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  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/16/2014 8:11:17 PM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 1203
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline 		This is in response to the thread wondering if the Russian SAM upgrades were stand-ins. Asked for information, I looked. Obviously this is claims, speculation, and guesstimates.

Buk-M3:

-Has six missiles per TEL.Link
-Performance speculation

quote:

AM "Buk-M3" - further development of the complex and can be adopted in2009. as a complex military army air defense unit. To effectively countering possible threats from the air in the next 12-15 years when it is created using new technologies and developments. It is expected that the "Buk-M3" will be able to destroy air targets, operating at speeds up to 3000 m / s at a range of 2.5 -70 km and altitudes 0,015 -35 km. Antiaircraft battalion will target 36 channels.


So, no real improvement in range but definitely updated electronics.


Tor upgrade/9M338:
Link
Additional link

-Smaller, TEL can carry double the number of missiles. Says it has a ceiling of 10 km as well.

Says longer-ranged than normal Tor but doesn't give specifics

Manufacturer's site

(in reply to ultradave)
Post #: 841
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/16/2014 8:23:42 PM   
mikmykWS

 

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

Add it to our list.

_____________________________


(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 842
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/17/2014 5:22:38 AM   
Mgellis


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

ORIGINAL: greatTop

New french SSN Barracuda class that I would really like to see, I can try and find more informations if needed, but even in the french press they don't talk a lot about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Barracuda-class_submarine

Thanks guys


I would just like to add my vote for the Barracuda. Here are a few more sites with information...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/barracuda.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/barracuda-specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/barracuda-unit.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/frances-future-ssns-the-barracuda-class-02902/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/barracuda/
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?64150-New-6-Barracuda-class-SSNs-for-France-navy

(I'm hoping this will provide enough information that a "guesstimate" version, like the one for some other future platforms like a couple of the Chinese jets, can be added to the database and then updated as more information becomes available.)




< Message edited by Mgellis -- 7/17/2014 6:28:59 AM >

(in reply to greatTop)
Post #: 843
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/17/2014 5:27:18 AM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline 		Here's another request...this one should be easy...

Marker (Geographic) (Generic)

This is basically the same thing as the markers for a town or a city, but it can be used for any geographic feature, like an island or a mountain or anything else that is not a populated area but might need to be clearly identified for some reason. (Actually, the existing ones can be used for this, but it's just more aesthetically pleasing to not have to use a "city" marker for something that isn't a city.)



(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 844
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/17/2014 8:08:12 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Yak-130

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-130
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-russian-air-force-receives-first-yak-130-combat-377381/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/yak-130-specs.htm

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 845
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/18/2014 3:59:00 PM   
orca

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline 		Thanks for reply and for great support and great game.

Would be very nice too add that feature. Will this include ability to clone and to import/export edited units? Would also be nice to be able to import/export bases and ships while including aircraft and other units that are added to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Yeah I agree. Once they sign the contract its in.

Problem with just adding stuff is somebody pops a unit into their scenario and then three weeks later the program is cancelled/changed whatever and we then update it that change can impact the scenario from a big error message to an outcome far different than what was in their design. Historically this has infuriated players and we have many more to worry about. So we tend to be very careful about this.

We are still looking at ways to allow players to mod aircraft loadouts while on the ground as well. It is on our list and we do want to one day address it.

Thanks!

Mike




(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 846
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/19/2014 4:34:15 PM   
f4migcap

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 6/29/2004
From: Baltimore MD, USA
Status: offline 		Hey guys,

Is the USS Oriskany on your add list? There was talk of it being re-activated and it would be nice to have an Essex class carrier in the 1980-2015 database to create some what-if scenerio's (like Argentina having an Essex class during the Falklands war).

thanks

(in reply to orca)
Post #: 847
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/19/2014 6:17:07 PM   
FlyingBear

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 7/12/2014
Status: offline 		The FFG 1 Brooke class frigate is listed as having an AN/SPS-40 radar. That is incorrect; it should have an AN/SPS-52. I do not have a complete sub type update history, but at a late stage it was the AN/SPS-52B (source: Chris Bishop, The Encyclopedia of World Sea Power).

(in reply to f4migcap)
Post #: 848
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/20/2014 3:41:18 AM   
FlyingBear

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 7/12/2014
Status: offline 		This applies to various ships equipped with the Mk 68 GFCS (DDG Farragut, DDG Charles F Adams and many others). Is there really no optical component to that system? It is after all a manned topside director and pictures indicate the presence of traditional optical range finders.

Why this is significant: I was surprised to find that even old fashined Soviet jamming systems like the Top Hat can render the Mk 68 GFCS completely impotent in a surface action, with the AN/SPG-53F radar's burn through range against the jamming being about 3 nm (see attached). That might be as designed, but the optical component, if present, should have been able to engage much sooner.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to FlyingBear)
Post #: 849
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/20/2014 7:11:55 PM   
orca

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline 		Brimstone 2

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mobile/news-view.php?p=2

< Message edited by orca -- 7/20/2014 8:12:46 PM >

(in reply to FlyingBear)
Post #: 850
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/20/2014 10:37:31 PM   
Broncepulido

 

Posts: 385
Joined: 9/26/2013
Status: offline 		About the FlyingBear comments about the Brooke class:
- Conway's 1947-1995 says the (probably) original outfit was SPS-39 (3D, in service 1/1960) and SPG-51 (missile guidance).
- The 3D/HF radar is a must for the Tartar/Standard missile employ, clearly Brooke needs in the real world a 3D/HF radar.
- SPS-39 was probably later (near 1980?) replaced by the aforementioned SPS-52B.
- The SPS-39 (III) (in service from 1963, and the Brooke is of 1966) has a planar antenna as early SPS-52, and are too similar to be distingued.
- More details about the change date of the radar should be here, analizing the photos and timeline of each one of the Brooke-class ships (I do it usually for other ship's clases).
http://www.navsource.org/archives/06/0601002.htm
- Most of the data are of Norman Friedman's "Naval Radar", Conway 1981.

(in reply to FlyingBear)
Post #: 851
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/21/2014 12:58:33 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline 		A What-If request: RAH-66 Comanche

Thanks!

(in reply to Broncepulido)
Post #: 852
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/21/2014 1:27:48 PM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 1203
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline 		Someone mentioned the under-development SPEAR for F-35s. (The brochure depicts them being deployed on a Typhoon as well)

Manufacturer's page

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 853
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/21/2014 11:29:21 PM   
Broncepulido

 

Posts: 385
Joined: 9/26/2013
Status: offline 		A colourful idea USAF/USN/USMC Aggressor F-5E/F Tiger II, they were combat ready and combat capable for use on open war situations.
Confirmed in two different Facebook chats with 3rd TFW veterans (the F-5E Tiger II will share the same AIM-9P3 with the Wing F-4E/G Phantoms) and Bert of Detail&Scale Publications, I suppose simply no person has think about his use in scenarios before, and them are not present in the database.
Some partial data:
USAF Aggressor F-5E/F employed 1975-1990: 70 aircraft?.
USMC Aggressor F-5E/F employed 1989+ (replacing the previous F-21A Kfir).
USN Aggressor F-5E/F employed 1975+.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f5_30.html
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f5_29.html
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f5_28.html

< Message edited by Broncepulido -- 7/22/2014 12:30:53 AM >

(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 854
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/21/2014 11:36:59 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		Db requests added to our list

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 855
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/22/2014 1:01:24 AM   
Malakie


Posts: 33
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline 		Not sure if this has been fixed yet but I noticed the Knox Class frigates listings and pictures are not matching.. Some of the class had Sea Sparrow Launchers on the fantail. Plus the listing says some had CWIS but the images do not reflect that.

One other thing... is there a plan to add descriptive information to all database entries eventually? I love reading the details about different systems, there use, when and where they were used, whether they are still in service and with whom, what upgrades and updates have been done and so forth..

One last thing, if whomever found the picture of the U.S.S. Henry B. Wilson DDG-7, an Adam's class guided missile destroyer, reads this, if I can, I would love to get a full res copy of the picture as seen in the database. She was one of the destroyers I served on in the middle 80's and I do not have any good shots of her. The one in the database is excellent and I would love to have a full resolution copy if possible for myself.

_____________________________

Take it light...

Malakie

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 856
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/22/2014 2:08:38 AM   
FlyingBear

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 7/12/2014
Status: offline 		CG 26 Belknap has no surface search radar in the database. Various sources indicate either an AN/SPS-10B or an AN/SPS-67; I suppose it was upgraded from one to the other at some point.

(in reply to Malakie)
Post #: 857
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/22/2014 2:28:25 AM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks Added.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to FlyingBear)
Post #: 858
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/22/2014 4:32:14 AM   
FlyingBear

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 7/12/2014
Status: offline 		CGN 36 California has no surface search radar either. Various sources say AN/SPS-55 or AN/SPS-67. I have no clue which is correct, or if both are, sorry.

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 859
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/22/2014 1:07:39 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline 		Request for a few What-If and/or forthcoming units...

B-1A bomber (US - aircraft)
A-7F (US - aircraft)
F-20 (US - aircraft)
F-16XL (US - aircraft)
Avenger (Predator C) (US - aircraft)
Merkava (I-IV) (Israel - armor)
Achzarit (Israel - armor)
Namer (Israel - armor)
Wolf (Israel - armor)
Civilians (Generic - infantry <unarmed>)

(in reply to FlyingBear)
Post #: 860
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/22/2014 1:35:23 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		The IDF IFV's and Tanks are done and should appear next update. Will add others to list.


_____________________________


(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 861
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/22/2014 5:18:32 PM   
Broncepulido

 

Posts: 385
Joined: 9/26/2013
Status: offline 		About the CGs radars:
- Probably is not worth to do a search ship-by-ship on each CG for when was changed SPS-10 by SPS-67, and the results can be inconclusive (the photos not ever are good dated).
- From Norman Friedman "Naval Radar", Conway 1981, we know SPS-10 was employed 1953-1998.
- Also, the first use of SPS-67 was circa 1983, on USS Long Beach (CGN-9) after her 1983 refit.
- We can assume the CG were equipped with SPS-67 replacing SPS-10 on her first refit after 1983.

(in reply to FlyingBear)
Post #: 862
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/22/2014 9:31:19 PM   
Broncepulido

 

Posts: 385
Joined: 9/26/2013
Status: offline 		About the possible weapons on the Knox-class fantail None/Sea Sparrow/Phalanx and other equipments on this class..
- I did try three of years ago to get some results about it, but they are not complete.
- The data on Jane's 1981-1982 and Conway's 1947-1995 are correct but not complete.
- We can use the photos on navysource.org Knox frigate-by-Knox frigate to get some results, but just on this class a lot of photos are bad dated (they are a lot of phots dated 199X but taked many years earlier, without the bow bulwarks and spray strakes, installed from 1979 on the bow, Jane's states on 1981 were installed on FF 1065, 1067, 1069, 1072, 1075, 1079, 1081, 1095 and 1097). As consequence, some Knoxes semble to get another time the Sea Sparrow mount replacing the previous Phalanx!!!).
- The Knoxes were originally without weapons on the fantail.
- Basic initial radars SPS-10 and SPS-40 (in lieu of SPS-40 FF 1070 Downes has SPS-58 or more probably Mk23 TAS in 1975, later reverted to SPS-40 circa 1985, when the Sea Sparrow was replaced by Phalanx).
- SPS-10 replaced gradually by SPS-67 as earlier from 1983?, later LN-66 added.
- Basic initial sonar SQS-26 (hull).
- From FY 1972 to 1975 modified to accept SH-2 Seasprite (previously conceived only for the Gyrodyne DASH rotary wing drone).
- The “Sea Sparrow BPMDS (Mk25) installed in 31 ships from 1971-75 (FF-1052-1069, 1071-1083)” states Jane's 1981-1982 (and NATO Sea Sparrow Mk29 in USS Downes, also equipped with TAS SPS-58 or Mk23 radar replacing SPS-40 between 1975-1985). The other 14 ships were earmarked to receive Sea Chaparral, but this installation was cancelled. This Knoxes never received the two aft long torpedo tubes for 8xMk37 (but were intalled in the derivative Spanish Baleares-class, those long torpedo tubes were also deleted later on Baleares-class).
- Knoxes Harpoon equipped from August 1976 (first ship USS Ainsworth) 2xHarpoon in ASROC launcher and 2xHarpoon more on the ASROC reload magazine. Jane's states 2x4 Harpoon launchers were installed in 1981 on FF 1054-1062, 1066, 1067, 1069-1071, 1073, 1074, 1077, 1080-1086, and 1088-1096, but by photographic evidence this be related with the Harpoon fired from the ASROC launcher, not photo evidence of 2x4 Harpoon mounts on Knoxes (but were installed on the Spanish Baleares-class).
- Mk33 chaffroc RBOC decoy launchers to be replaced (from 1982?) by Mk36 Super RBOC, states Jane's, with some confussion about concrete decoy launchers designations.
- SQS-35 VDS sonar in all Knoxes from 1972 except FF 1053-1055, 1057-1062, 1072 and 1077.
- SQR-18A/SQR-18(V)1 TACTAS approved in Fiscal Year 1980 to be installed on twelve Knoxes, employing the SQS-35 "fish" to tow SQR-18, later FY 1981 includes another four more. Later, another nineteen Knoxes with SQS-35 to be equipped with SQR-18A in next years, except FF 1053-1055, 1057-1062, 1072 and 1077 (those without SQS-35), states Jane's 1981-1982. Later (1985?) not SQS-35 ships equipped with SQR-18(V)2.
- On 1991 SQS-35 deactivated ("High Tide" Harpoon annex).
- From the photographic evidence ship-by-ship in navysource.org: at least Knox and Roark retained Sea Sparrow to the end, and Miller and Valdez were the only without Sea Sparrow or Phalanx added on fantail.


< Message edited by Broncepulido -- 7/23/2014 8:57:57 AM >

(in reply to Malakie)
Post #: 863
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/22/2014 10:26:43 PM   
Chayak

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 7/22/2014
Status: offline 		By the specs the F-35 should be able to carry 2 AGM-88Es on wing mounts. The current database doesn't have that as an option and some of the new doctrines being discussed can't be simulated properly without SEAD.

(in reply to Broncepulido)
Post #: 864
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/24/2014 3:49:10 AM   
FlyingBear

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 7/12/2014
Status: offline 		The Ticonderoga class cruiser has no radar gun director for its Mk 86 GFCS.

In the attached scenario the weather is thick fog, a target is detected on radar but I get the "no local control and no available director" spiel when I try to engage with guns. If I clear the fog I am able to engage. I.e., the optical director works but not the radar director.

If I understand the link below correctly the system should use the AN/SPQ-9 for surface mode operation (applicable to the attached scenario) and the AN/SPY-1A/B radar in anti-air warfare (I have not had reason to try that).

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/gunno/INFO2.html


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by FlyingBear -- 7/24/2014 4:50:10 AM >

(in reply to Chayak)
Post #: 865
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/24/2014 1:42:03 PM   
Coiler12

 

Posts: 1203
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline 		The SAAM-FR/IT was designed for some ABM capability, much like the later S-300s.

Thales brochure
Eurosam page

(in reply to FlyingBear)
Post #: 866
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/26/2014 12:44:46 AM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks you all for your request and Broncepulido for the great info. Added to our list

_____________________________


(in reply to Coiler12)
Post #: 867
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/26/2014 2:05:42 AM   
CV60


Posts: 992
Joined: 10/1/2012
Status: offline 		Extremely minor Db 3000 typo: Ship_2546 is listed as "TSgt. John. AChapman." Should be "TSgt. John A. Chapman"

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 868
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/27/2014 4:17:17 PM   
FlyingBear

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 7/12/2014
Status: offline 		The PL-877 Kilo has no anti submarine weapons of any kind. Can this really be correct, or should the SET-65M be added?

(in reply to CV60)
Post #: 869
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/27/2014 5:48:32 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline 		I have mentioned earlier the possibility of adding generic suicide explosives as weapons, but I wonder if it would make sense to do it as ships and facilities? Each of them would have a weapon, but one with no range (or maybe 0.001 miles, if it has to have some range to work), and with enough explosive power to destroy the ship/facility itself and any nearby targets.

Suicide Bomber (Terrorist) <-- possibly modeled as the Downed Pilot, but with a warhead?
IED (Terrorist)
Land Mine (Generic)
Anti-Tank Mine (Generic)
Vehicle (Truck Bomb) (Terrorist) <-- 500-lb. warhead?
Vehicle (Truck Bomb, Nuclear) (Terrorist)

And watercraft...

Civilian Boat (Suicide Bomb) <-- 500-lb. bomb for this one and the other non-nuclear ones?
Fishing Boat (Suicide Bomb)
Civilian Dhow (Suicide Bomb)
Civilian Junk (Suicide Bomb)
Container Ship, Feedermax (Nuclear Bomb)
Tanker, General (Nuclear Bomb)

Anyway, it's just a thought. Maybe this would be an easier way to do things?


(in reply to FlyingBear)
Post #: 870
Page:   <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>
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  27 28 [29] 30 31   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

2.250