Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[ussdefiant]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 344575.cms

If that article is to be taken at face value, India's getting KAB-1500Ls for their Su-30s. I'm not sure where to even read Indian MoD statements to be sure they're not talking about getting more TV bombs instead.

Incidentally, is there a reason the reliability on the KAB TV/LGBs is at 75%? Seems a bit odd when i can't find any reference to unreliability on sites like AusAirPower and stuff like Nam-era Walleyes and such are at 85%.

[TheOttoman]

I've been going over the entries of AE-26 Kilauea and request the following edits/deletes. If approved, I'll submit an updated ship description indicating the ship names in the appropriate thread:

Ship 1415 AE 26 Kilauea County: United States
From: 1968 *
To: 1998 **

Sensors/EW:
Chagne AN/SPS-10B to AN/SPS-10F
Add to mounts:
4x Mk36 SRBOC
Capacity: 6
Launch Interval: 1
Armor: None
Weapons (per mount): 4x Mk182 SRBOC Chaff (Seduction)
2x Mk186 TORCH Flare (Seduction)
Operates autonomously (no OODA delay).
Add to magazines:
Mk36 SRBOC
Capacity: 80
Reload Rate: 300
Stores: 64x Mk182 SRBOC Chaff
16x Mk186 TORCH Flare

*
- Kilauea (AE-26) Commissioned 08-10-68
- Butte (AE-27) Commissioned 12-14-68
- Santa Barbara (AE-28) Commissioned 07-11-70
- Flint (AE-32) Commissioned 11-20-71
- Shasta (AE-33) Commissioned 02-26-72
- Mount Baker (AE-34) Commissioned 07-22-72
- Kiska (AE-35) Commissioned 12-16-72

**
- Kilauea (AE-26) Transferred to MSC 10-1-80
- Butte (AE-27) Transferred to MSC 06-03-96
- Santa Barbara (AE-28) Transferred to MSC 09-30-98
- Flint (AE-32) Transferred to MSC 08-04-95
- Shasta (AE-33) Transferred to MSC 10-01-97
- Mount Baker (AE-34) Transferred to MSC 12-18-96
- Kiska (AE-35) Transferred to MSC 08-01-96


Ship 1416 AE 29 Mount Hood (Kilauea Class)County: United States (change name)
From: 1971 ***
To: 1999 (Never transferred to MSC)

Sensors/EW:
Chagne AN/SPS-10B to AN/SPS-10F
Add to mounts:
4x Mk36 SRBOC
Capacity: 6
Launch Interval: 1
Armor: None
Weapons (per mount): 4x Mk182 SRBOC Chaff (Seduction)
2x Mk186 TORCH Flare (Seduction)
Operates autonomously (no OODA delay).
Add to magazines:
Mk36 SRBOC
Capacity: 80
Reload Rate: 300
Stores: 64x Mk182 SRBOC Chaff
16x Mk186 TORCH Flare

***
- Mount Hood (AE-29) Commissioned 05-01-71


Sources:
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/tae-26.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilauea-c ... ition_ship
Janes Fighting Ships 1983-84
Janes Fighting Ships 1988-89
Seapower Jan 1983
Seapower Jan 1995

Ship Record 1816 now obsolete
Ship Record 1817 now obsolete
Ship Record 1818 now obsolete
Ship Record 1819 now obsolete
Ship Record 1820 now obsolete
Ship Record 120 now obsolete

------------------------------------------------------------

Ship 3023 AE 26 Kilauea County: United States
From: 1980 *
To: 2013 **


Need to add total of 14 Magazines for a total of 6,000 tons of munitions

Ship Record 3024 now obsolete.

[ussdefiant]

http://tigercenturyaircraft.com/upgrade ... ation-kit/

This site says that Chilean F-5s are fitted with their systems, and even includes pictures of what appears to be Tigers in Chilean livery tanking off of something.

Doesn't offer details on when it went in, but i'd wager a guess that it'd be at the same time they got the capability to shoot Derbies and new radar, so the 4 Tiger III entries (1764, 183, 3586, 3587)

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: TheOttoman

ORIGINAL: SlabSheetrock

ORIGINAL: TheOttoman

Is there a format in which database requests should be submitted (or would it be helpful to create a format), or do we just post links or requests with a "please add this", and leave it to the devs to work out the actual data?

Also, is there anywhere a list of gaps in the database where information needs to be sourced?

ORIGINAL: Bashkire

More to the point: where is the database to see what's being worked on? The link in the first post doesn't work.

These are both extremely important questions to ask.

To which I have seen no answer for.

We are aware that the current process is not as optimal as it can be. Part of the reason that the rate of DB updates has been reduced lately is that we are working on a number of initiatives that will hopefully enable greater agility, scalability and transparency.

These efforts will require some time to bear fruit, but we think that the end state will satisfy those aims.

Thank you for your patience and support as we make this complex transition.

[TheOttoman]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

We are aware that the current process is not as optimal as it can be. Part of the reason that the rate of DB updates has been reduced lately is that we are working on a number of initiatives that will hopefully enable greater agility, scalability and transparency.

These efforts will require some time to bear fruit, but we think that the end state will satisfy those aims.

Thank you for your patience and support as we make this complex transition.

Cool. Thanks for the communication.

I'm new here. I was just asking the question because I want to contribute, and I want to do it in the right way, but I don't want to be *that* guy who's a PITA

[ComDev]

In the meantime, we agree that wrecking the F-35 loadout list is a good idea? And move the advanced loadouts to the Blk 4 variant which is not planned for 2025?

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

In the meantime, we agree that wrecking the F-35 loadout list is a good idea? And move the advanced loadouts to the Blk 4 variant which is not planned for 2025?

What is impact on Chains of War scenarios?

[TheOttoman]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

In the meantime, we agree that wrecking the F-35 loadout list is a good idea? And move the advanced loadouts to the Blk 4 variant which is not planned for 2025?

#sosayweall

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: BDukes

ORIGINAL: emsoy

In the meantime, we agree that wrecking the F-35 loadout list is a good idea? And move the advanced loadouts to the Blk 4 variant which is not planned for 2025?

What is impact on Chains of War scenarios?

Will have to go through and check, I guess...

[ComDev]

Interesting read:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=53431

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

ORIGINAL: BDukes

ORIGINAL: emsoy

In the meantime, we agree that wrecking the F-35 loadout list is a good idea? And move the advanced loadouts to the Blk 4 variant which is not planned for 2025?

What is impact on Chains of War scenarios?

Will have to go through and check, I guess...

You guess? What does that mean? Is that yes or no? I don't understand.

[TheOttoman]

ORIGINAL: BDukes

ORIGINAL: emsoy

ORIGINAL: BDukes




What is impact on Chains of War scenarios?

Will have to go through and check, I guess...

You guess? What does that mean? Is that yes or no? I don't understand.

I read that as a yes.

[Sardaukar]

I'd not use Ausairpower as primary source since Kopp has always hated F-35 and his data is almost 2 years old. Lot has moved on since.

[Sardaukar]

[LORDPrometheus]

So I have noticed a few issues with the north Korean SSM units. Namely the mislabling and duplication of some missiles and lack of others.
The Hwasong 6 is a scud C meaning it should be an SS-1d not an SS-1c and should have a range closer to 500km instead of 300km. As it currently stands it is in game as identical to the Hwasong 5 which is not accurate. Next the Hwasong 7 is also in game as the same missile as the Hwasong 5 and 6 which is very inaccurate since the Hwasong 7 is in fact the same missile as the Rodong 1 IE the Nodong 1. Thus it is not only inaccurate but a duplicate. In addition it would be nice to add the newer Hwasong 12 and 14 missiles so a proper USA nuclear strike can be done. I would also like to see the Scud d derived Hwasong 9 be added.

[DrRansom]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I'd not use Ausairpower as primary source since Kopp has always hated F-35 and his data is almost 2 years old. Lot has moved on since.

I'd also not use F-16.net, as that forum is totally in favor of the aircraft.

The best data is probably the T&E reports.

For the F-35 STOVL picture, do we know if there was anything mounted internally? Also, is that payload released for Blk 3 use or is it still in testing? The lines between testing and released for operational use are blurred almost everywhere.

[TheOttoman]

I just got a new Jane's book (Jane's Space Directory 1998-99) and separately also have come across launch, orbit, and life data for just about everything that's been inserted into space up to and including 2017. The way I understand it, these platforms are different than the standard Air,Surface,Sub,Facility type, but they are still a form of platform that can be added to within the database.

I get that *I* can't manually add this information. I'm just wondering if a.) you guys would be interested in this data (it's all open source), b.) if so, what info do you need? I can get you perigee, apogee, inclination, etc....

[DrRansom]

Here is what I think would work for Block 3 F-35 load-outs:

1. Internal AAM, 4x AMRAAM (note, I don't think that the F-35 is cleared for 4 internal AMRAAM, but I'll give this as a freebie)
2. Internal 2x 2000lb JDAM, 2x AMRAAM (F-35A /C only)
3. Internal 2x 1000lb JDAM, 2x AMRAAM (all models)
4. Internal 2x Paveway II, 2x AMRAAM (all models)
5. External 6x Paveway II, 2x AMRAAM, 2x AIM-9X (all models)
6. External 6x Paveway II, 2x AMRAAM, 2x ASRAAM (all models, UK variant mainly)

Also, no gun pods. Those aren't cleared yet AFAIK.

I think that would capture the spirit of the current load-outs, Paveway IIs for CAS, JDAMS for interdiction. The internal AAM is more speculative than the rest and would be a good candidate for downgrading to 2x AMRAAM, if desired.

[Dragon029]

Sorry I missed the F-35 questions earlier; in future please feel free to PM me so that I get notified.

Do you know if the 6x 2000lb JDAM loadout will be an operational loadout? I.e. expected to be used in a shooting war.

As far as I'm aware the only bomb being certified for external carriage in Block 3F is the GBU-12 / GBU-49. The below slide was shown [presumably by the JPO, if not by one of the services] at the Defense News Conference 2017 that took place in September 2017, and is the most recent official 'document' I've seen on the matter:



Some have argued that the image has errors [that the GBU-51 isn't being integrated because the GBU-49 won tenders, that the AIM-120D and JSOW C-1 aren't being added until Block 4], but I don't know if they're right or not.

All 3 variants get external AIM-9X, GBU-12/49/51, internal AIM-120C-5/7/D AMRAAM, GBU-12/49/51.

F-35A & F-35C get GBU-31 (Mk-84 and BLU-109) JDAMs.

F-35B & F-35C get gun pod and GBU-32 (Mk-83 and BLU-110) JDAMs.

F-35A gets internal gun and GBU-39 SDB-1.

F-35C gets AGM-154C / AGM154C-1 JSOW.

It seems the F-35 has very limited weapon capabilities, and isn't much more than a 'modern' F-117, or a Blk 40 F-16? I.e. 2x internal JDAMs or up to 6x internal + external Paveway IIs, and a pair of AMRAAMs. Plus two Sidewinders.

As such, the aircraft in the database is seriously overrated, and we should whack 2/3rd of the loadouts?

Additional weapons may come online with software Block 4.

Most of the loadouts should be eliminated or somehow declared hypothetical.

As for Block 4, things are still fluid, with the new head of the JPO having been looking at restructuring Block 4 to try and ensure that it'll be achievable (he's voiced concerns / doubts about being able to meet the Block 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 incremental approach where software / capability updates would be delivered every ~18 months or so. We'll hopefully hear what the plan is soon, but for what it's worth:

The USMC were pushing heavily for the GBU-53 SDB-II (and other CAS-related upgrades) to be integrated in Block 4.1: https://web.archive.org/web/20170704034 ... davis.html

Lockheed is trying to develop their "Sidekick" project which would allow 6x internal AMRAAM carriage: https://www.tu.no/artikler/kun-ett-krys ... erg/412047
and there was intent for it to happen in Block 4 (likely towards the end): http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... Shots.aspx

JASSM-ER didn't make the cut for Block 4, but was being considered for Block 5: http://aviationweek.com/technology/us-a ... rs-bombers

The Joint Strike Missile is also intended for Block 4 (with at least Norway and Australia as customers), though it wasn't clear when in Block 4 it'd be integrated.

The Meteor was also planned for Block 4 integration, but the UK MoD only began funding the modification of the missile (it'd have the same motor, same length, etc, just re-arranged fins) and its testing last year, meaning it probably would have arrived at the tail end of Block 4 (with 4.3 or 4.4).

In Block 4.2 the F-35 was also meant to have its EOTS upgraded to the Advanced EOTS (featuring [among other things] a larger aperture and therefore theoretically a longer IRST range), and there are other miscellaneous software and hardware updates involved with the different Block 4 increments.

I don't know how stealthyness works in thee engine, but I think that any of the external mounts will retard the stealthyness of the F-35, so that may dictate using stations 4,5,7, and 8 only, with a combined capacity of 5,700 lbs ... so that's like what?... 2x GBU-31s and 2x AIMs, or a combo of 4x GBU-38's (maybe 8, if they'd fit, but I've not seen any pictures) and 2x AIMs. This is also further reduced for STOVLs down to 3,700 lbs.

GBU-38 is not being integrated on the F-35; the only 500lb bombs being added are the Paveway family. Also, the F-35 is intended to have external carriage options for when stealth isn't required (which will be most of the time).

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

As to the JDAM, the CTOL and CV loadouts clearly show that it can support the GBU-31 with both the Mk84 and BLU-109 warheads. It'll have to be loaded in position 3 or 9

ausairpower.net is a decent resource for data on Russian radars and SAMs, but a very outdated and unreliable source for data on the F-35.

I think the F-35 in-engine has much higher performance than the airplane. Based on stories from 2013, range and acceleration were decreased as KPPs. Also, the dogfight with the F-16 suggested that energy-maneuverability is strongly limited, while instantaneous maneuverability is strong.

Range KPPs were not decreased, just the transonic acceleration requirement, which changed from (for the A/B/C variants) 55/65/65 seconds to 63/81/118 seconds for being able to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2.

I'd also not use F-16.net, as that forum is totally in favor of the aircraft.

Don't blindly believe what users in F-16.net say, but don't not use it. Aus Air Power is a blog that judges the F-35 based on specifications they believe it to have (which are pessimistic and have been proven to be quite off the mark; APA's owners also had a financial interest in seeing Australia not procure the F-35, as they own a defence aerospace company and have previously tried to position themselves as an entity that could manage the procurement of alternate platforms like an upgraded F-111 or F-22). F-16.net has plenty of biased members, but it's a forum where judgements are made based on official or media reports. In terms of being able to find copies of or links to transcripts, documents and reports on the F-35, F-16.net is the best I've seen.

Also, no gun pods. Those aren't cleared yet AFAIK.

All gun testing (internal and podded) was completed by the first week of December last year.

[MrGandi]

Last year Russia has launched two new nuclear submarines. One Pr.885M boat of Yasen-M class and one Pr.955A (Borey-A-class) boat.
Is it possible to get them included in the DB?

For sure there is almost no information regarding upgrades or improvements to the older boats.
But maybe some improvement on the signature could be done?
So that this subs could be more of a challenge to adversaries.

Some open sources:
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... ments.html

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... built.html

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... ments.html

If somebody has more information please share with us [&o]