Page 108 of 371

RE: Norwegian N 51 Borgen controlled minefield tender

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:01 am
by mikmykWS
ORIGINAL: emsoy

Have registered these and assigned to Mike [8D]
ORIGINAL: Mgellis

I request the addition of the following facilities:

Armored Platoon (BTR-152 APC) (Generic)

Armored Platoon (BTR-40 APC) (Generic)

Armored Platoon (BTR-50P APC) (Generic)

Armored Platoon (BTR-60PB APC) (Generic)


All four are already in the CWDB, so all necessary information should be available.

Tens of thousands of these were produced. They are STILL in use with dozens of countries around the world. For example, they make up a good chunk of Somalia's armed equipment.

Thanks for considering these.


Done. Should see it next db update.

RE: Norwegian N 51 Borgen controlled minefield tender

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:23 am
by Mgellis
ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Done. Should see it next db update.

Thanks, Mike!



RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:02 am
by ComDev
ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Just curious...what is the difference between a Building (TV Mast) and a Structure (Mast)? Is Structure (Mast) just meant to be a generic structure to cover all kinds of masts and towers (cell phone towers, etc.) or is it something else?

The structure is a standalone mast, while the Building Mast is both a building and mast.

https://no.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ullandhaugt%C3%A5rnet

(yeah yeah we know we know, the database has gotten too detailed. Guess this started to sink in on our end when we added the Coast Guard of Honduras lol! The database is starting to get pretty complete hehe)

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:13 am
by ComDev
ORIGINAL: Mgellis

ORIGINAL: FoxZz

I guess when a unit kills another one, its veterancy increase and you can see the list of its kills displayed.

This is an interesting idea, but really more of a gameplay issue than a database issue. (I suspect it would be hard to implement, too.) I would repost the question in a new thread in the main section of the Command forums.

Yes Mark is right, please post the request here instead:
tm.asp?m=3437496

Thanks!

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 5:35 pm
by CV60
[UPDATED DB v440]

Minor Database correction: DB 3000 Weapon_444 and Weapon_1398 (AIM-54 A and C). The database gives the radar as having an active range of 5 nm. Several sources, including Janes', give the AIM-54's DSQ-26 radar an effective range at around 10 nm. See also


http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html and http://www.cmchant.com/the-hughes-aim-54-phoenix
"For the final 18200 m (20000 yds) of the interception, the Phoenix switches to active radar homing for high terminal accuracy. Minimum engagement range is about 3.7 km (2 nm), in which case active homing is used from the beginning. The 60 kg (132 lb) MK 82 blast-fragmentation warhead is detonated by a fuzing system consisting of a MK 334 radar proximity, an IR proximity, and an impact fuze."


http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_fighters/f14_2.html
"Once it gets within about 14 miles of the target, the Phoenix's own DSQ-26 radar takes over for the final run in to the target, and the missile operates in fully-active radar homing mode. At this time the missile is completely independent of its launching aircraft, and becomes "fire-and-forget"."

One other minor quibble: Friedman, Norman, "The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1997, pg. 427 gives the minimum range of the AIM-54A as 2.1 nm and the AIM-54C as 2.0 nm, vice the 4.0 nm given in the database.

One final quibble: The AIM-54C entered service in 1986, vice 1989. See http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=2943 at page 8.

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 5:35 pm
by SASR
[UPDATED DB v440]

Extremely low priority

The OECM on the EC-130H should be the AN/ALQ-173(V), the DECM seems to be the AN/ALQ-175, and the ESM is the AN/ALR-63

The ALR-73 on the E-2C/D is being replaced by the more recent ALQ-217

From: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... ne-ew.html

"The AN/ALQ-217 ESM system functions as the highly sophisticated ears of advanced tactical aircraft and is currently installed on the U.S. and International E-2C and E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-3C type aircraft. "

From: http://www.designation-systems.net/usmi ... q2aly.html

"AN/ALQ-217 ESM System (development of AN/ALQ-210); manufactured by Lockheed Martin; intended for E-2C upgrade (replaces AN/ALR-73)"

From: http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Protecti ... 00001.aspx

"The AN/ALQ-173 is an aircraft mounted blink jammer designed to counter radar based threats. The ALQ-173 is used on the US Air Force EC-130H Compass Call aircraft. Also Known As: AN/ALQ-173(V)"

From: http://www.designation-systems.net/usmi ... q2aly.html

"AN/ALR-63 Instantaneous Frequency Measurement Receiver; manufactured by Argo Systems; used in EP-3E, EC-130"

From: http://www.designation-systems.net/usmi ... ly.htmlrom :

AN/ALQ-175 High-Band ECM System; manufactured by Raytheon; used in EC-130H

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 5:51 pm
by SASR
[NOT ENOUGH INFO]

Would it be possible to add the new land-based YJ-18s? Nobody has any information on the service date though.

Maximum of three missiles per truck/TEL

more info here
http://www.popsci.com/chinas-new-myster ... d-launcher

Image
Image
Image


RE: Su-35S missing radar

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:18 pm
by butch4343
ORIGINAL: emsoy

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

I have a question on a speculative aircraft: have you considered adding the FB-23 / FB-22 regional strike fighter concepts?

Is there much interest in these? What would the specs be like?

Thanks [8D]


I for one would be very intrested to see these and other hypotheticals added, I am happy to help research the specs for these if theres some chance of them being added at a future date

[:D]

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:35 pm
by CV60
[NOT ENOUGH INFO]

This article suggests the TEL is a 2-round launcher
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=2959
Would it be possible to add the new land-based YJ-18s? Nobody has any information on the service date though.

Maximum of three missiles per truck/TEL

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:43 pm
by mikmykWS
ORIGINAL: SASR

Would it be possible to add the new land-based YJ-18s? Nobody has any information on the service date though.

Maximum of three missiles per truck/TEL

more info here
http://www.popsci.com/chinas-new-myster ... d-launcher

Image
Image
Image


No. Tarped over trucks are not good evidence. Sorry.

Mike

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:26 pm
by Mgellis
ORIGINAL: emsoy

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Just curious...what is the difference between a Building (TV Mast) and a Structure (Mast)? Is Structure (Mast) just meant to be a generic structure to cover all kinds of masts and towers (cell phone towers, etc.) or is it something else?

The structure is a standalone mast, while the Building Mast is both a building and mast.

https://no.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ullandhaugt%C3%A5rnet

Okay, I get it. Thanks.

(yeah yeah we know we know, the database has gotten too detailed. Guess this started to sink in on our end when we added the Coast Guard of Honduras lol! The database is starting to get pretty complete hehe)

Nonsense! The more the merrier! [:)]

Seriously, thanks for including things like masts. Sure, I could just use a bunch of Buiding (Medium) platforms and then use the rename function, but it's nice to have all the little extras like Building (Police Station) and Structure (Canal Lock). (It makes it easier to set up certain Events, too.) I appreciate it and I'm sure a lot of other people do, too.


RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:15 am
by KLAB
Ref "TWIN/Triple YJ-18 LAUNCHER" ,

Indeed too soon for the DB.

From the images in the Janes link below, these photos of the triple launchers are stated to be triple DF-10's LACM but mounted on a new TEL vehicle.

The article also refers to the 12x12 vehicle which has appeared on the internet in reference to the YJ-18, and states that it is a new MRBM >Not< the land based vehicle launcher for the YJ-18.

"12x12 version of this new TEL, which carries two missile launch boxes larger than, but similar to, those carrying the DF-10.
The new missile has been reported to be the new "YJ-18" supersonic anti-ship missile.
However, an Asian source has told IHS Jane's that this is a new MRBM."

Google Janes IHS 360 China previews new ballistic missiles in practices for 3 September parade (since I still can't post links.)

Regards

Karl


RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:30 pm
by Hongjian
[UPDATED DB v440]

Some new information about the LD-2000 Land-Based CIWS thru the VJ-Day Parade Rehearsals.

It seems that this system actually doesnt have an own designation in the PLA, but is part of the HQ-6A Batteries, functioning as their Fire Control Radars. HQ-6A (aka. "HQ-64/HQ-6D") and LD-2000 are basically one integrated short-range anti-cruise-missile and close-in-defence unit. These integrated units are, in turn, tasked with defending HQ-9A batteries and important installations.

Image

Image

Image

A PR shot from some years ago, showing the (now confirmed) deployment scheme of this system:

Image

So, maybe add a HQ-64/HQ-6A launcher battery to each LD-2000 equipped SAM unit as well?

AL-1A Airborne Laser COIL shot

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:24 pm
by Kitchens Sink
[WILL BE FIXED FOR COMMAND v1.10]

Just a minor issue with a platform not often used.

The Laser COIL Shot weapon on the AL-1A plane has a valid altitude for firing of 36,000 ft. (No range, just 36,000 ft). This means the AL-1A cannot loiter over land (where Ground Level varies); it must be hovering at exactly 36k ft AGL for the laser COIL shot to fire. If it's over water (where Ground Level is always 0) with plane set at 36,000 ft altitude, the laser works as designed.

Maybe give the Coil Shot weapon a range of altitudes that it can be fired? Again, a low priority issue.

RE: AL-1A Airborne Laser COIL shot

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:47 pm
by Mgellis
[WILL BE FIXED FOR COMMAND v1.10]
ORIGINAL: Kitchens Sink

Just a minor issue with a platform not often used.

The Laser COIL Shot weapon on the AL-1A plane has a valid altitude for firing of 36,000 ft. (No range, just 36,000 ft). This means the AL-1A cannot loiter over land (where Ground Level varies); it must be hovering at exactly 36k ft AGL for the laser COIL shot to fire. If it's over water (where Ground Level is always 0) with plane set at 36,000 ft altitude, the laser works as designed.

Maybe give the Coil Shot weapon a range of altitudes that it can be fired? Again, a low priority issue.

Looking at the database entries, perhaps what needs to be done is something like this:

#1203 - Laser COIL Shot
Launch Altitude: 36000 ft - 60000 ft, 10973 m - 18288 m

(this changes the launch altitude from the original of just 36000 ft-10973 m)

I've noticed, by the way, that the AAW-ASUW version of the laser (#2742, with the 10 mile range, is listed as having a launch altitude of 36000 ft, but this clearly is not in effect because I can use the laser on ships against other ships. However, it might be worth checking to make sure it is correct (I’m guessing it is set at 0 – 36000 ft, 0 – 10973 m.?) and that there are no other errors. It might also be worth changing the text in the database.

I hope this helps.

RE: AL-1A Airborne Laser COIL shot

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:01 pm
by DrRansom
What would you need for a hypothetical aircraft?

Brimstone BOL

Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:26 am
by butch4343
[ADDED DB v440]

Hi

I noticed that the UK anti armour missile Brimstone, in CMANO (IDs 4460/1974/3698/5635/1984/7476/7477/7475/5723/5724/7319/5722) can only be fired at specific targets, Brimstone should have a BOL function, the orgional weapon was designed to be fired in swarms at stand off ranges from soviet armoured coloumns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)


and Brimstone Dual Mode/ Brimstone 2 has the same capibilty

http://brimstonemissile.com/wp-content/uploads/Brimstone-DM-AQ-May-2014_data_sheet1.pdf

Can this be updated in CMANO?

I was wondering is there anything I can do to assist the mods in completing updates? On-line research for requests or some such thing, I am happy to help in any way I can

RE: Brimstone BOL

Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:48 pm
by e2204588

RE: Brimstone BOL

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:58 am
by Dysta

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEVELOPER'S NOTE: Database development slow-down

Hey guys,

Just wanted to let you know that I'll be re-directing my limited Command time (which is squeezed inbetween family life, day-job, workout, and various other interests, etc) to write code. My code contributions have been rather limited lately and I need to add several new features and fix a few bugs before I can start working on the Advanced Strike Planner.

As such I'll wrap up database work the coming weeks. After that I'll only make fixes and critical additions (i.e. needed for a scenario currently under construction) to the database. Nice-to-have stuff (that no-one will ever use in a scenario anyway haha) will not be added.

If there is anything you consider extremely important (...enough to justify spending time on adding /fixing, rather than having me working on code) then please give me a heads-up. If not then I'll finish the db, release, and dive into the Command game engine.

Thanks! [:D]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I think CMANO should make a tree list to make a family of weapons in different versions and designations.

Like clicking the [+] icon will show the rest of the variants and derivate of its model:

[-]YJ-8 Family
- [-]YJ-8
--- C801 (1987)
- [-]YJ-8A
--- C801 (1992)
- [-]YJ-81
--- C801K
- [-]YJ-82
--- C801Q
--- C802
--- C802K
- [-]YJ-83
--- C802A
- [-]YJ-83K
--- C802AK

RE: Brimstone BOL

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:59 pm
by Triode
[UPDATED DB v440]

about Kh-38MKE (#3132 - AS-22 [Kh-38MKE] in database)

in CMANO Kh-38MKE have 250kg HE warhead, this is wrong
in MKE, K is for "kassetnaya" ("cassette") , missile with 250kg HE warhead and INS+GLONASS navigation system is Kh-38ME

as for Kh-38MKE, this missile have 7 SNBE submunition:
Image
Image
this is 12,5kg, 114x840mm selfguided bomb ,
propability of right detection of target 0,9
propability of hit target 0,92-0,96
nominal propability of target destruction 0,6-0,9
warhead can penetrate 600mm of armour
schemes of separation for munitions is on second picture, right scheme for targets moving in column ,left scheme
for stationary targets, circle of engagement zone for one SNBE is 300m


can you please correct wrong thing about Kh-38MKE in database (and maybe add Kh-38ME)