Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[User2]

Despite having terrain following radars on board all Su-24MR and Su-24MP db entries do not have "Terrain following" property.

Btw, I suggest making that property obsolete: make code check terrain following ability on the start of a scenario/upon unit creation/unit damage event. Code looks at all the sensors of an a/c, finds the sensor with a TFR capability and sets internal flags of the unit accordingly. Such change will allow eliminating an a/c's low fly capability by destroying its TFR sensor.
Currently, a broken TFR sensor does not effect terrain following capability.

[User2]

Searched the whole DB 470. Here is a list of all happy owners of TFR like sensors who lack "terrain following" capability.

ID Name Comments
296 CV-22A Osprey
467 Su-24MP Fencer F EW
472 Su-24MR Fencer E SLAR
475 EF-111A Raven
476 Su-24MP Fencer F EW
619 Su-24MP Fencer F EW
1597 MH-60K Blackhawk
1601 MH-47E Chinook SpecOps
2379 Su-24MR Fencer E SLAR
2647 Su-24MR Fencer E SLAR
3710 MH-47G Chinook SpecOps
3711 MH-60M Blackhawk
4211 Su-24MR Fencer E SLAR
4212 Su-24MR Fencer E SLAR

It seems helos do not need that TF property in the DB, they can fly very low anyway. Still the listed helos have terrain following radars.

[User2]

Currently:
#65 2SA-11 Gadfly [9M38], target alt: 9m-14km
#1147 SA-11 Gadfly [9M38M1], target alt: 9m-14km

According to various sources it should be:
#65 2SA-11 Gadfly [9M38], target alt: 25m-19km
#1147 SA-11 Gadfly [9M38M1], target alt: 15m-21km

Src:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missi ... Comparison
http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_4.htm


Reload time of Buk systems is "120" currently. Is it in seconds? For a whole TEL or a single missile?
Ausairpower states "TELAR Reload Time,min = 12"
Src:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk ... ocId239351

[User2]

Kh-58 (AS-11 Kilter) missiles should have "ARM target memory" property

"The control system also includes a prolongor that stores the "memory" of the position of the target when it is turned off or the "flickering" stealth mode of operation for up to 15 seconds." (google-translated from Russian)
Source:
http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/avz/x58u.html

[Sharana]

I was very surprised to find problem with the F-5 fighters as that's pretty old and mass used plane with a lot of reference about it. In the DB it's implemented with 4 Sidewinders while in fact it used only 2.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm
https://www.militaryperiscope.com/mdb-s ... 3154.shtml

On the topic of 4 missiles it's very complicated - I see only this reference. So if such stuff existed in metal so to say there is no info on who got it or when and I couldn't fignd photos of US, GR, TR etc F-5s with 4 Sidewinders.
http://www.tigercenturyaircraft.com/upg ... ssile-kits

Most fighter aircraft today are capable of carrying four (4) to six (6) AIM-9L/M missiles. The F-5 aircraft is an exception to this rule in that it is only certified to carry two (2) Sidewinders on the wing-tip stations. Operational analysis studies have shown that the combination of the high lethality of four (4) AIM-9L/M missiles with the agility and performance of the F-5 provides a substantial enhancement to the combat capability of the overall weapon system. Working in conjunction with the USAF Tactical Missile Technical Coordinating Group, TCA has developed a Quad Missile Carriage System (QMCS) modification kit that will allow the F-5 aircraft to carry four (4) AIM-9L/M Sidewinders.
The main impediment to adding two additional AIM-9 missiles to the F-5 in the past has been the unacceptable performance penalties that would result if these additional missiles were carried on the existing heavyweight, high-drag MAU-50 outboard pylons of the F-5. To counter this problem, TCA provides a new, low-drag, lightweight pylon (LDP) for the outboard station of the F-5 that is ideally matched to the characteristics of the AIM-9L/M.

[ArchMagos]

Would it be possible to add the proposed Sea Lightning and Lightning F.7 to this and the CWDB? It'd be nice to see more hypothetical aircraft that aren't either Russian/Soviet or American.

[CrazyIvan101]

Would it be possible to add a generic 1+ Megawatt laser for shipboard/land use, based on the ABL laser already in game? Also could a 150 kw electric continuous wave laser be added as the Navy is planning to test one in the coming year?

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/r ... monstrator

[mikmykWS]

ZoroastroBR
Hey, starting to play Black Gold Blitz and I noticed that Saudi's dedicated ELINT plane has no ELINT sensor in the scenario's DB (DB3k 469), V1.13, B 972.11.

[.Sirius]

Hi I'll look into it

[User2]

---
R-27R/RE are not just SARH, they use combined method: INS + DL (radio correction) midcourse + Terminal SARH

Lots of sources state it.
Developer: http://www.ktrv.ru/production/68/649/666/

CMANO DB latest descriptions also state that:
"DETAILS: The Alamo R-27R is guided to the target by a combination method. Initially, it is guided inertially with radio correction of trajectory in the initial flight phase. It then transitions to homing in the terminal phase. This provides for reliable target lock-on at long ranges from the launching aircraft.
...
SOURCES: Federation of American Scientists. "AA-10 ALAMO R-27." Accessed December 1, 2013 ; Federation of American Scientists. "AA-10 ALAMO R-27." Accessed December 1, 2013. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/miss ... /aa-10.htm."

Also I have found & downloaded Mig-29 operation manual (declassified in october 1995). It is clearly stated there that R-27R1 is INS guided with radio correction or without it if the target is being painted by FCR radar. It's written that it gives a pilot ability to launch the missile at a target that could not be reliably locked [due to the distance/low RCS].
---
R-27T/TE should be INS + DL midcourse too. Currently it is "All-Aspect mid-course". It seems it means that it somehow doesn't need midcourse DL-correction of the cource. I doubt its IR seeker can lock at a target 45nm away.

All R-27 missiles are capable to engage seaskimmer. Mig-29 manual states that it can engage targets from 20m to 25000m.
Missile can engage from the top, thus ground clutter is not a problem.

Max altitude difference (missile platfrom-target) is 10km.

---

Mig29 radar can scan 50 deg azimuth arc (+-25 deg) for targets. Pilot can rotate radar antenna to get 130 deg arc (+-65)
Thus +-25 target search, and +-65 arc for missile guidance.

Beam width is 3.5 deg.

Source: Mig29 operation manual ("Боевое применение Миг 29"), pages 8-11

---
Currently in the game lots of multirole crafts does not have ground search capabilities. Actually all currently operational Russian crafts, even those that were especially designed for ground attack role like su-24/su-34, do not see even large buildings on the ground. That's a shame. Even old su-24 radar can see moving ground targets in real life, let alone large ones.
Meanwhile most US multirole crafts, even old ones (ex. A-6E, 1975), see ground targets. The only exception I've found is multirole f-16. F-16 (at least multirole mods) should see ground targets too.
Most chinese crafts have the same problem too in the game. Only some future crafts (2017-2018+) where given ground search capabilities.

Actually it is a big issue. While the game is focused at Air-Naval warfare, most SAM systems are ground based, so ground search radars should be given more love.

---
Su-35S Irbis radar should have +-120 deg azumuth search arc (240 deg). At least for missile guidance.
Max tracked contacts:30
Max illuminated targets: 2-8
[Developer site states "8", but Russian wiki states that 8 is for ARH missile corrections, for SARH missiles it is 2 targets. However wiki directs to the developer site as a source]

Peak impulse power: 20 kWatt
Average impulse power: 5 kWatt
Illumination power: 2 kWatt

Source, Developer: http://www.niip.ru/catalog/aviatsionnoe ... lsu-irbis/
Wiki: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D035 ... 0%B8%D1%81
Developer adv movie, 2 min

Engine AL-41F-1S
Arfterburn thrust is 14500 kg (instead of 14800 in DB)
As stated by developer, engines are able to accelerate aircraft to supersonic speed without afterburn thrust.
Source, Developer: http://www.umpo.ru/Good27_16_141.aspx

It seems L-band wing radar should be excluded from Su-35S configuration. Or marked as a hypothetical.
---
Su-30MKI based crafts (SM, MKA, MKM)
It seems they should have supermaneuverability flag set. Depends on your criteria for it.
Wiki suggests thrust vectoring + non-afterburn trust to weight ratio > 1.
Su-30MKM already have supermaneuverability flag. It is based on Su-30MKI, first Su-30 thust vectoring plane. Thus all other Su-30MKI based crafts (SM, MKA and MKI itself) should have supermaneuverability too.

---
Su-30MKI based crafts (SM, MKA, MKM)
N011M Bars radar system is fitted at Su-30MKI based crafts.
The radar should have PESA flag set.

Target search arc: +-70 deg (140 arc) [instead of +-22.5 deg currently]

Max tracked contacts: 15
Max illuminated targets: 4

Peak impulse power: 4.5 kWatt
Average impulse power: 1.5 kWatt
Illumination power: 1 kWatt

Source, eng wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bars_radar
Source, wiki (more detailed): https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D011 ... 1%80%D1%81
Nice dev advert movie, 7 min
The guy at 1:03 is definitely Eugene Victor Tooms from X-Files. NIIP is doomed.

Note the power difference between Irbis-E and Bars-M radars. However in the game they are currently more or less on the same level. But I did not do extensive tests. May be I am wrong.

---
All Su-30 should have fly-by-wire flag set.
Source, wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su ... cteristics

[orca]

SV-22D requests

These are hypothetical units which in DB has 2018 date. However they relatively old generation sensors/EW which would be installed on (hypothetical) units in the late 2010s.



I request the sensors for SV-22D be changed to
the same as a modern MH-60 saw helo


Also, the unit type for the EV-22 in the DB is ASW but it should be AEW.

Thanks for considering.

[Tailhook]

Request that the Super Hornets get an option for some updated loadouts, based on some searching I've done around the web.

4x LRASM loadout


2x LRASM, 2x HARM/AARGM of some sort (wonder if this could be 4x and 2x, with a centerline tank. Short Range loadout)


4x JSM

[gosnold]

I think there is an RCS issue on most if not all ground units. Their RCS is much smaller than their size. For instance a Topol TEL has a 2dBsqm RCS from all angles. That's only 1.6 square meters for a 16-wheel truck, and it's also smaller than the RCS of the missile it is carrying!

It results in ground vehicles that are virtually impossible to detect with radar. I had an RQ-180 and a B-2 orbit over a S-400 and their radars did not pick up anything.

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: orca

SV-22D requests

These are hypothetical units which in DB has 2018 date. However they relatively old generation sensors/EW which would be installed on (hypothetical) units in the late 2010s.

I request the sensors for SV-22D be changed to
the same as a modern MH-60 saw helo

I'd like to second that. The EV-22 comes with 70s/80s-era sensors too. Might just need to copy/paste over the stuff from the 2018 model of the MV-22 for a baseline and throw in a more modern ELINT sensor? Thanks for including the SV-22 and EV-22 variants, too, by the way.

If you ever feel like doing another hypothetical unit, what about an armed version of the T-45C Goshawk trainer? Might be fun as a carrier-based fast FAC or like a modern-day Skyhawk carrier-based light attack aircraft. A DAGR or SDB loadout with an ISR ball might be interesting.

[Tailhook]

ORIGINAL: hellfish6


If you ever feel like doing another hypothetical unit, what about an armed version of the T-45C Goshawk trainer? Might be fun as a carrier-based fast FAC or like a modern-day Skyhawk carrier-based light attack aircraft. A DAGR or SDB loadout with an ISR ball might be interesting.

I currently fly the T-45C and that's the most absurd thing I've ever read in terms of hypothetical units. The Avionics aren't remotely ready for anything that isn't the standard zuni rockets or mk76 practice bombs. Nor is the jet capable enough to handle anything really heavier and have anything remotely like respectable legs.

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: Tailhook

ORIGINAL: hellfish6


If you ever feel like doing another hypothetical unit, what about an armed version of the T-45C Goshawk trainer? Might be fun as a carrier-based fast FAC or like a modern-day Skyhawk carrier-based light attack aircraft. A DAGR or SDB loadout with an ISR ball might be interesting.

I currently fly the T-45C and that's the most absurd thing I've ever read in terms of hypothetical units. The Avionics aren't remotely ready for anything that isn't the standard zuni rockets or mk76 practice bombs. Nor is the jet capable enough to handle anything really heavier and have anything remotely like respectable legs.

Ok, just call it a carrier-capable Hawk 200 then. Relax.

[DrRansom]

Umm, the ground unit RCS sounds like an issue. Maybe the devs were modeling the unit being lost in ground noise / clutter?

[Tailhook]

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

ORIGINAL: Tailhook

ORIGINAL: hellfish6


If you ever feel like doing another hypothetical unit, what about an armed version of the T-45C Goshawk trainer? Might be fun as a carrier-based fast FAC or like a modern-day Skyhawk carrier-based light attack aircraft. A DAGR or SDB loadout with an ISR ball might be interesting.

I currently fly the T-45C and that's the most absurd thing I've ever read in terms of hypothetical units. The Avionics aren't remotely ready for anything that isn't the standard zuni rockets or mk76 practice bombs. Nor is the jet capable enough to handle anything really heavier and have anything remotely like respectable legs.

Ok, just call it a carrier-capable Hawk 200 then. Relax.

I apologize for the tone of my previous post, it just caught me off guard.

The problem is I don't think it's a realistic hypothetical acquisition as it's not a role the Navy needs filled. As a work around though, you could use Brazil's A-4 carrier variants off of a modern USN carrier in a scenario, but that might take a bit of creativity.

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: Tailhook

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

ORIGINAL: Tailhook



I currently fly the T-45C and that's the most absurd thing I've ever read in terms of hypothetical units. The Avionics aren't remotely ready for anything that isn't the standard zuni rockets or mk76 practice bombs. Nor is the jet capable enough to handle anything really heavier and have anything remotely like respectable legs.

Ok, just call it a carrier-capable Hawk 200 then. Relax.

I apologize for the tone of my previous post, it just caught me off guard.

The problem is I don't think it's a realistic hypothetical acquisition as it's not a role the Navy needs filled. As a work around though, you could use Brazil's A-4 carrier variants off of a modern USN carrier in a scenario, but that might take a bit of creativity.

Yeah, I appreciate the idea, and I've actually given it a whirl with the AF-1s. I'm not looking for a USN capability, per se, but actually something more akin to what Brazil (or India, Argentina, etc., whomever) would be interested to buy to maximize affordability and sortie rates for small carrier operations. 75% or so of my Command time these days is prototyping ideas and concepts in the editor as best I can.

I can't recall if the hypothetical Sea Grippen is in the DB now, nor can I think of anything else that might fit my totally hypothetical requirements for a modern carrier-based light strike aircraft. The A-4 served in many (if not most?) post-WWII carrier navies, in so small part because it was small enough for these small carriers, and it was extremely flexible in capabilities - the T/A-45 concept was born out of the idea that "hey, it's a small carrier-capable aircraft that have combat-capable variants out there," rather than "I think we can just strap some JDAMs on her and she'll be a most excellent albatross." But, in the end, I suppose it did sound like I just wanted to devs to paint a T-45C grey and call it a warplane.

Ah well.

The only shame in not having an editable DB is that I/we have to air our crazy-ass ideas out in public sometimes.

[Demetrious]

ORIGINAL: gosnold

I think there is an RCS issue on most if not all ground units. Their RCS is much smaller than their size. For instance a Topol TEL has a 2dBsqm RCS from all angles. That's only 1.6 square meters for a 16-wheel truck, and it's also smaller than the RCS of the missile it is carrying!

It results in ground vehicles that are virtually impossible to detect with radar. I had an RQ-180 and a B-2 orbit over a S-400 and their radars did not pick up anything.

I noticed that after the last update as well - GMTI still works fine, but against stationary targets they're utterly useless. This might be intended behavior; I'll have to research ground-search radars to figure it out first. (SAR can produce a FLIR-like picture, which is great, but that just boils down to "FLIR that works through clouds." For fast area search I'd expect a different mode that counts on vehicles and their boxy surfaces being better RF reflectors than the average tree, bush and hillside. More research needed, etc.)

Now, Database Things!

1. The GBU-57 MOP should have a CEP better than 10 meters. The weapon was upgraded to hit Iran's uranium refinery by dropping one MOP down the hole left by another one. [Source.]
[Source establishing upgrade was completed and fielded.]
[Original WSJ article, if you can bypass the paywall.]

I tested this first to make sure it'd actually make a difference but against the smallest, hardest bunkers (3200 DP/240m area) you can occasionally get unlucky and miss wide enough with both of a B-2s bombs to ruin your day.

2. The SDB-II should have a two-way UHF/Link 16 datalink. Source is here.

[More detailed info on the datalink system.]