Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post new mods and scenarios here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

The Quickstrike-J "Skipjack" and GBU-62B(V-1)/B "Flounder" Quickstrike-ER (JDAM derivatives of the Quickstrike weapons) are missing from the database. The Quickstrike-J are simply bolt-on JDAM kits for the Mk63 and Mk64 (#2088 and #2087) Quickstrike weapons and they have a similar range to the GBU-31 JDAM at 12nm while the GBU-62 uses the JDAM-ER Kit on either a Mk62 or Mk64 Quickstrike mine to achieve a range of 40nm when released from 35,000 feet. The Quickstrike-J is equipable on any aircraft capable of carrying the GBU-31 JDAM (with the same corresponding loadouts) while the GBU-62 is capable of being carried on the F/A-18C/E and the B-52H (a full load of 20 with the Conventional Rotary Launcher.) The ER variant entered service in 2016 while the -J variant entered service in 2014.

Image of halfway loaded B-52H with six out of the 12 2,000 lbs Quickstrike-Js.

Image

Image of GBU-62 loaded onto a B-52H.

Image

Sources: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... strike.htm , https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... ant-shield , https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/0 ... ce/150709/ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VNzwRbAtZc , https://news.usni.org/2016/04/26/essay- ... ickstrikes , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Dir ... k_Munition
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

The #4117 and #4118 B-52H are missing: x20 count loadouts for both the Mk84 bombs and the GBU-31 and a x51 count loadout for the Mk82 and GBU-38. The CRL added this additional weapons capacity to the aircraft.


Sources: https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b52/ , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B- ... tofortress
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

The GBU-39 is missing a fair few weapons carriers. It's missing the #3220 and 4326 B-2 Spirit (can carry a maximum of 216), the #4117 and #4118 B-52H (can carry 32 on its internal rotary bay), and the #2860, #4290, and #4325 B-1B (either 96 [using x4 ejector racks] or 114 [using x6 ejector racks].)

Sources: https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b52/ , http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Small ... -Bomb.html , https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ns/sdb.htm , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-39_Sm ... meter_Bomb , and http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html
BDukes
Posts: 2577
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by BDukes »

I know +1 and top post frowned upon but me too.[:)] Let know what other infos needed will digs.

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Request to change target set and add new single ground mount:
#3157 Martlet [FASGW(L) / LMM] -- 2016

https://youtu.be/B8bX89VFLg8?t=42

LMM has an anti air capability. Footage on the link.

It currently is limited to surface targets in the Martlet LMM.

Plus there is a single missile mount / shoulder launched for ground operations being tested by the Royal Marines.
Royal Marines fire the new Lightweight Multirole Missile from a shoulder launcher (Image: MoD)

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/l ... ee-3055375

For consideration for future updates please?
K

Image

Don't call it a comeback...
BDukes
Posts: 2577
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by BDukes »

Sweden RBS 23 finally get IOC. It in db as #193. Change 2010 to 2019 and probably delete demo notice.
https://www.janes.com/article/89750/upd ... to-gotland
Don't call it a comeback...
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

The #501 AS.34 Komaron 1 and #1739 AS.34 Komaron 2 missiles are missing the ability to attack land units. The AS.34 Komoran 1 and 2 are air-launched, short-range, solid fuel, radar homing, sea-skimming anti-ship missiles with a secondary land-attack capability.

SOURCES: Friedman, Norman. The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997
-1998. Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press, 1997, pg 228-29 ; Aerospace, Defense & Power
Systems - Market Research, Intelligence & Consulting. Accessed September 25, 2016.
http://www.forecastinternational.com/Ar ... RC_ID=1081 ;
"AS.34 Kormoran." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Accessed September 25, 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS.34_Kormoran ;
"AS 34 Kormoran." Sistemas De Armas. Accessed September 25, 2016. http://www.sistemasdearmas.com.br/asv/kormoran.html.
User avatar
Dragon029
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 11:41 am
Contact:

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Dragon029 »

ORIGINAL: Tookatee
That's poor logic to exclude those weapons, said weapons are still retained in large numbers across the country, on all aircraft carriers, and in other nations where they were exported/license to be produced. The aircraft can carry said munitions
so I see no reason why that should be limited, as Skyhawk88 and I have said it simply allows for more options with the aircraft.
I'm generally in favour of giving players / designers more options (I'm one of the guys that was salty about database editing being 'fixed' years back), but frankly, where do you stop? I also don't see how you can say that but also argue that having the ASRAAM excluded from US, etc F-35s makes sense.
You are literally talking about entirely different weapons than the JDAM series of bombs (also I don't know if you've seen the F-35 in the database or even the sources on your chart, but it can and DOES equip the GBU-31 already which makes that whole statement invalid), those weapons have drastically different flight characteristics than JDAMs (of which are nearly identical to the LDBG variants of the Mk series of bombs.) Also it's the 21st century, ballistic bomb computers can be and are programmed with a wide variety of munitions.
GBU-12s are just Mk82 bombs with a guidance kit, just like how GBU-38s are Mk82 bombs with a guidance kit. I also never said that the GBU-31 wasn't a weapon integrated, I was pointing out how different variants of the Mk82/83/84 bomb series are going to fall differently.
And yes you're absolutely correct that ballistic bomb computers can be programmed with a wide variety of munitions, but not by pilots - they can't just key in drag coefficients, etc at a whim; these things have to be added to the jet's software by engineers, and that simply just hasn't happened because no F-35 operator has plans to use unguided bombs on the F-35.
The exact same thing applies here, the F-35 is configured to release JDAMs (and therefore the normal Mk series of bombs) from it's external pylons in a safe manner. In fact, that line of reasoning is partly why I specifically stated in my original post to not include creating clones of the JDAM internal loadouts.
It is configured to release JDAMs, but JDAMs have lift-generating strakes (at least when the tail is being actuated), additional parasitic drag, what I believe to be slightly larger tail fins (correct me if I'm wrong though), and something like 5% additional mass. Plain Mk-84s likely could be jerry rigged up and released, but I'm just not sure it'd be as accurate as (eg) an F-16 which has been specifically integrated it.

Another thing to note too is that the only external bombs that have undergone separation testing is the GBU-12 / GBU-49. GBU-31s and GBU-32s have been carried externally for flight sciences testing, but not dropped.
ORIGINAL: ARCNA442
This graphic posted by Dragon029 inspired me to look at the current F-35 database entries and I found several significant errors. Note that I only looked at the USA variants and not the foreign ones.

IIRC those edits have already been put in the to-be-changed queue, but in case they haven't, I agree with those changes. Block 4 upgrades (that add weapons like the JSM and SDB-II) will be a bit iffy because they're now doing an iterative update process (where every 6 months a new software update is released, some of which will include weapon integrations), but if we wanted to pick a single date to represent "the" Block 4 F-35, 2023 would be best, as that's when Lot 15 jets are meant to be delivered, and Lot 15 is intended to be the first batch that includes upgraded sensors and avionics (a new DAS with apparently 5x the sensor resolution or roughly 2x the detection range performance, a new core processor, cockpit display, memory system, etc; the Advanced EOTS might also be incorporated at that time, increasing detection range via higher res sensors and the additional of additional colour TV and SWIR (in addition to MWIR) sensors).
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

I'm generally in favour of giving players / designers more options (I'm one of the guys that was salty about database editing being 'fixed' years back), but frankly, where do you stop? I also don't see how you can say that but also argue that having the ASRAAM excluded from US, etc F-35s makes sense.

I never argued that in any way, I only pointed out that your example with the ASRAAM was different when compared to the Mk series. The Mk series of bombs are weapons that the United States currently operates and has LARGE stockpiles of, your attempt at using the ASRAAM's exclusivity to the Marine Corp as a reason why all F-35s shouldnt have the Mk82 was wrong because again unlike the ASRAAM the Mk82 is used by ALL branches of the United States armed air forces.
GBU-12s are just Mk82 bombs with a guidance kit, just like how GBU-38s are Mk82 bombs with a guidance kit. I also never said that the GBU-31 wasn't a weapon integrated, I was pointing out how different variants of the Mk82/83/84 bomb series are going to fall differently.

The GBU-12's guidance kit is significantly different than the JDAM on things like the GBU-38. The GBU-12 is based on the Paveway, which is a much more comprehensive system built from the ground up in the factory, while it is based on the Mk82 it's aerodynamics are much different as it follows a sinusoidal, direct flightpath, while the JDAM is more of a lofted glide. JDAM kits on the other hand are true bolt on conversion kits for the Mk series that are applied in the field.
And yes you're absolutely correct that ballistic bomb computers can be programmed with a wide variety of munitions, but not by pilots - they can't just key in drag coefficients, etc at a whim; these things have to be added to the jet's software by engineers

One, I meant that the ballistic computers already have those munitions programmed into them by said engineers, computer technology has come a long way since the 1980's.
and that simply just hasn't happened because no F-35 operator has plans to use unguided bombs on the F-35.

And two, this is a moot point as said coefficients are likely already programmed into the computer/able to be easily obtained and integrated at a moment's notice as it's software. But its much more likely that they're already programmed in.
Another thing to note too is that the only external bombs that have undergone separation testing is the GBU-12 / GBU-49. GBU-31s and GBU-32s have been carried externally for flight sciences testing, but not dropped.

False, just recently the Air Force dropped a JDAM from an F-35A against an ISIS tunnel network in Iraq.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... 5a-combat/
User avatar
Joelsi
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:16 am
Location: Finland

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Joelsi »

ORIGINAL: Tookatee

The #4117 and #4118 B-52H are missing: x20 count loadouts for both the Mk84 bombs and the GBU-31 and a x51 count loadout for the Mk82 and GBU-38. The CRL added this additional weapons capacity to the aircraft.


Sources: https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b52/ , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B- ... tofortress

"The first phase will allow a B-52 to carry twenty-four 500-pound guided JDAM bombs or twenty 2,000-pound JDAMs"
That quote is from the wiki page of the B-52. I don't think the B-52 can carry 51 GBU-38s.
User avatar
Joelsi
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:16 am
Location: Finland

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Joelsi »

Speaking of these loadouts for different aircraft I don't think Warfare Sims' policy regarding loadouts has changed from this: "Just because an aircraft is able to physically carry a given weapon does not mean the pilots train to use it operationally"
"The F-111Fs are authorized to deliver Maverick missiles but they never train with this weapon, preferring their trusty LGBs instead" (Example of this)
(Quotes from Mega-FAQ)

-Joelsi
User avatar
Dragon029
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 11:41 am
Contact:

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Dragon029 »

ORIGINAL: Tookatee
I never argued that in any way, I only pointed out that your example with the ASRAAM was different when compared to the Mk series. The Mk series of bombs are weapons that the United States currently operates and has LARGE stockpiles of, your attempt at using the ASRAAM's exclusivity to the Marine Corp as a reason why all F-35s shouldnt have the Mk82 was wrong because again unlike the ASRAAM the Mk82 is used by ALL branches of the United States armed air forces.
They're not actually used operationally though, which is my point; the US doesn't use ASRAAMs in combat and they don't use Mk-82/83/84s in combat without guidance kits. Yes, in a WW3 it's possible that the US might run into brief periods of not having enough guidance kits to fit onto dumb bombs, and pilots could be trained to use those weapons, but I think it's equally, if not more possible that US F-35s might get fitted with ASRAAMs if AIM-9X stocks in (eg) Europe were to be depleted in that kind of scenario.
The GBU-12's guidance kit is significantly different than the JDAM on things like the GBU-38. The GBU-12 is based on the Paveway, which is a much more comprehensive system built from the ground up in the factory, while it is based on the Mk82 it's aerodynamics are much different as it follows a sinusoidal, direct flightpath, while the JDAM is more of a lofted glide. JDAM kits on the other hand are true bolt on conversion kits for the Mk series that are applied in the field.
If the JDAM takes on a lofted glide, doesn't that mean that the F-35's ballistic computers will be using that flight path as the assumed flight path vs a purely ballistic path of an unguided bomb?
One, I meant that the ballistic computers already have those munitions programmed into them by said engineers, computer technology has come a long way since the 1980's.
And two, this is a moot point as said coefficients are likely already programmed into the computer/able to be easily obtained and integrated at a moment's notice as it's software. But its much more likely that they're already programmed in.
I think it's highly unlikely they're programmed in; Lockheed didn't even program in lead-laser capability because it wasn't listed as a system requirement (despite being rather important to hit fast moving targets with GBU-12s). Programming the data in probably wouldn't take long (just probably a few days), but we're now talking about a hypothetical F-35 that doesn't exist.
False, just recently the Air Force dropped a JDAM from an F-35A against an ISIS tunnel network in Iraq.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... 5a-combat/
I said externally; all three F-35 variants only carry JDAMs internally for now - the services / partner nations decided that carrying a bunch of 1000lb / 2000lb bombs externally wasn't important for Block 3F (pretty much nothing can survive a GBU-31, let alone two; and for CAS work you want GBU-12s / GBU-49s rather than JDAMs anyway).
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

That wiki page is out of date, in 2017 the B-52 began operating with the Conventional Rotary Launcher (that's why I only specified those two specific B-52H's) which allows them to carry a lot more weapons than before. Check the first source I listed as confirmation of that. The only reason I cited the wiki was because the specification's section for the B-52H has an accurate maximum takeoff weight value that shows the aircraft is more than able to handle the weight of the loadouts I specified.
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

Idk how well they've been sticking to that if that's their actual policy, because there a tons of aircraft that have the ability to carry loadouts that the aircraft is designed to carry, but wouldn't be operationally used in most situations (one example would be most of the F/A-18E's who do properly have the ability to deploy the Mk82 LDGB [but still not the AIR variants or even the Snakeeye for some variants, it seems pretty inconsistently set].)
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

I think it's highly unlikely they're programmed in; Lockheed didn't even program in lead-laser capability because it wasn't listed as a system requirement (despite being rather important to hit fast moving targets with GBU-12s). Programming the data in probably wouldn't take long (just probably a few days), but we're now talking about a hypothetical F-35 that doesn't exist.

I think it's pretty likely they kept it in as an export incentive to customers who don't have large stockpiles of guided bombs, not to mention that basic ballistic trajectories for America's primary general purpose bombs would be pretty important to have on aircraft that are serving all branches of the military. But we're diving into a tangent, unless you can show me some sort of hard proof that the F-35 is incapable of equipping the Mk82 externally for whatever reason, it just logically makes more sense that the aircraft has the ability to load them due to it's ability to release the JDAM series of weapons.
If the JDAM takes on a lofted glide, doesn't that mean that the F-35's ballistic computers will be using that flight path as the assumed flight path vs a purely ballistic path of an unguided bomb

To follow upon what I said before, that flight path is much more like the ballistic Mk series of bombs. Most of the energy is from the pilot simply climbing to altitude and gaining speed to get the bomb to fly the distance, while the JDAM kit makes the final fine tune adjustments to hit the target. The lofted glide comes mostly from the aircraft and the release speed and altitude of the bomb, otherwise it behaves very closely to a normal Ldgb variant of the Mk series of bombs (of course with infinitely more accuracy.)
They're not actually used operationally though, which is my point

That's not really true, they're still in use as a cheap alternative to GBU's in missions that don't require much precision.

Here's a recent image of an F/A-18E being loaded with some Mk82's on the USS Abraham Lincoln .
Image
Rory Noonan
Posts: 2418
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:53 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Rory Noonan »

Can you guys take your arguments somewhere else and keep this thread for requests please.
Image
ProdigyofMilitaryPride
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 11:54 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by ProdigyofMilitaryPride »

ORIGINAL: apache85

Can you guys take your arguments somewhere else and keep this thread for requests please.

What apache85 said, guys. Keep it just for requests, which I had been doing as best as I could.
"The courageous must protect freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Anything built by human hands can be destroyed. This is no exception." - Kei "Edge" Nagase, Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

ORIGINAL: apache85

Can you guys take your arguments somewhere else and keep this thread for requests please.

Thank you, hopefully my responses to him haven't been drowning out the other issues I've pointed out in the middle of them all.
Talisman
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:55 am

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Talisman »

Rubis / Amethyste Class Signatures

Hey guys, quick one regarding the acoustic signatures for the French Rubis / Amethyste SSN.

As originally designed and built the class was disappointingly noisy. This was apparently a major factor in the Canadians favouring the Trafalgar Class when they were considering going Nuclear in the late '80s.

Consequently the French initiated a 'tactical silencing programme' which revised the hull-form and general silencing of the design. The 5th boat of the class S605 Amethyste, was the fist boat built to this design standard and consequently became the namesake of the sub-class.

S606 was also built to the Amethyste standard, while the first four boats underwent refit to this standard between 1991 and 1995. Specifically: Rubis (1993), Saphir (1991), Casabianca (1994), Emeraude (1995).

Currently DB3000 caters for both the S601 (original) Rubis Class, as well as the S605 (Amethyste) Rubis Class, however it does not contemplate any difference in acoustic signatures.

Unless anyone has more precise information, I would guesstimate that the current values are correct for the S601 Class (noisier than the Trafalgars), but should be reduced by around 10% for the S605 Amethyste Class, bringing them closer to the the levels of the British boats - probably not quite there though.

Thanks



Darwin is watching...
LewisOwen
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:52 am

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by LewisOwen »

Cosmetic correction needed:

From what I know

#3173 - AC-130J Ghostrider (United States - 2015)

is not a Search and Rescue type aircraft, but an Attack type aircraft [;)]

Should take like 10 seconds to correct it, but what do I know [:'(]

Cheers

"Nuclear weapons might be the currency of peace... but what a terrible price..."

-Stuart Brown


User avatar
stilesw
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Hansville, WA, USA

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by stilesw »

Lewis,

Good catch. Logged.

-Wayne
“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)
Locked

Return to “Mods and Scenarios”