Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: Pancor, 14yellow14, IrvingMainway
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues Page: <<   < prev  115 116 [117] 118 119   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/20/2017 2:29:25 AM   
Dan109

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Dan109)
Post #: 3481
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/20/2017 6:10:04 AM   
Dragon029


Posts: 65
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Dragon029 -- 5/20/2017 6:12:49 AM >

(in reply to Dan109)
Post #: 3482
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/20/2017 8:26:37 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1892
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
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.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/jl-9-jianlian-9-trainer-light-attack-aircraft-china/ (specifications)
https://sinodefence.com/2013/12/13/pla-navy-use-jl-9-for-carrier-pilot-training/ (Naval variant with serial, JL-9H?)
http://www.janes.com/article/65428/sudanese-order-for-six-ftc-2000-jets-announced (Sudan Export)
http://www.eastpendulum.com/videotheque-jl9 (Video collection)


_____________________________


(in reply to Dragon029)
Post #: 3483
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/21/2017 2:16:30 AM   
Dan109

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to Dragon029)
Post #: 3484
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/21/2017 5:02:11 PM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline
quote:

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

(in reply to edsw)
Post #: 3485
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/22/2017 5:50:15 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 835
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk


quote:

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

quote:

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.

quote:

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).


_____________________________


(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3486
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/22/2017 10:02:55 PM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline
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?!

< Message edited by Scar79 -- 5/22/2017 10:04:40 PM >

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 3487
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/23/2017 12:49:50 PM   
Hongjian

 

Posts: 814
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3488
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/23/2017 12:56:23 PM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by Scar79 -- 5/23/2017 1:09:24 PM >

(in reply to Hongjian)
Post #: 3489
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/23/2017 1:12:42 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1892
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________


(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3490
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/23/2017 1:18:17 PM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline
You mean all these shapes, composites and RAM coating are applied to 2235 and 2038 just "for fun"?!

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 3491
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/23/2017 1:25:58 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1892
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

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.


_____________________________


(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3492
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/23/2017 1:31:13 PM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 3493
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/23/2017 1:37:04 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1892
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3494
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/23/2017 8:25:34 PM   
Filitch


Posts: 384
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 3495
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/23/2017 8:33:19 PM   
Filitch


Posts: 384
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3496
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 12:23:29 AM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline
quote:

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, *****?!

< Message edited by Scar79 -- 5/24/2017 12:33:33 AM >

(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3497
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 1:03:14 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1892
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
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/promotional-material/glossy-application-notes/scattering-and-radar-cross-section

< Message edited by Dysta -- 5/24/2017 3:02:29 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3498
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 8:24:16 AM   
Filitch


Posts: 384
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

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?

(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3499
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 8:52:18 AM   
Dan109

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline
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...


< Message edited by Dan109 -- 5/24/2017 9:10:11 AM >

(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3500
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 11:53:22 AM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filitch

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?


Sad thing is that we, community, can't change this absurd. Ironically, people who used to make DB's for Harpoon won't let us to do the same for CMANO.

(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3501
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 3:38:18 PM   
Dan109

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline
Please add the M1161 Growler and M1163 Prime Mover to the cargo database. These are the only two vehicles certified to fit in the V-22. These should not be paradroppable however.

http://www.growlerme.com/products/m1163primemover.html
http://www.growlerme.com/products/m1161lightattackvehicle.html

I see that however CMANO includes the soldiers with the vehicle, where this vehicle has many many uses. The more common use I see with it is to have SEAL or other SpecOp recon/FO teams using them, besides being a general utility vehicle and weapon tow-truck and ammo hauler. So perhaps a generic one, a few with different spec ops types, and one with the FO equipment.

I originally thought of this when I saw the Forward Observer cargo unit (which is apparently on foot without a vehicle) deploy at 29knts in the CMANO Cargo features video.

(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3502
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 4:38:49 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 835
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scar79

You never stop amaze me, gentlemen.
...
SRSLY?!


That's one way to come across as an asshole.

_____________________________


(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3503
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 5:34:38 PM   
SASR

 

Posts: 82
Joined: 3/1/2015
Status: offline
US Army - Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System (HGWS)

Relatively new project created by the SCO a couple of years ago to defend critical ports and bases. Combines a 155mm HVP with M109A7 howitzers and a RF sensor consisting of a ground-based modified USAF fighter aircraft AESA radar (probably an APG-83) to defend against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and other air targets. The number of howitzers per HGWS is unknown, but it is probably a battery. The entire system will be demonstrated in 2018, which given the SCO’s rapid acquisition nature points to fielding a few years later.

From: https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/sco-aims-flip-script-missile-defense-bases-ports-ships-hypervelocity-gun

quote:

The Pentagon wants to take a weapon originally designed for offense, flip its punch for defense and demonstrate by 2018 the potential for the Army and Navy to conduct missile defense of bases, ports and ships using traditional field guns to fire a new hypervelocity round guided by a mobile, ground variant of an Air Force fighter aircraft radar.


The sensor will provide data links and engagement out to 25 kilometers

From: http://www.tnov.com/index.php/hypervelocity-weapon/

quote:

The system was designed to provide both tracking of an incoming warhead, and command guide the outgoing projectile to ranges of 25 kilometers. The project demonstrated critical technologies associated with the command guided weapon system. Demonstrations included cross range precision CEP of 18 centimeters at 24.8 kilometers, tracking of hypervelocity projectiles fired at up to 2 kilometers per second (6.561 feet per second or Mach 5.87), and developing and communicating with a miniature g’s hardened transceiver at 25 kilometers. Tracking of the hypervelocity projectiles was performed using a binary phased coded waveform.



The actual sensor is integrated with a transportable mount, making what's called the Hypervelocity Weapon Terminal Defense Control System (HFCS)

This link shows a picture of the HFCS radar mount and gives a short description: http://www.tnov.com/index.php/hypervelocity-weapon

< Message edited by SASR -- 5/24/2017 5:36:01 PM >

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 3504
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 7:47:19 PM   
Filitch


Posts: 384
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6
That's one way to come across as an asshole.


So, you has nothing to speak to the point.

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 3505
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 8:02:31 PM   
Filitch


Posts: 384
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
In fact, this is a question of the quality of the goods. We all paid money for the game. But it turns out that not everything in the game is the quality for which it is worth paying money. And sellers for some reason keep silent, when they are asked - why some of the product is spoiled. Guys, you made a great game, but do not spoil the reputation of a realistic simulator and your reputation for honest people. And if there is an accidental error or deliberate distortion - then an honest person should speak directly, and not keep silent, taking away other people's money.
I would really like to see the answer of Sunburn, mikmyk to the simple questions asked above.

(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3506
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 8:54:43 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filitch

In fact, this is a question of the quality of the goods. We all paid money for the game. But it turns out that not everything in the game is the quality for which it is worth paying money. And sellers for some reason keep silent, when they are asked - why some of the product is spoiled. Guys, you made a great game, but do not spoil the reputation of a realistic simulator and your reputation for honest people. And if there is an accidental error or deliberate distortion - then an honest person should speak directly, and not keep silent, taking away other people's money.
I would really like to see the answer of Sunburn, mikmyk to the simple questions asked above.


Hi Filitch

Sorry for the lack of response. Just looking this over it seems like a picture has been painted that is not true and that has excited you. Looking at the mentioned platforms all were implemented very early at a player's request and simply haven't been updated to reflect the new info. RCS stats are auto calculated in a tool so there is no purposeful slant unless you think a ton of extra work fudging Russian RCS values is really worth it? Then again if we were willing to spend the time doing that why would we spend it there and not somewhere more meaningful like within the code? Does it make sense to you? Seriously? The carrier vs DDG issue might even be an error () but I will need to dig on this one. These will be added to our list to review in the future and sorry that you're upset at this.

Now a question for you.

Should the team take on more stringent data requirements before implementing? Let me know what you think.

Thanks

Mike



_____________________________


(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3507
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 9:01:26 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scar79


quote:

ORIGINAL: Filitch

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?


Sad thing is that we, community, can't change this absurd. Ironically, people who used to make DB's for Harpoon won't let us to do the same for CMANO.


Explained here

quote:

Database Editing

Does the simulator come with a database editor?


There are pros and cons in supporting third-party databases for a simulator that is being actively maintained by the developer. Our current view is that the disadvantages are more profound. So Command does not come with a database editor.

The ability to modify a database has been taken from a stand-alone programs and integrated into the Scenario Editor. You can customise platforms in the scenarios by adding/removing mounts, magazines, sensors and comms gear as well as changing weapon types and quantities, but you aren’t able to add units or otherwise edit the database. This gives you the ability to do some new nifty things e.g. stick a Club-K container on an innocent merchant ship. And there is nothing stopping you (well, except common sense) to equip a Perry-class frigate with the SS-N-19 complement normally reserved for a Kirov. The scenario design section of the manual explains how you can do this either through the editor or via templates.

There are many reasons why databases in Command are not directly editable.


First and foremost we did not want to repeat the database mess/confusion observed in Harpoon. The scenario authors handled more than their fair share of support mails on database/scenario mismatches for that game. So for Command we wanted to shift all focus to scenarios. Command is pretty much a ‘scenario sandbox’ that started out as a scenario editor and evolved into a simulator. Everyone on the Command development team have a long history of scenario design behind them, mainly for Harpoon2/3, and we wanted to make the ultimate scenario editor for ourselves and other naval war gaming fans out there – without the noisy database element.
As such, in Command there is no need to copy/overwrite database files or edit configuration files, followed by odd behaviour and crashes if database and scenarios don’t match one hundred percent. Command scenarios know exactly what database they were built with based on the database’s checksum (!), and a scenario will pick the right database upon load. We have received much positive feedback on this solution, as the players only have to care about what scenario to play rather than worrying about whether the scenario will crash with the currently installed database or not.

Second, the database for Command is very complex. Anyone who has spent time in the Harpoon2/3 database editor will immediately notice the increased number of parameters when they look in the Command DB Viewer. Editing or leaving out the wrong parameter could have rather negative impact on gameplay, generating a ton of unnecessary support tickets for the developer.

Third, having multiple user-created databases makes continued expansion of Command far more difficult. Any schema changes would also have to be applied (correctly!) to any 3rd party databases, each of which may or may not have been abandoned by its author at that point in time. There would also be the risk of making associated material (scenarios) unusable. The Command database schema & enum tables are updated regularly and keeping all database hobbyists up-to-date would be a monstrous task, both on the dev end and on the 3rd party end. It would not take many weeks (or days!) before a new db author simply would give up.


_____________________________


(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3508
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/24/2017 10:39:48 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 835
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filitch

In fact, this is a question of the quality of the goods. We all paid money for the game. But it turns out that not everything in the game is the quality for which it is worth paying money. And sellers for some reason keep silent, when they are asked - why some of the product is spoiled. Guys, you made a great game, but do not spoil the reputation of a realistic simulator and your reputation for honest people. And if there is an accidental error or deliberate distortion - then an honest person should speak directly, and not keep silent, taking away other people's money.
I would really like to see the answer of Sunburn, mikmyk to the simple questions asked above.


That doesn't give you an excuse to be exceedingly rude.

_____________________________


(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3509
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 9:01:15 AM   
JanMasters0n


Posts: 1111
Joined: 3/8/2006
From: Belgium
Status: offline
  • #1734 - R 91 Charles De Gaulle -- France (Navy), 1999
  • #440 - R 91 Charles De Gaulle -- France (Navy), 2002
  • #469 - R 91 Charles De Gaulle -- France (Navy), 2008
  • #2787 - R 91 Charles De Gaulle -- France (Navy), 2017-0, Rafale-only
  • #2754 - R 91 Charles De Gaulle -- France (Navy), 2019

    Commissioned in May 2001.

    General Data
    Height : 66.5 m
    Full Displacement : 42600 tons
    Crew : 1950 (1850 + 100 HQ Staff)
    Troop capacity : 800

    Sensors/EW
    #1081 - ARBB 33 -- Group x2; one on each side of the island
    #2286 - ARBR 21 [DR 3000S2]
    #3903 - ABRG 2 [Jammer] -- MAIGRET

    Mounts
    The eight planned 20mm/90 Giat 20F2 were never fitted, there are 4 * 12.7mm/50 MG instead, two each side.
    In 2011, Sagaie CM were dismounted.
    In 2015, a pair of Minigun have been seen aboard, not sure since when.


    Magazines
    600 tons max, no details though

    Comms/Datalinks
    Syracuse x2, Syracuse III SATCOM since 2009

    Docking facilities
    1 x Very Small Dock/Davit (0-11m Long)
    2x Small Dock/Davit (LCVP, 11.1-17m Long)

    Properties
    Refuel to Port x 1 (Out)
    Refuel from Port x 1 (In)
    Replenish to Port x 1 (Out)
    Replenish from Port x 1 (In)

    Propulsion
    Max speed : 25 knots until 2008, then 27 knots. (In 2000, a propeller broke and smaller ones, from Foch CV, were used. In 2008, new ones, US built, larger, were installed.)

    Fuel
    Aviation Fuel 3500 t
    Diesel fuel 1000 t

    Sources:
    "Le porte-avions Charles de Gaulle, Tome II, la vie à bord et le fonctionnement" (2003), SPE Barthélémy.
    "Le porte-avions Charles de Gaulle, Tome III, son groupe aérien embarqué" (2005), SPE Barthélémy.
    "Flottes de combat 2016", Bernard Prézelin, ISBN 978-2737363740.
    "Jane's Fighting Ships 2010".
    http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/equipements/batiments-de-combat/porte-avions/charles-de-gaulle-r-91
    http://www.ffaa.net/ships/aircraft-carrier/charles-de-gaulle/caracteristiques.htm
    https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/lautoprotection-du-charles-de-gaulle-va-etre-amelioree

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

  • #2754 - R 91 Charles De Gaulle -- France (Navy), 2019

    Sensors
    - the DRBJ-11B will be replaced by a #2238 - SMART-S Mk2 , like DDG Cassard class do have (not an #2612 - Herakles 3D)
    - the two #1969 - DRBN 34 [Decca 1229] will be replaced by a pair of Scanter 6000 (closest match in current DB seems to be #5652 - Scanter 6002)
    - DRBV 15 and DRBV 26 will both remain as is (they could be replaced in 2030)

    - "#2190 - DIBC-2A Vigy 105 -- Group, 1998, Tracker" is to be replaced by a "#5271 - EOMS-NG [CCD/IR/Rangefinder] -- Group, Sagem"
    - "#2623 - DIBV-2 VAMPIR-MB -- Group, 1996, Detector" will be replaced by 3 "#3408 - Artemis" with a 360° FoV

    Mounts
    - provision will be made to install autonomous "#3165 - 20mm Narwhal 20B [M693] Burst [20 rnds]" along existing, manual, HMG.



    Sources:
    https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/charles-de-gaulle-plus-quun-arret-technique-une-refonte-0
    https://www.terma.com/press/news-2014/new-generation-of-terma-radar-selected-for-charles-de-gaulle/
    https://www.safran-group.com/fr/media/20150206_safran-modernise-le-porte-avions-charles-de-gaulle
    https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/lautoprotection-du-charles-de-gaulle-va-etre-amelioree




    < Message edited by Jan Masterson -- 6/23/2017 10:02:01 AM >

    (in reply to hellfish6)
  • Post #: 3510
    Page:   <<   < prev  115 116 [117] 118 119   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues Page: <<   < prev  115 116 [117] 118 119   next >   >>
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

    0.262