New scenario: Polish Navy vs Baltic Fleet 2013

[kbosak]

Hi all, I have made and tested a complete scenario based on real life data:


Actual state of readiness for Polish Navy in 2013 using public data sources and approximated platforms where available. The idea is to simulate shore defenses response to surprise attack from Russian Baltic Fleet from Baltijsk (Kaliningrad) naval base.
Modifications of the original game platforms include:
2x Tarantul I:
-should have no sonar
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-sensor model wrong Shave range in active mode should be around 30Nm, no OTH
-sensor model wrong Kolonka on all units visual targetting range should be 10nm or less, not 40
-Wine Glass ECM is only installed in Tarantul III, removed.
2x OH Perry:
-has no Phalanx ammo and no Mk13 launcher at all
-added four SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-mazine has 2x MU90 for seasprite
-changed main trop launcher to 2x triple MU90
-should add Kaman Seasprite
Stocks: -PWM has bought MU90 16-18 torpedos, OHP full salvo is 12, a few fired for exercices. Therefore max 2 spares per ship
-36 RBS-15 MK3 missiles, therefore 8 per each project 660 and a few spares.
1xKaszub
-changed torpedo mount to TEST-71ME, firing only into frontal arc
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
3x660 Grom:
-in fact carries 8x RBS15 mk3, while keeping only 4 containers during regular sailing
-removed false quad strela launchers, there are none
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
4xKobben:
-changed torpedo type to 613 Sub
-incomplete torpedo tubes (only 4 loaded with 613)
-no ASW torpedo for thsi type
-added one SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-should limit kobben battery range somehow, very old
1x877E Kilo:
-added one SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-ASW torpedos are now TEST-71ME
-removed Strela II mast
-should limit battery range, old
M28 Bryza, Mi-14 not included yet
-Shore AA batteries only guesstimate for initial wartime deployment after 24h notice
-Only eastern coast fixed radar posts are marked


Russian enemy are two surface groups of Baltic Fleet from Baltijsk.


All real radar placements of plish coastal defences and even NATO backbone long-range radars.

1. I would like to submit the scenario for testing.

2. I would like to edit/clean up polish platform set, since there are multiple entiries that is a random mixture of guesstimates, wishful hopes of polishplanners and copy-pasting from western/eastern original ship versions.
The list is LONG and has many tiny details. Can I get some limited editing access to it?

3. Spotted game problems:
-it is practically impossible to use towed or even mobile 155mm howitzers in order to suppress Baltijsk naval base from polish territory. Ridiculous 12nm range of modelled platforms and inability to fire 'onto approx position'. Without this trick everything depends on Russian S-300PMU placed relatively close to the border.
-AI overuses AA missiles for surface fire, which gives good results with US TICO maybe, bo wastes all russian magazines (sovremenny and gremashtshy) without much effect. I believe it shoudl be fired only on explicit ctrl+F1 order of fire.

-for no reason MU90 is fired automatically at close range onto enemy surface combatants, guidance is ok, but there is always 0% hit probability. Of course it is a pure ASW torpedo.
-it appears russian manpads are never fired agains missiles. In practice their modern versions (Igla) are useful in frontal arc even against N-22 Styx, with minimal chance.

Goalkeeper damage points are badly modelled.
Kinetic energy is (30mm/20mm)^3 =3.4 times more than Phalanx and range shoudl be higher also.
Makes difference for large russian supersonic missiles which reorted to need a few hits from phalanx to get stopped.
If you are unsure what a single bullet can do, assume that mass and therefore knetic energy rises as third power of mass. This, recalibrated to 20mm as unity, gives the following damage points:
5.45 0.02
7.26 0.05
12.7 0.26
14.5 0.38
20 1.00
23 1.52
30 3.38
35 5.36
40 8.00
57 23.15
60 27.00
76 54.87
100 125.00
127 256.05
130 274.63
152 438.98
155 465.48
Clearly, 465 for 155mm bullet is too much (would sink two FFG) therefore once can say DP from bullets is about 10-20 times overestimated in terms of DP in this example.

[Herman]

You could ask Neal Stevens, Subsim owner, to add a download section ( http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php )for MNO scenarios so that you can post it for everyone to try.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=209959

[emsoy]

Hi KBOSAK, thank you very much for your feedback Comments below:

Originally Posted by kbosak

Hi all, I have made and tested a complete scenario based on real life data:

The scenario setup & force disposition looks great. Curious about what your background is hehe

Originally Posted by kbosak

Actual state of readiness for Polish Navy in 2013 using public data sources and approximated platforms where available. The idea is to simulate shore defenses response to surprise attack from Russian Baltic Fleet from Baltijsk (Kaliningrad) naval base.
Modifications of the original game platforms include:
2x Tarantul I:
-should have no sonar
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-sensor model wrong Shave range in active mode should be around 30Nm, no OTH
-sensor model wrong Kolonka on all units visual targetting range should be 10nm or less, not 40

The range for visual/IR sensors is the max (cutoff) range for the sensor. The underlying model is a bit more complex.

The Kolonka in the Command database is not a search sensor, it is slaved to other sensors and is only used to ID targets detected by those sensors. It has a 4x maginification in the database (guessimated) which means it can ID a MiG-29 at just over 6nm, frontal aspect.

If slaved to a radar at distant targets, it can still see contrails for targets at up to 40nm. It will not make an ID at these ranges though.

If I remember correctly the Hood Wink will also be able to classify the MiG-29 as small/medium/large air contact at ca 12nm.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-Wine Glass ECM is only installed in Tarantul III, removed.
2x OH Perry:
-has no Phalanx ammo and no Mk13 launcher at all
-added four SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-mazine has 2x MU90 for seasprite
-changed main trop launcher to 2x triple MU90
-should add Kaman Seasprite
Stocks: -PWM has bought MU90 16-18 torpedos, OHP full salvo is 12, a few fired for exercices. Therefore max 2 spares per ship

Thanks! This is very useful information! Good info on Polish platforms has been very hard to come by.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-36 RBS-15 MK3 missiles, therefore 8 per each project 660 and a few spares.
1xKaszub
-changed torpedo mount to TEST-71ME, firing only into frontal arc
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
3x660 Grom:
-in fact carries 8x RBS15 mk3, while keeping only 4 containers during regular sailing
-removed false quad strela launchers, there are none
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
4xKobben:
-changed torpedo type to 613 Sub
-incomplete torpedo tubes (only 4 loaded with 613)
-no ASW torpedo for thsi type
-added one SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-should limit kobben battery range somehow, very old
1x877E Kilo:
-added one SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-ASW torpedos are now TEST-71ME
-removed Strela II mast
-should limit battery range, old
M28 Bryza, Mi-14 not included yet
-Shore AA batteries only guesstimate for initial wartime deployment after 24h notice
-Only eastern coast fixed radar posts are marked

Do you have more info on the Grom system?

Originally Posted by kbosak

Russian enemy are two surface groups of Baltic Fleet from Baltijsk.


All real radar placements of plish coastal defences and even NATO backbone long-range radars.

1. I would like to submit the scenario for testing.

I'm pretty certain you can attach scenarios to forum posts on the 'official' support forum on Matrix Games.

Originally Posted by kbosak

2. I would like to edit/clean up polish platform set, since there are multiple entiries that is a random mixture of guesstimates, wishful hopes of polishplanners and copy-pasting from western/eastern original ship versions.
The list is LONG and has many tiny details. Can I get some limited editing access to it?

Editing access can be a bit difficult, but if you send me a list of the changes you want to see made I'll make them here and pass on to you for approval.

Originally Posted by kbosak

3. Spotted game problems:
-it is practically impossible to use towed or even mobile 155mm howitzers in order to suppress Baltijsk naval base from polish territory. Ridiculous 12nm range of modelled platforms and inability to fire 'onto approx position'. Without this trick everything depends on Russian S-300PMU placed relatively close to the border.

The general area thingie is very very tricky to do. 'Coordinate targets' (point targets) is on our to do list, will add 'area coordiante targets' to the list but like I said its tricky. Sorry!

12nm is the max practical range for most systems, beyond that accuracy drops sharply. What systems/ammo would you want to use and what ranges would you like to fire at?

Originally Posted by kbosak

-AI overuses AA missiles for surface fire, which gives good results with US TICO maybe, bo wastes all russian magazines (sovremenny and gremashtshy) without much effect. I believe it shoudl be fired only on explicit ctrl+F1 order of fire.

Yeah this is a very difficult call... We also had complains when AI-controlled ships did _not_ use their SARH SAMs in anti-ship mode. So...

Let me think a little more about this. Could make it a Doctrine setting.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-for no reason MU90 is fired automatically at close range onto enemy surface combatants, guidance is ok, but there is always 0% hit probability. Of course it is a pure ASW torpedo.

Yes its a bug hehe. We've fixed this along with another related bug in the latest internal Beta release. Should be released to the public shortly.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-it appears russian manpads are never fired agains missiles. In practice their modern versions (Igla) are useful in frontal arc even against N-22 Styx, with minimal chance.

That is correct, MANPADs in Command are not capable against missiles.

So for instance the MANPADS version of the Mistral is anti-aircraft/helo only. The reason is that the team with the MANPADS will not be able to detect, identify and fire successfully upon a small & fast target like a missile.

The Simbad/Sadral/Tetral mounts use sensors/FCS to que the mounts and those Mistrals are thus capable against anti-ship missiles in Command.

If the Grom system is similar to Simbad and the rest let me know and I'll implement the system accordingly.

The same is true for the SA-N-24 Grouse, which comes in both MANPADS mounts and 3M-47 Gibka mounts with onboard sensors and laser ranger.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Goalkeeper damage points are badly modelled.
Kinetic energy is (30mm/20mm)^3 =3.4 times more than Phalanx and range shoudl be higher also.

The Goalkeeper has 20% longer range against air targets and 50% against surface targets in Command. Do you think the difference should be larger? Remember we're using _practical_ ranges rather than max ranges. Damage to air targets is not yet simulated as it is quite complex.

Damage by non-explosive warheads is calculated in TNT equivalents. But again, for air target it doesn't matter at the moment.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Makes difference for large russian supersonic missiles which reorted to need a few hits from phalanx to get stopped.
If you are unsure what a single bullet can do, assume that mass and therefore knetic energy rises as third power of mass. This, recalibrated to 20mm as unity, gives the following damage points:
5.45 0.02
7.26 0.05
12.7 0.26
14.5 0.38
20 1.00
23 1.52
30 3.38
35 5.36
40 8.00
57 23.15
60 27.00
76 54.87
100 125.00
127 256.05
130 274.63
152 438.98
155 465.48
Clearly, 465 for 155mm bullet is too much (would sink two FFG) therefore once can say DP from bullets is about 10-20 times overestimated in terms of DP in this example.

Agreed.

We also have to take the bust size into account here, which makes things a bit more complex. And does a 50% higher burst result in 50% more hits? What about burst duration? Do the first/last rounds in a burst score more hits?

If "20mm/85 Mk15 Phalanx Blk 0 Burst [200 rnds]" has 1 DP, what would the DP for the following weapons be:
20mm/85 Mk15 Phalanx Blk 1 Burst [300 rnds]
30mm Goalkeeper Burst [240 rnds]


Thanks again for your input KBOSAK, this is very helpful for us

[kbosak]

Originally Posted by emsoy

The scenario setup & force disposition looks great. Curious about what your background is hehe

Theoretical physicist 36yrs old. Full civilian. UAV designer. Submerged Harpooner since nineties.

Originally Posted by emsoy

...Kolonka range...

Thank you those explanations are 100% ok. Except ONE thing: most people will complain, since official figures are never taking account rare cases. This should be something that doesn't makes think a retired navy recruit 'what a kid designed that, it is more than our radars was'

Originally Posted by emsoy

The Kolonka in the Command database is not a search sensor, it is slaved to
other sensors and is only used to ID targets detected by those sensors.

In reality it is not how it works. It is all-around backup system with which in practice you can destroy floating mine from 2nm, terrorist RIB or something. It is the worst thing for shoting down AA and certainly not aircrafts. Do you know what Kołonka-221 is? A steel frame, round nest with optical sights not better than most binoculars, not even stabilised. No way you can spot anything flying from distance unless the mount is 100% stable.
It is a very primitive contraption, not a real optical system with fancy LCD.
Here it is, 660 class, Kolonks is above AK-630M (this steel cylinder-shaped frame)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_Corvette.PNG
BTW I was mistaken, there is indeed quad strela-2 on class 660, between kolonka and AK-630M

Originally Posted by emsoy

If slaved to a radar at distant targets, it can still see contrails for targets at up to 40nm.

Slaving it to radar? 'John, south west, south west' you can hear on intercom. The guy rotates the mount and tries to think on estimating target length and guess its distance.

Originally Posted by emsoy

Thanks! This is very useful information! Good info on Polish platforms has been very hard to come by.

I would like to be able to edit some details manually since a list is HUGE.
Maybe a smaller sub-database.
Take a look:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-176
German tarntul 1.
30mm gatlings on the rear, but Bass Tilt fire control radar on top cannot direct strictly into rear 180deg heading.

Originally Posted by emsoy

Do you have more info on the Grom system?

Editing access can be a bit difficult, but if you send me a list of the changes you want to see made I'll make them here and pass on to you for approval.

Originally Posted by emsoy

12nm is the max practical range for most systems, beyond that accuracy drops sharply. What systems/ammo would you want to use and what ranges would you like to fire at?

Tried to use Turkey Firting 155/L52 howitzer simulating polish Krab battery,
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Krab

Those things fire into 35km range by design. Distance from polish border to Baltijsk is 23km = 14Nm, S-300 is 5km to the south from that, one coudl also use bosted 122mm polish MLRS to 35-45km, or czech DANA guns. If a small raid is possible, a few short-lived suppressions are possible, or not, depending on ground situtation. Certainly those woudl be able to defend polish coast, keep in mind russians have all 130mm and polish ships have 76mm so evaluating if anything could be done with field arty is interesting by itself purely for shore bombardment scenario, not intending to shot with howitzers onti shipos maybe except direct dire from a few Nm.

Originally Posted by emsoy

Yeah this is a very difficult call... We also had complains when AI-controlled ships did _not_ use their SARH SAMs in anti-ship mode. So...

Cmoon, this is for triggerhappy ppl. The last thing you spend on the Baltic is 80% of SAMs. You simply turn around and run, hoping they send some fat flying targets after you in order to improve balance of power..

Originally Posted by emsoy

That is correct, MANPADs in Command are not capable against missiles.

Generally agree in 99%.
Unless it is a smokingy 1st generation crap, maybe. You can see it roaring at 200 m AGL, like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raduga_KS-1_Komet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-15_Termit
Since those are NOT much different from half-scale MIG-15 at low altitude.

Originally Posted by emsoy

The Goalkeeper has 20% longer range against air targets and 50% against surface targets in Command. Do you think the difference should be larger?

For sure. They were marketing it claiming for years that it has been proven that you need many hits with 20mm in order to get hard kill on a missile, while a single DU shell from gkeeper guarantees warhead penetration (which is in a middle of the missiles, fron are batteries, seekers, guidance). This meant that Sunburn woudl get through even with multiple hits.
Using TNT equiv for shellsss... that have PURELY kinetic energy... 35mm Oerlikon is the smalles with explosive warhead, and even then subammo is used kinetic way, narrow cone. in calibers up to 30mm in most platforms it is pure kinetic thing, the equations I have posted.
Kinetic energy Ek=m*v^2/2.
Destructive power=Ek*ammo_coeff, Goalkeeper has extra bonus due to APFSDS Du shells (it is GAU-8 from A-10 Warthog, in fact. Can pierce all tanks from above).
So this is only analysis about a single bullet.
The rest is MOA precision (1MOA for goalkeeper and most non-gatlings, some 3MOA for phalanx, armor of the target (ignored, a missile), deflection probability(ignored, a missile) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_angle
all this multiplied by missile cross section gives number of hits.

Whatever you do I think things should not be made by US style wishful thinking that Phalanx shots Sunburn with 85% from 1Nm and the carcass is not even damaging the target - lowering kill probability based on kinetic bullet energy looks like simplest thing to implement correctly, withotu throwing a ton of bizarre knobs into database of several thousands armaments. There a few hits per any misisle in order to 20mm to be effective.

Some polish navy sources:
-rendered movies:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa9yFleOhkzkfPVQoNZUhwQ
-equipment
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marynarka_Wojenna

Some imbalance problems: Garpun surface search radar has longer range even OTH!) than Sea Giraffe 150 on 660 Orkan. The problem is that Tarantul is 1980 russian equipment, Sea Giraffe is 2005 swedish tech. What is the chance... What you did is that you took passive mode range for Plank Shave radar, when one ship illuminates and the others receive. The problem is, with such a crude ECM modelling as we have in games, such use evaporates the ship that is closer to enemy and it is a marginal application. Certainly cannot imagine more surface range from that than from AN-SPS55 on OH perry.

Polish manpads GROM:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grom_%2...w_rakietowy%29
Is heavily modified and improved IGLA1 (motor, seeker, guidance, well everything but airframe).
Quoted range 5500m (3Nm), ceiling 3500m 1.9Nm
has built-in IFF of unknown range.
Max 13..14s flight time.
Engagement envelope: incoming target 400m/s, chasing 320m/s, AVERAGE flight speed 680m/s, max around 800m/s +/- 100m/s.
Here you have russian manpads speeds and ranges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla
Those systems have in theory min range something like 500m, min altitudes agains helos iaround 10m GL.


----------------------
Polish platform differences to bring them to real life:
660 Orkan [P.660] 2013: (three)

*Remove all sonars, ST240 Toadfish.
*CRM-200 is being easily detected in the game, while in face it has some
0.01W emission power and 10-20Nm practical ranges.
http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/a...-morski-rm-100
http://www.pit.edu.pl/index.php?p=oferta&id=29&idk=
'CRM means Silent Naval Radar'
*Should put 4xdouble RBS-15 Mk3 mounts, not 4x1.
*AKM-630 mounts excludes frontal 30deg
*AK-176M excludes rear 35deg
*Quad Grom manpads excludes frontal 40deg
*Grom manpads near the bridge, 180deg port and 180deg stdb

OH Perry x2:
*Remove all ammo fro standard arm and phalanx mounts
*Change torpedoes to triple MU-90 mount and one-two reloads for onboard Kaman Seasprite

Kaszub x1:
*Sonar is http://cmtm.pg.gda.pl/files/2012/04/...ja-opisowa.pdf
now called MG-322DSP, and always had circular radiation pattern, not as modelled

Tarantul x2:
*They should be Tarantul-1 without sonar, without ECM, with radar certainly not OTH

ORP Orzel 877R x1:
*replace SA-N-8 mast launcher by Grom manpads.
*not sure, if they have any ASW torpedos, those are TEST-71 x4 in certain loadouts

Kobben x4:
*remove all NT-37C asw torpedoes
*they use Tp 613 type, submarine version

NOTE: I have some problems understanding why there are dual entries for both 613 and 617 torpedoes, with vastly different range but same speed. I have a book on that with curves and so many data but at the end, it is just approx simulation so the idea is, why double entries in database.

How one can limit battery chargning state and fuel in the scenario?
Woudl be best to limit max rnages and carrying capacity on all those submarines to about 60% of original state.

[emsoy]

Originally Posted by kbosak

Theoretical physicist 36yrs old. Full civilian. UAV designer. Submerged Harpooner since nineties.

Air guy, my kind of guy hehe

Originally Posted by kbosak

Thank you those explanations are 100% ok. Except ONE thing: most people will complain, since official figures are never taking account rare cases. This should be something that doesn't makes think a retired navy recruit 'what a kid designed that, it is more than our radars was'

Yeah we've discovered we need to post more information on the internal mechanics of the sim, they are quite complex. Probably need a FAQ or something also.

Originally Posted by kbosak

In reality it is not how it works. It is all-around backup system with which in practice you can destroy floating mine from 2nm, terrorist RIB or something. It is the worst thing for shoting down AA and certainly not aircrafts. Do you know what Kołonka-221 is? A steel frame, round nest with optical sights not better than most binoculars, not even stabilised. No way you can spot anything flying from distance unless the mount is 100% stable.
It is a very primitive contraption, not a real optical system with fancy LCD.
Here it is, 660 class, Kolonks is above AK-630M (this steel cylinder-shaped frame)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_Corvette.PNG
BTW I was mistaken, there is indeed quad strela-2 on class 660, between kolonka and AK-630M

Okay please check this one out:
http://www.warfaresims.com/forum/vie...p=47868#p47868

I have the impression that Kolonka is quite similar to the Galileo OG R7 manned sight. The R7 has 2.3x and 7x magnification (also in the Command database!) and a 30 and 10 deg FOV. Max 'effective' range is 2km.

So although these systems have rather long max ranges in the database, they are quite limited in capability as they do not search on their own (the system does not replace the bridge watchman). The system can see contrails when ordered to look in the right direction, it can make a rough guess on the contrail size, etc, but ID'ing stuff is quite difficult. The long max range stems purely from the fact that contrails from a very large aircraft can be seen at ranges up to 50nm (!).

If it makes sense I can remove the anti-air capability and reduce the magnification level for the Kolonka. What was the magnification settings for this system IRL?

Originally Posted by kbosak

Slaving it to radar? 'John, south west, south west' you can hear on intercom. The guy rotates the mount and tries to think on estimating target length and guess its distance.

Yeah well, hehe.

Originally Posted by kbosak

I would like to be able to edit some details manually since a list is HUGE.
Maybe a smaller sub-database.

That can be a bit difficult so only way right now is to give me a list of the stuff you want fixed. Since the Command databases cover 1950-2015+ I also need historical data on these platforms, i.e. dates when equipment was installed/removed etc.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Tried to use Turkey Firting 155/L52 howitzer simulating polish Krab battery,
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Krab

Those things fire into 35km range by design. Distance from polish border to Baltijsk is 23km = 14Nm, S-300 is 5km to the south from that, one coudl also use bosted 122mm polish MLRS to 35-45km, or czech DANA guns. If a small raid is possible, a few short-lived suppressions are possible, or not, depending on ground situtation. Certainly those woudl be able to defend polish coast, keep in mind russians have all 130mm and polish ships have 76mm so evaluating if anything could be done with field arty is interesting by itself purely for shore bombardment scenario, not intending to shot with howitzers onti shipos maybe except direct dire from a few Nm.

Hmm agree we should probably consider doing something here. Giving arty 'area targets' is a bit of a challenge, however, due to the way the targeting model is implemented. But have added this to the list of things we need to look into.

As for arty range... although you _can_ make a modern 155mm BB shell fly 40km downrange it isn't really done in practice as accuracy is (horribly) low and trajectory high. So you won't actually hit anything and the shells produce perfect target coordinates for enemy counter-battery.

In practice, arty fire is limited to 20-30km, possibly 35km or 38km in extreme cases if-you-really-have-to. Shorter ranges allows lower trajectories which reduces the chance of detection. This, when going up against the Russians, is very very important as they took counter-battery pretty seriously.

So while the max (practical) range for Krab in Command would probably be 16nm (35km) I'm not sure the arty would be used at that range for harrasing fire on the Russians.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Cmoon, this is for triggerhappy ppl. The last thing you spend on the Baltic is 80% of SAMs. You simply turn around and run, hoping they send some fat flying targets after you in order to improve balance of power..

Yeah been discussing this (for the 20th time!) with the others, and we're looking for a good solution. No promises, but lets see.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Generally agree in 99%.
Unless it is a smokingy 1st generation crap, maybe. You can see it roaring at 200 m AGL, like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raduga_KS-1_Komet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-15_Termit
Since those are NOT much different from half-scale MIG-15 at low altitude.


For sure. They were marketing it claiming for years that it has been proven that you need many hits with 20mm in order to get hard kill on a missile, while a single DU shell from gkeeper guarantees warhead penetration (which is in a middle of the missiles, fron are batteries, seekers, guidance). This meant that Sunburn woudl get through even with multiple hits.

Yes... its a shortcoming in the model as it stands now. Implementing this will be a big (hour-wise) job and will probably also generate a lot of controversy so have to thread carefully. Imagine the flamewars. "Duuuuude Ciwizzz ruuulz!"

Originally Posted by kbosak

Using TNT equiv for shellsss... that have PURELY kinetic energy... 35mm Oerlikon is the smalles with explosive warhead, and even then subammo is used kinetic way, narrow cone. in calibers up to 30mm in most platforms it is pure kinetic thing, the equations I have posted.
Kinetic energy Ek=m*v^2/2.
Destructive power=Ek*ammo_coeff, Goalkeeper has extra bonus due to APFSDS Du shells (it is GAU-8 from A-10 Warthog, in fact. Can pierce all tanks from above).
So this is only analysis about a single bullet.
The rest is MOA precision (1MOA for goalkeeper and most non-gatlings, some 3MOA for phalanx, armor of the target (ignored, a missile), deflection probability(ignored, a missile) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_angle
all this multiplied by missile cross section gives number of hits.

Yes!

Complex stuff, I think you've seen the challenges (and pain) we're facing hehe.

As for TNT equivalents, you can convert the kinetic energy to Joules and then to TNT eqv.

Or, set off 1kg of TNT and compare to the estimated amount of damage a gun burst would do, and make wild-a$$ guesses on figures.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Whatever you do I think things should not be made by US style wishful thinking that Phalanx shots Sunburn with 85% from 1Nm and the carcass is not even damaging the target - lowering kill probability based on kinetic bullet energy looks like simplest thing to implement correctly, withotu throwing a ton of bizarre knobs into database of several thousands armaments. There a few hits per any misisle in order to 20mm to be effective.

Understood, but the CWIS fires 200-300 rounds per burst (depending on model), so there is a good chance the Sunburn missile would get hit by a fair number of tungsten rounds...

One interesting book I read (can't remember the name right now) viewed the CWIS more as Damage Control than an actual weapon. The reason being that the ship would most likely be damaged if the warhead was triggered within 500m, or hit by shrapnel from a disabled missile.

The biggest issue in the sim right now (as I see it) is not the CWIS vs Goalkeeper per-round or per-burst kinetic energy, but that the anti-ship missile warhead doesn't trigger when hit.

So while CWIS and Goalkeeper probably would produce a similar number of hits, the Goalkeeper would (likely) disable the warhead further out (outside 500m), resulting in less blast/frag damage.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Some polish navy sources:
-rendered movies:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa9yFleOhkzkfPVQoNZUhwQ
-equipment
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marynarka_Wojenna

Some imbalance problems: Garpun surface search radar has longer range even OTH!) than Sea Giraffe 150 on 660 Orkan. The problem is that Tarantul is 1980 russian equipment, Sea Giraffe is 2005 swedish tech. What is the chance... What you did is that you took passive mode range for Plank Shave radar, when one ship illuminates and the others receive. The problem is, with such a crude ECM modelling as we have in games, such use evaporates the ship that is closer to enemy and it is a marginal application. Certainly cannot imagine more surface range from that than from AN-SPS55 on OH perry.

Polish manpads GROM:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grom_%2...w_rakietowy%29
Is heavily modified and improved IGLA1 (motor, seeker, guidance, well everything but airframe).
Quoted range 5500m (3Nm), ceiling 3500m 1.9Nm
has built-in IFF of unknown range.
Max 13..14s flight time.
Engagement envelope: incoming target 400m/s, chasing 320m/s, AVERAGE flight speed 680m/s, max around 800m/s +/- 100m/s.
Here you have russian manpads speeds and ranges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla
Those systems have in theory min range something like 500m, min altitudes agains helos iaround 10m GL.


----------------------
Polish platform differences to bring them to real life:
660 Orkan [P.660] 2013: (three)

*Remove all sonars, ST240 Toadfish.
*CRM-200 is being easily detected in the game, while in face it has some
0.01W emission power and 10-20Nm practical ranges.
http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/a...-morski-rm-100
http://www.pit.edu.pl/index.php?p=oferta&id=29&idk=
'CRM means Silent Naval Radar'
*Should put 4xdouble RBS-15 Mk3 mounts, not 4x1.
*AKM-630 mounts excludes frontal 30deg
*AK-176M excludes rear 35deg
*Quad Grom manpads excludes frontal 40deg
*Grom manpads near the bridge, 180deg port and 180deg stdb

OH Perry x2:
*Remove all ammo fro standard arm and phalanx mounts
*Change torpedoes to triple MU-90 mount and one-two reloads for onboard Kaman Seasprite

Kaszub x1:
*Sonar is http://cmtm.pg.gda.pl/files/2012/04/...ja-opisowa.pdf
now called MG-322DSP, and always had circular radiation pattern, not as modelled

Tarantul x2:
*They should be Tarantul-1 without sonar, without ECM, with radar certainly not OTH

ORP Orzel 877R x1:
*replace SA-N-8 mast launcher by Grom manpads.
*not sure, if they have any ASW torpedos, those are TEST-71 x4 in certain loadouts

Kobben x4:
*remove all NT-37C asw torpedoes
*they use Tp 613 type, submarine version

NOTE: I have some problems understanding why there are dual entries for both 613 and 617 torpedoes, with vastly different range but same speed. I have a book on that with curves and so many data but at the end, it is just approx simulation so the idea is, why double entries in database.

How one can limit battery chargning state and fuel in the scenario?
Woudl be best to limit max rnages and carrying capacity on all those submarines to about 60% of original state.

Okay I will get started on this, please give me a couple of days

If there are any other items you need for the next db update please post up.

[emsoy]

Hi KBOSAK,

Have made a number of mods and additions, and also have a few questions. Please see below:

Did a complete rebuild of Tarantul boats as per your specifications, the boats are indeed Tarantul I not III. Also added 2000 version with Quad Grom mount.
- 434 Gornik [Pr.1241RE Tarantul I] -- Poland (Navy), 1984, 4x
- 434 Gornik [Pr.1241RE Tarantul I] -- Poland (Navy), 2000, 4x

OHP:
- Removed CWIS and Mk13 mount, as they have no ammo.
- Added a 2008 version of the class with MU90 torpedoes to match the 2008 version of the SH-2G.
- Is the Grom system made up of MANPADS or Quad launcher systems?

Kaszub:
- Added new entry with new sonar MG-322DSP Vychegda, "240 Kaszub [Pr.620] -- Poland (Navy), 2008"
- When was TEST-71ME installed?
- Is the Grom system made up of MANPADS or Quad launcher systems?

660 Orkan:
- Updated gun mount arcs and RBS-15 qty per your request.
- I think ST240 Toadfish was installed ca 2008?
- CRM-200 has a 1kW power output in Command to maximize range. Not entirely sure this should be changed?
- Grom MANPADS in addition to Quad mount?

Kobben:
- Added "294 Sokol [Type 207, Kobben Class]" carrying Type 617 torps only, which is the export designation for Tp 613.
- Only 4 of the eight torpedo tubes are used? Did I get that right?
- Does Poland carry MANPADS on these operationally? Are you sure it is practically possible to fire these SAMs from the subs?

Kilo:
- When was TEST-71ME installed? Some sources claim these subs were used in the anti-ship role only.
- When was Grom installed?

Mi-14 versions already in the database:
Mi-14PL Haze A -- Poland (Navy), 1982, Mi-14PW
Mi-14PL Haze A -- Poland (Navy), 2002
Mi-14PL Haze A -- Poland (Navy), 2007
Mi-14PS Haze C -- Poland (Navy), 1982, 5x

Added:
M28B Bryza 1R [An-28 Copy] -- Poland (Navy), 1995, 7x
Arty Bty (155mm/52 Self-Propelled Krab Howitzer x 6) -- Poland (Army), 2013

Misc corrections:
- Fixed Tarantul I Bass Tilt radar arc
- Removed one AK-630 on Polish Tarantul I

The reason we have separate database entries for submarine and ship torpedoes is because surface ships use the torps out to the maximum kinematic range while subs do
not.

The Garpun is credited with a 70nm+ OTH range against large targets, and 24nm against small targets. The OTH capability was needed to fire the SS-N-2D out to its maximum range, apparently. The Sea Giraffe 150 has a different role it seems. I can give it OTH capability in the database if it has this in real life. Ditto for AN/SPS-55.

Thanks!

[kbosak]

"boats are indeed Tarantul I not III. Also added 2000 version with Quad Grom mount."

I have screwed up. It turns out that polish navy is using grom as pure manpads, either from submarine kiosk or side galleries of the of ship's bridge,
but all quad mounts are retained for original strela-2M only. They should be interchangeable in theory, but apparently ther is some minor detail like voltage, rails width, whatever.

OHP:
"- Removed CWIS and Mk13 mount, as they have no ammo"
I have spotted that on the photos physically CIWS is still there, but ammo is not and infact the system is not operational as repeated many times on navy enthusiasts forums. I have edited on my scenario by making null ammo count for this, but on the other hand, most probably search radar is never enabled as well so erasing the mount is closer to reality.
-Remember Polish Navy has no single standard arm nor harpoon and is not planning to have. So MK13 mount is physically there on OHP, but similar situation as with phalanx. Those ships are simply manpower-intensive huge boat chasers with good sensors keeping headcount for better times, which may never arrive. Witt updated MU-90 torpedos, also for their seasprite, with practically no reloads (20pcs or so for the whole navy)

"- Is the Grom system made up of MANPADS or Quad launcher systems?"
looks like in teh navy there are only strela-2M on quad launchers, grom as pure manpads (single tube).
apparently there are two wrobel mounts available on polish ships
ZU-23-2MR Wróbel (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZU-23-2M_Wr%C3%B3bel)
and
ZU-23-2MR Wróbel II (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZU-23-2MR_Wr%C3%B3bel_II)
the second one has reportedly handling issues when swithing between guns and rocket (assume a few good seconds ofdelay), this is why all mounts with wrobel (v1) stay on ships where they are.
So also Wrobel II uses Strela-2M and not Grom

Kaszub:
This is an ASW corvette since always and wake-homing torpedo on it... was a TOTAL surprise.
What I know for sure is that polish navy is using TEST-71 ASW torpedo on ORP Orzeł (877E Kilo), Kaszub being build during the fall of commmunism, so the only reasonnable guess for 533mm ASW torpedo is TEST-71.

660 Grom:
about toadfish VDS:
http://fotoforum.gazeta.pl/photo/2/c...WS6Zr5uGdX.jpg there is NOTHING between AK630M and the tail. No lift, no place for a reel. And it would make no sense at all to put a sonar on them. Those are not Pauk-style boats, those are fast and noisy, small surface cobatants Tarantul-style, without a single armament agains submarines. This toadfish idea is rumor copypasted from swedish sub hunters, I think. Swedes wre obsessed about sub-chasing, and grom 660 basically uses their command&control, but not with all its possible flavours.


Kobben:
"- Only 4 of the eight torpedo tubes are used? Did I get that right?"
In my scenario I have empied half of them by default since I suppose total stocks of those ammo is not more than 16-20pcs for all Kobbens. Buying of MU-90 was cut from 32 to somehting like 20 for financial reasons alone, and type 612 was simply haded over Danish Navy with Kobbens. This means if they wer shipped with full salvo plus a few more, there is no more than a few left per ship after several naval exercices, possibly add bad maintenance etc...
"- Does Poland carry MANPADS on these operationally? Are you sure it is practically possible to fire these SAMs from the subs?"
This is not sure if those are streal-2m or grom but is quite possible given it was mentioned as practiced in Kilo to have one maybe two manpads which years ago coudl be only strela-2m. Of course it is fired only when completely surfaced. Basically as mean of self-defense in K-19 widowmaker scenario .

Kilo:
"- When was TEST-71ME installed? Some sources claim these subs were used in the anti-ship role only."
Read this several times on polish naval forums.

Kobben & Kilo,
"- When was Grom installed?"
Only supposed. Only after mobilisation. For sure that igla launcher mast mentioned in your original database for Kilo is not there, probably never was. Grom is VERY popular in polish armed forces (500-800 pcs? locally built and is supplementing several hundreds of strela-2M) so no wonder one or two will be handled to navy for the most precious units like submarines.

Kobben:
This page suggests that:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobben
they have the following sensor suite after upgrades:
sonar changed
CSU-83 (DBQS-21) sonar suystem composed of: CSU 3-4 medium/high freq avtive/passive sonar
FAS 3-1 passive hull array
PRS 3-15 passive rangefinder sonar array
radar changed to Kelvin Hughes Typ 1007 navigation radar

Tarantul:
"Misc corrections: - Removed one AK-630 on Polish Tarantul I"
NONONO! Tarantuls all have two, Pauk on the same hull has one.
Both have only one fire control radar.
Pauk is ASW or KGB/boirderguard and no ASuW, Tarantuls are pure ASuW.
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okr%C4%99ty_projektu_1241
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QUYTiYwMQ6.../s1600/OS3.jpg

Tarantul:
"The Garpun is credited with a 70nm+ OTH range against large targets, and 24nm against small targets. The OTH capability was needed to fire the SS-N-2D out to its maximum range, apparently."
And this is a kludge.
Ther reality is, most missile boats CANNOT fire their missiles OTH because their mast is too low for radar horison. I have read about this Garpun on FAS site. It is OTH ONLY if one of the boats acting as emitter is closer, then the reciever boats can be further away and those are OTH. Emitter is not OTH so effectively from tactial point of view for simple scenarios as we have it is NON-OTH radar for all practical purposes, if we make if miraculous OTH it starts working better than high-positioned surface search on a missile destroyer or even OHP what is a nonsense. radar horison (mount altitude and target altitude) is what dictates max range except a few very special radars, more power on large radars only makes sure that you can detect even the smallest object up to the max radar horison and this is where big destroyer radar winds: by height and power, but only a dozen miles or so.
This is a problem for Polish Navy: how to direct all those RBS-15, even STYX MOD C, and NSM of course, havin a few stupid M-28 Bryza that are easy to be shot down and even them have some 120km radar range... but for a frigate like OHP or Sovremenny. So this is reality and I think we should not provide a kludge to make 'hero boats' appear on the map in order to feel better.

I am afraid of a few radar simulation issues, it seem to me after playing several games that:
-In the game, enabling any radar is counted as enabling practically all radars, from the point of view of ESM. In reality ships use sectorized low power navigation radars, and only one enables all radars. In the game, if yo enably any radar, you can detect and classify it quite easily.
-RBS-15 III (not II) has land strike capability like tomahawk (but it is GPS+inertial thing). Yet in the game it searches for surface radar-detectable target, therefore orbiting around let's say enemy airfield until out of fuel.
-in reality IR STYX missiles were able to strike heated, metal oil tanks during iran-iraq war, just to let you know.
-radar sites have no limit on number of traced targets, the with neva alone you can basically survey large part of airspace
-generic surface radars and others as well show optimistic range at low altitudes, something like 30% more than official polish navy publications/coverage maps even if we include the fact that those shore-mounted towers are taller than a big cruiser mast. This leads me to thinking, that as basic equation, you use ranges, instead of using radar horison range equation which is roughly:
http://www.radary.az.pl/zasieg.php
dist[km]=3.57*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2)), h1 and h2 in meters are emitter and target altitude. This implementation of the lowest possible detection altitude would solve Falkland scenario mystery and add a lot of intersting effects to the simulation.
-First contact scenarios are IMO badly designed, it should not start with all ships withing range of each other otherwise it becomes a random lottery based on ESM. (who blinks first). This is not reality since the ships do not appear from vacuum, and detection ranges for surface radars seem to be vastly overestimated.

[emsoy]

Originally Posted by kbosak

"boats are indeed Tarantul I not III. Also added 2000 version with Quad Grom mount."

I have screwed up. It turns out that polish navy is using grom as pure manpads, either from submarine kiosk or side galleries of the of ship's bridge,
but all quad mounts are retained for original strela-2M only. They should be interchangeable in theory, but apparently ther is some minor detail like voltage, rails
width, whatever.

Thanks, have restored the Strela and removed the quad Grom. Also added Grom MANPADS from 2000 onwards. Sounds ok?

Originally Posted by kbosak

OHP:
"- Removed CWIS and Mk13 mount, as they have no ammo"
I have spotted that on the photos physically CIWS is still there, but ammo is not and infact the system is not operational as repeated many times on navy enthusiasts
forums. I have edited on my scenario by making null ammo count for this, but on the other hand, most probably search radar is never enabled as well so erasing the
mount is closer to reality.

Thanks, also removed the AN/SPG-60 STIR.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-Remember Polish Navy has no single standard arm nor harpoon and is not planning to have. So MK13 mount is physically there on OHP, but similar situation as with
phalanx. Those ships are simply manpower-intensive huge boat chasers with good sensors keeping headcount for better times, which may never arrive. Witt updated MU-90
torpedos, also for their seasprite, with practically no reloads (20pcs or so for the whole navy)

"- Is the Grom system made up of MANPADS or Quad launcher systems?"
looks like in teh navy there are only strela-2M on quad launchers, grom as pure manpads (single tube).
apparently there are two wrobel mounts available on polish ships
ZU-23-2MR Wróbel (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZU-23-2M_Wr%C3%B3bel)
and
ZU-23-2MR Wróbel II (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZU-23-2MR_Wr%C3%B3bel_II)
the second one has reportedly handling issues when swithing between guns and rocket (assume a few good seconds ofdelay), this is why all mounts with wrobel (v1) stay
on ships where they are.
So also Wrobel II uses Strela-2M and not Grom

Great, retaining the original Wrobel II on the Goplo and Orlik classes, with ZU-23-2 and Strela-2M.

Also updated a couple more Polish ship with Wrobel (gun-only).

Originally Posted by kbosak

Kaszub:
This is an ASW corvette since always and wake-homing torpedo on it... was a TOTAL surprise.
What I know for sure is that polish navy is using TEST-71 ASW torpedo on ORP Orzeł (877E Kilo), Kaszub being build during the fall of commmunism, so the only
reasonnable guess for 533mm ASW torpedo is TEST-71.

Makes sense, have given the ships TEST-71ME and torpedo wire control.

Originally Posted by kbosak

660 Grom:
about toadfish VDS:
http://fotoforum.gazeta.pl/photo/2/c...WS6Zr5uGdX.jpg there is NOTHING between AK630M and the tail. No lift, no place for a reel. And it would make no
sense at all to put a sonar on them. Those are not Pauk-style boats, those are fast and noisy, small surface cobatants Tarantul-style, without a single armament
agains submarines. This toadfish idea is rumor copypasted from swedish sub hunters, I think. Swedes wre obsessed about sub-chasing, and grom 660 basically uses their
command&control, but not with all its possible flavours.

I'm convinced. Copy-pasted your text into the unit's "design comments" for future reference

Originally Posted by kbosak

Kobben:
"- Only 4 of the eight torpedo tubes are used? Did I get that right?"
In my scenario I have empied half of them by default since I suppose total stocks of those ammo is not more than 16-20pcs for all Kobbens. Buying of MU-90 was cut
from 32 to somehting like 20 for financial reasons alone, and type 612 was simply haded over Danish Navy with Kobbens. This means if they wer shipped with full salvo
plus a few more, there is no more than a few left per ship after several naval exercices, possibly add bad maintenance etc...
"- Does Poland carry MANPADS on these operationally? Are you sure it is practically possible to fire these SAMs from the subs?"
This is not sure if those are streal-2m or grom but is quite possible given it was mentioned as practiced in Kilo to have one maybe two manpads which years ago coudl
be only strela-2m. Of course it is fired only when completely surfaced. Basically as mean of self-defense in K-19 widowmaker scenario .

Okay I'm keeping the full 8-round torpedo loadout and letting the scenario designers reduce the load if they want

I'm slightly sceptical about the Grom on Kobben. Not entirely sure they'd ever use that operationally...

Originally Posted by kbosak

Kilo:
"- When was TEST-71ME installed? Some sources claim these subs were used in the anti-ship role only."
Read this several times on polish naval forums.

Have updated the sub with 2x TEST-71ME tubes, as per request

Originally Posted by kbosak

Kobben & Kilo,
"- When was Grom installed?"
Only supposed. Only after mobilisation. For sure that igla launcher mast mentioned in your original database for Kilo is not there, probably never was. Grom is VERY
popular in polish armed forces (500-800 pcs? locally built and is supplementing several hundreds of strela-2M) so no wonder one or two will be handled to navy for
the most precious units like submarines.

Hmm okay leaving Grom out of the Kilo, allowing scenario designer to add the MANPADS if needed.

Also removed the Igla installation.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Kobben:
This page suggests that:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobben
they have the following sensor suite after upgrades:
sonar changed
CSU-83 (DBQS-21) sonar suystem composed of: CSU 3-4 medium/high freq avtive/passive sonar
FAS 3-1 passive hull array
PRS 3-15 passive rangefinder sonar array
radar changed to Kelvin Hughes Typ 1007 navigation radar

Hmmm okay... I'm not so sure.

The CSU 3-4 was a late 1970s system. The Kobben class originally carried AN 407 and was upgraded with the early-1990s PSU 83F. The PSU 83F is not associated with the CSU 3-4. Rather, the AN 407 which is related to AN 410 is also known as CSU 3-2. So could be some confusion here?

I have not found any evidence that suggest the Kobben class was ever fitted with the FAS 3-1, which is a CSU 83/90 supplementary flank array. Probably because the sub is too small for flank arrays?

Ditto for PRS 3-15, which is fitted to the Ula class but probably not Kobben. Ula is fitted with DBQS-21N while the upgraded Kobben had/have DBQS-21F.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Tarantul:
"Misc corrections: - Removed one AK-630 on Polish Tarantul I"
NONONO! Tarantuls all have two, Pauk on the same hull has one.
Both have only one fire control radar.
Pauk is ASW or KGB/boirderguard and no ASuW, Tarantuls are pure ASuW.
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okr%C4%99ty_projektu_1241
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QUYTiYwMQ6.../s1600/OS3.jpg

Thanks, restored

Originally Posted by kbosak

Tarantul:
"The Garpun is credited with a 70nm+ OTH range against large targets, and 24nm against small targets. The OTH capability was needed to fire the SS-N-2D out to its
maximum range, apparently."
And this is a kludge.
Ther reality is, most missile boats CANNOT fire their missiles OTH because their mast is too low for radar horison. I have read about this Garpun on FAS site. It is
OTH ONLY if one of the boats acting as emitter is closer, then the reciever boats can be further away and those are OTH. Emitter is not OTH so effectively from
tactial point of view for simple scenarios as we have it is NON-OTH radar for all practical purposes, if we make if miraculous OTH it starts working better than
high-positioned surface search on a missile destroyer or even OHP what is a nonsense. radar horison (mount altitude and target altitude) is what dictates max range
except a few very special radars, more power on large radars only makes sure that you can detect even the smallest object up to the max radar horison and this is
where big destroyer radar winds: by height and power, but only a dozen miles or so.

Hm yeah but there is surface ducting which allows radars to see beyond the horizon. Under good conditions surface-to-surface detections can be made out to 100nm.

It could very well be that the Garpun wasn't capable of surface ducting. Do you have a link to the FAS article?

Amongst others, Band Stand [Monolit] is credited with a 100nm OTH-SW (Surface Wave) targeting capability for SS-N-22.

Originally Posted by kbosak

This is a problem for Polish Navy: how to direct all those RBS-15, even STYX MOD C, and NSM of course, havin a few stupid M-28 Bryza that are easy to be shot down
and even them have some 120km radar range... but for a frigate like OHP or Sovremenny. So this is reality and I think we should not provide a kludge to make 'hero
boats' appear on the map in order to feel better.

Agree 100%, we should not give platforms capabilities they don't have in RL.

Originally Posted by kbosak

I am afraid of a few radar simulation issues, it seem to me after playing several games that:
-In the game, enabling any radar is counted as enabling practically all radars, from the point of view of ESM. In reality ships use sectorized low power navigation
radars, and only one enables all radars. In the game, if yo enably any radar, you can detect and classify it quite easily.

Our current implementation is a lot better than other sims like this but as you point out there are still some limitations. The human player can manually select what radars to use, but there are no AI logics to handle this. We'll look into this later on, but it is a very complex subject.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-RBS-15 III (not II) has land strike capability like tomahawk (but it is GPS+inertial thing). Yet in the game it searches for surface radar-detectable target,
therefore orbiting around let's say enemy airfield until out of fuel.

Okay have registered a bug report on this and assigned to me. Thanks!

Originally Posted by kbosak

-in reality IR STYX missiles were able to strike heated, metal oil tanks during iran-iraq war, just to let you know.

Thanks, we need further refined (read: more complex) models for this to work right.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-radar sites have no limit on number of traced targets, the with neva alone you can basically survey large part of airspace

Yes this is a limitation in the current model. Been looking at this, but we're not quite sure how to get the 'contact selection' to work well without
driving players nuts and generating 1000 support tickets. "My radars are not detecting the bogies I want them to!"

Originally Posted by kbosak

-generic surface radars and others as well show optimistic range at low altitudes, something like 30% more than official polish navy publications/coverage maps even
if we include the fact that those shore-mounted towers are taller than a big cruiser mast. This leads me to thinking, that as basic equation, you use ranges, instead
of using radar horison range equation which is roughly:

We take both transmitter and contact height into account.

Originally Posted by kbosak

http://www.radary.az.pl/zasieg.php
dist[km]=3.57*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2)), h1 and h2 in meters are emitter and target altitude. This implementation of the lowest possible detection altitude would solve
Falkland scenario mystery and add a lot of intersting effects to the simulation.

3.57*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2)) or 4.12*Sqrt(h) is a textbook approximation. We use earth radius, tangent angle, etc to calculate surface angle and blah blah blah.

According to our sources the radar horizon is typically 20-30nm depending on sensor and contact height, and visual horizon is 15-20nm. So think our model is fairly good?

If there's an error it could be that we've put the radars too high on the ships, and the contact superstructure is too high as well.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-First contact scenarios are IMO badly designed, it should not start with all ships withing range of each other otherwise it becomes a random lottery based on ESM.
(who blinks first). This is not reality since the ships do not appear from vacuum, and detection ranges for surface radars seem to be vastly overestimated.

Agreed, the model could/should probably be refined. Coming up with good models that cover all possibilites is quite a challenge.

[kbosak]

>Kobben manpads
>I'm slightly sceptical about the Grom on Kobben. Not entirely sure they'd ever use that operationally...
I would say the Kobbens themselves are hardly operational, they have maybe 50-75% of their original endurance on batteries.
On the other hand this manpads is just a tube that can be carried easily. It is highly probable
it will be issued to submariners in order to be able to kill a lone subhunter helo, it is so easy to get
into shallow sands somewhere in the baltic and stick your hull up in the air. I know this is not 2WW but this might make
a difference between death and life.

>Kobben sonars:
You know more in this case than me. I have only pointed to the article.

>Radars & OTH
>Hm yeah but there is surface ducting which allows radars to see beyond the horizon.
of course and this is included in the equation I gave you with 3.75*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2))
for radar horison. An equation for optical horison has smaller coefficient, but this is something like 20% less
for most wavelength only. So the ducting is not same as multibouncing in which case it becomes OTH radar
but explain to me why should such radar from 1980 be so much powerful than say swedish Giraffe from 2010?
I am only asking where is the catch, that Russians has something better than all other nations in this subject of surface radars.
Maybe I have missed a huge topic.

>ESM and multi vs single radar enabling
>Our current implementation is a lot better than other sims like this but as you point out there are still some limitations. The human player can manually select what radars to use, but there are no AI logics to handle this. We'll look into this later on, but it is a very complex subject.
What I am trying to say, there might be a bug or 'absurdally powerful ESM' syndrome,
since playing in GOD mode I am observing how the ship can be seen from distance (who fires upon me),
and I swear, for two ships 200Nm apart, you can detect OHP by ESM no matter which radar it enables.
Worse, when you enable CRM-200 on type 206 Flaming, you get instant detection from sovremenny just around the hill 120km north-east from Gdansk, what is ridiculous.
since this radar is soemthign like 12NM range 1W (one watt peak!) power, with something like 0.1W under regular conditions.

>According to our sources the radar horizon is typically 20-30nm depending on sensor and contact height, and visual horizon is 15-20nm. So think our model is fairly good?
Looks very advanced! It might be interesting to enable editing altitude on generic radars (like for observation posts).
Maybe let's don't tweak in the area. Concerning first contact scenarios, it is sufficient to move the russians further north
at the beginning in order to remove general randomness of this scenario.

>Su-22M4
According to my best knowledge those are not carryign any guided missiles at the moment and it is doubtful
if they EVER had (this is about kedge/kerry/kyle toys).
Nothing guided being fired on their exercices ever landed in the press.
Now comes more delicate thing:
S-5K and S-8KO rockets differ by a factor of 4 in payload and seriously in penetration (57mm is said to be good for soft
vehicles and infantry, 80mm one is the smallest one good agains airstrips). In the game they both have roughly 1DP and this is unbalanced,
why use S-8KO in the game?

Personally I find a few details annoying during gameplay:
-cannot change aircraft Callsign once they are in a base, this makes difificult to make true-to-life names
-in many cases when trying to assign correct amoutn of stock ammo on airfields, it would be so much more convenient
to have max value+current value instead of being forced to select among 2/2 and 10000/10000 style mounts.
-you can destroy 3000m long airstrip with 3 batteries of Grad missiles just by putting it into fire.
no imagine salvo of 24 grad launchers killing entire Czerniakhovsk airbase. Makes no sense, they shoudl cover at best 3km2
of soft targets, while the base is 6km2 full of bunkers, trenches and uderground fuel dumps (Google Maps).
-MLRS launchers are not counted as single rockets. This is problematic: consider mlrs above 200mm,
Uragan in particular with 300mm. What happens you cannot interecept them in teh game due to special handling logic.
Net results you can take uragan and pick with 1-3 missiles as many single targets as you want and nobody will respnd with aa fire.
This is ridiculous, those rockets are in the size of anything that polish AA would be happy to fire even until lack of ammo.
-For artillery, arror is often given in % of azimuth and % of range, we have this data here or there so it coudl be implemented
-ammo logistics for US guided bomb munitions ammunitions is more complex as the guidance pods are attached to the iron bombs.
for example, Poles have ordered:
340 bombs Mk82
230 bombs Mk84
270 conversion kits making a bomb
Mk82 into GBU-38B/B (Mk82)
or
Mk84 into GBU-31B(V)1
270 conversion kits making a bomb
Mk82 into Paveway II
or
Mk84 into Paveway III

Therefore there is a mix of what can become what depending on targets, note that
MK84 is twice as heavy as Mk82 but less of the former are carried.
This creates completely irregular usage patterns.
For example all mk84 can become either laser or tv guided,
but there is not enough kits to do the same with MK82, and even if you make all MK84 as tv,
all MK82 must then become either laser or unguided.

-------

A few polish equipment reflecting reality of our defence agains russia.
Polish 122mm MLRS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR-40_Langusta
is polish modernized BM-21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad
using
fragmentation-HE rockets "Feniks" with 42km range
and
cargo rockets (DPICM? chocolates?) 32km.

This is important to simulate the fact we keep in check southern Kaliningrad airfields.

And then goeas 155mm L52 Krab howitzers
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Krab
http://www.militis.pl/bron-pancerna/...ubica-krab-dp1
is is said their range was specifiec in public order to be 40km and appears to have been confirmed

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Herman

You could ask Neal Stevens, Subsim owner, to add a download section ( http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php )for MNO scenarios so that you can post it for everyone to try.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=209959

Done.

kbosak, I've set you up with permission to upload,

Neal

[emsoy]

Originally Posted by kbosak

>Kobben manpads
>I'm slightly sceptical about the Grom on Kobben. Not entirely sure they'd ever use that operationally...
I would say the Kobbens themselves are hardly operational, they have maybe 50-75% of their original endurance on batteries.
On the other hand this manpads is just a tube that can be carried easily. It is highly probable
it will be issued to submariners in order to be able to kill a lone subhunter helo, it is so easy to get
into shallow sands somewhere in the baltic and stick your hull up in the air. I know this is not 2WW but this might make
a difference between death and life.

Fair enough I'm leaving it up the scenario author to do the final per-scenario adjustments.

Originally Posted by kbosak

>Kobben sonars:
You know more in this case than me. I have only pointed to the article.

>Radars & OTH
>Hm yeah but there is surface ducting which allows radars to see beyond the horizon.
of course and this is included in the equation I gave you with 3.75*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2))
for radar horison. An equation for optical horison has smaller coefficient, but this is something like 20% less
for most wavelength only. So the ducting is not same as multibouncing in which case it becomes OTH radar
but explain to me why should such radar from 1980 be so much powerful than say swedish Giraffe from 2010?
I am only asking where is the catch, that Russians has something better than all other nations in this subject of surface radars.
Maybe I have missed a huge topic.

I know for a fact that even commercial nav/surface search radars are capable of making surface detections out to 60nm under the right conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct

As far as I know the Giraffe is a target indicator radar, and not really an OTH fire-control system? If the Giraffe is indeed capable of making OTH-SW contacts then I'll update the Giraffe, but would like to back this up with hard facts.

Originally Posted by kbosak

>ESM and multi vs single radar enabling
>Our current implementation is a lot better than other sims like this but as you point out there are still some limitations. The human player can manually select
what radars to use, but there are no AI logics to handle this. We'll look into this later on, but it is a very complex subject.
What I am trying to say, there might be a bug or 'absurdally powerful ESM' syndrome,
since playing in GOD mode I am observing how the ship can be seen from distance (who fires upon me),
and I swear, for two ships 200Nm apart, you can detect OHP by ESM no matter which radar it enables.
Worse, when you enable CRM-200 on type 206 Flaming, you get instant detection from sovremenny just around the hill 120km north-east from Gdansk, what is ridiculous.
since this radar is soemthign like 12NM range 1W (one watt peak!) power, with something like 0.1W under regular conditions.

In real life, ESM systems produce rather impressive ranges. The reason is that the ESM systems have amazing senstitivity and radars are a lot more powerful than they have to be. I'll post up some more info on this in my next post.

Originally Posted by kbosak

>According to our sources the radar horizon is typically 20-30nm depending on sensor and contact height, and visual horizon is 15-20nm. So think our model is fairly
good?
Looks very advanced! It might be interesting to enable editing altitude on generic radars (like for observation posts).
Maybe let's don't tweak in the area. Concerning first contact scenarios, it is sufficient to move the russians further north
at the beginning in order to remove general randomness of this scenario.

Yes we'd like to implement more randomness, but this is further down on our to-do list. Anyway will take a look at the scenario and see if I can create more fog-of-war to make it more difficult for the player.

BTW, antenna height for ground-based sensors is already in the database, so the new RM-100 surveillance radar that I added last night will have a height of 22m above the ground, increasing horizon range.

Originally Posted by kbosak

>Su-22M4
According to my best knowledge those are not carryign any guided missiles at the moment and it is doubtful
if they EVER had (this is about kedge/kerry/kyle toys).
Nothing guided being fired on their exercices ever landed in the press.

There are several sources that state that the Kh-29T (AS-14 Kedge) was used by Poland on the Su-22M-4 during the Cold War. It could very well be that the weapons were later withdrawn as their seeker, warhead and/or rocket motor expired.

So what we need to do is find out when the ex-Soviet A/G missiles were withdrawn. Probably after 10-15 years, so 2000-2005?

Polish Su-22M-4 also used the AS-7:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krzesiny_52RB.JPG

I'm less sure about the AS-9 though.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Now comes more delicate thing:
S-5K and S-8KO rockets differ by a factor of 4 in payload and seriously in penetration (57mm is said to be good for soft
vehicles and infantry, 80mm one is the smallest one good agains airstrips). In the game they both have roughly 1DP and this is unbalanced,
why use S-8KO in the game?

In Command, the S-8KO is capable of penetrating 201-500mm RHA while the S-5K can only penetrate 91-140mm RHA.

The S-8KO has a 3.6kg HEAT warhead with 0.9 kg HE, so it has 0.9 damage points (DP). S-5K has a 1.36kg HEAT warhead, but I do not know how much HE it had and so temporarely used 1DP for this warhead. I've now recued it to 0.35 DP, but if you have info on the exact HE weight please let me know.

If you know the exact exposive type that would help also, as we're simulating a whole bunch of different exposives types and convert the explosive power to TNT equivalents.

For instance, the Mk84 2000lb GPB has 429kg/945lb of Tritonal which is equal to 643.5kg of TNT. In Command, 1x Damage Point (DP) = 1kg TNT, and the sim handles the conversion from Tritonal to TNT equivalents automatically. Thus, the Mk84 will inflict 643.5 DP rather than 429 DP.

Neat, huh

Originally Posted by kbosak

Personally I find a few details annoying during gameplay:
-cannot change aircraft Callsign once they are in a base, this makes difificult to make true-to-life names

This is high on our to-do list (esp my own to-do list!), along with deleting a specific aircraft. We've had so many other issues that have been given higher priority, but we'll probably get to this one pretty soon.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-in many cases when trying to assign correct amoutn of stock ammo on airfields, it would be so much more convenient
to have max value+current value instead of being forced to select among 2/2 and 10000/10000 style mounts.

We always recommend using the 0/10000 weapon record for ammo dumps.

If you want to save time when adding weapons to ammo dumps you can create an SBR INI file and load the magazines all-in-one.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-you can destroy 3000m long airstrip with 3 batteries of Grad missiles just by putting it into fire.
no imagine salvo of 24 grad launchers killing entire Czerniakhovsk airbase. Makes no sense, they shoudl cover at best 3km2
of soft targets, while the base is 6km2 full of bunkers, trenches and uderground fuel dumps (Google Maps).

Yes this sounds unrealistic. Can you send me a savegame showing this and I'll look into it. Thanks!

Originally Posted by kbosak

-MLRS launchers are not counted as single rockets. This is problematic: consider mlrs above 200mm,
Uragan in particular with 300mm. What happens you cannot interecept them in teh game due to special handling logic.
Net results you can take uragan and pick with 1-3 missiles as many single targets as you want and nobody will respnd with aa fire.
This is ridiculous, those rockets are in the size of anything that polish AA would be happy to fire even until lack of ammo.

Hmmmm yeah this is a tough one... Can you send me a list of the battlefield rockets you think should be interceptable by SAMs, so that we can discuss this?

We currently have the M26 MLRS rockets implemented as interceptable rockets, where as 155mm GPS-guided arty shells are not. So should probably implement the BM-27 the same way.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-For artillery, arror is often given in % of azimuth and % of range, we have this data here or there so it coudl be implemented

Yeah we currently use CEP at max range.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-ammo logistics for US guided bomb munitions ammunitions is more complex as the guidance pods are attached to the iron bombs.
for example, Poles have ordered:
340 bombs Mk82
230 bombs Mk84
270 conversion kits making a bomb
Mk82 into GBU-38B/B (Mk82)
or
Mk84 into GBU-31B(V)1
270 conversion kits making a bomb
Mk82 into Paveway II
or
Mk84 into Paveway III

Okay but the JDAM tail kits for Mk82 and Mk84 aren't interchangeable, ditto for the Paveway kits esp since they are PW II and PW III. So there are some rather important details in the kit quantities that have been left out.

So what we basically know is that there are 570 bombs and 530 guidance kids, so 40 bombs have no kits.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Therefore there is a mix of what can become what depending on targets, note that
MK84 is twice as heavy as Mk82 but less of the former are carried.
This creates completely irregular usage patterns.
For example all mk84 can become either laser or tv guided,
but there is not enough kits to do the same with MK82, and even if you make all MK84 as tv,
all MK82 must then become either laser or unguided.

[emsoy]

Kh-29T, here:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4162/1843/1600/b.jpg

[emsoy]

Originally Posted by kbosak

A few polish equipment reflecting reality of our defence agains russia.
Polish 122mm MLRS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR-40_Langusta
is polish modernized BM-21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad
using
fragmentation-HE rockets "Feniks" with 42km range
and
cargo rockets (DPICM? chocolates?) 32km.

This is important to simulate the fact we keep in check southern Kaliningrad airfields.

Do you have more information on this system? The info above isn't enough to make a good implementation.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by kbosak

And then goeas 155mm L52 Krab howitzers
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Krab
http://www.militis.pl/bron-pancerna/...ubica-krab-dp1
is is said their range was specifiec in public order to be 40km and appears to have been confirmed

Yeah have given the Krab system with Base Bleed ammo a 20nm range.

[emsoy]

Copy-paste from this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm...&key=&#3483728


Here are some screenshots from the Radar Calc MS/Excel sheets I've used to balance out the radar model. It should give some clues about the input parameters and also the model's complexity. Note that stats from public sources are in black, my wilda$$ guessimations are in red. Lots of comments here and there. And yes, we only have one operating mode per radar set, which is the most typical operating mode.

Since the Command sensor code is written in Visual Basic, we use the _exact_same_ code in both the simulator and the above MS/Excel spreadsheet. Pretty neat huh!

The 1980-2015+ database contains 1838 (finished) radars and they've all been balanced out like this. Yes, that was a insane job. The 1950-1979 database has a load of earlier sets extinct by 1980. The database editor has the same VB sensor code as the sim and the MS/Excel spreadsheet, and thus also does a bunch of sample calcs in the editor itself just to make sure the input params aren't out of whack.








Here are some range estimations for some ESM sets against five typical radar sets. Again, black stats are from public sources, red are my wilda$$ guesses. And as for radars, this was a big job as well.

And as you can see, high-end ESM/ELINT sets produce some pretty ridiculous range estimates against powerful radars hehe.





Here are some ECM vs radar examples. As you can see it is pretty complex. Black stats come from declass sources, red stats are my guessimations.

The effects assume the target radar antenna points directly at the jammer beam. Sidelobe jamming (which Command also simulates) has less effect.

[kbosak]

Originally Posted by emsoy

Do you have more information on this system? The info above isn't enough to make a good implementation.
Thanks!
Yeah have given the Krab system with Base Bleed ammo a 20nm range.

Concerning WR-40 Langusta,
it is strictly BM-21 launcher withh no reloads on the truck as before,
the difference is in things that are very important but not simulated at all in the game: the use of GPS+INS, full automation, 7.26mm protected cab for the entire crew and probably ABC secured.
I would just copy-paste BM-21 specs, extrapolate linearly CEP, apply ranges as I have stated, max car speed is now 53mph and it is heavier but otherwise it is essentially the same system.
The ammunition is 122mm of a new type but compatible with BM-21, yet I think standard BM-21 cars don;t have aiming instrumentation for those new larger pages.
http://www.altair.com.pl/magazines/a...article_id=272

If you want to order a few examples online, webpage of their maker is here:
http://www.hsw.pl/1076/artillery-equipment
http://www.hsw.pl/czytaj/649
interesting piece of equipment,
http://www.hsw.pl/czytaj/875
Langusta with reloads like RM-70

Polish Su-22M-4 also used the AS-7:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krzesiny_52RB.JPG
Therefore we have a new loadout:
-no ECM pod
-2x fuel tanks
-2x atoll (here not sure of the type)
-2x kh-29L (one more thing, it looks it should be L=laser version, su-22M4 has laser designator in nose cone, and I see no camera head for tv initial guidance at launch phase on thsi airplane).
-in total 40x S-5K 57mm

Btw Time To Ready dialog box is not having its default focus on OK button so you always have to click with mouse or use tab-enter. Mildly annoying.

>>>We always recommend using the 0/10000 weapon record for ammo dumps.
Not the best solution as it hides logistics problems: if you are doing aviation dispersal, you don,t want to cheat by bringing 300 guided antiradar missiles to some remote wooden base if there is no storage for it, using ferry flights (for example to keep it all out of SRBM range, but in reality preventing further use). Therefore I suggest making manually editable min and max count for each ammo.

In attachment: a simple setup, BM-21 and howitzers vs 3000m 'generic airstrip' with its hangars etc. It is best to do a standalone scenario for testing purposes, but the situtaion is clear: airfield gone in 1h with all tanks, hangars, bunkers and 45 planes evern using 2 BM-21 BTYs.