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: none
  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  160 161 [162] 163 164   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/7/2019 4:37:50 AM   
Skyhawk88

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 7/6/2019
Status: offline
Thank you very much Tookatee!

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 4831
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/7/2019 7:57:25 PM   
KLAB

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: offline
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/local-news/royal-navy-marines-kill-banshee-3055375

For consideration for future updates please?
K




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Skyhawk88)
Post #: 4832
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 1:24:49 AM   
Dragon029


Posts: 61
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tookatee

All variants of the American A-10, B-2, B-52, F-15E, F-16, F-35, and all other variants of the F/A-18 are missing the ability to load the Mk82 Snakeeye.
Also, the Mk 83 AIR and the Mk 84 AIR should also have all the aircraft included on their LDGB versions.

Image displaying the full armament of the F-35 as stated by Lockheed Martin (this also highlights the fact that it can't equip the LDGB Mk82/3/4 and their ballute versions as well.)



Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_82_bomb, https://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/f-35-and-current-weapons, and CMANO (as all aircraft that can hold the Mk 82/3/4 can equip the Ballute or Snakeeye versions of those weapons as they are purely mechanical bolt-on modifications to the bomb itself.)


Just FYI, that slide wasn't describing what weapons were actually planned for integration (except the weapons with orange text; they correspond to the "Store Fully Certified During SDD").

The reason those other weapons are listed is because their weight, access and volume requirements were used to design the F-35's internal bays and hardpoints / pylons; they'd align the mounting points for those weapons, overlay them and then make sure that they could all fit / have safe separation clearance, etc:




Also just in general, you have to remember that just because a weapon can be fitted, it doesn't mean that pylons are correctly calibrated to safely eject them (that requires flight separation testing to be conducted), or that pilots that fly those particular aircraft are trained to use them - F-35 pilots wouldn't be getting trained to use high drag (ballute, etc) bombs for example.

< Message edited by Dragon029 -- 7/8/2019 1:25:43 AM >

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 4833
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 3:15:17 AM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
If the F-35 can load and equip the JDAM variants of the Mk series of weapons then it can equip the less advanced, purely mechanical AIR and Snakeeye versions of those weapons. Just like the JDAM kits they are just bolt-on modifications to the Mk series of bombs that allow for different delivery methods, except unlike the JDAM kits (that have on-board electronics) they don't require any sort of special connection or avionics on the aircraft.

Just to emphasize loadouts would just be clones of the current JDAM loadouts for the F-35 variants with them (minus any internal loadouts), except the JDAMs replaced by the LDGB/AIR/Snakeeye version of those weapons.

And pilot training is irrelevant for the database, that's a factor for scenario authors to consider. Like I said before the database should have complete and accurate records of the capabilities for all the vehicles included in it so that they can be used in the most scenarios possible.

Finally here's yet another source I found that describes the F-35's ability to load the Mk82 and its associated versions http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

< Message edited by Tookatee -- 7/8/2019 3:28:24 AM >

(in reply to Dragon029)
Post #: 4834
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 3:40:50 AM   
Dragon029


Posts: 61
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline
quote:

If the F-35 can load and equip the JDAM variants of the Mk series of weapons then it can equip the less advanced, purely mechanical AIR and Snakeeye versions of those weapons. Just like the JDAM kits they are just bolt-on modifications to the Mk series of bombs that allow for different delivery methods, except unlike the JDAM kits (that have on-board electronics) they don't require any sort of special connection or avionics on the aircraft.


The JDAM kits affect the range of the weapons and have impacts on the separation dynamics (more so for the high drag variants); that impacts the ability for pilots to employ the weapon (although for Snake Eyes, HUD guidance cues aren't really an issue).

quote:

And pilot training is irrelevant for the database, that's a factor for scenario authors to consider. Like I said before the database should have complete and accurate records of the capabilities for all the vehicles included in it so that they can be used in the most scenarios possible.

The purpose of the database is to provide realistic loadouts and systems as used by respective operators - USMC F-35Bs could employ ASRAAMs for example, but they're not included in the USMC F-35B loadouts because they're not a weapon that's used by the USMC, even when they're co-located with RAF / RN units. If you want to add Snake Eyes to an F-35 for a specific scenario, you can do that right now using the aircraft weapons edit window.

quote:

Finally here's yet another source I found that describes the F-35's ability to load the Mk82 and its associated versions http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml


That page was written in 2004 and is out of date; here's an official Lockheed chart from 2018 on what loadouts that can be used on the F-35 today:

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 4835
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 5:36:28 AM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

The purpose of the database is to provide realistic loadouts and systems as used by respective operators - USMC F-35Bs could employ ASRAAMs for example, but they're not included in the USMC F-35B loadouts because they're not a weapon that's used by the USMC, even when they're co-located with RAF / RN units. If you want to add Snake Eyes to an F-35 for a specific scenario, you can do that right now using the aircraft weapons edit window.



That's a completely different case, unlike weapons like the ASRAAM the Mk series of weapons are employed all across the different branches of the armed forces as the general purpose bomb. The F-35 has provisions to equip these weapons externally, as proven by its ability to equip the JDAM variants of the Mk series of bombs. I understand that the unguided MK series of weapons aren't the primary loadout for a stealth aircraft, however at times when such weapons aren't available (such as after all the other ordinance have been expended) the database lacking the ability to let you equip these unguided variants can be frustrating. As it is now (in addition to all those other missing aircraft I stated) the database currently has an inaccurate portrayal of the MK series of bomb's weapons carriers.

quote:


The JDAM kits affect the range of the weapons and have impacts on the separation dynamics (more so for the high drag variants); that impacts the ability for pilots to employ the weapon (although for Snake Eyes, HUD guidance cues aren't really an issue).



I don't see how this is even relevant to what I said, JDAM weapons are simply bolt on guidance kits for the Mk series of bombs. The ability to equip JDAMs does not magically prohibit said aircraft from equipping the Mk series of bombs without a JDAM kit. The F-35 has a ballistic computer and can employ these weapons just like any other aircraft can.

< Message edited by Tookatee -- 7/8/2019 5:42:15 AM >

(in reply to Dragon029)
Post #: 4836
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 1:10:46 PM   
Dragon029


Posts: 61
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tookatee
That's a completely different case, unlike weapons like the ASRAAM the Mk series of weapons are employed all across the different branches of the armed forces as the general purpose bomb. The F-35 has provisions to equip these weapons externally, as proven by its ability to equip the JDAM variants of the Mk series of bombs. I understand that the unguided MK series of weapons aren't the primary loadout for a stealth aircraft, however at times when such weapons aren't available (such as after all the other ordinance have been expended) the database lacking the ability to let you equip these unguided variants can be frustrating. As it is now (in addition to all those other missing aircraft I stated) the database currently has an inaccurate portrayal of the MK series of bomb's weapons carriers.

Hundreds of thousands of JDAM guidance kits have been delivered and similar amount of Paveway kits have also been delivered. Hell, I haven't even heard of the US employing any unguided Mk-82/83/84s in actual combat this century.

quote:


I don't see how this is even relevant to what I said, JDAM weapons are simply bolt on guidance kits for the Mk series of bombs. The ability to equip JDAMs does not magically prohibit said aircraft from equipping the Mk series of bombs without a JDAM kit. The F-35 has a ballistic computer and can employ these weapons just like any other aircraft can.

The F-35 does have a ballistic computer, but it's entirely possible that it's designed to factor in the drag qualities of weapons - a GBU-12 won't fall the same way as a GBU-31, which won't fall the same way as a Mk-84 unguided, which won't fall the same way as a Mk-84 Snake Eye.

Also as previously mentioned, the weapon ejector configurations are also going to be important; aircraft wakes require weapons to be ejected slightly different from different stations and aircraft, and so if an F-35 kicks out a Mk-82 the same way it does a GBU-12, it might get launched with (eg) serious negative alpha and lose a bunch of energy / range that the ballistic computer doesn't factor in.

Here's some examples of what happens when weapon separations aren't properly tuned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPTnmZ_HPAs

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 4837
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 1:33:29 PM   
Skyhawk88

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 7/6/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

Hell, I haven't even heard of the US employing any unguided Mk-82/83/84s in actual combat this century.

This should not be a factor for the DB if you ask me. It only serves to limit scenario designers. Look at the Kepler Syndrome thread for instance, there are legitimate reasons for players and designers to have access to these things.

(in reply to Dragon029)
Post #: 4838
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 7:23:29 PM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
quote:


ORIGINAL: Dragon0291
Hundreds of thousands of JDAM guidance kits have been delivered and similar amount of Paveway kits have also been delivered. Hell, I haven't even heard of the US employing any unguided Mk-82/83/84s in actual combat this century.


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.
quote:


The F-35 does have a ballistic computer, but it's entirely possible that it's designed to factor in the drag qualities of weapons - a GBU-12 won't fall the same way as a GBU-31, which won't fall the same way as a Mk-84 unguided, which won't fall the same way as a Mk-84 Snake Eye.


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.

quote:


Also as previously mentioned, the weapon ejector configurations are also going to be important; aircraft wakes require weapons to be ejected slightly different from different stations and aircraft, and so if an F-35 kicks out a Mk-82 the same way it does a GBU-12, it might get launched with (eg) serious negative alpha and lose a bunch of energy / range that the ballistic computer doesn't factor in.


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.

< Message edited by Tookatee -- 7/8/2019 7:44:10 PM >

(in reply to Dragon029)
Post #: 4839
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 7:36:18 PM   
ARCNA442

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 4/7/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

That page was written in 2004 and is out of date; here's an official Lockheed chart from 2018 on what loadouts that can be used on the F-35 today:



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.

The USAF F-35A currently has separate entries for 2017 and 2019 (#278 and #3498) and the only difference that I can see is that the 2019 entry has SDB-I while the 2017 entry does not. However, SDB-I was part of the Block 3F upgrade that was introduced in 2017. Thus, a loadout of 2x AIM-120 & 8x GBU-39 should be added to the 2017 entry and the 2019 entry removed.

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-certificates-slate-of-weapons-for-f-443824/

It should also be noted that this source states that all F-35's are equipped with the AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM rather than the AIM-120D AMRAAM that is currently listed in the database.

The Block 3F upgrade also increased the F-35A's maneuverability to 9G's, not the 7G's listed in the database. This means the 2017 (and 2021) entry should have the maneuverability rating of "5" that is currently only given to the 2025 entry (#3835).

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/June%202017/F-35-Air-Demo-Debut-Highlighted-Combat-Maneuvering.aspx

The USMC F-35B is slightly more complicated. It originally went IOC with Block 2B software in 2015 (entry #534 is currently labeled 2016 and should be changed).

Source: https://news.usni.org/2015/07/31/marines-declare-initial-operational-capability-on-f-35b-joint-strike-fighter

At that time the F-35B only had the following loadouts:
2x AIM-120, 2x GBU-32
2x AIM-120, 2x GBU-12

Therefore, the following loadouts should be removed from entry #534:
4x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 25mm GAU-22 gun pod
4x AIM-120
2x AIM-120, 6x GBU-12

The next F35B entry is labeled 2021 and has the SDB-II (#3496). This means there is no entry representing the current Block 3F configuration that was introduced in 2017. Such an entry should be created and should have the following loadouts (based on the graphic from Dragon029):

2x AIM-120, 2x GBU-32
2x AIM-120, 2x GBU-12
4x AIM-120
4x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9
2x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 6x GBU-12

All of those loadouts should also have the option for the 25mm GAU-22 gun pod.

Note also that the F-35B was designed as a 7G aircraft and should retain its "4.5" maneuverability rating in the Block 3F and subsequent entries - the 2025 entry currently in the database (#4701) has a "5" rating and should be changed to "4.5".

The USN F-35C entry for 2019 (#824) is the most accurate (the date is also correct as the Navy only declared IOC this year). However, it currently only has its 25mm GAU-22 gun pod in a single A2A loadout. Instead, all loadouts should have versions with and without the gun pod (there are numerous pictures with the F-35C armed with the pod and external bombs).

Similar to the F-35B, the F-35C was designed as a 7.5G aircraft and should always have a "4.5" maneuverability rating. Thus, the 2025 entry (#3836) should be changed from its current "5" rating.

I don't know how it effects gameplay, but some of the listed dimensions for the F-35 variants are also off (particularly the wingspans of the B and C, which seem to have been switched). They should be:
F-35A: 15.7m long, 4.38m tall, 8278kg internal fuel
F-35B: 15.6m long, 10.7m wingspan, 4.36m tall, 14700kg empty, 6125kg internal fuel
F-35C: 15.7m long, 13.1m wingspan, 4.48m tall, 15800kg empty, 8960kg internal fuel

Source: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7e3f367993543a6e0fcf1825150a3e71

(in reply to Dragon029)
Post #: 4840
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 8:54:03 PM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
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 of GBU-62 loaded onto a B-52H.



Sources: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/quickstrike.htm , https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23705/b-52-tested-2000lb-quickstrike-er-winged-standoff-naval-mines-during-valiant-shield , https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/08/toward-21st-century-us-navy-mining-force/150709/ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VNzwRbAtZc , https://news.usni.org/2016/04/26/essay-navy-air-force-reviving-offensive-mining-with-new-quickstrikes , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition

< Message edited by Tookatee -- 7/11/2019 12:22:56 AM >

(in reply to ARCNA442)
Post #: 4841
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 9:18:26 PM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
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-52_Stratofortress

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 4842
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 9:59:06 PM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
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-Diameter-Bomb.html , https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb.htm , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb , and http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html

< Message edited by Tookatee -- 7/9/2019 8:30:04 PM >

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 4843
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 11:07:56 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 357
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
I know +1 and top post frowned upon but me too. Let know what other infos needed will digs.


quote:

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/local-news/royal-navy-marines-kill-banshee-3055375

For consideration for future updates please?
K







< Message edited by BDukes -- 7/8/2019 11:08:44 PM >

(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 4844
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/8/2019 11:13:12 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 357
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline
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/update-sweden-deploys-air-defence-system-to-gotland

(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 4845
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 12:47:44 AM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
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/Archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_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.

(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 4846
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 7:41:35 AM   
Dragon029


Posts: 61
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline

quote:

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.

quote:


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.

quote:


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.

quote:

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).

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 4847
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 7:54:13 AM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
quote:


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.

quote:


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.

quote:


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.

quote:


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.

quote:


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/military/a27334324/f-35a-combat/

< Message edited by Tookatee -- 7/9/2019 8:09:40 AM >

(in reply to Dragon029)
Post #: 4848
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 10:33:32 AM   
Joelsi


Posts: 83
Joined: 10/17/2018
From: Finland
Status: online
quote:

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-52_Stratofortress


"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.

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 4849
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 10:39:44 AM   
Joelsi


Posts: 83
Joined: 10/17/2018
From: Finland
Status: online
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

(in reply to Joelsi)
Post #: 4850
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 1:20:47 PM   
Dragon029


Posts: 61
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline
quote:

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.

quote:


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?

quote:


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.

quote:


False, just recently the Air Force dropped a JDAM from an F-35A against an ISIS tunnel network in Iraq.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a27334324/f-35a-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).

(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 4851
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 7:21:43 PM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Tookatee -- 7/9/2019 11:21:43 PM >

(in reply to Joelsi)
Post #: 4852
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 7:32:07 PM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
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].)

< Message edited by Tookatee -- 7/9/2019 8:28:14 PM >

(in reply to Joelsi)
Post #: 4853
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 7:51:24 PM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline
quote:


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.

quote:


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.)

quote:


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 .

(in reply to Dragon029)
Post #: 4854
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 7:52:11 PM   
apache85

 

Posts: 1468
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
Can you guys take your arguments somewhere else and keep this thread for requests please.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 4855
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 7:56:21 PM   
ProdigyofMilitaryPride

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/17/2015
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to apache85)
Post #: 4856
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 7:57:59 PM   
Tookatee

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to apache85)
Post #: 4857
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/9/2019 8:50:53 PM   
Talisman

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline
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




(in reply to Tookatee)
Post #: 4858
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/11/2019 3:37:20 PM   
LewisOwen

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 12/3/2017
Status: offline
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



(in reply to Talisman)
Post #: 4859
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 7/11/2019 4:44:43 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1013
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
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)

(in reply to LewisOwen)
Post #: 4860
Page:   <<   < prev  160 161 [162] 163 164   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  160 161 [162] 163 164   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

0.211