Matrix Games Forums

Look like Pakistan get JY-27 Radar

https://www.janes.com/article/92736/jy- ... n-pakistan

Okay Singapore update

#1854 KC-135R Retired (no worry Airbus in service!)
https://www.janes.com/article/92483/sin ... operations

F-15SG Updates
2016
Amraam C-7 and Blk II AIM-9X (Sipri Source)
**Look like Singapore F-16 get C-7 too.

Add Heron 1
https://www.janes.com/article/91867/upd ... ayload-pod
Sipri say ordered 10 and got in 2012-13

Searcher II UAV. Can copy from DB other nations have. #2573
2000

Has Aerostat with EL/M-2083 APR radar (sipri)2016
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/s ... -singapore

Add EL/M-2084 radar too. Buy 2 in 2016. Call Safari. (Sipri Source). In DB already as #2485 so copies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EL/M-2084

Igla SA-18 1998 (Sipri)
Look like double launcher
http://defensewarnewsupdates.blogspot.c ... arade.html
And Ultra System (4 Igla)
http://defensewarnewsupdates.blogspot.c ... arade.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2 ... 04143.html


Thank!

Unit #3836 F-35C 2025 has incredibly wrong RCS Data compared to all other F-35C variants

Unit #3836 F-35C 2025 has incredibly wrong RCS Data compared to all other F-35C variants

Hmmm. They seem to be the same as all the other F-35C entries. Can you provide more specific information?

-WS

It may be just a database view error it shows the RCS as .14 and .15/sqm while all others show .012 and .0012 /sqm respectively

It may be just a database view error it shows the RCS as .14 and .15/sqm while all others show .012 and .0012 /sqm respectively

Patrick,

Well, I'm missing something or just dense (it happens). Anyway, here are the RCS entries for all of the F-35C's in DB3K. It is not beyond the realm of possibility I'm looking in the wrong place.

-Wayne

Yes, not in the tools but in the view database in game. (its probably just a display error) I will test with an Advanced Hawkeye to verify just a text error in the customer database viewer.

The #888 Sky Bow III is a muti-purpose surface to air missile.“The system is designed to engage different threats, including: aircrafts, cruise missiles, anti-radiation missiles, and short range tactical missiles.”-by its producer NCSIST.

But in the DB, its a single-purpose antiballistic missile. Besides, its target altitude is only 100k ft ASL- 80k ft ASL, makes its intercept PH far less than other ABM system.

Hope can be fix soon. Thanks!

All variants of the Kfir (other than the C.7 variants) in the database erroneously have both the probe and boom refueling property. The #2228, #4746, and #2018 Kfir C.10's should only have the probe refueling property (as there is no receptacle for a refueling boom on the aircraft, only the prominent refueling probe as seen in the images below) while all other variants of the Kfir should not have any refueling properties as it only gained this ability with the refueling probe/receptacle system that was added onto the C.7 variant.

A top view of a Kfir C.10, showing its prominent fuel probe and no receptacle for a refueling boom.


Image of a Kfir C.10 in the middle of a mid-air refueling using the fuel probe on the aircraft.


Kfir C.2, note the lack of a refueling probe.


Sources: https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... aft_id=152 , globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/kfir.htm , http://www.atacusa.com/f_21_kfir.html , https://www.fighter-planes.com/info/kfir.htm , and https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/kfir.htm

Hi there! I thought I might celebrate the release of CMO with my very first DB3K report since it released! And I decided to start witha very special plane, part of which is made in my country. I noticed the plane was missing the "K" in "KC-390", so I did some research and I came up with this report. Most of the information comes from the manufacturer's website, the info about the refueling system comes from that and the youtube video, both linked below.
And when you update, could you pretty please add the same plane to Portugal, IOC 2023? (:

#4013 – Embraer KC-390

- Sould be renamed as “Embraer KC-390 Millenium”.

- Has a SELEX Galileo Gabbiano T-20 tactical radar with “Spotlight Synthetic Aperture Radar, weather, air-to-air, navigation, air-to-ground and high resolution modes”.

- Has a self-protection suite: RWR, LWS, MAWS, DIRCM and chaff & flare dispenser by AEL Sistemas (a subsidiary of Elbit) of unknown model and capability.

- Should have a refueling probe.

- Should be capable of air-to-air refueling. AAR equipment includes:
2 x Cobham 912E Wing Air Refuelling Pod
2 x internal 2350 gallon (US, I presume) fuel tanks

- Can carry a Rafael Litening II targeting pod for Maritime Surveillance missions.

Source:
https://defense.embraer.com/global/en/c-390
https://www.cobham.com/mission-systems/ ... t/docview/
http://www.i-a-e.com/pdf/V2500_E5_Produ ... 060716.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4g_EqE_9Oo
http://www.aiad.it/aiad_res/cms/documen ... Family.pdf
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... 0-and-uavs
http://www.passarodeferro.com/2019/11/k ... as-de.html

#2182 - KP 166 Pilica [Pr.918M] doesn't have enough fuel 0.8tonnes listed with a usage of 0.9kg per Minute at 5knts

Gives it a very poor range Either the efficiency is far too low at that low speed or the capacity is not enough ?

Nomenclature Correction SA-2b, DB3000
The following SA-2b facilities are identified as "SA-2b Guideline SA-75 Dvina)" (emphasis added). In DB3K, each of these facilities is equipped with the "FAN SONG C" illuminator.

However, according to Jane's Land Warfare Platforms: Artillery & Air Defence, "S-75 family" 30 July 2015, it was the SA-2c Guideline Mod 2 system that had the FAN SONG C illuminator. This system was designated the "S-75M Volkhov". This system had an IOC of 1961. In contrast, Jane's identifies the SA-2b GUIDELINE Mod 1 system as having the FAN SONG B illuminator. This system was designated the "SA-75 Desna". As far as I can tell, the S-75 Dvina system was the SA-2a GUIDELINE mod 0, and used the FAN SONG A illuminator. See also: https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagem ... ocId517282 and https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-75-Vo ... ocId587506. Although I am not a fan of wikipedia as a source, it confirms this analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina

Facility_1296
Facility_1461
Facility_1774
Facility_46
Facility_1772
Facility_1773
Facility_1769
Facility_1506
Facility_1620
Facility_1384
Facility_1619

I think you are only partially correct as SA-2 nomenclature is more complicated because public books use different lettering from those which is used in CIA’s declassified reports. To further increase confusion SA-2 are actually three different and incompatible systems with parallel development. Hence all the chaos about which version operates in which frequency.

So before any nomenclature change is done one must decide which nomenclature design wants to follow.

Variants overview:

Dvina Family
SA-75
missiles: V-750 (1D)
CIA designation: Fruit Set
CMO in game: SA-2a, Fan Song A

SA-75M
missiles: V-750 (1D), V-750V (11D)
CIA designation: Fan Song B
CMO in game (early Soviet): SA-2b, Fan Song B
CMO in game (others): SA-2b, Fan Song C


SA-75M (highly modernized variant but without specific designation)
missiles: V-750 (1D), V-750V (11D), V-750VMV (11DMV) // there were more minor versions
CIA designation: Fan Song F
CMO in game: missing (SA-2f is used for different variant)

General characteristic for all Dvina systems is operating band F (10 cm).

Desna Family
S-75
missiles: V-750VN (13D)
CIA designation: Fan Song C
CMO in game: actually there is SA-2c, Fan Song C but with wrong missiles and only for the USSR, other nations use incorrectly SA-2b with Fan Song C with V-750V (11D) missiles

General characteristic for Desna systems is operating band G (6 cm).

Volkhov Family
S-75M (later variants are S-75M1, M2)
missiles: V-755 (20D), for later variants V-755U (20DSU) plus nuclear V-760 (15D)
CIA designation: Fan Song E (CIA doesn’t use ‘D’ letter for any operational SA-2 variant)
CMO in game: there is SA-2d, Fan Song D with 20D missiles and SA-2d/e is used for nuclear equipped system

S-75M3
missiles: all Volkhov family missiles plus new V-759 (5Ya23) and nuclear V-760V (5V29)
CIA designation: Fan Song E (CIA doesn’t separate this variant from previous Volkhov systems)
CMO in game: SA-2f, Fan Song F

General characteristic for all Volkhov systems is operating band G (6 cm) and LORO tracking.

Missing somme ship classes from the NL, operating in the Dutch Antilles:
Jaguar class (Damen Stan 4100), Dutch Caribean Coast Guard. 3 units in class.
Pelikaan, Dutch navy. Currently undergoing update in the Netherlands but stationed in the dutch caribean. 1 unit.

Do you want those added to the DB and if so, which information is required in what format?

with regards

I think you are only partially correct as SA-2 nomenclature is more complicated because public books use different lettering from those which is used in CIA’s declassified reports. To further increase confusion SA-2 are actually three different and incompatible systems with parallel development. Hence all the chaos about which version operates in which frequency.

So before any nomenclature change is done one must decide which nomenclature design wants to follow.

....

I agree that following a single nomenclature design is important. IMHO, the NATO designation SA-2a/b/c/d GUIDELINE is the best nomenclature to generally rely on, as it: 1) had widespread use; 2) it readily identifies the type and purpose of system (for example, GUIDLINE=a guided missile/SAM; FOXBAT= a fighter; BADGER=a bomber) and 3) identifies major modifications (for example a SA-2f is different and later modification than an SA-2b). Also, a lot of cold war soviet nomenclature was intended to be confusing, so as to confuse the western intelligence agencies. With that said, I believe that the naming convention should be not inconsistent with the USSR nomenclature. So (in my opinion) when the USSR system that incorporates the V-750M missile and the RSN-75 (FAN SONG C) illuminator and calls it the S-75M Volkhov, it is fine if CMO calls it the SA-2c GUIDELINE. It is also okay if CMO calls it the SA-2c GUIDELINE/S-75M Volkhov. However, it shouldn't be designated the "SA-2b Guideline SA-75 Dvina), as it currently is, as that is incorrect, as the Dvina system was the earlier SA-2a, and the SA-2b used the V-750VK and -VN missiles and the FAN SONG B radar. When I write the weapons/facility descriptions, I try to note alternative nomenclatures. However, the current CMO nomenclature for the GUIDELINE family is, I believe, incorrect. For reference, I am including a screen shot of a table from https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-75-Vo ... ocId587506 that shows the various GUIDELINE configurations. I belive, based on my research (including using Jane's) that this table is accurate. See also https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagem ... ocId517282 for a discussion of the FAN SONG series of radars

Please add the Russian Rezonans-NE fixed VHF radar:
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/air-defence-s ... zonans-ne/
Max range 600km against planes, 1100km in ABM mode.
Practical range against fighters 350km.
360° PESA scan.

In service in Russia(5x, https://tass.com/defense/1085054) , Algeria (2018, 1x, https://www.menadefense.net/algerie/rez ... -lhorizon/), Iran (2014, 4x, locally built version, https://on5vl.org/radars-protegent/#iran) and Egypt (2019, 1x, https://www.uawire.org/russia-deploys-e ... r-in-egypt)

See also https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... nans-n.htm

ORIGINAL: CV60

I agree that following a single nomenclature design is important. IMHO, the NATO designation SA-2a/b/c/d GUIDELINE is the best nomenclature to generally rely on, as it: 1) had widespread use; 2) it readily identifies the type and purpose of system (for example, GUIDLINE=a guided missile/SAM; FOXBAT= a fighter; BADGER=a bomber) and 3) identifies major modifications (for example a SA-2f is different and later modification than an SA-2b). Also, a lot of cold war soviet nomenclature was intended to be confusing, so as to confuse the western intelligence agencies. With that said, I believe that the naming convention should be not inconsistent with the USSR nomenclature. So (in my opinion) when the USSR system that incorporates the V-750M missile and the RSN-75 (FAN SONG C) illuminator and calls it the S-75M Volkhov, it is fine if CMO calls it the SA-2c GUIDELINE. It is also okay if CMO calls it the SA-2c GUIDELINE/S-75M Volkhov. However, it shouldn't be designated the "SA-2b Guideline SA-75 Dvina), as it currently is, as that is incorrect, as the Dvina system was the earlier SA-2a, and the SA-2b used the V-750VK and -VN missiles and the FAN SONG B radar. When I write the weapons/facility descriptions, I try to note alternative nomenclatures. However, the current CMO nomenclature for the GUIDELINE family is, I believe, incorrect. For reference, I am including a screen shot of a table from https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-75-Vo ... ocId587506 that shows the various GUIDELINE configurations. I belive, based on my research (including using Jane's) that this table is accurate. See also https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagem ... ocId517282 for a discussion of the FAN SONG series of radars

I see. The issue with presented table is that is use same SA-2C designation for system equipped with 13D and 20D missiles and SA-2D for systems with 13DM/DA and 20DSU and 5Ya23 which is confusing as hell. Desna system with 13D missiles is different from Volkhov with 20D and 5Ya23. Furthermore it uses designation SA-2E for system with nuclear 15D missiles which doesn’t make sense as any late Soviet Volkhov system can launch 15D missile apart from standard 20D and late 5Ya23.

Currently in database CWDB v478 (I am using this one because DB3000 have less entries regarding earlier SA-2 variants) are these entries for Soviet SA-2:

# 708 – SAM Bn (SA-2a Guideline [S-75 Dvina]), 1957
- radar: Fan Song A (F band, early 60s)
- missile: V-750 (1D)
// I propose domestic name change to [SA-75 Dvina] and end year 1965 (estimate based on CIA and export data)

# 342 – SAM Bn (SA-2b Guideline [S-75 Dvina]), 1959
- radar: Fan Song B (F band, early 60s)
- missile: V-750V (11D)
// I propose domestic name change to [SA-75M Dvina] and starting year change to 1958 and end year 1968 (estimate based on CIA data)

# 365 – SAM Bn (SA-2b Guideline [S-75 Dvina]), 1965-1991
- radar: Fan Song C (G Band, late 60s)
- missile: V-750V (11D)
// This is probably understand as modernized Dvina system which is actually designated by CIA as Fan Song F and furthermore CIA reports that this is export only solution as by second half of 1960s all Dvina systems were disbanded in the USSR.
// Because this entry here is redundant I propose to change it to different variant this way:
SAM Bn (SA-2e Guideline [S-75M Volkhov]), 1961
- radar: Fan Song E1 (G Band, early 70s)
- missile: V-755 (20D)
// This would represent the first variant of Volkhov system in service. The radar I would rename from ‘Fan Song E’ to ‘Fan Song E1’.

# 709 – SAM Bn (SA-2c Guideline [S-75 Dvina]), 1961
- radar: Fan Song C (G Band, late 60s)
- missile: V-750VN (13D)
// I propose domestic name change to [S-75 Desna] and starting year change to 1959. Fan Song C should be made incompatible with all other missiles apart of 13D.

# 354 – SAM Bn (SA-2d/e Guideline [S-75 Dvina]), 1965-1991, Nuclear
- radar: Fan Song E (G Band, early 70s)
- SA-2 TV Camera
- missiles: V-755 (20D) and V-760 (15E, Nuclear)
// This I propose to change to middle era Volkhov this way:
SAM Bn (SA-2e Guideline [S-75M1 Volkhov]), 1964
- radar: Fan Song E1 (G Band, early 70s)
- missiles: V-755 (20D) and V-760 (15D, Nuclear)
// This would thus mainly remove SA-2 TV Camera which was installed only from 1983. The nuclear missile should be renamed to 15D (from 15E).

# 318 – SAM Bn (SA-2f Guideline [S-75M Volkhov]), 1976-1991
- radar: Fan Song F (G Band, late 70s)
- SA-2 TV Camera
- missiles: V-759 (5YA23) and V-760V (5V29, Nuclear)
// This entry is clearly understand as last SA-2 variant. But because the ‘F’ letter is actually used by US Air Force for modernization of early SA-2 Dvina variant I would change it this way:
SAM Bn (SA-2e Guideline [S-75M3 Volkhov]), 1975-1991
- radar: Fan Song E2 (G Band, late 70s)
- missiles: V-759 (5Ya23) and V-760V (5V29, Nuclear)
// Fan Song E2 would be just renamed Fan Song F plus made compatible with 20D and 15D. The missile name should be corrected to 5Ya23 (from 5YA23).

Further I would add two variants of Volkhov to finish this family:

SAM Bn (SA-2e Guideline [S-75M2 Volkhov]), 1971
- radar: Fan Song E1 (G Band, early 70s)
- missiles: V-759 (5Ya23)
// that is second middle era Volkhov with early Fan Song E1 compatible with 5Ya23 missile.

SAM Bn (SA-2e Guideline [S-75M3 Volkhov]), 1983-1991
- radar: Fan Song E2 (G Band, late 70s)
- SA-2 TV Camera
- missiles: V-759 (5Ya23) and V-760V (5V29, Nuclear)
// Finally with that SA-2 TV Camera.


Now regarding export to other countries I have these data (first export year and number of total delivered systems):

SA-2a Guideline [SA-75 Dvina] with Fan Song A and V-750 (1D)
China – 1958, 5x
Albania – 1959, 1x
Bulgaria – 1959, 5x
Czechoslovakia – 1959, 1x
East Germany – 1959, 1x
Hungary – 1959, 1x
Poland – 1959, 1x
Romania – 1959, 1x
(Vietnam also received SA-2a in 1965, 4x but only with later V-750V (11D) so probably not worth adding.)

SA-2b Guideline [SA-75M Dvina] with Fan Song B and V-750V (11D)
Hungary – 1960, 13x
Bulgaria – 1961, 14x, Fan Song B delivered in 1960 but V-750V (11D) in 1961
Czechoslovakia – 1961, 15x, Fan Song B delivered in 1960 but V-750V (11D) in 1961
East Germany – 1961, 19x, Fan Song B delivered in 1960 but V-750V (11D) in 1961
Poland – 1961, 16x, Fan Song B delivered in 1960 but V-750V (11D) in 1961
Romania – 1961, 9x
Egypt – 1962, 47x
Indonesia – 1962, 7x
Iraq – 1962, 1x
North Korea – 1962, 38x
Yugoslavia – 1962, 4x
Afghanistan – 1963, 3x
Cuba – 1963, 24x
India – 1963, 20x
Vietnam – 1965, 78x
Algeria – 1967, 2x
Syria – 1968, 6x
Somalia – 1973, 7x
Sudan – 1973, 3x
South Yemen – 1977, 4x

From late 1960s/early 1970s export users of SA-2b have modernized this system to SA-2f with Fan Song F which should be F Band, late 60s with V-750V (11D) missiles or upgraded V-750VMV (11DMV).

SA-2c Guideline [S-75 Desna] with Fan Song C and V-750VN (13D)
Egypt – 1970, 32x

SA-2e Guideline [S-75M Volkhov] with Fan Song E1 / Fan Song E2 and V-755 (20D) / V-759 (5Ya23)
Czechoslovakia – 1964, 18x, Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23) from 1983
East Germany – 1964, 29x, Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23) from 1983
Mongolia – 1964, 2x, V-759 (5Ya23) from 1989 but only with Fan Song E1
Poland – 1964, 26x, V-759 (5Ya23) from 1987 but only with Fan Song E1
Romania – 1964, 31x, Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23) from 1983
Yugoslavia – 1966, 4x, V-759 (5Ya23) from 1990 but only with Fan Song E1
Bulgaria – 1969, 10x, Fan Song E2 from 1983, missile V-759 (5Ya23) from 1985
Egypt – 1973, 8x
Syria – 1973, 52x, Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23) from 1983
Iraq – 1974, 35x, Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23) from 1984
Libya – 1975, 39x, Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23) from 1984
Hungary – 1977, 13x, Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23) from 1983
Ethiopia – 1978, 7x, Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23) from 1985
Vietnam – 1979, 36x, Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23) from 1985
North Yemen – 1980, 15x
Cuba – 1981, 18x, Fan Song E2 from 1983, missile V-759 (5Ya23) from 1984
Angola – 1984, 7x, only Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23)
Mozambique – 1986, 3x, only Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23)
North Korea – 1986, 3x, only Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23)
South Yemen – 1987, 3x, only Fan Song E2 with V-759 (5Ya23)


Sorry for lengthy post.

I have been advocating for the Tu-22M series having AS-16 Kickbacks since I started with CMANO years ago now. However this change has not yet been made and I know it is because my previous posts on the topic did not have adequate sources. That changes today. I present to you a rotary launcher in the bomb bay of a Tu-22M carrying 6x AS-16 Kickbacks internally and 2 AS-4 Kitchens simultaneously.



We can be certain this is a Tu-22M and not a Tu-95 or Tu-160 for 3 reasons.

1. The Tu-95 bomb bay has longer bay doors without visible hydraulic pistons as seen in this image

2. The Tu-160 does not feature external stowage of weapons

3. The fact that we can see the externally stowed weapons and that their height is abour in line with the lower level of the bomb bay indicates it cannot be a Tu-95 which stores it's external missiles more forward and up.

Nnow that we have some evidence that the AS-16 is used on the backfire here are the loadouts I suggest including suggested fixes for the AS-16 which is missing 2 major conventional variants in the game. From here on (N) denotes nuclear)

1: 6x AS-16 (N) + 2x AS-4 Kitchen ac Mod 3 (N)
2. 10x AS-16 (N) (this loadout uses the ability to place 2 AS-16s on each external point)
3. 10x Kh-15P (conventional warhead anti radiation version)
4. 6x Kh-15S (conventional anti shipping AS-16) + 2x AS-4 Kitchen-D (Kh-32)
5: 10x Kh-15S

I see. The issue with presented table is that is use same SA-2C designation for system equipped with 13D and 20D missiles and SA-2D for systems with 13DM/DA and 20DSU and 5Ya23 which is confusing as hell. Desna system with 13D missiles is different from Volkhov with 20D and 5Ya23. Furthermore it uses designation SA-2E for system with nuclear 15D missiles which doesn’t make sense as any late Soviet Volkhov system can launch 15D missile apart from standard 20D and late 5Ya23.

Currently in database CWDB v478 (I am using this one because DB3000 have less entries regarding earlier SA-2 variants) are these entries for Soviet SA-2:

Over then ext couple of days, I'll see what I can come up with to verify your suggested edits. I agree that the SA-2 GUIDELINE database entries need to be revised, and it is a serious historical accuracy issue. I'll also try to cover the CWDB database

I’ve also read about a Tu-22M 3x AS-4 loadout but have not been able to find pictures. Have you seen pictures of this?

ORIGINAL: LORDPrometheus

I have been advocating for the Tu-22M series having AS-16 Kickbacks since I started with CMANO years ago now. However this change has not yet been made and I know it is because my previous posts on the topic did not have adequate sources. That changes today. I present to you a rotary launcher in the bomb bay of a Tu-22M carrying 6x AS-16 Kickbacks internally and 2 AS-4 Kitchens simultaneously.



We can be certain this is a Tu-22M and not a Tu-95 or Tu-160 for 3 reasons.

1. The Tu-95 bomb bay has longer bay doors without visible hydraulic pistons as seen in this image

2. The Tu-160 does not feature external stowage of weapons

3. The fact that we can see the externally stowed weapons and that their height is abour in line with the lower level of the bomb bay indicates it cannot be a Tu-95 which stores it's external missiles more forward and up.

Nnow that we have some evidence that the AS-16 is used on the backfire here are the loadouts I suggest including suggested fixes for the AS-16 which is missing 2 major conventional variants in the game. From here on (N) denotes nuclear)

1: 6x AS-16 (N) + 2x AS-4 Kitchen ac Mod 3 (N)
2. 10x AS-16 (N) (this loadout uses the ability to place 2 AS-16s on each external point)
3. 10x Kh-15P (conventional warhead anti radiation version)
4. 6x Kh-15S (conventional anti shipping AS-16) + 2x AS-4 Kitchen-D (Kh-32)
5: 10x Kh-15S