Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[Tookatee]

All variants of the SR-71 are able to refuel from aircraft other than the #1320 KC-135Q. This is incorrect because only the KC-135Q carries the fuel that the SR-71 can use (JP-7), all other aircraft carry standard aviation fuel which cannot be run properly in the Pratt and Whitney J58 engines on the aircraft.

Furthermore any aircraft with boom refueling capabilities can refuel from the KC-135Q, which is also incorrect because JP-7 was specifically developed for use in extremely high performance aircraft like the SR-71 and the X-51 Waverider and cannot be run properly in standard engines (hence why the KC-135Q exists as unlike all other KC-135 variants it has two separate fuel tanks separating its own fuel from the payload of JP-7.)

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58 , https://www.thesr71blackbird.com/Aircraft/JP-7-Fuel , https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJn ... /JP-7.html , and https://www.quora.com/What-makes-JP-7-A ... can-use-it ,

[lumiere]

(DB3000 Build 478) Indian Agni series (#2496 - #2499) Ballistic missile, though they are nuclear warhead,
separates conventional RVs. They can issue attack order even when "Use Nuclear Weapon" doctrine is not granted.

Edit: Oops, Tookatee has already mentioned about this issue.

[Tookatee]

Stilesw already pushed a fix for those a few weeks ago, it'll be fixed when the next database is released.

[Tookatee]

The #1689 GBU-12F/B Paveway II DMLGB improperly uses semi-active laser homing as its only guidance method despite that weapon being specifically designed and advertised by Lockheed Martin to use both INS and GPS guidance in addition to the laser homing. To quote Lockheed Martin themselves, "With the combination of the INS/GPS system, existing semi-active laser (SAL) seeker and anti-jam technology, the DMLGB minimizes collateral damage and improves mission effectiveness by providing precision strike capabilities in all-weather at extended standoff ranges. The DMLGB is effective against fixed, relocatable and moving targets."

Sources: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/pr ... -bomb.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paveway

[Tookatee]

The #26 PL-11 is missing the #2472-2473 J-8 Finbacks and all variants of the J-10 as default weapons carriers.

The J-8's missing loadouts would be:

2x PL-11 2x PL-8B [Python 3] 1x 1400 liter Drop Tank 2x 800 liter Drop Tank

2x PL-11 2x PL-8C [Python 3] 1x 1400 liter Drop Tank 2x 800 liter Drop Tank

The J-10's missing loadouts would be:

4x PL-11 2x (insert appropriate SRAAM's already in the database for each aircraft) x2 1700 liter Drop Tank x1 800 liter Drop Tank

2x PL-11 2x (insert appropriate SRAAM's already in the database for each aircraft) x2 1700 liter Drop Tank x1 800 liter Drop Tank


PL-11's on #499 Finback, however that variant's poor radar prevented its use, the PL-11 wasn't certified for use on the J-8 until 2001 which would include both those variants I listed above.


PL-11's on a J-10S Vigoruous Dragon (which is missing from the database entirely, it's the two seat trainer version of the J-10A)


Sources: https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-AAM ... ocId280634 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-8

[Tookatee]

The #3301 PL-9 is missing several aircraft from its default weapons carrier list. The missile should be able to be equipped onto the: #793 and #2474-2477 J-7, #262 and #364 F-7.

The loadouts for the missiles would be clones of already existing SRAAM loadouts for each respective aircraft with the PL-9 taking the place of any existing SRAAM in the new loadout(s).

PL-9 on a Bangladeshi F-7


PL-9 on a Chinese J-7


Source: SIPRI Arms Transfer Database, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-9 , and https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-AAM ... ocId980295

[Tookatee]

The #2648 PL-5e is missing several aircraft from its default weapons carrier list. The missile should be able to be equipped onto: all variants of the JF-17, the #4259 L-15 Falcon, all variants of the JH-7, the #4660 F-7M, the #262 F-7M, and all variants of the J-7 past the year 1998.

The loadouts for the missiles would be clones of already existing SRAAM loadouts for each respective aircraft with the PL-5e taking the place of any existing SRAAM in the new loadout(s), with the exception of the #4259 L-15 as it currently has no SRAAM loadout. The L-15's loadouts would be 2x PL-5e, 6x PL-5e, 4x PL-5e, 4x PL-5e x2 600 liter Drop tanks, and 2x PL-5e x4 600 liter Drop tanks; also the current ferry and training loadouts of x3 600 liter Drop tanks should be x4 because there is no plumped certerline pylon, but two plumbed pylons on each wing (having only 3 drop tanks would result in a heavy imbalance to one side of the aircraft.)

PL-5e on a Pakistani JF-17


PL-5e on display along with other ordinance for the L-15


Sources: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... uth-africa , http://pafwallpapers.com/blog/tag/pl-5e ... r-missile/ , https://www.popsci.com/china-air-force- ... ane-l-15b/ , https://web.archive.org/web/20121111174 ... on/pl5.asp , https://www.airforce-technology.com/pro ... t-trainer/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-5 , https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... ft_id=1119 , https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-AAM ... ocId222449 , and the SIPRI Arms Transfer Database

[iborg]

Hello,
With the recent launch of French SSN Suffren, first of the Barracuda class, some additional data came out in the specialized press, such as this article. The bulk of it is behind a paywall though I have the full text saved.
In particular, the weapon loadout is clearly stated to be 20 in the magazine + 4 in the tubes. Currently the DB (build 477) shows 16 rounds in the Barracuda magazine, which should be therefore corrected.

[Tookatee]

The #364 F-7MP, #363 F-7P, #2476 J-7EH, #793 J-7E, #4398-4400 MiG-21 Lancer, #1186 MiG-21-93, #3750 J-7TN, #2477 J-7G, all variants of the J-11, and #3754 F-7NI are missing the Helmet Mounted Sight / Display (HMS/HMD) property. These derivatives of the MiG-21 were among the first to be equipped with a Chinese/Israeli developed HMS (in the case of the J-11, this is a native feature that was apart of the SU-27 and not an upgrade), improving their dog fighting capabilities with their SRAAMs. Also the Grifo-7 radar (reference the #3754 F-7NI) has an incorrect range of 35nm when the Grifo-7 only has a maximum range of 55 km (or about 30 nm)

Additionally the #364 F-7MP Skybolt [F-7PG] should be split into two different aircraft as it is attempting to combine two distinct variants of the F-7 into one entry. As it currently stands in the database, the entry is equipped with incorrect/missing avionics that were flown on both variants and an incorrect IOC date.

The first variant it should be split into is the F-7MP. All 20 were delivered to Pakistan in 1988 and were equipped with the LJ-2 RWR, and the Grifo-7 radar system with a scan range of ±10 degrees.
The second variant is the F-7PG which entered service in 2002 as an upgrade to the #363 F-7P. It was equipped with the: ARW9101 RWR, the Grifo-7 MG with an improved scan range of ±30 degrees.

Both these variants would share the loadouts of the current #364 F-7.

Additionally, the #363 F-7P has the incorrect radar as it should have the Grifo-7 Mk.II, which boasts a scan range of ±20 degrees, currently it has the radar of the F-7M (also missing from Pakistan, but not the database).

Sources: https://www.scribd.com/document/33774346/Grifo-Family, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... olt_series , and https://books.google.com/books?id=LyBQB ... ar&f=false

[Mgellis]

I'm not sure if these have been requested before; apologies for any duplications...

Jose Rizal-class frigate
Philippine Navy, service dates: 2020-
Technical information available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Rizal-class_frigate

BRP Conrado Yap (PS-39)
Philippine Navy, service dates: 2019-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRP_Conrado_Yap_(PS-39) <-- former South Korean corvette, a Pohang-class corvette; not sure if they are changing any of the weapons or not

Thanks for considering these.

[LetMePickThat]

Hi. Following a Steam thread regarding a few imprecisions in some DB3000 systems, here is a summary of what I said on that topic, as asked by Dimitris. Please not that I provided sources on the original Steam topic, but that because of the useless and time-wasting link restriction on new accounts that is set up here, I wasn’t able to include them in this post (nor a link to the Steam forum). Refer to Steam if you want to read the sources.

1 - When firing a Scud B at a SAMP/T, the missile is never tracked, let alone dectected, using the Arabel radar. The reentry vehicle is detected by the operators visually (Mk.1 eyeball), which is basically useless since this doesn't permit a missile firing.

2 - A quite similar issue can be seen using the EMPAR radar on the figates carrying the Aster 30: the radar manages to detect the missile, but way too late to reliably fire and guide a missile. This is somehow mitigated by the S.1850M VSR radar carried by some frigates, which manages to detect and track the missile quite early), but this is not realistic. The S.1850M VSR is a long-range, air surveillance radar. Even with the BMD modification, it cannot provide a reliable fire guidance. If the EMPAR doesn't get a solid lock on the missile, there will be no launch. In this scenario, there is no launch indeed but I'm not sure whether that's because of issue #2 or issue #4.

3 – The Aster Missile Datalink can handle up to 16 missiles at the time, while the overall SAMP/T system is limited to 2 missiles salvoes (currently, CMANO lists the Aster Datalink as being able to handle only one missile).

4 - Independently from these radar issues, the Aster 30 is listed in the database as being able to intercept a target travelling at 2300 kts. This is incorrect, the baseline Aster 30 Block 0 is able to intercept SRBMs with a range of around 600km, i.e with a terminal velocity of approx. 2200m/s, or around 4250 kts (this ABM capacity was increased in to 1500km-range IRBMs with the Aster 30 Block 1 NT, which boast a new Ku band seeker and improved software). This capacity was demonstrated in 2011 when a baseline Aster 30 Block 0 shot down a Black Sparrow target missile simulating a Scud B , flying at a speed of around 2000 m/s.

5 - A more trivial issue: the Aster 30 Block 1NT page in the DB3000 build 477 is using the MIM-23 Hawk description and picture.

6 - Unrelated to the Aster 30: another inaccuracy regarding the NSM/JSM missile. It has a dual way L16 datalink that allows for retargeting and more precise targeting while in flight. Ingame, both the NSM and JSM are using inertial guidance only until they reach their sensor activation point.

7 – The Aster 30 Block 1 NT is not associated to any unit and cannot be added using the Weapon menu of other units.

Have a nice day.

[LORDPrometheus]

A bit late to the topic but since no one else said it I will. Firstly you are 100% correct in that the KC-135Q was strictly for the SR-71 and its derivatives/preogenitor and in theory it should only be able refuel the blackbird and the blackbird from it however from a game mechanics standpoint that is annoying for the developer as they would need to create a whole new refueling type strictly for those 4 planes (I'm including the A-12 and YF-12 from CWDB) and the work is just not worth the change. In practice it is easy to set up a mission that makes blackbirds only use a KC-135Q to refuel so there is not much need to add excessive work for what is in essence a cosmetic issue

[LORDPrometheus]

The Arabel radar has a database entry indicating a maximum detection altitude of 30480m far below the transit height of a scud (up to 150km) it seems likely that the radar would only see the warhead on its terminal phase and due to the speed it is travelling at the search time of the radar and CMANO's processing delay for information (couldn't think of a better way to phrase it) there simply isn't enough time for it to pick up the warhead. Now as for how the humans Manning the system see the warhead Ive got nothing. One more thing I can't check it now but you should see what the maximum engagement speed of an Aster 30 is because to my knowledge it is not designed as an ABM and likely isn't fast enough for many SRBMs

[Tookatee]

I get what you are saying, I never expected an issue like that to ever get prioritized over a lot of the other stuff that's on here. I just wanted to make it known since it seems to have never been mentioned to them before, at least from what I could tell.

[Tookatee]

All variants of the J-7 that came before the J-7E (except for the #3009, #358, #81, and #2474) have an incorrect Take-off/Landing distance value. All those J-7 variants should have a 900 meter landing distance and a 1000 meter takeoff distance. And, all the variants/export derivatives from the J-7E onward were given improved engines that shorten their takeoff and landing distance to only 600 meters (currently all these variants share a value of 451-900.)

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=LyBQB ... ia&f=false

[Gunner98]

never been mentioned to them before

Never is a long time. Games been up for about six years now, fairly sure it has.

[Tookatee]

From using the search function I couldn't find anything on the fuel issue, just suggestions to add the KC-135Q into the database. Regardless, it was an issue I ran into when doing some missions with the SR-71 and refueling, I thought I'd just point it out while I had it fresh on my mind.

[LetMePickThat]

ORIGINAL: LORDPrometheus

The Arabel radar has a database entry indicating a maximum detection altitude of 30480m far below the transit height of a scud (up to 150km)

Up to 150km indeed. A significant part of the flight is spent below that.

it seems likely that the radar would only see the warhead on its terminal phase and due to the speed it is travelling at the search time of the radar and CMANO's processing delay for information (couldn't think of a better way to phrase it) there simply isn't enough time for it to pick up the warhead.

Which is irrealistic. The Arabel radar was designed to operate in conjunction with the Aster 30 Block 1 NT, which was specifically designed with BMD in mind.

One more thing I can't check it now but you should see what the maximum engagement speed of an Aster 30 is

That's the point, it's way too low. See my original post on Steam. The baseline Aster 30 was pitched against a 2000m/s ballistic target in 2013. That was even before the Block 1 NT was designed.

because to my knowledge it is not designed as an ABM and likely isn't fast enough for many SRBMs

As stated above, this is incorrect. The baseline Aster 30 can engage SRBMs in the 600km range (using the empiric rule impact_velocity_in_m/s = 90*square_root * range_in_km, we get : 90*sq(600)=2200m/s=4275 kts), while the Block 1 NT was designed with 1500km-range threats (3500m/s, 6800kts). Quoting a paper from FOBdotcom, "The Aster 30 missile is able to engage ballistic missiles with a range inferior to 600km. As a reminder, Eurosam has been developping since two years now the Aster 30 Block 1 NT, an advanced version of the missile, which will allow the SAMP/T to increase the protected area and to improve its capabilities against missiles in the 1300km to 1500km range."

Believe me, I know quite well what the SAMP/T and the PAAMS systems can or cannot do. [:D]

[LORDPrometheus]

As a general rule a sub does not travel with weapons in its tubes. Weapons need constant maintenance to ensure they are operational and if you have a 20 round magazine and 4 in the tubes you can't remove those weapons from the tubes to check them out. You also can't switch weapons in the event you want to launch something else. It seems more likely that the sub has a 20rd Magazine and 4 tubes and therefore carries 20 torpedoes Max.

[stilesw]

I'm not sure if these have been requested before; apologies for any duplications...

Jose Rizal-class frigate
Philippine Navy, service dates: 2020-
Technical information available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Rizal-class_frigate

BRP Conrado Yap (PS-39)
Philippine Navy, service dates: 2019-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRP_Conrado_Yap_(PS-39) <-- former South Korean corvette, a Pohang-class corvette; not sure if they are changing any of the weapons or not

Thanks for considering these.

Mark,

Logged for possible future inclusion. Thanks,

-Wayne Stiles