Matrix Games Forums

[ADDED DB v440]

One more for Honduras...


Damen Stan 4207 patrol vessel

Operational dates: 2013-present
Pennant numbers: FNH 1401 Lempira; FNH 1402 Morazan
Displacement: 250 tons full load
Length: 42.8 metres (140 ft)
Beam: 7.1 metres (23 ft)
DRAUGHT MAX: 2.52 m
MAIN ENGINES 2x MTU/Caterpillar/Cummins
TOTAL POWER 4000 – 6000 bkW
SPEED 26 knots
RANGE 700 nm. at max. speed
RANGE 1,800 nm. at 12 kn.
Complement: 17
SEARCHLIGHT: MP-Pesch, 1000 W
RADAR SYSTEM: JRC JMA5310-6 X-band; JRC JMA5310-12 S-band
Guns: A Youtube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQfGEn0ALbk shows a Honduran vessel of this class and features cheerful and uplifting music; the boat does not appear to have any weapons of its own, but it can launch a 7-meter RHIB

Weapons for this class actually vary from country to country (there are in service with lots of different navies); Mexico's are "fitted with a stern ramp launched rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) and armed with two 0.50 caliber heavy machine guns. Complement is 18 persons" (http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... trol-boat/)

(Information from Wikipedia, http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sta ... atrol-4207, and http://www.worldwarships.com/class/damen-stan-4207-0)

[ADDED DB v440 (...except Canadair Sabre)]

Additional aircraft for Honduras...

Lockheed C-130A/D Hercules
Operational dates: 1987-present

F-5E/F Freedom Fighter
Operational dates: 1988-present

Canadair Sabre (they got 10 from Yugoslavia, of all places)
Operational dates: 1976-1987

(Information from Wikipedia)

General characteristics

Crew: one, pilot
Length: 37 ft 6 in (11.43 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 1½ in (11.32 m)
Height: 14 ft 9 in (4.49 m)
Empty weight: 10,618 lb (4,816 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 17,560 lb (7,965 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Avro Canada Orenda 14 turbojet, 7,275 lbf (32.36 kN)

Performance

Maximum speed: 710 mph (1142 km/h)
Range: 1,270 mi (2044 km)
Service ceiling: 54,000 ft (16,460 m)
Rate of climb: 11,800 ft/min (59.9 m/s)

Armament

Guns: 6 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M3 Browning machine guns (1,602 rounds in total)
Rockets: variety of rocket launchers; e.g: 2 Matra rocket pods with 18 SNEB 68 mm rockets per pod
Missiles: 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders
Bombs: 5,300 lb (2,400 kg) of payload on four external hardpoints, bombs are usually mounted on outer two pylons as the inner pairs are wet-plumbed pylons for 2 200 US gallons (760 L) drop tanks to give the Sabre a useful range. A wide variety of bombs can be carried (max standard loadout being 2 1,000 lb bombs plus 2 drop tanks), napalm bomb canisters and can include a tactical nuclear weapon.

Bell 412SP
Operational dates: 1986-present

General characteristics

Crew: 1-2 pilots
Capacity: up to 13 passengers, maximum external load of almost 6,614 lb (3,000 kg)[41]
Length: 56 ft 1 in (17.1 m)
Rotor diameter: 46 ft (14.0 m)
Height: 15 ft (4.6 m)
Disc area: 1,662 ft² (154.4 m²)
Empty weight: 6,789 lb (3,079 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 11,900 lb (5,397 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6T-3BE Twin-Pac turboshafts, 900 shp (671 kW) each
Fuselage length: 43 ft (13.1 m)

Performance

Maximum speed: 140 knots (161 mph, 259 km/h)
Cruise speed: 122 knots (140 mph, 226 km/h)
Range: 609 mi (up to 980km)
Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6,096 m)
Rate of climb: 1,350 ft/min (6.86 m/s)
Power/mass: 0.2663 hp/lb (437 W/kg)

(Wikipedia says the 412SP is a "Special Performance version with P&WC PT6T-3BF engines")

Super Mystère B.2
Operational dates: 1976-1987

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 14.13 m (46 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 10.51 m (34 ft 6 in)
Height: 4.6 m (15 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 32.0 m² (344 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,390 kg (14,090 lb)
Loaded weight: 9,000 kg (20,000 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 10,000 kg (22,000 lb)
Fuel capacity: 2,000 kg (4,400 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × SNECMA Atar 101G-2 turbojet
Dry thrust: 33.3 kN (7,490 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf)

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.12 (1,195 km/h, 743 mph) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
Combat range: 870 km (470 NM, 540 mi)
Ferry range: 1,175 km (634 NM, 730 mi)
Service ceiling: 17,000 m (56,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 89 m/s (18,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 281 kg/m² (57.6 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.50

Armament

Guns: 2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA 552 cannons with 150 rounds per gun
Rockets: 2× Matra rocket pods with 18× SNEB 68 mm rockets each
Missiles: 2× Rafael Shafrir AAMs; 2× AS-30L
Bombs: 2,680 kg (5,000 lb) of payload on four external hardpoints, including a variety of bombs, reconnaissance pods or Drop tanks

Thanks for considering these!

(Some additional information from http://www.scramble.nl/orbats/honduras/overview)

Sorry for dropping off the scope, been a busy period. Youngest kid started school so finally done with the kindergarden [8D]

Will try to catch up this weekend but no promises.

Thanks again everyone for your support [8D]

Actually, the Lockmart EL/M-2052 AESA system lost the competition to an updated Searchwater system by Thales [8D]

ORIGINAL: orca

Can you add the future royal navy helo AEW which will replace the Sea King ASaC.7. It is the Crowsnest radar system which is the EL/M-2052 AESA radar. The Crowsnest kit is roll-on/roll-off mission fit for the 30 RN Merlin HM.2 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopters.

http://www.janes.com/article/48859/lock ... t-solution
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... em-412700/
http://www.janes.com/article/51627/thal ... ission-fit
http://defense-update.com/20150208_crow ... dALTlNVhBc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EL/M-2052
http://www.iai.co.il/2013/36566-34455-e ... Lines.aspx

thanks

Crowsnest

The quad-Harpoon loadout was qualified on the Super Hornet in October 2013, so added it to the 2014 variant onwards:

http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/ ... 424446001/

Interesting, but mostly speculation? Could need more details please, including photos. The original Kirovs (1144.2) never received the amount of SAMs originally planned, etc.

ORIGINAL: blh42

The Russian missile cruiser Kirov-class is apparently being updated to carry S-400 SAM's.

Source: https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/107237.html

blh

Added the Lakota but the rest are... well... dunno...

Not much to go on, mostly speculation and very hypthetical indeed [8D]

ORIGINAL: B52H

[Lakota ADDED DB v440]

UH-72A Lakota (USA, Thailand)

Introduction: 2007

Range: 350 Nautical Miles

Number Built: 300+

Y-20 Kunpeng (PLAAF)

Introduction: Unknown (Probably 2020s)

Range: 6000 Miles

Number Built: 4 (Prototypes)

S-97 Raider (US Army)

Introduction: 2020s

Range: 354 Miles

Number Built: 1 (Prototype)

F-16V Viper

Introduction: Late 2010s

Range:Same as F-16C Blk 52

Number Built: 0

F-16IN Super Viper (Hypothetical) (IAF)

Introduction: Late 2010s-Early 2020s

Range: Same as F-16C Blk 52

Number Built: 0

Do you plan on expanding conflicts into the 2030s or even 2040s? If so, I would recommend to look up "Wrath of the Skies Project" on Google Images. I thought these were some nice looking designs that could be implemented in the game for future conflicts. Thoughts?

Thanks, have updated the name.

Seems the BRU-55 on the Hornet is only lab-tested and not actually operational? As for larger GBU loadouts, it would be great if you could help me with some photos [8D]

Same for the SDB on the F-16.

Thanks!

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

Extremely low priority (just a typo really) but for pretty much all USAF F-16Cs 2005 and onward, the BRU-55 twin rack (for GBU38 and 54) should actually be the BRU-57. The BRU-55 is the Navy version on the F/A-18.

http://www.exelisinc.com/solutions/Cart ... fault.aspx

Note that this also implies that maybe there should be multi (L)JDAM load BRU-55 loads for Navy and Marine C model Hornets, I know they've done 3 and 4 GBU-38s on a jet operationally. But I have no need for these loadouts right now so no hurry at all.

Also not implemented yet are USAF F-16C SDB loads starting from about the 2014 model. With either 8 SDBs or 4 SDBs + a BRU 57 with either 2 54s or 2 38s.

Again: no urgent need for me at all. Just reporting. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

ORIGINAL: Dysta

I might also add that the Type 052C Luyang-II still needs some fixing, though. In the DB, it still lacks its ECM suite, towed torpedo decoy and Mineral-ME OTH radars, systems that she shares with the 052D and 054A.

The 052C Luyang-II's only difference to the 052D Luyang-III is, aside of the main radars, that it lacks a VDS. ECM, OTH and torpedo-decoy remain consistent with the other/newer ships.

Didn't find out actually, but could you elaborate what kind of ECM system are they using? Name, range and abilities.

I found it, it's HZ-100 (originally named Type 825, not found in database) and Type 984 (in database, only used by 052D).

It's also been used by 054, 054A and 052C. 056 and other older combat vessels are remain unconfirmed.

The HZ-100 could be the 'system designation'. Do you know what subsystem it is made up of?

Thanks!

Added this weapon to the database along with pre-defined weapon records, so that scenario designers can add them to desired ships. The weapon retains the 100kg charge of the submunitions variant.

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

Kit-2 TLAMs

During Desert Storm, the US used TLAMs to deliver Kit-2 filaments to Iraqi power plants. Can probably use the existing BLU-114/B warhead, although it should probably carry 2 dispensers like the other TLAM Ds. Other specs can probably be copied straight from the entry #231 - RGM-109D Tomahawk Blk II TLAM -- 1989-1998.

DB entry should probably be RGM-109D Tomahawk Blk II TLAM - 1991, Anti-Electrical, Desert Storm

Sources: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-114.htm
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/us ... /tlam.html
Google Books

By design, I'm really not going to maintain a second set of loadouts for a gazillion aircraft to take into account the 700lb diff in fuel qty. The database already contains more than 20 000 aircraft loadouts. Sorry [8D]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

The F/A-18F's fuel quantity is wrong. In game it is the same as the E model, whereas the real F has ~700 lbs less to make room for the extra crew member.

Minor, but should really be changed.

Source: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18ef/
Also, the declassified flight manual with show this as well.

ORIGINAL: BrianinMinnie
Hi All

I’m a little confused when I see the term "fixed", does this mean the database or data entry is fixed for the next downloadable update i.e. 1.09 or such? Or is it a downloadable update that’s available for just the database, i.e. db3000. If it’s just a db update, how do I update and where do I get from when\if it’s available?

Thanks

Brian

p.s. great work!!

Yeah 'fixed' means it is part of the next database upgrade. Usually it says what version of the database it is fixed for, too.

Database updates are usually bundled with game engine updates, but not always.

Thanks for bringing up this one. It seems the effective range was actually limited by the seeker, which was a really crappy TV camera set. Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ4cDFP0CQk

So although the bomb could probably glide a considerable distance, it seems the weapon was used at relatively short ranges operationally. Even with DL mid-course guidance.

ORIGINAL: CV60

There is a possible error in the AGM-62 Walleye ranges. First of all, standard disclaimer: As these are glide weapons, the range of the weapon is release-altitude dependent. However, the maximum ranges in the database are less than what some sources give.

Weapon_1665 (AGM-62A) database gives a 1-10 nm range. Chant, Christopher, "A Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware", pg. 505 gives the range as 1-16 nm (see https://books.google.com/books?id=zUu4A ... 2A&f=false). The USAF museum also uses the 16 nm figure http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/ ... eye-i.aspx

Weapon_1057 (AGM-62A ER/DL) database gives a 1-15 nm range. I have been unable to find range data for the AGM-62A ER/DL, but believe it should be at least the 16 nm given for the baseline 62A, and probably further.

Weapon_1057 (AGM-62B) database gives a 1-10 nm range. Chant, Christopher, "A Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware", pg. 505 gives the range as 1-24 nm (see https://books.google.com/books?id=zUu4A ... 2A&f=false).

Weapon_1862 (AGM-62B ER/DL) database gives a 1-20 nm range. Chant, Christopher, "A Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware", pg. 505 gives the range as 1-32 nm (see https://books.google.com/books?id=zUu4A ... 2A&f=false).

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Sorry for dropping off the scope, been a busy period. Youngest kid started school so finally done with the kindergarden [8D]

Will try to catch up this weekend but no promises.

Thanks again everyone for your support [8D]

Thank you for adding the Honduras and Guatemala platforms. I'm working on a small Mexico vs. Guatemala scenario right now.

I definitely know about being busy with kids! We're driving my daughter from Michigan to New York next week so we can take her back to college for her senior year [please insert extensive bragging about my beautiful, genius daughter here].

Do you want me to add requests (with information) for platforms from Nicaragua and El Salvador, too? I've got most of the information already so it won't be any problem to post it. (Their navies are small and pretty much all their aircraft are in the database already, so with those it's just a matter of providing the operational dates.)

Also, do you want data for the Mech. Infantry platforms (BT-152, etc.) I requested earlier? They're all in the CWDB already, but if it is easier for you if I post the data here, I can look it up and copy/retype it. It's not a problem.

Thanks again for all your work on the database. You and the rest of the Command developers are amazing!

For the older AGM-82A, the 10 nm is probably okay. In http://www.8tfw.com/pages/8thhistory1968.htm, the author discusses releasing at 6 nm from target in a permissive environment, implying they would release further out if necessary, so the 10 nm figure is probably okay for the max effective range. However, I'm not sure about WALLEYE II. While the TV image may be bad, the idea behind the AGM-62B ER/DL was that the missile would be released in the direction of the target and enroute the AGM-62B would be locked onto as the bomb approached the target. See http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-62.html ("The next major step in the evolution of Walleye was the ERDL (Extended Range Data Link) modification. One drawback of the Walleye's guidance system was the requirement to lock the seeker onto the target before launch, meaning that the attack aircraft had to come relatively close to a potentially heavily defended target. The ERDL system equipped the Walleye with a two-way datalink, and the launch aircraft were equipped with an AN/AWW-9 (later AN/AWW-13) underwing data-link pod. The pilot could now launch the Walleye out of visual range of the target, turn away, watch the bomb's TV camera image, which was transmitted via the data-link, and lock-on to the target at any convenient moment." )

With that said, it would be difficult to get the full range under operational conditions. However, against a fixed, pre-planned target, the tactic of lobbing the bomb towards the target and locking on as it the weapon got closer would, (I would think) allow it to be used at longer ranges. Additionally, against some fixed targets (bridges, buildings, etc) the image, as bad as it is, would still be perfectly okay for guidance. Possibly someone with real-world experience could provide some insight as whether the true effective range of the AGB-62B ERDL is greater than the current figure in the database?

Thanks for bringing up this one. It seems the effective range was actually limited by the seeker, which was a really crappy TV camera set. Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ4cDFP0CQk

So although the bomb could probably glide a considerable distance, it seems the weapon was used at relatively short ranges operationally. Even with DL mid-course guidance.

Thanks [8D]

Can I have some more opinions on this please?

The way I understand it is that the main advantage with the Walleye was that it allowed you to actually hit your intended target. The fact that it had a little stand-off range was a nice side-effect. The datalink allowed you to hit low-contrast targets. The JDAM is supposedly effective up to 12nm, and I have doubts the Walleye ER/DL was very useful beyond that range.

Guys?

ORIGINAL: CV60

For the older AGM-82A, the 10 nm is probably okay. In http://www.8tfw.com/pages/8thhistory1968.htm, the author discusses releasing at 6 nm from target in a permissive environment, implying they would release further out if necessary, so the 10 nm figure is probably okay for the max effective range. However, I'm not sure about WALLEYE II. While the TV image may be bad, the idea behind the AGM-62B ER/DL was that the missile would be released in the direction of the target and enroute the AGM-62B would be locked onto as the bomb approached the target. See http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-62.html ("The next major step in the evolution of Walleye was the ERDL (Extended Range Data Link) modification. One drawback of the Walleye's guidance system was the requirement to lock the seeker onto the target before launch, meaning that the attack aircraft had to come relatively close to a potentially heavily defended target. The ERDL system equipped the Walleye with a two-way datalink, and the launch aircraft were equipped with an AN/AWW-9 (later AN/AWW-13) underwing data-link pod. The pilot could now launch the Walleye out of visual range of the target, turn away, watch the bomb's TV camera image, which was transmitted via the data-link, and lock-on to the target at any convenient moment." )

With that said, it would be difficult to get the full range under operational conditions. However, against a fixed, pre-planned target, the tactic of lobbing the bomb towards the target and locking on as it the weapon got closer would, (I would think) allow it to be used at longer ranges. Additionally, against some fixed targets (bridges, buildings, etc) the image, as bad as it is, would still be perfectly okay for guidance. Possibly someone with real-world experience could provide some insight as whether the true effective range of the AGB-62B ERDL is greater than the current figure in the database?

Thanks for bringing up this one. It seems the effective range was actually limited by the seeker, which was a really crappy TV camera set. Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ4cDFP0CQk

So although the bomb could probably glide a considerable distance, it seems the weapon was used at relatively short ranges operationally. Even with DL mid-course guidance.

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Sorry for dropping off the scope, been a busy period. Youngest kid started school so finally done with the kindergarden [8D]

Will try to catch up this weekend but no promises.

Thanks again everyone for your support [8D]

Thank you for adding the Honduras and Guatemala platforms. I'm working on a small Mexico vs. Guatemala scenario right now.

I definitely know about being busy with kids! We're driving my daughter from Michigan to New York next week so we can take her back to college for her senior year [please insert extensive bragging about my beautiful, genius daughter here].

Do you want me to add requests (with information) for platforms from Nicaragua and El Salvador, too? I've got most of the information already so it won't be any problem to post it. (Their navies are small and pretty much all their aircraft are in the database already, so with those it's just a matter of providing the operational dates.)

Also, do you want data for the Mech. Infantry platforms (BT-152, etc.) I requested earlier? They're all in the CWDB already, but if it is easier for you if I post the data here, I can look it up and copy/retype it. It's not a problem.

Thanks again for all your work on the database. You and the rest of the Command developers are amazing!

Okay since I'm about to switch from database work to code work, it would be great if everyone could limit their requests to errors in existing platforms or stuff that is actually needed for scenarios under construction. That means I can add Nicaragua and El Salvador if needed in the next 6 months, no problem. If not then lets do it later on and switch our focus to improving the Command code.

It was my intention to copy over stuff from the CWDB so no need to re-post the data, but this is still a lot of work so may put it on the post-Christmas to-do list unless they are needed for a scen. The automatic copy-over functionality only works from the DB3000 to CWDB, not the other way round. I.e. adding or altering a platform in the DB3000 allows us to automatically copy the changes to the CWDB, but it is a manual copy-paste job the opposite way.

Thanks! [:D]

I've got Mark's mech units on my list. Shouldn't be a problem to add when I'm up to bat.

That being said I'll be limiting what I add to what really seems to makes sense as well. We can't get too jammed up by Db request and if we're really down to the the Nicaraguan coast guard I'd say we're in good shape[:)]

Thanks!


Mike

ORIGINAL: emsoy

The HZ-100 could be the 'system designation'. Do you know what subsystem it is made up of?

Thanks!

I will check it out tonight.

I must say, ECM and electric subsystems for Chinese military are one of the most difficult thing we could search for. Mostly they only starring new missiles and main battle platforms, which is only what medias doing these years.

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

if we're really down to the the Nicaraguan coast guard I'd say we're in good shape[:)]

Absolutely! I'm always happy to see new platforms from smaller countries added because I think Command handles low intensity conflicts better than Harpoon did, and there are so many interesting possibilities there, but the databases already offer an incredible amount of material for scenario designers to work with.

(If I had to make a choice, I'd say please give priority to the Soviet-made mech. inf. units...they'll get a lot more use than the Nicaraguan coast guard. I might use those boats in a couple of scenarios, but I have nothing definite planned right now, so you can hold off on them.)

Now, if I could only get you guys to add flying saucers and giant sea monsters. If those were available, I would definitely use them! [:)]

Thanks again for all the work you've done on the databases. They are amazing.