Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[Gunner98]

Any chance we could get the An-71 Madcap built in the DB as a hypothetical platform?

Here is the Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-71

Lots of photos here and elsewhere:

http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.co ... awacs.html

I cannot find any stats of data on the radar but I suspect it could be interpolated from other contemporary capabilities.

The design was intended to provide the VVS with its own AWACS capability while the PVO used the A-50 Mainstay. As such it would not require the same radar coverage as the Mainstay and would probably be assigned to the VVS Air-Corps or perhaps Army level.

There were 3 produced but the project was cancelled with the fall of the Soviet Union. I plan on working them into the Northern Fury story-line and will put them in some of the later scenarios in both Northern and Mediterranean Fury.

Thanks for considering.

Edit: Should not be carrier capable as some sources indicate.

[Coiler12]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Any chance we could get the An-71 Madcap built in the DB as a hypothetical platform?

It's actually already in as of DB3K 477, Aircraft #4712.

[stilesw]

Any chance we could get the An-71 Madcap built in the DB as a hypothetical platform?

Bart,

Logged for review.

-Wayne

[Gunner98]

It's actually already in as of DB3K 477, Aircraft #4712.

Hay! These guys are fast! Thanks, I'm away and couldn't find it on http://cmano-db.com/

Cheers

B

[stilesw]

quote:

It's actually already in as of DB3K 477, Aircraft #4712.



Hay! These guys are fast! Thanks, I'm away and couldn't find it on http://cmano-db.com/

Cheers

B

Well hey then, my work here is done! Thanks.

-Wayne

[Zaslon]

ORIGINAL: PN79

Yeah, x2oop - that is what I wanted to say. CS/CZ/S air forces had tendency to mount impossible loadouts to aircrafts in display creating confusion what can be actually used.

Tookatee - I agree that it is unfortunate that in database MiG-29 with R-73 loadout somehow lost R-60 loadout. Ideally there would be both possibilities to equip the MiG.

As long as I can get same variant from different country I don't really care that some specific country lacks some specific aircraft. It is pain only when the proper supplement is missing completely.

The entire Fulcrum entries in the DB3K need a review because is a complete mess. More than 2 years ago I posted data....But it is more important F-15X than the MiG-29.[&:]

By the Way, slovak Fulcrums were upgraded to the AS version (S for Slovak) similar to the MiG-29SD

[anlgzl]

Hi,

Do yo have any plan to add S-400 SAM to DB3000 for the Turkish Army.

[stilesw]

Do yo have any plan to add S-400 SAM to DB3000 for the Turkish Army.

Anil,

Do you have any reference material to support this? Thanks.

-WS

[anlgzl]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... s-with-u-s

[Rory Noonan]

Hey Zaslon,

Do you mean this post?

If so a large part of the reason why it's not been completed is the formatting and lack of detail. Database updates already take a long time to actually do, and that's when all the information is laid out for us. When requests are basically 'this is wrong, go read a webpage I linked to see what needs doing' it can massively increase the amount of time it takes to figure out what needs to be changed and then go and do it. When I see a ticket like that the first thing I think is 'this is going to take me an hour to figure out what this person actually wants' which is quickly followed by 'my time could probably be better spent on a different ticket'.

This post and this post are both examples of excellent formatting and detail--as such the tickets assigned to both have already been completed. The information is laid out in a logical manner, and references are included as actual references, not just 'go read this' links.

This thread, on average, generates literally dozens of hours of development work every day. If you really want something, putting some effort into making it easy for us to do drastically increases the chances of it happening. Complaining that your request hasn't been done and taking shots at us for doing other stuff in the mean time doesn't really have the same effect.

[ProdigyofMilitaryPride]

Would a formatting like this help for at least the ships I've requested?

ARM Quetzalcoatl [D101] (ex-Vogelgesang, Gearing Class FRAM I, 1982-2002), ARM Netzahualcoyotl [D102] (ex-Steinaker, Gearing Class FRAM I, 1982-2014)
Weight: 3460 Tons (Full)
Length: 390ft. 6in.
Beam: 40ft. 10in.
Draft: 14ft. 4in.
Speed: 38.6 knots
Dimensions: 390'6" (OA) x 40' 10" x 14' 4" (Max)
Radar: SPS-37
Sonar: SQS-23
Range: 4500nm at 20 knots
Engines: 2-screw General Electric geared turbines, 60000 shp
Crew: 336
Weaponry: 6 x 5in. 38-caliber AA guns, 12 x 40mm AA, 11 x 20mm AA, 10 x 21 in. Torpedo Tubes (2x5) (Possibly Mk. 32)
Other Features: DASH Hangar/Flight Deck Aft

Sources:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Netza ... tl_(D-102)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Netza ... tl_(D-102)
https://web.archive.org/web/20080617140 ... guerra.htm
http://www.semar.gob.mx/galeria/buques/ ... lcoatl.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gearing-class_destroyer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Steinaker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vogelgesang_(DD-862)
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/863.htm
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/862.htm
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/helpers/fram.htm

ARM Cuauhtémoc [E01] (ex-Harrison, Fletcher class, 1970-1982), ARM Cuitláhuac [E02] (ex-John Rodgers, Fletcher class, 1970-2001)
Weight: 2,050 tons
Dimensions: 369 1/4 in. at waterline, 376 1/2 in. at overall length, 39 1/2 in. beam, 17 3/4 in. draft, keel to waterline
Range: 6500nm at 15 knots
Engines: Two geared turbines, 60000 shp, 2 Propellers, 35 knots
Radar: SC-1 or SC-2?
Sonar: SQS-23
Weaponry: 5 x 5 in. Guns, 10 x 40mm AA Guns, 7 x 20mm AA Guns, 10 x 21in. Torpedo Tubes, 6 depth charge launchers, 2 depth charge racks
Crew: 273

Sources:
http://abbot.us/fletcher/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_Rodgers_(DD-574)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harrison_(DD-573)
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/ships ... etcher.htm
http://www.steelnavy.com/FACTS.HTM
https://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/fletcher_class.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=8RNkK ... QS&f=false

For an overall view of the Mexican military around '96...
https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publi ... tudy_4.pdf


Quetzalcoatl


Netzahualcoyotl

[Rory Noonan]

Very helpful, thanks

[kgambit]

Thought I would make a pitch for Gunner98. This is one of the vessels in his Indian Fury scenarios, but it's not included in the DB3K database.

A 620 Jules Verne


Name: Achéron
Namesake: Acheron
Ordered: 1961
Builder: Brest
Laid down: 1969
Renamed: Jules Verne
Namesake: Jules Verne
Launched: 30 May 1970
Commissioned: 17 September 1976
Decommissioned: 17 September 2010
Out of service: 20 February 2009
Reclassified: to repair ship in 1973
Homeport: Toulon
Motto: Soutenir pour vaincre ("Support and overcome")
Fate: Scrapped 2016


Class and type: Unique auxiliary ship

Displacement:
7,815 unloaded
10,250 tonnes fully loaded

Length: 151 m (495 ft)
Beam: 21.56 m (70.7 ft)
Draught: 6.50 m (21.3 ft)

Equipements électroniques:
2 DRBN38A (BRIDGEMASTER 250E)

Propulsion:
2 Pielstick 12PC2V400 engines
One shaft
12,000 shp (8,900 kW)

Speed: 19 knots (35 km/h; 22 mph)
Range: 9,385 nmi (17,381 km; 10,800 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)[1]

Boats & landing craft carried:
One 9-metre VD9 boat
Two LCVP
One Dory 17
One 3.5-metre boat
One two-part hulk
Two Rigid-hulled inflatable boats (6 and 10 seats)

Helicopter facilities:
Platform 550 m2
Hangar 350 m2
2 light helicopters

Capacity:
300 tonnes of ammunition
500 tonnes of matériel
1000 tonnes of oil
120 m3 of kerosene
400m3 of water
40 days worth of food for 300 men.

Complement: (There is some variation between sources as to the exact crew count)
16 officers
148 non-commissioned officers
103 quarter-masters and sailors

Armament:
2 Bofors 40 mm guns
4 12.7mm M2 Browning machine guns


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_sh ... rne_(A620)
http://www.netmarine.net/bat/bsm/jverne/caracter.htm
https://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/europe/france.htm
http://www.transworld-marine.com/wp-con ... 1/340E.pdf

[x2oop]

Continuing my series about Iranian made military equipment, I'd like to write about another family of medium range air defence systems, namely Talaash/Khordad 15.

As with all Iranian systems there is a lot confusion around these as well. For a long time it was believed that Talaash is another iranian SAM, but now after presentation of Khordad 15 some sources have started claiming that it was actually a name of the project which lead to development of the later.

During the development of Talaash there were numerous concepts of different missiles integrations. It started with the idea of using upgraded HQ-2 missiles which were supposedly being called "Sayyad". Later in 2013 Iranian General Farzad Esmaili announced that new Sayyad-2 missiles can be used with Iran's S-200 system, which suggested that the missile could be modified S-200. When the Sayyad-2 was finally unveiled for the first time in a 9 November ceremony, it became clear that it uses the airframe similar to the RIM-66 (SM-1) naval SAM that Iran acquired from the United States in the 1970. In the same time a truck-mounted launcher with four canisters, similar to those used by the MIM-104 Patriot, was displayed during the ceremony. This gave general idea what's the new system, known as Talaash, looks like.



Summarizing, over the time at least 3 versions of Talasah appeared (Talaash 1, Talaash 2, and Talaash 3). Each one used different configuraion of radars, and different integration of missiles. Because their characteristic changed frequently and there is a lot of contradicting info, it is hard to capture their real capabilities and add them to DB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l894OuLsm10


Khordad 15

Several years after first presentation of Talaash, on June 9, 2019 Iran revealed a new system called Khordad 15 (or 15th of Khordad') which is presumably a final result of Talaash developmnet.

According to Iranian info Khordad 15 can use Sayyad-2 and new Sayyad-3 long-range missiles which provide capability to intercept manned and unmanned aircraft within a 120km range. The system is equipped with (passive) phased-array "Navid" radar system with a multiple-target-engagement capability. It can track (up to 150 km), engage, and destroy 6 targets simultaneously. The system enjoys high mobility and can be prepared for operation in less than 5 minutes. 15th Khordad is a tactical system and consist of minimum of two vehicles: one vehicle being radar (discovery and engagement) and C&C system, and second one being TEL. Reportedly the system can also intercept stealth targets within a range of 85km, and destroy them in a 45km range.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVD3LWDqJnw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ2Krgyuoo0

Khordad 15 spec:

Introduction date: 2019
TEL: Truck with MIM-104 style 4 canisters and ability to rotate them in 360°
Max range: 120km for Sayyad-3 missile, 75km for Sayyad-2
Max altitude: 27km
Number of simultaneously engaged targets: 6 (presumably within 90° sector)

Sayyad-2 missile spec:

Warhead: Frag-HE
Propellant: Solid fuel
Range: 75km
Flight altitude: up to 27 km
Speed: Mach 3.6-4
Physical dimensions: Similar to RIM-66 (supposedly it is 25% longer)
Uses hybrid guidance system - some kind of TVM



Sayyad-3 missile spec:

Warhead: Frag-HE
Propellant: Solid fuel
Range: up to 120-km
Flight altitude: up to 27-30 km
Speed: Mach 4.5-5.1
Physical dimensions: Similar to Sayyad-2 (lenght supposedly ~5.2 m-5.9 m)
Uses hybrid guidance system - some kind of TVM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aKyjbpWJR0

Navid (Najm 804) search and engagement radar:

Radar type: Phased array (reportedly S-band ?)
Detetecion range: 150km for normal targets and 85km for low RCS targets

------------------------
Please note that many sources contain contradictory informaion. That's beacuse those texts were written in different years, when different things were claimed or known. My text is attempt to summarize all available information and put them up toghether. I don't calim it's accurate, because still a lot of info is lacking, and because of that guessing and assumptions were needed.

------------------------
Sources:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... hordad.htm
https://weaponews.com/weapons/65352403- ... -iran.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/june_20 ... ystem.html
https://theiranproject.com/blog/2019/06 ... le-system/
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iran-unv ... em.622375/
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/15th-kho ... -3.622484/
https://www.mashreghnews.ir/news/316229 ... A%A9%D8%B3
https://www.janes.com/article/29817/ira ... -range-sam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyad-2

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: apache85
Hey Zaslon,

Do you mean this post?

If so a large part of the reason why it's not been completed is the formatting and lack of detail. Database updates already take a long time to actually do, and that's when all the information is laid out for us. When requests are basically 'this is wrong, go read a webpage I linked to see what needs doing' it can massively increase the amount of time it takes to figure out what needs to be changed and then go and do it. When I see a ticket like that the first thing I think is 'this is going to take me an hour to figure out what this person actually wants' which is quickly followed by 'my time could probably be better spent on a different ticket'.

This post and this post are both examples of excellent formatting and detail--as such the tickets assigned to both have already been completed. The information is laid out in a logical manner, and references are included as actual references, not just 'go read this' links.

This thread, on average, generates literally dozens of hours of development work every day. If you really want something, putting some effort into making it easy for us to do drastically increases the chances of it happening. Complaining that your request hasn't been done and taking shots at us for doing other stuff in the mean time doesn't really have the same effect.

Seconded.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

ORIGINAL: apache85
Hey Zaslon,

Do you mean this post?

If so a large part of the reason why it's not been completed is the formatting and lack of detail. Database updates already take a long time to actually do, and that's when all the information is laid out for us. When requests are basically 'this is wrong, go read a webpage I linked to see what needs doing' it can massively increase the amount of time it takes to figure out what needs to be changed and then go and do it. When I see a ticket like that the first thing I think is 'this is going to take me an hour to figure out what this person actually wants' which is quickly followed by 'my time could probably be better spent on a different ticket'.

This post and this post are both examples of excellent formatting and detail--as such the tickets assigned to both have already been completed. The information is laid out in a logical manner, and references are included as actual references, not just 'go read this' links.

This thread, on average, generates literally dozens of hours of development work every day. If you really want something, putting some effort into making it easy for us to do drastically increases the chances of it happening. Complaining that your request hasn't been done and taking shots at us for doing other stuff in the mean time doesn't really have the same effect.

Seconded.

^ Easily most important post in this thread.

[Tookatee]

The nuclear variant (9M21B) of the the FROG-7b missile for the Soviet Union are missing from both the DBK-3000 and Cold war database. The 9M21B missile had various usable warheads that could be selected that ranged from as low as 3 kT to as high as 200 kT. The warhead weighed 500 kg and shared the same performance statistics as the current #1806 FROG-7b missile.

Sources: https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_ ... ns_uk.html , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K52_Luna-M , https://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/ ... ROG-7.html , and https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... frog-7.htm

[Skyhawk88]

I found a source supporting buddy pods for the Brazilian skyhawks. How would I go about providing the link? I also found another source stating the Kuwaiti A-4KU carried 400 rounds of ammunition for the cannon and by extension the Brazilian AF-1's should as well. I couldn't find anything specific about this but the picture of the Kuwaiti skyhawk in the picture pack hosted on this site shows a flare launcher. The best info I found states the A-4KU was an altered A-4M so perhaps the AN/ALE-39 would be appropriate.

[Zaslon]

ORIGINAL: apache85

Hey Zaslon,

Do you mean this post?

If so a large part of the reason why it's not been completed is the formatting and lack of detail. Database updates already take a long time to actually do, and that's when all the information is laid out for us. When requests are basically 'this is wrong, go read a webpage I linked to see what needs doing' it can massively increase the amount of time it takes to figure out what needs to be changed and then go and do it. When I see a ticket like that the first thing I think is 'this is going to take me an hour to figure out what this person actually wants' which is quickly followed by 'my time could probably be better spent on a different ticket'.

This post and this post are both examples of excellent formatting and detail--as such the tickets assigned to both have already been completed. The information is laid out in a logical manner, and references are included as actual references, not just 'go read this' links.

This thread, on average, generates literally dozens of hours of development work every day. If you really want something, putting some effort into making it easy for us to do drastically increases the chances of it happening. Complaining that your request hasn't been done and taking shots at us for doing other stuff in the mean time doesn't really have the same effect.

Thanks for the reply.

It was not the first time I compile information to be added in the Database, it was just the first time that it takes 2 years to have an answer.
I was not complaining about my request. I was complaining about the fact that an important fighter, MiG-29 is poorly represented in DB3K for years. I tried to change it and it took 2 years to have an answer to fix the problem with my request. If you think that a request lack detail or has a poor formatting, just write it when you read it. Ignore the post is a poor customer care, a customer who is making you a favor already!

You must understand that I compile information in my free time. Sometines I have more time, sometimes I do not have enought time )(sadly we only have 24 hours per day). So When you do not have enough time. You compile some information and show the right direction for the rest.

I do not want something, you need something and we are trying to help you to keep up to date your Database. It is a huge task, I know and you cannot take all the suggestions we bring to you. But again, we are not talking about an A-12 Avenger (which it is in the database already) we are talking about an important Soviet Fighter with more than 1,500 built and new versions are in development. You must have some criteria in order to priorize suggestions IMHO. Of course, fix MiG-29 entries is a huge task, because there are a lot of entries and versions.

So, don´t be paranoid (I forgot about the Soviet paranoid which reigns in this forums. [:D] ), nobody is shooting at you. Do not be afraid to ask if you do not understand what the people suggest.

I have a copy of this book. Do you think that is enough as a reference? If yes, then, we can fix MiG-29 entries in DB3K.

[Tookatee]

The Enterprise class aircraft carriers had an 8 in and 20 cm aluminium armor plating protecting the deck, engineering section, and belt that was equivalent to 201.6 mm RHA. All the current armor ratings are wrong on all the CVN Enterprise units in both the DBK-3000 and Cold War database.

Additionally the #870 Enterprise in the Cold War database is missing from the DBK-3000 database because the SCANFAR radar system was replaced in 1980. It would be a variant that lasted from 1975-1980.

A similar issue exists for the CGN-9 Long Beach, the SCANFAR radar and Terrier missiles on it were removed in 1980. So the #2553 Long Beach with the SCANFAR radar and Terrier missiles in the Cold War database should also be cloned to DBK-3000. It's duration would've been from 1978-1980.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65) (also see citation 10 and 11) , Cracknell, William H. (1972), Warship Profile No. 15: USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) Nuclear Attack Carrier, Windsor, Berkshire: Profile Publications, p. 56 , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_deck , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Long_Beach_(CGN-9) ,