LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #13: The Stallion

[LuftWolf]

It's time for another exciting edition of "How Is It That You Want DW To Be?"

In our quest to rid the game of useless and redundant weapons, the next weapon on the list is the Stallion.

I can't recall ever firing a Stallion... let's face it, the UMGT-1 is pretty pathetic.

So, I would like to know how you guys feel about loading the APR-3 onto the Stallion, a pairing that absolutely could be done in real life, if the Russians had the budget and desire. Amizaur had originally said that the APR-3 was going to be loaded on the SS-N-27 but the missile simply did not have the capability to lift the torpedo.

For those of you who don't know, the APR-3 is a "turbojet" torpedo capable of something like 85kts or so (I have to look it up), but with a very short range. The APR-2 currently modelled in the game has a max speed of 55kts because anything over that starts to do funny things to the game engine, but this can be compensated for.

Also, I would like to make the APR-3 payload on the Stallion a straight runner, meaning it would travel out along the course of the missile that fired it.

My ideal APR-3 for LWAMI 3.xx would have a max speed of 55kts with a max range of 1.5nm, would travel in a straight line (with no snake search pattern) when equipped as the payload on the Stallion.

Ultimately, there are five practical choices, so I'll put it in a poll for you. :)

Cheers,
David

PS Keep in mind, the increased bearing error on the TA in the recent version of LWAMI *will* make a big difference in terms of the effectiveness of these weapons at long range without good TMA or a linking platform.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I voted for Option 3. It is arguably the most realistic while making Stallion a useful weapon with a unique capability (at 55kts for 1.5 miles I might as well take the chance with the MPT-1E that's now loaded in the SS-N-27).

It also makes the best use of LW's advanced skills and experience. Any lubber who does not like the swap to 65kt+ APR-3 can easily swap the launcher loadout back to the UMGT-1 with ~5 minutes of effort in DWEdit. It will be much harder for laymen to go in the other direction and make a 65kt+ APR-3.

I chose between straight or circle solely based on what I would have set in the setters assuming there was a button to set Circle/Snake.

[Molon Labe]

I've been trying to Google accurate information on the specs of the Stallion's payload, but no success so far.

Suffice to say that I'm not interested in enhancing the Stallion's capabilities from a balance agenda.

If there is reason to do so for a realism agenda, then I would consider the change. But if not, I'd leave it as is.

[Bellman]

I would be concerned with a loss of balance by empowering long distance probing and flushing with straight-running combos.

I could live with option 2 - but would really prefer the status quo.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I've been trying to Google accurate information on the specs of the Stallion's payload, but no success so far.

Suffice to say that I'm not interested in enhancing the Stallion's capabilities from a balance agenda.

If there is reason to do so for a realism agenda, then I would consider the change. But if not, I'd leave it as is.

The current payload (UMGT-1) is actually historically accurate, but the weapon is quite useless as it is. The batteries inside are also not getting newer. Soon, they'd either have to take the weapon out of service or change the torpedo inside.

I'd actually have preferred using the APSET-95, the one with 50 knot capability and 30km max range (though not both at once). Yes, I know Jane's said it is really a UMGT-1, but Jane's also said the Neu carried a 10-tubed RBU-12000 (meanwhile, to the right of the description, there's a picture that shows the Neu carrying the 12-tubed RBU-6000, just like what everyone else says). Besides, apparently if you trust Jane's, then the APR-3 would have a range of 10000 yards which will make it a a nice nightmare as well.

Further, according to DITG.org, the APR-3 is perfectly fittable onto the long SS-N-27 (reasonable, considering that even the short antiship SS-N-27 carries a 400kg warhead + a 60kg radar seeker and the APR's only supposed to be 450-475) - in terms of length the assembly comes to only 7.65m (the long-antiship version is 8.2m long), so there's no obvious weight or length problem. It is the short, <=6.2m short SS-N-27 that's forced to use the puny MPT-1UE. So you can argue that forcing it to fit onto a Stallion (thus preventing a theoretical 8-missile shotgun salvo) is already an artificial restriction on the Russian side.

For the circle/snake call, if the snake pattern is more effective, somehow I doubt realistically the Russians would force the torpedo to select "circle". Most probably it'd have both, and if it only had one, it'd be the more effective selection. The only reason to force the selection of circle is gameplay balance, not realism, IMO.

That above covers realism.

For gameplay, if it consoles you any, the active sonar on an Akula is crap (to make it start to show blips I had to increase the theoretical Active Sonar Nrd to over the Seawolf, which of course is unrealistic but is the only way I've found so far to make it a bit useful), so at least you won't be actively ranged. Without the accuracy provided by active ranging, and only 1.5NM ranges for the APR-3. As a 688I, you should get first detect and thus first passive TMA solution. Then you can maneuver in zigzags to deny those short-legged torps their solution until you close in and shoot torps.

Further, realistically, if they don't change the torp soon they'd have to stop using it. So if you really hate this, just try and persuade your opposite in MP to not use Stallion - that's the other realistic option. Or just swap the torp back yourself and persuade your opponent to use your database. But let LW at least develop his APR-3. At least we can stick it on a helicopter or something...

[LuftWolf]

Well, something smacked me in the forehead today on the train... I haven't yet corrected the payload on the SS-N-27!

There is NO WAY in hell the MPT-1UE makes 55kts. NO WAY.

So, my solution for LWAMI 3.xx is to:

1) reduce the SS-N-27 payload torpedo, MPT-1UE, speed to 45kts

2) add the APR-3 to the Stallion as a straight running torpedo making 70kts with a 1.5nm MAX range, and an initial slow search pattern (40kts or so). After the weapon has acquired a target, it will go to max throttle, at which point its range will be cut by the current speed vs. range features in 1.04. Keep in mind, this weapon DOES NOT have reattack capability and has limited maneovering capability, if it misses on the first pass, it cannot reacquire.

This ought to either 1) make everyone happy for the same reason, 2) piss everyone off for different reasons.

Feedback please! :up: :know:

Incidentially, I have a two stage version of the APR-3 with the high speed physics corrections already coded and ready to go, I've just been holding off because I wasn't sure what the reaction would be. In my testing, I have found the AI to be more than capable of out manovering this weapon simply because its turning capability is very limited at high speed, so I know you guys can.

Also, if you guys are STILL feeling off about this, I can increase the bearing and range error on the stallion missile...

There's a lot I can do to address balance issues once the weapon is brought into the game, but my gut reaction is not to leave something as useless when it could be made useful.

Cheers,
David

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

There is NO WAY in hell the MPT-1UE makes 55kts. NO WAY.

Oh, you hadn't changed it yet? Man, I really hadn't noticed.

1) reduce the SS-N-27 payload torpedo, MPT-1UE, speed to 45kts

Blind pro-Russian side (blame Tom Clancy): Damn! :nope:
More realistic side: Ah well, given the weights and masses involved, reasonable.

2) add the APR-3 to the Stallion as a straight running torpedo making 70kts with a 1.5nm MAX range, and an initial slow search pattern (40kts or so). After the weapon has acquired a target, it will go to max throttle, at which point its range will be cut by the current speed vs. range features in 1.04. Keep in mind, this weapon DOES NOT have reattack capability and has limited maneovering capability, if it misses on the first pass, it cannot reacquire.

Since the brochures give it up to 2 minutes to finish its mission, I'd propose giving it a slightly longer range, to say 1.5NM at its full speed. That's 75 seconds at full speed, and translates to ~2.5NM at 40kn. At the current setting, it can barely run said two minutes at 40 knots, and given you cut you mentioned, probably barely a NM at 70 knots.

[Molon Labe]

I thought torps get wiggy over 60kts and there was nothing we could do about it?:-?

[LoBlo]

I voted to leave it as is. I'm in favor of maintaining the historic accuracy of the weapon system as it publically known, even if the original concept by its Soviet designers is impractical. An 80nm ASW missile? Got to hand it to the Ruskies... they break the bank on unconvential wepon systems.

If tweaking the system is an absolute must and it deemed imperative to give the Stallion a hypothetical 'boost' in utility, then there's an option that hasn't been considered...one could also duplicate the UMGT-1 but with a modified doctrine (call it UMGT-1a running the UMGT-1_subroc doctrine) that alters the torp behavior to a straight runner to gain some diversity in capability. Something to consider.

[XabbaRus]

Right just looking in my Military Parade book from 2005 which is in effect a catalogue of the main naval weapons the APR series of weapons do a circle search pattern only.

The interesting feature is that they are dropped into the water and descend in a corkscrew patterwit the motor switched off, only engaging the motor once it has detected the target. So based on that I would leave the Stallion with the current payload and if you alter the APR series take into account what I have just written.

Also all sources seem to state the Type 82R torpedo as the payload for which I can't find much info or a recognisable name.

[LuftWolf]

Right just looking in my Military Parade book from 2005 which is in effect a catalogue of the main naval weapons the APR series of weapons do a circle search pattern only.

The interesting feature is that they are dropped into the water and descend in a corkscrew patterwit the motor switched off, only engaging the motor once it has detected the target. So based on that I would leave the Stallion with the current payload and if you alter the APR series take into account what I have just written.

Also all sources seem to state the Type 82R torpedo as the payload for which I can't find much info or a recognisable name.

Well, the best available data definately tells us that the APR-3 has not been deployed to the Stallion, it is certainly not ready. In fact, my gut tells me that the Russians have had loads of trouble developing virtually any new naval weapons systems for any number of reasons, such as failing to be able to maintain basic maintaince on a portion of their fleet...

But let's not fool ourselves... if we really wanted to have the most accurate mod possible, the Akula would probably be hopelessly vulnerable to just about everything in the US arsenal, so I like to think I'm modding a world where the Russians have at least nominal parity with the USN, which is clearly does not and never has had, especially when it comes to submarines.

So, I'm not compelled by the arguement that it HASN'T been doesn in RL so I shouldn't. I'd like to think if the Russians could develope already existing weapon systems they would, so I venture into the plausible, and thus I added to the game three Akula II Modified hulls that are currently unpaided for hulks rusting in their construction yards (or non-existent) but certainly WOULD have been finished by the Russians if they had the funds.

Xabba, the data you've given me regarding the APR is consistent with the information I have about the helo launched versions of the weapon, I suppose I'm assuming the SUBROC version would have a different feature-set.

Admittedly, its venturing on "dangerous ground" but not because there is not president in the mod, but because this is a very touchy subject (giving Russians effective weapons that is).

Of course, I could make the SW go 45+kts, make it twice as quiet and dive 500 ft deeper and that would be perfectly acceptable. :cool: :p

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

I mean, keep in mind, this is my "fall-back" position:

Reduce the speed of the MPT-1UE for the SS-N-27 to 45kts, and add the already existing APR-2E in the game to the Stallion as a circle search torpedo with a 1.5nm range @ 55kts.

Since this actually decreases the overall capability of the Akula SUBROCS while still making the Stallion modern and useful, I can't see the majority having a problem with this.

So, assume this is the change that is definately going to happen, but I want to go further, so either convince me not to, or encourage me, it's up to you. :)

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

There seems to be agreement that the UGMT-1 is the actual payload. So determines my vote.

I advise caution in adding hypothetical weapons and capabilities. The title is "...realism mod" after all. That's not to say that it should never be done, but it should be done sparingly and only when there is both some evidence to suggest that it is accurate in RL and improves gameplay balance. I'm not convinced that is the case here.

And as for the "hurt the russians" swipe, I remind you that I argued for the akula-II to be nearly as quiet as the SW, for the Akula-1Imp to be quieter than the 688I, and for the Kilos to be quieter than all the nukes at patrol speeds. I even seem to remember that you had to turn the SW's NL up after one of the earlier versions because it was nearly invincible. =P

[LuftWolf]

The UMGT-1 IS the torpedo payload of the Stallion... from the late 1970's.

And 70% of USET-80's when tested at sea fail.

What's the fun of modding/playing a decrepit Russian fleet incapable of modernizing?

IF the Russians could, they WOULD mount an APR family weapon on the Stallion, this is what the best information shows currently. The weapons are not hypothetical, only the pairing of the weapons.

Cheers,
David

[Wim Libaers]

Well, in that case the question is if you want to balance all platforms for one on one duels, or if you want to approximate realism and let the mission designers deal with the imbalance by setting up scenarios where the technologically superior platform also gets a harder task.

[LuftWolf]

Well, in that case the question is if you want to balance all platforms for one on one duels, or if you want to approximate realism and let the mission designers deal with the imbalance by setting up scenarios where the technologically superior platform also gets a harder task.

I don't think that's the issue at hand. As I said before, balance can be achieved in various ways.

Swapping out the Stallion payload is not an issue of balance, its an issue of retiring a useless weapon from the game and replacing it with something that might actually see the light of day, and doing it along the lines of a plausible developement in Russian technology, which already gets the benefit of the doubt all over both the stock and modded databases.

This is directly equivalent to replacing the useless and redundant Mk46 with the Mk54.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Well, in that case the question is if you want to balance all platforms for one on one duels, or if you want to approximate realism and let the mission designers deal with the imbalance by setting up scenarios where the technologically superior platform also gets a harder task.
I don't think that's the issue at hand. As I said before, balance can be achieved in various ways.

Swapping out the Stallion payload is not an issue of balance, its an issue of retiring a useless weapon from the game and replacing it with something that might actually see the light of day, and doing it along the lines of a plausible developement in Russian technology, which already gets the benefit of the doubt all over both the stock and modded databases.

This is directly equivalent to replacing the useless and redundant Mk46 with the Mk54.

Cheers,
David

It can't be directly equivalent, there was no pairing issue with the Mk46/54. Especially since you left the Mk46 on the ASROC.

[LuftWolf]

The equivalence:

Mk46=UMGT-1=outdated, not useful in game

Mk54=APR-2E(on Stallion)=based on near-future capability, useful in game

I think it's pretty simple.

The UMGT-1 is only 3kts faster than the SW, which gives it a lethal envelope of about 200 yards or less, when dropped in an optimal position, and 0 yards (completely ineffective) if dropped behind the SW.

Cheers,
David

[XabbaRus]

I think in terms of realism we should leave as is. The SS-N-27 ASW is more effective and my preferred loadout. If we get into second guessing possible loadouts we could stray off into Dangerous grounds.

The Akula is pretty capable and in the right hands has no problems with a Seawolf.

Probably the best thing to do is make the 53 cm a UGST as that is almost as good as an ADCAP.

[LuftWolf]

53cm already is a UGST...

Given the fact that the SS-N-27 payload's max speed is going to be reduced to 45kts, and that is has been at 55kts in error for so long with no one saying anything, I sense the opposition to this is strictly in principle and not because of any practical consideration given the state of DW and LWAMI.

I have to think that 1/3 of people will oppose any changes that aren't written in Jane's (even though jane's can be wrong too) and 1/3 of people will oppose any improvements to Russian equipment, particularly SUBROCs, even if the balance of the changes will make both SUBROCs, when considered together, less effective.

If I don't filter those opinions out, I'm left with a confusing picture.

Cheers,
David

[LoBlo]

But let's not fool ourselves... if we really wanted to have the most accurate mod possible, the Akula would probably be hopelessly vulnerable to just about everything in the US arsenal, so I like to think I'm modding a world where the Russians have at least nominal parity with the USN, which is clearly does not and never has had, especially when it comes to submarines.

:o Wow, those are some pretty bold statements...

Might I suggest some light reading... I just bought Submarine Technology for the 21 st Century by Stan Zimmerman (http://www.amazon.com/Submarine-Technology-21st-Century-Zimmerman/dp/1552123308/sr=8-1/qid=1170544458/ref=sr_1_1/103-4926157-5914246?ie=UTF8&s=books) and it presents some interesting facts and perspectives about the various capabilities/problems/innovations out between the nations. Of note is that Russians were the first nation to use Anechoic coating, the first to develop wakehoming torpedoes, and the first with supercavitating technology... those guys can put out great engineering.

If 80% of USET-80's failed, here's an interesting quote from the book to put that into perspective...

But torpedo unreliability continues to haunt American submariners. "We've learned the Mk 48 ADCAP isn't as good as we thought it would be. We're working on that," Vice Adm. Henry Chiles told a submarine audience in 1993. It is probable Chiles was thinking of a General Accounting Office report in late 1992. While the GAO was looking into the BSY-1 submarine combat system destined for the Improved 688-class of attack submarines, it also noted a devastating fact. A defense trade press publication reported, "Navy evaluators are also interest in available programs to correct torpedo deficiencies, but is [sic] concerned about about inadequate funding for that pursuit, GAO notes. Tests on the system's torpedo-engagment capabilites were hampered because about 56% of those torpedoes missed their targets due to technical failures."....

... The British suffered even more embarrasing problems with the Tigerfish heavyweight torpedo, which will be retired from the fleet by 2000, replaced by the newer Spearfish. The Tigerfish cost more than one billion British pounts ($1.6 billion) to develop but never proved successful. "[T]he disastrous saga of the Mark 24 Tigerfish provides a salutary example of exactly what can go wrong with a new weapon system," wrote Edwyn Gray. "It is said that early versions of the Mark 24 suffered a 75% failure rate -a record of misfortune that puts it in the same class as America's wartime Mark 14..."

[edit]excuse any typos

[LuftWolf]

However, at one point the USET-80 was a reliable torpedo.

The differences between the Russian problems and the problems mentioned above is that those weapons fail because they are cutting edge with teething techinical problems, the Russian weapons fail because they were manufactered 25 years ago and are well past their overhaul dates. :)

In regards to the Akula's and other Russian nukes, I am very suspicious of their current operating capabilities, particularly their quieting, given the current state of the Russian nuclear fleet, and also the fact that I suspect the Russian's active quieting systems are particularly maintenance intensive even over and above the regular issues of keeping up nuclear boats.

Cheers,
David

[LoBlo]

The Mk48 ADCAP had supposedly completed it operational evaluation, been approved for deployment, and instuted into active service for at least 5 years before the 1992 report. Even before that the ADCAP itself had been in development since 1975, more than 15 years earlier.

I've read that various British T-boat maintenance problems put every boat except one in repairs in 2000 with the only operational boat the Triumph. I think its fair to say that every navy has experienced both design and maintenance problems. If we really wanted to be objective, we would plague every boat with maintenance problems and every weapon with problematic failure probabilities, not just the Russians.

[LuftWolf]

Then it stands to reason the country in question with the smallest economy, highest levels of corruption, and lowest level of technology (Russia) would have the most problems. :)

Cheers,
David

[LoBlo]

Then perhaps we should change the name of the game to "Rickety Waters":p

Whoever has the most rickety boat looses:lol:

Press button "A" to simulate mopping up the oil leaks. First one finished wins.:yep:

[LuftWolf]

The point of this whole track of the conversation is to try to explain what I mean by "consistency"... and why that is important when doing game design.

Cheers,
David

[LoBlo]

Hijacking was unintentional. I guess what I was trying to say is that "accurate as possible" means *both* sides would be vunerable. Wasn't there a Russian naval stunt near the end of the cold war where they orchestrated a mass invasion of Russian Subs past US ASW screens into US waters untracked just to prove to the world that they could do it... and using "old" Victor IIIs at that. Lets not be too cocky...

Ok, back on topic... modding the stallion right?

[LuftWolf]

In my mind this is the second to last in a list of weapon related changes that started some time ago:

1) two stage SS-N-27 replaces single supersonic stage SS-N-27 (the weapon is advertised to have two stages, but there is little or no actual information about the performance of this weapon, or whether it is currently in service or works at all)

2) 53cm given UGST specifications (another new Russian weapon with only advertised specs) and 65cm modified to 65-76 (a proven cold war weapon)

3) mk54 replaces mk46 (the mk46 will be in service with the USN for years to come because of logistical reasons, also, the mk54 has serious problems and was either on the block to be cancelled, or has been already, or the program has been completely overhauled)

4) Yu-8 replaces SET-53 (if you want to accuse me of making something up, this is your chance, this weapon really doesn't exist anywhere)

5) SLAM-ER given ASuW capability (I'm not sure this weapon exists, I was never able to actually confirm whether the "real" version of this weapon is simply an upgraded harpoon with limited strike capability or an advanced strike missile with no ASuW capability... in any case, it was added to compensate for the fact the harpoon can't be mounted on the P-3 at all in game)

6) So then at 6 would be the APR-2E/3 loadout for the Stallion

7) and seven is to add the Mk60 CAPTOR to the P-3 to replace the 1000lbs mine (a weapon I'm fairly certain does not function as advertised)

So, as you can see, I've been thoroughly off the reservation for some time now.

As a followup point, why does no one complain that the FFG7 has a missile rail? This is unquestionably the most significant "fantasy platform" capability in DW. If I REALLY wanted to be accurate for the sake of accuracy alone, I'd remove the Harpoons and SM-2 from the OHP, and how much fun would that be?

Cheers,
David

PS Also, the UUV would have to go entirely as there is not even anything close to a real world analogue, in late-stage developement or otherwise.

[LoBlo]

Well, the argument for the FFG missile launcher has been that the it wasn't removed until 2003 and DW hasn't really been considered a 2007 simulator... its sorta had the feel of a 1990-1999 time frame from the platforms expressed (when the FFG still had its Mk 13 launcher...) but the fact that it shoots SM-2 is a little stretch...

... what about downgrading ever weapon to 1990. Mk 46's back in and Mk 54s out. FFG SM-2 downgraded to SM-1s... but now we're talking the about changing the mod's whole direction... which I'm guessing isn't really something that's being considered...:hmm: :p :88)

... hm... come to think of it, what is the mod's stance on the DW timeframe anyway?

[Molon Labe]

In my mind this is the second to last in a list of weapon related changes that started some time ago:

1) two stage SS-N-27 replaces single supersonic stage SS-N-27 (the weapon is advertised to have two stages, but there is little or no actual information about the performance of this weapon, or whether it is currently in service or works at all)

2) 53cm given UGST specifications (another new Russian weapon with only advertised specs) and 65cm modified to 65-76 (a proven cold war weapon)
As far as I'm aware, there is informatin out there that makes both of these choices justified. What information supports the conclusion that the APR-3 is, or is about to be, deployed on the Stallion?

3) mk54 replaces mk46 (the mk46 will be in service with the USN for years to come because of logistical reasons, also, the mk54 has serious problems and was either on the block to be cancelled, or has been already, or the program has been completely overhauled)
At the time of the change, you sold the Mk54 as a weapon that was entering the US inventory as a cheaper alternative to the Mk50.


4) Yu-8 replaces SET-53 (if you want to accuse me of making something up, this is your chance, this weapon really doesn't exist anywhere)
I did bitch at you for that one. There are strong balance reasons to do this though, since the Chinese Kilos are pretty worthless at ASUW with only wakehomers and the uber-crappy SET-53.


5) SLAM-ER given ASuW capability (I'm not sure this weapon exists, I was never able to actually confirm whether the "real" version of this weapon is simply an upgraded harpoon with limited strike capability or an advanced strike missile with no ASuW capability... in any case, it was added to compensate for the fact the harpoon can't be mounted on the P-3 at all in game) You told me you found sources indicating that the SLAM-ER did have ASUW capability. Also, the Harpoon issue alone justifies this change.


6) So then at 6 would be the APR-2E/3 loadout for the Stallion The case has only been made that Russia *could* do this, not that they have or soon wil. There is no compelling balance reason to do this either. The only reason advanced to do this is to prevent the Stallion from being useless as a practical matter. That alone doesn't cut it.


7) and seven is to add the Mk60 CAPTOR to the P-3 to replace the 1000lbs mine (a weapon I'm fairly certain does not function as advertised) Reliability is not modeled for any DW weapons (unless you count pk of missiles).


So, as you can see, I've been thoroughly off the reservation for some time now.

As a followup point, why does no one complain that the FFG7 has a missile rail? This is unquestionably the most significant "fantasy platform" capability in DW. If I REALLY wanted to be accurate for the sake of accuracy alone, I'd remove the Harpoons and SM-2 from the OHP, and how much fun would that be? It's only been removed VERY recently. It's not unrealistic to have it under that circumstance. There are enormous balance concerns to leave it on. And I've been bitching about the SM-2 replacing the SM-1 since before DW was released.

And I supported the changes to the UUV reducing its power to less-incredible levels.

So I am consistent!

[LoBlo]

.., since the Chinese Kilos are pretty worthless at ASUW with only wakehomers and the uber-crappy SET-53.
:lol: hehe, I like that... not just "crappy"... "uber-crappy":rotfl:

[LuftWolf]

In the world of LWAMI:

"The year is 2010. A resurgent Russia has aggressively persued a policy of naval modernization based on the doctrine of covert, nuclear and non-nuclear power projection while at the same time arming and equipping nations such as Iran and China with the capability to defend themselves against the projection capabilities of the USN. It is not uncoming for joint regional exercises between the Russian Navy, PLAN, and the Iranians. Israel in particular fears the combination of Russian missile technology in Iran to their east and Russian submarine technology in the Med to their West.

In response, the United States and UK have persued their own program of modernization to counter the latest littoral warfare and open ocean threats with the aim of preserving US and UK power projection capability. The Germans have played in a key role in equipping regional allies with the ability to defend their own coasts without the help of the major powers."

It's not Clancy, but it does provide a guide for me to ensure I don't go too far astray.

You can be your own judge, but this is a lot more interesting than: "The year is 2007 Russia and the US are too broke to keep up their Navies. Russian sailors are selling pieces of their subs as scrap metal and burning their uniforms for fuel. The US has exactly five TLAM's left because they fired them all at Iraq and Afganistan and Cheney ordered 5000000 Haliburton party hats rather than replacing them."

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

So I am consistent!

From a Jedi point of view... :p :p :p

That's just a cheap shot, Ken, sorry I couldn't help it.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

6) So then at 6 would be the APR-2E/3 loadout for the Stallion
The case has only been made that Russia *could* do this, not that they have or soon wil. There is no compelling balance reason to do this either. The only reason advanced to do this is to prevent the Stallion from being useless as a practical matter. That alone doesn't cut it.

And I supported the changes to the UUV reducing its power to less-incredible levels.

So I am consistent!

Amizaur told me the APR-2 was originally developed for deployment on SUBROCs, but proved to be too unwieldy for the SS-N-15 or SS-N-27 and so it was converted for use on aircraft. It is conceivable that a future version of the APR would be developed as payload for the SS-N-16 if the Russian Navy had the funds and thought it would give them a better weapons platform in the submarines that could carry it.

So, I am going to begin work on LWAMI 3.06 immediately. I really appreciate everyone giving their input.

It will feature the following changes:

1) The UUV from the ATC will be imported in its entireity. That means it will have advanced controls (depth and speed), reduced sensor sensitivity, increased stealth and a range vs. speed function. This is a good opportunity to see how people react to having advanced controls without involving all the issues that come from torpedoes, practical and political. :)

2) The Mk60 will be added to the game (I hope it's as easy as I think it is)

3)Russian SUBROCS: The speed of the SS-N-27 ASW payload will be reduced to 45kts. The APR-3 will replace the UMGT-1 on the Stallion. I will attempt to model this weapon as precisely as possible to what is known about the real weapon. It will 1) have a circle search pattern 2) will enter the water and search at slow speed with a low noise profile, however it will search in active mode (it will take a LONG time to make a complete circle, so it almost acts like a mine with a slowly rotating search sonar), the weapon will shutdown after a single complete circle if it does not find a target 3) if it detects a contact, the torpedo will then move to 70kts and home on the target with a max range of 1.5nm 4) the torpedo will have a seeker equivalent to the seeker of the SS-N-27 payload.

Cheers,
David

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The above sounds good, though you might note the APR-3 is actually as much as 125kg lighter and 0.5m shorter than the APR-2.

[LuftWolf]

Ok, the UUV has been imported.

Here is refresher on the controls:


Advanced UUV Mod:

The passive sensor has been reduced in sensitivity and aspect considerably and the active sensor has been disabled completely (the passive sensor now has a 100 degree view on both sides rather than a 150 degree view on both sides as before, roughly the same dimensions as a submarine sphere sensor). The BB sound of the UUV has also been changed to a slightly different sound in the stock DW sound archive.

The UUV now has a range of 17nm @ 6kts and max speed of 20kts with a range at max speed of 2.7nm. The sensors are totally washed out at 8kts, with some washout above 6kts.

The operation is as follows. You must be at 4kts as before, and enter the presets in the same way. After firing the weapon it will begin to feed back data immediately and move at 4kts. The speed of the UUV is controlled with the enable button and the depth is controlled with the preenable button. The preenable button has no effect on the passive sensor.

One click of the enable button will stop the UUV; it can persist indefinately in this state, a second click will speed the UUV up to 6kts. A third click of the enable button will speed the UUV up to 12kts, the max speed the UUV can travel in up to 90ft of water without cavitating. A fourth click of the enable button and the UUV will go to its max speed of 20kts. A fifth click will stop the UUV and reset the counter, although you can click the enable button twice slowly and set it to 6kts. Note the sensors are washout above 8kts and do not feed data.

The preenable button depth control works as follows. The first click does nothing. A second preenable click will send the UUV to the preset search depth. A third preenable click will send the UUV to 90ft if it is in over 100ft of water or 45ft if it is in less than 100ft of water. A fourth click will send the UUV back to launch depth, and reset the cycle.


Now on to the APR-3. :)

Cheers,
David

[LoBlo]

In the world of LWAMI:

"The year is 2010. A resurgent Russia has aggressively persued a policy of naval modernization based on the doctrine of covert, nuclear and non-nuclear power projection while at the same time arming and equipping nations such as Iran and China with the capability to defend themselves against the projection capabilities of the USN. It is not uncoming for joint regional exercises between the Russian Navy, PLAN, and the Iranians. Israel in particular fears the combination of Russian missile technology in Iran to their east and Russian submarine technology in the Med to their West.

In response, the United States and UK have persued their own program of modernization to counter the latest littoral warfare and open ocean threats with the aim of preserving US and UK power projection capability. The Germans have played in a key role in equipping regional allies with the ability to defend their own coasts without the help of the major powers."

It's not Clancy, but it does provide a guide for me to ensure I don't go too far astray.

You can be your own judge, but this is a lot more interesting than: "The year is 2007 Russia and the US are too broke to keep up their Navies. Russian sailors are selling pieces of their subs as scrap metal and burning their uniforms for fuel. The US has exactly five TLAM's left because they fired them all at Iraq and Afganistan and Cheney ordered 5000000 Haliburton party hats rather than replacing them."

Cheers,
David

Well personally I've always split the DW timeframe; sometimes cold war scenarios, but sometimes modern day ops. Cold war scenarios are interesting because deep water just feels good to maneuver in and fighting against massive platforms and formations (CGNs and CVNs) is a fun challenge.

However, I've sorta gotten into the littoral battlespace over the last year... it really is an interesting challenge. One could consider the submarine battle in littoral waters a battle of the SSNs vs the SSKs for control of the coastline. Taking on the delimas of how to operate a big SSN in a brown water environment, having maximum impact on land events (strikes, recond, etc), and fighting in a backyard where SSKs are king and ASW helo's are queen... is actually pretty interesting IMHO.

Of course, I don't play multiplayer, so I can get away from the repeated US vs Russia scenarios... US vs coastline (SSKs, helos, and SSMs) is more interesting for us single players IMHO... granted the welcomed blue water op every now and then.

[LuftWolf]

APR-3, check. :)

The weapon functions as I've described above with a couple of exceptions.

When it is dropped from a helo or the SS-N-16, it will enter the water and do a circle search right at 40kts (anything slower messes with the new range vs. speed calculations in DW 1.04 and makes the range of the weapon very very short). When the weapon acquires a target, it will go its max speed of 68kts. If this weapon acquires a decoy and burns through or misses its target, it will malfunction as it does not have reattack capability.

After testing, it proved necessary to make the Max range of the weapon a bit over 2.5nm in the database to make the weapon reasonably effective (since it needs range to both search and home), although in practice it will never reach this range.

Now for the CAPTOR, where I have to do some real work.

Cheers,
David

PS The proper evasion tactic for the APR-3 is to drop a decoy and make sure you are circling clockwise away from the weapon. Trust me when I say, it will take a very good shot to score a kill with this weapon as the payload of the SS-N-16, although the Russian helos and aircraft are NASTY with this weapon. :yep: :arrgh!:

[Dr.Sid]

I thought UUV are especially good for mine avoidance. Not as replacement for ship sensors. In such case, it should only have active sonar, passive is useless for mines.

About the FFG .. it has some vertical launching tubes now or does it have no missiles at all ?

[goldorak]

Luftwolf : I wonder why you're doing a poll at since you're obviously not taking into account the votes. Almost 50% of the players said they wanted to keep the stallion as it is now without changing anything and you decide nontheless to change the torpedo. I fail to see the point. :shifty:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Luftwolf : I wonder why you're doing a poll at since you're obviously not taking into account the votes. Almost 50% of the players said they wanted to keep the stallion as it is now without changing anything and you decide nontheless to change the torpedo. I fail to see the point. :shifty:

1) He's taking our polls for recommendations.

2) Actually, more people want some kind of APR-3 (14:12), so it is in line w/ poll. Do not allow the amount the way the APR-3 votes were split into 4 subtypes to trick you.

3) Since the vote says Make APR, he might as well make the most realistic version possible.

[LuftWolf]

@ Sid, no missiles at all. The single-rail has been removed.

@ goldorak, but more than 50% of the people voted to change it. :)

I only feel bound by the results of a poll if the opinion is overwhelmingly one way or another. I feel I've explained myself as well as I can, if someone doesn't agree with my judgement, then I hope he knows where I'm coming from.

In this case, I value my own judgement because I'm the only one in the world who has seen it in motion up to this point. When I release it, and that pool of people becomes much larger and many gain more experience using it than me, then I will tend to defer to their judgement if something needs to be changed.

I think I've demonstrated this is my method on more than one occasion, and that I'm actually pretty flexible, all things considered... I like to think so.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

3) Since the vote says Make APR, he might as well make the most realistic version possible.

This was my thinking exactly.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

A quick update for those of you keeping score at home. :cool:

I've FINALLY fixed the RBU's.

This was a bit more tricky than the RAM SAM.

Your welcome, Mr. Nichols. ;)

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

@ Sid, no missiles at all. The single-rail has been removed.

Cheers,
David

I don't understand, have you taken off the missiles from the playable frigate in the next version of the mod ?
If thats the case, may I say you're being a little too radical with the changes. ;)
I understand we all strive for maximum realism, but this is still a simulation (game).
You have to balance realism versus gameplay and if you take the missile cover from the frigate it will become a sitting duck to missile attacks.

[LuftWolf]

He was asking about the REAL FFG7. :)

The OHP in LWAMI will definately keep the rail. :yep: ;)

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

He was asking about the REAL FFG7. :)

The OHP in LWAMI will definately keep the rail. :yep: ;)

Cheers,
David

Silly me :oops:

[Bellman]

LW - the decision to intoduce the advanced control system on the UUV is inspirational. :|\\

One UUV question - at stop, with indefiinite persist, will it continue to act as a reporting passive receptor, or will functioning be motion dependent ? The latter would simulate limited battery life and is what I am hoping for. :hmm:

I have been retesting comparitive sub sonar receptivity and welcome your APR-3 proposals. It tips the MP balance slightly to a red linked team and as a SW captain I have to declare my position that I shall anxiously await experience of just how low the noise profile is during the 'search' phase.

I still think WAA has been increased in efficiency but hey I better shut up now some advantages are flowing the other way. ;)

Good work in moving us forward we could vegetate in a comfort zone ! :rock:

[Molon Labe]

A quick update for those of you keeping score at home. :cool:

I've FINALLY fixed the RBU's.

This was a bit more tricky than the RAM SAM.

Your welcome, Mr. Nichols. ;)

Cheers,
David

Awesome.

[Molon Labe]

3) Since the vote says Make APR, he might as well make the most realistic version possible.
This was my thinking exactly.

Cheers,
David

Where did you get your specifications?
This (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTRussian_post-WWII.htm) is all I could find. But if the APR-3 is an improved APR-2, would the range be significantly higher? The APR-2 only had 2200yds of range according to this source. If this is right, then I see the APR series as intended for use from aircraft, not SUBROCs. :p

[LuftWolf]

LW - the decision to intoduce the advanced control system on the UUV is inspirational. :|\\

One UUV question - at stop, with indefiinite persist, will it continue to act as a reporting passive receptor, or will functioning be motion dependent ? The latter would simulate limited battery life and is what I am hoping for. :hmm:

I have been retesting comparitive sub sonar receptivity and welcome your APR-3 proposals. It tips the MP balance slightly to a red linked team and as a SW captain I have to declare my position that I shall anxiously await experience of just how low the noise profile is during the 'search' phase.

I still think WAA has been increased in efficiency but hey I better shut up now some advantages are flowing the other way. ;)

Good work in moving us forward we could vegetate in a comfort zone ! :rock:

Sure, I could put a timer on it, but given the dynamics of batteries etc, the timer would last like 12 hours or more (given that it can last two hours or so moving at 6kts), so I figure that's well beyond the time frame of most DW missions, and therefore unnecessary. Althought I suppose I could do a 12 hour timer just in case. :)

[LuftWolf]

3) Since the vote says Make APR, he might as well make the most realistic version possible.
This was my thinking exactly.

Cheers,
David

Where did you get your specifications?
This (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTRussian_post-WWII.htm) is all I could find. But if the APR-3 is an improved APR-2, would the range be significantly higher? The APR-2 only had 2200yds of range according to this source. If this is right, then I see the APR series as intended for use from aircraft, not SUBROCs. :p

I'm familar with that page. He's rather conservative, only posting what is definatively fielded for the most part. In regards to the APR-3 data, my assumption is that he extrapolated that data from the APR-2, since I've not confirmed from another source this weapon's design was finalized.

An no, it might not have a greater range if it is much faster...

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Couple more things for 3.06 done and done.

-I made sure the UAV has the correct doctrine... I'm not sure I mentioned this before but this has been fixed for some time. So, in other words, the UAV should work fine for missions, they'll behave like any other aircraft in fact.

-I've added variable decoy logic to the most advanced sea-skimmers in the game, to make chaff 50% less effective for these missiles than for other missiles. The missiles improved by this change are the SLAM-ER, TASM, Harpoon, and SS-N-25. Chaff for these missiles will be 12.5% effective, whereas it is 25% effective against other missiles. Thank you to Mau for suggesting this, and being very persistent about missile and FFG related issues in general. I do agree, the FFG looks much better with the TA and Nixie on the correct sides of the model. :up:

-I've altered the way AI units set the search depths on torpedoes to make them fire torpedoes under layers more often when firing at submarines.

-Also for the torpedoes, I've imported the ASuW Safety feature from LWAMI 4.xx. The safety is set by default, meaning the weapon will not engage surface ships or any surfaced submarines. When you want to disable the safety for use against surface ships, set the ceiling to 60ft or less (18m or less when on an PLAN or Russian vessel) and the torpedo will home on surface targets, although it is recommended you set the ceiling more shallow than this if you want to engage surface targets because the ceiling still acts as a hardcap on torpedo depth control in this version. The AI will utilize the safety when firing at submarines, although this is not always the case, particularly if the submarine is shallow.

-I've also updated the freighter dimensions like I should have some time ago and also fixed the fast infiltration craft so they no longer fly and do other random things, although as part of the fix, I had to remove their sound vs. speed curves, so they are perpetually very loud. I had no way around this unfortunately.

Cheers,
David

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

-I've added variable decoy logic to the most advanced sea-skimmers in the game, to make chaff 50% less effective for these missiles than for other missiles. The missiles improved by this change are the SLAM-ER, TASM, Harpoon, and SS-N-25.

Quick question: Why is the Stage 2 SS-N-27 not on this list? Go by modernity, and it is more modern than the -25 and all the others. Go by stereotypical Russian electronic delay, and the -27 is still newer than the -25 and bigger so if the -25 passed so would the -27.

[LuftWolf]

Preference has been given to slower missiles because more of their mass is guidance and sensors than on supersonic missiles (I think), and because I happen to believe that it is easier for a missile to track a warship moving at 500kts rather than 1200kts.

Also, the SS-N-27 is already mighty powerful, even more so now that the engagement range of the first stage has been reduced for radar guided missiles.

The attempt here is to bring slow, low flying missiles into line with their reported real world effectiveness, and one of those ways is to make them harder to decoy, as this is necessarily a key design feature of slower missiles, since they have to compensate for the increased exposure time during their incoming flight.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

I have finished work on the Mk60 CAPTOR mine!

The weapon replaces the 1000lbs mine on the player and AI P-3.

The mine is an encapsulated MK46 torpedo with a passive sensor equivalent to a VLAD buoy with poor bearing acquity at ranges over 3nm. When the mine is dropped from the P-3 the TACCO selects between four depth selections: surface-90ft, shallow-400ft, deep-1000ft, or bottom, which places the mine on the bottom of the ocean (max depth 3000ft).

When the mine detects a valid target, it switches on its active sensor, depending on the target and acoustics this will occur for the very loudest targets between 3-4nm. If the target is within 4000m, the weapon will fire the Mk46 torpedo and shutdown. If it the target is outside the 4000m range, it will remain in active mode waiting for a valid target to come within its range.

How does the mine distringuish valid targets? My research tells me this mine is a very sophisticated piece of hardware capable of distinguishing sonar signatures. I assume that these weapons are uploaded with appropriate target profiles prior to mission deployment, thus preventing friendly and neutral fire. So, in game, the mine will not fire against any targets but HOSTILE SUBMARINES, it will NOT fire against neutral or friendly submarines, or any surface vessels.

The information about this weapon is very specific that it has these capabilities, so have fun with this one, because it really does seem to exist!

I've also corrected the common mine doctrine used by all the mines in the game to correct for the meters-feet misconversion in the stock game. The mines will now actually go to the depths in indicated in the manual. So for example, when you use the 2000lbs mine on the P-3, the depths will now actually be Surface, 82ft, 436ft, and the real bottom depth when you make your selections in the TACCO interface.

I've got a few more things I'm working on, so I'll either have 3.06 out today or tomorrow. Perhaps I'll do a pre-release for people who want to do some testing of the new features for me, I'd rather have all the bugs caught before release this time. ;) :up:

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

I have finished work on the Mk60 CAPTOR mine!

The weapon replaces the 1000lbs mine on the player and AI P-3.

The mine is an encapsulated MK46 torpedo with a passive sensor equivalent to a VLAD buoy with poor bearing acquity at ranges over 3nm. When the mine is dropped from the P-3 the TACCO selects between four depth selections: surface-90ft, shallow-400ft, deep-1000ft, or bottom, which places the mine on the bottom of the ocean (max depth 3000ft).

When the mine detects a valid target, it switches on its active sensor, depending on the target and acoustics. If the target is within 4000m, the weapon will fire the Mk46 torpedo and shutdown. If it the target is outside the 4000m range, it will remain in active mode waiting for a valid target to come within its range.

How does the mine distringuish valid targets? My research tells me this mine is a very sophisticated piece of hardware capable of distinguishing sonar signatures. I assume that these weapons are uploaded with appropriate target profiles prior to mission deployment, thus preventing friendly and neutral fire. So, in game, the mine will not fire against any targets but HOSTILE SUBMARINES, it will NOT fire against neutral or friendly submarines, or any surface vessels.

The information about this weapon is very specific that it has these capabilities, so have fun with this one, because it really does seem to exist!

I've also corrected the common mine doctrine used by all the mines in the game to correct for the meters-feet misconversion in the stock game. The mines will now actually go to the depths in indicated in the manual. So for example, when you use the 2000lbs mine on the P-3, the depths will now actually be Surface, 82ft, 436ft, and the real bottom depth when you make your selections in the TACCO interface.

I've got a few more things I'm working on, so I'll either have 3.06 out today or tomorrow. Perhaps I'll do a pre-release for people who want to do some testing of the new features for me, I'd rather have all the bugs caught before release this time. ;) :up:

Cheers,
David

Hold on a sec, how are you defining 'hostile' here? Is is about the sonar profile or on how the sides and allliances are set? Don't forget that the sides of platforms and the alliances of the sides can change during the course of a mission.

[LuftWolf]

It's based on the settings of sides and alliances.

This is the only way to do it, and it's ultimately a limitation of the game engine.

If you're not happy with this, then I can set it to fire at any submerged contact. It's easy to change, however, probably a less accurate modeling of the weapon for most circumstances.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Nah, better allliances than nothing.

Are you sure there are no other alternatives?
I guess the lack of presets for the mines doesn't help...

[LuftWolf]

Nah, better allliances than nothing.

Are you sure there are no other alternatives?
I guess the lack of presets for the mines doesn't help...

Ok cool. Good, I'm honestly glad that's not too abhorrent. :)

There aren't really any alternatives. The alliance system is a basic feature of the game, and just about everything related to sensors, contacts, and weapons is dependant upon it, so there isn't any other way to do what it does in the engine, its function is unique and necessary.

Now what should I do next? Any requests? :cool:

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

For those of you who would like to try these features out, here is a pre-release with all the features listed above:

[link removed, see below for the most current version]

Please let me know what you think or if you find any bugs, etc.!

Cheers,
David

PS To install, unzip to your main DW directory over 3.05. To uninstall, unzip 3.05 over again to your DW directory, and then unzip QuickFixII to your database folder, and then delete your uncompressed models again in the Graphics folder if you like to keep your folders tiddy... or if you use JSGME you can set it up for the mod enabler. Let me know if you need help doing this, as it is much easier than unzipping right your main folders.

[LuftWolf]

Oh, BTW, the RBU's *look* kind of ugly when they work on occasion, but they work just fine. That is due to the somewhat inconsistent way the DW doctrine interpretor reads the missile commands in the doctrine, and the fact that the RBU stock model is not properly aligned with the way the physics engine interprets the orientation of the object.

Keep in mind, I had to build them from scratch, so I can always come back to them later with a more sophisticated approach.

Cheers,
David

PS The best way to test them is to attack an "engage" trigger specifying the RBU's to the first waypoint of an RBU equipped vessel and place a submarine moving at about 15 knots about 2.5-3nm in front of the platform. Just set it up and let it run and the ship should attack within about 5 minutes or so.

[LuftWolf]

I've changed the way the mines function when they are ordered to bottom or are set to a depth lower than the depth of the ocean floor to ensure they settle on the bottom properly rather than fall through the ocean floor and disable themselves.

[link removed, see below for current version]


Thanks for trying it out!

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Just tried out the CAPTOR. I couldn't get it to work on one of Beer's maps. There's nothing wiggy with the alliances or sides there, BUT both sides have peacetime ROE set. So there's another thing to look out for. (So don't use these in missions that start at peacetime and go to wartime)

But then I tried it on another mission...and it was absolutely vicious. The poor akula walked into one, and then when the first mine was triggered, the akula speed up and got within range of about 4 others before he got the boat turned around...well actually he never did get the boat turned around. The first one hit him quick!

I still have some misgivings about the extent of the classification. Even a VLAD wouldn't have had more than two dots on this guy...so really, it should have fired on a Traffie too. It's a fun toy though!


EDIT: possible problems. I tried doing this again from the bubblehead's point of view by creating a minefield in the mission editor. Three problems: First, when you said "active sensor" you weren't kidding. The whole minefield lit up the active intercept with continuous 0hz pings (EDIT #2. 0hz pings occurs when there is a crapload of them...blame DW. A single mine is at 10250 or something like that. In 2 tests, the ping was continuous--no interval. In 1 test, the ping was continuous until about the 2 mile point and then was at 12-13 second intervals). So there's some weirdness here that we shoudl try to figure out. Also, I have to question the usefulness of a minefield that broadcasts its presence...and beyond that, if it stays, the AI doctrine will need a new avoidance component.

Second, the mines do not appear on HF sonar.

Third, the mine I drove toward dissapeared without spawning a torpedo. (occuring in both water deeper than 3000ft and shallower)

[XabbaRus]

I like how the RBU works. I think it originally was created as a ballistic weapon cos in teh dbase it comes under "Shell" as its type. That is why the graphics never showed up.

Good work Luft. Now I am wondering though if you could make the missile use the same graphic as the RBU itself.

Also the RBU can be fired in different salvos? any chance of that being implemented.?

To see eight RBU's fired in a salvo to bracket a sub would be really cool.

[Molon Labe]

The RBU seems like it's even more effective than air dropped depth charges.

The worst I ever got hit by a depth charge, even nice and close, was maybe 40%. These things are kiling me outright without even looking close at all. Just close enough to see the explosion underwater in 3D.

The most irritating thing is that it's killing the sub without registering any damage or hit at all. 0% damage indicated, but she still goes down.

[LuftWolf]

Good news all around regarding the RBU's. :up:

@Xabba, in terms of the graphics, the reason I used the mistral sam graphics for the first stage was because the RBU model itself has the wrong orientation completely-- it flys standing straight up with the missile jet coming out the bottom at a 90 degree angle!!! :huh:

Also, bracketed salvoes are not possible, because the weapon now follows the Sim constraints common for all missiles.

In regards to the CAPTOR mine, I'm not surprised about the active sonar problems... the Sim doesn't expect mines to be using active sonar! So I'm probably going to have to remove the active sensor altogether and just assume the mine uses some kind of distributed WAA-like array to get range resolution (not unplausible for such small ranges when all you need is the general range of the contact).

In regards to the mines dissapearing without spawning a torpedo, I just have to set the shutdown timer at a bit longer... sometimes there is delay between when the doctrine command line runs and when the weapon fires. I just have to be sure to shut it down before the torpedo comes back around and hits the mine!

About the Active sonar issue, I have no idea at all. I haven't changed anything that would effect that, so I'll go back and see if the stock 1000lbs mine shows up and if it doesn't then the mines just won't show up, but if it does, I'll see what I did to break the detections.

Ok, so I'm going to do a passive-only version of the CAPTOR and look at the HF sonar issues and repost a new version soon.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

I love it when a plan comes together.

[Molon Labe]

Okay, so I switched back to the stock DB.

The 1000lb mine is visible....at a range of about 2000 yds. Which is (usually) less than the range the CAPTOR engages/dissapears at. So that mystery is solved.

This is the same range as for the Moored Influence Mine.

[LuftWolf]

Good news about the HF sonar, thanks for confirming that for me. :up:

Ok, I've set the shutdown timer for the weapon to be a bit longer and removed the active sonar from the CAPTOR, so it now functions exactly as described above, only without the active pinging upon detection. The weapon will now give no warning other than its small HF signature before it fires... can you say "lethal" boys and girls?

Also, I've put in a few checks to make sure the CAPTOR and other mines never exceed their maximum operating depths. If they are set to be on the bottom in a very deep part of the ocean, for example, the mines will only decend to their maximum depths, 3000ft for the CAPTOR and a bit deeper than 1100ft for the 2000lbs ASW Mine.

Here is the link: [link removed, see below for current version]

Let me know what you find!

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Good news about the HF sonar, thanks for confirming that for me. :up:

Ok, I've removed the active sonar from the CAPTOR, so it now functions exactly as described above, only without the active pinging upon detection. The weapon will now give no warning other than its small HF signature before it fires... can you say "lethal" boys and girls?

Also, I've put in a few checks to make sure the CAPTOR and other mines never exceed their maximum operating depths. If they are set to be on the bottom in a very deep part of the ocean, for example, the mines will only decend to their maximum depths, 3000ft for the CAPTOR and a bit over 1100ft for the 2000lbs ASW Mine.

Here is the link: www.commanders-academy.com/luftwolf/LWAMI_v306_ALPHA_03.zip (http://www.commanders-academy.com/luftwolf/LWAMI_v306_ALPHA_03.zip)

Let me know what you find!

Cheers,
David
I thought the CAPTOR needed to be moored to the bottom to function, so only worked in water as deep as 3000ft. I suppose that's not the only interpretation, though.

[LuftWolf]

I've been trying out the CAPTOR fixes, and it's silky smooth. I'm pretty happy. [resounding slap on own back]

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

I thought the CAPTOR needed to be moored to the bottom to function, so only worked in water as deep as 3000ft. I suppose that's not the only interpretation, though.

Given the fact that the sensor array for such a weapon almost certainly has multiple depth settings, I think it's important to carry this capability into DW because of the strength of the layer effect in DW 1.03+.

Plus, it's just TOO damn hot the way it is right now. :|\\ :cool:

Cheers,
David

PS Oh, I just understood your point. I suppose I could have the weapon simply shutdown if used in water deeper than 3000ft, however, I don't think this is necessarily accurate for a number of reasons.

[Molon Labe]

Good news about the HF sonar, thanks for confirming that for me. :up:

Ok, I've set the shutdown timer for the weapon to be a bit longer and removed the active sonar from the CAPTOR, so it now functions exactly as described above, only without the active pinging upon detection. The weapon will now give no warning other than its small HF signature before it fires... can you say "lethal" boys and girls?



It fires before anything shows up on the HF. At least in a 688I anyways.

I'm not sure I want to make shooting distance smaller than that though. In this test, I managed to get away b/c I was outside of the acquisition range of the torp seeker when it fired. =) It still headed my way when it picked up a decoy, but it was much easier to handle in a tail chase than it would have been head-on.

Although, if you wanted to set it up such that you get adequate warning on HF (if you're paying attention of course) before it fires, but that its going to be lethal if it fires, I'm cool with that too. A shorter shooting range might do that...so might increasing the active SL while switching the mk46 from circle to snake.

Just as long as outcomes don't become coin tosses with these. ;)

[LuftWolf]

The active SL is going to stay where it's at for consistency with other mines, at least for now.

In terms of changing the torpedo search mode from circle to snake, I like that idea, and it would work very well for the ranges the mine is set for.

I don't want to reduce the firing range too much, since I want the user to be able to place the weapons with a reasonable spread and still know they are going to fire. I think a bit under 4nm with a little overlap is a good spread range for these weapons when laid in a field. With these parameters, a single P-3 can still lay an effective barrier that isn't unreasonably large or small.

Cheers,
David

PS I'm also going to try to tackle the TIW message for missile launch tonight. A nice side effect of this change is that I can make A/C's and helos detectable on sonar again, yippie!

[Molon Labe]

The active SL is going to stay where it's at for consistency with other mines, at least for now.

In terms of changing the torpedo search mode from circle to snake, I like that idea, and it would work very well for the ranges the mine is set for.

I don't want to reduce the firing range too much, since I want the user to be able to place the weapons with a reasonable spread and still know they are going to fire. I think a bit under 4nm with a little overlap is a good spread range for these weapons when laid in a field. With these parameters, a single P-3 can still lay an effective barrier that isn't unreasonably large or small.

Cheers,
David

PS I'm also going to try to tackle the TIW message for missile launch tonight. A nice side effect of this change is that I can make A/C's and helos detectable on sonar again, yippie!

Well, the shooting ranges I'm getting in testing are closer to <1nm as is.
I wouldn't go to a snake unless there is some way to detect these things prior to firing. That would be the coin-toss situation I think we should avoid.

[LuftWolf]

Well, I've set the Mk46 Torpedo payload for the CAPTOR to use a snake pattern.

Here is the updated ALPHA test:

[link removed, see below for current version]

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Well, it seems I've been able to add verbal TIW messages for underwater missile launches.

Ludger's new editor allows us to edit a parameter that was previously locked, and so I can get the Sim to do it by itself without any extra mechanics.

Since I've done the fix in a different way than I thought, I couldn't make the A/C's and helos detectable on sonar, but we've lived this long. :)

I just have to check each missile type to make sure it works before I pronounce it done, but I've got a good feeling.

Cheers,
David

[XabbaRus]

Active sonar ping on the CAPTOR should work. AFAIK the CAPTOR in SCX had it and it worked fine so I don't think it is the game engine getting confused because the mine has an active sonar attached.

[LuftWolf]

It really isn't working properly, Molon confirmed it. The Sim just isn't registering the pings correctly on Active Intercept.

In terms of the SCX CAPTOR, Thomas set it so the weapon does one ping and then fires its torpedo and shuts down. I've set it so the torpedo fires in the direction of the target and enables immediately, so the effect is practically the same, although it's not an all-aspect ping, although I'm not sure why that feature would be necessary.

I'm sure Thomas had some inside line, but I can't get it to work properly and the function is essentially the same, so I don't think it's necessary.

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

Tested the AUUV and its not functioning as flagged-up.
Perhaps it has not been fully implemented yet in LWAMI.v 3.06. Alpha 01 ?
Maybe I did something wrong with my install but the partial working suggests not.

Speed control:
Click 1 - Stops as specified.
Click 2 - 6 knots (5 shown in Nav 'Truth')
Click 3 - No change.
Click 4 - Stops.
Click 5 - 6 knots.

Depth Control:
Click 1 - Nothing as specified.
Click 2 - Goes to preset depth but immediately returns and cycles launch/preset depths.
Click 3 - Cycles as 2.
Click 4 - Launch depth as specified.

Depths and speeds checked with SW running in formation.
Each function tested seperately on a UUV with no mixed or combined control requests ie.
Only speed changes or depth changes per UUV test run.

PM me if any copy files are required to confirm I have'nt screwed things up.
PS. I had Amis ATC functioning correctly on another installation.

[Dr.Sid]

Why does not CAPTOR fire as soon as it detects the target ? With snake pattern I mean. That would give enough time to react ..
Why does it need active ? Is it raelism option ? Or is it to limit CAPTOR attack range ?

[LuftWolf]

Why does not CAPTOR fire as soon as it detects the target ? With snake pattern I mean. That would give enough time to react ..
Why does it need active ? Is it raelism option ? Or is it to limit CAPTOR attack range ?

Well, the long and the short of it is that we really don't know how this weapon works, so I've modelled it to be about as effective as I would suspect that it would be, in the context of DW.

Since it's done from scratch, there might be future tweaking that needs to be done.

@ Bellman, I just tested the UUV on my machine and it works fine. It's the same doctrine from last june, so it's pretty well vetted up to this point.

Try this new version.

For this version, I have enabled TIW messages for underwater missile launches and corrected the search speed of the APR to 40kts, as I guess I had previously forgot to save that change when it was my intention to do it originally.

Here is the link: [link removed, see below for final pre-release version!]

Let me know what you find!

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

AUUV Alpha_05

Speed control now perfect thanks. :rock:

Problems persisit with depth control:
Tested SW Launch 495 ft Preset 200 ft

Click 1 - 'Nothing'
Click 2 - Climbs to preset but immediately dives back down to launch depth and cycles between both depths.
Click 3 - Initiated when UUV at 200 ft - climbs to 90 ft but immediately returns to 200 ft and then dives to launch depth. Cycles.
Click 4 - Initiated when UUV at preset - dives deeper than launch then climbs to launch and cycles.
Click 5 - Resets.

[LuftWolf]

AUUV Alpha_05

Speed control now perfect thanks. :rock:

Problems persisit with depth control:
Tested SW Launch 495 ft Preset 200 ft

Click 1 - 'Nothing'
Click 2 - Climbs to preset but immediately dives back down to launch depth and cycles between both depths.
Click 3 - Initiated when UUV at 200 ft - climbs to 90 ft but immediately returns to 200 ft and then dives to launch depth. Cycles.
Click 4 - Initiated when UUV at preset - dives deeper than launch then climbs to launch and cycles.
Click 5 - Resets.

I can't reproduce this on my machine at all. :-?

Be sure you don't click the button more than once every second.

Like I said, this is the exact same doctrine from the LWAMI 4.xx playtest from back in July, so if it worked for you then, it should still work now...

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

I'm pretty used to the 'advanced' clicking technique by now after ATC, and it works ok for A05s 'enable' speed control - one definite click, in testing, then wait and observe results. New APR fine so it looks as if its just the UUV depth control is screwed (at my end !)...strange. :hmm:

I installed Alpha_05 over 3.06 Alpha 01 which had itself been installed over 3.05 with
Quickfix 2 :arrgh!: For now I'll just settle for speed control ! But thanks anyway.

[Molon Labe]

I just got a TIW when the 2nd stage of a -27 ASM lit off.

UUV speed and depth controls are working as expected.

[Bellman]

AUUV Not entirely working as expected.

I solved the problem - the above depth tests were carried out with the UUV at 4 kts -
now when I run her at 12 knts everything does indeed work as flagged.

Try it you can replicate the low speed anomaly. Its no great problem unless, as should be expected, the increased speed means higher dectability.

[LuftWolf]

I just got a TIW when the 2nd stage of a -27 ASM lit off.

UUV speed and depth controls are working as expected.

That is from the first stage hitting the water, before it disables.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

AUUV Not entirely working as expected.

I solved the problem - the above depth tests were carried out with the UUV at 4 kts -
now when I run her at 12 knts everything does indeed work as flagged.

Try it you can replicate the low speed anomaly. Its no great problem unless, as should be expected, the increased speed means higher dectability.

Perhaps, I've never actually tested it at 4kts. :oops:

Yep, I confirmed it, indeed it is unstable at 4kts.

There is nothing in the doctrine that would cause this... so I assume it has something to do with the Enable button and Preenable button in the interface. Thanks for finding this (you are going to finally get a testing credit with Molon and TLAM in the readme, BTW :) ), I'll be sure to note in the readme that "the UUV has a depth oscillation function, which is an unsupported feature, when left at 4kts, which allows it to automatically search between the preset depths." :cool:

That's called spin... :yep:

Ok, I've got some database trimming to do, then the readme, then the distributions, and it would appear I'm ready to go live with LWAMI 3.06!

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

I just got a TIW when the 2nd stage of a -27 ASM lit off.

UUV speed and depth controls are working as expected.

That is from the first stage hitting the water, before it disables.

Cheers,
David

It's unavoidable, but you guys should know that you will get TIW messages for any missiles that hit the water.

Hey, it's loud, and sounds like a missile in the water, so your sonar operator will call it out just in case... future tweaking of course may be necessary, as always, but HEY we've got FREAKIN' TIW messages for underwater missile launches!!! :rock:

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

LW: ''Thats called spin'' or as we used to call it '' benefits outa bu***r-all ''

Seriously tho it could be useful to have her oscillate above and below a strong layer without the need to micromanage the controls. (See what I mean ;))

You know from a long time ago my enthusiasm for UUV changes and now David I can tell you this is now a peach ! Thanks again. :|\\

[LuftWolf]

I just got a TIW when the 2nd stage of a -27 ASM lit off.

UUV speed and depth controls are working as expected.

That is from the first stage hitting the water, before it disables.

Cheers,
David

It's unavoidable, but you guys should know that you will get TIW messages for any missiles that hit the water.

Hey, it's loud, and sounds like a missile in the water, so your sonar operator will call it out just in case... future tweaking of course may be necessary, as always, but HEY we've got FREAKIN' TIW messages for underwater missile launches!!! :rock:

Cheers,
David

I'm going to do some small adjustments to the sonars (lower their max detectional alt to exactly 0ft... they still work fine, I'm paranoid about changing ALL the sonars but nothing in a year of being reluctant to make this change has told me not too other than the inherent relucance to do it) so a few of the extra TIW messages should be taken away (for example if a missile is flying very low right before it hits the ship and is skimming just off the surface).

@ Bellman, let me know what you think of the UUV sensor sensitivity... again, it's exactly the same as it was back in july, after the last of the feedback intiated changes, I seem to remember you were happy. :yep: :)

I'm personally most excited about the RBU's, CAPTOR, and TIW messages, because they have unquestionably been on the list the longest, since at least October 2005. :sunny:

Cheers,
David

[Dr.Sid]

Well, the long and the short of it is that we really don't know how this weapon works, so I've modelled it to be about as effective as I would suspect that it would be, in the context of DW.

Since it's done from scratch, there might be future tweaking that needs to be done.


It seems to me that active sonar on CAPTOR just brings troubles .. why did you put it there in the first place ?

[LuftWolf]

Well, the long and the short of it is that we really don't know how this weapon works, so I've modelled it to be about as effective as I would suspect that it would be, in the context of DW.

Since it's done from scratch, there might be future tweaking that needs to be done.


It seems to me that active sonar on CAPTOR just brings troubles .. why did you put it there in the first place ?

You are absolutely right. :up:

Do you want to know the real reason? Because it was on the CAPTOR in SCX and I thought importing the basic features of that weapon was a good place to start. :)

It really works well now in DW without it, at least in my testing.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Ok, here is the finalized LWAMI 3.06 Database and Doctrines, the only thing missing is the readme update, which I'm going to begin working on shortly, as well as the official distributions. This time, I'm going to provide an official distribution without the models for those of you who already have 3.05, since there no graphics updates since the last version.

All of the changes over the ALPHA_05 version are internal: added ESM and radar to aircraft and helos that were lacking them (and there were many, about 35%); lowered the sonar detection altitude to 0ft exactly to prevent extraneous TIW messages from very low flying missiles (and because it was unnecessary to have it set at 10ft, where I had it set previously); I've changed the submarine thrusts so the nukes can now come to proper stops (the reason they had been changed is no longer an issue).

Here is the link for the file: www.commanders-academy.com/luftwolf/LWAMI_v306_PRE_RELEASE.zip (http://www.commanders-academy.com/luftwolf/LWAMI_v306_PRE_RELEASE.zip)

Find a bug before I post the official version and win a prize! :up:

Honest gypsy. :|\\

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Are you at all concerned about the occasional buggy missile behavior where they cartwheel into the water and whatnot?

[LuftWolf]

Are you at all concerned about the occasional buggy missile behavior where they cartwheel into the water and whatnot?

When would this be?

[LuftWolf]

[ conversation finished in chat ]

Oh, not with the missiles I changed. :)

I'll look at the SM-2 and the Guided doctrine in an upcoming version, but I'm almost certain the SM-2 issues are related to the Interface and the way it handles the Fire Control Radar.

[LuftWolf]

Hey, it's worth noting that even though I list the above file as the "final" database, etc. I may still make some changes, so be sure to download the "official" version as well when we release it!

Cheers,
David

[Dr.Sid]

Slow down Luftwolf ! How can I test something when you post new version before I even install those old ones :rotfl:

[XabbaRus]

Just looked in SCX at the CAPTOR and at LWAMI and trying to figure out why it doesn't ping...hmmm odd.

[LuftWolf]

I guess that SC was a bit more friendly when it came to sensor-related things the Sim is not expecting.

In DW, how the active sonars perform in game (like which ping sound is played) is determined by what type of object it is (i'm sure it was the same in SC), but in this case DW is simply not expecting a mine to be using active sonar, so it doesn't really work.

Or it could just be that Thomas shut down the mine right away after the first ping and the issue never came up even though everything else was the same between SC and DW.

Cheers,
David

[XabbaRus]

I looked at Thomas's doctrine for the CAPTOR and compared it to yours and his is dead simple.

only a few lines.

I replaced your doctrine with the SCX one and the CAPTOR pings like crazy but won't release the torp.

Anyway if you have got it working then that is fine.

Oh BTW fixed your RBU facing the wrong way thing, infact made a whole new RBU rocket. Since the RBU acts like an ASW missile and releases a torp I took the liberty of making an RBU missile and a seperate warhead for it to release.

I'll paint it and send it ready for your next BIG evolution.

[Molon Labe]

[ conversation finished in chat ]

Oh, not with the missiles I changed. :)

I'll look at the SM-2 and the Guided doctrine in an upcoming version, but I'm almost certain the SM-2 issues are related to the Interface and the way it handles the Fire Control Radar.

You know, I can't even be sure that this is something that occurs in modded games anyways. I suspect that the reason many SM-2s skip off the water is that their intercept path actually goes through the water. When you fixed the error in DW that allowed the FCR's to paint a target beneath the horizon, you might have solved this problem too. I'm just not sure one way or another.

[LuftWolf]

Oh BTW fixed your RBU facing the wrong way thing, infact made a whole new RBU rocket. Since the RBU acts like an ASW missile and releases a torp I took the liberty of making an RBU missile and a seperate warhead for it to release.

I'll paint it and send it ready for your next BIG evolution.

Thanks! :)

You know, I can't even be sure that this is something that occurs in modded games anyways. I suspect that the reason many SM-2s skip off the water is that their intercept path actually goes through the water. When you fixed the error in DW that allowed the FCR's to paint a target beneath the horizon, you might have solved this problem too. I'm just not sure one way or another.

Well, hopefully we'll find out whether it happens in modded games very soon.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Slow down Luftwolf ! How can I test something when you post new version before I even install those old ones :rotfl:

Yeah, sometimes I do feel like I make too many versions at once... fleets don't like it when I make three versions in five days. :oops:

Sorry about that. :up: :)

Cheers,
David

[Bill Nichols]

Slow down Luftwolf ! How can I test something when you post new version before I even install those old ones :rotfl:

Yeah, sometimes I do feel like I make too many versions at once... fleets don't like it when I make three versions in five days. :oops:

Sorry about that. :up: :)

Cheers,
David

Nor do I enjoy posting three different versions in five days ;)
However, I appreciate the work you are doing and look forward to the next 'stable' release :up:

[LuftWolf]

Ok, I just have to correct the props on the Oscar II and Foxtrot models and finish the readme and LWAMI 3.06 will be ready to go.

This time OneShot is doing an installer for me, and a new splash screen so we've got some eye-candy this time.

I'm also going to release "files-only" version of the mod without the included models for those of you who already have the models and prefer to simply copy the necessary Database and Doctine files, as well as release the model pack separately so you don't have to download all 8 megs over again.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Have you ever noticed in FFG duels that the SM-2 can't be shot down? Which sorta sucks because missiles that the FCR's can paint go faster than the SM-2.

Would enabling the SSM flag fix this?

[LuftWolf]

The only missiles that are valid targets for the SM-2, that go faster than the SM-2 are the size of small private aircraft. :)

AS-4 Kitchen- ~2200 kts max speed, mass ~7 tons.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/ru_monino_missile_cruise_as-4_01.jpg

Standard Missile-2, max speed ~1900kts, mass ~.07-1.5tons (whether depends on ER enabling or not).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/sm2-dvic459.jpg

Cheers,
David

[sonar732]

Wow...with a combined speed of 4100kts, the SM-2 could take out the AS-4 Kitchen just by kinetic force if it hit the missile.:o:o:o

[LuftWolf]

The real question is why are the Russians leaving their Backfires parked with their AS-4's rusting to the rails...?

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Wow...with a combined speed of 4100kts, the SM-2 could take out the AS-4 Kitchen just by kinetic force if it hit the missile.:o:o:o

Now if DW would only send the missile on a proper lead pursuit intercept...

[LuftWolf]

DW's physics engine has to be able to do all aspects of the battlespace, so its tough to do accurate tradjectories of very fast objects AND buoyancy modeling in the same engine. :)

Also, collision detection is very processor intensive, so its an issue of resource conservation, and given the resource intensive acoustics engine, this seems to be a sensible trade off.

Cheers,
David