Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[Tookatee]

ORIGINAL: Tookatee

The #691, #2201, #4858, #3821, and #4875 F-22's all erroneously have the "Bombsight-Basic" property instead of the "Bombsight-Advanced Navigation (INS/GPS)" property. Such a bombsight is required to deploy the GBU-39 SDB's or JDAMs (of which rely on GPS/INS guidance) that are listed as weapons on the aircraft.

Well, despite the changelog for the latest update saying otherwise these have not been fixed at all. All of the F-22's with GBU's still retain the erroneous basic bombsight property. In addition, I've realized that I also forgot another variant of the F-22 that has the same issue, the #1085 F-22.

Screenshot of the current database entry for one of the F-22's on my end to prove that I ain't crazy.

[stilesw]

ORIGINAL: Tookatee

All variants of the SU-27/J-11 and SU-33/J-15 are missing the "Fly-by-Wire" property, despite the fact that the SU-27 was the first Russian fighter jet with a functioning fly-by-wire system, with all of it's later derivatives retaining the system. Incorrect, all Su-27, Su-33 aircraft are now desgnaged “Fly-by-Wire”.

Sources: https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... raft_id=71 , https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... /su-27.htm , and https://www.sukhoi.org/products/earlier/251/ (Manufacturer's website)


Well, despite the changelog for the latest update saying otherwise these have not been fixed at all. All of the F-22's with GBU's still retain the erroneous basic bombsight property. Separate issue, logged for fix.
Also, I do not see in the release notes where there has been a change to the F-22s

-WS

[Tookatee]

That was a mistake in the original post which I corrected shortly after submission, I was trying to save that other quote for my post tomorrow as not all of the SU-30 variants have the fly by wire property (since you decided to point that out those variants would be the #4817 JD-15 and the #4632 JD-16)

Screenshot of the changelog for the latest update where the fix was specified

[KC45]

ORIGINAL: Tookatee

That was a mistake in the original post which I corrected shortly after submission, I was trying to save that other quote for my post tomorrow as not all of the SU-30 variants have the fly by wire property (since you decided to point that out those variants would be the #4817 JD-15 and the #4632 JD-16)

Screenshot of the changelog for the latest update where the fix was specified

I thought bomb sight is just for unguided bomb, so Bomb sight F-22 is not that important.

[Tookatee]

No, there is a property that's specifically for aircraft with INS and/or GPS bombs, if you read the post of mine above Wayne's latest you'll see the original quote that describes the issue. It was initially logged and then stated to be fixed as you can see, but evidently there was some sort of issue and that change never got included into the latest release. Regardless it and the other fly-by-wire issue has now been logged (again) and hopefully will be definitely included in the next database update.

[stilesw]

Well, I tracked it down. The change was made and implemented in DB3K_480. Somehow it disappeared in 481/482. There were some last minute changes in the 481 release and it may have dropped out. Anyway The F-22 bombsight has been changed again for the next DB release.

Good observation.

-WS

[14yellow14]

Australian F/A-18F will have LRASM missiles soon:

US approves a sale to Australia for 200 AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles LRASM

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... lrasm.html




EDIT:



This is for AIR3023. It doesn't mean that LRASM won yet, just that *US approves the possible FMS*. LRASM is competing against the JSM by Kongsberg (for which a new dual band sensors is being developed in Australia...)

https://twitter.com/xaviervav/status/12 ... 3537073152

[Scorpion86]

ORIGINAL: stilesw

Well, I tracked it down. The change was made and implemented in DB3K_480. Somehow it disappeared in 481/482. There were some last minute changes in the 481 release and it may have dropped out. Anyway The F-22 bombsight has been changed again for the next DB release.

Good observation.

-WS

Now that you mention it, could you also check the French F-8E, aircraft #924? In DB3K v478 it had the correct loadout, the R.530 SARH missile. In DB3K 481a, it has the AIM-9C SARH missile, which France never bought (in fact, the APQ-104 radar the French F-8 had was a modified standard F-8 radar adapted to guide the R.530). Maybe it has to do with the introduction of the hypothetical French F-8E with AIM-9C missiles, introduced this version?

Best regards,
Scorpion

[Danathan]

Using the MQ-8B RDR1700 for Maritime surveillance and discovering that the Brite Star II FLIR system that is noted on Wiki isn't included in the sensor mix. This is the generic FLIR in the non RDR1700 versions of the MQ-8B Fire Scout. I'm assuming that someone needs to edit the database to include it as a general change [:)] Hope that this is the right place to post this.

[x2oop]

Iran has unveiled today a new SRBM called Raad-500 (Thunder 500) which is another development based on Fateh family.

Characteristics:
- 500 km range
- 1660 kg weight
- ~13 m long
- uses solid fuel
- made of composite materials
- uses thrust vectoring
- separable warhead

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Irans ... 500-616999
https://en.irna.ir/news/83667792/Iran-u ... 00-missile
https://twitter.com/AmirIGM/status/1226443973163659264 (read full tweet chain for more info)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO5GO6KeUAs

[stilesw]

Now that you mention it, could you also check the French F-8E, aircraft #924? In DB3K v478 it had the correct loadout, the R.530 SARH missile. In DB3K 481a, it has the AIM-9C SARH missile, which France never bought (in fact, the APQ-104 radar the French F-8 had was a modified standard F-8 radar adapted to guide the R.530). Maybe it has to do with the introduction of the hypothetical French F-8E with AIM-9C missiles, introduced this version?

Gonçalo,

Victim of a loadout change when the AIM-9C SARH missile was added. The R.530 has been returned as a loadout option.

-WS

[Tookatee]

Germany is missing their own variants of the FIM-92 Stinger MANPADS (both called the Fliegerfaust-2 in German service.) Germany has been apart of the Stinger program since its beginnings, participating in joint Stinger acquisition and tracking tests in 1976 and signing several memorandums of understandings regarding the development of later Stinger variants (including license production of the missile in Germany, currently by EADS.) The missing variants would be clones of the #1673 FIM-92A (with a 1981 IOC) and the #743 FIM-92C (with a 1993 IOC.)

Two Bundeswehr soldiers using the Fliegerfaust-2.


Fliegerfaust-2 in operation on the Type 332 Frankenthal-class minehunter Weilheim.



Sources: https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ausruestun ... t2-stinger (Bundeswehr official website), SIPRI Arms Transfer Database, https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallar ... arms_id=30 , https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/defe ... 2-stinger/ , https://salw-guide.bicc.de/pdf/weapons/ ... std.en.pdf , and https://www.army-technology.com/project ... m-manpads/

[Anzu]

Hello again

I'm playing around with making a scenario around the Finnish coast of the Baltic sea and setting up the radar network for the coast stations also used for weather observations.
The problem is however that the major part of the extremely rocky coastal archipelago is coded as below sea level. This is mostly fine, as it makes AI path finding slightly easier, but if possible I'd like to have at least the following islands set to above sea, since they contain lighthouses with important radar stations.

Märket: 60° 18′ 2″ N, 19° 7′ 54″ E
Bogskär: 59° 30′ 18″ N, 20° 20′ 54″ E
Harmaja: 60° 6′ 16″ N, 24° 58′ 28″ E
Itätoukki: 60° 6′ 4.18″ N, 25° 11′ 43.73″ E4
Kalbådagrund: 59° 59′ 3.6″ N, 25° 36′ 3.6″ E
Kylmäpihlaja: 61° 8′ 42.43″ N, 21° 18′ 9″ E
Ulkokalla: 64° 19′ 51.42″ N, 23° 26′ 47.69″ E




You can find the link at
en. ilmatieteenlaitos. fi/marine-weather-observations

[jun5896]

I suggest that name of AN/APY-6(V) needs changing.


AN/SPY-6(V) AMDR
-> AN/SPY-6(V)1 AMDR [4 fixed-face, 37 RMAs]; Arleigh Burke-class DDG Flight III

AN/SPY-6(V) EASR; CV /FFG(X)
-> AN/SPY-6(V)2 EASR [Rotating, 9 RMAs]; America-class LHA Flight I / San Antonio-class LPD Flight II
-> AN/SPY-6(V)3 EASR [3 fixed-face, 9 RMAs]; Gerald R. Ford-class CVN / FFG(X)

(ADD) AN/SPY-6(V)4 AMDR [4 fixed-face, 24 RMAs]; Arleigh Burke-class DDG Flight IIA


https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/f ... bout-spy-6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-6

[serjames]

ORIGINAL: Anzu

Hello again

I'm playing around with making a scenario around the Finnish coast of the Baltic sea and setting up the radar network for the coast stations also used for weather observations.
The problem is however that the major part of the extremely rocky coastal archipelago is coded as below sea level. This is mostly fine, as it makes AI path finding slightly easier, but if possible I'd like to have at least the following islands set to above sea, since they contain lighthouses with important radar stations.

Märket: 60° 18′ 2″ N, 19° 7′ 54″ E
Bogskär: 59° 30′ 18″ N, 20° 20′ 54″ E
Harmaja: 60° 6′ 16″ N, 24° 58′ 28″ E
Itätoukki: 60° 6′ 4.18″ N, 25° 11′ 43.73″ E4
Kalbådagrund: 59° 59′ 3.6″ N, 25° 36′ 3.6″ E
Kylmäpihlaja: 61° 8′ 42.43″ N, 21° 18′ 9″ E
Ulkokalla: 64° 19′ 51.42″ N, 23° 26′ 47.69″ E




You can find the link at
en. ilmatieteenlaitos. fi/marine-weather-observations

Hi Anzu, I would repost that as a bug/feature request. It's not something the unit database holds. There are a couple of threads out there with comments about mis-aligned coastlines and sat-map layers. Might be worth tagging those - as they likely stem from the same issue.

[Broncepulido]

Lockheed-Martin interactive world map of radar installations (with concrete types):
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ca ... 1581459171

[14yellow14]

New AGM-158D ER (JASSM XR, 1000 nm range)

#USAF's FY21 BR refers to both AGM-158B(Extended Range) & AGM-158D(Extreme Range) as JASSM-ER. AGM-158D was called JASSM-D & before that JASSM-XR (for "extreme range"). For AGM-158D, the "ER" therefore likey = "extreme range," but, as with AGM-158B, could also = "extended range."

The #USAF's FY21 RDT&E data is now available. It seems that, like the AGM-158B, the AGM-158D will also be called JASSM "Extended Range."

Also, the AGM-158D will recieve a new data-link for post-launch re-targeting. This is a very important new capability.

https://twitter.com/GuyPlopsky/status/1 ... 5008468992

In September 2018, Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to develop an "Extreme Range" variant of the AGM-158. The weapon would weigh about 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) and deliver a 2,000 lb (910 kg) warhead out to a range of 1,000 nmi (1,900 km; 1,200 mi); it is planned to be ready by 2023.

[stilesw]

Australian F/A-18F will have LRASM missiles soon:

Logged.
-WS

[KLAB]

http://worlddefencenews.blogspot.com/20 ... -anti.html

At the risk of being pedantic the decision is for the "possible" sale of LRASM and is an agreement in principle to sell LRASM if its selected after a competitive process against other systems.
Its very likely but its not definite.
K

ORIGINAL: stilesw

Australian F/A-18F will have LRASM missiles soon:

Logged.
-WS

[anlgzl]

Hi,

Do you have any plan to add amphibious assault ship(LHD) "TCG Anadolu(L-400)" to DB3K for Turkish Navy ?

Thanks in advance

*https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... cg-lhd.htm
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCG_Anadolu