Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[Triode]

ORIGINAL: SASR

#57 - Su-33 Flanker D
Kh-61 Yakhont (Air Launched Version of the P-800)
Kh-41 Moskit (Air Launched version of the P-270)

Air launched version of Oniks/Yakhont/Brahmos not ready to flight test and required strengthen central pylons on plane
So I doubt that Su-33 can use it even if can take of with this missile


About Kh-41 Moskit , yes this programm exist in early 90s, but not for Su-33, this missiles intended to be used
with Su-33KUB (two seater, new strengthen airframe,bigger wings, new PESA radar Zhuk-27 , wide range of A2G load, programm further evolved into Su-34)





Also main problem is Su-33 fire control system limited to A2A missiles, Su-33 even cant use more simple Kh-31P
and you want it to use more complex Kh-41 [:)]

In 2016 will start upgrade programm for Su-33 (something like Su-27SM upgrade for Su-27) but I dont think Su-33 will receive Air Launched Oniks or Kh-41, more like L-150 and ability to use Kh-31P/A (since this is Navy they may want A version), standard package of Kh-29,Kh-25(or even Kh-38) and ability to use new A2A missiles

[butch4343]

[NEED DETAILS]

And so it continues

Harrier GR5/7/9

Again the load out seems light, since harriers would operate well forward , the requirement for external tanks would be minimal for all but the longest sorties, so that would give 6 underwings for offensive stores, either BL-755 for tank attack, 1000lb bombs and retarded variants for general duties and 4 SNEB or CRV7 pods for an alternative anti armour load out.

Onto the hypothical loadouts

Brimstone

Brimstone was cleared for harrier on 4 of the 6 underwing stations giving a max loadout of 12,and 6 rounds with 2 tanks for the longer ranged sorties any chance we could have this as a hypothetical loadout for the aircraft.

ASRAAM

Again the ASRAAM would have replaced the AIM-9Ls on the harrier.

Storm Shadow

Harrier was due to be equipped with storm shadow from 2016 to give a stand off attack role, I understand the jet would carry 2 rounds under the inboards with tanks under the middle pylons and AIM9/ASRAAMs and empty outers.

[butch4343]

[NEED DETAILS]

A bug bear of mines is that almost all PGMs have an arbitary minimum launch altitude of 10k Feet applied to them GBU-24 excluded. Now I appreciate air superiortiy hasnt been contested in the last 20 years, so strikers plump to delivery PGMs from medium to high altitude to increase launch envelopes.

That said thats not always been the case, even in Desert Storm , F111s and RAF Tornados carried out low level loft deliveries on pumpmg stations to cut the flow of oil into the gulf. Now whilst we dont do that just now, it maybe that in the future threats favour a return to low level deliveries.

With the advent of GPS guided munitions, its even more pertinent, JDAMs for example can be programmed not only to fly to a waypoint in latitude and longitude, but also altidue to arrive from a specifc angle and direction.

BTW a extended range for dumb bombs and nuclear weapons would be valid as well, IRCC RAF Tornados would loft 8 1000lb bombs around 4 miles onto Iraqi Airfields for a release height of 2700 ft


Could we consider relaxing the release heights? perhaps even some tick box on the ROE page to allow lowlevel use ? similar to the Nuclear Weapons Granted Tab?

Cheers

[butch4343]

[NEED DETAILS]

Since the CMANO has started included hypothetical and cancelled systems (A great idea IMHO)

Could I suggest the following aircraft be considered for inclusion, please tell me if this is the wrong area for this.

I would include these in a category of Cold War Continued CWC

Firstly the replacement of the F111 with the F15E , would have meant there was a opening for aircraft to replace the EF111. A EF15G combining aspects of both the Spark Varks role but with the teeth to fight back (AGM-88 Capanilty). Given the Strike Eagle CFTS were called FAST packs, Fuel And Sensor/Targetting Packs, there is scope for aircraft to have had an emitter location system, and jamming syetem built in , with the oppertunity to carry addition Prowler/Growler Pods and ARMS carried externally. This would have fufilled the escort jamming role.

EB52 Standoff Jammer

Could we consder the cancelled EB52 stand off jammer variant of the B52H, this would have been a jammer equipped version standing off and jamming both radar and communications from freindly airspace, the jammers would have been mounted internally and the EB52 would have been used to manage the EW battle as well as simply contribute to the battle

Operational SHAMU

The SHAMU was a experimental stealth design, to invetigate the idea of a stealthy E8 J-Stars type aircraft capable of loitering high over enemy airspace, with a LPI radar which would detect and classify advancing soviet armoured coloums, it would pass this information to conventional strike aircraft via secure datalinks for follow on attack. What would be required to add this into the Database

[butch4343]

[NEED DETAILS]

Ok so some weapons that I would like to put forward


SRAM2

SRAM 2 was replacement for the SRAM1 with a 200nm range and a 200kt warhead, it was to be used in the strategic role to assist the penetration of B1/B2/B52 bombers, there was also talk of a version for tactical carriage by aircraft such as F15E (2 Rounds) F111 (4 Rounds) Tornado (2 Rounds). I include the Tornado as the RAF in the late 1980s were looking to replace the WE177 with a system called T-ASM, and SRAM2 was a contender along with...


....Nuclear Storm Shadow

Could this be considered for adding to the DB, the only change really would be the change of warhead type in the database.


I[:D]

[SASR]

[ADDED HAAWC DB v440]

The P-8A Increment 2 is scheduled to become operational by 2016, and with Increment 2 comes the MAC system (SSQ-125 and SSQ-101) and HAAWC (High Altitude ASW Weapons Concept), a Mk.54 Torpedo fitted with a wing kit that allows the Mk.54 to be deployed from long ranges.

From : navytimes.com/article/20140127/NEWS04/301270042/Troubled-P-8A-Poseidon-enters-full-production

"The next program milestone is Increment 2, slated for 2016, will include multi-static active coherent acoustics, automated identification system, and high-altitude anti-submarine weapons, according to a NAVAIR news release."

From : militaryaerospace.com/articles/2013/04/Boeing-flying-torpedo.html

"Airborne weapons experts at the Boeing Co. got the go-ahead Wednesday to start building add-on kits for the U.S. Navy Mark 54 lightweight torpedo that will enable the weapon to glide through the air from altitudes as high as 30,000 feet and enable the Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol jet to attack enemy submarines from long ranges."

The HAAWC is said to have a JDAM-ER style wingkit attached, so considering the JDAM-ER in the DB has a 40 mile range, the HAAWC will probably have something close to this.



From : defenseindustrydaily.com/longshot-a-swooping-haawc-for-torpedos-03340/

" "what if we could attach a JDAM-ER style glide kit with GPS guidance to a lightweight torpedo, launch from high altitude, then let the kit maneuver it into attack position and release it near sea level instead?" "

The MAC, or Multi-static Active Coherent, is a system that uses an active source sonobuoy (AN/SSQ-125) and multiple ADAR receiver sonobuoys (AN/SSQ-101). The DB has the the SSQ-125 and SSQ-101, but how do you (The developers) model a multi-static system like this in Command?. Also, the SSQ-125 is said to have improved performance over the SSQ-110 IEER (also in the DB, but with the same range as the SSQ-125)

From : dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/pdf/navy/2012macsystem.pdf

"The MAC system is an active sonar system composed of two types of buoys (source and receiver) and an acoustic processing software suite."

"MAC is an upgrade to the Navy’s current Improved Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) system, which employs non-coherent sources to produce loud sounds that reflect off submarine targets; these echoes are then detected by receiver buoys. MAC employs the same receiver buoys, but uses new coherent source buoys that enables multiple pings, optimized waveforms, and various ping durations, none of which the legacy IEER system provided."

From : seapowermagazine.org/stories/20150414-p8-acoustic.html

"MAC, an evolution of Improved Extended Echo Ranging used on the SSQ-110 sonobuoy, uses the SSQ-125 sonobuoy. The SSQ-125 generates loud sounds electronically rather than using small explosive charges to generate sound as in the SSQ-110. The long-range echoes from a target are intercepted by the sonobuoy and relayed to the aircraft’s sensor system."

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: butch4343

ASRAAM

The same as brimstone, they have a lock on after launch capabilty , so a BOL capabilty again would be good.

Cheers

Thanks! A fair request although what altitude should the weapon fly at? So it might sound like a simple addition, but in Command we have slant ranges for seekers etc (which the old Harpoon game didn't) so the weapon might not be able to find the intended target at all.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: SASR

Got a new loadout for #57 - Su-33 Flanker D



By the Picture :

1 x Kh-61 Yakhont (Air Launched Version of the P-800) or Kh-41 Moskit (Air Launched version of the P-270)

DECM Pods on the wingtips

2 x R-73M

2 x AA-10 Alamo-C

Thanks but Im pretty certain that isn't an operational loadout. Neither weapons are in service in air-launched version.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: butch4343

Loadouts
Jaguar Loadouts

In the anti-armour loadouts , showing 2 BL or RBL-755 per aircraft, this seems light when the aircraft carried equally 4x1000lb bombs or 4x CBU-87 operationaly during desert storm in 1991. These were carried on tandem adaptors on the inboards and a centre line tank.

Thanks! Would be great if you could post photos of operational a/c carrying these loadout!

Could a hypoteical load out be considered for the Jaguar, on the premisies that had the CW continued the aircraft would have been fitted for brimstone, so perhaps 6 weapons on the inboards and a centre line tank. ASRAAM would have also replaced the AIM9s on the overwing stations.

Harrier GR3

Again the anti armour loads seem light, the aircraft would have operated well forward so the need for external tanks would have been almost nil. So I would propose a heavier set of load outs of:

Anti Armour

Either 4 x 68mm SNEB pods or 5 BL755 CBU

Long Range Anti Armour

2 External Tanks and 2 SNEB Pods or 3 BL-755 CBU

A GP Loadout would also be similar substituing the BL775 for 1000lb bombs/ retarded bombs.

Not sure how easy it would be to add these, so heres hoping

Same as above, would be great if you could post photos or other references that show these loadouts in use operationally.

Thanks!

[ComDev]

On Hypothetical RAF units, we'd have to add separate entries. Tons of work hehe, and the platforms would be very similar to the real ones. So no promises [8D]

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: butch4343

A bug bear of mines is that almost all PGMs have an arbitary minimum launch altitude of 10k Feet applied to them GBU-24 excluded. Now I appreciate air superiortiy hasnt been contested in the last 20 years, so strikers plump to delivery PGMs from medium to high altitude to increase launch envelopes.

That said thats not always been the case, even in Desert Storm , F111s and RAF Tornados carried out low level loft deliveries on pumpmg stations to cut the flow of oil into the gulf. Now whilst we dont do that just now, it maybe that in the future threats favour a return to low level deliveries.

With the advent of GPS guided munitions, its even more pertinent, JDAMs for example can be programmed not only to fly to a waypoint in latitude and longitude, but also altidue to arrive from a specifc angle and direction.

BTW a extended range for dumb bombs and nuclear weapons would be valid as well, IRCC RAF Tornados would loft 8 1000lb bombs around 4 miles onto Iraqi Airfields for a release height of 2700 ft


Could we consider relaxing the release heights? perhaps even some tick box on the ROE page to allow lowlevel use ? similar to the Nuclear Weapons Granted Tab?

Cheers

Additional weapon delivery modes will be added as part of the Advanced Strike Planner since these will require a lot of new funtionality being programmed into the AI. Takes time as it is complex as hell [8D]

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: butch4343

Since the CMANO has started included hypothetical and cancelled systems (A great idea IMHO)

Could I suggest the following aircraft be considered for inclusion, please tell me if this is the wrong area for this.

I would include these in a category of Cold War Continued CWC

Firstly the replacement of the F111 with the F15E , would have meant there was a opening for aircraft to replace the EF111. A EF15G combining aspects of both the Spark Varks role but with the teeth to fight back (AGM-88 Capanilty). Given the Strike Eagle CFTS were called FAST packs, Fuel And Sensor/Targetting Packs, there is scope for aircraft to have had an emitter location system, and jamming syetem built in , with the oppertunity to carry addition Prowler/Growler Pods and ARMS carried externally. This would have fufilled the escort jamming role.

EB52 Standoff Jammer

Could we consder the cancelled EB52 stand off jammer variant of the B52H, this would have been a jammer equipped version standing off and jamming both radar and communications from freindly airspace, the jammers would have been mounted internally and the EB52 would have been used to manage the EW battle as well as simply contribute to the battle

Operational SHAMU

The SHAMU was a experimental stealth design, to invetigate the idea of a stealthy E8 J-Stars type aircraft capable of loitering high over enemy airspace, with a LPI radar which would detect and classify advancing soviet armoured coloums, it would pass this information to conventional strike aircraft via secure datalinks for follow on attack. What would be required to add this into the Database

Will need a lot more info on all of these, sorry [:)] Is nothing to go on at all. What loadouts would the EA-15A Electric Eagle (yes?) carry? And the EB-52A? Should they have the Tacit Rainbow as well? Etc etc. Details please [:D]

[Cheechako]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Will need a lot more info on all of these, sorry [:)] Is nothing to go on at all. What loadouts would the EA-15A Electric Eagle (yes?) carry? And the EB-52A? Should they have the Tacit Rainbow as well? Etc etc. Details please [:D]

We should have made the Electric Eagle if nothing else for the name.

[ComDev]

Lol yeah [:D][:D]

[ComDev]

Guys,

I'm looking for up-to-date info on the following Iranian systems. Suspect many of them are simply just part of the overall propaganda campaign and will never reach frontline units. So Im after details that confirm they are real systems already in service or about to enter service. If their status cannot be confirmed I'll simply close the request tickets in our support database and wait for further info (if any will ever appear haha).

- Soumar cruise missile -- need launcher and radar photo, missile stats, operational status... i.e. just about any info you can get your hands on.
- Bavar-373 SAM -- Supposedly a home-built S-300 alternative superior to anything built anywhere else in the world (ahem!) but I haven't been able to dig up any useable info.
- Ghadir OTH radar -- Anything?
- Ya Zahra-3 (YZ-3) SAM -- Ditto.
- Ex-Iraqi Mirage F.1 -- What weapons did they carry operationally? Were they ever turned into a credible war-fighting platform?
- Mersad SAM -- Anything?

Thanks!

[snowburn]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Guys,

I'm looking for up-to-date info on the following Iranian systems. Suspect many of them are simply just part of the overall propaganda campaign and will never reach frontline units. So Im after details that confirm they are real systems already in service or about to enter service. If their status cannot be confirmed I'll simply close the request tickets in our support database and wait for further info (if any will ever appear haha).

- Soumar cruise missile -- need launcher and radar photo, missile stats, operational status... i.e. just about any info you can get your hands on.
- Bavar-373 SAM -- Supposedly a home-built S-300 alternative superior to anything built anywhere else in the world (ahem!) but I haven't been able to dig up any useable info.
- Ghadir OTH radar -- Anything?
- Ya Zahra-3 (YZ-3) SAM -- Ditto.
- Ex-Iraqi Mirage F.1 -- What weapons did they carry operationally? Were they ever turned into a credible war-fighting platform?
- Mersad SAM -- Anything?

Thanks!

Don´t´forget about the iranian super stealth fighter with a cessna instrument panel (Ghaher-313)



maybe somebody will create a scenario with all this fictional weapons
F19 vs Ghaher-313 and Bavar-373

[ComDev]

Lol thanks for the laugh, wonder what's next [:D]

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: butch4343
Operational SHAMU

The SHAMU was a experimental stealth design, to invetigate the idea of a stealthy E8 J-Stars type aircraft capable of loitering high over enemy airspace, with a LPI radar which would detect and classify advancing soviet armoured coloums, it would pass this information to conventional strike aircraft via secure datalinks for follow on attack. What would be required to add this into the Database

Is this the Tacit Blue / BSAX ?

EDIT: It is [:)]

[ComDev]

Thanks Eddie, we looked at adding this one earlier but there isn't enough information. Like, what year did it enter service?

ORIGINAL: 1Eddie2

It appears the Royal Navy uses the DLF-3 inflatable decoy in on its Type 23s and possibly Type 45s. I've had a look through the database and I can see it's already in game, but I'm not sure which platform it's launched from.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-la ... soft-kills
http://www.irvingq.co.uk/information/nr_May2002.asp

[1Eddie2]

[UPDATED DB v440]

For some reason the Royal Navy have pulled the story and pictures from their site so I assume they weren't supposed to publish it. You can still find it here. http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=5348#p5348.

As for in-service date this book states it entered Royal Navy service in 1997 (pg403, para 2), with a broken Jane's link saying HMS Manchester was receiving a DLF-3 upgrade in 1998, so these correlate. http://articles.janes.com/articles/jdu9 ... ESTER.html

It looks like the Royal Navy refer to DLF-3 as 'Rubber Duck' and it is positioned in four fixed launchers, two on each side which fire towards the aft of the ship. Their active period is three hours in sea state 4.

If you look at this CGI image of the Type 26 (Type 23 replacement) it shows the same launchers just behind the forward superstructure and forward of the 30mm cannon. The launchers currently on Type 23 will just be taken off and bolted on the new ships, the same as Phalanx. http://i.imgur.com/ESirHce.jpg