Array swivel.

[Bellman]

My line of enquirey elsewhere (TG) has made me wonder whether it could be possible to make some azimuth/elevation
changes underway to the passive sensor arcs by moving the SA within its housing.
A technique incorporated in military aircraft radar with very obvious tactical advantages.

Furthermore should we suppose that the Conf is limited in a coverage arc only centered around 270 and 90 deg ?
Why should it not be centred around 220 and 140 or alternatively angled back resulting in a sensor arc extending
sternwards. In fact why place the Conf. amidships at all where it will be in the main slipstream turbulence area ?

[XabbaRus]

The spherical array is just that a sphere so you don't need to move the array like a radar in a fighter.

[SeaQueen]

My line of enquirey elsewhere (TG) has made me wonder whether it could be possible to make some azimuth/elevation changes underway to the passive sensor arcs by moving the SA within its housing.

WWI and II sonar domes did rotate. Now a days, because sonar arrays are composed of hundreds of transducers, the array's beam pattern can be altered by electronically adjusting the phases of the signals generated by each transducer. In this sense, sonars are very similar to phased-array radars, where the antenna doesn't physically have to move for the beam pattern to move.



Furthermore should we suppose that the Conf is limited in a coverage arc only centered around 270 and 90 deg ?
Why should it not be centred around 220 and 140 or alternatively angled back resulting in a sensor arc extending
sternwards. In fact why place the Conf. amidships at all where it will be in the main slipstream turbulence area ?

I'm not sure what you're referring to as the Conf. I think I might be able to answer your question, though.

[Bellman]

SQ.

So the beam can be swiveled electronically but the physical limits of the array set the outer limits or parameters.

Presumably then the conformal or hull (Conf) arrays also have this same capacity ?

[SeaQueen]

SQ.
So the beam can be swiveled electronically but the physical limits of the array set the outer limits or parameters.


True, provided what you're thinking of as the physical limits of the array are what I'm thinking of as the physical limits of the array. To me, this also includes things like self noise. The shape of the array ultimately is what determines the beam pattern. Then, through various ways of adjusting the phase of the signals coming from the individual hydrophones in that array, you can engage in further "shaping" of the beam pattern. The technique is actually most useful in active sonar, although it's good for passive sonar too, especially for determining bearings.

In sonar, there's actually a single number used to characterize the ability of a sonar array to discriminate the directionality of a signal. It's called the directivity index (DI). It's dependent on the array beam pattern.


Presumably then the conformal or hull (Conf) arrays also have this same capacity ?

True. In fact, the ability to precisely shape the beam pattern of sonar arrays is what allows the Wide Aperture Array (WAA) to determine the range of a target with some reasonable accuracy. The beam pattern isl limited by their shape, though. The fact that arrays are basically big, flat, rectangles dictates a lot of their directionality, but within that you can make a lot of adjustments.

It's just like any antenna, really.

[XabbaRus]

I thought they did use beam forming on the passive spherical transducers.

Is that similar to how it is done on an active phased array radar?

I have always wondered how a WAA array works.

[Bellman]

SQ. Thanks.
To me as a layman, then the sonar operation you describe could be compared to shining a light
upwards/downwards and to the sides. Focusing the beam of attention (so to speak)
both for passive and active functionality.

So if you were in a heavy traffic situation and making a turn to starboard for instance into a baffled area
the sonar operator would focus the beam tp its maximum starboard extent ? Resulting in a withdrawal
of the beam from its existing port limits ?

In order then to make up for this loss the port conformal array/s(or some of them) may be turned to the prow ?
And of course to assist the starboard looking SA the starboard conformal could be 'focused' to
a proportional and ballancing prow extent ?

If this is the case then I take my hat off to those guys and it stirs up a lot of other questions on the limits
of baffles and the tactical implications. The baffled areas would appear then to become constantly variable .
I need to sleep on this. :hmm:

[SeaQueen]

SQ. Thanks.
To me as a layman, then the sonar operation you describe could be compared to shining a light
upwards/downwards and to the sides. Focusing the beam of attention (so to speak)
both for passive and active functionality.

Sort of, and just like a flash light, things fade out towards the fringes of a central bright spot. There's also issues like "side lobes" the size and shape of which depend on the array design. The analogy fails, though, because what people mean by "beam pattern" is really "array gain function" which is probably better thought of as the array's tendancy to amplify signals from certain directions, and not pick them up from others.


So if you were in a heavy traffic situation and making a turn to starboard for instance into a baffled area
the sonar operator would focus the beam tp its maximum starboard extent ? Resulting in a withdrawal
of the beam from its existing port limits ?


Not exactly. More likely a computer would rapidly point the beam in all possible directions to insure that everywhere is looked at with equal efficacy and there's no real blind spots.


If this is the case then I take my hat off to those guys and it stirs up a lot of other questions on the limits
of baffles and the tactical implications. The baffled areas would appear then to become constantly variable .
I need to sleep on this. :hmm:

The baffles are constantly changing, but not for the reasons you're thinking of. They're really a region of increased self noise, so while an array pointed in that direction has increased gain, it also has increased self noise, so it doesn't matter that you have a "brighter flashlight" in that area, because, in effect, there's also an awful lot of smoke. You'd just see the smoke better, if that analogy makes sense.

If you really want to get into this stuff there's some really good books on it. Robert J. Urick wrote, Principles of Underwater Sound and Sound Propagation in the Sea. Also, fairly recently, some researchers at SACLANT wrote Computational Ocean Acoustics which I enjoy. It's good stuff.

[Bellman]

:sunny: SQ. I think I see a chink of light and many thanks for that.

When I get through with Wayne Hughes( remember ;) ) I guess I would like to read some more. :up:

[SeaQueen]

:sunny: SQ. I think I see a chink of light and many thanks for that.

When I get through with Wayne Hughes( remember ;) ) I guess I would like to read some more. :up:

How is that going? I'm curious what other people take away from it. The sonar stuff is a lot heavier because it doesn't necessarily rely on simple mathematical models. It relies on some fairly complex ones for people who aren't comfortable solving a partial differential equation here and there. It's worth reading, though, if you want to know about ocean acoustics.

[SeaQueen]

I thought they did use beam forming on the passive spherical transducers.

They do. If I implied otherwise, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply they didn't.


Is that similar to how it is done on an active phased array radar?

I have always wondered how a WAA array works.

Exactly the same idea. It's just setting up an interference pattern and using that to point the beam in whatever direction you want to or doing essentially the reverse and noticing the phase differences between different signals and then using that to determine their direction.

They were actually doing this sort of thing in sonar before they did it in radar. My sense is that the real advance in phased array radars wasn't the idea (which is just antenna theory) but the ability to manufacture panels with lots and lots of tiny microwave antenna on them. I might be wrong on that, though.

[Bellman]

:lol: I'm not strong on mathematical models so progress through some of the theory is leaden.
But topics such as 'Planning with Salvo Equations' can be skipped for a reread - first an overview. :yep:

I like the way he integrates the historical perspective into current theories of naval tactics.
The new stuff, added to his earlier work, on missile implementation, is proving heavy going.
In the broader perspective its an exciting book.

[SeaQueen]

:lol: I'm not strong on mathematical models so progress through some of the theory is leaden.
But topics such as 'Planning with Salvo Equations' can be skipped for a reread - first an overview. :yep:

I like the way he integrates the historical perspective into current theories of naval tactics.
The new stuff, added to his earlier work, on missile implementation, is proving heavy going.
In the broader perspective its an exciting book.

The chapter on "planning with the salvo equations," is the part which will make you a better player at DW, because it will give you an idea of how to balance the number of cruise missiles or torpedos to shoot versus their ability be evaded and their ability to put the target out of action.

The range dependent version he provides is especially instructive, I think, because it's actually very easy, given what we see in the little guide DW provides on the ships and warships in it, and a little bit of experience, to analyze simple scenarios ahead of time in terms of that model, and have a fairly good idea in your head about what the smartest thing (statistically) to do is.

As in all of these questions of operations analysis, what is the smartest thing to do mathematically isn't necessarily the thing that's actually done all the time. That's where leadership is an issue and you start thinking about things like, "these guys aren't totally trained yet," or "we've been at this for 3 days and missing a lot of sleep, can they really pull this off?" But.. ya know.. that's very difficult to capture in any wargame, DW included.

The big thing that he really doesn't cover AT ALL, is search and screening. That's another HUGE topic. It's not easy at all. It's really interesting mathematics, though.

[Bellman]

:) We have wandered off topic into the fringes of your specialisation.
TGIt's pretty rare to see such good tactical/mission design analysis around here. Bravo Zulu.

SQ.Building computer models of naval combat is what I do for a living..........they sent me to school for underwater acoutics, taught me the modeling language, and set me up analyzing all kinds of things.
Bellman.Who will do a TACMAN for Mission Design ?
SQ.....little bit of experience, to analyze simple scenarios ahead of time in terms of that model, and have a fairly good idea in your head about what the smartest thing (statistically) to do is.

Its tempting to invite you to contribute scenario/s and/or a primer for DW scenario designers to demonstrate
some of the theoretical considerations.
I dont see any security issues in such 'playtime' but would sympathise with a desire to escape from work ;)

I think when we discussed Harpoon you felt that much of the same could be implemented in DW scenario design.
Has this 'full' potential been demonstrated yet ?

The game needs someone, like you, to move us on.

[Bellman]

:) SQ. I'll take that as a no then. ;)
No problem. Hope I did'nt press too hard. :roll:

Thanks again for your thoughts on arrays. :|\

[SeaQueen]

Its tempting to invite you to contribute scenario/s and/or a primer for DW scenario designers to demonstrate
some of the theoretical considerations.

I actually have thought about the idea. I'm playing around with some stuff.



I think when we discussed Harpoon you felt that much of the same could be implemented in DW scenario design.
Has this 'full' potential been demonstrated yet ?


Sort of. I don't think DW is Harpoon. They're two different games that look at different things. What I meant was that DW scenarios people design tend to be very one-on-one oriented, while really, they ought to work them around so that you have YOUR one platform and it fits into a larger scenario.

My favorite thing to do, is start off with a single formation of warships, like an ESG, CVBG, or even a small surface action group, then think about that the group is trying to accomplish, and figure out how to give a player on a playable platform a key role in that.

I wish that DW had more support for special operations. In particular, I wish they could deploy SOF and Marines from helocopters. I also wish there were more land-based objects. I think it's important when designing a scenario to remember that events on land usually motivate events at sea, so most events at sea feed into a larger land battle somehow.


The game needs someone, like you, to move us on.

Thank you. I'm actually tossing around some stuff slowly, as I have time. Eventually you might see some stuff.

[Bellman]

:sunny: SQ.

I am delighted that my pitch was not too crude and it is magic to hear-
I actually have thought about the idea. I'm playing around with some stuff......Eventually you might see .......
I am quite excited about the prospect. :|\

Having Harpooned many years I am a little frustrated by attempts to translate Group tactics into scenarios.
The designer tools are flexible and extensive but cumbersome for non-programmers.

I have some thoughts on organising for design which I will post separately, to avoid further pressure ;) :D
I will continue to prepare my 'Yellow Submarine'

[XabbaRus]

Deploying speial forces by helo can be acheived with a fudge of goals and stuff. I guess you don't need to actually see them being deployed just that there is a helicopter doing its thing and a 688i has to take out some SAM batteries for it to succeed.

[Mau]

Yes I remember in Sub Command there was a mission that you had to meet an helicopter and be right under it for a period of 2 minutes or so. At that point the XO onbord the Sub was saying that we had received the team onboard (but yes we didn't see them going down the rope - no big deal)

That would be a great idea of scenario!

[SeaQueen]

Deploying speial forces by helo can be acheived with a fudge of goals and stuff. I guess you don't need to actually see them being deployed just that there is a helicopter doing its thing and a 688i has to take out some SAM batteries for it to succeed.


I know... but it'd make the MH-60 a little bit more fun platform when an infantry squad appeared around you helo after you accomlished whatever it you had to do to deploy them. Or... if you could deploy them like in the submarine, only they'd fast-rope out or somehing.

Similar things could be done with the CH-46 and MV-22.

While we're talking about SAMS... I wish there were more varieties. At least a shoulder-fired v. fixed emplacement. The fixed emplacements you can sometimes avoid by ESM. The shoulder fired ones just jump out of nowhere. If someone could put a shoulder-fired SAM in a scenario, it'd make it a little more versatile in terms of the types of scenarios one could represent, because NOT everyone in the world has heavy duty fixed SAM emplacements. LOTS of people have shoulder fired SA-7s, SA-14s, RPGs, etc...

[SeaQueen]

Having Harpooned many years I am a little frustrated by attempts to translate Group tactics into scenarios.
The designer tools are flexible and extensive but cumbersome for non-programmers.

In DW? I can see that, but the thing I like about DW is that it has a programming language like way of doing things like determining victory conditions and the behaviors of elements in the game. One of the things I dislike about Harpoon is that it's often hard to develop nuanced victory conditions or behaviors. That's one of the strengths of DW. As far as naval simulations go, I think they're uniquely complimentary.

I have some thoughts on organising for design which I will post separately, to avoid further pressure ;) :D[.quote]

I'd like to see them.

[quote]I will continue to prepare my 'Yellow Submarine'

One of these days I'll figure out how to get into a network game. I'd probably have fun. The thing is, the way I play is kind of boring to most people because I'll set up a scenario where it's not impossible for it to go for a few days and nobody's found a thing yet.

I'm sort of a search theory / acoustics geek. Koopman was a great mathematican, but making real-time wargames based on search theory problems makes for games which require a great deal of patience to play. Most people just want to start shooting at each other. FINDING each other is a problem they don't want to cope with. Unfortunately, I think they're missing one of the central issues of war at sea: hours and hours and hours of boredom followed by a few seconds of exchanging weapons.

[goldorak]

I'm sort of a search theory / acoustics geek. Koopman was a great mathematican, but making real-time wargames based on search theory problems makes for games which require a great deal of patience to play. Most people just want to start shooting at each other. FINDING each other is a problem they don't want to cope with. Unfortunately, I think they're missing one of the central issues of war at sea: hours and hours and hours of boredom followed by a few seconds of exchanging weapons.


Don't forget that after all is said and done DW remains a game.
You seriously can't expect to have scenarios that run for many hours or days and have people to play with in multiplayer online.
I like simulations, play regularly Falcon 4 AF, DW, Orbiter but I also work during the week, so its impossibile to play scenarios that take days to complete.
A good scenario can take 2 hours, that is enough time to track a target, get a solution, fire, evade etc...
That doesn't mean that we are looking for Doom 3 alike death matches. :roll:

[SeaQueen]

Don't forget that after all is said and done DW remains a game.
You seriously can't expect to have scenarios that run for many hours or days and have people to play with in multiplayer online.


Exactly. I play with DW from a slightly odd perspective, so scenarios I think are fun are sometimes not always entertaining to other people. Educational... maybe. Fun? Only if you're not expecting to sit there in front of the computer the whole time. I typically start a game running and check in every once in a while. :-)

[goldorak]

Exactly. I play with DW from a slightly odd perspective, so scenarios I think are fun are sometimes not always entertaining to other people. Educational... maybe. Fun? Only if you're not expecting to sit there in front of the computer the whole time. I typically start a game running and check in every once in a while. :-)


You know what is missing in DW ?
A dynamic campaign the like of which is found in Falcon 4.
Setup a server with the campaign running for weeks, with many pilots getting in and out of the campaign arbitrarily all the while the war goes on.
Think of a naval crisis that goes on for weeks, missions are generated randomly for subs, air assets, etc.... your performance in the mission impacts on the strategic level.
Now that would be the holy grail of naval warfare.

[Bellman]

:sunny: SQ

The DW problem is mine in coping with the tools SA has provided.
I will get back to you by the weekend on 'organising' - I flew a kite in Mission Design Groups ? Few takers.

The 'extended' play idea is interesting but I agree with gpldorak the Falcon 4 AF (Freefalcon) ongoing campaign
sucks you in, involves you, at one level while feeding the adrenalin with missions.(usualy less than 1 hour)

But does it need that level of software complexity ? - sims like Tornado (ran on 386 ?) managed campaigns with levels
of involvement from Flight leader to Squadron Leader with increased planning, operational and logistical control.

I still like the idea of Total Air War (DID) and Falcon of having the AWACS perspective and tactical
mission control and beeing able to jump into the pilots seet in 3D
at any time to get the job done.

:D Gimme - Fleet Command and DW umbilicaly joined. :up:

[SeaQueen]

Think of a naval crisis that goes on for weeks, missions are generated randomly for subs, air assets, etc.... your performance in the mission impacts on the strategic level.
Now that would be the holy grail of naval warfare.

If that was the case, then what you really want is essentially a version of Harpoon, where you could play just one of a zillion different platforms and the rest were handled by AIs. The thing there is, that a lot of the possibility for really nuanced victory conditions is lost. I think the strong point of DW is the triggers and scripts, which allow one to make some very nuanced scenarios. I don't see how a dynamic campaign could really take advantage of that.

The hard part for me, though, is always boiling a scenario down to the essentials. I can imagine a strategic "snapshot" of a hypothetical conflict, but then picking out just a small portion of the big picture and saying, "this is what you've got in this tiny vignette" is hard, because it's all interconnected. *shrug*

[SeaQueen]

The DW problem is mine in coping with the tools SA has provided.
I will get back to you by the weekend on 'organising' - I flew a kite in Mission Design Groups ? Few takers.

I'll have to look at it.


The 'extended' play idea is interesting but I agree with gpldorak the Falcon 4 AF (Freefalcon) ongoing campaign
sucks you in, involves you, at one level while feeding the adrenalin with missions.(usualy less than 1 hour)

I'm not sure that makes much sense from the perspective of a warship though because these days a warship is essentially ALWAYS in danger. In an air combat sim, there is time in the air and time on the ground, where the time scales are different.

A warship in a conflict never really gets any "downtime," because at any moment things could suddenly start happening very quickly, and they might not even be aware of that they occuring. Because of the time scales and distances involved with the weapons and sensors, there isn't a big distinction between "strategic" warfare and "tactical" warfare. It's all sort of mooshed together.

In real life, ASW battles take several days to fight out but most of that time is not spent dodging torpedos. It's spent driving back and fourth in the ocean, adjusting sensors and dropping BTs. By the time someone actually starts shooting, the situation has probably become hopelessly one-sided. The real gamesmanship is in the period leading up the the weapons exchanges, putting one's self in a position to strike effectively first. The shooting is just the end of a long-long-long process.

I actually think DW at it's best is potentially not ASW. For me, an ASW battle takes a whole weekend to play. A quick littoral surface engagement with helos and missile boats, I can do in a few hours. The submarine stuff, to do it realistically, though, takes forever.

[Bellman]

:) Aircraft in Falcon 4 are ''Always'' in danger both on the ground and in the air. There can be no risk 'Downtime.'

But yes the differences between Naval and flight sims are there but surely not insurmountable ? Whether they are
ones that the AI could overcome I dont know. A slowly evolving chess game yes but at school we played
'musical-chair' chess. Now the computor runs the game between player changes ?

The challenge from the AWACS (Total War) perspective is to prioritise objectives and identify developing
threats and change missions on the hoof. The player has quasi strategic control ,which can be temporarily
abandoned to AI, while he intervenes in 3D tactically. Falcon approaches the player control interphase rather
differently and in much greater detailed campaign planning involvement.

In this AWACS setting there is no player 'downtime.' Could we have Fleet Command+DW with an Admirals seat/s with similar
strategic and tactical control ? Yes there are long, long delays involved in manouvre, positioning, reconnaisance,
hunting or simply getting into the OP. All the more reason for our gifted 'plate-spinning' Admiral to coordinate
the big picture and stand ready to leap via his magical bosuns chair transportation to any DW AI but playable platform
which required tactical intervention.

I remember an over enthusiastic SATCO (Senior Air Traffic Control Officer) training junior officers on the job(sic) who
couldnt resist going down the line of CRTs jumping-in and taking over. Risible or impressive, depends on your
perspective, but that is in essence the role I propose in my call for a Fleet Command and DW type merger.
A similar requirement would be for our FFG Admiral to be able to jump into an AI controlled Heli. P3 or sub.

The analogy is not complete because the SP game role could combine all the other planning, mission design and
logistical control functions inherent in wearing an Admirals Hat. But our game Admiral stands ready to roll up
his sleeves and get stuck-in at the sharp-end. And in MP with multi-tasking our Admiral (Commodore here!)
would not need to 'jump ship' as he could be resident.(?)

'Off the wall' Another possibility is if the Admiral could become our in-game Mission Designer creating simplified
tactical missions for his side on the hop ? Egs. Coordinate platforms X,Y and Z where AI controlled.

The problems are immense in achieving Harpoon in Action, (or on Speed ?) Even without a programming
background I can see its an Everest to climb.:yep:

But I can dream ! :yep: :hmm:


PS.:lol: 'A Mars landing' challenge also is possibly to achieve the game nuances of DWs laborious triggered
and scripted design mechanism by means of a more user friendly Harpoon style interphase.
But maybes that just my problem/s :damn: