Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[PN79]

While basic L-39C can use UB-16-57 rocket pods or 100 kg bombs (weight limit for one pylon under each wing is 125 kg) it cannot use R-3S (AA-2) or R-60 (AA-8). Only later series of L-39ZA in second half of 1980s were wired to carry R-3S and this was not for combat but for training purposes. So only in 1990s and later modernization could add AA-2, AA-8 compatibility but basic L-39C was not able to use that missiles.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: PN79

While basic L-39C can use UB-16-57 rocket pods or 100 kg bombs (weight limit for one pylon under each wing is 125 kg) it cannot use R-3S (AA-2) or R-60 (AA-8). Only later series of L-39ZA in second half of 1980s were wired to carry R-3S and this was not for combat but for training purposes. So only in 1990s and later modernization could add AA-2, AA-8 compatibility but basic L-39C was not able to use that missiles.

Need a picture or source to act on.

Thanks!

Mike

[PN79]

L-39C with UB-16-57:

[Zaslon]

In the page 199 (PDF) of the manual you can see the list of approval external stores.
Delete R-60 from my request, my bad.

P-50-75 pr P-50Sh dummy bomb
OFAB-100
ZAB-100-105
UB-16-57U/UMP with S-5K/M/MO/KO rockets
R-3U (training)
R-3S

[PN79]

The issue is that the first L-39 wired for carrying R-3S was L-39ZA and that in 1987 and first trial firing was in 1988 so we simply cannot take everything written for granted even if it is manual. One has to take also in account that L-39C was training aircraft with ability to simulate use of different weapons which is in game represented by training load. L-39C unlike later L-39ZO and L-39ZA was never ment to be used as combat aircraft. It still can make sense to add at least rocket pods UB-16-57* because we can see them on photos but I have never seen live 100 kg bomb on L-39C apart of only inert training variant.

*To represent possibility of desperate use as actually its predecessor L-29 was used in combat and even to shot down an aircraft.

So in my opinion just adding UB-16-57 rocket pod as only combat load would be enough. Unless someone can actually find photo of L-39C with live 100 kg bombs.

[SpadeAce]

AT-16 Scallion [9K121 Vikhr] cannot be carried by Su-25SM, Su-25SM2 and Su-25SM3. It only can be carried by Su-25T and Su-25TM. Su-25SM - is a cheaper modernization variant then Su-25T.
Su-25SM/SM2/SM3 don't have "Shkval" electro-optical targeting system, which is necessary for using this missiles.

This wrong loadout used in LIVE "Don of a new Era" scenario. And that's why I can't make myself play it (it's just wrong).

[Filitch]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
And this is why there is so much skepticism around Chinese and Russian claims on new weapons. The US and NATO country armed forces are forced to be fairly transparent when it comes to weapon acquisition.

I don't know about China, but in Russia there is official website of the unified information system procurement http://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/main/public/home.html. There you can find information about purchases that carries or conducts (I'm not sure - what is right in English) any government organization in Russia, including the Department of Defense.
For example - purchase of ice-class patrol vessel project 22120: http://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ep44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=0373100064616000932
or purchase of AAM R-77 http://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/za44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=0173100004515001647

[neno]

Ship #1008 R08 Queen Elizabeth has Brimstone missiles in her magazines, while the aircraft she will carry (#1095 F-35B) use Brimstone 2.

[Mgellis]

I tracked down a little extra information for the railgun that might be added to US ships someday...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-loo ... 1464359194
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Rail_Gun.php <-- this one has lots of pictures
http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... c-railgun/ <-- since Mach 3 is about 2500 mph, I am assuming the range for both of the less powerful alternatives mentioned in this article is about 50 miles.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

[orca]

Freedom class LCS will have TRS-4D radar. First will be on LCS-17. Launch estimate 2017 or 2018.



http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17618/ ... CTNzIY76Ed

[Zaslon]

ORIGINAL: PN79

The issue is that the first L-39 wired for carrying R-3S was L-39ZA and that in 1987 and first trial firing was in 1988 so we simply cannot take everything written for granted even if it is manual. One has to take also in account that L-39C was training aircraft with ability to simulate use of different weapons which is in game represented by training load. L-39C unlike later L-39ZO and L-39ZA was never ment to be used as combat aircraft. It still can make sense to add at least rocket pods UB-16-57* because we can see them on photos but I have never seen live 100 kg bomb on L-39C apart of only inert training variant.

*To represent possibility of desperate use as actually its predecessor L-29 was used in combat and even to shot down an aircraft.

So in my opinion just adding UB-16-57 rocket pod as only combat load would be enough. Unless someone can actually find photo of L-39C with live 100 kg bombs.

Historians use an easy criteria in research. As far I can remember they talk about primary, secondary, tertiary...sources which is related with the degree of confidence. Primary sources has more confidence...It's direct information. In my research for CMANO DBs I used this criteria.

A picture is a primary source, so his confidence is vey High. A flight Manual is another primary source. As secondary source we can use offical communications (GAO, official magazines, MoD website, manufacturer brochures and videos...). For tertiary sources external websites, books and magazines with direct sources (Jane's, FlightGlobal, F16.net...). In tertiary sources can be degrees of confidence too...For example Jane's and some books have more confidence than some webs, magazines...when there are any discrepancy between sources of the same tranche.

For example...When I made the research for Mirage IIIEE I had a lot of problems because there are not a lot of good primary sources (and I am still dealing with it in the Mirage F1 research and Spanish AB.212 modernization). There are only a few pictures of spanish Mirage III with weapons. Almost 90% of the pictures, the aircraft load only fuel tanks. A flight manual is very complicated to obtain (for this reason I suppose that Mike ask for pictures, is the easiest primary source to find)...So I was in a dead end. Until I remember that I can perused official Spanish Air force Magazine. Et voilà! I found some articles in RAA (Magazine of Aeronautics and Astronautics, spanish air force official magazine) where they talk about it. Direct testimonies of pilots, flight mechanichs who operate the Mirage IIIEE.

In the official magazine, they talk about loadouts...I could not find any picture. That's means that if I cannot find a picture it doesn't exist? Nopes. The existence of a picture with a specific loadout is circumstancial. The info comes from a secondary source...So it's reliable. It's better have a photo? of course. But and official publication has enough confidence. If I found an exotic loadout in a tertiary source, surely I will be more skeptical.

Then, In my opinion, according to the criteria exposed, if we can post Flight manuals, i's not necessary support the info with pictures because they have the same degree of confidence...and of course, we delete the circumstantial factor of pictures.

Can be interesting if Sunburn, Mike or another Warfaresims's developer can tell us what criteria is used in CMANO for help us to improve our request.

P.S. if the FM said that L-39C can load a pair of FAB-100...We can load it. If you never saw a picture with this loadout doesn't means that it doesn't carry it. If a Devil african dictator can use his L-39C for bombing rebels in a turmoil and the Aircraft can do it, he will use it, for example.

[Filitch]

Characteristics of active radar seekers of 3M-54 and 3M-14 are different in DB and at the manufacturer's site.
active radar seeker for 3M-54 in DB #3219 and #2671
sensor azimuth (bearing) field of view - ±45°
sensor elevation field of view - from +10° to -20°
maximal range - 65 km (35 nm)
heaving of sea - up to 6 points

active radar seeker for 3M-14 in DB #2713 and #3272
sensor azimuth (bearing) field of view - ±45°
sensor elevation field of view - from +10° to -20°
maximal range - 20 km (10 nm)

[I1066]

Found this article today. It has some interesting info on aircraft turn ratio.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/ameri ... nightmare/

[PN79]

Hi Zaslon,
Adding 100 kg bombs to L-39C loadout is perfectly reasonable for me and I have mentioned that in my first reaction to L-39C. My issue is with AA missiles as basic L-39C simply doesn't have "wiring" for carrying that. I will leave on Mike to decide what to add. Rocket pod should be added, 100 kg bomb would be nice but AAM no way.

And actually remove 350 liter drop tank from L-39C ordnance because it is too heavy and only later L-39ZO and L-39ZA can carry it.

Regarding Czechoslovakia as user the first 5 L-39C were received in 1971.
http://www.l-39.cz/L-39_uzivatele.html#cz

Czech republic still uses several ones for training. Photo of czech L-39C from this year:
http://www.lkpd.info/photo.php?id=9404&airline=397

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

Can be interesting if Sunburn, Mike or another Warfaresims's developer can tell us what criteria is used in CMANO for help us to improve our request.

We need reputable sources and some pictures of the loadout. We tend to follow up with some research on our own and an evaluation on the pictures. In terms of pictures we'll generally add it if its proves to be an operational load out.

I would also suggest creating a good relationship with us as well. This is accomplished by posting credible stuff but also coming across as somebody enjoyable to talk to. Anybody that just insults us or acts like a all knowing muppet generally ends up at the back of the pile. This is not because we don't value their knowledge but because we value our sanity[:)]

Thanks!

Mike

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

I tracked down a little extra information for the railgun that might be added to US ships someday...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-loo ... 1464359194
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Rail_Gun.php <-- this one has lots of pictures
http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... c-railgun/ <-- since Mach 3 is about 2500 mph, I am assuming the range for both of the less powerful alternatives mentioned in this article is about 50 miles.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

Thanks Mark. It does. We're also working on the code updates that need to happen behind this. More on this soon!

Mike

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Filitch

Characteristics of active radar seekers of 3M-54 and 3M-14 are different in DB and at the manufacturer's site.
active radar seeker for 3M-54 in DB #3219 and #2671
sensor azimuth (bearing) field of view - ±45°
sensor elevation field of view - from +10° to -20°
maximal range - 65 km (35 nm)
heaving of sea - up to 6 points

active radar seeker for 3M-14 in DB #2713 and #3272
sensor azimuth (bearing) field of view - ±45°
sensor elevation field of view - from +10° to -20°
maximal range - 20 km (10 nm)

Added to worklist but need a weblink so we can verify.

Thanks!

Mike

[mikmykWS]

DB worklist updated to this point.

Mike

[orca]

Can you add Rafale for India?

France and India signed a contract on Sept 2016 for 36 Rafale. First jets to be delivered in Sept 2019.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ind ... ghter-jets

[orca]

In db build 447 the range for the HQ-16A is 2-21.59 nm. Shouldn't it be 2-40 nm?