Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[Scar79]

ORIGINAL: CV60

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.

I just pointed out at some mistakes with particular(and very popular among the playerbase and scenario-makers) equipment in DB. Furthermore, i backed my feedback with a datasheet of said system, created by its developers for the Indian long-range SAM-competition, so our dear developers didn't waste their time in searching for the info. Wasn't this thread created for such a feedback? You're too sensitive and seeking the hidden meaning where it simply doesn't exist.

[CV60]

I just pointed out at some mistakes with particular(and very popular among the playerbase and scenario-makers) equipment in DB. Furthermore, i backed my feedback with a datasheet of said system, created by its developers for the Indian long-range SAM-competition, so our dear developers didn't waste their time in searching for the info. Wasn't this thread created for such a feedback? You're too sensitive and seeking the hidden meaning where it simply doesn't exist.

Yep, this is a forum to post corrections. But in your post you also wrote: " Cmon, guys, this is a premier SAM of your lovely OpFor, after all. Let's make it looking more or less plausable." Whether you intended it or not, that comment can reasonably be taken to be a slam on the developers. As I stated in my response, "Possibly I am misreading your post and/or intentions. If so, I apologize. " Bottom line: Please be aware of the hard work being put into this effort, and try to word your posts accordingly.

With that said, do you have links and/or sourcing to the graphic(s) you posted, so they can be evaluated?

[Scar79]

ORIGINAL: CV60

Yep, this is a forum to post corrections. But in your post you also wrote: " Cmon, guys, this is a premier SAM of your lovely OpFor, after all. Let's make it looking more or less plausable." Whether you intended it or not, that comment can reasonably be taken to be a slam on the developers. As I stated in my response, "Possibly I am misreading your post and/or intentions. If so, I apologize. " Bottom line: Please be aware of the hard work being put into this effort, and try to word your posts accordingly.

Too sensetive, really. Didn't know someone may be insulted by the fact that someone else said that some unit in PC-game isn't looking plausable and added "Let's make it looking more or less plausable. [:)]".

Отвал башки - этот ваш западный политес.((

[CV60]

I picked up a bunch of bargain basement weapons guides from the late 80's early 90's and it's really amazing how incomplete or plain wrong a lot of info is. Some of it is coming out of the best available data sets too, Jane's for example. I recently dug into modern Turkish drone technology and just sorting the reality from the prototype from the outright marketing bullshit is tough. There's so much effort in obfuscating what is really happening (especially with Russian capabilities) that I'm amazed the folks who do the DB work can do it all. My hat is off to them.

I absolutely agree that there is a lot of bad and simply incorrect information out there. I find what I believe to be errors even in reputable sources like Jane's. Whenever possible, I try to compare sources for the description files (although with some systems that is not possible).

[stilesw]

The MIM-104A (DB3000 Weapon_1835 and Weapon_1152) is listed as having a range of 2-55 nm... However,...states the range of the PAC-1 is 1.6-86 nm.

Logged.
-WS

[Venom63]

Wayne,
if you are "put hands" over the FREMM I will ask to adjust also the Italian one. In the Database the Franch and the ITalian are exatcly the same (same hundreds tons heavier the ITalian one) in reality the Italian have one more bridge, a longer hull (first two was cut and lenghtened after launch, same knots faster (I am tring to find exactly this value but for Italian Navy speed is so important that is a classified data. And the ASW variant is described to have "special noise suppression" so the irradiated noise is lower than the GP vaiant.
Regards

[14yellow14]

ORIGINAL: FTBSS

Can we update the FFGX to be the contract winner Fremm modified FFGX applicant with basically it looks to be a Fremm with the 32 cell mk41 launcher (mini aegis/EASR) with 16 jasm and the 57mm mount hanger room for 2 mh-60r.

https://news.usni.org/2020/04/30/fincan ... te-program.

It appears to be a Fremm hull version of the Burke blk III from everything I have read.

More info about the FFG(X):




It will have NSM missile as antiship missile.

[stilesw]

Can we update the FFGX

This is being worked on.
-WS

[FTBSS]

Thanks for the update

[KLAB]

https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons ... _army.html

Two stage request;

Pantsir S2 for Russia which has been in service since 2015, see prior posts, and Serbia from 2020 see article above which also nicely summarises key difference between S1 and S2 Pantsir.

Key improvement is SOT-S radar with "over 40km" range (36km for S1) and twin facet array.
Missiles are as S1.

(This is not the Pantsir SM.)
For consideration please as Pantsir S2 is clearly now being exported too.
K

[jun5896]

FFG(X) seems like semi-Aegis frigate(Almost light destroyer - 7400 tons! [X(])

I was surprised. Fincantieri's proposal is based on FREMM frigate platform.

[severe7]

Hello
Just a small addition to the Gripen aircraft.
Since at least early 2011 all Swedish Gripens have had full integration of link 16.
The year and database ID for them are:

Gripen C
2016 #2336
2018 #3697

Gripen D
2016 #3365
2018 #3698

Gripen E
2019 #3201

Gripen F
2019 #3367

So these should have the datalink “Link 16 JTIDS”

Sources:
Swedish official press release about first exercise testing the full integration of link 16
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuel ... r-lank-16/

Earlier news article about the acquisition:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... stems.html


Bonus
For anyone interested in some Gripen datalink history:
https://www.flightcommagazine.com/singl ... -data-link

[stilesw]

could you add in #139 (USS Des Moines as it entered mothballs in late 50's) and #1615 is the USS Newport News as she was in the early 70's after duty off Vietnam right before she was mothballed.

Logged.
-WS

[stilesw]

FREMM I will ask to adjust also the Italian one. In the Database the Franch and the ITalian are exatcly the same (same hundreds tons heavier the ITalian one) in reality the Italian have one more bridge, a longer hull (first two was cut and lenghtened after launch, same knots faster (I am tring to find exactly this value

Paolo,
Please provide whatever reference material or other documentation that you can find.
Thanks,
-WS

[stilesw]

Since at least early 2011 all Swedish Gripens have had full integration of link 16.

Logged.
-WS

[stilesw]

Bonus
For anyone interested in some Gripen datalink history:
https://www.flightcommagazine.com/singl ... -data-link

Thanks for this reference. I've added it to the CMO unofficial Dropbox reference library.

Unofficial - i.e. not sponsored by WarefareSims, MatrixGames, Slitherine, their employees, relatives, pets or ancestors.

As always, any forum member can have access to this Dropbox resource. Just PM me with your email address.

-Wayne Stiles

[14yellow14]

One question... Many modern warships and submarines today are equipped with sonars to detect and avoid naval mines. Right now in the game you need minesweepers with specific equipment to detect naval mines.

Would it be possible to equip standard units with sonar equipment to detect mines? It would be more realistic for many scenarios.

For example, the Type 212 submarines have an active high-frequency mine detection sonar, the Atlas Elektronik MOA 3070.
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/


Thanks

[MaxDemian]

Hello.

I am looking at the Type 055 (#2834) in the latest DB version. I have noticed a few things that are off, based on what is known about the ship.

1. DB states the propulsion is CODOG. Whereas, the propulsion is really COGOG with 4x25MW gas turbines. Is this difference modeled in the game. If yes, what is the effect?
2. DB states 2x large aircraft capacity. Whereas, there is room only for medium size helos.
3. DB has strange entries for the main radars: 4x Type 346A PAR and 4x Type 346B PAR. The current understanding is that the large PAR arrays are the new 346B variant. This is either a S/C band or a pure S band radar. The latter seems to be the more probable hypothesis given that the ship sports a set of 4 new X-band PARs on the integrated mast, which are conceivably tasked for horizon search and target illumination. I haven't heard what their designation may be.
4. DB claims the ship has a Type 517H-1 Knife Rest radar. I've seen dozens of photographs of the ship, and no sign of that radar on any of them. This role is probably taken up by the larger Type 346B PAR, especially so if it operates in S-band. The antenna dimensions of this radar appear quite similar to that of SPY-4. Impossible to tell how it matches up in performance. Might warrant a bump in max range, as it does appear larger than the Type 346A .
5. I am quite confident that this ship comes with ESM/ELINT capability: the top antennae on the integrated mast. I cannot post links yet. You may want to lookup the following article for a (speculative) analysis: "Analysis: Sensor and Electronic Warfare Suites Aboard China's Type 055 Destroyer "
6. It appears to have a new kind of jammer, with two large panels on each side of the ship. I don't think anything is known about this system yet.


Please take a look also at the China Maritime Study Institute report titled: "China's Dreadnought? The PLA Navy's Type 055 Cruiser and its Implications for the Future Maritime Security Environment". It's largely speculative, but is the best single source of info on the ship that I have found.

[MaxDemian]

It appears to be a Fremm hull version of the Burke blk III from everything I have read.

More like a Flight IIA in capability, minus the weapon loadout. This is the comparison that I've heard from Rear Adm. Chuck Goddard, senior vice president at Fincantieri Marine Group. The 3 face EASR, or AN/SPY-6(V)3 radar is roughly an equivalent of SPY-1D(V) in capability.

[GrayPenguine]

Hi i'm new on the forum and on CMO, I'm here to suggest some modifications about
the Italian naval fleet, if there are any errors please tell me as well[:)]:

1- FREMM Class at the time of writing the total number of fremm's fully operational
are 9(5general purpose one of this will become operational this year,4ASW)
unfortunely on the db it seem to be represented only 2 of them.

2-U212(todaro class submarines), at the moment are fully operational a total of 4 elements
(instead of as indicated in the DB where we have only the todaro(s 526)),
respectively (Todaro (S 526), Scirè (S 527), Pietro Venuti (S 528) e Romeo Romei (S 529) )
the first two (block I) are a meters shorter(56m), the second 2 (block II) are 57m longer
some improvements about comunications equipments and sensors have been made,
we also find compatibility with the new "Advanced Black Shark" torpedo of Leonardo,
details in the reference.

sorry, I'm a new poster, so I can't post links yet,(thx CV60 for the help)