![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Navy Seal
![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Machinist's Mate
![]() Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 127
Downloads: 3
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Would that work in DW? I forget if DW itself or LwAmi include any sunken ship entities, but assuming they did would they actually confuse the in game MAD sensors? I would guess yes for player controlled aircraft, but no for AI controlled, but that's just me speculating.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
The Old Man
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 1,458
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
With stock database it is problem. You can sink ship, but it would be removed from the game in a while and it cannot be controlled (IIRC).
However to make new object with MAD properties would be fairly easy. Would be good suggestion for those new mods. Anyway if I ever used MAD it was for final confirmation of the target. The first contact was always made using buoys. However I did not play aerial units that much.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Admiral
![]() Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,320
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Actually a nice thing in RA, are the helos.
They can be programmed to use mad/sad sensors and once they get a contact you'll get a nice classification (hostile, neutral or friendly) automatically. And they can even prosecute the contact on their own. ^_^ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Machinist's Mate
![]() Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 127
Downloads: 3
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
I believe that RA includes shipwrecks as sub entities, but I don't remember stock or LwAmi having any. I would be interested in how the AI would handle hostile and neutral MAD contacts practically on top of eachother.
I agree that in most cases, sonar would be the primary method of sub hunting. However, in a place like the Persian Gulf, if I set the bottom type to sand, a Kilo at 2 kts or less is basically undetectable by sonar (buoy or dipping). This is why I was thinking about using several aircraft with MAD to search the Strait of Hormuz. The strait is not very large and a fixed wing aircraft can sweep a good amount of water with MAD in a relatively short time. I was trying to think tactically from the POV of an Iranian Kilo. The U.S. and other gulf states would have a good number of airborne ASW in the area, P-3s and helos, maybe an old S-2 or something. Iran would most probably use their Kilos for covert minelaying rather than direct action, but either way they would be detected before they could complete their missions. I've run a few test scenarios and it seems that there is no real way for a Kilo driver to remain undetected if there are more than two aircraft doing low altitude sweep searches with MAD. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Along the Watchtower
Posts: 3,810
Downloads: 27
Uploads: 5
|
![]()
Two aircraft is a lot of resource to throw into such a small basket as the Strait, at least if it's just the narrowest area. It's just a function of the number of square miles they can sanitize in a given timeframe; make the area small enough and they can get it pretty much airtight. ASW becomes a challenge when the search areas are very large. Mine operations don't have to take place in the high-value real estate; there is a whole rather large Gulf with lots of traffic to mess with. Using self-propelled or drifting mines increases the area a sub can threaten if high-value routes are being patrolled. And there are also territorial airspace issues that create areas where subs can slip through without being monitored by opposing air. The Iranians definitely have a card to play as far as mine operations go.
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Navy Seal
![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|