LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[LuftWolf]

The torpedo issues are separate project... I should try to add those as well for LWAMI 3.03... Amizaur has done quite a bit of work on this.

[Deathblow]

Quick Update: I tried increasing the UUV detect frequency to 800-1200 (similar to a spherical sonar band) and the results are still pretty negligible. Its still detecting everything that moves within 50miles (as good or better than the ships sonars )

Hm..... ever wonder what happens when we set the Nrd to a positive number... its range is -128 to +128, but all the stock values seem to be negative, what happens when be make them positive... come to think of it... what does the Nrd control anyway? :hmm:

Still work in progress. I bet this will be a welcome addition to the multiplayer games... will make them more interesting IMHO

[Molon Labe]

Hmm, in my experience the UUV has had an effictiveness somewhere between the TB-29 and pelimida. 50nm is way beyond any perfomance I've had, at least against subs.

[Deathblow]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Hmm, in my experience the UUV has had an effictiveness somewhere between the TB-29 and pelimida. 50nm is way beyond any perfomance I've had, at least against subs.

Yep, exactly. A 5ft sensor stuck on the end of a torpedo body shouldn't have comparable sonar performance as a thousand feet of microphones. (am exaggerating when I say 50miles)

Actually, I have issue with the UUVs being modeled the way they are ingame at all. All the sources I read say that the UUV in operation/development are all anti-mine platforms at their heart and don't really mention tracking/target detection capability... at least in what I've read so far. Perhaps sometime in the future, along with electric drives, half-length torpedoes, and externally mounted torpedoes, but for now does a anti-shipping uuv actually exist? Why Sonalyst decided that UUVs were going to be TA on a string with tracking ability is kindof coming out of nowhere

Maybe its sensor capabilities should be cut back very very drastically... :hmm:

[MaHuJa]

I'm quite interested in this topic. However, there are some concerns I have.


First of all, the UUV is indeed powerful. But even with the crippled torpedo passive sensors, do people here remember what happened when the torpedoes got the feedback flag set?

It may be that the immense range is... a bug.

Secondly, keep in mind the purposes of the UUV when making changes.
Do we want to tune down its passive detection capabilities?
Do we want to increase its minefield mapping capabilities?
Etc.

I'd say yes to both, but with moderation; how often do you run into a minefield?

Third, there are some areas of the UUV that are definitely on the weak side. If you want to have a viable tool for minefield navigation, the speed (and with it, the range) needs to move up, and the active sonar which is not much better than a torpedo could do with some improvement. Given that it has much less propulsion and warhead, a better sensor than torpedoes doesn't sound like asking for much.


Perhaps an idea is to tone down the passive side, and up the active side? If the UUV goes active, its presense is known to the enemy (presuming the enemy has subs or AI... but that's a gripe for another time)

I haven't used the UUV in active mode since... well... I sorta just know I have at some time, but by what I can tell that may as well have been with SC...

Current minefield mapping and navigation performance is quite lacking.



As to the "5ft sensor stuck to the end of a torpedo body" I always imagined the UUV as having sensor packages sandwiching the elec/propulsion "core".

In the seawolf, at least, I wish one could see what the uuv sees by it appearing as a last sensor, along with sphere, hull, and towed. Interface-wise it would be a small difference, and game engine-wise it shouldn't be so much different from sonobuoys. But the other platforms might not have that easy a time with it.

[LuftWolf]

I have no problem with messing around with the active/passive sensitivities of the UUV... in fact we have more or less overlooked it to this point.

[LuftWolf]

Fighting a busy schedule and a mild case of burnout (general computer not DW specific)...

So, in short, everything talk about is coming (email, new version of LWAMI, and the expansion of the modding projects...).

To the modellers in particular, sorry about being tardy. How is progress on the sail bridge positioning and the adaptation of the playables? Is it worth waiting to put the non-playables in or should we put those in as soon as we can, including the new platforms?

[Deathblow]

Can't wait LuftWolf. Things keep getting better and better.

With the simulation representing more and more plausible system performances its really gathering the feel of warfare that one would expect. Like with the Aegis systems performing like they do I can now understand why some reports say that RL subs don't bother to carry many ASM missiles anymore, if AAW systems are advanced as they seem in-game those are like impenetrable walls.

Originally Posted by MaHuJa

I haven't used the UUV in active mode since... well... I sorta just know I have at some time, but by what I can tell that may as well have been with SC...

Good question. I haven't used the active UUV mode in forever as well.... wonder how good it is anyway? Does anyone know the expected detection ranges of its active mode? One could probably suspect a similar range to a torp active sonar. And with more range (like 35-45nm) it might be a more suitable anti-mine platform... perhaps anyway.

Random Question: How do we feel about the theoretical performance of ground based SAM and AAW? One would expect that the more in trench SAM (guarding airways, bases, etc) would have comparable performance to a ship-born aegis right? The issue might surface with strike mission in which strike targets supposedly heavily defended aren't really shooting many missiles... :hmm: Could it be as simple as assigning Aegis stats to the SAM sensors and giveing them the CIWS doctrine?

[Deathblow]

More random questions (sorry I post then as they come to me). Torpedo hits

Given the reported destructive power of advanced fusing. Are we sure that ships like the OHP and AB could survive even one torpedo hit? I mean look at the devastation to these ship structures...ouch

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/21456/torpedo_hit/
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/51/52...estruction.jpg

On a related note... can anyone think of a way to "randomize" the percent damage of missiles and torps. Say for example, sometimes it might take 1 and sometimes it might take 2 hits to stink a target, but the attacker can't predict which. Maybe something in the doctrine or a .ini file? :hmm:

[Deathblow]

Some observations regarding Aegis escort behavior.

I've run some small scenarios to observe the escort behavior of an Aegis ship since the improvements. The behavoir is much much better, but is still showing goofy decisions sometimes. Here's the test I ran...

I set us one CVSG with a NImitz as the group leader and one AB DDG as an escort. Opposite of them I put a Russian CVBG with a Kirov as an escort. Each groupl also had a aircraft flying above the group for radar coverage (a Hawkeye and a Flanker-D). The were given a RoE or war and attack behavior... here's what happened.

1.... the Kirov began launching Shipwreck missiles as expected at the DDG, about 7-8 missiles. When the missiles reached about 25-30nm the DDG started throwing SM-2s at the Shipwrecks as expected and was able to intercept them in due space.

2... the Kirov then threw a 10 missile volley at the Nimitz. The DDG again responded with SM-2 when the missiles were around 20nm from the DDG (about 16 nm from the CV). Problem it only launched one SM-2 per shipwreck. not near enough to garantee protection to its escortee. At least 2 missiles apiece would be needed to compensate for the inevitable SM-2 miss in time to save the Nimtz, also given that the SPY-2 would not nearly be saturated with only having 4-5 SM-2 airborne.

3. As far as the Russian CGN, whenever the AB DDG started a Harpoon volley against the Kurnevoz (sp?) the Kirov didn't really even lift a finger to help.

There's was also an incident where the DDG alllowed a Russian flanker-D, to practically fly right over the top of it and began circling... it eventually shot it down, but only after it had been allowed to loiter for a while. All seem less than "smart" behavior sometimes.

Seems like the current behavior with good for AAW self defense, but not quite perfect yet for escort defense. What are other people perceptoins of the current behavior? Anyone that can proport similar occurences?

[LuftWolf]

The lack of response from the Russian ships was most likely due to the missiles never being in range of its FCR's, the range of which needs to be increased.

In terms of the anti-missile behavior, the ships don't differentiate between missiles targeted at them and missiles targeted *near* them. The problem here is that you have your platforms too far apart for the DDG to respond effectively with a second volley if the first SM-2 misses the supersonic Shipwreck.

The DDG again responded with SM-2 when the missiles were around 20nm from the DDG (about 16 nm from the CV).

Typically escorts would be much closer, and ringed around or in front of the escorted platform.

In terms of the AAW defense, its possible, based on what you said, the DDG didn't class the aircraft as Hostile until late, or it was busy doing other things with its missiles. In general, I have found that ships do hold fire for some time against aircraft unless the aircraft fire (or there are specific IFF settings in the mission engine), most likely waiting for PosID.

[Deathblow]

shouldn't be a problem if the AAW were too fire 2 missiles instead of one. I know the the current CIWSAttack doctrine is stimpulating 2+ missiles for incoming targets speed is greater than 600kts. I wonder why it was still only firing 1 missile at a time? The shipwrecks do 1500kts.

In terms of the AAW defense, its possible, based on what you said, the DDG didn't class the aircraft as Hostile until late, or it was busy doing other things with its missiles. In general, I have found that ships do hold fire for some time against aircraft unless the aircraft fire (or there are specific IFF settings in the mission engine), most likely waiting for PosID

Perhaps time to play with the doctrine a bit. :hmm:
I also wish I could get to the bottom of some of the stranger ship behavior. For example, I set a CVSG group up, and after the initial volleys the escorts ran away the other way while the CV plowed ahead to its peril (eventually to sustain over 14 missile hits at close range . Time to fire some captains!

[LuftWolf]

I'm going to look into the salvo issues.

Although, to be honest, I have found the performance of the AEGIS to be acceptable now.

A Tico and Burke usually hold off against four Oscar II's firing Shipwrecks constantly for 10-15 minutes from 100nm, and a single Burke with two FFG's can hold out for 5-10 minutes.

[Deathblow]

What about a single AB against two oscars? :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

The sim automatically limits the number of missiles in the air from any one side against a single ship to 4... so using my multiside trick the max number of missiles in the air against the Burke from two Oscars is 8.

It would appear the survival rate for a Burke against 8 Shipwrecks fired over the horizon is about 50%.