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: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? Page: <<   < prev  124 125 [126] 127 128   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/11/2017 3:19:48 AM   
orca

 

Posts: 390
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline
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.





< Message edited by orca -- 11/11/2017 3:30:22 AM >

(in reply to User2)
Post #: 3751
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/11/2017 4:56:39 PM   
Tailhook

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 1/18/2015
Status: offline
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



(in reply to orca)
Post #: 3752
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/11/2017 6:49:06 PM   
gosnold

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to Tailhook)
Post #: 3753
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/12/2017 12:41:37 AM   
hellfish6


Posts: 830
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
quote:

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.


< Message edited by hellfish6 -- 11/12/2017 12:49:42 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to orca)
Post #: 3754
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/12/2017 1:14:15 AM   
Tailhook

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 1/18/2015
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 3755
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/12/2017 11:45:26 AM   
hellfish6


Posts: 830
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tailhook


quote:

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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tailhook)
Post #: 3756
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/12/2017 12:45:50 PM   
DrRansom

 

Posts: 164
Joined: 7/14/2013
Status: offline
Umm, the ground unit RCS sounds like an issue. Maybe the devs were modeling the unit being lost in ground noise / clutter?

(in reply to gosnold)
Post #: 3757
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/13/2017 3:32:06 PM   
Tailhook

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 1/18/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tailhook


quote:

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.

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 3758
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/13/2017 4:46:51 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 830
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tailhook


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tailhook


quote:

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.


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.

< Message edited by hellfish6 -- 11/13/2017 4:48:34 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Tailhook)
Post #: 3759
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/16/2017 9:23:07 PM   
Demetrious

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 4/22/2016
Status: offline
quote:

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.]


< Message edited by Demetrious -- 11/16/2017 9:33:24 PM >

(in reply to gosnold)
Post #: 3760
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/18/2017 8:32:44 AM   
gosnold

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demetrious

quote:

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.)



I think you can have large coverage with SAR if the radar is designed for it, it's what satellites do for instance. I would not be surprised if reconnaissance assets like the RQ-180 could do it too. I think the B2 is designed to hunt TELs so it must also have the capability.

(in reply to Demetrious)
Post #: 3761
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/18/2017 10:50:50 AM   
Project2035


Posts: 16
Joined: 10/23/2017
From: US
Status: offline
Where can I find the document with what has been suggested so far?

(in reply to gosnold)
Post #: 3762
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/18/2017 6:29:57 PM   
gosnold

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline
Please increase the range of weapon #3480 9M729 SSC-8 to 1350nm, and create a nuclear-armed version( I propose to use the warhead #541, the same as the kh-102). Currently the range in the DB is 270nm, so it is not in violation of the INF treaty, contrary to all reports on it.

sources:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-moves-to-develop-banned-intermediate-missile-1510862789?mod=e2tw

table from the article if the access is restricted:

(in reply to Project2035)
Post #: 3763
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/19/2017 2:11:34 AM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline
Are you really proposing to change the specs of the weapons basing on beliefs and newspaper speculations?!

(in reply to gosnold)
Post #: 3764
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/19/2017 9:33:32 AM   
gosnold

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline
You think the Russians are going to tell us the range of the thing and confirm it violates the INF treaty?

Also the "newspaper speculations" are shared by the US DoD and independent think tank like CSIS.

(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3765
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/19/2017 1:06:25 PM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline
I think that's all are speculations based on "anonymous sources".


P.S. And BTW, i'm Russian.

(in reply to gosnold)
Post #: 3766
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/19/2017 3:30:32 PM   
Scorpion86

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 2/26/2017
Status: offline
Hi there! Here I am, with new requests for the Portuguese Air Force! As usual, my requests have been sourced to the best of my abilitiy, although many sources are in portuguese.
Here we go!

- Aérospatiale Puma SA.330H (’79-’88)

- SA.330C upgraded with an Omera ORB-31 radar, inflatable floatation devices and a winch for SAR missions.

Sources:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rospatiale_SA-330_Puma
http://www.operacional.pt/sud-aviation-sa-330-puma/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rospatiale_SA_330_Puma

- Aérospatiale Puma SA.330S (’88-’06)

- SA.330H upgraded with Turbomeca Makila 1A1 turbines.

Sources:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rospatiale_SA-330_Puma
http://www.operacional.pt/sud-aviation-sa-330-puma/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rospatiale_SA_330_Puma

- EH-101 Merlin SAR (’06-…)

- Acquired in 3 versions: SAR, CSAR and Fisheries Surveillance.
- SAR version has primary and secondary winch, emergency floats, 2 internal life rafts (each 14 person capacity) and night vision capacity
- Engines: 3 x Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM 322-MK 250
- Sensors:
--- Radar: belly-mounted MM/APS-717 (360º coverage)
--- FLIR: Star Safire II
--- Visual: Searchlight
- Communications:
--- HF: Elmer SRT-170/M6
--- VHF: Elmer SRT-651/N-SH
--- UHF: Elmer SRT-651/N-SH

Sources:
http://www.emfa.pt/www/aeronave-17-agusta-westland-eh-101-merlin
https://comum.rcaap.pt/bitstream/10400.26/12391/1/TII_MAJG%20ALVES.pdf
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/contrats-156496/
http://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/4694-portugal-selects-italian-radar
https://comum.rcaap.pt/bitstream/10400.26/11612/1/DOC-Gestao_Conjunta_de_Manutencao_de_Aeronaves_nas_FFAA_Uma_possibilidade.pdf

- EH-101 Merlin CSAR (’06-…)

- Acquired in 3 versions: SAR, CSAR and Fisheries Surveillance.
- CSAR version has, in addition to the equipment of the SAR version:
--- Aerial refuelling probe
--- MWS: AN/AAR-54
--- RWR: Sky Guardian 2000
--- Counter-measures: AN/ALE-47

Sources:
http://www.emfa.pt/www/aeronave-17-agusta-westland-eh-101-merlin
https://comum.rcaap.pt/bitstream/10400.26/12391/1/TII_MAJG%20ALVES.pdf
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/contrats-156496/
http://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/4694-portugal-selects-italian-radar
https://comum.rcaap.pt/bitstream/10400.26/11612/1/DOC-Gestao_Conjunta_de_Manutencao_de_Aeronaves_nas_FFAA_Uma_possibilidade.pdf

- FIAT G.91 R/3 (’76-’93)

- Identical to the FIAT G.91/R1 (#1649), except in the following:
- Should have 3 VINTEN F95 Mk.3 reconnaissance cameras pointed front, left and right
- 2 x DEFA 552 30mm cannons instead of the Browning M3 12,7mm machineguns
- Has 4 external pylons
- In 1980 all Portuguese G.91Rs underwent upgrades in OGMA that allowed them to carry the AIM-9B
- Missing loadouts:
--- 4 x AIM-9B
--- 2 x AIM-9B + 260l drop tank
--- 4 x LAU-32/A (7 x FFAR Mk.40 each)
--- 2 x GP 500 lbs + 4 x GP 110 lbs bombs
--- 2 x GP 500 lbs + 2 x GP 250 lbs bombs
--- 4 x 250 lbs bombs
--- 2 x 300l Napalm bomb
- Other known weapons:
--- Mk20 Rockeye
--- Mk81 Snakeye
--- BL755 cluster bomb
--- 110/250/500/750 lbs GP bombs

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.91
http://walkarounds-blog.blogspot.pt/2015/02/fiat-g91.html
http://www.passarodeferro.com/2008/11/fiat-perfil-de-armamento.html
http://www.passarodeferro.com/2008/11/perfil-do-fiat-2.html
http://www.passarodeferro.com/2008/11/perfil-do-fiat-3.html
http://asasdeferro.blogspot.pt/2017/07/fiat-g91-gina.html
http://www.airvectors.net/avamx.html
http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/italy/fiat/g-91/gaf-to-1f-91-r3-1-flight-manual-g91-r3.html
https://pt.scribd.com/doc/174079220/Warpaint-Series-No-49-Fiat-G-91
http://thecombatworkshop.blogspot.pt/2016/11/sidewinder-overview-part-i-aim-9b.html
http://www.emfa.pt/www/po/maisalto/conteudos/artigo.pdf

- FIAT G.91 R/4 (’66-’93)

- Identical to the FIAT G.91/R1 (#1649), except in the following:
- Should have 3 VINTEN F95 Mk.3 reconnaissance cameras pointed front, left and right
- Has 4 external pylons
- In 1980 all Portuguese G.91Rs underwent upgrades in OGMA that allowed them to carry the AIM-9B
- Missing loadouts:
--- 4 x AIM-9B
--- 2 x AIM-9B + 260l drop tank
--- 4 x LAU-32/A (7 x FFAR Mk.40 each)
--- 2 x GP 500 lbs + 4 x GP 110 lbs bombs
--- 2 x GP 500 lbs + 2 x GP 250 lbs bombs
--- 4 x 250 lbs bombs
--- 2 x 300l Napalm bomb
- Other known weapons:
--- Mk20 Rockeye
--- Mk81 Snakeye
--- BL755 cluster bomb
--- 110/250/500/750 lbs GP bombs

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.91
http://walkarounds-blog.blogspot.pt/2015/02/fiat-g91.html
http://www.passarodeferro.com/2008/11/fiat-perfil-de-armamento.html
http://www.passarodeferro.com/2008/11/perfil-do-fiat-2.html
http://www.passarodeferro.com/2008/11/perfil-do-fiat-3.html
http://asasdeferro.blogspot.pt/2017/07/fiat-g91-gina.html
http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/italy/fiat/g-91/t-o-nato-1rf-g91-r4-2-1-technical-manual-organizational-maintenance-general-airplane-g91-r4.html
http://www.airvectors.net/avamx.html
https://pt.scribd.com/doc/174079220/Warpaint-Series-No-49-Fiat-G-91
http://thecombatworkshop.blogspot.pt/2016/11/sidewinder-overview-part-i-aim-9b.html
http://www.emfa.pt/www/po/maisalto/conteudos/artigo.pdf

Corrections to the database:

#1649 – G.91 R/1 Gina

- Should have 3 VINTEN F95 Mk.3 reconnaissance cameras pointed front, left and right
- When carrying the AS-20 missiles, 2 guns are removed to install the missile guidance system
- Missing loadouts:
--- 2 x GP 500lbs bombs
--- 2 x AS-20 missiles
--- 2 x 300l Napalm bombs

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.91
http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/italy/fiat/g-91/flight-handbook-g-91-aircraft.html
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fiat_G91R_DX.jpg

< Message edited by Scorpion86 -- 5/30/2018 6:19:28 AM >

(in reply to User2)
Post #: 3767
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/23/2017 11:23:52 PM   
KC45


Posts: 157
Joined: 11/23/2017
From: JPN
Status: offline
Hi, Can I request to add for new Japanese ships?
DD-119 Asahi(minor change version of DD-115 Akizuki) from 2015
Asahi-class destroyer focused on ASW mission, so some functions of FCS-3 omitted.

Akizuki's FCS-3A MFR Changed to OYP-1 It decrease the number of control ESSMs
The sonar OQR-3 changed to OQR-4
The engines change to LM2500IEC x2

I'm sorry about I'm not good English writer, but that's all information I could find.

(in reply to Scorpion86)
Post #: 3768
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 11/24/2017 7:31:48 PM   
NMDanny

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 11/24/2017
Status: offline
I have some requests regarding Israeli platforms.

Delilah
The Delilah missile is missing the ability to perform a bearing-only launch. It's a loitering munition with datalink that is designed to find targets mid-flight, so it seems odd that you'd need a precise target(without a too big ambiguity) just to launch it. Plus it supports GPS/INS guidance IRL (like a JDAM)

Also, what's the difference between the Delilah and the Delilah-AL weapons? Both are air-launched and have the same stats.

AGM-142F Popeye IIR
It only exists in the F-15D variants(year 2000+), but it's missing in the F-15I variants(which are the latest dual seat variants),
and all dual seater F16's variants (D,DG,I) from 1995+ (see "F16 popeye" on google images)
It's also missing from the F-4E Kurnass 1994, and Kurnass 2000 variants. See "F-4e kurnass popeye" on google images

Like the Delilah, it's missing a bearing-only launch ability, despite the missile supporting INS guidance + datalink.

F-35I
I'm speculating here because it'll only be operational in 2019, but anyway:

It's missing the ability to carry GBU-39 SDB's, which Israel already fields on their latest F15/F16's and thus are likely to use on the F-35 as well.

Also, all non US F-35s seem to lack OECM. Not sure if it's an oversight or not, but the F-35I will have unique Israeli electronic warfare systems[/link], which should be reflected ingame as having DECM/OECM. See 'F-35 Lightning Israeli procurement' on wikipedia


(in reply to Temple)
Post #: 3769
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 11/26/2017 4:49:59 PM   
eleos


Posts: 28
Joined: 3/21/2016
Status: offline
I was watch a video about the other candidate of JSF programm the X-32.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhgkAxwOfFI

Suddenly I come up with the idea to ask from devs to put Χ-32, maybe under the designation F-32, into DB3K.

I don't know whether is the correct thread or not.
But as long as there is YF-23, Raptor's opponent, I think that devs should give X-32 the chance to fight, the chance that didn't have in real life

< Message edited by eleos -- 11/26/2017 4:50:55 PM >

(in reply to NMDanny)
Post #: 3770
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 11/26/2017 5:10:33 PM   
Vici Supreme

 

Posts: 543
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Southern Germany
Status: offline
Missiles for Australia


Australia will receive the AIM-120D AMRAAM to equip its fleet of F/A-18s, F-35s and EA-18Gs.

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-aim-120d-advanced-medium-range-air-air-missiles


Among others, the RANs new Hobart-class destroyers will carry the SM-2 Block IIIB missiles.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/june-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4071-australia-to-equip-its-hobart-class-awd-vessels-with-raytheon-sm-2-block-iiib-missiles.html
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-sm-2-block-iiib-standard-missiles-0

Thanks for considering!

_____________________________


(in reply to eleos)
Post #: 3771
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 11/27/2017 1:26:25 AM   
Vici Supreme

 

Posts: 543
Joined: 12/4/2013
From: Southern Germany
Status: offline
Tall Rack Radar Update

An effort to untangle the different versions of this radar with their specific in-service dates.


#1616 - Radar (Tall Rack [55Zh6-1 Nebo UYe])

Name:

- Radar (Tall Rack [55Zh6-1 Nebo UYe]) --> Radar (Tall Rack [55Zh6U Nebo U]) (1)

Date:

- Serial production started in 1994, first deliveries to the Russian Armed Forces by 1995 (2)


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

#1644 - Radar (Tall Rack [55Zh6-1 Nebo UYe])

Appearant export variant of 55Zh6U Nebo U used by Vietnam. (4) Vietnamnese online sources mention the radar system as 55Zh6UE Nebo-UE. Google translates Небо-УЕ as Nebo-UYe...

Name:

- Radar (Tall Rack [55Zh6-1 Nebo UYe]) --> Radar (Tall Rack [55Zh6UE Nebo UE])

Sensors / EW:

- Replace #2522 Tall Rack [55Zh6-1 Nebo UYe] with #3820 Tall Rack [55Zh6UE Nebo Uye]


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

(Sensor) #2522 - Tall Rack [55Zh6-1 Nebo UYe]

Name:

- Tall Rack [55Zh6-1 Nebo UYe] --> Tall Rack [55Zh6U Nebo U]

Abilities:

- Replace Early 2000s Technology with Early 1990s Technology (No clue how severe such change is to a sensors performance)


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

(Sensor) #3820 - Tall Rack [55Zh6UE Nebo Uye]

Name:

- Tall Rack [55Zh6UE Nebo Uye] --> Tall Rack [55Zh6UE Nebo UE]

Abilities:

- Replace Early 2000s Technology with Early 1990s Technology


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

Request: Radar (Tall Rack [55Zh6 Nebo])

Can you please add this radar for the Soviets as well as for Russia. Altough the 55Zh6U replaced the basic 55Zh6 as the principle version of this system, some low-priority radar sites still operate with the 55Zh6 well into the 2010's.

Date:

- 55Zh6 Nebo entered service with the Soviet PVO in 1987 (3)


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

(1)(2)(3) http://bastion-karpenko.ru/55zh6um/
(4) http://www.almaz-antey.ru/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/53/281/645

Dankeschön!

< Message edited by Supreme 2.0 -- 11/27/2017 1:32:10 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Vici Supreme)
Post #: 3772
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 11/27/2017 11:44:13 AM   
Scorpion86

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 2/26/2017
Status: offline
I've made a mistake in my previous post regarding the P-3P Orions for the Portuguese Air Force! I attributed to them the wrong kind of radar!
I've edited my original post, but here's the corrected version (changes in italicized bold):

#1236 – P-3P Orion

- Service years: 1989 - 2011

- Aircraft belongs to Air Force, not Navy

- Systems should be equivalent to P-3C Update II.5 (except radar and ESM)
--- Radar: AN/APS-134
--- MAD: AN/ASQ-81
--- ESM: AN/ALR-66A(V)3
--- IRDS: AN/AAS-36
--- Sonobuoy Receiver: AN/ARR-72(V)
--- HF: AN/ARC-161
--- VHF: AN/ARC-197
--- UHF: AN/ARC-143B

- Missing loadouts:
--- AGM-84D Harpoon
--- Mk82/83/84 bomb
--- Mk54 depth charge

Sources:
http://www.p3orion.nl/variants.html
http://walkarounds-blog.blogspot.pt/2015/02/p-3p-orion.html
http://www.p3orion.nl/poaf.pdf
http://www.p3orion.nl/p-3cupdateavionics.pdf
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/orion.html

#2660 – P-3P Orion

- Service years: 1991 - 2011

- Aircraft belongs to Air Force, not Navy

- Systems should be equivalent to P-3C Update II.5 (except radar and ESM)
--- Radar: AN/APS-134
--- MAD: AN/ASQ-81
--- ESM: AN/ALR-66A(V)3
--- IRDS: AN/AAS-36
--- Sonobuoy Receiver: AN/ARR-72(V)
--- HF: AN/ARC-161
--- VHF: AN/ARC-197
--- UHF: AN/ARC-143B

- Missing loadouts:
--- AGM-84D Harpoon
--- Mk82/83/84 bomb
--- Mk54 depth charge

Sources:
http://www.p3orion.nl/variants.html
http://walkarounds-blog.blogspot.pt/2015/02/p-3p-orion.html
http://www.p3orion.nl/poaf.pdf
http://www.p3orion.nl/p-3cupdateavionics.pdf
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/orion.html

< Message edited by Scorpion86 -- 5/30/2018 3:47:04 AM >

(in reply to User2)
Post #: 3773
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 11/27/2017 2:01:34 PM   
Gypsy661

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 4/17/2015
Status: offline
Please Add Buddy store loadout to the
Rafale fighter jet and the Mig-29M / Mig-35 Fighter jets

Add Mig-29m2/35 to Egypt's Airforce

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 3774
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 12/1/2017 2:29:31 PM   
Zaslon

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gypsy661

Please Add Buddy store loadout to the
Rafale fighter jet and the Mig-29M / Mig-35 Fighter jets

Add Mig-29m2/35 to Egypt's Airforce


It was reported twice since January here and here, but at least we have plenty of Hypothetical US units!

Another interesting loadout for M/M2.



2 Kh-38M
2 R-77
1 PTB-1500 Fuel tank.
1 T-220 Pod
2 Decoy launchers

Source






_____________________________


Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China

(in reply to Gypsy661)
Post #: 3775
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 12/1/2017 11:37:57 PM   
Zaslon

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline
Youtube

#508 must be able to launch Kalibr from his 6 tubes, not only from 2.

_____________________________


Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China

(in reply to Zaslon)
Post #: 3776
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 12/2/2017 8:45:23 AM   
User2

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 1/14/2016
Status: offline
quote:

#508 must be able to launch Kalibr from his 6 tubes, not only from 2.

636.3 loadout in the game is rather messy.
What do we know about 636.3 tubes: 6x533mm, but only 2 of them have guide-by-wire equipment.
That's why they are divided into 4+2 tube sets in the game. That's why only 2 tubes can fire wire guided TEST-71 torpedo.
But Fizik-1 topredo is wire guided too and for some reason in the game it can only be fired by those 4 tubes that have no guiding equipment. Probably IRL all tubes can fire Fizik-1 and TEST-71 topredos but only 2 tubes allow guiding these torpedos mid-course. In the game a datalink is associated with a torpedo, not with a mount. So in the game Fizik-1 fired from any tube can be wire-guided.

That said, we have 2 tube loadout variants:
1. Strict: mid-course guidance capable torpedos can be fired from the tubes that have guiding equipment only.
2. Free: all 6 tubes are the same and can fire wire-guided torpedos.

I think 1st variant is the most realistic. In my opition loadout should be like this:
2x533m tubes: Fizik-1, 3M54, 3M14, 91R, USET-80, DM-1 mines
4x533m tubes: 3M54, 3M14, 91R, USET-80, DM-1 mines
Notes: TEST-71 torpedos are not used by RU Navy anymore according to Russian wiki [1], KILO subs can carry 24 DM-1 mines (2 per tube + 12 inside submarine), according to wiki pages of specific 636.3 subs they can use 91R1 anti-submarine rockets (for example, here). standard 636.3 sub loadout is 4 kalibr missiles+14 torpedos or 24 mines.

(in reply to Zaslon)
Post #: 3777
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 12/6/2017 11:20:53 PM   
DrRansom

 

Posts: 164
Joined: 7/14/2013
Status: offline
I have a vague database request, based on recent proposals to handle the North Korean missile developments:

Could we get a generic air-launched boost-phase missile defense weapon? The range should be short, < 200km, and the weight high to represent physical constraints on the weapon.

(in reply to User2)
Post #: 3778
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 12/8/2017 3:27:21 AM   
orca

 

Posts: 390
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline
China type 055 request:

Please change hangar to accommodate 2 medium or large aircraft (instead of small)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_055_destroyer
https://thediplomat.com/2017/06/china-launches-next-generation-guided-missile-destroyer/

(in reply to DrRansom)
Post #: 3779
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 12/8/2017 3:35:59 AM   
orca

 

Posts: 390
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline
S-350/Redut missile request

Please add 9M100 missile.

Quad pack on redut VLS
10-15km range
IR guidance


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vityaz_missile_system
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Gorshkov-class_frigate
https://vpk.name/library/f/vityaz.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_missile_system_vehicle_uk/s-350e_s-350_vityaz_50r6_air_defense_missile_data_pictures.html

(in reply to orca)
Post #: 3780
Page:   <<   < prev  124 125 [126] 127 128   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? Page: <<   < prev  124 125 [126] 127 128   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

0.191