Surprized, and probably other people already pointed at these mistakes in DB, but all S-400 units have wrong radars and specs.
96L6(letter E in the end is only for export versions, BTW) is not a default radar of S-400. It's an optional all-altitude radar-detector("всевысотный обнаружитель"). Instead of this should be a 92N6(E) fire-control radar. And 91N6(E) is not a FCR, but observation radar. Dear developers, please, check the illustrations below, for correct designations and specs of both radars, because 215nm of instrumental range for observation radar of the SAM with 216nm missiles just don't make any sense. And again, don't forget that only export versions have E in the end of their designations. Cmon, guys, this is a premier SAM of your lovely OpFor, after all. Let's make it looking more or less plausable.
Couple of points: I'm not one of the developers. But, I spend
A LOT of time writing some of the description files you find in the game. The developers and community have, since 2013 spent a lot of time doing open source research on well over 10,000 systems
in just the DB3K data base. Unsurprisingly, given that information is frequently classified, the information they have is incomplete or non-existent. In most cases, it is simply contradictory, with multiple sources differing on basic data. So, they do the best with what information they have. Over the years, more information comes out, and the information becomes better. But if you spend the time I and others have checking some of the data, you would be surprised to find the lack of information or contradictory information out there on systems that are 60+ years old, much less relatively new, front line systems. That is why when I do my description files, I include the sources. In your post you seem to imply that there is a lack of diligence and/or competence on the part of the developers because you have found some new unclassified information of the S-400. Possibly I am misreading your post and/or intentions. If so, I apologize. But I can assure you that both the developers and the community are doing, with very limited resources, an outstanding job in correcting and adding to the database.
With that said, it would be helpful if you could post where you got your information from, so it can be better evaluated. Links or bibliographic citations are helpful, as it assists in evaluating the contradictory information that is out there. If it is from a good source, I can assure you that I will personally incorporate it into the description files, and I'm sure the database will be similarly corrected.
