Matrix Games Forums

#1763 - strb 90HS sweden - 2000 LCP can't hold cargo but it is supposed to be a small personnel landing craft, 18 men according to WP.

Also #1762 which is an strb 90H.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB90-clas ... ault_craft

On a side note I wish all ships that have the ability to carry helicopters with a cargo load out could carry some cargo, even if it is just recon/inf in small qty.

Guys, how the update database works?
There are some months I've uploaded some updates for the Brazilian Armed Forces, but the only update processed was the A-140 Atlantico.
What is needed to process the other information?
Thanks.

ORIGINAL: jgsp84

Guys, how the update database works?
There are some months I've uploaded some updates for the Brazilian Armed Forces, but the only update processed was the A-140 Atlantico.
What is needed to process the other information?
Thanks.

I am currently responsible for updating the DB3k; it's a big task and it's only one of my assigned roles. I prioriitise (generally) like this:

1. Needed platforms with easily available or well presented information
2. Needed platforms with difficult to obtain or scarce information
3. Corrections to existing platforms/weapons etc with easily verified sources
4. Wanted platforms presented with lots of data and easily verified sources
5. Wanted platforms with scarce, unverifiable or missing data

It's a bit more fluid than that but the general idea is that a major new platform with lots of available information is a much better investment of time than a esoteric platform with conlficting, vague or missing data.

The process of adding a new platform can take many hours, so it's not just a matter of plug in info and away we go. Each datapoint has to be verified and then implemented [:)]

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Another update on the upgraded Type-051B Luhai-class DDG; according to visitors who asked the sailors onboard the ship during open day and judging from the mounting points ontop the missile cannisters, as well as the official model of the ship, the option for sixteen YJ-12A AShMs still exists. Probably a rare loadout-option only reserved for wartime operations, but still.

The mount does look like you could put a second box on it but notice there are no connections for the electrical and communications links. The outer part of each bracket is clearly a lifting point and the bracket is not identical to the bracket on the launcher frame. I suspect it is not meant to mount a second container on top but rather has the pegs so they can be stacked while in storage. If you look at the Tomahawk box launcher it has the same thing but that was clearly never meant to be stacked

ORIGINAL: apache85

ORIGINAL: jgsp84

Guys, how the update database works?
There are some months I've uploaded some updates for the Brazilian Armed Forces, but the only update processed was the A-140 Atlantico.
What is needed to process the other information?
Thanks.

I am currently responsible for updating the DB3k; it's a big task and it's only one of my assigned roles. I prioriitise (generally) like this:

1. Needed platforms with easily available or well presented information
2. Needed platforms with difficult to obtain or scarce information
3. Corrections to existing platforms/weapons etc with easily verified sources
4. Wanted platforms presented with lots of data and easily verified sources
5. Wanted platforms with scarce, unverifiable or missing data

It's a bit more fluid than that but the general idea is that a major new platform with lots of available information is a much better investment of time than a esoteric platform with conlficting, vague or missing data.

The process of adding a new platform can take many hours, so it's not just a matter of plug in info and away we go. Each datapoint has to be verified and then implemented [:)]

So general rules for suggesting database additions go like this then?

1: Suggest real platforms either already in service or with finalized and available technical specifications

2: Suggest platforms that are significantly different from existing platforms and can expand gameplay.

3: Suggest database changes and point out corrections with supporting data.

CORRECTION REQUEST PLEASE:
Please add capable AGAINST SURFACE TARGETS for:
SA-26 [9M96D] (9M96E2 Export)
SA-25 [9M96] (9M96E Export)
SA-N-21c Growler [9M96] (2016, 9M96E Export)
SA-N-21d Growler [9M96D] (9M96E2 Export)
Aka 9M96-1
9M96
Also consider change to effective range of 9M96-1/9M96D as RG article and release from Northern Fleet states 150km maximum range not 120km.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rgets.html
https://rg.ru/2018/10/23/reg-szfo/raket ... video.html

Thanks for considering,
K

I believe the F XX Glasgow [Type 26] class should have the tomahawk command datalink. It has Mk41 VLS with tomahawk missiles.

Thanks

ORIGINAL: apache85


I am currently responsible for updating the DB3k; it's a big task and it's only one of my assigned roles. I prioriitise (generally) like this:

1. Needed platforms with easily available or well presented information
2. Needed platforms with difficult to obtain or scarce information
3. Corrections to existing platforms/weapons etc with easily verified sources
4. Wanted platforms presented with lots of data and easily verified sources
5. Wanted platforms with scarce, unverifiable or missing data

It's a bit more fluid than that but the general idea is that a major new platform with lots of available information is a much better investment of time than a esoteric platform with conlficting, vague or missing data.

The process of adding a new platform can take many hours, so it's not just a matter of plug in info and away we go. Each datapoint has to be verified and then implemented [:)]

Apache85, thanks for the reply.
The updates I've made was basically corrections to existing platforms and their loadout. If there is something I can make to facilitate your work, please let me know.
Only for the record, my original post was #3949 and #3954

One last question: what about hypothetical units, how I should proceed?

CORRECTION REQUEST PLEASE:
Please add capable AGAINST SURFACE TARGETS for

Wouldn't that be covered by the "Use SAM in ASuW mode" doctrine option?

Ancalagon

ORIGINAL: LORDPrometheus

So general rules for suggesting database additions go like this then?

1: Suggest real platforms either already in service or with finalized and available technical specifications

2: Suggest platforms that are significantly different from existing platforms and can expand gameplay.

3: Suggest database changes and point out corrections with supporting data.

Looks pretty good to me!

ORIGINAL: jgsp84

ORIGINAL: apache85


I am currently responsible for updating the DB3k; it's a big task and it's only one of my assigned roles. I prioriitise (generally) like this:

1. Needed platforms with easily available or well presented information
2. Needed platforms with difficult to obtain or scarce information
3. Corrections to existing platforms/weapons etc with easily verified sources
4. Wanted platforms presented with lots of data and easily verified sources
5. Wanted platforms with scarce, unverifiable or missing data

It's a bit more fluid than that but the general idea is that a major new platform with lots of available information is a much better investment of time than a esoteric platform with conlficting, vague or missing data.

The process of adding a new platform can take many hours, so it's not just a matter of plug in info and away we go. Each datapoint has to be verified and then implemented [:)]

Apache85, thanks for the reply.
The updates I've made was basically corrections to existing platforms and their loadout. If there is something I can make to facilitate your work, please let me know.
Only for the record, my original post was #3949 and #3954

One last question: what about hypothetical units, how I should proceed?

Ask away! There's nothing to lose, the guidelines I set out above are just that. Just be aware that due to the number of requests (multiple per day) and the rate at which they can be filled--also some are simply not feasible for a variety of reasons--your request may take a long time to get filled or it may not happen at all.

For hypotheticals the more likely they are to have widespread utility and the better (realistic) information available the more likely I'll be able to add them in a shorter timeframe.

ORIGINAL: apache85
Ask away! There's nothing to lose, the guidelines I set out above are just that. Just be aware that due to the number of requests (multiple per day) and the rate at which they can be filled--also some are simply not feasible for a variety of reasons--your request may take a long time to get filled or it may not happen at all.

For hypotheticals the more likely they are to have widespread utility and the better (realistic) information available the more likely I'll be able to add them in a shorter timeframe.

Ok, Apache85. Thanks for the reply, again.

Please update Sa'ar 6 corvette with these weapons:

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... vette.html

The Saar 6 class was developed from the German MEKO A100 base (and variations for the German Navy K130 corvettes). The Saar 6 vessels will not just be "Patrol Vessels" as initially reported but rather powerful Corvettes with a displacement in excess of 2,000 tons and a length of 90 meters.The width of the class is 13.5 meters and its draft is more than 4 meters. Their maximum speed is 26 knots thanks to their diesel power plant and dual-shaft arrangement. The crew complement is about 70 sailors.

Saar 6 class corvettes will be heavily armed for their size: They are set to be fitted with:
- 32x VLS cells for Barak 8 surface to air missile system by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)
- 2x C-DOME naval point defense system launchers by Rafael (20x Tamir missiles in each launcher for a total of 40x per ship)
- 16x anti-ship missiles (Boeing Harpoon Block 2 or Israel's IAI Gabriel Mk 5)
- 1x 76mm Oto Melara Super Rapid main gun
- 2x Typhoon 25mm remote weapon stations by Rafael (likely able to launch Spike-ER missiles as well)
- 2x 324mm torpedo launchers for MK54 Lightweight Torpedo by Raytheon

The main sensor system aboard the Saar 6 will be the MF-STAR multifunction AESA radar by IAI. Saar 6 corvettes will have hangar space and platform able to accommodate a medium class (SH-60 type) helicopter.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_6-class_corvette

http://gall.dcinside.com/mgallery/board ... 969&page=1

I post it for testing I can add link, sorry.

Hi, I’ll talking about Database update of Republic of Korea Air Force. Thank you for read my post.

ADD NEW A/C on DB 3000

#???? F-16C Blk32 Falcon [F-16PBU], 2014
#???? F-16D Blk32 Falcon [F-16PBU], 2014

Sensors & Mounts are not change with F-16C/D Peace Bridge.

Weapon Store (Add these weapons to F-16C/D Blk32 Peace Bridge Store)
AIM-120B --- Strike Loadout
AIM-120C-5 --- Air Superiority Loadout
AIM-9M --- Replace AIM-9P-4
AGM-88B
GBU-31(V)1/B JDAM [Mk84]
GBU-31(V)3/B JDAM [BLU-109/B]

-> In 2013~2015, ROKAF upgraded their old F-16C/D Blk32 Fighters. AIM-120B/C AMRAAM, JDAM, AGM-88 HARM, AIM-9M integrated on these fighters. Also, LINK 16 added on them. (+ Radar upgraded for using AMRAAM)

http://defensetimes.kr/article/view.php ... oc_num=380 (Defensetimes News, Korean)

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/re ... t-upgrades (DSCA)

------------------------------------------

# ???? F-16CJ Blk 52 Falcon [KF-16C, F-16V Upgraded], 2019
# ???? F-16DJ Blk 52 Falcon [KF-16D, F-16V Upgraded], 2019

Sensor – AN/APG-83 SABR, ASPJ, AN/ALR-56M Upgraded, AN/ALQ-213 MAWS
Mount – Same as KF-16C/D (ver.2011)

Weapon Store
- AAM : AIM-120C-5, AIM-9X-2
- AGM : AGM-88B, AGM-65G2, AGM-84L Harpoon II
- Unguided Bomb : Mk84, Mk82, Mk20 Rockeye
- Guided Bomb : GBU-31(V)1/B, GBU-31(V)3/B, GBU-10E/B, GBU-12D/B, GBU-39 SDB, GBU-54 LJDAM, GBU-105 WCMD
- Fuel Tank : 300/370 USG
- Pod : AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER XR, AAQ-13/14 LANTIRN, K/ALQ-200K DECM

-> S.Korea Government cancelled KF-16 Upgrade with BAE systems in 2014. And, Start upgrade with Lockheed Martin. Upgraded KF-16 will have these things.

a) AN/APG-83 SABR radar and AN/ALQ-213 MAWS (BAE suggested RACR and LM suggested SABR)
b) JHMCS II with Night Vision, can use AIM-9X blk2
c) Harpoon Block II, WCMD, SDB intergrated
d) LINK 16 MIDS-LVT Upgrade

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/th ... ted-02471/ (About LINK-16)
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/re ... de-program (DSCA)

-------------------------------------------

#???? Falcon 2000S [701 Project, ELINT/SAR]

Sensor
- NexSAR (Same Spec with Global Hawk Sensor Package[ISAR])
- IRST
- Generic ESM (Advanced)
- Generic Comms Moniter (Advanced)

-> Project 701 is Surveillance Aircraft Project preceded Baekdu/Geumgang Aircraft. (I wanted to suggest these two, but I don’t have refer about them. Let’s see them later with refer.)

Before Project 701, Baekdu (ELINT) / Geumgang (SAR) divided Electronic Recon Mission. Project 701 combined these two fuction in one platform. Because Falcon 2000S is bigger than Hawker 800(Aircraft for Baekdu/Geumgang System).

On Photo Link, We can see Large Pod (IRST & SAR) under front fuselage, small pod under rear fuselage (ELINT & COMMINT).

SAR of Project 701 guessed LG electronics NexSAR. 30cm resolution yield is similar to Global Hawk Sensor Package.

https://academic.naver.com/article.nave ... ryId=10512 (refer about NexSAR)

https://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mo ... 8&sid1=001 (News, Korean)

https://defense-update.com/20120106_sou ... -jets.html

https://m.blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?b ... e.co.kr%2F (Photo)

https://www.dassaultfalcon.com/en/Aircr ... rview.aspx (Falcon 2000S aircraft spec)

-----------------------------------

#???? F-15K Eagle, 2013, AIM-120C-7

Same as F-15K Eagle 2010 ver. / Replace AIM-120C-5 to AIM-120C-7.

-> South Korea Bought many AIM-120C-7 AAMs.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/new ... e-from-us/ (2013)

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/So ... 5Ks-04942/ (2008)

Next Post about retrofit roadouts of Korean Fighter fleet.

# 4516 F-16CJ Blk52 Falcon [RKF-16C, Recon/SEAD], 2015

Weapon Store(Add these weapons to RKF-16C store before)
AIM-120C-5 ---- Replace AIM-120B
Condor-2, ARD-300K [TAC-ELINT], EL/M-2060P, AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER XR

Condor-2 is heavy recon pod, I think it can be same performance with DB-110.
ARD-300K pod is ELINT pod, I think it can be equal with‘Generic ESM [Advanced]'.
EL/M-2060P is SAR pod, I think it can be equal with‘Generic SAR/MTI’. (that sensor is in Patroller UAV)

Three Recon loadouts are similar. 1 Recon Pod on Centerline, 2 370USG tank, 2 AIM-120C-5, 2 AIM-9S.

-> There is no recon pod on RKF-16, in spite of 'Recon' wroted on DB[&:]

a. Condor-2 EO/IR reconnaissance pod : ROKAF purchased Condor-2 pod (Elbit Systems) through EO-X project.

https://twitter.com/netchan1129/status/ ... 2125925381 (Picture of korean F-16 have Condor-2 pod)
http://www.ytn.co.kr/_ln/0101_200602131014002304 (News that mean Elop[Elbit electro optics] win at EO-X)

b. EL/M-2060P SAR pod : RKF-16 Also have EL/M-2060P SAR pod.

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/conte ... mti-system
https://milidom.net/freeboard/878648 (레이더 영상장비 사업” means “SAR POD project. Elbit Systems got this project, and EL/M-2060P is their suggestion.)

c. ARD-300K [Tac-ELINT] POD : EL/M-2060P and Condor-2 made in Israel, but ARD-300K is korean own made pod.

http://www.kjclub.com/kr/board/exc_boar ... e&sod=desc

--------------------------------------------

#160 F-16C Blk32 Falcon [Peace Bridge]
#3548 F-16D Blk32 Flacon [Peace Bridge]

+ AIM-9L missile for Air Superiority loadout

-> In DB3000, F-16C/D Blk32 Peace Bridge Fighters only can intergrated AIM-9P-4 missile for Air to Air Fight. But, F-16 Peace Bridge can use AIM-9L.

Now, Photo of Korean F-16 Peace Bridge armed with AIM-9 on above link.(5th Picture is F-16C Blk32) Fin of that sidewinder looks triangle shape of L version, not trapezoid shape of P version.

https://m.blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?b ... 0798259427

------------------------------------------

#3457 F-16C Blk52 Falcon [KF-16C] --- 2011 ver.
#3544 F-16D Blk52 Falcon [KF-16D] --- 2011 ver.

Weapon Store (Add these weapons to KF-16C/D [2011 ver.] store)
AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER XR
AIM-120C-5 ----- Air Superiority loadout

&

#4514 F-15K Eagle (2017 ver.)
#3658 F-15K Eagle (2010 ver.)
(and my Suggestion F-15K 2013ver.)

+ AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER POD

-> a. SNIPER POD on KF-16 & F-15K : ROKAF got SNIPER pod at FX-2 project (with 21 F-15K). These pods are used on F-15K & KF-16.

http://www.d2b.go.kr/pcb/bid/bidAnnounceView.do?key=114 (Korean DAPA military support bidding announcement page. You can see “SNIPER POD field inspection equipment for (K)F-16“ on google translater.
https://youtu.be/GWxahGyqiZE (ROKAF exercise “Soaring Eagle 2016“ Video, You can watch sniper pod on F-15K and KF-16s.)

b. KF-16/F-16PBU for AMRAAM charlie : Here is a picture that ROKAF KF-16 armed with AIM-120C (maybe C-5). You can see charlie’s smaller pin than bravo.

Here is Korean Ballistic Missile update points.

1) Hyunmoo-2A/B (2017.ver)
ROKA Upgraded Hyumnoo-2A/B Missiles.
On 2017 News, Hyunmoo-2A's warhead weight is increased to 1.5ton.
And on first link, we can see changement between first public test of Hyunmoo-2A and 2017 test.

So, I suggest Hyunmoo-2A/B 2017 ver. 's warhead can be increase to 1500kg/1000kg.
Also, Its CEP can be reduce.

http://gall.dcinside.com/mgallery/board ... r&no=38274
http://news.mk.co.kr/newsRead.php?sc=&c ... &no=595417
(Both are korean, Sorry.)

----------------------------------

2) KTSSM(Korean Tactical Surface to Surface Missile)

Hyunmoo-2 Missiles are too expensive for attack tactical targets. So, ROKA made KTSSM.
KTSSM is based on K-BATS(Korean-Ballistic Aerial Target System) Missile.
It has 180km(100NM) Range, 500kg Thermobaric Warhead, 10m CEP and launched in Quad Fixed Launcher.

http://www.add.re.kr/move.do?usr_menu_cd=0102050800 (Korean Agency for Defense Development Page)
http://www.janes.com/article/61443/k-ba ... s-es2016d4 (JANES)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWo8pljEX50 (Can watch Thermobaric Warhead detonation)
https://www.hanwhacorp.co.kr/defense/bu ... rea1_1.jsp (Hanhwa Page, KTSSM is third product)

3) Hyunmoo-2C and ASBM capability
Hyunmoo-2C is 800km Range ballistic missile. Actually, It has too many different points with Hyunmoo-2A/B.

1) It uses 10x10 TEL. (A/B uses 8x8 TEL)
2) It is two stage missile. (More detail, It has seperating RV.)
3) Its RV have Canard for attitude control.

Also, Hyunmoo-2C guessed to become ASBM.
S.Korea completed ASBM application Technology of Multimode Seeker in 2017.
And, Hyunmoo-2C have enough ability for become ASBM (Canard for Attitude controls and good CEP)

https://youtu.be/fgpoTLpuFHg?t=30
https://news.joins.com/article/21702078
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/hyunmoo-2c/

Ref capability against surface vessels, as I understand it.
The use SAM in ASuW role is a rule of engagement / doctrine setting, the weapon still has to be capable of hitting surface targets in its target sets in the Db. Otherwise all the older weapons which can't differentiate against ground clutter etc would be capable of being used against surface targets just by changing the ROE.
There are a number of modern SAM systems which are capable of hitting surface targets which aren't listed as such in Db3k. Sea Ceptor was case in point but I haven't checked 475 to see if it was amended. Sea Ceptor was designed to combat swarming small surface craft / USV and has been tested as such.
The ROE/Doctrine setting stops the expenditure of costly SAM's which are ASuW capable against surface targets when there are more suitable options available unless the player deems it appropriate/expedient .
Regards
K

I've just checked and you are correct, I thought it was the other way.

Live to learn about command [:D]

Ancalagon

Please added Egyptian Wing Long. Look like.

Picture and Jane's announce

https://www.janes.com/article/83919/egy ... -loong-uav

#4727 in DB look similar.

Want

Thank!