Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[BDukes]

<type>Update</type>
<summary>Chilean Navy out of service Dates for #1792 and #1702. </summary>
<detail>#1796 FFG 14 Almirante Latorre [Jacob Van Heeenskerk]frigates retired 2019 and #1702 LM 36 Requelme [Type 148] all 4 retired by 2015, </detail>
<evidence>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... ilean_Navy
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... lean-navy/
</evidence>

[jun5896]

<type>ADD</type>
<summary> Add AN/APG-83 SABR radar, AGM-158B JASSM-ER for USAF F-16CM BLK 40/42, 50/52</summary>
<detail> First APG-83 AESA Radar-Equipped Four-Ship Flight Mission for USAF F-16s

The aircraft involved in the test were:

F-16CM-40 88-0441, 40th FTS, ET tail code, Have Glass V paint scheme
F-16CM-50 91-0396, 40th FTS, ET tail code, standard (older) Have Glass II paint scheme
F-16CM-50 98-0004, 85th TES, OT tail code, Have Glass V paint scheme
F-16CM-50 98-0005, 85th TES, OT tail code, Have Glass V paint scheme.

The new software allowed the integration of the APG-83, which will be operational across the F-16 fleet by the end of the year, the improved AGM-158B JASSM-ER (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range) and AIM-120D, an Integrated Communication Suite, and 42 other unspecified modernization enhancements.


the mission saw the Aviano F-16s involved in training scenarios utilizing Joint Air-to-Surface Missile (JASSM) cruise missile tactics. The AGM-158 JASSM (with a range in excess of 200 nautical miles) and its extended-range version, the AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range (JASSM-ER) with a standoff distance of over 500 nautical miles, are GPS-guided radar-evading cruise missiles with 2,250-lbs penetrator/blast fragmentation warhead. 



</detail>
<evidence>
https://theaviationist.com/2020/08/04/f ... saf-f-16s/
https://theaviationist.com/2020/07/23/u ... black-sea/
https://www.eglin.af.mil/News/Photos/ig ... d/3716796/
</evidence>

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: BDukes

<type>UPDATE</type>
<summary>Add 2020 US Navy variant of F/A-18E and F with AN/ASG-34 fuel tank combination.Australia F's will have as well</summary>
<detail>Add 2020 variant of F/A-18E and F with AN/ASG-34 fuel tank combination.US Navy F/A-18F deployed to PG with AN/ASG-34 IRST pods. Sensor #3445 in db but need fuel tank variant. Look like navy call IRST-21. Australia buy as well for F's</detail>
<evidence>
https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-deplo ... sian-gulf/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -track-pod
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/raaf-to ... -fighters/
</evidence>

Just to confirm, my understanding is that the USN is only equipping their Blk III Super Hornets with this.

Or is it available to all USN Super Hornet blocks?

No doubt Kuwait will get them too in the future [:)]

[NorthernFox]

ADD KDX-1 Destroyer (2020)

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/09/south-koreas-dsme-delivers-first-kdx-i-to-rok-navy-following-pip/
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200909002900325?section=search

New SQR-250K TASS (Daegu class TASS), Link-16 Capability, SLQ-261K TACM

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: Rory Noonan

ORIGINAL: BDukes

<type>UPDATE</type>
<summary>Add 2020 US Navy variant of F/A-18E and F with AN/ASG-34 fuel tank combination.Australia F's will have as well</summary>
<detail>Add 2020 variant of F/A-18E and F with AN/ASG-34 fuel tank combination.US Navy F/A-18F deployed to PG with AN/ASG-34 IRST pods. Sensor #3445 in db but need fuel tank variant. Look like navy call IRST-21. Australia buy as well for F's</detail>
<evidence>
https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-deplo ... sian-gulf/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -track-pod
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/raaf-to ... -fighters/
</evidence>

Just to confirm, my understanding is that the USN is only equipping their Blk III Super Hornets with this.

Or is it available to all USN Super Hornet blocks?

No doubt Kuwait will get them too in the future [:)]

Hi Rory. The link says currently F/A-18F squadron deployed with them to Persian Gulf so looks like all. There is even a photo. Thank you for look at!

[BDukes]

<type>ADD</type>
<summary>Additional infos on Chinese Type 052DL Luyang II[156 Zibo]2020 Destroyer</summary>
<detail>The 052DL is a slightly updated design of Type 052D destroyer. New Radar in place of 517H-1 Radar on base 52D and helicopter facilies to support 2 Z-20. There are now 2. Like 052D and 055 they receive Type 1130 CIWS like Type 052D since 10th ship- (2019)-Note may want to make a new Type 052D variant dated 2019 with this. They get CIWS update and EW update. TASS is likely SGJ-311 </detail>
<evidence>
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... iii-ii.htm
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1203 ... 2o.twitter
https://sinodefence.wordpress.com/2017/ ... iii-class/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052D_destroyer
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/type ... 1/page-353
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... a-sea.html
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... sions.html
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/type ... 1/page-319
https://twitter.com/HenriKenhmann/statu ... 4278131712
</evidence>

[thewood1]

Working on a scenario, I noticed the the Eritrean and Ethiopian air forces weren't very fleshed out. I am attaching a spreadsheet that summarizes what I have found through various historical and current sources. Those sources are listed in the spreadsheet.

This is not a high priority. I can still build the scenarios, but its for reference if anyone wants to use it.

[KnightHawk75]

ORIGINAL: jun5896

#2201 F-22A Raptor(2019)
#4972 F-22A Raptor(2020)

Two F-22A rcs worse than #691 F-22A Raptor(2013)


#2201, #4972


#691

You sure it's not related again to the viewer itself and the last loadout listed having 2 external drop tanks? Cause this has come up before in this thread i think and tech support prior to that and the values are all actually the same in the actual database as the other f-22 entries. I checked again in 487 and the different values displayed appears to be a by product of features of the in-game viewer adjusting for last-listed loadout and not actual baseline differences in what's in the db.

fb.asp?m=4810105

[BDukes]

<type>Update</type>
<summary>Many Burkes are missing docking facilities or are short space. Please add for 2 7m boats. Current capacity is 1</summary>
<detail>Many Burkes are missing docking facilities. Please add for 2 7m boats. Current capacity is 1. Example is all Oscar Austin subclass </detail>
<evidence>
Database review
</evidence>

Thank!

[Anzu]

<type>Update</type>
<summary>Finnish Hamina class 2020 is wrong in DB</summary>
<detail>The Finnish Navy Hamina class 2020 (#3186) upgrade is completely wrong, as it has got the DB info for the hypothetical Israeli Sa'ar 72 class (#2719).
The class is under upgrade and the first ship has been completed.

The loadout is also different compared to the older versions:
-4 x Gabriel V (#3648, more on this later)
-1 x Umkhonto VLS #1575, (8 Umkhonto-IR Mk.2 #2770)
-2 x 400mm TT #618 (2 x Tp 451 #1595)
-1 x BAe Bofors 40mm Mk.4 (no mount in DB, more on this later)
-1 x SAAB Trackfire RVS (no mount in DB)

It also has got a new combat management system, the SAAB 9LV instead of the Atlas Elektronik.
-TRS-3D/16-ES #2607
-CEROS 200 Tracker 9LV Mk4 #3357
-Kongsberg ST2400 VDS #4682
-EOS 500 Group #3355
-EOS 500 CCD #2556
-EOS 500 IR Camera #3354
-EOS 500 Laser #3356
</detail>
<evidence>
Not allowed to post links
</evidence>

[Anzu]

<type>ADD</type>
<summary> Add minelayer Pohjanmaa 1979</summary>
<detail>
Another missing Finnish ship: the minelayer, training ship and Navy flagship FNS 01 Pohjanmaa, active 1979 to 2013.

General data:
Cathegory: Surface Combatant
Type: ML - Minelayer
Damage points: unknown, but she was a similar but slightly bigger version of the Hämeenmaa-class (#2139), so about 300
Length: 78,6 m
Beam: 11,2 m
Draft: 3,3 m
Empty displacement: 1,000 tons
Standard displacement: 1,100 tons
Full displacement: 1,450 tons
Crew: 80
Max sea state: 6 or 7
Troop capacity: 70 as a training ship and during Operation Atlanta
Cargo capacity:
OODA Cycle: Probaby similar to the Pansio class (#876) or Helsinki class (#1297), both surface combatants without any air defence missiles
Missile defence: 2 or 3 Harpoon / SLAM / Maverick equipvalents. No air defence missiles, but bigger and sturdier ships than the previously mentioned.
Pier / Dock / Davit Size: Very Large Pier
Belt Armor: None
Bulkhead Armor: None
Deck Armor: None
Engineering Armor: None
Bridge Armor: None
CIC Armor: None
Rudder Armor: None

Sensors / EW:
1x DA.05 [RAWS-3] Radar (sensor #1188)
1x 9GA208 Radar (sensor #716)
1x 9LV200 Mk2 [Radar] (sensor #3341)
1x 9LV200 Mk2 [TV Camera] (sensor #3650)
1x 9LV200 Mk2 [IR] (sensor #3651)
1x 9LV200 Mk2 [Laser Rangefinder] (sensor #3654)
1x SS304 Spira -- Norway (sensor #338)
1x K/SLQ-200(V)K Sonata [ECM] -- Argo Phoenix mod, AR-700A (sensor #2182)
1x K/SLQ-200(V)K Sonata [ESM] -- Argo Phoenix mod, AR-700A (sensor #2184)
1x Mk 1 Eyball

Mounts / Stores / Weapons (from 1979 to 1996)
-1x 120mm/46 Bofors [TAK120] (mount #221), with 39x 120mm/46 Bofors GP Burst [4 rnds] (weapon #171), directed by 9GA208 and local control
-2x 40mm/60 Mk3 Single Bofors (mount #944), with 42x 40mm/60 Mk3 Single Bofors Burst [2 rnds] (weapon #782), 40mm/60 Mk3 Single Bofors -- 2x Mounts (magazine #61), directed by 9LV200 Mk2 [Radar], 9LV200 Mk2 [TV Camera], 9LV200 Mk2 [IR], 9LV200 Mk2 [Laser Rangefinder], local control
-2x 23mm Twin (mount #1408), with 23mm Twin Burst [20 rnds] (weapon #389), 23mm Twin -- 2x Mounts (magazine #59), local control
-2x 12.7mm/50 MG -- Facility/Ship, No Anti-Air Capability (mount #561), 10x 12.7mm/50 MG Burst [10 rnds] -- Facility/Ship, No Anti-Air Capability (weapon #1695), 12.7mm/50 MG -- 2x Mounts (magazine #761), local control
-2x Depth Charge Rack [12 DC] (mount #200), 12x Depth Charge [Generic] (weapon #1815)
-4x mine rails for 150 mines of different types incl:
*Generic Mine [Bottom, Simple Magnetic Fuze] (weapon #632)
*Generic Mine [Moored, Contact Fuze] (weapon #633),


Mounts / Stores / Weapons (from 1998 to 2013)
-1x 57mm/70 Bofors Mk1 -- 1967 (mount #454), 0+20 57mm/70 Bofors Mk1 HCER Burst [4 rnds] (weapon #1437), 10+12x 57mm/70 Bofors Mk1 HE Burst [4 rnds] (Weapon #1438), directed by 9LV200 Mk2 [Radar], 9LV200 Mk2 [TV Camera], 9LV200 Mk2 [IR], 9LV200 Mk2 [Laser Rangefinder]
-1x 40mm/70 m/48 Single Bofors (mount #1792), 15x 40mm/70 m/48 Single Bofors Burst [4 rnds] (weapon #2006), directed by 9LV200 Mk2 [Radar], 9LV200 Mk2 [TV Camera], 9LV200 Mk2 [IR], 9LV200 Mk2 [Laser Rangefinder], local control
-2x 23mm Twin (mount #1408), with 23mm Twin Burst [20 rnds] (weapon #389), 23mm Twin -- 2x Mounts (magazine #59), local control
-2x 12.7mm/50 MG -- Facility/Ship, No Anti-Air Capability (mount #561), 10x 12.7mm/50 MG Burst [10 rnds] -- Facility/Ship, No Anti-Air Capability (weapon #1695), 12.7mm/50 MG -- 2x Mounts (magazine #761), local control
-2x Depth Charge Rack [12 DC] (nount #200), 12x Depth Charge [Generic] (weapon #1815)
-4x mine rails for 150 mines of different types incl:
*Generic Mine [Moored, Contact Fuze] (weapon #633),
*Generic Mine [Bottom, Total-Field Magnetometer Fuze] (weapon #2461)
*Stonefish Mine [Bottom, Total-Field Magnetometer Fuze, Passive Acoustic, Pressure] -- -UK Export (weapon #3405)

Propulsion:
2x Wärtsilä-Vasa 16V22 diesels, max speed 19 kn

Creep Throttle: 5 kn, 0,9 kg per minute
Cruise Throttle: 12 kn, 1 kg per minute
Full Throttle: 15 kn, 1,89 kg per minute
Flank Throttle: 19 kn, 3,75 kg per minute
</detail>
<evidence>
Not allowed to post links yet, but for confirmation look for example at the wikipedia article for Finnish minelayer Pohjanmaa
</evidence>

[Anzu]

<type>Update</type>
<summary>Gabriel Mk.5 har got the wrong stats</summary>
<detail>The Israeli Gabriel V missile #3648 has got the wrong stats and range in the DB. The stats there seems to be for the Gabriel II #1558

These are the stats released by the Finnish Navy, and even if they have not been confirmed in Israel, they have recently test fired a missile in a sinkex.

Range: "Over 200 km" (108 NM)
Seeker: "Active radar seeker with advanced anti-jam features, all-weather capability, wide search range and good discrimination resolution"
Warhead: Penetrating warhead
Engine: Jet engine
Navigation: GPS/INS with multiple waypoints
Length: 5,5 m
Weight: 1250 kg
Speed: Subsonic
Manufacturer: Israeli Aerospace Industries IAI
</detail>
<evidence>
Database review + Finnish navy press release/Naval News
</evidence>

[Anzu]

<type>ADD</type>
<summary>Add the BAe Bofors 40mm Mk4 mount</summary>
<detail>The newest version of the BAe Bofors 40 mm naval gun, the Mk.4, is missing as a mount.

The mount is much improved compared to older versions, and can use the programable 3P ammo.
The gun is mounted, or has been ordered for the following ship classes:

-Brazilian Navy: Macae class OPV #2931
-Brazilian Navy: Tamandaré class FFG (not in DB)
-Finnish Navy: Hamina class MLU #3186
-Japanese Coast Guard: Mizuho class WHEC (not in DB)
-Royal Navy: Type 31 Frigate (2 each)

In addition the Swedish Navy has ordered two guns, but they have not been installed yet.

</detail>
<evidence>
Not allowed to post links yet, but there is a multitude of articles and pictures
</evidence>

[KLAB]

Gabriel V has been requested for amendment previously but the links and logic are still valid.
Just to add my tuppence worth.
K

ORIGINAL: KLAB

I took the liberty of attaching a link ref Gabriel V.
The fact it won in competitions against big hitters like the NSM and RBS-15 Mk3 both of which are 200km class weapons with land attack potential is a good indicator that Gabriel V is in the same ballpark.
Cheers for considering
K
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... iel-vquote]
ORIGINAL: Anzu

Thank you for adding the #3186 Gabriel V for the Finnish Hamina-class FAC. There seems however to be some wrong info on both the loadout (which seems to be a direct copy of the Israeli Sa'ar 72).

The loadout should, according to open sources, be:

Sensors/EW
1 x Kongsberg ST2400 VDS
1 x CEROS 200 Tracker (9LV CMS Mk.4), like on the RCN Halifax-class #1898
1 x TRS-3D Baseline D

-4 x Gabriel V (which also should have 200+ NM (More likely 200km?)range, not 28 NM, even if there is not very much open source info about that)
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -gabriel-v
-BAe Bofors 40 mm Mk 4 with 3P-ammo
-2 x Tp451 (#1595), to be upgraded to the SAAB Lightweight Torpedo (Tp 47) by 2023
-8 x Umkhonto Mk.2 (#2770)
-SAAB Trackfire RWS with 40 mm HK GMG
-2 x 12,7/50 MG
-2 x MASS


Not allowed to post links, but add world wide web at the start:
navalnews. com/naval-news/2019/12/finnish-navy-lifts-veil-on-its-future-anti-ship-missile-the-gabriel-v/
baesystems. com/en/product/40mk4-naval-gun
kongsberg. com/maritime/about-us/news-and-media/news-archive/2018/finnish-defence-forces-choose-kongsberg-naval-sonars-for-sq2000-mid-life/

[/quote]

[tylerblakebrandon]

I've also noticed that along with the issues for the Gabriel V units armed with Gabriel II now carry the Gabriel V.

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Gabriel V has been requested for amendment previously but the links and logic are still valid.
Just to add my tuppence worth.
K

ORIGINAL: KLAB

I took the liberty of attaching a link ref Gabriel V.
The fact it won in competitions against big hitters like the NSM and RBS-15 Mk3 both of which are 200km class weapons with land attack potential is a good indicator that Gabriel V is in the same ballpark.
Cheers for considering
K
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... iel-vquote]
ORIGINAL: Anzu

Thank you for adding the #3186 Gabriel V for the Finnish Hamina-class FAC. There seems however to be some wrong info on both the loadout (which seems to be a direct copy of the Israeli Sa'ar 72).

The loadout should, according to open sources, be:

Sensors/EW
1 x Kongsberg ST2400 VDS
1 x CEROS 200 Tracker (9LV CMS Mk.4), like on the RCN Halifax-class #1898
1 x TRS-3D Baseline D

-4 x Gabriel V (which also should have 200+ NM (More likely 200km?)range, not 28 NM, even if there is not very much open source info about that)
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -gabriel-v
-BAe Bofors 40 mm Mk 4 with 3P-ammo
-2 x Tp451 (#1595), to be upgraded to the SAAB Lightweight Torpedo (Tp 47) by 2023
-8 x Umkhonto Mk.2 (#2770)
-SAAB Trackfire RWS with 40 mm HK GMG
-2 x 12,7/50 MG
-2 x MASS


Not allowed to post links, but add world wide web at the start:
navalnews. com/naval-news/2019/12/finnish-navy-lifts-veil-on-its-future-anti-ship-missile-the-gabriel-v/
baesystems. com/en/product/40mk4-naval-gun
kongsberg. com/maritime/about-us/news-and-media/news-archive/2018/finnish-defence-forces-choose-kongsberg-naval-sonars-for-sq2000-mid-life/

[/quote]

[Valachian]

"You are not allowed to post links, emails or phone numbers for 7 days from the date of your tenth post."

I have to wait to add a post with few links containing info on actual assets of Romanian armed forces. [:D]

Until I'll make those posts I have a question, is there interest for land assets?

I am asking because I can make a pretty big list of Romanian assets with years of service and info on their capabilities.

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: BDukes

ORIGINAL: Rory Noonan

ORIGINAL: BDukes

<type>UPDATE</type>
<summary>Add 2020 US Navy variant of F/A-18E and F with AN/ASG-34 fuel tank combination.Australia F's will have as well</summary>
<detail>Add 2020 variant of F/A-18E and F with AN/ASG-34 fuel tank combination.US Navy F/A-18F deployed to PG with AN/ASG-34 IRST pods. Sensor #3445 in db but need fuel tank variant. Look like navy call IRST-21. Australia buy as well for F's</detail>
<evidence>
https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-deplo ... sian-gulf/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -track-pod
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/raaf-to ... -fighters/
</evidence>

Just to confirm, my understanding is that the USN is only equipping their Blk III Super Hornets with this.

Or is it available to all USN Super Hornet blocks?

No doubt Kuwait will get them too in the future [:)]

Hi Rory. The link says currently F/A-18F squadron deployed with them to Persian Gulf so looks like all. There is even a photo. Thank you for look at!

Oh boy... I just finished adding them for the RAAF (since they have far fewer variants and loadouts it's a good test-case) and was thinking that the avionics to support the pod would only be applied for Blk III in the USN.

Even that was looking like a big job... Looks like I have many days of building Hornet loadouts ahead [:)]

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: Valachian

"You are not allowed to post links, emails or phone numbers for 7 days from the date of your tenth post."

I have to wait to add a post with few links containing info on actual assets of Romanian armed forces. [:D]

Until I'll make those posts I have a question, is there interest for land assets?

I am asking because I can make a pretty big list of Romanian assets with years of service and info on their capabilities.

Hi Valachian,

The forum rules can be a bit restrictive at first but it does spare us from the spam that would otherwise become an issue.

You could try putting the data / links etc into a text file, zipping it and uploading the .zip file as an attachment to your post.

There's definitely interest for land assets, but varying priorities could mean they're added immediately or not for quite a while.

It's also important to point out that there is no practical difference between an infantry section from Country A versus Country B in the DB, unless the items themselves have different stats. You could use the SEAL units to stand in for any SF unit, as an example. Same for tanks, SAMs, ships, etc.

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: KnightHawk75

ORIGINAL: jun5896

#2201 F-22A Raptor(2019)
#4972 F-22A Raptor(2020)

Two F-22A rcs worse than #691 F-22A Raptor(2013)


#2201, #4972


#691

You sure it's not related again to the viewer itself and the last loadout listed having 2 external drop tanks? Cause this has come up before in this thread i think and tech support prior to that and the values are all actually the same in the actual database as the other f-22 entries. I checked again in 487 and the different values displayed appears to be a by product of features of the in-game viewer adjusting for last-listed loadout and not actual baseline differences in what's in the db.

fb.asp?m=4810105

This is indeed the case; the values in the DB editor / the values the sim uses for calculations are correct, there is an issue in the display of these particular platforms in the DB. We're aiming to have this fixed in the near term but it doesn't have anything beyond a cosmetic effect at the moment.

[KnightHawk75]

ORIGINAL: Rory Noonan
This is indeed the case; the values in the DB editor / the values the sim uses for calculations are correct, there is an issue in the display of these particular platforms in the DB. We're aiming to have this fixed in the near term but it doesn't have anything beyond a cosmetic effect at the moment.

Yeah that's what I figured, good to know the viewer adjustments are indeed on the radar (if nothing else then to prevent some erroneous reports). Thanks.