Something is really wrong with missile guidance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare >> Harpoon 3 ANW Support



Message

Vincenzo_Beretta -> Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/27/2006 8:09:42 PM)

Today I played again "End Run" MP, because it is a so good scenario, and I wished to check more some things in the game I had doubt about...

As it turned out, I was in for the biggest surprise of the 2006 Edition of Harpoon ANW European Championship (well, me and Frans basically): I launched a salvo of Shipwrecks and Sunburns BOL towards the suspected position of the enemy carrier group, the train of missiles departed as expected, and...

...All of sudden they turned 170° and went for a Prowler hovering with ECM on near my battlegroup - to disappear just thereafter (the Prowler survived).

In the picture, the Amazin' Prowler Magic at work!

I have a saved game of this moment, too.





[image]local://upfiles/2692/3B2DF7090C3B4F6991AD2B10CFF37565.jpg[/image]



Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/27/2006 9:50:54 PM)

Original DB. The scenario is the stock "End Run" in the Cold War battleset.

Really a good MP scenario, with good replayability (action today was hectic: one hour and half almost always at 1:1, and great planning/tension from both sides), but this problem forced us to stop :^(

I have two or three saves, taken just before the problem happened and just after. Contact me if you want them.



destruya -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/27/2006 10:05:12 PM)

I've been wondering about the behavior of the Sparrow IIIs as well. I know you have to be aligned with the target or the missiles lose guidance, but they're missing WAY too often even when you DO keep the lock.

Same deal with the Phoenix at ~3/4 to ~1/2 max firing distance. At around 50nm the Phoenix should be almost a death sentence for anything its pointed at.

Now, enemy missiles seem to be working JUST fine. Just ask my Tomcat pilots who get smoked by Mig-23s because their first and second salvos of Phoenix tend to fail to thin out the herds.

I've noticed the AI becoming a lot less proficient in downing incoming vampires, too. Normally it costs me my AEGIS' first.



Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/27/2006 10:35:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: destruya
I've noticed the AI becoming a lot less proficient in downing incoming vampires, too. Normally it costs me my AEGIS' first.


I'm seeing different results here. Last time I played "End Run" my formation ate all the missiles sent towards them, end of the story. Today the Kirov/Slava pair created an "umbrella of death" over the formation, and only a single Harpoon passed through (blasting a Krivak).

However there are many variables in Harpoon 3: enemy ECM, own ECM (today it was on in my formation), maybe home on jam, different missile guidances and backups - sometimes it is difficult to understand if it is a bug or a feature.

The bright side is that when you do unterstand how things works it is really satisfying and stimulating trying to use them to your advantage - the number of factors simulated by this game under the hood is really amazing.



Terminus -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/27/2006 10:42:22 PM)

Hmmm, that's interesting... So own formation ECM could actually be hazardous to one's health? I've seen the failure to fire SAMs against inbound Vampires as well...



Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/27/2006 10:57:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Hmmm, that's interesting... So own formation ECM could actually be hazardous to one's health? I've seen the failure to fire SAMs against inbound Vampires as well...


No. With my ECM on I had a better ratio of firing SAMs/destroying vampires, so maybe it helps.



evaamo2 -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/28/2006 6:23:04 AM)

pair of questions...

is the AIM-120 capable of HoJ (Home on Jamming) in Harpoon ANW?
I understand that once inside burn through range, the AMRAAM is capable of doing that in real life...which leads me to the second question:

how does the defensive/offensive ECM doctrine of the AI work? Does it take into account burn through ranges? For example...does it turn off the jammers once the threat is inside the burn through range in order to avoid becoming a "homing beacon"?

Last question, a bit offtopic though:

What is the best way of employing an AShM like the Exocet in Harpoon ANW, considering that
the launching side has no AEW aircraft, no long range radar and no other means to guide the missile to the target...just Lat/Lon coordinates of the fleet location ?
I use the Exocet as an example because it has INS guidance and then relies on its own radar for the terminal attack.

thanks for your answers :D
-E



hermanhum -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/28/2006 6:35:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evaamo2

pair of questions...

is the AIM-120 capable of HoJ (Home on Jamming) in Harpoon ANW?
I understand that once inside burn through range, the AMRAAM is capable of doing that in real life...which leads me to the second question:


The HoJ is a setting in the DB. AFAIK, most of the third-party DBs have the AMRAAM set for HoJ. I haven't looked through all of them.

quote:

how does the defensive/offensive ECM doctrine of the AI work? Does it take into account burn through ranges? For example...does it turn off the jammers once the threat is inside the burn through range in order to avoid becoming a "homing beacon"?


I don't think that the jamming is that sophisticated. You can try and run the game with the AALog activated and Weapons Calculations turned on. Then you can see exactly what the weapons are doing. I've never seen the AI turn off its jamming even if the weapons are past the burn through point.

quote:

Last question, a bit offtopic though:

What is the best way of employing an AShM like the Exocet in Harpoon ANW, considering that
the launching side has no AEW aircraft, no long range radar and no other means to guide the missile to the target...just Lat/Lon coordinates of the fleet location ?
I use the Exocet as an example because it has INS guidance and then relies on its own radar for the terminal attack.


Wouldn't the best way to use it be the Bearing-Only-Launch function? The player can do this, but, AFAIK, there is no way that this can be implemented for the AI. Or, am I understand your question wrongly? I think that most DBs have the Exocet set to conduct its own search pattern after it reaches the BOL point.



evaamo2 -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/28/2006 7:13:30 AM)

thanks for your reply Herman.

will try the BOL mode over the weekend since it seems that's the right way to to do it.

regarding the AIM-120 HoJ... will it engage the HoJ mode automatically against a jamming aircraft? This mode should not give away any missile lock indication to the jamming platform...so I wonder how does the AI react when an AIM-120 is inbound with HoJ mode on?

Yeah...I know the answer...experiment [;)]

Just wondering if anyone here has tried that before [:D]
thanks again,
-E



hermanhum -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/28/2006 7:57:27 AM)

AFAIK, if a missile / weapon has been given the HoJ capability, it will use it as soon as it is launched.  It will use this in conjunction with any sensors it might have.  You can look at the HARM and AMRAAM as good examples.

HARM has HoJ capability, but it has no active sensors for itself.  AMRAAM has HoJ capability as well as an active seeker.  So, when the AMRAAM is fired, the active seeker turns on automatically.  It is not possible to fire the missile with HoJ, only.  This requires an adjustment to the database.

Of course, if you feel that there is a need for this type of engagement, the PlayersDB can try and create a new / special weapon for you.  For example, if you want to create a setting for an engagement whereupon fighters engage each other with AMRAAM that only use HoJ for guidance, that is possible.  We would just create a plane and weapons that act this way.  However, those weapons will not have an active seeker head and would act much like the HARM.  So, I don't know if this is such a good idea.

And, the PlayersDB does have a unit that carries the Krypton AAM.  Check out the Su-35 Flanker F.  It is designated Anti-Awac.



hermanhum -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/28/2006 8:00:48 AM)

Oh, wait.  That is in error.  The Anti-AWAC is ESM guidance.  Not HoJ.  Sorry.



evaamo2 -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/28/2006 8:23:25 AM)

quote:

I'll check on the HoJ thing for ya


Awesome, thanks.


To complement what you mentioned regarding the Falklands...through the years I've read many sources and
watch some tv documentaries that seriously criticize the RN for disregarding several warnings made by senior analysts and experts inside and outside the RN regarding sending the fleet on it's own without good AEW coverage. That lead to what you depicted in your comment...which was the need to radiate in order to get the picture...giving away their location. It's the chicken and egg dilemma that could have easily been avoided with AEW patrols.

Which leads me to yet another question... does anybody know if a CVBG in these post-911/USS Cole days is under EMCON and under AEW watch the entire time during transit to its station? If you ask me, I wouldn't mind to have my fleet radiating (at least the Aegis) but would definitely keep an E-2C 24/7 up there. For example, in the case of the CVN73 (G.W) that was on transit through the Caribbean during spring, performing port visits and some joint excercises with other navies. It is obvious that the Caribbean is the US's backyard pool and that doctrine inside these waters is totally different from those used at the Yellow sea, however, it would be nice to know what standards are used in these asymmetric warfare days, regardless of the geographic location [;)].



evaamo2 -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/28/2006 8:36:20 AM)

Thanks for your response Herman...I will test the PlayersDB over the weekend.

I agree with you, it would be kind of silly to modify the DB just to have a loadout of castrated, HoJ-only AIM-120s.

Let's see what Dale comes up with...I wonder if it would be considered an AI exploit to carry HoJ-only AIM-120s against a group of enemy aircraft known to have an ECM loadout, also knowing that as default AI doctrine dictates, they would have their jammers on the entire time! [;)]
The Pk should be higher than relying on the AIM-120's Active Radar method, shouldn't it?
(anyone here familiar or with unclassified data regarding the HoJ feature of the AMRAAM???[;)])

cheers,
-E



hermanhum -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/28/2006 8:50:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evaamo2

I agree with you, it would be kind of silly to modify the DB just to have a loadout of castrated, HoJ-only AIM-120s.

Let's see what Dale comes up with...I wonder if it would be considered an AI exploit to carry HoJ-only AIM-120s against a group of enemy aircraft known to have an ECM loadout, also knowing that as default AI doctrine dictates, they would have their jammers on the entire time! [;)]


Rest assured, if you need to make something happen, we will build a platform for you to your specifications. In fact, we have an entire section in the PlayersDB for customized / personalized platforms that someone needed for a scenario.

However, we seem to be getting drawn off of the ECM topic. A new bug report has been posted regarding funky behaviour by jammers.

[image]local://upfiles/18146/A36CC77A0EBB4FB2AB1650EE9263404B.gif[/image]



hermanhum -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (6/28/2006 9:14:28 AM)

Did a little testing for the Krypton AAM.  I gave it the Home-on-Jam feature, and launched it against a Prowler that was jamming.  It it was pretty useless.  I think that was why we left the Krypton with only an ESM sensor.

I don't know what happens in real life, but an aircraft with dedicated Home-on-Jam missiles in H3 seems to be a non-starter.  Sorry.



witpqs -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (7/6/2006 10:21:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

In game the missile seeker range is set to 5nm or 15 seconds of movement, whichever is greater.



Please clarfy - 5nm after launch or prior to (the last 'known') target location? Same question with the 15 seconds of movement - after launch or before target?

Thanks in advance.



jpkoester1 -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (7/6/2006 11:23:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Please clarfy - 5nm after launch or prior to (the last 'known') target location? Same question with the 15 seconds of movement - after launch or before target?

Thanks in advance.


Seeker activation point is supposed to be 5nm or 15 seconds before impact.

Cheers,
JP



witpqs -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (7/7/2006 3:51:30 AM)

Thanks VCDH and jpkoester1 - together your answers gaveme the whole picture.



witpqs -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (7/7/2006 3:53:40 AM)

VCDH,

The only drawback that I see to what you propose is that weapons that lack BOL capability would now have it (to effect the work-around). Would this be a short term solution with a fix pending (at an undetermined time)?



jpkoester1 -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (7/7/2006 10:21:08 PM)

Just a couple of more words on where this particular bug came from.

Each missile in the database has a Bearing Only Launc flag that can either be enabled or disabled. If it is enabled this means that the missile can fly part of the way without guidance and can then illuminate the target during the final phase of its flight. This is important for the BOL launch option.

BOL capable weapons in Harpoon 3 activate their sensors about 5nm or 15 seconds before the calculated impact no matter if they are fired in BOL mode or through the normal attack dialog. This means that the sensors of these weapons don't need to have detection of their target when they are fired.

Now in previous versions of the game (3.6.3 and previous) non-BOL capable missiles also activated their sensors 5nm or 15 seconds before impact and did need to have detection of their target when they were fired. The only difference was that they could not be launched in BOL attack mode. However, they still behaved like BOL missiles once they were launched. This behaviour was determined to be unrealistic (think for example sidewinder missile which needs lockon before it can be fired) and so in 3.7 these "guide themselves all the way" missiles turned on their sensors immediately after launch (although they still could be fired without their own sensors locking onto their target). As becomes clear in this thread this had the very undesirable sideeffect of missiles finding and locking on to the "wrong" target immediately after launch.

Now for the current build we are testing a fix that will check wether the missile has detection of its target BEFORE it is fired (if it doesn't I assume you will get the Target not illuminated message but I have yet to test it). However, because the missile does not yet exist in the game at that point in time an invisible "dummy missile" is now created to check for sensor lockon. For the player with weapons tight setting this is no problem (the calculation only has to be made when the attack toolbar button is pressed), however, for the AI this means that during each evaluation cycle the missile needs to be created to check for the potential to fire it. This puts some drain on processor power and we will need to evaluate if the increased realism is worth the performance impact.

Hope this explains some of the background of this bug.

Thanks for listening,
JP



witpqs -> RE: Something is really wrong with missile guidance (7/8/2006 12:23:55 AM)

Yes, it does. Thanks much for the explanations guys.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.3125