Matrix Games Forums

Add requests up to this point. Thanks All!

Mike

Some more suggested satellite additions.

Please note that I'm now relying on another source (www.calsky.com vs www.n2yo.com previously) as it gives the "Original data calculated from SGP4 model elements".

---

https://www.calsky.com/observer//tle.cg ... 8.29537037
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ofeq-11.htm

---

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/noss-3.htm
http://www.calsky.com/observer//tle.cgi ... 8.29537037
http://www.calsky.com/observer//tle.cgi ... 8.29537037

---

microsatellite constellation on Low Earth orbit
https://www.calsky.com/observer//tle.cg ... 8.29537037
https://www.calsky.com/observer//tle.cg ... 8.29537037
https://www.calsky.com/observer//tle.cg ... 8.29537037
https://www.calsky.com/observer//tle.cg ... 8.29537037
http://www.spaceops2012.org/proceedings ... er-001.pdf
http://www.spyworld-actu.com/spip.php?article933
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/essaim-1.htm


microsatellite constellation on Low Earth orbit (Electronic Intelligence Satellite)
https://www.calsky.com/observer//tle.cg ... 8.29537037
https://www.calsky.com/observer//tle.cg ... 8.29537037
https://www.calsky.com/observer//tle.cg ... 8.29537037
https://www.calsky.com/observer//tle.cg ... 8.29537037
http://www.cnes.fr/web/CNES-en/5940-elisa.php
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/elisa.htm

---

Earth Observation microsatellite with 2.5 meter resolution (Tactical Optical Satellite)
https://www.calsky.com/observer//tle.cg ... 8.29537037
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ofeq-11.htm

Not a request, but an idea...

Would it possible to post a checklist of the data that the database editors need to create an entry? (Obviously, this would not include anything that the editors must determine themselves from calculations, etc.; they probably don't want to make the formulas they are using public.) If people knew what was needed, they could try to track down the actual information and include that with a request (or at least as much of it as possible), instead of simply listing sources.

Anyway, just a thought. I hope this helps.

I know you have alot to do but when you get a chance could you add a few more ground units for Canada?
Leopard 2A6M platoon x4 tanks
TAPV Section x4
LavIII mech inf platoon x 4 sections
LAVIII/ISC w RWS mech inf x4
M777 155mm artillery x6
81 mm mortar section x3
BV206 x4
Inf platoon inf section x4
JtF2 platoon
ATGM platoon Javelin or Eryx x3


Thanks !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTF2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo ... _equipment

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Not a request, but an idea...

Would it possible to post a checklist of the data that the database editors need to create an entry? (Obviously, this would not include anything that the editors must determine themselves from calculations, etc.; they probably don't want to make the formulas they are using public.) If people knew what was needed, they could try to track down the actual information and include that with a request (or at least as much of it as possible), instead of simply listing sources.

Anyway, just a thought. I hope this helps.

The stats visible in the database viewer act as a good guide. Actually Jan's, Rudd's and Triode's request are always pretty on target of things we look for. Use theirs as a model.

Other things that help items get bumped up in the list:

1) Credibility. Post good sources and use things you ask for. We do pay attention.
2) Relevance: UFO's, Veritech Fighters, and Suny Crockett's boat are not going to fall high in the list. Real naval combatants, air defense systems etc will. We will occasionally do hypothetical if they make sense and adding them won't cause a major issue down the road.
3)Loadouts: These are a little special because information is very hard to find in many cases. Please do post real photos. Pictures speak a thousand words.
4)Congeniality: While it isn't a requirement being a nice guy goes a million miles with us. I can tell you we've had meetings where a game or db add has been decided based on who asked. If we get the sense that somebody is wasting our time or constantly trying to get into it with us it is a waste of time,energy and is not serving our game and the community well. We will ignore and move on.

Hope this is clear Mark.

Thanks!

Mike

Oh and list updated up until this point. Thanks again guys!

Mike

We will occasionally do hypothetical if they make sense and adding them won't cause a major issue down the road.

I think it must to do a clear distintion between real/historical and hypotetical platforms.
As example: a Soviet CVN is clearly hypothetical and she will be clearly hypothetical in 5, 10 or 100 years.
But a future fighter variant or loadout (as simple example: Rafale F4, forecasted for perhaps 2014, with AESA radar, Meteor missiles and more powerful M88 engines. At last the in-service equivalent variant will be Rafale F3R, with AESA radar, Meteor missiles but probably only from 2016, and NOT more powerful M88) engines) can produce confussion if it's not clearly identified as hypotetical (in the example, a scenario designer working in 2020 can think the Rafale F4 was a real variant in service actually in 2014, with improved engines and Meteor missiles ...).
Only my idea.

I think at some point we were looking at adding a field to make better distinctions. Might just need to add it to the UI. Thanks for the input!

Mike

Hi,

When you do correct Brimstone II issue can you update the UK F-35B to replace the standard Brimstone loadout?

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Logged up until this point.

Sorry about the Brimstone II issue. Have readded to our work list.

Thanks again Jan for the detailed request.

Mike

about Tor-M2KM (#2162-SAM Plt(SA-15e Gauntlet[9k330 Tor-M2KM]) in database)

from "Almaz-Antey" annual report 2008 page 32 citation :
-integrated preliminary tests the product 9M338K with the product 9K331M (OKR "Tor-M2");

http://www.almaz-antey.ru/_files/13/547/ in russian
So missile for Tor-M2KM is 9M338K

misssile 9M338K


firing from Tor-M2KM with 9M338K




characteristics of missile:
Maximum range - 16 km
Maximum altitude - 10 km (in database 6096 m)
Maximum speed - 1000 m/s ( in database 1740 kts=900 m/s)

missile 9M338K is close relative of 9M100 (9M100 just have 3 band IR/UV head), most likely they look almost the same





about 42S6 "Morfey" (#2185-SAM Bn(SA-26[42S6 Morfey]) in database)

from interview with Igor Ashurbeyli that until 2011 10 years led the development of new air and missile defense systems in GSKB "Almaz-Antey":

- If about C-400 and C-500 is written quite a lot about it, "Morfey" exactly the opposite ...

- Complex "Morphey" is a complex of very short ranges, which will be on the last line defense in depth - kill cruise missiles, precision weapons, and thus provide protection, including to the C-500.

- That is "Morfey" is a future competitor has received the Russian Army missile and gun complexes "Pantsir", which produces Tula KBP?

- This is not a competitor. "Pantsir" and "Thor" are in the same range - small. "Vityaz" - is the average range. "Morphey" - small.

Conditionally can be schematically represented as follows: "Vityaz" from top and "Morfey" bottom overlap zone "Pantsir" and "Thor."

Thus, the "Vityaz" with "Morphey" decide as its main objectives and tasks in class between them.

In "Morphey" has an element of uniqueness, although there are many who doubt the correctness of the choices made in its implementation. But if he gets in shape, which was conceived, it will be a unique weapon.

- And what, in fact, unique?

- If in a simple way, the uniqueness of the selected type of locator in its configuration. Locator is dome-shaped, it will vserakursnym. We've learned that radar turns, and this is not turning. Currently stands and stands.

http://ria.ru/interview/20110815/417675459.html in russian

So "Morfey" is close range SAM system , with range shorter than "Pantsir"(20km)

from article "Russia will receive a powerful air shield with a new air defense system "Morfey" :

"Russia has been actively working on a new anti-missile system 42S6 "Morfey" short range. This was stated by Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin, Russian Air Force Commander. "The system is designed to protect military installations, has both active and passive means of warfare", - explained the commander in chief, "a new set of "Morfey" will destroy everything that moves in the airspace within a radius of five kilometers surrounding ".
Development of anti-missile system "Morfey" is engaged by KB Concern PVO "Almaz-Antey". The first work began in 2007. It is planned that the new system will appear in the Russian Air Force in 2015. At this point of time, according to unconfirmed reports, "Almaz-Antey" created the first prototype of this modern anti-aircraft complex, which will be shown at the international air show MAKS-2011 in Zhukovsky. Combat characteristics of the future SAM remain unknown, but "Almaz-Antey" revealed the basic technical data.
- 29YA6 multifunction radar, developed under the ROC "Morfey", put on combat vehicle 70N6 and according to reports is a ring phased array radar with a hemispherical dome with AFAR lens. With a high probability is used for SAM command and control of the operational data of radar complex. Also on the combat vehicle 70N6 will be installed IR search station;
- Command post SAM - vehicle chassis BAZ or "Tiger".
The range of of the missile - 6 km at an altitude of destruction - to 3.5 km."
http://topwar.ru/6111-rossiya-poluchit- ... orfey.html in russian

So, short range ( 6 km range, 3.5 km altitude )fast (rumours said up to 1500 m/s top speed),with short range AESA (20 nm) and effectively unlimited channels (rumours said it can direct all 32 missiles from one TELAR)created to repel "Zerg Rush" of SDB and other PGM

keep in mind this SAM still in development so all data not very "hard"

[ADDED DB v436]

Interesting article on B-52 upgrade. Unfortunately no real info (that I can see) on what amounts of weapons this would lead to or an IOC. Considering things described I would reckon at least a year away so maybe for a 2016 or 2017 B-52 variant in the database? Anyone have any info on what kind of numbers to expect? (for GBU-38/31 etc I am assuming higher numbers than current?)

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... sting.aspx

edit: found an article from when they were starting out that has some numbers:

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... teeth.aspx

It mentions ALL being upgraded by late 2017 so a 2016 variant for the first operational examples might make sense?

[ADDED DB v436]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

Interesting article on B-52 upgrade. Unfortunately no real info (that I can see) on what amounts of weapons this would lead to or an IOC. Considering things described I would reckon at least a year away so maybe for a 2016 or 2017 B-52 variant in the database? Anyone have any info on what kind of numbers to expect? (for GBU-38/31 etc I am assuming higher numbers than current?)

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... sting.aspx

edit: found an article from when they were starting out that has some numbers:

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... teeth.aspx

It mentions ALL being upgraded by late 2017 so a 2016 variant for the first operational examples might make sense?

More on this...from http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y201 ... B_2015.pdf

Increment 1.1 consists of internal carriage of eight Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) and variants, to include Laser JDAM (LJDAM), on a rotary launcher. This increment also develops the capability for external carriage for 16 LJDAM. The CRL Hardware modification consists of Group A (equipment racks and electrical wiring) and Group B (one Survivability/Vulnerability (SV) junction box and one Integrated Weapons Interface Unit (IWIU) per CRL). The IWIU Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) was previously developed under the Advanced Weapons Integration (AWI) project. No CSRL replacements will be required as a result of this project. Increment 1.1 completed Preliminary Design Review in February 2013 and awarded an EMD contract in September 2013. Critical Design Review (CDR) was conducted in October 2013.

Sounds like 8 Mk84 size in bomb bay, plus an increase to 16 on pylons...

Increment 1.2 develops the capability for internal carriage of eight Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) and its variants, to include JASSM Extended Range (JASSM-ER), and eight Miniature Air Launched Decoys (MALD) and its variants, to include MALD Jammer (MALD-J). This increment also develops the capability for external carriage for 12 JASSM-ER.

8 JASSM/-ER/MALD size in bomb bay, but keeping 12 external with addition of JASSM-ER?






http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-b- ... 1679885252 says

...Under the first phase of this upgrade, the Conventional Rotary Launcher will be able to hold 24 GBU-38 500lb JDAMs or a whopping 20 of the GBU-31 2,000lb JDAMs. Laser guided JDAMs and other smart gravity and glide bombs will follow soon after. Yet short-range weapons will not be the CRL's only claim to combat fame. Soon, the launcher will be able to sling gobs of stand-off weapons such as the stealthy AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and the very guileful Miniture Air Launched Decoy Jammers (MALD-J)...

but this may be incorrect, as they say the CRL will be able to hold 20 when above PDF says 8

[MOSTLY PER DESIGN, MINOR MODS MADE DB v437]

I'm not seeing the option to load any KH-31 A's to the SU-34, SU-24M, or SU-24M2 via loadout. All are listed as "Air Force" but I can't find any Navy variants in the DB (these are meant to be Crimean Defenders, which is a SU-24M Naval Aviation Squadron). I can load the P ARM version just fine. I have been able to load them with the MiG-29K "Navy". I'm using 1.06, DB3000 Build 420 in a scenario set in 2017. I think there's a bug here as all should be able to load the -31A (and say they can).

Also the Bastion system is missing the Monolit-B radar system. An article on Janes (I can't post links) lists a system as comprising two TELs and two Monolit-B radars, presumably command vehicles.

[ADDED DB pre-v436]

AC-208 Combat Caravan (Iraq) ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_208_Caravan

[ADDED DB v437]

I think most of the necessary informations are given so this might be an easy add?

Thales LMM (Lightweight Multirole Missile)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Multirole_Missile
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/content/thaless-lightweight-multirole-missile-enter-production
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/contract-kicks-off-production-for-thales-small-lmmfasgw-l-missiles-06829/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/02/lightweight-multirole-missile/

As a result, platform #3352 Wildcat HMA.2 [AW.159] gets an additional ASuW loadout equipped with 5x2 LMM / Martlet.

Thanks!

[ADDED DB v437]

I was doing a sorta AAR/demo of Command on another forum and one of the guys pointed out something about the Talwar. I don't know enough about the Indian navy to know the veracity of the comment, but I'll post it here just in case, as he made an effort to provide documentation.

The ECM/ESM system on Talwar class frigates is called TK-25E. Sometimes it is also referred to as ASOR-11356, but this is a generic name (ASOR for an ECM system and 11356 being the ship type).

Here's what the antennas look like on the first 3 ships of the class:





Here's the same system on the second batch, the next 3 ships. The system is still TK-25E, just a slightly updated model:






And here's what the MP-405 ECM system that is mentioned in your screenshots looks like. It was present on the earlier generation of ships.



There are some descriptions of both systems in this book: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4S3h8j_NEmkC

And here's the manufacturer's website with some specs: http://kret.com/ru/product/13/ (use Google Translate)

Requests added to our list up until this point. Thank you!

Mike

[FIXED DB v437]

1. The DB says that the German Type 703 tankers went out of service in 2001 while two ships are still in service: Ammersee“ (A 1425), „Tegernsee“ (A 1426).

2. The DB says that the 212A has a maximum of 6 torpedos. actually the boats can carry up to 13 torpedos with a "revolver"-like reload mechanism for fast reloading of the tubes.
The Sonar seems to under perform too since it is supposed to be a lot better then the sonar of the american 688 boats.

[ADDED DB v438]

F-16XL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL

An interesting option for the deep strike fighter competition eventually won by the F-15E Strike Eagle. I love the 15 Echo, but the 16XL definitely has the better look.[:D]

ORIGINAL: Midcon113

F-16XL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL

An interesting option for the deep strike fighter competition eventually won by the F-15E Strike Eagle. I love the 15 Echo, but the 16XL definitely has the better look.[:D]

I used to fly those all the time back in the old GDW Air Superiority and Air Strike games!