Matrix Games Forums

It looks like HNLMS Karel Doorman (Netherlands) has no cargo facility.

Logged.
-WS

Hi!

Please add GBU-38 to Spanish HARRIER AV-8B+




Source:
https://www.infodefensa.com/es/2018/04/ ... mento.html


Thanks!

deleted

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Sent PM,(hopefully with .zip correct attachment) bit of delay as I noticed Su-34 was also affected so its been done too.
Tested and seems to be working fine.
K

ORIGINAL: apache85

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Cool no worries I have updated it and replicated all aircraft with the load outs with attention to the original missions and naming conventions.

Russian Su-27's and MiG-29's have been sorted and the magazines amended.

Azerbaijani MiG-29's have also been done.

It just made the MiG-29's a bit harder to take on mind you!

Thanks for help,

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario?

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue?


Cheers

K

Thanks for doing this; feel free to either PM the updated scenario to me or post it in the mods and scenarios subforum and I'll add it to the next release.

Wasn't able to send you a PM but thank you very much for this; it will be in the next update [:)]

Question for either Wayne or apache

I'm looking at working some RGM/UGM-109B TASMs into some of my 1994 scenarios, but the 1991+ versions of most USN platforms have them removed as an option because they were historically scrapped (or converted to TLAM-C).

Do you guys have a way of doing a quick check on the DB entries to see if weapons options were the only material difference between say:

#526 & #528
#1868 & #1925
#977 & #582

If not, no worries - I can do a crawl through the game DB entries

Tx

B

Question for either Wayne or apache

Bart

Just reviewed DB3K and here's what I found. Hope it helps.

-Wayne

526: SSN 700 Dallas [Los Angeles Class, Flight I]
Mount: 198
Loadout:
Mk48 Mod 4
UGM-109A,B,C,D,
UGM-84D

528: SSN 700 Dallas [Los Angeles Class, Flight I]
Mount 653:
Loadout:
Mk48 Mod 5 ADCAP
UGM-109C Blk II
UGM-109C Blk III
UGM-109D Blk II
UGM-84D

1868: DD 963 Spruance [ABL, Mk15]
Mount 636:
Loadout:
RGM-109A,B,C,D

1925: DD 963 Spruance [ABL, Mk15]
Mount 654:
Loadout:
RGM-109C,D

977: CG 59 Princeton [Ticonderoga Baseline 3, VLS]
Mount 1554:
Loadout:
RGM-109A,B,C,D
RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA (Added in next release – DB3K_484)
RIM-66H SM-2MR

582: CG 59 Princeton [Ticonderoga Baseline 3, VLS]
Mount 648:
Loadout:
RGM-109C Blk II
RGM-109C Blk III
RGM-109D Blk II
RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA (Added in next release – DB3K_484)
RIM-66H SM-2MR Blk II
RIM-66M-1 SM-2MR Blk III
RUM-139A VLA [Mk46 Mod 6]

#3630 Perdix (Drone) Issue: excessive fuel

While the DB viewer shows 45minute of fuel this is not remotely correct and I don't know why it's showing that.
It has a general burn rate of aviation fuel when fired of .02 per second (on it's #2847 Piston Engine) on cruise.
But it's associated DataFuel entry #2044 shows aviation fuel capacity amount of 2703.
At present it will stay in the air for about ~37.5 Hours at 60kt cruise speed.
That #2044 Capacity should be more like ~ 60 (if ~45min is desired and current related DataPropulsion entries are maintained untouched)
I checked that DataFuel #2044 is not shared with another unit so changing should have no side effects for other units.

Thanks Wayne

Was curious that if I substituted the current unit (say 528) with 526 to enable the use of UGM-109B - would there be anything else different on the platform - ie different sensors etc.

Thinking about it this might take too much of your time so I'll do a crawl through and compare them. Thanks a bunch.

Bart

I noticed that the upgraded version of the MQ-8B (database entry #3455) has the surface radar but no cameras, is that intended? Here it says that the radar "complements Fire Scout's other sensors" https://www.flightglobal.com/civil-uavs ... 45.article

surface radar but no cameras

Sandro,

Searched records and found nothing to support cameras for the MQ-8 series.
Please provide any references that show these sensors for the UAV.
Thanks,
-WS

ORIGINAL: stilesw

surface radar but no cameras

Sandro,

Searched records and found nothing to support cameras for the MQ-8 series.
Please provide any references that show these sensors for the UAV.
Thanks,
-WS

Uh... every entry for the MQ-8B in the CMO database except for the RDR-1700 variant (with the radar) has a camera+laser designator package. The article I linked about the RDR-1700 upgrade says that the radar "complements the other sensors" and the photo shows the elongated nose with the radar and the camera ball still present underneath.

Another picture of the new nose + camera ball
https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo ... ire-scout/

Another article
https://defense-update.com/20130110_fir ... zpy-4.html

When integrated with other on-board sensors, the radar increases the VTUAV surveillance area rate coverage and operator efficiency by pointing the EO payload to points of interest detected through the radar’s wide area scan.

Another one
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ance-radar

The X-band search radar complements the MQ-8B’s Flir Systems Brite Star II electro-optical/infrared payload and provides inverse synthetic aperture (ISAR), stripmap and spotlight SAR modes for imaging targets

Uh... every entry for the MQ-8B in the CMO database except for the RDR-1700 variant (with the radar) has a camera+laser designator package

I'll do some more checking. To date only the MQ-8C specifically had the Brite Star package. Thanks for the MQ-8B information.
Logged.
-WS

Weapon id #3627 'Laser Shot(Solid State Fiber) 10nm, AAW & ASuW

Logged, fixed in next DB3K update.
-WS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-cla ... r_and_Spey
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/enhanc ... h-ii-opvs/

#2805 - P 2XX Forth [River Class, Batch 2] (United Kingdom - 2018)

Name change request to lead ship of class Batch 2 River class OPV UK RN- #2805 - P 222 HMS Forth [River Class, Batch 2] (United Kingdom - 2018)

Add 2 x Weapon mount #2481 7.62mm Mk77 Mod 0 mini gun - just visible toward the rear of the bridge highlighted between the mast and funnel is a 7.62mm Minigun and there is one port and starboard - #2481 7.62mm Mk77 Mod 0 mini gun is closest ship mounted equivalent in the DB3k.

Thanks,

K

Possible update/addition to DE3K

HNLMS Rotterdam had har MLU and is currently doing her workup phase:
She got the Thales NS-106 radar (slightly different form the NS-100),
and a gatekeeper 360 visual ID system (short range, specially for a-symetric warfare). She is sheduled to get vigile-D in 2021.
It looks like she's got a KH Sharp Eye on the back and two or 3 Nav on the bridge. (could be KH I ARPA, KH E/F ARPA and Scout, but I'm guessing.
https://marineschepen.nl/schepen/rotterdam.html (sorry is in Dutch) At the bottom is a small tabel.
https://naviesworldwide.com/navy-news/h ... fe-update/
https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Electro ... 00213.html
https://www.marinetraffic.com/nl/ais/de ... _ROTTERDAM (image new conf)


For the Class name
Most consider The Rotterdam and Johan de Witt as seperate classes. Also iaw Jane's Fighting Ships 13/14
Commissioned RDAM 1998 JWIT 2007
Sidenr RDAM L800 JWIT L801
Displacement full load RDAM 12,955 JWIT 16,948
Dimensions RDAM 166 x 25 x 5,9 JWIT 176,4 x 29,2 x 6,7
Flightdeck RDAM 56 x 25 JWIT 58 x 25
Speed RDAM 18 JWIT 17
Range RDAM 6000 at 12 JWIT 10000 at 12
Complement RDAM 136 JWIT 120
Military lift personel RDAM 538 JWIT 585
Military lift cargo RDAM 170 APV or 33 MBT, 2 LCU & 3 LCVP JWIT 170 APV or 33 MBT, 4 LCVP &2 LCU or 2 LCM
Both RHIB's & FRISC's (FRISC not 100% certainty for RDAM)
Helicopter RDAM/JWIT 6 x NH90 or 4 Merlin/SeaKing
Both 2x Goalkeeper, 9x 12,7 mm, 2x 7,62mm, SRBOC
JWIT has Variant radar en is scheduled to get Tahales Vigile-D ESM in 2021

If more info is required, let me known and I'll try to find it

with regards

I have been advocating for the Tu-22M series having AS-16 Kickbacks since I started with CMANO years ago now.

Ryan,
Logged. Did some checking and it seems that these Kickback rotary launchers applied only to Tu-22M-3 variants. Conventional and nuclear systems added for these aircraft in next DB release.

-WS

correction required
Nave Cavour 550 has two Strales system and not one:
one is in the bow has reported in database: https://www.pressmare.it//it/istituzion ... litare.jpg
the second is in the back rightcorner : https://livenetwork.blob.core.windows.n ... 00x400.jpg
thanks

Hello! I found another mistake in current DB!

Mig-27K is not an "afganistan mod" of Mig-27! The main propose of Mig-27K is precision strikes with TV-Laser targeting complex "Kaira-23". And in fact Mig-27K had only minor use in Afganistan.

But i still dont get two major points:
1. Why Kaira-23 on Mig-27K is 1st Gen TV-camera, but Kaira-24 on Su-24M is 2nd Gen TV-camera, while both of them were developed under same program "Kaira" and were officially fielded in early 1980?
2. Why do similar American systems, even those developed much earlier, i.e. AN/ASX-1 TISEO, have 20 times greater range? 2 miles on the MiG-27K and Su-24M against 40 miles on the Phantoms!? This is simply incorrect from a historical point of view. Yes, the soviets were inferior regarding the introduction of FLIRs, but with this intermediate-generation electro-optics they were very good. Actually, this is the main reason for the forced introduction of FLIRs in the West. Moreover, TISEO is an air-to-air targeting system. But the database indicates that it has the ability to search for ground mobile targets! With a range of 40 miles! But this is not true! AN/ASQ-153 Pave Spike was responsible at Phantoms for search and guidance of ground targets, and of course it never had such ranges... Huh.

Have a nice day.

Name change request to lead ship of class Batch 2 River class OPV UK RN- #2805 - P 222 HMS Forth [River Class, Batch 2] (United Kingdom - 2018)

Logged, in next update.
-WS

Good evening- I'd like to help contribute and have been seeing some issues/questions with the database that I'd like to bring up.

1- Some countries have no entries whatsoever (with the exception of the weapons part of the database). (Abu Dhabi, for example.) If there are no military units specifically tied to a country, is the country entry a placeholder for future updates? (I'd like to throw some contributions, but don't want to waste developer time if they aren't going to be updated.)

2. I'm showing Turkmenistan as a double entry in the country selection list. (One is blank except for weapons, the other has only a single ship entry (ship_2419).

3. Minor detail- Kyrgyzstan is misspelled as Kyrgistan.

4. I'm assuming that not every single little unit that exists will be put into here, but if we were to find military units for a country that has military units but doesn't exist in the database (for example Georgia), will there be consideration to add that country?

5. Last question on this post, I promise- is there a set of standards that have to be met for a unit to be added? (A picture, multiple sources indicating that a unit does exist, that sort of thing?) I ask because there are a few countries that have at least common aircraft that I would like to contribute- like Kazakhstan with their MiG-29 or Su-25 units.)

Thank you for your time!