Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[angster]

Type 95 Acoustic Signature reduction:

The noise signature of the Type 095 is speculated to be lower than the Type 093 given the 14 years difference in tech. According to Jive Turkey (a retired sonarman on YouTube), the Type 093A/B has an acoustic signature of 110db which matches the database. Based off the analysis from CSIS, the Type 95 "may provide a generational improvement in many areas such as quieting and weapon capacity" over the Shang class.

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws. ... il_Bal.pdf (pg 248)

[Tookatee]

The #153 Masurca has an incorrect max "Range (anti-air):" and weight value; the range should be 50 kilometres (26.9978 nautical miles) and the weight value should be 2,080 kilograms. In addition, the "Max Speed" value of its rocket motor should be 3,390 kph (1,830.454 knots) rather than 2,010 knots.

Sources: http://www.netmarine.net/f/armes/masurca/ , http://www.astronautix.com/m/masurca.html , Couhat, J. L., Combat Fleets of The world 1980191 Naval institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1980, and https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a154243.pdf

[Aaabcwea]

Regarding the Visby radar, I have a Brazilian Navy article that says the Visby uses the "Pilot Mk.2/3" and two official Pilot Mk.3 brochures with a lot of photographs of the Visby. Unfortunately, I do not have any unambiguous sources explicitly confirming whether the Visby uses the Mk.3. Regarding the difference between the Mk.2 and Mk.3, technical specs are quite readily available, and I assume you have already got them right yourself. The article is named "LPI: Invisible Radars" and the brochures are both named "Pilot LPI Radar". I cannot link anything as a new member.

Another two corrections: an excellent IDG article on the Visby shows the ship's length is 72.8 meters and the sonar is called "Hydra TAS". Also, slapping "3D" onto the name of the Sea Giraffe AMB (which is still 3D obviously) appears uncommon though maybe you have your reasons.

Finally, I ask why the Visby has a "Missile defence" of 4. Shoot a few missiles at it and I think you will agree it has a Missile defence of approximately 0 [:)] It has chaff and a gun that reaches out and touches missiles at... 2 km.

[orca]

ORIGINAL: angster

Type 95 Acoustic Signature reduction:

The noise signature of the Type 095 is speculated to be lower than the Type 093 given the 14 years difference in tech. According to Jive Turkey (a retired sonarman on YouTube), the Type 093A/B has an acoustic signature of 110db which matches the database. Based off the analysis from CSIS, the Type 95 "may provide a generational improvement in many areas such as quieting and weapon capacity" over the Shang class.

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws. ... il_Bal.pdf (pg 248)

In addition to reduce signature, the sonar is presumably improved from type 093. However I don’t think there is much info on specifics. However should at least add a TASS as in the type 093. Also, maybe also include YJ-18 as a possible weapon in VLS.

[MaxDemian]

Hello,

I noticed a curious omission for the seeker capability of SM-6 and ESSM Block 2. Both of these missiles have dual-mode ARH/SARH seekers. The game models them as ARH only. Would this dual-mode capability make any difference in the game? For example, against stealth targets where a blistatic SARH radar may be more effective.

I can't post links , so I am adding search strings as reference.
Source for SM-6: search "SM-6 retains the legacy Standard Missile semi-active radar homing capability."
Source for ESSM: search "essm New guidance system has dual mode active and semi-active radar"

[Aaabcwea]

A few more fixes for Swedish stuff today:

First, the "RB 15M" Mk1, Mk2, and Mk3 weapons should more accurately be called "RBS15" Mk1, Mk2, and Mk3, respectively. Source is SAAB's website.

Second, the RBS15 Mk3 has a 4.35 m length, 660 kg weight, ~200 kg warhead, J-band, and Mach 0.9 speed. Source is SAAB's website.

Third, the Swedish Armed Forces website says the Visby uses the RBS15 Mk2 and NOT Mk3, though it has not been updated since 2013. However, the IDG article confirms it is NOT in use unless it entered use after 2014.

Regarding range, I believe the ranges to be 40 M, 60 M, and 135 M, respectively. A Swedish Armed Forces website says the minimum range is 40 M, a (in my opinion trustworthy) Swedish military blog says the Mk3 range is 135 M, and if we assume an image on SAAB's website that compares the range of the Mk1, Mk2, Mk3 (and Mk4, coming around 2025) is to scale, it would suggest the ranges are 40 M, 60 M, and 135 M, which accurately corroborates the other information.

A Defense Industry Daily article apparently further corroborates this by estimating ranges of 60 M and 135 M for the Mk2 and Mk3, respectively.

Oh, and the Visby's height of 19.3 meters is not in the database yet (Source: SAF)?

EDIT 30/5: I have an official source for the 135 M range and trustworthy sources for the 40 M range and the Visby not using the Mk3 as of 2017. Links pending...

[Tookatee]

When going through and updating some of my Pacific scenarios I noticed that the latest variant of the K30 Biho isn't in the database, it now also having been exported to India as its first international customer. This latest variant adds four ready to fire #3314 Shin-Gung (marketed internationally as Chiron) missiles in addition to the dual 30mm cannons. Additionally, the radar (the TPS-830K) should be a X-band radar on all the variants of the K30 as it currently is listed as a J-band radar in the database.

Now in production, over 176 of the new South Korean variant entered service since 2018 while the Indian version (called the K-30 Hanhwa) has yet to be delivered as it was only ordered last year.

2018 version of the K30, note the four Shin-Gung missiles on either side of the turret.


Sources: https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/ ... rcraft_Gun , https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_201 ... _army.html , http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/new ... id=3057687 , https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/ ... 31.en.html , http://www.military-today.com/artillery/k30_biho.htm , and https://www.hanwha-defense.co.kr/eng/pr ... ry-biho.do

[IrvingMainway]

#4821 A-10C (2016)
#4822 OA-10C (2016)
^ APKWS II loadouts have regular Hydra 70mm rockets instead of APKWS

#3642 AGM-158C LRASM
^this version only has a 350nm range compared to the 500nm range on other LRASMs. As far as I know there are not multiple variants so I'm not sure why this one would have a 150nm shorter range.

#1291 Jaguar GR. 1B (1995)
^should have a TILAD pod designator only loadout as they were used in this role over Bosnia in 1995

#1442 D35 Dragon Type 45 Batch 2
^unit does not have any way to direct its main gun at surface units. Mk 8 Mod 1 114mm can only be directed by Type 1045 Sampson Air Search radar. Batch 1 units have Radamec 2500 which as far as I can tell the Batch 2s should have as well.

#3446 P-8A Poseidon
^both the Australian and USN P-8As should also be able to carry the AGM-84D.

[KLAB]

https://twitter.com/ShepherdClavis/stat ... 27680?s=20

Myanmar is using its Yak-130 in a ground attack role.

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Some ideas on Yak-130's in the long term:

For consideration as the Mitten seems to be doing quite well on the exports front especially with countries likely to use them for dropping stuff:

#3952 - Yak-130 Mitten (Russia [1992-] - 2010)
Almost certainly doesn't have the Oca radar it currently has in the DB3k-483
The images from the VKS RuAF all show the basic non radar version in service primarily as an advance trainer.
The radar equipped version is a concept light fighter and attack aircraft which is not in service or production. Dubbed the Yakovlev Yak-131.

It is also doubtful if the KAB-500Kr is a weapon the Yak-130 is used with in VKS/RuAF service even if it is capable of it, that's my opinion based on the lack of operational aircraft seen with the weapon.

The FAB-250/500 OFAB RBK dumb bombs e.t.c and S-13/S-8 e.t.c rocket loads are generically suitable for all the exported Yaks as below:

Plus Yak-130's can use the SNPU-130 pod twin 23mm gun pack on the centreline and several of the exported ones have been seen with it.
So the GSh-23L 23 mm automatic cannon - #1800 - 23mm Gsh-23L Burst [40 rnds]could be added to the load outs.

#3953 - Yak-130 Mitten (Algeria - 2015) (And was probably in service in about 2012 as the first deliveries were in November 2011)
Algerian Yak's certainly have air to ground weaponry, have flare and chaff dispensers and a SNPU-130 pod 23mm gun pack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU6N41jrwHg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/karim23185/7432828140/
https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2011/11/29/648/?h
Plus the (non radar equipped) Yak-130 with air to ground weaponry would be a useful addition for the following, almost all the images show the aircraft with pylons and for these air forces I doubt they have the luxury of jets just for training:

Belarus. Has at least 8 and counting since 2015.
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9078441
https://defence-blog.com/news/belarus-r ... craft.html.

Bangladesh. The BAF did have 16 but now has 15,they entered service in 2015.
https://defpost.com/bangladesh-air-forc ... r-crashes/

Laos. Has at least 4. "The aircraft arrived at the Vientiane air force station aboard Russian Il-76TD strategic airlifters in December 2018"
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... t-trainers

Mynamar.
https://asian-defence-news.blogspot.com ... 0.html?m=0
http://airsoc.com/articles/view/id/5dee ... us-weapons

The number of Yak 130 ordered by Myanmar is not known, the initial contract for the first 3 units was signed in June 2015.

Vietnam Latest customer with 12 for Vietnam, contract signed in 2020.
https://www.meta-defense.fr/en/2020/01/ ... om-moscow/ .
https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/artic ... zaklyuchil

https://youtu.be/MUHFVPE_wBE

Thanks very much for the latest updates and patience with the relentless requests and amendments.

K

[Aaabcwea]

I will return in 7 days with links for my suggested changes above, if I remember.

[Tookatee]

While trying to replicate Gwanju Airport in a North Vs. South scenario of mine I realized that both databases are missing "1x aircraft" variants of all the different types of hangars. These types of single aircraft parking areas exist for weather shelters and open parking spots, but currently the smallest capacity hangars available can only hold a minimum of two aircraft (with the exception of the #1556 1x Very Large Aircraft hangar.)

Here are the hangars in specific I'm trying to replicate, note how all in the image are hangars for single aircraft. In particular, the two grey topped hangars to the very left of the image are not located next to one another and represent two distinct targets, therefore its substitution with a 2x hangar is not ideal. Similar types of hangars are present at most other airbases with hangars on the planet, a simple observation of any on Google Maps can confirm this.


Here is a picture of one of the other single aircraft hangar at the northern end of Gwanju housing a singular F-22 deployed there as apart of VIGILANT ACE 18.


Satellite imagery of the above hangar type in 2020 at Gwanju, some of which seem to now be supporting CH-53's.


Another issue I've run into is the lack of a weather shelter, revetment, or hangar that can house more than one aircraft. For example, a facility that is the same size as a #1384 Large A/C shelter, but rather than holding one large aircraft it instead holds two medium sized aircraft as seen in the image below. This would allow for the destruction of up to two parked aircraft with one munition on one target rather than the need to place down multiple single facilities, of which count as independent targets requiring their own munitions to attack (along with not accurately reflecting the construction of airfields that have such structures.)

[rbsj]

Dear Responsible for the DB,

I would like to request a single addition. Could that be possible that you insert two new Grippens NG as Carrier Capable as a hypothetical unit.

The Brazil was to acquire Grippens to place in their Carrier. Unfortunately both the Carrier was decomissioned and the Grippens deal canceled.

Yet Saab continue to try to promote their Sea Grippen.

That could be done without much work simply by copy-pasting the Grippen NG with Carrier Capable.

That would be very good because beside the French Rafale and the North American aircraft that could give a 4++ generation medium aircraft that could be placed in a carrier in a hypothetical scenario enriching the DB.

Looking forward,

Thank for your work,

Greetings.

[orca]

I'd like to request a new unit to help with scenario design.

I often use single unit airfields and un-check unit is auto-detectable in the scenario editor. I position this invisible single unit base closer to mission areas compared to the corresponding appropriately positioned base that auto-detectable. This allows me to simulate increased aircraft ranges from tankers for the AI, without having to actually create and optimize tanker missions to otherwise accomplish this.

This works on land using single unit airfields, but doesn't not work over water. Therefore I would like to request a unit that is a ship with aircraft facilities (including 4000m+ runway), a magazine, no sensors, and with 0 signatures so it can't be detected. So basically similar to the single unit airfield, except a ship so that it can be placed over water.

Thanks for considering.

[GrayPenguine]

DB(v483)
Weapon #699 SA-N-20a Gargoyle[48n6]
Wrong desciprition(mim-23 hawk)

[KLAB]

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3441939
It's counterintuitive but the descriptions and images aren't done via the DB3K. Try the link above.
Cheers
K

ORIGINAL: GrayPenguine

DB(v483)
Weapon #699 SA-N-20a Gargoyle[48n6]
Wrong desciprition(mim-23 hawk)

[GrayPenguine]

oh sorry i'm a newbie [:D], thx you.

[Raytheon]

All models of Su-27 and MiG-29, and also MiG-31 are credited to have 2nd generation Imaging IRST. IRL Soviet Union did not possess technology allowing it to create IIR devices, and IRST on such planes were of standard non-imaging technology.
The first Sovied IIR military device was Agava tank thermal sight, created in late 80th. The first Su-series fighter with IIR IRST was Su-35, source - official statement of UOMZ (Russian manufacturer of optical and infrared devices for military) posted in "Взлёт" (Takeoff) journal in 2007 (http://www.take-off.ru/pdf/08-09_2007.pdf). Also MiG-31M/BM may possess Imaging IRST, but information is unclear.

R-33 (AA-9) missiles are stated to have PoH of 80% - rather high for such a primitive missile. It employs the same conical scan tracking method as AIM-7F, for example (wich one is rated at 70% PoH). It retains analog seeker electronics, equivalent to those installed on R-24R, has no central computing machine in modern understanding (CPU and DSP) and also it has maximum target overload of 4g, wich is kinda hilarious. Isn't 80% PoH too much?
Sources:
https://sovetarmy.forum2x2.ru/t17-topic
https://topwar.ru/129275-raketa-vozduh-vozduh-bolshoy-dalnosti-k-37-r-37-rvv-bd.html

Also there is some info about low-altitude tests of R-27 and R-33, source unknown, but it has been on forums for a long time. It is about extremely low PoH of R-27 and R-33 at low altitudes due to absence of proper signal processing (once again, no CPU's and DSP's)
http://www.balancer.ru/g/p1193603

Another question is about "technologic level". Do years of technology (early 1970-th for example), present in description of sensors, weapons, etc. have influence on their performance in CMO?

[Rory Noonan]

From https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... =&#4822905

ORIGINAL: rbsj

The French FTI Belharra is consuming 10x more fuel than is supposed giving to the Frigate only 350nm in range in cruise speed. If you check the values in the BD you will see that and if you move the Frigate you also see that.

[orca]

New EO/IR and laser rangefinder sensor for CVN Nimitz

Mk 6 Mod 4 Stalker Long-Range Electro-Optical Infrared Laser Sensor System (SLREOSS)
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... rstructure

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Raytheon
Another question is about "technologic level". Do years of technology (early 1970-th for example), present in description of sensors, weapons, etc. have influence on their performance in CMO?

Yes, very much so.