV-22D Osprey(2018, USN) loadouts error


(in reply to orca)
Post #: 5371
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/28/2019 1:22:51 PM   
KC45


Posts: 240
Joined: 11/23/2017
From: JPN
Status: offline
DBID:SHIP2927 Type 903A has serious problem on the fuel data. Type 903A is AOE, however, it can only moves 4 hour for now.

< Message edited by KC45 -- 12/28/2019 1:42:28 PM >


_____________________________

Steam CMANO Japanese Community(unofficial).

(in reply to jun5896)
Post #: 5372
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/28/2019 7:58:01 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
Possible database error...

#2358 Factory Trawler
Based on how long these ships typically stay out, and how far out they go, the fuel should be 60 tons rather than 12 tons. This would increase the range so that these very large trawlers can reach remote spots in the ocean.

Thanks for considering this.




(in reply to KC45)
Post #: 5373
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/28/2019 9:53:09 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:


#2358 Factory Trawler
Based on how long these ships typically stay out, and how far out they go, the fuel should be 60 tons rather than 12 tons. This would increase the range so that these very large trawlers can reach remote spots in the ocean.

Mark,
You are likely correct. Logged for update.
BTW, I assume this is the same as requested for #2117 Factory Trawler since the #2117 DB entry is for USN's "PC 1 Cyclone".

-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 5374
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/29/2019 6:15:46 AM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
Yes, thanks. As far as I can tell, the information for #2117 is for the Factory Trawler, but the image is for the Cyclone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stilesw

quote:


#2358 Factory Trawler
Based on how long these ships typically stay out, and how far out they go, the fuel should be 60 tons rather than 12 tons. This would increase the range so that these very large trawlers can reach remote spots in the ocean.

Mark,
You are likely correct. Logged for update.
BTW, I assume this is the same as requested for #2117 Factory Trawler since the #2117 DB entry is for USN's "PC 1 Cyclone".

-WS


(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5375
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/29/2019 6:48:19 AM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
So, there I was, minding my own business, roughing up an idea for a scenario involving the Royal Bahamas Defence Force (yes, apparently, that's how they spell it), only to discover (gasp!) that there are no entries for the Royal Bahamas Defence Force!

The Bahamas actually has a pretty impressive navy for a small country. Please consider adding it.

A basic overview can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bahamas_Defence_Force (I've attached a partial screen shot showing ship names, etc.)

https://idsa.in/idsacomments/royal-bahamas-defence-force_sbmaharaj_301116 <-- includes a bit of history and commission dates

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/06/lock-stock-and-a-sandy-bottom/

Here is what I could find out about the four classes listed (sorry...I couldn't find very much)...

Bahamas Class

https://en.wikipedi0.org/wiki/HMBS_Bahamas_(P-60)

http://www.tribune242.com/news/2016/aug/18/rbdf-boat-set-refit/

https://www.damen.com/en/news/2016/08/bahamas_corvette_comes_to_damen_for_lifetime_extension

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/caribbean/bs-rbdf-modernization.htm

https://navaltoday.com/2018/10/29/corvette-hmbs-bahamas-returns-home-after-dutch-overhaul/

Legend Class

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damen_Stan_4207_patrol_vessel

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/royal-bahamas-defense-force-receives-last-of-four-stan-patrol-4207-vessels/

HMBS Lawrence Major

(this vessel should be able to carry cargo)

https://en.wikipedi0.org/wiki/HMBS_Lawrence_Major

https://en.wikipedi0.org/wiki/Damen_Stan_Lander_5612

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/damen-stan-lander-5612-logistic-support-vessel/


Damen Stan 3007 Class (apparently known as the "Sea Axe")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damen_Stan_3007_patrol_vessel

https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/stan-patrol/stan-patrol-3007

https://products.damen.com/-/media/Products/Images/Clusters-groups/High-Speed-Crafts/Stan-Patrol-Vessel/Stan-Patrol-3007/Documents/Product_Sheet_Damen_Stan_Patrol_3007_11_2015.PDF

https://products.damen.com/-/media/Products/Images/Clusters-groups/High-Speed-Crafts/Stan-Patrol-Vessel/Stan-Patrol-3007/Documents/Executive_Summary_Damen_Stan_Patrol_3007_Sea_Axe.pdf

https://products.damen.com/-/media/Products/Images/Clusters-groups/High-Speed-Crafts/Stan-Patrol-Vessel/Stan-Patrol-3007/Documents/Product_Sheet_Damen_Stan_Patrol_3007_Standard.pdf

(I'm not sure if this class is armed...but it does carry a RHIB, which could be armed.) I suppose small arms carried by the crew could be simulated with a 7.62mm machine gun?






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 5376
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/29/2019 10:07:59 AM   
jun5896

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 1/17/2015
Status: offline
Why F-35C Lightning II 2028 (#4874) can't mount JATM missile?

2025 F-35C can mount with JATM x6 missiles, But F-35C(2025) had been omitted JSOW-ER in Aircraft Stores/Loadouts.

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 5377
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 12/29/2019 12:18:38 PM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
The #1322 PL-2a and #1047 PL-2b have an incorrect maximum and minimum range, minimum target altitude (in the case of the PL-2b), top speed, weight (in the case of the PL-2a), and POH value (in the case of the PL-2b.)

The top speed for the #1322 PL-2a should be 1538.877 knots while the #1047 PL-2b should have a top speed of 1666.85 knots.

The minimum target altitude for the #1047 PL-2b should be 300 meters (984.252 feet.)

The #1322 PL-2a should have a minimum range of 0.81 nautical miles (1.5 kilometers) and a maximum range of 3.50972 nautical miles (6.5 kilometers) while the #1047 PL-2b should have a minimum range of 0.70 nautical miles (1.3 kilometers) and a maximum range of 5.39957 nautical miles (10 kilometers.)

The #1322 PL-2a should weigh only 60 kilograms and the #1047 PL-2b should have a measurably better (15-20 percent more) POH value than the baseline PL-2a (as the PL-2b variant specifically had its seeker head, proximity detonator, and electrical equipment upgraded to counter the lackluster abilities of the PL-2a; currently the POH for both missiles are identical.)

Sources: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/aa-2.htm and https://books.google.com/books?id=g3yNDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT242&lpg=PT242&dq=pl-2b+missile&source=bl&ots=ULyFldKLVX&sig=ACfU3U1z0KPnrNu8UjEa-yrMncxw2kxO-w&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjY8ZWz7drmAhWHB50JHTbpCHEQ6AEwD3oECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=pl-2b%20missile&f=false

(in reply to bezunyan)
Post #: 5378
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 12/29/2019 1:19:01 PM   
ParachuteProne

 

Posts: 207
Joined: 8/2/2004
Status: offline
Could we have the Canadian type 26 added as Hypothetical ?
It's not hypothetical but not all the systems are decided yet I believe.
Thanks !

Radar
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-ballistic-missile-defence-canada-1.5407226
Other info
http://www.navalreview.ca/2018/02/future-canadian-surface-combatant-the-only-option/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24335/canada-chooses-bae-lockheed-proposal-to-build-frigates-based-on-u-k-s-type-26-design

https://defpost.com/ultra-electronics-sonar-systems-type-26-global-combat-ship-canada-csc-program/

https://defpost.com/mda-to-provide-design-services-for-canadian-surface-combatants-electronic-warfare-suite/

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=canada+type+26+frigate+weapons&view=detail&mid=7AC732E9886B09205C7F7AC732E9886B09205C7F&FORM=VIRE

I think there is enough here to piece together a close Hypothetical ?


< Message edited by ParachuteProne -- 12/29/2019 2:30:19 PM >

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 5379
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 12/29/2019 1:23:12 PM   
ParachuteProne

 

Posts: 207
Joined: 8/2/2004
Status: offline
And the following Ship for Canada - Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Asterix#Royal_Canadian_Navy_service

< Message edited by ParachuteProne -- 12/29/2019 2:36:49 PM >

(in reply to ParachuteProne)
Post #: 5380
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/29/2019 2:55:14 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

As far as I can tell, the information for #2117 is for the Factory Trawler, but the image is for the Cyclone.

quote:

As far as I can tell, the information for #2117 is for the Factory Trawler, but the image is for the Cyclone.

Hey Mark,

Got me curious on where you see the "information"

Yes, image is correct and located at "[C:...]\DB\Images\DB3000\Ship_2117.jpg"
A text description would be in the file "[C:...]\DB\Descriptions\DB3000\Ship_2117.txt" but there is no such file.

The database viewer describes 2117 as shown below. So I must be missing something.

-Wayne




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 5381
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/29/2019 3:05:21 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

The Bahamas actually has a pretty impressive navy for a small country. Please consider adding it.

The Bahamas will show as an included country in the next release. The Royal Bahamas Defence Force units will be possibly added at a later time.

-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 5382
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/29/2019 4:08:12 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Why F-35C Lightning II 2028 (#4874) can't mount JATM missile?

Thanks. Fixed in the next DB3K update.

-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to jun5896)
Post #: 5383
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/30/2019 2:34:26 AM   
BurntChickenDot

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/20/2018
Status: offline
Alright, so looking at the russianships.info site, it seems like a few Russian warships are either missing outright, or are present in Soviet/Foreign arsenals but not in the Russian one in spite of them being used by the Russians in some limited capacity.

The Pr. 2280.0 Karakurt-class corvette, Pr. 1270.0 Alexandrit-class minesweeper, Pr. 1075.0 Lida-class minesweeper, Pr. 697TB-class minesweeper, Pr. 1259 Olya-class minesweeper and the Pr. 0251.0-class amphibious boat are missing.

The Zhuk-class patrol boat is present in Ukrainian and Soviet arsenals but not Russian. Same thing with the Yevgenia-class minesweeper.

So yeah, mostly minesweepers but the Karakurt in particular stands out. Also, out of curiosity, how real does a design have to be to make it into the DB? Would something like the Pr. 23560 Lider-class proposal be 'real' enough to make it into the database, or will it only be considered for inclusion when/if it starts being built?

I apologize for the lack of links as it is only good etiquette to link to the respective missing ship designs, but unfortunately I'm not permitted to post links until 7 days after my 10th post.

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5384
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/30/2019 6:32:39 PM   
CV60


Posts: 992
Joined: 10/1/2012
Status: offline
Possible error on DB 3000 Weapon_554, 90, 870, 89, 553, 72, 93, 1721, (Baseline JDAM series, GBU31/32/28). Currently it is listed as 10meters. It should be 5 meters.

The CEP of the JDAM is officially listed as 13 meters. See IHS. "GBU-31, GBU-32 and GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)." Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, February 2015, FAS reports that the JDAM achieved an accuracy of 10 meters CEP in tests: Federation Of American Scientists. Accessed December 29, 2019. https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.htm This 10 meter figure is the CEP used in the database.

However, Jane's/IHS reports that based on experience, the JDAM is capable of 14 meters CEP with only INS guidance, and 8 meters with INS and GPS guidance. See IHS. "GBU-31, GBU-32 and GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)." Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, February 2015. This figure is partially confirmed by the USAF, which in 2003 reported "[JDAM 31/32/38] weapon circular error probable of 5 meters or less during free flight when GPS data is available." [emphasis added]. see https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104572/joint-direct-attack-munition-gbu-313238/

One other minor edit: The database gives the range of the JDAM as 1-12 nm. Janes's gives a maximum range of 13 nm. The USAF source cited above (https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104572/joint-direct-attack-munition-gbu-313238/) claims 15 miles, but that may be statute miles. If so, that is consistent with Jane's 13nm figure.

UPDATE: The JDAM program office confirms the 5 meter CEP. See https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/19-F-1098_DOC_46_JDAM_SAR_Dec_2018.pdf at page 8.

< Message edited by CV60 -- 12/31/2019 8:38:14 PM >

(in reply to BurntChickenDot)
Post #: 5385
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 5:39:24 AM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
The #2232 SU-57 Felon is missing the Fly-by-Wire property. The aircraft is capable of supermaneuverability, of which is accomplished through thrust vectoring and a fly-by-wire system. Additionally, the most recent crash of the Felon seemed to be the result of the failure of this system.

Sources: https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/11/23/russia-completes-testing-su-57-avionics-complex/ and https://theaviationist.com/2019/12/29/wild-rumors-of-first-su-57-export-sale-spread-as-details-from-earlier-felon-crash-emerge/

(in reply to CV60)
Post #: 5386
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 6:29:16 AM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 651
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
Request:

KC-135Q tanker, used to fuel the SR-71 with its specific requirements.

Already in the CWD, but it remained operational until at least 1989 when the SR-71s were retired, possibly to present day.

Some interesting details from a former crewman in this thread.

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 5387
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 7:22:49 AM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
The KC-135Q is already in the DBK3000 database and has been discussed already.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tookatee

All variants of the SR-71 are able to refuel from aircraft other than the #1320 KC-135Q. This is incorrect because only the KC-135Q carries the fuel that the SR-71 can use (JP-7), all other aircraft carry standard aviation fuel which cannot be run properly in the Pratt and Whitney J58 engines on the aircraft.

Furthermore any aircraft with boom refueling capabilities can refuel from the KC-135Q, which is also incorrect because JP-7 was specifically developed for use in extremely high performance aircraft like the SR-71 and the X-51 Waverider and cannot be run properly in standard engines (hence why the KC-135Q exists as unlike all other KC-135 variants it has two separate fuel tanks separating its own fuel from the payload of JP-7.)

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58 , https://www.thesr71blackbird.com/Aircraft/JP-7-Fuel , https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/JP-7.html , and https://www.quora.com/What-makes-JP-7-Aviation-fuel-so-special-that-only-SR-71-blackbird-can-use-it ,

(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 5388
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 8:59:47 AM   
spec111

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/30/2014
Status: offline
Hey! How about adding 1240 Sarancha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarancha-class_missile_boat) and 133 Muravey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muravey-class_patrol_boat) to DB?

And yes 206M Turya has 45 kts speed, not 36kts. Cause it is hydrofoil craft. Btw 206M Turya was actively used in Soviet Service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turya-class_torpedo_boat



Also i am 100% sure that Turya speed in Wikipedia is wrong. 45kts is confirmed by several russian books.


< Message edited by spec111 -- 12/31/2019 9:10:24 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to orca)
Post #: 5389
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 10:01:30 AM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 651
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tookatee
The KC-135Q is already in the DBK3000 database and has been discussed already.

So it is, thanks!

For some reason it's not showing up in the grouped KC-135 platforms listing though.

Edit: BTW I understand other aircraft can refuel from the KC-135Q IF it's loaded with regular fuel, but then the SR-71 can't do so. It's a binary choice - not sure how that could be implemented in CMO. Maybe loadout?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by guanotwozero -- 12/31/2019 10:07:52 AM >

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 5390
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 2:05:31 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

The #2232 SU-57 Felon is missing the Fly-by-Wire property. The aircraft is capable of supermaneuverability, of which is accomplished through thrust vectoring and a fly-by-wire system. Additionally, the most recent crash of the Felon seemed to be the result of the failure of this system.

Logged for fix in next DB3K update.

-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 5391
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 4:15:14 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
Hi All

Indian Mig-27 Retire.(#2702 end date 2019)
https://www.janes.com/article/93394/indian-air-force-retires-its-last-mig-27ml-squadron
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/after-35-years-in-action-mig-27-last-sortie-today/story-5vlWkeR7cWY1N9aeVtOhrL.html
https://www.businessinsider.in/defense/news/indian-air-force-retires-mig-27-the-aircraft-which-helped-it-win-the-kargil-war/articleshow/72991143.cms
https://www.rt.com/news/472467-india-mig27-last-flight/

Thank!

Bill



< Message edited by BDukes -- 12/31/2019 4:19:04 PM >

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5392
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 4:22:42 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
French Reaper now armed with GBU-12. Loadout Already deployed (IOC 2019)

https://www.janes.com/article/93339/french-air-force-weaponises-its-reaper-uavs-with-gbu-12-bombs

Note

Thank!

(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 5393
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 4:28:49 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Indian Mig-27 Retire.(#2702 end date 2019)

Bill,
Logged and updated.

-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 5394
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 4:51:13 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
Warsaw Pac Bulgarian Aircraft adds. These probaby importants to Bart sceanrio work etc.

All Bulgrian MIG-25 RBT (82-91). This is recon variant not fighters. Likely same configuration as #2234

https://twitter.com/vesthepes/status/1207791380875153413

Bulgarian Mig-23. Need add MLA variant. Note all out of service date seems to be 2002.

https://twitter.com/vesthepes/status/1207714650948874240

Thank!






(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5395
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 4:54:47 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

French Reaper now armed with GBU-12. Loadout Already deployed (IOC 2019)

Logged and updated.

-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 5396
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 7:53:20 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
In DB3000, the Cyclone is #2117, but in the CWDB, it isn't. It's the Factory Trawler. But it still has the image (I think the wrong image got attached to entry 2117 in the CWDB, but as I know next to nothing about how databases work, this is just a guess.)

I hope this helps.








Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mgellis -- 12/31/2019 7:55:42 PM >

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5397
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 8:30:19 PM   
CV60


Posts: 992
Joined: 10/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:

In DB3000, the Cyclone is #2117, but in the CWDB, it isn't. It's the Factory Trawler. But it still has the image (I think the wrong image got attached to entry 2117 in the CWDB, but as I know next to nothing about how databases work, this is just a guess.)

I hope this helps.


Mgellis-I'm the guy who takes care of the images in the database. I'll fix this one. Thanks for brining it to my attention.

UPDATE: Mgellis-I don't see this error in my database, and the one on my computer is the one that is the "Master". Can anyone else confirm that the Ship_2117 image in the CWDB database is the USS Cyclone class PC? If not, I suspect that possibly somehow you have accidenatally moved Ship_2117 image from the DB3000 to the CWDB in your system. You can fix this by simply moving it back to the DB3000 "Images" folder.

< Message edited by CV60 -- 12/31/2019 8:36:05 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 5398
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 8:38:15 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
Hey Mark,

Thanks for sorting that. I'd only been looking at DB3K units.

-Wayne

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 5399
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 12/31/2019 10:32:20 PM   
CV60


Posts: 992
Joined: 10/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV60

Possible error on DB 3000 Weapon_554, 90, 870, 89, 553, 72, 93, 1721, (Baseline JDAM series, GBU31/32/28). Currently it is listed as 10meters. It should be 5 meters.

The CEP of the JDAM is officially listed as 13 meters. See IHS. "GBU-31, GBU-32 and GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)." Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, February 2015, FAS reports that the JDAM achieved an accuracy of 10 meters CEP in tests: Federation Of American Scientists. Accessed December 29, 2019. https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.htm This 10 meter figure is the CEP used in the database.

However, Jane's/IHS reports that based on experience, the JDAM is capable of 14 meters CEP with only INS guidance, and 8 meters with INS and GPS guidance. See IHS. "GBU-31, GBU-32 and GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)." Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, February 2015. This figure is partially confirmed by the USAF, which in 2003 reported "[JDAM 31/32/38] weapon circular error probable of 5 meters or less during free flight when GPS data is available." [emphasis added]. see https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104572/joint-direct-attack-munition-gbu-313238/

One other minor edit: The database gives the range of the JDAM as 1-12 nm. Janes's gives a maximum range of 13 nm. The USAF source cited above (https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104572/joint-direct-attack-munition-gbu-313238/) claims 15 miles, but that may be statute miles. If so, that is consistent with Jane's 13nm figure.

UPDATE: The JDAM program office confirms the 5 meter CEP. See https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/19-F-1098_DOC_46_JDAM_SAR_Dec_2018.pdf at page 8.


< Message edited by CV60 -- 12/31/2019 8:38:14 PM >

Additional database corrections for the laser designated versions of the JDAM (LJDAM). These are DB3000 Weapon_2259, 3213, 2260, 3101, 3102, 3394, 3393. Each of these weapons has the following errors: 1) They are listed as having a range of 1-12 nm. This is incorrect. It should be 1-13 nm. See Boeing, "Laser JDAM," https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/defense/weapons-weapons/images/laser_jadam_product_card.pdf; 2) They are listed as having the properties of "INS w/ GPS Navigation" This is only partially correct. These are laser designated versions of the JDAM, so like the "PAVEWAY II" LGB, they should have the "Supports Buddy Illumination" and "Illuminate at Launch". Note that because the LJDAM also has a GPS/INS, it does not require laser illumination. However, it will suffer a decreased accuracy if the target is not illuminated. 3) the LJDAM's accuracy is increased over the baseline JDAM by the inclusion of the laser seeker. Currently, the database lists all JDAM and LJDAM as having a 10 meter CEP. According to the JDAM program office, the baseline JDAM series has a CEP of 5 meters See https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/19-F-1098_DOC_46_JDAM_SAR_Dec_2018.pdf at page 8. Therefore, the CEP of LJDAM should be less, especially as it has a capability against moving targets, including vehicles at highway speeds. See https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/defense/weapons-weapons/images/laser_jadam_product_card.pdf Although I have not found an CEP for the LJDAM, I would estimate that it would be no worse (when using the laser seeker) that the Paveway II LGB, which is listed as 2 meters. See Weapon_955

< Message edited by CV60 -- 12/31/2019 10:49:29 PM >

(in reply to CV60)
Post #: 5400
Page:   <<   < prev  178 179 [180] 181 182   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? Page: <<   < prev  178 179 [180] 181 182   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.469