RE: Stickied thread for minor database 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: 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 197 198 [199] 200 201 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/11/2020 11:02:51 AM

eleos

Posts: 72
Joined: 3/21/2016
From: Mesoropi, Macedonia, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

Could we get an entry for the A-7F Corsair II hypothetical platform please?

See this article from the Drive: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34709/flight-tester-explains-how-ya-7f-strikefighter-was-really-a-jet-recycling-program

Doesn't give a lot of specifics but I think using DB 3028 (A-7K LANA) as the base, adding an after burning F100-220 engine, longer range and a few more modern weapons would do it.

Wiki here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_YA-7F

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/vought-ltv-a-7-corsair-ii-projects.11/
https://www.airplanesofthepast.com/a7-corsair.htm

Plus one from me.

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 5941

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/11/2020 8:56:32 PM

anlgzl

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/18/2018
Status: offline

Hi,

Is it possible to add upgraded Udaloy class destroyer "Marshal Shaposhnikov" to the DB3000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCf1hXs8Vfg
https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/status/1281735153988050944

Thanks in advance

(in reply to eleos)

Post #: 5942

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/11/2020 9:10:55 PM

orca

Posts: 501
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline

The F-35C 2025 and 2028 (db#3836 and 4874) do not have the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda ELINT like all other F-35s. Instead they have Band 2/5 ESM RWR.

Is this correct in that there is a new RWR that replaces the current ELINT? Or should it be an addition to the AN/ASQ-239, or an update of the AN/ASQ-239?

(in reply to anlgzl)

Post #: 5943

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/12/2020 12:15:12 PM

Dragon029

Posts: 76
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline

The F-35 is getting upgrades made to its ASQ-239 in the 2020s (probably in 2023 with production Lot 15 jets); that upgrade covers all bands that the ASQ-239 senses, but it also specifically adds new apertures (RF transparencies + antennas). For Band 2 it's getting a new aperture in the nose gear door(s), and for the first time the jet is also going to be covering Band 5.

Note that all these bands are some arbitrary definition that aren't public. There's been military descriptions for similarly named bands in the past (eg: one from Electronic Warfare Fundamentals where Band 0 = 500-2000MHz through to Band 3 at 8-20GHz), but they don't make sense when you try and fit them here, because that'd imply the ASQ-239 is currently designed for 4-20GHz, where it wouldn't even be able to detect IFF signals, plus it'd be introducing a new band which presumably would cover 20-60GHz, instead of covering the critical VHF and UHF bands that would threaten the F-35 the most.

We can nevertheless speculate on what these bands might cover based on things like very rough knowledge of how large the apertures are for Band 2 vs 3/4, as well as the common-sense requirements that'd exist for the ASQ-239.

< Message edited by Dragon029 -- 7/12/2020 12:16:34 PM >

(in reply to orca)

Post #: 5944

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/12/2020 1:51:21 PM

KLAB

Posts: 355
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: offline

Udaloy upgrade Marshal Shaposhnikov is in the DB485 already.

However it could do with tweaking;

The 3S-14 VLS is modular and universal should be able to mount mixtures of the following weapons
with a maximum number of 16 of each:

16 x 3M14 #2713 Kalibr LACM
or
16 x 3M54 #3218 Kalibr SSM
or
16 x P-800 #1173 SSM
or
16 x 91RT #3339 ASW weapons.

Or variations of above all of the above etc.

Thanks.
K

quote:

ORIGINAL: anlgzl

Hi,

Is it possible to add upgraded Udaloy class destroyer "Marshal Shaposhnikov" to the DB3000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCf1hXs8Vfg
https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/status/1281735153988050944

Thanks in advance

Attachment (1)

(in reply to anlgzl)

Post #: 5945

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/12/2020 2:12:44 PM

Blast33

Posts: 404
Joined: 12/31/2018
From: Above and beyond
Status: offline

It seems that the Egyptian Romeo submarine has Harpoon missiles.. UGM-84L Harpoon Block II AShM
#245 - S 849 Romeo (Egypt - 1995)

During excercises this week a Harpoon was (un)succesfully launched.
https://t.co/nwxEv8Kspi?amp=1
https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/status/1282085115775143947

And one succesfull launch in 2019
https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/status/1204834710263914496
It has no Harpoon yet in the Database. Upgraded in 1989-1996

(in reply to KLAB)

Post #: 5946

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/12/2020 2:35:04 PM

orca

Posts: 501
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline

Thanks for the explanation.

So the new RWR replaces the old ELINT in the DB? But shouldn�t it be categorized as an ELINT with 500 nm range rather than a RWR with 120 nm range.

Also, the reference mentions other improvements including next generation DAS and improved IRST. Can these be updated in DB?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

The F-35 is getting upgrades made to its ASQ-239 in the 2020s (probably in 2023 with production Lot 15 jets); that upgrade covers all bands that the ASQ-239 senses, but it also specifically adds new apertures (RF transparencies + antennas). For Band 2 it's getting a new aperture in the nose gear door(s), and for the first time the jet is also going to be covering Band 5.

Note that all these bands are some arbitrary definition that aren't public. There's been military descriptions for similarly named bands in the past (eg: one from Electronic Warfare Fundamentals where Band 0 = 500-2000MHz through to Band 3 at 8-20GHz), but they don't make sense when you try and fit them here, because that'd imply the ASQ-239 is currently designed for 4-20GHz, where it wouldn't even be able to detect IFF signals, plus it'd be introducing a new band which presumably would cover 20-60GHz, instead of covering the critical VHF and UHF bands that would threaten the F-35 the most.

We can nevertheless speculate on what these bands might cover based on things like very rough knowledge of how large the apertures are for Band 2 vs 3/4, as well as the common-sense requirements that'd exist for the ASQ-239.

(in reply to Dragon029)

Post #: 5947

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/14/2020 10:20:03 AM

14yellow14

Posts: 117
Joined: 12/8/2019
Status: offline

About the australian NASAMS...

EXCLUSIVE: LAND 19 Phase 7B passes Gate 2 with the Enhanced NASAMS

https://adbr.com.au/land-19-phase-7b-progresses-to-gate-2-with-the-enhanced-nasams/

quote:

The Enhanced solution adds advanced electronically-scanned array (AESA) and electro-optical sensors, an upgraded vehicle-borne high-mobility launcher (HML), and the adoption of the latest Mk 2 canister launcher. Both of these launchers will allow multiple types of effectors to be employed.

The Enhanced option�s sensors including a mobile CEA Tactical (CEATAC) AESA fire-control radar which is deployed from a housing on the rear of a modified Thales Hawkei 2-door protected mobility vehicle (PMV) or on a towed trailer, a larger CEA Operational (CEAOPS) AESA search radar mounted on a Rheinmetall HX77 8�8 heavy truck, and a Raytheon MTS-A electro-optical infrared (EO/IR) sensor with a 5m telescopic mast and housing, also mounted on a Hawkei.

...

An Australian Army NASAMS Fire Unit will comprise an FDC, a CEATAC radar, an MTS-A EO/IR sensor, and a number of canister and/or HML with AMRAAM missiles. It is expected that a fire unit will comprise an Air Defence Troop, and that three Troops will make up a Battery.

CEATAC radar:

CEAOPS radar:

Australia orders vehicle-mounted, active phased-array radars for NASAMS air-defence system

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/australia-orders-vehicle-mounted-active-phased-array-radars-for-nasams-air-defence-system

Also Ground Based Multi Mission Radar (GBMMR) would be a nice adition:

quote:

The CEAFAR Ground Based Multi-Mission Radar (GBMMR) is a mobile active phased array radar system that provides 3D air and ground surveillance in a range of environments.

https://defense.info/partners-corner/2018/09/evolving-australian-army-ground-base-active-defense-systems/

< Message edited by 14yellow14 -- 7/14/2020 11:17:43 AM >

(in reply to orca)

Post #: 5948

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/14/2020 7:56:09 PM

DetlefKroeze

Posts: 14
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline

Is there a reason why the 2021 and 2025 UK F-35Bs (DB3K 4947 and 4699) have Storm Shadow's in their weapon list when the missile will not be integrated on the aircraft?

(in reply to 14yellow14)

Post #: 5949

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/14/2020 9:05:38 PM

Blast33

Posts: 404
Joined: 12/31/2018
From: Above and beyond
Status: offline

In the game the #2201 - F-22A Raptor (United States - 2019) has a max altitude of 55.000 ft.

In the article https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34762/this-lecture-by-an-f-22-test-pilot-on-the-raptors-flight-control-system-is-bonkers the pilot says, quote: Although the F-22's high altitude capabilities, partially a product of its thrust vectoring capabilities, are known, Gordon notes the aircraft flies at altitudes from 60,000-65,000 feet.

This is not a soom climb altitude but probalby a usable altitude for the F-22.
Video on https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1467&v=Evhrk5tY-Yo&feature=emb_logo

< Message edited by Blast33 -- 7/15/2020 10:02:39 PM >

(in reply to DetlefKroeze)

Post #: 5950

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/16/2020 1:33:47 PM

14yellow14

Posts: 117
Joined: 12/8/2019
Status: offline

Iris-T missile has limited anti-surface capability:

ROYAL NORWEGIAN AIR FORCE TESTED IRIS-T IN AIR-TO-GROUND MISSION

https://www.diehl.com/defence/en/press-and-media/news/royal-norwegian-air-force-tested-iris-t-in-air-to-ground-mission/

quote:

After its initial optimization for air-to-air use, it has already been procured for short-range (IRIS-T SLS) ground-based air defence. Now functionality has been enhanced with an air-to-surface engagement capability. This basic air-to-ground capability provides the ability to acquire, track and engage individual ground targets like boats/ships, small buildings and vehicles and has been successfully verified in September 2016 by a test firing from a Norwegian F-16.

Now usable in air-to-ground engagements as well, IRIS-T is the worldwide best performing short-range air-to-air missile setting new standards in its market segment.

The AIM-9X too

EXCLUSIVE: Raytheon adapts AIM-9X for air-to-ground mission

https://www.flightglobal.com/exclusive-raytheon-adapts-aim-9x-for-air-to-ground-mission/90749.article#:~:text=Raytheon%20has%20adapted%20the%20heat,both%20air%20and%20ground%20targets.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/did-you-know-the-aim-9x-air-to-air-missile-is-able-to-strike-moving-ground-targets/

(in reply to Blast33)

Post #: 5951

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/16/2020 1:50:34 PM

RandolphSykes

Posts: 3
Joined: 5/24/2020
Status: offline

Numerous turboprop UCAVs have a way too tiny RCS for what they are.
In CMO, the RCS of GJ-2 Wing Loong II ELINT is around -7 dBsm. However, the combat version of the same UAV has an RCS -14 dBsm (A-D Band). For comparison, the nEUROn's RCS in this band range is -12 dBsm, and this UAV is turbojet-powered.
The list of UAVs to look at:
Bayraktar TB2
BZK-005
CH-3
CH-4B
CH-5
GJ-2 Wing Loong II Pterodactyl
Heron (Israel's Heron TP seems fine)
MQ-1
MQ-5
MQ-9
Protector MALE
RQ-1
United 40
WD-1K Wing Loong

(in reply to 14yellow14)

Post #: 5952

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/16/2020 2:18:11 PM

Blast33

Posts: 404
Joined: 12/31/2018
From: Above and beyond
Status: offline

A nice detailed description of the fuelloads of the MiG-29 variants.
https://alejandro-8en.blogspot.com/2016/07/fuel-load-in-different-mig-29-variants.html

One the main criticism directed to the MiG-29 was the lack of range. Before 1989 this issue was not well known, but it became clear when Luftwaffe inherited the Fulcrum fleet from East Germany. During the exercises the Fulcrum had to fly back to base before their counterparts due to lack of fuel. Many pilots regretted that no major upgrade was carried out, but the Fulcrum fleet carried on operating in a rather basic configuration until they were donated to Poland.

The issue was well known to MiG, even before the Fulcrum entered service. Soviet requirements stated a range of 800 kms with internal fuel and 2.750 at high altitude with a drop tank. The first version (9.12) managed 700 and 2.100 respectively. The drop tank was specifically designed for MiG-29 in order to prevent excessive drag.

The table below shows the fuel volume for different MiG-29 versions. Designations can be confusing because there have been 2 generations of MiG-29M and K. I used volume and not weight because the latter is usually a conversion of the former, and different densities are used (even in the same book).

The first improved variant was 9.13, easily identifiable by its �hunchback� configuration. It was added to increase the internal volume. In the original design it was difficult to do so because the auxiliary air inlet doors took a lot of space. The wing internal pylons were modified so 2 extra drop tanks could be used. These modifications led to an increase in fuel of more than 40%.

MiG-29M 9.15 is usually known as a second generation Fulcrum. In the 90s it was renamed MiG-33 for marketing reasons. MiG made extensive modifications. New alloys and composite materials were used, which led to an increase of 35% in internal fuel. MiG-29K was based on this variant and had a similar fuel load.

MiG-29SMT 9.17 and 9.18 were modernized variants created in the late 90s. 9.17 received two new fuel tanks with 1400 and 480 liters, which led to that massive spine. According to test pilots, it was too heavy. Internal fuel was 43% superior to 9.12, and 72% for total (internal+external).

MiG-29SMT 9.18 had a smaller deposit in the spine. This version has been sold to a few countries in different configurations�

The final versions of MiG-29M/K derive from the MiG-29M 9.15, thus fuel capacity is similar. MiG-29M and M2 were unified as MiG-35. A few months ago MiG-35 with 4 drop tanks were seen together with a refuelling kit.

References:

- Famous Russian Aircraft Mikoyan MiG-29, de Y. Gordon, Midland Publishing (2006).
- www.airwar.ru
- MiG-29SMT, la versi�n de los esc�ndalos

Attachment (1)

(in reply to RandolphSykes)

Post #: 5953

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/16/2020 10:30:55 PM

Rory Noonan

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 14yellow14

About the australian NASAMS...

EXCLUSIVE: LAND 19 Phase 7B passes Gate 2 with the Enhanced NASAMS

https://adbr.com.au/land-19-phase-7b-progresses-to-gate-2-with-the-enhanced-nasams/

quote:

The Enhanced solution adds advanced electronically-scanned array (AESA) and electro-optical sensors, an upgraded vehicle-borne high-mobility launcher (HML), and the adoption of the latest Mk 2 canister launcher. Both of these launchers will allow multiple types of effectors to be employed.

The Enhanced option�s sensors including a mobile CEA Tactical (CEATAC) AESA fire-control radar which is deployed from a housing on the rear of a modified Thales Hawkei 2-door protected mobility vehicle (PMV) or on a towed trailer, a larger CEA Operational (CEAOPS) AESA search radar mounted on a Rheinmetall HX77 8�8 heavy truck, and a Raytheon MTS-A electro-optical infrared (EO/IR) sensor with a 5m telescopic mast and housing, also mounted on a Hawkei.

...

An Australian Army NASAMS Fire Unit will comprise an FDC, a CEATAC radar, an MTS-A EO/IR sensor, and a number of canister and/or HML with AMRAAM missiles. It is expected that a fire unit will comprise an Air Defence Troop, and that three Troops will make up a Battery.

CEATAC radar:

CEAOPS radar:

Australia orders vehicle-mounted, active phased-array radars for NASAMS air-defence system

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/australia-orders-vehicle-mounted-active-phased-array-radars-for-nasams-air-defence-system

Also Ground Based Multi Mission Radar (GBMMR) would be a nice adition:

quote:

The CEAFAR Ground Based Multi-Mission Radar (GBMMR) is a mobile active phased array radar system that provides 3D air and ground surveillance in a range of environments.

https://defense.info/partners-corner/2018/09/evolving-australian-army-ground-base-active-defense-systems/

CEA-TAC and CEA-OPS were added in 486. Have you got any details on GBMMR?

_____________________________

(in reply to 14yellow14)

Post #: 5954

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/16/2020 10:33:48 PM

Rory Noonan

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eleos

quote:

Could we get an entry for the A-7F Corsair II hypothetical platform please?

See this article from the Drive: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34709/flight-tester-explains-how-ya-7f-strikefighter-was-really-a-jet-recycling-program

Doesn't give a lot of specifics but I think using DB 3028 (A-7K LANA) as the base, adding an after burning F100-220 engine, longer range and a few more modern weapons would do it.

Wiki here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_YA-7F

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/vought-ltv-a-7-corsair-ii-projects.11/
https://www.airplanesofthepast.com/a7-corsair.htm

Plus one from me.

How much longer range and which weapons?

_____________________________

(in reply to eleos)

Post #: 5955

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/17/2020 2:59:36 PM

14yellow14

Posts: 117
Joined: 12/8/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85

CEA-TAC and CEA-OPS were added in 486. Have you got any details on GBMMR?

quote:

CEAFAR Ground Based Multi-Mission Radar (GBMMR

Thanks for the update!

I haven't been able to check the last CMANO update yet... Do you have the excel with the last database? It would be quite useful.

About the GBMMR, it's a ground version of the CEAFAR radar.

https://www.industrysearch.com.au/ground-based-multi-mission-radar-gbmmr/p/140836

quote:

The CEAFAR GBMMR leverages existing technology to provide an active phased array surveillance and Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) capability for land-based operations.

GBMMR is suitable for deployment by road, rail or air. The system operates from portable or fixed power sources enabling mobile operation and offers increased operational flexibility at fixed sites through its rapid set up and tear down.

A range of military and civil applications
The GBMMR array utilises CEA�s unique scalable tile-based architecture enabling the system to be matched to a range of military and civil applications that include:

Land-based air surveillance
Including protective surveillance of key land-based assets such as defence facilities, airports and forward operating bases.

Mobile battlefield and airspace surveillance
Integrated to a local Command & Control (C2) suite for inputs to:

o Ground Surveillance

o Counter Rockets, Artillery and Mortars (C-RAM)

o Weapon Location and

o Ground Based Air and Missile Defence.

Air traffic control
Including terminal area radar and en route monitoring with integrated IFF (all modes)

Surface search and coastal surveillance
Including drug and customs surveillance operations, border intrusions, search & rescue operations and low level hostilities; and

Weather monitoring radar
For the timely observation/prediction of wind and precipitation conditions, weather avoidance (for aircraft) and clear-air turbulence detection.

System Features
The features of the radar include:

high track update rate
high track accuracy, fire control quality on all tracks
pulse Doppler operation � very high performance in clutter
no in-mission maintenance � highly parallel architecture allows failures to be managed whilst deployed
reduced Total Cost of Ownership through minimal consumables and in-field maintenance requirements
rapid deployment and very low deployable infrastructure requirements
simultaneous multi-mode operation with no cone of silence
high immunity to interference and electronic attack
integrated track management and data fusion
full IFF integration - including modes 5 & S
remote or local operation
electronic stabilisation
very high availability

https://magazinecelebnews.blogspot.com/2018/03/breaking-news-advanced-radar-research.html

I hope this helps!

(in reply to Rory Noonan)

Post #: 5956

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/18/2020 8:58:17 PM

BDukes

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

Hellos

Have some more recent North Vietnam Facility to add when have times.

Please add EL/M-2084 associated with Spider SAM system. Vietnam Spider already added but not separate radar. Can copy #2485

https://supribluez.blogspot.com/2018/11/new-vietnams-elm-2084-radar-is-in.html

Please Add Vietnamese 4K44 Redut-M Redut System. See #327. Sipri Arms db say received one batter in 1980.
https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1223320724149956609
https://armyrecognition.com/june_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_industry/live-fire_drill_of_vietnamese_navy_4k44_redut-m_missile.html

Please Add Accular Rocket System. Bought along withs EXTRA already in DB. Weapon already in DB mounted on #3176. Just need to add TEL with 2 missile instead of Israeli 4

https://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2020/01/extra-and-accular-in-service-of-685th.html
https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1213141926230118400

Vietnam have few main battle tank T-54/55,T-62 (1978) T-90S(2019)

https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1273479980215754753/photo/1
https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1270954475507773442
https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1227976118239559680
Note T-90S do have Shora-1 APS
https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1266758071365206021/photo/1

Grad 21 Artillery. In service 1974. Copy from other export.

https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1230440313316970496

D-20 Artillery. Copy #307. IOC Sipri Arms DB say 1975

https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1271385421230960640

S-60 57mm AAA guns (since Vietnam Wars). See #1838
https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1251603124239785984

M-1939 30mm AA Gun (Since Vietnam) See #1886

https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1214928525393661954

Add MI-24A Copy #453 receive x10 in 1980. Serve until 2000s
https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1262732528139427846/photo/1

Add 2S1 122mm Gvozdika Artillery 1980. Copy #3025
https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1260437585396142082
https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1216014212335464449

M-46 1954 Artillery. Same as #2671

https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1249628754885799936

Hwangsong 6 Scud variant in 1998. Copy #3067

4K51 Rubezk SSM system. 1981 Copy #826

https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1255364999888936962

Thank!

< Message edited by BDukes -- 7/18/2020 9:13:30 PM >

(in reply to 14yellow14)

Post #: 5957

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/19/2020 2:44:58 PM

anlgzl

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/18/2018
Status: offline

Hi all,

Do you have any plan to add UAV Aksungur for DB3K

Thanks in advance

https://www.tusas.com/uploads/2020/01/aksungur-unmanned-aerial-vehicle.PDF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqsDiuYASOI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGJPqMieoX0

(in reply to BDukes)

Post #: 5958

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/19/2020 3:12:05 PM

fire-fox

Posts: 24
Joined: 1/12/2020
Status: offline

Checked and could not find any entry on any DB for CMANO/CMO for the Project 667AT �Pear� - NATO: Yankee-notch SSGN

Main source http://www.deepstorm.ru/DeepStorm.files/45-92/nsrs/667AT/list.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee-class_submarine

(in reply to anlgzl)

Post #: 5959

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/19/2020 6:43:31 PM

Schr75

Posts: 803
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fire-fox

Checked and could not find any entry on any DB for CMANO/CMO for the Project 667AT �Pear� - NATO: Yankee-notch SSGN

Main source http://www.deepstorm.ru/DeepStorm.files/45-92/nsrs/667AT/list.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee-class_submarine

It�s in there

Attachment (1)

(in reply to fire-fox)

Post #: 5960

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/20/2020 6:06:12 AM

Rory Noonan

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline

Hey guys,

We've put a few things in place to keep the pipeline from database request to production running smoothly; something that would assist greatly is you could use the following format when making a request.

Each request has 4 elements: Type, Summary, Detail, Evidence

Type: Either 'ADD' or 'UPDATE'. Add is for new entries, update is for existing entries.
Summary: A one sentence description of the request e.g. 'Hypothetical A-7F' or 'new fuel info for MiG-29'. It will be truncated at 70 characters so brevity is essential.
Detail: The body of your request, similar to what people have been posting up until now
Evidence: This is where all of your links and photos etc go, reference them as [1], [2], [3] etc in the Detail element and list them numerically in the Evidence element

quote:

---------------------EXAMPLE 1---------------------
<type>UPDATE</type>
<summary>Egyptian Romeo submarine has harpoon missiles</summary>
<detail>It seems that the Egyptian Romeo submarine has Harpoon missiles.. UGM-84L Harpoon Block II AShM
#245 - S 849 Romeo (Egypt - 1995)

During excercises this week a Harpoon was (un)succesfully launched. [1][2]

And one succesfull launch in 2019 [3]

It has no Harpoon yet in the Database. Upgraded in 1989-1996
</detail>
<evidence>
1: https://t.co/nwxEv8Kspi?amp=1
2: https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/status/1282085115775143947
3: https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/status/1204834710263914496
</evidence>
---------------------------------------------------

quote:

---------------------EXAMPLE 2---------------------
<type>ADD</type>
<summary>A-7F Corsair II hypothetical platform</summary>
<detail>Could we get an entry for the A-7F Corsair II hypothetical platform please?

See this article from the Drive[1]

Doesn't give a lot of specifics but I think using DB 3028 (A-7K LANA) as the base, adding an after burning F100-220 engine, longer range and a few more modern weapons would do it.
</detail>
<evidence>1: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34709/flight-tester-explains-how-ya-7f-strikefighter-was-really-a-jet-recycling-program
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_YA-7F
3: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/vought-ltv-a-7-corsair-ii-projects.11/
4: https://www.airplanesofthepast.com/a7-corsair.htm
</evidence>
---------------------------------------------------

Many will recognise that this is XML style formatting, except in this case capitalisation inside the tags doesn't matter: <ExAmPle> is just as valid as <example> or <EXAMPLE>, however the backslash in the closing tag (e.g. </example>) is important.

Only <type>, <summary>, <detail> and <evidence> tags will be recognised so there is no point in adding others

Note that this is not mandatory but as I said above, it will help us process these requests much faster. If you wish you can of course continue to make requests in the same manner it's been done up to now.

Thanks for your cooperation, and thank you for the time and effort taken to research these items. There's some exciting developments on the horizon for DB requests

_____________________________

(in reply to Schr75)

Post #: 5961

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/20/2020 9:45:59 AM

IrvingMainway

Posts: 20
Joined: 5/28/2017
Status: offline

will give it a try and I guess make a template to try to maximize its usage with others

<type> </type>
<summary> </summary>
<detail> </detail>
<evidence> </evidence>

<type> UPDATE </type>
<summary> Long Range Air Search Radar upgrade for the ANZAC class FFG </summary>
<detail> The AN/SPS-49 sets are being replaced with CEAFAR2 which will also be used on the new Hunter class FFG. Also receiving upgrades to LESCUT and Nixie systems. </detail>
<evidence> https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/06/third-anzac-class-frigate-gets-her-new-mast-as-part-of-amcap-upgrade/ <evidence>

<type> ADD </type>
<summary> Hunter class FFG </summary>
<detail> New class based on the British Type 26 Frigate design which will begin replacing the Anzac class in the late 2020s. </detail>
<evidence> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-class_frigate
https://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/future/ffg </evidence>

<type> ADD </type>
<summary> Guided 57mm ammunition for MK 110 CIGS </summary>
<detail> BAE as well as L3 Mustang and Raytheon have developed guided munitions similar to the Italian 76mm STRALES to be fired from the Mk 110 57mm CIGS. The L3 solution has been ordered as the Mk 332 Mod 0 </detail>
<evidence> https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/07/video-darpa-mad-fires-anti-ship-missile-self-defense-for-lcs-ffgx/
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2018/sna-2018/5847-l3-to-provide-alamo-57-mm-guided-smart-ammunition-for-us-navy-lcs-ffg.html
https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/05/28/L3-awarded-92M-to-support-Navys-57mm-HE-4G-ammunition/3631559049733/
https://www.defensedaily.com/bae-announces-new-guided-projectile-for-57mm-naval-gun/navy-usmc/
</evidence>

(in reply to Rory Noonan)

Post #: 5962

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/20/2020 1:25:16 PM

UncertainlyCertain

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/20/2020
Status: offline

Hello, I would like to request and update the following Gripen's sensors and weapons - Can't post links so take reference from images

<type>UPDATE</type>
<summary>PS-05/A mk.3 on JAS 39 A/B/C/D</summary>
<detail>According to SAAB the PS-05/A is capable of LPI, NCTR, and ground search (Fixed, Mobile). Currently in game the PS-05/A (sensor ID 664) lacks said features</detail>
<evidence>1a
2a</evidence>

<type>ADD</type>
<summary>PS-05/A mk.4 for Batch 3 JAS 39 C/D starting 2016</summary>
<detail>Scheduled to replace PS-05/A mk.3 on JAS 39 C/D probably starting 2016. Cited as having 150% increase in range against air targets and 100% increase in range against surface targets. Better ECCM.</detail>
<evidence>1b
2b
3b</evidence>

<type>UPDATE</type>
<summary>PS-05/A Mk4 AESA [ES-05 Raven] (sensor ID 5074) not performing as expected</summary>
<detail>The PS-05/A (a.k.a. Raven) in game (sensor ID 5074) airborne target detection and instrumented max range is on par with that of the PS-05/A (sensor ID 664), however (in game) it does have better ECCM capabilities and is LPI unlike the latter. The Raven is supposed to be a GaN AESA based on the Vixen AESA</detail>
<evidence>1c
2c
3c</evidence>

<type>ADD</type>
<summary>Elisra PAWS-2</summary>
<detail>Elisra will supply the Gripen NG with it's new PAWS. Affected platforms IDs #5004, #3201, #3367, #5003</detail>
<evidence>1d
2d
</evidence>

<type>ADD</type>
<summary>Possibly add ESTL DECM/DIRCM pod for JAS 39 C/D/E/F starting 2014</summary>
<detail>Basically an AIM-9 sized pod installed on a pylon in place of a missile.</detail>
<evidence>1e
2e
</evidence>

<type>ADD</type>
<summary>RB 15F mk.3 for the Gripen NG</summary>
<detail>The RB 15F mk3 (database ID 283) is currently not tied with any loadout. It's stated to be introduced into the Swedish Armed Forces 2020/2021</detail>
<evidence> 1f</evidence>

<type>ADD</type>
<summary>Arexis EW pod for Gripen NG past 2020, maybe as hypothetical</summary>
<detail>Please add the Arexis pod as (hypothetical?) loadout to the Gripen NG (probably dual seater F version DB ID #3367 and #5003). It's an EW pod with the purpose of turning the Gripen into a mini-Growler</detail>
<evidence>1g</evidence>

I don't know where to post the following, is this thread appropriate?

Loadout Problem

#5004 JAS 39E Gripen NG (Brazil - 2021), JAS 39E Gripen NG (Sweden - 2019) #3201, JAS 39F Gripen NG (Sweden - 2019) #3367, JAS 39F Gripen NG (Brazil - 2021) #5003

Loadout #18336 A/A: Meteor, Medium Intercept (Air Superiority, BVR AAMs) with 4x RB 107 Meteor | 2x RB 98 IRIS-T | 3x 1275 l Drop Tank

At cruise throttle and 36k ft the aircraft has a 50.4 kg/min fuel burn rate reducing the air time to just over 2h (if spawned mid air).
After shooting away 2 RB 107 it's fuel burn rate goes down to 38.4 kg/min

Note that in this state it's loadout is identical to:
Loadout #17127 A/A: Meteor, Standard Intercept (Air Superiority, BVR AAMs) with 2x RB 107 | 2x RB 98 | 3x 1275 l Drop Tank, however the fuel burn rate in this case is 31.6 kg/min.

Also the dual seater B/D length is displayed incorrectly in the database as 14.1m, should be 14.8m. The F version should be 15.9m instead of 15.2m. Size does affect aircraft RCS values right?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by UncertainlyCertain -- 7/20/2020 6:39:43 PM >

(in reply to IrvingMainway)

Post #: 5963

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/20/2020 4:46:16 PM

Broncepulido

Posts: 385
Joined: 9/26/2013
Status: offline

Some news the last months on this issue.

USS Roosevelt DDG-80 (Arleigh Burke Flight IIA) has replaced in Rota USS Carney DDG-64 (Flight I), and as the other BMD destroyers� there deployed, has replaced her aft Phalanx mount with a SeaRAM missile mount (at least from March 2020), but not mentioned this time in any news report. But you can see here clearly the SeaRAM mount, Apparently is the first Flight IIA with a SeaRAM mount:

https://news.usni.org/2020/03/23/uss-roosevelt-leaves-for-homeport-shift-to-spain

https://www.navy.mil/view_imagex.asp?id=316851&t=1

Another three DDGs have or are scheduled to have SeaRAM installed besides the original Rota four. From the FY20 budget papers:

� Installations include the Rota DDG SeaRAM installs on DDGs 51,64,71,75,78,79,80 and 84�

From here, in the comments:

https://news.usni.org/2020/03/23/uss-roosevelt-leaves-for-homeport-shift-to-spain

And also 5"/62 Mk45 Mod 4 replacing the previous 5"/54 gun (see the flat panels new turret).

In short:
<type>ADD</type>
<summary>Arleigh Burke Flight IIA with aft SeaRAM mount replacing aft Phalanx mount. And also 5"/62 Mk45 Mod 4 replacing the previous 5"/54 gun</summary>
<detail>USS Roosevelt DDG-80 (Arleigh Burke Flight IIA), and as the other BMD destroyers� there deployed, has replaced her aft Phalanx mount with a SeaRAM missile mount (at least from March 2020), but not mentioned this time in any news report. And also 5"/62 Mk45 Mod 4 replacing the previous 5"/54 gun. Apparently is the first Flight IIA with a SeaRAM mount. Installations include the Rota DDG SeaRAM installs on DDGs 51,64,71,75,78,79,80 and 84 on or previously to FY2020 </detail>
<evidence> https://news.usni.org/2020/03/23/uss-roosevelt-leaves-for-homeport-shift-to-spain

https://www.navy.mil/view_imagex.asp?id=316851&t=1</evidence>

< Message edited by Broncepulido -- 7/20/2020 11:15:41 PM >

(in reply to UncertainlyCertain)

Post #: 5964

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/20/2020 8:57:37 PM

IrvingMainway

Posts: 20
Joined: 5/28/2017
Status: offline

<type> ADD </type>
<summary> CF-18A AN/APG-79 AESA Radar </summary>
<detail> 36 CF-18A/Bs (including ex-RAAF aircraft) will be fitted with APG-79 as well as AIM-9X Block 2 and ADM-141C ITALD </detail>
<evidence> https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2020/06/16/canadian-cf-18-upgrade-package-okd-by-us/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34139/canada-is-looking-to-give-its-cf-18-hornets-new-radars-aim-9x-sidewinders-and-more </evidence>

(in reply to Broncepulido)

Post #: 5965

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/21/2020 2:43:41 AM

Rory Noonan

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline

So far this is working excellently on our end, thanks very much guys

_____________________________

(in reply to IrvingMainway)

Post #: 5966

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/21/2020 2:46:05 AM

Rory Noonan

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncertainlyCertain

I don't know where to post the following, is this thread appropriate?

Loadout Problem

#5004 JAS 39E Gripen NG (Brazil - 2021), JAS 39E Gripen NG (Sweden - 2019) #3201, JAS 39F Gripen NG (Sweden - 2019) #3367, JAS 39F Gripen NG (Brazil - 2021) #5003

Loadout #18336 A/A: Meteor, Medium Intercept (Air Superiority, BVR AAMs) with 4x RB 107 Meteor | 2x RB 98 IRIS-T | 3x 1275 l Drop Tank

At cruise throttle and 36k ft the aircraft has a 50.4 kg/min fuel burn rate reducing the air time to just over 2h (if spawned mid air).
After shooting away 2 RB 107 it's fuel burn rate goes down to 38.4 kg/min

Note that in this state it's loadout is identical to:
Loadout #17127 A/A: Meteor, Standard Intercept (Air Superiority, BVR AAMs) with 2x RB 107 | 2x RB 98 | 3x 1275 l Drop Tank, however the fuel burn rate in this case is 31.6 kg/min.

Also the dual seater B/D length is displayed incorrectly in the database as 14.1m, should be 14.8m. The F version should be 15.9m instead of 15.2m. Size does affect aircraft RCS values right?

This is indeed the place to post that; thank you. I'll add it to the list.

_____________________________

(in reply to UncertainlyCertain)

Post #: 5967

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/21/2020 10:07:56 AM

IrvingMainway

Posts: 20
Joined: 5/28/2017
Status: offline

<type> ADD </type>
<summary> HH-53B, HH-53C and HH/MH-53H 1975-88</summary>
<detail> The HH-53 Super Jolly was in service prior to 1975 until converted to PAVE Low III (MH-53J) standard starting 1988. HH-53B/C generally similar to CH-53C with the addition of a refueling probe. HH/MH-53H was the initial set of 8 PAVE Low II conversions in the late 70s.</detail>
<evidence> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_MH-53 </evidence>

(in reply to Rory Noonan)

Post #: 5968

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/21/2020 2:33:26 PM

gennyo

Posts: 68
Joined: 4/3/2019
Status: offline

<type>UPDATE</type>
<summary>DF-41 Classified as HGV in 486</summary>
<detail>DK3k 486 classified DF-41 MIRV (#3456) as HGV missiles and prompt me that I can only use those in Pro Version.
As my antagonist only have this in my scenario, which is build under 483 and updated to 486, they can't have a chance to use them.
DF-31 works as before, so maybe this is only isolated problem but I think it worth a check of those ICBMs.
Or maybe let us play with HGVs?

</detail>

(in reply to IrvingMainway)

Post #: 5969

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 7/22/2020 11:32:19 AM

Rain08

Posts: 92
Joined: 7/18/2016
Status: offline

<type>UPDATE</type>
<summary>What is the SM-2's actual range?</summary>
<detail>I just noticed in the latest update that the ranges for the SM-2s were reduced.
DB477 (2019-01-01):
#1194 - RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Blk IIIB - 2-50 nmi

DB478 (2019-05-07):
#1194 - RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Blk IIIB - 2-50 nmi
#3536 - RIM-66M-6 SM-2MR Blk IIIC - 2-50 nmi

DB479 (2019-10-10):
#1194 - RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Blk IIIB - 2-90 nmi
#3536 - RIM-66M-6 SM-2MR Blk IIIC - 2-90 nmi

DB483 (2020-03-11):
#1194 - RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Blk IIIB - 2-90 nmi
#3536 - RIM-66M-6 SM-2MR Blk IIIC - 2-90 nmi

DB486 (2020-07-13):
#1194 - RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Blk IIIB - 2-50 nmi
#3536 - RIM-66M-6 SM-2MR Blk IIIC - 2-70 nmi

Now I'm curious as to what is the missile's actual range against air targets? It seems to fluctuate between the DBs - something I've never noticed for a weapon entry before.

Also since the Blk IIIC is an ARH missile, maybe it should have the same anti-surface range as the anti-air range. It currently has the 25 nmi range against surface targets (within horizon only). It also contains multiple datalinks when it should only have one (bolded).

AEGIS Missile Datalink [One-Way]
AEGIS Command Datalink [AN/SPY-6, Two-Way]
AEGIS Missile Datalink [Two-Way]

</detail>

< Message edited by Rain08 -- 7/22/2020 11:43:53 AM >

(in reply to gennyo)

Post #: 5970

Page: << < prev 197 198 [199] 200 201 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?