Shark tactics?

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

I'm thinking these different models are ones proposed by different contractors. And it's our job to figure out which ones work the best. But my question then is, why can't we have 360', High speed, MF AND HF on our drone? Why do we have to choose?

I'm sure a lot of things go into this! Money and practicality not the least of them. As with most research, some of it is promised but the 'customer' (i.e. the military) may not have the confidence that it will actually be delivered. In other cases, it may be possible, but at a cost to the vehicle's capacity or even just economic viability. I think one of the key things here is that the ACTUV has to be cheap and reliable - if it's lacking one of those qualities, it makes no sense to deploy it. I'm pretty sure all of these proposals are very early concepts. It makes sense to test out how all of them work and what ups/downs there are to the systems, just in case the one that's ideal on paper and in sim turns out to be terrible or even just too pricey in reality.

Of course this being a research project, it makes sense that we're kept in the dark, as subjects.


[edit]

GOOD LORD! I was tracking the thing happily in my gator, when out of nowhere, it surfaced about 200 yards from me! Somebody seems pissed

I like the "security" focus of this game, by the way. It makes things interesting. It's not about killing things, and you really don't know who you're up against and what their real goal is - and actually that makes reactions interesting and unpredictable sometimes.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by CCIP

I'm sure a lot of things go into this! Money and practicality not the least of them. As with most research, some of it is promised but the 'customer' (i.e. the military) may not have the confidence that it will actually be delivered.

Hm...there is one obvious reason that you alluded to earlier... most likely 4 of the 5 ACTUVs are completely fabricated with fictional capabilities with only 1 of them the real model. The other 4 or there are decoy's to keep the general public and ie enemy intelligence from guessing the real capabilities.

On a related note, I hate the way that the SSK doesn't respond or detect HF Sonar. DW had the same bug. In reality a real SSK would detect HF sonar pings and start evading just like MF sonar pings wouldn't you think?

PS) love the signiture CCIP

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Hm...there is one obvious reason that you alluded to earlier... most likely 4 of the 5 ACTUVs are completely fabricated with fictional capabilities with only 1 of them the real model. The other 4 or there are decoy's to keep the general public and ie enemy intelligence from guessing the real capabilities.

On a related note, I hate the way that the SSK doesn't respond or detect HF Sonar. DW had the same bug. In reality a real SSK would detect HF sonar pings and start evading just like MF sonar pings wouldn't you think?

PS) love the signiture CCIP

Thanks

After a few tries at the Shark, I think I got it down pat. It's definitely got some weaknesses, but I now have little trouble sticking to the sub even if it speeds up to 15-20 kt and starts evading - even when it pops decoys. I've come to the conclusion that yup, I do like the shark, although it's not a vehicle that can just passively stick to the target - you really do have to go in stops and starts. Otherwise I've been able to get over 20,000pt on every mission with it.

Also, forget the HF sonar 'stealth' - the sub doesn't react to radar or visual on the ACTUV, which I find odd - although perhaps it's just choosing to blatantly ignore you....

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Also, forget the HF sonar 'stealth' - the sub doesn't react to radar or visual on the ACTUV, which I find odd - although perhaps it's just choosing to blatantly ignore you....

I find this uber lame. DARPA/SCS... fix it please.