[FIXED B808] ECM vs. radar

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

[FIXED B808] ECM vs. radar

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 >> [FIXED B808] ECM vs. radar

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

[FIXED B808] ECM vs. radar - 3/26/2016 6:07:11 PM

sergiopl

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline

I�m not sure if this is a bug in the game or in my own brain... so I would try to explain it

It appears that the jamming of a surface radar (I didn�t check with any other) it�s a matter of the direction of approach.

In the test scenario of the attached file I positioned 8 Prowlers around a Nimitz-class CVN. Then, with the carrier sailing to the north, I began a series of runs with a Backfire-C. Detection ranges were from 240 nm (from north and south) to 140 (from east and west). From NW. and NE. the carrier was detected at 190 nm and from SW. and SE. at 210 nm.

Then I turn the ship to the east, to try with another target aspect, but the results were nearly identical for every bearing. I also try putting the Prowlers on a circuit abeam instead of head-on/tail-on to the snooper, but to no avail.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by emsoy -- 3/27/2016 2:40:18 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/26/2016 8:39:42 PM

wild_Willie2

Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline

The aspect to the profile of the target is also factored into radar detection range, also the lobes of the jammers are being factored in. So if you are side on to a target and the jamming aircraft turns away or sideways to you, the jamming power goes down while the target radar reflection goes up. I don't know if this is the cause of this issue, but it could be factored into this issue.

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to sergiopl)

Post #: 2

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/26/2016 9:10:16 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

The reason is that the radar is extremely powerful, so it is able to burn through the jamming. It is currently 750 kW which is a lot, and it also has a rather narrow beamwidth which gives each pulse a lot of ompf.

If you suspect this may be wrong, feel free to dig into the matter. Example ranges vs target types, radar stats, etc, would be much appreciated

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to sergiopl)

Post #: 3

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/26/2016 9:20:40 PM

sergiopl

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline

I thought that at first... but I tried with different aspects with the same results, always with the jammer between the target and the radar.

Maybe I�m getting something wrong... it wouldn�t be the first time

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 4

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/26/2016 9:35:18 PM

sergiopl

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline

If the radar would have detected the carrier at max range all the times, I would think that it was merely a matter of power output.

But in my test scenario, the only variable is the bearing from which the aircraft approaches. When the Backfire comes from N. or S., detection range is 240 nm. When coming from E. or W. it is 140 nm... regardless of the aspect.

I can�t write the exact figures right here (the forum thinks that I�m writing phone numbers

(in reply to sergiopl)

Post #: 5

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/26/2016 11:14:15 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Ah yeah the carrier is heading east, which means broadside is north and south. Hence earlier detection, since the carrier has larger signature from that aspect

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to sergiopl)

Post #: 6

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/27/2016 12:45:28 AM

sergiopl

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline

But the weird thing is that if the carrier heads north, pointing its bow to the radar, the detection range is still 240 nm... AND if the aircraft approaches from the East and the carrier is heading North, with its broadside directed towards the radar, detection range is reduced to 140 nm.

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/27/2016 12:49:09 AM >

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 7

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/27/2016 11:04:09 AM

sergiopl

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline

I�m going to try to explain it again, this time with images taken from my test scenario (see Attachment in the opening post of the thread). Maybe I�m a little mess trying to explain it with words (as you would suspect, English is not my mother tongue

).

First of all, this is the disposition of the jammers around the carrier, heading north at the beggining of the test:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sergiopl)

Post #: 8

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/27/2016 11:08:27 AM

sergiopl

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline

Now, let�s begin with the test runs with the Backfire-C.

First, I turned the carrier to the east. Then the bomber approaches from the north and...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sergiopl)

Post #: 9

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/27/2016 11:11:30 AM

sergiopl

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline

Nothing weird in the first test run. The Down Beat it�s a very powerful radar, and the carrier�s broadside has a huge radar cross section.

Let�s try the second run, this time approaching from the east:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/27/2016 11:23:23 AM >

(in reply to sergiopl)

Post #: 10

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/27/2016 11:14:01 AM

sergiopl

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline

Again, nothing weird. The ship is pointing the bow towards the radar, so the radar cross section is less than before. But now... Left full rudder!

This time, the bomber approaches from the north, with the carrier�s bow pointed in his direction, and...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/27/2016 11:24:55 AM >

(in reply to sergiopl)

Post #: 11

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/27/2016 11:19:22 AM

sergiopl

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline

As you can see, the carrier is detected again at nearly 240 nm, despite the fact that her bow is pointed directly to the bomber (as we seen before, when heading east, detection range was 140 nm in the same case... the only difference is the direction of approach).

And what if the Backfire approaches from the east to the broadside of the carrier? Detection range should be around 240 nm, but...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/27/2016 11:33:31 AM >

(in reply to sergiopl)

Post #: 12

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/27/2016 11:29:57 AM

sergiopl

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline

It appears that the detection range it�s a matter of the direction of approach. Two examples from the "real" world:

- A Backfire raid taking off from Sovetskaya Gavan, in the Soviet Pacific coast, would detect a battlegroup located in the Western Pacific only at 140 nm (detection range is the same from east or west).

But...

- A Backfire raid taking off from Crimea would detect the ships at 240 nm... only because it approaches from the north.

The same occurs both with the Prowlers or with the carrier own ECM (detection ranges are nearly identical).

I hope my comments to be of some usefulness to the fantastic development team. Keep working on it, you�re great!

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/27/2016 11:38:01 AM >

(in reply to sergiopl)

Post #: 13

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/27/2016 2:39:22 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Thanks for the clarification

Fixed B808!

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to sergiopl)

Post #: 14

RE: ECM vs. radar - 3/27/2016 3:41:39 PM

sergiopl