Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[Parel803]

Possible addition to the DB:
Japan Commisions first Maya clas Destroyer, DDG179.
Second one will be commisioned in 2021.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... %e3%82%84/

Did not find much detail images of her.
What I could find:

Maya Class, DDGH, Variant of the Atago class
Long 170, Beam 21, Draft 6,2.
Japan, Navy, 2020
Aegis Destroyer with Ballistic Missile Defence.
Std Displacement 8200 tons, Full Displ 10250

Max speed 30 kts
Crew 310

AN/SPY1D(V) Phased Array MF, AN/SPQ-9B FC, 3x MK-99 FC (1 Aft, 2 Rear)
Probablu OPS- navigation radars
EW suite, EO and Sonar not found yet.

1x 5 inch (127mm/L62) Mk-54 Mod-4 Aft, 2 x 20mm Phalnx CIWS 1 AFt & 1 Rear, 2x Type 68 Torp Tubes, Mk-41 VLS (96 cells)

SM-3 Block II-A, SM-6 (RIM-174 ERAM), RIM-66 SM-2, RIM-162 ESSM, Type 90/17 SSM, Type 07 (Vertical Launch Anti-submarine Rocket, Mk-46 Torpedo, Type-73 Torpedo

CEC (Cooperative Information Capability) Toe share surveillance or targeting info with same equipped ship and E2D.

Hanger & Flight deck for 1x SH60K
1 Rigid inflatable boat

COGLAG (Combined Gas Turbine and Gas Turbine, 2 marine solution LM2500
68010 shp, 50720 kW
Two shaft - 5 blades

Unfortnally I didn't find all info needed for the DB. Data found give small differences between sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya-class_destroyer
https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... estroyers/
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... royer.html
https://www.janes.com/article/94978/jap ... rce=Eloqua

With regards

[KLAB]

Strange issue:

Noticed when trying to complete Iron Hand with CMO for the firs time; Newest game version and current DB483 installed?

The load outs for the Su-27 flight shown in the data box show the old AA-10A/C SARH ?

However in the DB3k 483 entry for the Su-27 it shows AA-10 TSARH in all the load outs?

This is effecting the reloads I believe.

Its also having a weird effect on the Mig-29S as well which wont launch the AA-10 "due to no datalink",

I've run a test scenario with Mig-29's where I have added the current DB483 version and the load has the TSARH version and it fires the AA-10 TSARH as it should?

It seems like the AA-10 load outs for Iron Hand haven't updated to the latest DB ?

Is this an issue with the scenario build Ini/SBR etc or a DB issue?

Attached screen shot composite. Thanks again for excellent support.
K

[stilesw]

The load outs for the Su-27 flight shown in the data box show the old AA-10A/C SARH ?
However in the DB3k 483 entry for the Su-27 it shows AA-10 TSARH in all the load outs?

I think you might not have upgraded to DB3K_483. Looked at your screenshot and then created the same aircraft using the latest database. The new aircraft showed the correct loadout information.

The original scenario was created using DB3K_478 so changes between 478 and 483 will not show up. Try upgrading (if you have not already) to DB3K_483 and please let me know if that fixes the problem.

-WS

[stilesw]

#3202 - MRK Smerch Nanuchka III [Pr.1234.2] (Russia [1992-] - 2021)
Addenda Smerch currently has an air launched AS-20 Kayak weapons mount for the 16 x Kh-35UE; (N.B U E is an export designation), 4x SS-N-25 Switchblade 4 x Quad . #???? SS-N-25 Switchblade [Kh-35U] GLONASS
Also it should have a #450 twin SA-N-4B mount not the SA-N-4A.
And as an aside the Smerch already is in the DB under:
#3191 - MRK Nanuchka III [Pr.1234.1 Ovod] (Russia [1992-] - 2019)

Logged.
-WS

[stilesw]

It seems like that the AN/ALQ-131 DECM pod was renamed by accident to HAVA SOJ Dffensive ECM (Yup, it has a typo in the DB).

Good eye. Fixed in next DB update.
-WS

[KLAB]

It's definitely 483, I checked before posting with the intention of just upgrading the scenario and the editor says the scenario is using the latest DB.483.
Baffled as I did the same with a test scenario, added a MiG-29S and every thing worked and it had R-27 TSARH load outs. I will update the scenario again regardless and see if that fixes it.
Thanks for quick reply.
K

ORIGINAL: stilesw

The load outs for the Su-27 flight shown in the data box show the old AA-10A/C SARH ?
However in the DB3k 483 entry for the Su-27 it shows AA-10 TSARH in all the load outs?

I think you might not have upgraded to DB3K_483. Looked at your screenshot and then created the same aircraft using the latest database. The new aircraft showed the correct loadout information.

The original scenario was created using DB3K_478 so changes between 478 and 483 will not show up. Try upgrading (if you have not already) to DB3K_483 and please let me know if that fixes the problem.

-WS

[stilesw]

Was checking on some GBUs for the Northern Fury scenarios. One oddity is that most of them - all the LGB types have had the release altitude dropped to 2,000 ft, but the GBU-15 family, which are TV guided remain at 10,000 feet.
Is this by design?

Bart,

Oversight I believe. GBUs release minimum release altitude will be lowered similar to LGBs in the next DB release.
-Wayne

[stilesw]

Sheesh. Maybe I needed to use the word "release" a few more times above!

[stilesw]

Possible addition to the DB:
Japan Commisions first Maya clas Destroyer, DDG179.

Already logged for update in next DB3K release. Some details are different from other sources but the basic Maya will show up.
-WS

[stilesw]

It's definitely 483, I checked before posting with the intention of just upgrading the scenario and the editor says the scenario is using the latest DB.483.
Baffled as I did the same with a test scenario, added a MiG-29S and every thing worked and it had R-27 TSARH load outs. I will update the scenario again regardless and see if that fixes it.

I believe I've found the problem.

Did some more digging. Went to Akhtubinsk Air Base and selected Su-27S, 968IISAP, 1 Sqn #02. It says that it is loaded with
4x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH,
2x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27ER, LR SARH],
2x AA-11 Archer [R-73].
It should not do this since that weapon/loadout is no longer an option.

This would have been the original loadout when the scenario was created using DB3K_478. Since then, the TSARH AA-10 replaced the SARH AA-10.

When you try and load the Su-27S in the subsequent databases (i.e. 483) and check the “Show only usable loadouts” box the TSARH weapons do not show up at all but they do show up as possible loads when you look at the aircraft details in the DB viewer.

The problem happens (and I’ve had it happen to me as well during testing) when the scenario contains units that were loaded out in a previous database that did not have the new weapons. When the scenario is upgraded to DB3K_483 it still regards the aircraft as having a no longer existing weapon/loadout.

The solution is to remove all the aircraft (Su-27S) in question and replace them with a new Su-27S. Since the new aircraft and weapon are now both part of the new DB3K_483 it will load and show the correct loadouts.

Ideally, the scenario author would do this but he cannot be faulted because he would not necessarily have known of the change from SARH to TSARH. Probably the easiest solution for you is to delete and recreate all the AA-10 TSARH aircraft. Of course, don't forget to reassign them to their appropriate missions and necessary unit properties.

Hope this is of help,

-Wayne

[KLAB]

Cool no worries I have updated it and replicated all aircraft with the load outs with attention to the original missions and naming conventions.

Russian Su-27's and MiG-29's have been sorted and the magazines amended.

Azerbaijani MiG-29's have also been done.

It just made the MiG-29's a bit harder to take on mind you!

Thanks for help,

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario?

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue?


Cheers

K

ORIGINAL: stilesw

It's definitely 483, I checked before posting with the intention of just upgrading the scenario and the editor says the scenario is using the latest DB.483.
Baffled as I did the same with a test scenario, added a MiG-29S and every thing worked and it had R-27 TSARH load outs. I will update the scenario again regardless and see if that fixes it.

I believe I've found the problem.

Did some more digging. Went to Akhtubinsk Air Base and selected Su-27S, 968IISAP, 1 Sqn #02. It says that it is loaded with
4x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH,
2x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27ER, LR SARH],
2x AA-11 Archer [R-73].
It should not do this since that weapon/loadout is no longer an option.

This would have been the original loadout when the scenario was created using DB3K_478. Since then, the TSARH AA-10 replaced the SARH AA-10.

When you try and load the Su-27S in the subsequent databases (i.e. 483) and check the “Show only usable loadouts” box the TSARH weapons do not show up at all but they do show up as possible loads when you look at the aircraft details in the DB viewer.

The problem happens (and I’ve had it happen to me as well during testing) when the scenario contains units that were loaded out in a previous database that did not have the new weapons. When the scenario is upgraded to DB3K_483 it still regards the aircraft as having a no longer existing weapon/loadout.

The solution is to remove all the aircraft (Su-27S) in question and replace them with a new Su-27S. Since the new aircraft and weapon are now both part of the new DB3K_483 it will load and show the correct loadouts.

Ideally, the scenario author would do this but he cannot be faulted because he would not necessarily have known of the change from SARH to TSARH. Probably the easiest solution for you is to delete and recreate all the AA-10 TSARH aircraft. Of course, don't forget to reassign them to their appropriate missions and necessary unit properties.

Hope this is of help,

-Wayne

[KLAB]

Resolved ref PANTSIR SM et al. ,

The photo from the Army 2019 Defence exhibition supposedly showing the "Pantsir SM" was just a demonstration model with the old S1 mount on the back,

Jane's reports actually refer to that specific example as the Pantsir S1M. This may be the version in Algeria? (Janes)

When the SM actually enters service it will have the S2 twin facing radar configuration and the ER missiles which will be noticeably longer.

The Tornado G MRAP is apparently still the preferred chassis based on issues with the protection of the KAMAZ truck mounted version and it's balance issue.

Regards

K

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Pantsir - This gets more complicated.

Looking at the actual images of the Pantsir SM although it has an obvious Tornado G MRAP 8x8 chassis the actual Pantsir system on the back seems to be the standard S1 configuration using the single face search radar not even the double faceted S2.

I am therefore confused regarding the issue of whether the ER missile or even what actually constitutes the Pantsir SM or if it is in service or not yet!

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-558.html
This is probably the most exhaustive coverage regarding Pantsir and even with the limitations of translation software provides useful time lines and development.

But there again the manufacturer is a bit contradictory as there own product page shows both the Pantsir S1 and Pantsir S2 in the image library under the headline information for the S1.
And the 3d computer rendering is of the S2!

https://www.npovk.ru/upload/resize_cach ... D0%A11.jpg
https://www.npovk.ru/en/model/pancyr.php


K

ORIGINAL: KLAB

[font="Arial"]

After more checking there are some issues with the Pantsir terminology and I think the Pantsir SM is being confused with the Pantsir S2:
With apologies for having to make multiple posts to attach images.
#3250 - SAM Plt (SA-22 Greyhound [Pantsir-SM]) (Russia [1992-] - 2011) ?

---

Suggest name change to Pantsir S2 and in service as of 2015 please. Plus amend or add new 57E6-1 missile with range of 30km and add new SOTS-S double facing radar array?

Pantsir S2 has been in service since 2015 and has been seen in Syria with Russian forces since 2016. But it is not in the DB3K.

https://youtu.be/aJpKJ--ZPq8?t=3 Shows the S2 from a RUPTLY article in Syria. In contrast the Pantsir SM is not in service in Russia yet.

The S2 has improved radar with which is double faceted and therefore provides better faster coverage and makes it easy to distinguish from the S1.

"The Pantsir-S2 is also fitted with a new SOTS S-band search radar to increase the detection range from 36 km to over 40 km"*Army Recognition.
It also supposedly has a marginally increased missile with a range of 30km but does not use the later ER missile.

The difference with the S1 is most obvious by comparing radar arrays.
See this clip from the manufacturers PR for the S1 https://youtu.be/ywcnw8r-CAo?t=70

Pantsir SM is very different vehicle using the Tornado G 8x8 armoured MRAP vehicle with light armour, newer still AESA radar and the extended range 40km missile.

Algeria has Pantsir SM as of 2019 and before the Russians per the MENA DEFENCE article.

The Rostec article provides an oversight of the S1 S2 and SM developments:

https://rostec.ru/en/news/the-true-grey ... n-defense/
https://www.janes.com/article/89584/arm ... am-vehicle
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_ ... 05164.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/army-20 ... ystem.html
https://www.menadefense.net/algeria/alg ... e-exercice
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/24797 ... mv4hnlLH4Y
Pantsir SM - Latest incarnation as of 2019 using the Tornado G armoured chassis.
https://russia.liveuamap.com/en/2019/26 ... rmy2019---


Many thanks
K
[/size][/font]

ORIGINAL: stilesw


Logged.
-WS

[stilesw]

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario? I passed this forum thread to the author/updater to do what he feels necessary.

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue? Yes, on the list. Some issues between CMANOPE and CMO that I need to work on.

Glad you caught this issue.

-WS

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Cool no worries I have updated it and replicated all aircraft with the load outs with attention to the original missions and naming conventions.

Russian Su-27's and MiG-29's have been sorted and the magazines amended.

Azerbaijani MiG-29's have also been done.

It just made the MiG-29's a bit harder to take on mind you!

Thanks for help,

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario?

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue?


Cheers

K

Thanks for doing this; feel free to either PM the updated scenario to me or post it in the mods and scenarios subforum and I'll add it to the next release.

[KLAB]

Sent PM,(hopefully with .zip correct attachment) bit of delay as I noticed Su-34 was also affected so its been done too.
Tested and seems to be working fine.
K

ORIGINAL: apache85

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Cool no worries I have updated it and replicated all aircraft with the load outs with attention to the original missions and naming conventions.

Russian Su-27's and MiG-29's have been sorted and the magazines amended.

Azerbaijani MiG-29's have also been done.

It just made the MiG-29's a bit harder to take on mind you!

Thanks for help,

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario?

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue?


Cheers

K

Thanks for doing this; feel free to either PM the updated scenario to me or post it in the mods and scenarios subforum and I'll add it to the next release.

[Gunner98]

Can we get the KC-33A 747 based strategic tanker included as a hypothetical?

https://www.ausairpower.net/APAA/APA-2005-02.pdf
http://www.boeing-747.com/special_boein ... kc-33a.php
https://secure.boeingimages.com/archive ... RSXLJLX7TE
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-w ... 1581314071

The KC-25A is already included (Iran) DB#1660

Also had cargo capacity which I don't believe is modeled in the KC-25A (slides 47-79 of first ref)

Tx

[stilesw]

I think the French ships Horizon and FREMM should have CEC capacity from 2020, they have recently tested it:

Logged for update.
-WS

[KnightHawk75]

Weapon id #3627 'Laser Shot(Solid State Fiber) 10nm, AAW & ASuW

Is missing any weapon record, thus can't really be used\added.

Suggested new DataWeaponRecord entry: ComponentID=3627, DefaultLoad=10000, MaxLoad=1000, ROF=1, Multiple=1

If it helps

Code: Select all

insert INTO DataWeaponRecord (ComponentID,DefaultLoad,MaxLoad,ROF,Multiple)
  Values(3627,10000,10000,1,1)

[desmo_Aut]

Missing Units of the Austrian Air Force
1. Saab 105 OE

2.Agusta-Bell AB-204B

3.Sikorsky S-65C-2 also called CH-53OE or S-65OE

4.Agusta-Bell AB-212

5.Sud Aviation SA-316B/SE-316 „Alouette III”

6.Bell OH-58B

7. Agusta-Bell AB-206A „Jet-Ranger“

8.Sikorsky S-70A-42 „Black Hawk“

9.Lockheed C-130K /Hercules C Mk.1P

[Parel803]

A possible correction in the DB3K. If A read stuff correctly:
It looks like HNLMS Karel Doorman (Netherlands) has no cargo facility.
She is build to act as a oiltanker and cargo/troop transport schip.
Not easy to find the crago nr of tons but it states that she transported 1000 tons of cargo of which (120 vehicles)
Op 6 november 2014 vertrok het schip beladen met 1000 ton hulpgoederen, waaronder 120 voertuigen.
Another ship can tank oil or fuel for her helo.

best regards