Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: stilesw

quote:

It's definitely 483, I checked before posting with the intention of just upgrading the scenario and the editor says the scenario is using the latest DB.483.
Baffled as I did the same with a test scenario, added a MiG-29S and every thing worked and it had R-27 TSARH load outs. I will update the scenario again regardless and see if that fixes it.

I believe I've found the problem.

Did some more digging. Went to Akhtubinsk Air Base and selected Su-27S, 968IISAP, 1 Sqn #02. It says that it is loaded with
4x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH,
2x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27ER, LR SARH],
2x AA-11 Archer [R-73].
It should not do this since that weapon/loadout is no longer an option.

This would have been the original loadout when the scenario was created using DB3K_478. Since then, the TSARH AA-10 replaced the SARH AA-10.

When you try and load the Su-27S in the subsequent databases (i.e. 483) and check the “Show only usable loadouts” box the TSARH weapons do not show up at all but they do show up as possible loads when you look at the aircraft details in the DB viewer.

The problem happens (and I’ve had it happen to me as well during testing) when the scenario contains units that were loaded out in a previous database that did not have the new weapons. When the scenario is upgraded to DB3K_483 it still regards the aircraft as having a no longer existing weapon/loadout.

The solution is to remove all the aircraft (Su-27S) in question and replace them with a new Su-27S. Since the new aircraft and weapon are now both part of the new DB3K_483 it will load and show the correct loadouts.

Ideally, the scenario author would do this but he cannot be faulted because he would not necessarily have known of the change from SARH to TSARH. Probably the easiest solution for you is to delete and recreate all the AA-10 TSARH aircraft. Of course, don't forget to reassign them to their appropriate missions and necessary unit properties.

Hope this is of help,

-Wayne

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Pantsir - This gets more complicated.

Looking at the actual images of the Pantsir SM although it has an obvious Tornado G MRAP 8x8 chassis the actual Pantsir system on the back seems to be the standard S1 configuration using the single face search radar not even the double faceted S2.

I am therefore confused regarding the issue of whether the ER missile or even what actually constitutes the Pantsir SM or if it is in service or not yet!

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-558.html
This is probably the most exhaustive coverage regarding Pantsir and even with the limitations of translation software provides useful time lines and development.

But there again the manufacturer is a bit contradictory as there own product page shows both the Pantsir S1 and Pantsir S2 in the image library under the headline information for the S1.
And the 3d computer rendering is of the S2!

https://www.npovk.ru/upload/resize_cache/iblock/9f5/1037_728_1/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%8C-%D0%A11.jpg
https://www.npovk.ru/en/model/pancyr.php


K

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB



After more checking there are some issues with the Pantsir terminology and I think the Pantsir SM is being confused with the Pantsir S2:
With apologies for having to make multiple posts to attach images.
#3250 - SAM Plt (SA-22 Greyhound [Pantsir-SM]) (Russia [1992-] - 2011) ?

---

Suggest name change to Pantsir S2 and in service as of 2015 please. Plus amend or add new 57E6-1 missile with range of 30km and add new SOTS-S double facing radar array?

Pantsir S2 has been in service since 2015 and has been seen in Syria with Russian forces since 2016. But it is not in the DB3K.

https://youtu.be/aJpKJ--ZPq8?t=3 Shows the S2 from a RUPTLY article in Syria. In contrast the Pantsir SM is not in service in Russia yet.

The S2 has improved radar with which is double faceted and therefore provides better faster coverage and makes it easy to distinguish from the S1.

"The Pantsir-S2 is also fitted with a new SOTS S-band search radar to increase the detection range from 36 km to over 40 km"*Army Recognition.
It also supposedly has a marginally increased missile with a range of 30km but does not use the later ER missile.

The difference with the S1 is most obvious by comparing radar arrays.
See this clip from the manufacturers PR for the S1 https://youtu.be/ywcnw8r-CAo?t=70

Pantsir SM is very different vehicle using the Tornado G 8x8 armoured MRAP vehicle with light armour, newer still AESA radar and the extended range 40km missile.

Algeria has Pantsir SM as of 2019 and before the Russians per the MENA DEFENCE article.

The Rostec article provides an oversight of the S1 S2 and SM developments:

https://rostec.ru/en/news/the-true-greyhound-to-the-russian-defense/
https://www.janes.com/article/89584/army-2019-russia-unveils-pantsir-s1m-sam-vehicle
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_missile_system_vehicle_uk/pantsir-s2_short-range_cannon_missile_air_defense_system_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_12205164.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/army-2019_news_russia_online_show_daily_media_partner/army_2019_kbp_group_unveils_pantsir-sm_cannon_missile_air_defense_system.html
https://www.menadefense.net/algeria/algeria-tested-the-new-pantsir-sm-in-a-live-fire-exercice
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/24797/Russia_Upgrades_Pantsir_Defense_System_Through_Experience_Gained_in_Syria__Report#.Xmv4hnlLH4Y
Pantsir SM - Latest incarnation as of 2019 using the Tornado G armoured chassis.
https://russia.liveuamap.com/en/2019/26-june-pantsirsm-in-army2019---


Many thanks
K

quote:

ORIGINAL: stilesw

quote:

Pantsir SM Has been added to the 483 DB3K with the 57E6-ER missile as a new weapon but the ER versions is identical in range to the standard 57E6 version i.e 10 Nm range.

By all accounts the ER has a 40km/21.5 nm range and the FCR has double the acquisition range.

Logged.
-WS

quote:

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario? I passed this forum thread to the author/updater to do what he feels necessary.

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue? Yes, on the list. Some issues between CMANOPE and CMO that I need to work on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Cool no worries I have updated it and replicated all aircraft with the load outs with attention to the original missions and naming conventions.

Russian Su-27's and MiG-29's have been sorted and the magazines amended.

Azerbaijani MiG-29's have also been done.

It just made the MiG-29's a bit harder to take on mind you!

Thanks for help,

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario?

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue?


Cheers

K

quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Cool no worries I have updated it and replicated all aircraft with the load outs with attention to the original missions and naming conventions.

Russian Su-27's and MiG-29's have been sorted and the magazines amended.

Azerbaijani MiG-29's have also been done.

It just made the MiG-29's a bit harder to take on mind you!

Thanks for help,

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario?

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue?


Cheers

K

Thanks for doing this; feel free to either PM the updated scenario to me or post it in the mods and scenarios subforum and I'll add it to the next release.

quote:

I think the French ships Horizon and FREMM should have CEC capacity from 2020, they have recently tested it:

insert INTO DataWeaponRecord (ComponentID,DefaultLoad,MaxLoad,ROF,Multiple)
 Values(3627,10000,10000,1,1)

quote:

It looks like HNLMS Karel Doorman (Netherlands) has no cargo facility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Sent PM,(hopefully with .zip correct attachment) bit of delay as I noticed Su-34 was also affected so its been done too.
Tested and seems to be working fine.
K

quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Cool no worries I have updated it and replicated all aircraft with the load outs with attention to the original missions and naming conventions.

Russian Su-27's and MiG-29's have been sorted and the magazines amended.

Azerbaijani MiG-29's have also been done.

It just made the MiG-29's a bit harder to take on mind you!

Thanks for help,

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario?

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue?


Cheers

K

Thanks for doing this; feel free to either PM the updated scenario to me or post it in the mods and scenarios subforum and I'll add it to the next release.

quote:

Question for either Wayne or apache

update DataFuel Set Capacity = 60 Where ID = 2044

quote:

surface radar but no cameras

quote:

ORIGINAL: stilesw

quote:

surface radar but no cameras

Sandro,

Searched records and found nothing to support cameras for the MQ-8 series.
Please provide any references that show these sensors for the UAV.
Thanks,
-WS

quote:

When integrated with other on-board sensors, the radar increases the VTUAV surveillance area rate coverage and operator efficiency by pointing the EO payload to points of interest detected through the radar’s wide area scan.

quote:

The X-band search radar complements the MQ-8B’s Flir Systems Brite Star II electro-optical/infrared payload and provides inverse synthetic aperture (ISAR), stripmap and spotlight SAR modes for imaging targets

quote:


Uh... every entry for the MQ-8B in the CMO database except for the RDR-1700 variant (with the radar) has a camera+laser designator package

quote:

Weapon id #3627 'Laser Shot(Solid State Fiber) 10nm, AAW & ASuW

quote:

I have been advocating for the Tu-22M series having AS-16 Kickbacks since I started with CMANO years ago now.

quote:

Name change request to lead ship of class Batch 2 River class OPV UK RN- #2805 - P 222 HMS Forth [River Class, Batch 2] (United Kingdom - 2018)