AUV/ROV

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

AUV/ROV

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> AUV/ROV

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

AUV/ROV - 4/5/2014 9:13:37 AM

ipe

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/19/2013
Status: offline

Hello all. Im again trying out MCM operations and noticing some odd changes. I had Oksoy-class ship and REMUS 600 "AUV". REMUS can operate only 1.6 NM from host ship (i think its datalink range). So i think there should be separation between ROVs (manually operated) and AUVs (autonomous). Like REMUS 600 it has 24 hour endurance so its quite obvious that it can operate beyond 1.6 NM witch could be good range for ROVs like Saab Double Eagle.

Datalink and AUVs sharing their information is problem realism wise because when operating in deep water they cant communicate (fully autonomous) and in near surface operations they might use radiolinks to establish realtime communications.

Any thoughts on this?

Post #: 1

RE: AUV/ROV - 4/5/2014 10:47:39 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Hello,

Do we do in fact model 'tethered' mine-hunting ROVs. Here's a list from the current DB3000, along with their maximum cable ranges (in meters):

AN/SLQ-48 MNV [EX116 Mod 0] ROV -- United States (Navy), 1988, Mine Neutralisation Vehicle 1070
MIN Mk2 ROV -- Italy (Navy), 1985, Gaeta & Lerici Class, Mine Localization Vehicle 400
PAP 104 Mk2 ROV -- France (Navy), 1973, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 500
PAP 104 Mk3 [RCMDS Mk1] ROV -- United Kingdom (Royal Navy), 1981, Hunt / Bay Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 500
PAP 104 Mk4 ROV -- Germany [FRG/Reunified] (Navy), Type 331 Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 500
PAP 104 Mk4 ROV -- Malaysia (Navy), 1988, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 500
PAP 104 Mk5 [RCMDS Mk2] ROV -- United Kingdom (Royal Navy), 1990, Sandown Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 600
PAP 104 Mk5 ROV -- Belgium (Navy), 1986, Tripartite Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 600
PAP 104 Mk5 ROV -- France (Navy), 1985, Tripartite Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 600
PAP 104 Mk5 ROV -- Japan (Navy), 1999, Sugashima Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 600
PAP 104 Mk5 ROV -- Netherlands (Navy), 1984, Tripartite Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 600
PAP 104 Mk5 ROV -- Pakistan (Navy), 1993, Tripartite Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 600
PAP 104 Mk5 ROV -- Saudi Arabia (Navy), 1992, Sandown Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 600
PAP 104 Mk5 ROV -- Turkey (Navy), 1999, Edincuk Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 600
Pinguin B3 ROV -- Germany [FRG/Reunified] (Navy), 1984, Type 332/343 Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 1000
Pinguin B3 ROV -- Taiwan (Navy), MWW 50 Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 1000
Pluto Giga ROV -- Italy (Navy), 1994, 4x, Gaeta Class, Mine Disposal Vehicle 500
Pluto Giga ROV -- South Korea (Navy), Yang Yang Class, Mine Disposal Vehicle 500
Pluto Plus ROV -- Norway (Navy), 1995, Osk�y Class, Mine Disposal Vehicle 500
Pluto Plus ROV -- Spain (Navy), CME Class, Mine Disposal Vehicle 500
Pluto ROV -- Italy (Navy), 1985, Gaeta & Lerici Class, Mine Disposal Vehicle 500
Pluto ROV -- South Korea (Navy), SK5000 Class, Mine Disposal Vehicle 500
Remus 600 ROV -- Japan (Navy), 2014, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 3000
Remus 600 ROV -- United Kingdom (Royal Navy), 2010, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 3000
Remus 600 ROV -- United States (Navy), 2003, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 3000
S-4 ROV -- Japan (Navy), 1979, Hatsushima Class, Mine Neutralisation Vehicle 300
S-7 ROV -- Japan (Navy), 1993, Yaeyama Class, Mine Neutralisation Vehicle 300
S-7-1 ROV -- Japan (Navy), 1991, Uwajima Class, Mine Neutralisation Vehicle 300
S-8 [AN/SLQ-48 MNV] ROV -- Japan (Navy), 1993, Yaeyama Class, Mine Neutralisation Vehicle 1070
Seafox I [Inspection Vehicle] ROV -- Belgium (Navy), 2005, Tripartite Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 3000
Seafox I [Inspection Vehicle] ROV -- Netherlands (Navy), 2005, Tripartite Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 3000
Seafox I [Inspection Vehicle] ROV -- Sweden (Navy), 2009, Visby Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 3000
Seafox I [Inspection Vehicle] ROV -- United Kingdom (Royal Navy), 2003, Hunt & Sandown, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 3000
Seafox I [Inspection Vehicle] ROV -- United States (Navy), 2013, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 3000
Seafox I [Seefuchs, Inspection Vehicle] ROV -- Germany [FRG/Reunified] (Navy), 2001, Type 333 Class, Mine Hunting/Killing Vehicle 3000

When deployed, the cable between the ROV and the parent vessel should appear as a light-brown line. Tethered UAVs automatically assume the mission posture of their parent vessel (autonomous ROVs can be assigned to a different mission).

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 4/5/2014 11:48:17 AM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to ipe)

Post #: 2

RE: AUV/ROV - 4/5/2014 1:42:39 PM

ipe

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/19/2013
Status: offline

I understand how youve done it. But problem is that theres no diffence between two types of vehicles. AUV with autonomous operations and very long endurance or ROV tethered/manual command with short operation radius.

REMUS or Kongsberg HUGIN (witch is not in database) are autonomously operated and theyre only limitation is endurance. Just for example HUGIN 4500 has 60 hour endurance 4 kts so operating that kind of vehicle on 3km radius is wast of resources. Also mission differ as AUV are used for large area survaillance and ROV for inspecting or even detonating suspicious targets located by AUV or ship sonars.

Two kinds of vehicles ROVs and AUVs. I am not familier with all types modeled in Command but if simplified older systems are ROVs and modern systems are AUVs

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 3

RE: AUV/ROV - 2/11/2015 5:33:13 PM

jodi319

Posts: 4
Joined: 4/18/2013
Status: offline

I also would be interested in ROV and AUV distinction.

ipe what have you done so far in CMANO irt MCM?

(in reply to ipe)

Post #: 4

RE: AUV/ROV - 2/12/2015 10:48:38 PM

RoccoNZ

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/9/2015
Status: offline

I tried writing something longer about this based on several meetings I had with Kongsberg/Hydroid for a project I was leading. But the message board software thinks I'm posting phone numbers instead of dollars so you'll have to wait

(in reply to jodi319)

Post #: 5

RE: AUV/ROV - 2/27/2015 6:52:14 PM

RoccoNZ

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/9/2015
Status: offline

I've got some professional experience in this area for a infrastructure company I was contracting to.

I spent some time examining an underwater inspection and survey issue we had, and spent some time with reps from the Kongsberg and Hydroid sides of the business.

The entire REMUS range (100-600), and the HUGIN and the MUNIN series are essentially payload carrying systems. Payloads include a wide variety of sensor platforms (not just sonar packages). They can operate remotely or via a two-way datalink. The larger ones can surface and initiate comms links at pre-programmed intervals. Endurance varies greatly depending on the mission package (for example, an active sonar will reduce the endurance of MUNIN considerably due to battery use).

ROVs aren't all physically tethered systems either, some are simply tethered by a datalink. Their range is obviously very limited.

Pricing has no doubt changed from when I was looking, but a REMUS 100 system was then around the US$750,000 mark, the REMUS 600 system around the US$2M level and the MUNIN several factors higher. These prices all excluded the mission payload modules.

The interesting thing with the larger AUVs is how they could be loaded with passive sonar or ESM systems, deployed in a swarm, and sit in an area of interest for long periods of time (10+ days in some cases). Technology that would be great for profiling an enemy.....

The main limitations of AUVs is that they're all low power devices. Anything above 2-3kts is considered a challenging environment. Similarly with ROVs, depending on the current and visibility, working around anything that can go bang is going to be constrained by the environmental factors.

My 2 cents : ROVs and AUVs need to be modelled in the game separately.

< Message edited by RoccoNZ -- 2/27/2015 7:53:16 PM >

(in reply to RoccoNZ)

Post #: 6

RE: AUV/ROV - 12/14/2015 2:02:06 PM

ipe

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/19/2013
Status: offline

Havent tested MCM operations in a while so i put up a simple scenario with German Frankenthal and Norwegian Oksoy-class MCM vessels. Few things i noticed.

-Both vessels didnt have any ROVs. Dont know about other MCM vessels. So i had to edit them manually.
-ROVs and AUVs are still mixed up. Example REMUS 600 is AUV not ROV. REMUS and WLD-1 RMS are pretty much the only modern systems in database. Both AUVs.
-REMUS 600 endurance was way too short about 6 hr. Max 70 hrs according to Kongsberg REMUS brochure. Also because its ROV (in Command) and tethered (about 3 km range) it is pretty much useless.
-Both WLD-1 and REMUS 600 were destroyed by mines before they could detect anything (Finnish coast very shallow 7-20 m). I also tried to destroy Oksoy to the minefield but couldnt detonate any, not even with full speed (noisy). Both acoustic and magnetic mines were used in minefields.
-Both WLD-1 and REMUS 600 changed waypoints to avoid mines witch they didnt detect first.

These came to my mind at the moment. I dont have any saved game files.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 7

RE: AUV/ROV - 12/14/2015 4:32:22 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Hello,

Can you please sumbit a suitable save for each of the issues you are facing? As we have repeatedly stated, it is very difficult for us to exactly reproduce the conditions of a potential problem (in order to investigate it) without a save file.

Thanks!

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 12/14/2015 5:33:24 PM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to ipe)

Post #: 8