Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[mikmykWS]

The IDF IFV's and Tanks are done and should appear next update. Will add others to list.

[Broncepulido]

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.

[Broncepulido]

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.

[Chayak]

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.

[FlyingBear]

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/sw ... INFO2.html

[Coiler12]

The SAAM-FR/IT was designed for some ABM capability, much like the later S-300s.

Thales brochure
Eurosam page

[mikmykWS]

Thanks you all for your request and Broncepulido for the great info. Added to our list

[CV60]

Extremely minor Db 3000 typo: Ship_2546 is listed as "TSgt. John. AChapman." Should be "TSgt. John A. Chapman"

[FlyingBear]

The PL-877 Kilo has no anti submarine weapons of any kind. Can this really be correct, or should the SET-65M be added?

[Mgellis]

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?

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: FlyingBear

The PL-877 Kilo has no anti submarine weapons of any kind. Can this really be correct, or should the SET-65M be added?

Which Kilo? Just checked and have two torps that are.

You can see the number at the top of DB viewer.

Thanks!

Mike

[Mgellis]

Minor point...it occurs to me that if these are added they probably should be named differently so it is not obvious when one encounters one of these things what it is. If something shows up as Civilian Dhow (Suicide Bomb) in the game display, after all, one would probably just sink it rather than let it get close enough to cause damage.

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

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?

[FlyingBear]

Regarding the Kilo: I was referring to the PL-877.

Most or all of the PL-877M, PL-877E and PL-636 in the database have torpedo wire control data links and are equipped with wire guided torpedoes capable against submarines (TEST-71M or some variant of that). The PL-877 has no such data links and cannot use those torpedoes, so I would have expected to see the SET-65M on the PL-877. But it has only got the 53-65K against surface ships and nothing against submarines.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: FlyingBear

Regarding the Kilo: I was referring to the PL-877.

Most or all of the PL-877M, PL-877E and PL-636 in the database have torpedo wire control data links and are equipped with wire guided torpedoes capable against submarines (TEST-71M or some variant of that). The PL-877 has no such data links and cannot use those torpedoes, so I would have expected to see the SET-65M on the PL-877. But it has only got the 53-65K against surface ships and nothing against submarines.

Ok thanks. Just needed to know what to look at.

Mike

[Vesku80]

I would like to request that F-35 be given six-internal AIM-120D load-out from ~2020 onwards. I couldn’t find recent information, but this is often used as a reference when discussing this.

The F-35’s limited internal missile load-out remains a concern. In September 2008, it prompted Maj Richard Koch, chief of the USAF’s Air Combat Command advanced air dominance branch, to state that “I wake up in cold sweat at the thought of F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons.” This shortcoming clearly concerns Lockheed Martin, too, as the company has illustrated a six-internal missile configuration (using a new launcher design and compressed carriage missiles) as part of ‘notional’ Block 5 configuration, for service after 2020.

Jon Lake: Air Forces Monthly Dec 2010 (p. 44-45).

I understand this is not written in stone, but as I see it there are many similar, potential weapon load-out already in the DB. Hey – at least I’m not asking CUDA’s. [;)]

[vettim89]

Per my inquiry on the main page, I would request that at least the Paveway III series of LGB (GBU-24xx)have a minimum launch altitude dropped. The seeker head was much more advanced and designed for quicker capture by the LST. That said, I know the USAAF was using lofting techniques prior to the 1988 introduction of this system. I know it is hard wired into the system but perhaps a mod of the Paveway II systems for low altitude use with a higher CEP

FAS

[mikmykWS]

Various requests logged up to this point.

Thank you all!

Mike

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis


Minor point...it occurs to me that if these are added they probably should be named differently so it is not obvious when one encounters one of these things what it is. If something shows up as Civilian Dhow (Suicide Bomb) in the game display, after all, one would probably just sink it rather than let it get close enough to cause damage.

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

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?

Why not just create some different generic HE weapons (IED) with very short range. Then it would just be to add this and a mount to the desired platform to create a floating bomb etc. Would not that be easier?

[mikmykWS]

Yeah. Probably keep the NSA from reading our emails too as it is creepy.

I'll just throw some jabs about the Orioles:)

Mike

[hellfish6]

I hate to ask again, but I'm kinda stuck: Which datalink to add to get ESSMs to work on platforms that don't normally carry them? All my non-standard ESSM carriers can't engage without a datalink.