Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[Dan109]

Oh, and please add 4x2, or 2x1 and 2x3 ITALD loadouts to the F-35. I'm sure it can carry more, all external, but 8 is enough. May revisit this one you guys can be convinced to add drop tanks to the F-35, ha.

[Dragon029]

As far as I'm aware, they're holding off HARM integration until the AARGM-ER variant is ready. For SEAD a Block 4 F-35 will be able to use SDB-IIs which have a similar range and arguably better targeting capabilities (although obviously they do lack the AARGM's speed). The JSM will also be integrated in Block 4 (and Australia's helping develop a passive RF capability for SEAD), though I'm not aware of anyone other than Norway and Australia being customers. AARGM-ER's combination of speed and range will be what drives integration.

Edit: Also there currently isn't a timeline available for TALD / MALD integration; it might arrive in Block 4, but it might otherwise have to wait until Block 5 in the late 2020s+. The F-35 also doesn't have much of a timeline for external fuel tank integration either (with Israel being the only really pushing for it), so you've got a fair point there.

[Dysta]

I vaguely remember that the detail submission of Guizhou JL-9/FTC-2000 Trainer half a year ago, was lost from the server failure. I would like to request it again:


https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.word ... aft-china/ (specifications)
https://sinodefence.com/2013/12/13/pla- ... -training/ (Naval variant with serial, JL-9H?)
http://www.janes.com/article/65428/suda ... -announced (Sudan Export)
http://www.eastpendulum.com/videotheque-jl9 (Video collection)

[Dan109]

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

As far as I'm aware, they're holding off HARM integration until the AARGM-ER variant is ready. For SEAD a Block 4 F-35 will be able to use SDB-IIs which have a similar range and arguably better targeting capabilities (although obviously they do lack the AARGM's speed). The JSM will also be integrated in Block 4 (and Australia's helping develop a passive RF capability for SEAD), though I'm not aware of anyone other than Norway and Australia being customers. AARGM-ER's combination of speed and range will be what drives integration.

Edit: Also there currently isn't a timeline available for TALD / MALD integration; it might arrive in Block 4, but it might otherwise have to wait until Block 5 in the late 2020s+. The F-35 also doesn't have much of a timeline for external fuel tank integration either (with Israel being the only really pushing for it), so you've got a fair point there.

F-35A already has MALDs and F-35B/C already have TALDs, I'm just questioning the rationale of having only 4. It seems there aren't any "heavy" loadouts for the F-35 - current loadouts still have outstanding range, compared to the F-16/18. Even the f-15 SBD-II loadout (8) is punny compared to this:

http://www.cobham.com/media/1706180/BRU-61A%20ProductImage.jpg

[Scar79]

Also on the Su-35S is IR station be ob- attacking missiles and warning of laser irradiation.

C'mon, Devs - it's a mid of 2017 now. Fix the bird - add these damn OAR and OLO sensors! Thx

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

Is the ROK Daegu-class FFG (FFX-II) on the list? The FFX-I Incheon-class in the game, but the improved -II variant would be fun to have.

Its been there for awhile but can't find much on the new SAM. Any clues?

Mike

FFX-II

At the risk of revealing myself as completely oblivious, isn't it a navalized variant of the existing #3316 - KM-SAM [Modified 9M96] -- South Korea? The KM-SAM is the Cheolmae-2/Cheongung that is supposed to squeeze into the K-VLS boxes on the FFX-II class.

FFX-II batch II is not fitted with Mk 41 VLS buth with KVLS meaning it will deploy Korean missiles (most probably designed by LIG Nex 1 such as the Cheolmae-2 medium-range air defense missile, Hong Sang Eo anti-submarine rocket, and possibly the Hyunmoo-3 series of land attack cruise missiles).

[Scar79]

You never stop amaze me, gentlemen.

pr.22350 frigate: standard displacement 4500t, pretty slick lines, superstuctures made of composites and coated with RAM. RCS front/side - 513/1175sqm.


Arleigh Burke class destroyer: standard displacement 8500t + tonnes of things on top and along the board which directly contradicting with the stealth. RCS front/side - 363/831sqm.


SRSLY?!

[Hongjian]

Stealth for warships (aside of dedicated "stealth ships") was never a priority for CMANO. But yes, this sounds pretty illogical. There are a few other, more modern and "sleeker" ships that are less stealthy than certain 1980s designs. But meh, this doesnt make any difference in the larger scheme of things.

[Scar79]

It doesn't matter only if CMANO completely lacks even a basic radar and ECM mechanics, such as detection/tracking range dependent on RCS of the target, burn through jamming etc.

[Dysta]

I think the "stealthy superstructure" is just a term from Cold War -- to make it apparently stealthy and redefine the new standard of missile warships.

For example: The USS Bunker Hill is the first-ever constructed cruiser proclaimed with stealth design, but it's still has as big of signature as Perry-class frigate. The true intention is to implement the AEGIS and VLS, which is both new at the beginning. Soviet Union saw that with full-blown jealousy, and they want the stealthy monster based on Kirov-class even at the edge of national bankruptcy.

[Scar79]

You mean all these shapes, composites and RAM coating are applied to 2235 and 2038 just "for fun"?!

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

You mean all these shapes, composites and RAM coating are applied to 2235 and 2038 just "for fun"?!

I wouldn't say they're made for fun; when few debacle of reductions is possible, the US will definitely improve it for the next design. We just don't know how by the looks of it.

At 80s the US know Soviet Union is in brink of economic crisis, but still take on full alert of their military strength. So the US has to make some wordy claims like Stealth Ships/Aircrafts, Star Wars Projects, 90000-tons Diplomacy strategy, etc etc... to make sure the adversary's nerves being pulled as hard as possible, so they will comes out the Superior research for overcoming US's new toys.

Which, in the end, is making Soviet Union even more weaker.

[Scar79]

I fail to understand what these political cool stories have to do with my initial question about radar/ECM mechanics and RCS of the said units in CMANO.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

I fail to understand what these political cool stories have to do with my initial question about radar/ECM mechanics and RCS of the said units in CMANO.

I am just circling around.

Actual functionality of electronic countermeasures are classified. That's the best answer I can come out with.

I only pay attention to the superstructure, from the post #3487. Apology if I am missing something.

[Filitch]

Too strange that new Britain ship #2624 D 35 Dragon (displacement 8000 t, length 152 m) has front RCSs 34,7 and 3,5 sqm, side RCSs 79,4 and 7,9 sqm. While Russians 2038.0 and 2235.0 has tenfold bigger RCS. They are twice narrower and one and half shorter. Why they have so great RCS?

[Filitch]

Next question about #1766 D650 Aquitania, #363 F 330 Vasco Da Gama (in 1991 she had smaller RCS than 2038.0 in 2017), #2169 F 590 and so on indefinitely... Why new Russians ships have RCS more bigger (not within the error) then all these ships?

[Scar79]

ORIGINAL: Filitch

Next question about #1766 D650 Aquitania, #363 F 330 Vasco Da Gama (in 1991 she had smaller RCS than 2038.0 in 2017), #2169 F 590 and so on indefinitely... Why new Russians ships have RCS more bigger (not within the error) then all these ships?

I'm sure you know the answer...as well as me.

P.S. BTW, check #506 CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford - you will be stomped by the Truth. Its RCS even smaller than RCS of pr.22350 frigate. Yeah, baby! Do you feel all this realism, fidelity and unbiased approach??? Do you feel it, *****?!

[Dysta]

We need a radiologist to explain how it works, exactly. Any measure that help are too.

This PDF could tell how to use 2D image to estimate its RCS in 3D, just published in 2016:

http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%207_1_2.pdf

Aust Airpower used POSTFEKO to calculate J-20's RCS before, here's the PDF for its features:

https://www.feko.info/about-us/promotio ... ss-section

[Filitch]

ORIGINAL: Scar79
P.S. BTW, check #506 CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford - you will be stomped by the Truth. Its RCS even smaller than RCS of pr.22350 frigate. Yeah, baby! Do you feel all this realism, fidelity and unbiased approach??? Do you feel it, *****?!

We can place more than six (6) hulls of 2235.0 at the flying deck of the CVN 78, but never mind! 1/6 of square of flying deck has RCS bigger than whole deck.

Question to DEVs and database editors. I really don't know. Is anywhere any mentions about composite deck for CVN 78 or RAM for it?

[Dan109]

Was the US Army's MML every added to the DB? I can't find it and I did see it get mentioned in this thread last year:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3436106&mpage=90&key=mml�

With CoW, I got really depressed that the C-130 can't even haul a single Patriot TEL, so RDFs definitely need something better than the Avenger....and I hope the USMC buys these things FFS...all they have is stingers...