Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: deepdive

Is it possible to have the F-14A/B/D TARPS Tomcats as seperate entries in both DB`s?

Thanks, Bjørn

Makes maintenance difficult as there will be so darn many near-identical subversions of the same plane hehe. Any particular reason you need this?

[deepdive]

Just for realism,[:)] TARPS Tomcats cant carry designating pods and vice versa.

Thanks Bjørn

Must add that they usually fly in combat With only 2 Sidewinders.

[OysterMike]

First I'd like to say; correct me if I'm wrong [:)], but shouldn't T-50 PAK FA have both groups for radar signatures less than; say MiG-35 Foxglove? In DB viewer their signatures are revolving around same numbers and that smells kind of fishy to me.

Cheers.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: OysterMike

First I'd like to say; correct me if I'm wrong [:)], but shouldn't T-50 PAK FA have both groups for radar signatures less than; say MiG-35 Foxglove? In DB viewer their signatures are revolving around same numbers and that smells kind of fishy to me.

Cheers.

Mike that Mig-35 is hypothetical one (the 1.44 would have taken on the Mig-35 designation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_Project_1.44

We haven't added the real Mig-35 yet which is a fulcrum follow on

[OysterMike]

Thanks for clarification. [:)]

[Anathema]

Australia to purchase the MQ-4C Triton for the RAAF, although the numbers are yet to be determined.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-to-buy-mq-4c-triton-396964/
http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/03/abbott-commits-to-triton-uas-purchase/

[Mgellis]

More information on the navy's railgun. Looks like they will be putting them on the JHSV (!)...hmmm...that probably means they could be put on almost any other vessel of similar size...

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=80055

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

More information on the navy's railgun. Looks like they will be putting them on the JHSV (!)...hmmm...that probably means they could be put on almost any other vessel of similar size...

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=80055

With a 20K sq ft open bay on the JHSV, you can bet that it will be chocker block full of electric generators to power the rail gun. Probaly can't fit the prototype into a normal hull design.

Regards,
Feltan

[AlmightyTallest]

You guys probably have the data already, but when doing some research of IRST systems for various aircraft I came across these data sheets and info for the Mig 29K/KUB, Mig-35, Su-35, and Pirate IRST for the Eurofighter with some detection ranges and info.


Mig 29K/KUB and Mig 35 OLS UE IRST

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mDvQ8xYRdSI/StWe7Hk_9mI/AAAAAAAAAgg/8v0NFnL12PA/s1600-h/14.10.2009+11-47-48_0029.jpg

From the IRST manufacturer's brochure, an Su-30 can be detected looking at it's rear hemisphere at up to 60km, or 37 miles, depending on atmospheric conditions.

Head on, up to 15 km. Indicating a relatively low thermal detection performance.


Su-35 brochure for OLS-35 IRST: http://defenseissues.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/qrkpwi.jpg

Above is quoting rear aspect range of up to 90km or 56 miles for Su-30 target.

Front hemisphere of 35km or 21 miles.



Eurofighter PIRATE IRST system specs: http://www.bmlv.gv.at/truppendienst/ausgaben/artikel.php?id=807

Detection range against typical subsonic fighter target: 90 km from front (head-on), 150 km from rear*

Identification range: >40 km

Maximum number of targets that can be tracked: 200

Ability to prioritize targets: yes

Field of regard: 140 ° in azimuth

Angular resolution: better than 0,05 °, some sources give 0,0143°

————————————————————–

Against a fighter supercruising without afterburner at Mach 1,7, detection range will be 10% greater, resulting in range of 100 km from front and 165 km from rear. Comparing it to OLS-35, it should be able to detect AMRAAM launch from 173 km, and Mach 4 AMRAAM from 154 km.

*150 km is rounded figure, actual figure is 145 km

CAPTOR has angular resolution of 0,05 ° at 165 km, and PIRATE is better than that

Big difference in IRST detection ranges among all three sets.

[Dimitris]

Thanks. Here is our earlier reference on the OLS series: http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclo ... y2132.aspx

It does make sense that the European systems (and US kits like the one now being tested on SH) are more capable than Russian systems as it's a combination of quality seeker arrays and advanced signal processing.

It appears though that these brochures refer to the original OLS sets fielded by the MiG-29 & Su-27 in the 1980s and subsequently offered for the proposed "2nd generation" variants in the 1990s (e.g. the Su-35 appearing in the OLS-35 brochure is definitely the Su-27M demonstrator of 1994/1995 rather than the "3rd generation" Su-35BM/Su-35S currently in service).

More recent photographs of the OLS-35 (e.g. http://www.ausairpower.net/VVS/Su-35S-OLS-VVK-1S.jpg) suggest an evolved system.

Do you know if the systems fielded on the current modern variants (MiG-29SMT, Su-27SM / Su-35S etc.) are the same '80s kits or evolved versions of them? Thanks.

[AlmightyTallest]

Thanks for that info Sunburn, I was trying to go back and find reference material for the original Su-27 OLS-27 and OLS-29 systems and stumbled upon the site you gave as well [:)]

From what I know of thermal systems, just because the head or parts of the unit is changed, doesn't necessarily mean the internal detector material and specifications have changed. Sometimes the changes are only for lower cost and ease of manufacturing the optics, gimballs, etc.

I got to the manufacturer's website for the OLS-35 etc. here: http://www.npk-spp.ru/

The OLS IRST offerings are here: http://www.npk-spp.ru/deyatelnost/avionika.html

Talking to the nice representative, this is the current specs for the OLS-35: http://www.npk-spp.ru/deyatelnost/avionika/166-ols-35.html

Current specs for the Mig-29 units here: http://www.npk-spp.ru/deyatelnost/avionika/127-ols-ue.html

as well as current photos of the units. My Russian is rusty, but it looks like about the same specs as the other brochure, which came from an Eastern European defense expo geared toward sales to India I think, and these are the current offerings from the company.

Hope this helps.

[Dimitris]

Interesting, thanks.

[AlmightyTallest]

Had to google translate, but the OLS-35 has a mid wave 3 to 5 micron Thermal sensor with a visible camera, same with the Mig-29 versions.

Also interesting, is the use of 3 to 5 micron thermal detector materials, as it's better at cutting though atmospheric humidity than 8-12 long wavelength systems. However, the 3-5 micron system can't cut through obscurants like 8-12 micron systems, and objects are more detectable because of the heat emitted at 8-12 micron atmospheric window.

You can also E-mail them with questions at: spp@npk-spp.ru

Info on the various visual modelling of thermal imagers based on sensors, and atmospheric conditions and wavelength, cooled and uncooled sensors.

http://www.flir.com/uploadedfiles/Eurasia/MMC/Tech_Notes/TN_0001_EN.pdf

[Broncepulido]

That's a very old table I make with open sources many years ago. I see the essential data are the same today:
Type Plane Range nm.

AAA-4 F-4B/C 20?
ALR-23 F-14A (early) 20?
TP-23 MiG-23 21
TP-26(rear)MiG-23MLA/P/PD/MLK 32
TP-26Sh1 MiG-25PD 24
OEPS-27 Su-27 40
OEPS-29 MiG-29 27
OEPS-K MiG-29 30
TP-8 MiG-31 32
PIRATE Typhoon 81
OSF Rafale 48
OTIS Gripen 43

F-14A/B
AAS-42 F-14D/F-16 97

EOTS F-35 ¿90?

[Broncepulido]

Also, this data of the Austrian site (published years ago) is for me the better estimate about the Captor range, near 162 nm.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Swiftships 12m Patrol Boat

Swiftships 14m High Speed Interceptor

Swiftships 26 Meter Patrol Boat

Swiftships 28m Patrol Boat

Swiftships 35m Patrol Boat

Here is another source for information on the various Swiftships classes (and last time I checked the other link, which I've taken out, was no longer working)....

http://www.swiftships.com/military-vess ... fications/

[AlmightyTallest]

Some RCS info on the T-50 or PAK-FA aircraft. Document is in Russian. http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2502643

This part of the document:

Технический результат, на достижение которого направлено изобретение, заключается в снижении величины РЛ-заметности самолета до средней величины порядка 0,1-1 м2.

Tranlated to:

Technical result, The aim of the invention is to reduce the magnitude of radar visibility of the aircraft to an average of about 0.1-1 m 2

Jane's article referencing the same info: http://www.janes.com/article/32190/pak-fa-stealth-features-patent-published

Details of the Sukhoi Design Bureau's work on the stealthy aspects of the T-50 PAK FA fighter aircraft emerged in late December 2013, when the company's patents were published.

According to the patent paperwork, taken together, all of the stealthy measures offer significant improvements over legacy fighter designs. The papers claim that the radar cross-section (RCS) of an Su-27 was in the order of 10-15 m 2 , with the intention being to reduce the size of the RCS in the T-50 to an "average figure of 0.1-1 m 2 ".

In common with other low observable aircraft designs, this reduction is achieved through the use of radar-absorbing and radar-shielding materials and coatings, panel shaping (especially around the air intakes) and in the design of the junctions between moving elements, such as flaps and hatches.

In particular, the patent spells out the benefits of internal weapons carriage, s-shaped engine air ducts, (which were considered but are actually not implemented in the production PAK FA), and the use of radar blockers. It adds that the inlet guide vanes of the engines' compressors generate "a significant portion [up to 60%] of the radar cross-section of the airframe-powerplant system in the forward hemisphere" and that this is reduced by using radar-blocking devices and radar-absorbing coatings in the walls of the air ducts.

Interesting read, the IRST has a backside apparently that's RAM material, and when it's not in use that backside is pointed out to help reduce radar reflections. I'm not sure if the RCS reductions are counting the S-shaped engine air ducts in this document. If they are, then the real aircraft would not benefit from the claimed RCS, unless other measures were implemented somehow.

[AlmightyTallest]

Went back through the Russian Avionics Encyclopedia here, sort of like the Holy Book of Armaments if you're into Monty Python humor [:)]: http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su-15TM%20PICTURES%20&%20DOCS/Overscan's%20guide%20to%20Russian%20Military%20Avionics.htm

And found more ranges for the OLS series of IRST's

OLS /OLS-30 / Izdeliye 52Sh

Designed by UOMZ for the Su-35. Integrates ground target range finding and illumination capabilities, and possibly a TV channel like that featured on the OLS-M for MiG-29M. Field of view is -15 to + 60 elevation, ± 60 azimuth.

4 different FOVs used, 60° x 10° (wide FOV) 20° x 5° (narrow FOV), 3° x 75° (close combat vertical scan) 3° x 3° (lock on).

The range of working temperatures is -50 to +60°C. Dimensions are 841 x 916 x 575mm, weight of the whole assembly is 200kg. Fitted to the Su-30MKK for China and Indian Su-30MKI.

Detection range may be as high as 90km.

Given the Sales brochures the 90km is probably for a tail on target that's fighter sized.

OLS-27 / Izdeliye 36Sh

NPO Geofizika

A combined IRST/LR device for the Su-27, similar to the MiG-29's KOLS but more sophisticated, using a cooled, broader waveband, sensor. Tracking rate is over 25deg/sec. 50km range in pursuit engagement, 15km head-on. The laser rangefinder operates between 300-3000m for air targets, 300-5000m for ground targets.

Search limits are ±60deg azimuth, +60/-15° in elevation. Three different FOVs are used, 60° by 10°, 20° by 5°, and 3° by 3°. Detection range is up to 50km, whilst the laser ranger is effective from 300-3000m. Azimuth tracking is accurate to 5 secs, whilst range data is accurate to 3-10m. Targets are displayed on the same CRT display as the radar. Weighs 174kg.

OLS-27K for Su-33 featured new algorithms and better processor. It allegedly tracked targets in pursuit mode by their IR signature at 90 km during tests.

OLS-M

NPO Geophyizika

Designed for the MiG-29M/K. A combined IRST/LR/TV device. Features a more sensitive cooled IR seeker, a more powerful laser ranger and a TV channel. Can detect a fighter at 35km using the IR channel, or 10km using the TV channel. Positive visual IDs can be obtained at 6km. The laser rangefinder is effective out to 8km. Laser has ground target designation/rangefinding capabilities.

[nsKb]

Okay guys, first post. I'm enjoying this game quite a bit and I have a few questions/comments about the DB. I searched for these but only found answers to a few.

Why is the F-22 limited to 40k feet? It should be able to do 60k+, no?

The F-22 should have reheat. I searched this board and saw a post about how it can't exceed 1.8 Mach since it has fixed inlets and they have poor pressure recovery at high mach. I do agree that fixed inlets will eventually hit a wall but I don't agree that it is Mach 1.8 for the F-22. There are aircraft with fixed inlets that will easily exceed mach 2.5. LM seems to list the F-22 in the "Mach 2 class" which would mean it does at least mach 2. Paul Metz was quoted as saying that the F-22 could do "at least 1600 MPH" which is Mach 2.4 at altitude. Is this because the game currently only has 4 altitude "bands" and 4 throttle settings?

Do the RCS values in the DB represent an average RCS over the giver frequencies (30-2000 MHz and 2-100 GHz)?

PAK FA's RCS seems rather low for an aircraft with exposed turbo machinery.

Anyways all of these are rather low priority things, you probably already know about them.

ORIGINAL: AlmightyTallest

Given the Sales brochures the 90km is probably for a tail on target that's fighter sized.

This is probably for a fighter that is in full reheat and both aircraft are at high altitude. For lower altitudes and different throttle levels it is probably significantly lower. Does command model atmospheric attenuation changes due to altitude?

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: nsKb

Okay guys, first post. I'm enjoying this game quite a bit and I have a few questions/comments about the DB. I searched for these but only found answers to a few.

Great to hear you like the sim nsKb [8D]

Why is the F-22 limited to 40k feet? It should be able to do 60k+, no?

Correct, but planes rarely fly above 40k ft operationally and so they are limited to 40k ft in the sim. Max throttle setting in the sim uses operational max speed as well, typically Mach 1.6 for most 3rd and 4th gen aircraft. There are a few exceptions like the MiG-25, SR-71, etc. I also read about F-14s escorting CALCM-armed B-52s at 45k ft during the 1991 GW so could possibly 'up' the 40k altitude limit to max 45k ft, but planes spend so much time & fuel getting to those altitudes they very rarely go there.

The F-22 should have reheat. I searched this board and saw a post about how it can't exceed 1.8 Mach since it has fixed inlets and they have poor pressure recovery at high mach. I do agree that fixed inlets will eventually hit a wall but I don't agree that it is Mach 1.8 for the F-22. There are aircraft with fixed inlets that will easily exceed mach 2.5. LM seems to list the F-22 in the "Mach 2 class" which would mean it does at least mach 2. Paul Metz was quoted as saying that the F-22 could do "at least 1600 MPH" which is Mach 2.4 at altitude. Is this because the game currently only has 4 altitude "bands" and 4 throttle settings?

Hehe I agree in principle but seriously doubt it would ever go that fast operationally. Note that the plane can only fly a few hundred nm at full military throttle due to engine/airframe/whatever reasons, which is still very impressive compared to earlier gen aircraft. Oh and two engines at 25000lb mil thrust and a SFC of nearly 0.8 (I'm using 0.76 in the database) burns fuel fast!

Please also note that the F-22 actually has a higher operational max speed in Command than 3rd and 4th gen fighters, and burns only half to one-third the amount of fuel at those speeds [8D]

Do the RCS values in the DB represent an average RCS over the giver frequencies (30-2000 MHz and 2-100 GHz)?

Yes.

PAK FA's RCS seems rather low for an aircraft with exposed turbo machinery.

Yes we've noted. Think we need to create a new 'stealth generation' class in the database.

Anyways all of these are rather low priority things, you probably already know about them.

ORIGINAL: AlmightyTallest

Given the Sales brochures the 90km is probably for a tail on target that's fighter sized.

This is probably for a fighter that is in full reheat and both aircraft are at high altitude. For lower altitudes and different throttle levels it is probably significantly lower. Does command model atmospheric attenuation changes due to altitude?

[/quote]

Not yet, although we would like to expand our visual and IR models in the future.

it has fixed inlets and they have poor pressure recovery at high mach. I do agree that fixed inlets will eventually hit a wall but I don't agree that it is Mach 1.8 for the F-22. There are aircraft with fixed inlets that will easily exceed

Okay, noted. But would it fly at Mach 1.8+ operationally? Probably not? [:)]

Thanks again for your feedback!