Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[f4migcap]

For the Philippines can you add the f-8H Crusader:
from the internet:
In late 1977, the Philippine government purchased 35 secondhand U.S. Navy F-8Hs that were stored at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona.[31] Twenty-five of them were refurbished by Vought and the remaining 10 were used for spare parts.[31] As part of the deal, the U.S. would train Philippine pilots in using the TF-8A.[31] They were mostly used for intercepting Soviet bombers.[31] The F-8s were grounded in 1988 and were finally withdrawn from service in 1991 after they were badly damaged by the Mount Pinatubo eruption, and have since been offered for sale as scrap.

So it looks like their service life with the Philippine Air Force was 1977 to 1988........thanks!

[e2204588]

Japan's SSM-1 and SSM-1B are using active seeker instead of IIR seeker.
SSM-1B is ship launch variant of SSM-1. So, there is no #326- SSM Coy (SSM-1B[Type 90]).
SSM-1 Coy's operator should be Japan Ground Self-Defense Force.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/miss ... 88-ssm.htm
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/88%E5%BC%8 ... E%E5%BC%BE
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AF%BE% ... E%E5%BC%BE

[e2204588]

Type 054A could only guide one HQ-16 currently. (Only one SA-N-12 channel.)

According to
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface ... kai-ii.asp
It should able to guide 8 missiles to attack 4 targets.

[e2204588]

Perry class can only engage one air target currently.

I think it can engage two targets (One with STIR, another with CAS.)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship ... 92-fcs.pdf

[Rudd]

B-52H 2016 loadout change

Boeing will produce three prototype launchers for test and evaluation. Initial capability is expected in March 2016, and potential follow-on efforts could add additional weapons and allow a mixed load of different types of weapons. Following the upgrade’s first phase, the B-52s will be able to carry 24 500-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) or 20 2,000-pound JDAMs. Later phases will add the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and its extended range variant (JASSM-ER), as well as the Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD) and its jammer variant (MALD/J).

from http://boeing.mediaroom.com/New-Boeing- ... ty-by-Half

[Rudd]

A few more (IOC's may be later than you want, to be implemented in the db yet)


Not sure if this one is actually ordered or when IOC is. http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Bell-Boeing ... light-Test

KC-46A

“We remain on track to deliver the initial 18 KC-46A tankers by 2017.”

from http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-Begi ... r-Aircraft

CH-53K

Initial Operational Capability in 2019

from http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/ ... 62529fRCRD

[decaf]

Platform Request - - - -

Please add a USNS "Supply" class, T-AOE version
(unweaponized).

You have entries #490 and #897 for AOE 6 Supply.
The latter entry is dated from 1997-2003.

Supply is a class of 4 ships.
All 4 ships have been transferred to
Military Sealift Command (MSC) and their designations
have all been changed from AOE to T-AOE.
Please refer to Janes 2011-2012 pg 951 for updated
stats -- for example, crew is 188 instead of 235.
(but, also see the USNI book below...)

Most important, this transferred class has been
de-weaponized. (which is why I write.)

For the new, T-AOE USNS Supply Class, please drop
the CIWS, the Bushmaster, and the Sea Sparrow.
Please adjust the weapons magazines accordingly.
I believe the sensors have also been de-weaponized.
(Those Sparrows are gone.)
Please drop the Mk95's (both mounts, both EO and radar).
Retain the SPS-64 and SPS-67.

Details of what was dropped can be found -->
See page 271 of "The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships
and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet" 18th edition.
They say the Pixies are gone, too.

Confirmation of the de-weaponization, transfer, and
continued service can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Supply_%28T-AOE-6%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Rainier_%28T-AOE-7%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Arctic_%28T-AOE-8%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Bridge_%28T-AOE-10%29

A Jan. 8, 2013 picture of T-AOE 6 USNS Supply performing
replenishment-at-sea for CVN 77 can be found at:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/59/5906.htm
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/59/09590633.jpg

[Jorm]

Please add the Austrailan Canberra Mk20 bomber to the DB3000 database ( its alread in the CW databse) we used it active service untill 1982.
im keen to add them into a scenario

thanks

[Rudd]

another article with more info on re-fuel loadout for v-22 http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... e9eaed54a8

from link

Depending on mission profile, the system can offload up to 12,000 lb. of fuel...

[Mgellis]

Please add Sudan.

I'm not sure of the exact models of their aircraft, but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan_Air_Force they had:

MiG-29
F-7 Airguard
MiG-17
Su-24M
Su-25
MiG-23BN/MiG-23UB
K-8
A-5
An-24RV
DHC-5D
F.27 Mk 100
C-130H
ICA IAR-330L PUMA
AB212
Bo 105CB
Mi-8T
Mi-24D/Mi-24V/Mi-24

For a recent scenario, I guesstimated which ones would likely be used in their air force, but I would feel better if there was an "official ruling." Thanks.

[Hannable]

[ADDED DB v440]

I'm not sure if this has been requested or not, but I'd like to see the Brazilian corvette, "Barosso" class added to DB3000. I'd give you more info, but it seems I can't post links. [:@]

Also the Brazilian navy operated a few Alan M. Sumner destroyers into the 1990's.

Two "Brooklyn" class light cruisers were in service until the late 1970's which I know doesn't *quite" get into DB3000, but would be nice if they could be slipped in.

[apd1004]

[UPDATED DB v440]

I have an issue with the ZSU-23-4 in the database, and the GUN DISH radar as well. As far as I know, it is the same entry in DB3K as CWDB (maybe different entry #?).

In DB3K the GUN DISH radar is listed as an onboard sensor on the ZSU-23-4 (#908) under the mounts/stores/weapons listing, but GUN DISH also has a separate listing as a "mobile vehicle" (#1248). After much research I have found no references of the GUN DISH being used or mounted anywhere other than on a ZSU-23-4. As far as I can tell, the GUN DISH radar was the fire control radar for the ZSU-23-4 exclusively and it was also capable of search and acquisition and had a 20km range.

I have done some testing and discovered that the vanilla ZSU-23-4 when firing at a target has only a 5% base probability of hit. Compare this to the M163 VADS which has a 70% base probability to hit. The M163 VADS had a range-only radar not tied to the fire control system like the GUN DISH is on the ZSU-23-4. True, the M163 is a rotary cannon with 3000rpm, but the ZSU-23-4 had four 23mm liquid cooled cannons capable of 800-1000rpm on each gun, so as far as sustained rate of fire the ZSU-23-4 can actually put more lead downrange than the Vulcan, so RPM should not be a differentiating factor between the two systems. The ZSU-23-4 used the GUN DISH to provide a firing solution to the ballistic computer which would then lay the powered & stabilized turret and guns to provide automatic lead for the gunner. In short, I think the ZSU-23-4 base probability of hit is way too low and the M163 is way too high. They should probably both be somewhere in the 30-50% range, with the ZSU being in the upper zone and the Vulcan being in the lower zone of that percentage spread.

During the same tests I also discovered that the vanilla ZSU-23-4 was not detecting aircraft with anything other than Mk1 Eyeball and gave off no radar signature, even with the GUN DISH active. The M163 does give off a radar signature and does not detect aircraft, which is appropriate for a range-only radar.

When placing a stand-alone GUN DISH, it behaves the way I would expect the one mounted on the ZSU-23-4 to behave, and that is it has a 10nm (should be 12nm) air radar circle and it does detect aircraft and gives off a radar signature. When I removed the internal GUN DISH sensor from the ZSU-23-4 and added the standalone version, I got the ZSU-23-4 that I wanted to see except that the PH was still 5%.

I also believe that the gun range on the ZSU-23-4 is a bit short as is the M163 Vulcan. My references show ZSU-23-4 having a tactical AA range of 2500m (1.35nm) and the Vulcan at 2000m (1.07nm). I would be ok with 1.2nm for the ZSU and 1.0nm for the Vulcan. It should also be able to be used against ground targets.

I'm also wondering about manually aimed AA guns having a base PH of 1%, but that will require more testing and can be in another thread. I just don't agree that a ZU-23 towed AA gun only has a 1% chance to hit a UH-1 Huey flying straight and level.

Summary of proposed changes:

-Remove #1248 (GUN DISH radar) from DB3K as a standalone unit
-Install the sensor data from #1248 onto the ZSU-23-4 (#908) i.e. - put the GUN DISH on the ZSU so that it actually works right
-Increase range on all Soviet 23mm AA guns (ZU-23 and ZSU-23-4) to 1.2nm
-Increase range of GUN DISH radar to 12nm.
-Increase 23mm ZSU-23-4 burst base PH to 50% (#1844)
-Decrease 20mm/85 Vulcan burst base PH from 70% to 30% (#1836)
-Increase range of 20mm/85 Vulcan to 1nm
-Allow both weapons to engage ground targets

Cheers

SOURCES:

Anti-aircraft ZSU-23-4 Shilka (Translated from Russian). Accessed November 11, 2013. armyinrussian.narod.ru/suhoputnie/shilka.htm

FM 100-2-3. Washington D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1991

[MR_BURNS2]

I just noticed that ZSU-23-2 also has the same FCR as the -4, i think they used their common optics only.

[e2204588]

Comparison of all anti-aircraft capable gun.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub ... utput=html

Maybe we can do a complete review.

[e2204588]

J-6 and F-6 should be Fighter instead of Attack.

[apd1004]

Thanks for the link to that list. I'm now starting to look at the 2S6 Tunguska and I can already see that it needs some work too.

Aircraft are already given a maneuverability modifier which is applied to AA fire. If your typical AA gun only has a base PH of 1% to begin with, essentially that means the maneuverability modifier is irrelevant and it has no better chance of hitting a C-17 than it does an F/A-18. In Harpoon (not that CMANO is Harpoon, but it is a good guideline) AA guns had anywhere from 10% PH for single gun manual/optical aiming all the way up to 90% PH for the more advanced radar controlled high-ROF systems. With some of the better gun systems their only real drawback is their limited range.

I agree, a complete review of anti-aircraft guns is necessary.

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: apd1004

Thanks for the link to that list. I'm now starting to look at the 2S6 Tunguska and I can already see that it needs some work too.

Aircraft are already given a maneuverability modifier which is applied to AA fire. If your typical AA gun only has a base PH of 1% to begin with, essentially that means the maneuverability modifier is irrelevant and it has no better chance of hitting a C-17 than it does an F/A-18. In Harpoon (not that CMANO is Harpoon, but it is a good guideline) AA guns had anywhere from 10% PH for single gun manual/optical aiming all the way up to 90% PH for the more advanced radar controlled high-ROF systems. With some of the better gun systems their only real drawback is their limited range.

I agree, a complete review of anti-aircraft guns is necessary.

Of course if base PH is per round... then the lower percentages are probably accurate, whereas the higher ones are likely not. ZSU's and 2S6 put up a wall of lead, not a 'finger of God'. Even weapons such as Phalanx and Goalkeeper, with rotary cannon, put up patterns of lead/DU in order to improve the PH on small targets

[Rudd]

UK RC-135s,

It is aiming to achieve full operational capability of the three RC-135s by mid-2017.

from http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... uk-392875/
first one IOC October 2014, http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php ... iew&id=888

[mikmykWS]

Logged the balance of these to be looked at.

Thanks!

[MR_BURNS2]

When playing Canary´s Cage i noticed that Spain´s Sea King AEW´s (DB #668+ #1935) radars have no Air-Search capability altough the radar has the same name as in the british one.

Is this just a bug or did the Armada refuse to buy them with all extras?