RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design

Message

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/17/2006 6:39:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iron Duke Hi El Cid With regard to the AN/CPS-1 ,also called MEW While looking for info i found that only 6 sets were made all in the Rad Labs[hand crafted]. 3 sets in England by D-Day , a 4th made portable by the British and landed over the normandy beachhead. I've only found mention of two set in the Pacific , on Okinawa and on Siapan In RHSCVO 4.43 Build rate for CPS-1 is 30 , I think build rate should be 1 , what do you think? Do you have any additional info? Cheers I agree. Too late for 4.45, it will be in whatever is next: 4.46 or 5.00. I set the date back a year too - pending looking up better data. I bet it is fully two years too early. CHS is full of stuff a year or more early.

SamCole -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/17/2006 6:43:46 AM)
Actually bigJ62, I think that is why the individual tests have such wide variations. But, when you average things out over a number of tests, you can see where the tendencies are. If you look at Andy Macs results you can see that some times Japan loses more and some times the USA loses more. But, using identical aircraft, units, targets, missions, etc. it is would seem that there is no hard coded dropoff bonus hidden in the code. At least for escort and sweep. I'm not sure about bombers yet.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/17/2006 7:10:54 AM)
quote: The ranges usually given are not theoretical detection ranges, but operational ranges. Further, in this period, the range of radar could be set by the operator - just changing the scale or time base knob (if an A scope). So a picture would only show what the range of that particular setting was - not the limit. The ability to change range scale by the operator is not the point. The point is that a radar's detection range is limited by the maximum scale allowed by the display scope. To make it simple, it doesn't matter if a radar can detect an object out to 100 miles if the scope has a display limit of 50 miles. quote: It can be very complicated: Japanese ships routinely used radar WITHOUT transmitting - meaning they would detect Allied radar at greater range than the allied radar could detect anything! We are not set up to model that sort of thing. In this case, the transmitter tubes were poor, so operating passive was sort of making virtue of necessity - and if they needed a positive range - the tube was likely to work having had little burn time. If you are talking about ESM, why not just say so? And its not a complicated process though you are trying to make it so. You insinuate that it is the radar set itself that is detecting the enemy's radar emissions. Not so. A radar set can only detect those emissions for which it is tuned for... that is a radar operating on a similar frequency, providing of course that the receiving set is not transmitting. And then only when the radar antenna is pointing in the direction of the emitter. An omnidirectional broadband RF receiver was used to detect enemy radar emissions. A second receiver was used to provide directional data. A trained operator could listen to the signal and determine such things as rotational rate, general beam width, general frequency band and radar type (surface search, air search, fire control). If he had the ability to record the signal and analyze it with an o-scope, he waould have been able to measure precise information. Generally speaking, an ESM set can detecting an emitter at about 150% of the emitter's maximum theorectical range. quote: On the other hand, only the arrogance of Americans assuming the enemy could not intercept signals avoided the risk that we might go passive - and not be detected at all. As I said - complicated. We are not modeling at this level - yet. WITP has the hooks though - for "EW devices". I don't believe that the Americans ever thought that the Japanese weren't capable of receiving and interpreting allied radar signals. Indeed, an ESM receiver was captured at Saipan. I'm not sure but is your statement here also an oblique reference to black IFF? If so, I wish that you would just say so. Your rambling posts can be very frustrating to read because you intentionally keep your data vague. Almost as though you don't want anyone to know what your are talking about. Its hardly a state secret. I have broad experience operating the ULA-2/ULD-1, ALQ-78 and ALR-66V2/3 ESM sets in addition to operating airborne radars such as the APS-80, APS-115 and the APS-137 ISAR. I think I have the basics of radar and radar detection down pretty well. I believe most other people that frequent this forum also understand the basics. Chez

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/17/2006 12:14:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: The ranges usually given are not theoretical detection ranges, but operational ranges. Further, in this period, the range of radar could be set by the operator - just changing the scale or time base knob (if an A scope). So a picture would only show what the range of that particular setting was - not the limit. The ability to change range scale by the operator is not the point. The point is that a radar's detection range is limited by the maximum scale allowed by the display scope. To make it simple, it doesn't matter if a radar can detect an object out to 100 miles if the scope has a display limit of 50 miles. REPLY: We do not disagree about that. We may disagree about what is given as range. Most technical authors (I am a consultant for WWII and later era radar authors) will give you the "range" as the maximum the operator can set - not some theory a physicist might have about what might be possible with the signal strength and gain. In fact, I know of no case where such a range has ever been listed - in English, German, Russian or Japanese. quote: It can be very complicated: Japanese ships routinely used radar WITHOUT transmitting - meaning they would detect Allied radar at greater range than the allied radar could detect anything! We are not set up to model that sort of thing. In this case, the transmitter tubes were poor, so operating passive was sort of making virtue of necessity - and if they needed a positive range - the tube was likely to work having had little burn time. If you are talking about ESM, why not just say so? REPLY: Because actually I am NOT talking about ESM. I am talking about RADAR as it was actually used operationally most of the time - by IJN. See the account of the senior surviving officer of Shinano. WE would call it ESM - but it was actually radar operators using a stock radar set in its most common mode. It should be in the game - and I just figured out how to do it too! Not sure it will be popular though! What this did was to report to the Japanese the location of Allied ships, task groups or submarines - not airplanes usually. SO what it is - in game terms - is a SURFACE SEARCH radar. The only problem is range - but that turns out to be something else you described - horizon limited. Masts are assumed to be exactly what you said they were - 100 feet - when doing this sort of calculation. So the radar horizon for 100 feet to 100 feet - is pretty much a constant. Passive detection is theoretically up to 125% of nominal range - over the horizon - but in practice using WWII era tube type gear (WLR-1) I found it was almost always 110%. Instead of having a range of 34,000 yards, a Type 22 should have a range on the order of 90,000 yards (although I have seen really powerful radars on ships at 120,000 yards - that is not going to apply to smaller ships). In honor of its normal application in what you call ESM role, I will rename the device Type 22 Radar/ESM. And its not a complicated process though you are trying to make it so. You insinuate that it is the radar set itself that is detecting the enemy's radar emissions. REPLY: Actually, I was not insinuating it - I was saying it - because I mean it - and because it IS the radar set itself that is detecting the enemy's radar emissions!

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/17/2006 12:29:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez A radar set can only detect those emissions for which it is tuned for... that is a radar operating on a similar frequency, providing of course that the receiving set is not transmitting. And then only when the radar antenna is pointing in the direction of the emitter. An omnidirectional broadband RF receiver was used to detect enemy radar emissions. A second receiver was used to provide directional data. REPLY: Clearly you are neither understanding what I have written nor familiar with how Japanese radar was operated. Not one sentence in the above paragraph is correct - as applied to this application. However, equally it is clear you have some understanding of the principles involved - and some understanding of our practice. The WLR series patants date to WWII - and they indeed have both omni-directional and directional antennas. However, they are not mixed: any given band is EITHER one or the other - and we simply do not DF on the lower bands. Further, it is incorrect to think we cannot search a band using a directional antenna - or that the directional antenna is under operator control: we don't and it isn't. The antenna spins continuously and you cannot control it even if you have to - there is no mechanism available for that (although I could take off the dome, defeat the motor, and have a seaman turn the antenna by hand using a telephone to tell him - he would not know how much he was turning it - I would have to watch the scale and measure it on the screen - in crude five degree marks). I am sufficiently familiar with this stuff I once saved a pilot lost at sea - in fog at night - on a ship using WWII era ESM gear UNABLE to DF the band of his beacon! [This in the North Atlantic]. I hooked up the right band for his beacon to the wrong antenna - a directional one - reasoning that if we got close to him the signal would overpower the antenna and, in spite of being inefficient for its dimenstions, give us some indication. It did.] Anyway - OUR practice is not germane to THEIR practice. We generally didn't know that they operated in the way they did - or we would not have operated as we did. [We STILL operate that way most of the time: I say "Americans are 'radio active' in respect to electronic emissions.' It is our SOP. And you can use this to detect almost all major US ships all the time. I once got a rare ECM credited kill on a US submarine because he "knew" we were unlikely to spot his radar in the cluttered X band. But I actually always catalog all radars I ever see - and I actually knew his exact radar like a fingerprint - and I just sat on its frequency in case he was foolish enough to use it. Took me half a second to identify it. Then we turned, got a cross bearing, and fired on his position.] As a long time student of German, Japanese, Russian and Chinese practice in EW, I can say that our equipment, methods, tactics and attitudes are not universal - not the only way - or even the normal way - things are done.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/17/2006 12:38:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez [ quote: On the other hand, only the arrogance of Americans assuming the enemy could not intercept signals avoided the risk that we might go passive - and not be detected at all. As I said - complicated. We are not modeling at this level - yet. WITP has the hooks though - for "EW devices". I don't believe that the Americans ever thought that the Japanese weren't capable of receiving and interpreting allied radar signals. Indeed, an ESM receiver was captured at Saipan. I'm not sure but is your statement here also an oblique reference to black IFF? If so, I wish that you would just say so. It is not a reference to IFF. It is a reference to practice. During WWII the USN lacked radar operators, never mind ESM operators. It began the war with none at all. So when Radar went to sea it was given to radiomen to operate. At least they understood transmitters, recievers, and O scopes (the first radars used all three). They could make them work and fix them - not a bad thing. Nevertheless, radar countermeasures was the domain mainly of civilian experts, and it was a very long time before specialists schools and specialty ratings got to the fleet. In fact, as late as 1968, two electronics technicans were wrongly sent to and ECM school for radarmen - due to a shortage of people - and in spite of some remarkable events it was a number of years before the Navy finally created the Electronics Warfare rating (a rating which was just abolished - to the astonishment of most in the operations department of most warships). We played catch up ball - sending our people to USAF schools - and it was not a new story. The new book Instruments of Darkness reports how the very FIRST B-29 mission over Japan had USAAF EW experts with special gear - and how they recorded (somewhat to everyones amazement) dozens of enemy radars along the flight route. To the degree we had specialists, they tended to be civilians embarked for special missions, or airmen, embarked on just a small fraction of the planes in a large strike. My language was a reference to the norms of the fleet - lacking both civilian and military experts - and somewhat infected with wartime attitudes about the enemy - how backwards he was - and little specific intelligence. In many ways we know more than they did about what the enemy had.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/17/2006 12:44:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez I have broad experience operating the ULA-2/ULD-1, ALQ-78 and ALR-66V2/3 ESM sets in addition to operating airborne radars such as the APS-80, APS-115 and the APS-137 ISAR. I think I have the basics of radar and radar detection down pretty well. I believe most other people that frequent this forum also understand the basics. Chez I suspected something like this - you indeed seem to grasp the concepts. You just don't know the technical or operational facts about enemy practice - a completely different thing. But - no - I don't think most people in the forum understand ECM. I have had to train career navy people with college degrees and command of major warships - and found an amazing lack of grasp of why you should not always have the radar on? I bet - if we could ask before we posted this - if you took a poll - most people would say "have the radar on all the time" is the correct tactic. After all, why have it if you don't turn it on? You seem unaware of how Americans are regarded by the international community - here I mean experts in EW but not American. The Japanese were one of the first to come up with the idea we simply didn't understand the risks of emitting all the time - but they are hardly the only ones. And the international community is right. I like to play on the "opposition" force - and it doesn't matter how small it is - I like to play to win. Exploiting simplistic attitudes about EW is the most common way to do that.

el cid again -> CPS-1 Range (9/18/2006 2:26:00 AM)
It is, as suspected, 200 miles. These are probably "radar miles" = 12.2 micoseconds = exactly 2000 yards - not quite the same as a nautical mile - but almost. Thus a range of 400 is correct IF ranges are in thousands of yards. And all radars set to range in miles need to be adjusted to the same scale. Also, as suspected, introducing this set in 1942 is utter science fiction: the very first one was up in January 1944 and the first six preproduction machines - done by hand - were all that made it into the field worldwide - until post war when it became a standard. A production rate of 1 per month is generous - and my guess it could not be earlier than 7/43 was right: it should start at or later than 7/44.

Nicholas Bell -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/19/2006 2:54:40 AM)
Well there seems to be a concentration of radar experience here - I was an ADA officer in the 1980s in IHAWK. So some of us understand ECM and ECCM [:)] And my PAR (Pulse Acquisition Radar) was WW2 technology (don't believe Ratheon and their marketing line!) with a few "whiz-bang" features about it. Range lines on the scope went out to 120 km. I have had to train career navy people with college degrees and command of major warships - and found an amazing lack of grasp of why you should not always have the radar on? I bet - if we could ask before we posted this - if you took a poll - most people would say "have the radar on all the time" is the correct tactic. After all, why have it if you don't turn it on? Well, at least for me, it wasn't for lack of trying to turn it off! Seriously, operating in passive mode was possible in theory (Ratheon would say "in practice"), but the technological limits of downloading realtime data from other radars to my battery was an exercise in frustration which rarely worked in peacetime. Can't imagine it in war. Simple problems like sending data over an FM link, or getting perfect alignment between radars at different sites. Now all of this is probably solved by computers. Our "computer" had less capability than the Apple 2c I had at home at the same time. So we trained for passive radar use by having brigade verbally transmit incoming targets (and all the other stuff necessary for control). And we trained to fight in a heavy ECM/ECCM environment. The IHAWK system was pretty damn good - the only ECM that totally blew me away was when a B-52 light up - wow, talk about jamming. When we could always just fire the missile and put it in Home of Jam mode[:D] The other thing we trained for was shooting down the incoming missiles. Doable but dumb. My plan was to have a very deep trench outside the control van to dive into at the appropriate moment [8D] You Navy guys don't have that luxury [:D]. Ah the memories of White Sands Missile Range, Red Flag at Nellis all that those other fine places [;)]

ChezDaJez -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/19/2006 3:02:41 AM)
quote: My plan was to have a very deep trench outside the control van to dive into at the appropriate moment. You Navy guys don't have that luxury . Actually we do.... but the ocean can be a very lonely place when the ship goes sailing on! Chez

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/19/2006 9:52:25 AM)
Always was a Hawk fan. It is a fine missile - but we should not say too much about how it works. Seem Iran is putting it on F-14s now...Everyone said "that doesen't make sense" until I pointed out it could be an anti-radiation missile. No one laughed at that idea. It could.

Nicholas Bell -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/19/2006 4:44:43 PM)
Seem Iran is putting it on F-14s now...Everyone said "that doesen't make sense" until I pointed out it could be an anti-radiation missile. No one laughed at that idea. It could. Your mention of this lead me to google the topic - I see this has bubbled to the surface again. Again, because it's about ten years old. Back then out of the blue some guy started emailing me asking a lot of questions about IHAWK capabilities and potential use as an air-to-air missile. After I replied with "hogwash" he sent me photos of Iranian F-14's with cropped wing HAWK missiles slung under fuselage. For reasons I will not disclose I still say "hogwash." This comment is not directed at you or your thought on its use, El Cid. Regarding those new photos/movies of an F-14 with a supposed HAWK missile on the wing pylon - my first observation is that the missile is similar in shape but appears too small. I have to agree with some of the "experts" out there that this is an Iranian "stunt" - a form of propaganda/disinformation which they have done with other weapon systems. Must be for "home" consumption. But I stray far from WitP here!

witpqs -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/19/2006 10:07:08 PM)
FYI, here's a link to the news on that: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2006917205712.asp

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/19/2006 11:56:16 PM)
Nick: The "new" photos may be related to the "old" ones. USAF analysts say these were "test" photos - and the painted nose cones are related to that. The new photos have the same paint. A lot of what is on the web is speculative - and of couse so is anything I say - since I have not seen the equipment. [I once was one of 500 field engineers ordered to get US Passports so we could be sent to Iran - after the revolution - to work on military gear for a contractor - our employer. We all - I mean every last one of us - refused. In fact I HAVE a US Passport - but refused to admit it! Missed my chance to see I guess.] Anyway, I have problems believing they have implemented the original radar system in an F-14 - and insofar as you regard that speculation as "hogwash" I agree. I have seen similar things in China - which I study - and China is actively involved with Iran in terms of arms development. I see a possibility of using the reliable and proven Hawk missile itself as a foundation for a weapon fired from a big plane. This is very different from implementing the off board electronics (radars) on that plane. However, one HAWK officer I know thinks they might use the GROUND radars with AIR LAUNCHED weapons to some advantage. I am skeptical about that - but it is probably no worse an idea than mine about using it as an anti-radiation missile. [Mine is cheaper to do though]. Most likely would just be a completely different guidance package. Lots of candidates available.

wdolson -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/20/2006 12:47:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again A lot of what is on the web is speculative - and of couse so is anything I say - since I have not seen the equipment. [I once was one of 500 field engineers ordered to get US Passports so we could be sent to Iran - after the revolution - to work on military gear for a contractor - our employer. We all - I mean every last one of us - refused. In fact I HAVE a US Passport - but refused to admit it! Missed my chance to see I guess.] Anyway, I have problems believing they have implemented the original radar system in an F-14 - and insofar as you regard that speculation as "hogwash" I agree. I have seen similar things in China - which I study - and China is actively involved with Iran in terms of arms development. I see a possibility of using the reliable and proven Hawk missile itself as a foundation for a weapon fired from a big plane. This is very different from implementing the off board electronics (radars) on that plane. However, one HAWK officer I know thinks they might use the GROUND radars with AIR LAUNCHED weapons to some advantage. I am skeptical about that - but it is probably no worse an idea than mine about using it as an anti-radiation missile. [Mine is cheaper to do though]. Most likely would just be a completely different guidance package. Lots of candidates available. One big problem with the entire story is that Iran doesn't have many F-14s left. They never had that many, then inthe Iran-Iraq war, they lost most of their flyable ones to the Iraqis. The Iranians were using the F-14s as AWACS and the Iraqis would fly an interceptor in hugging the ground and come up under the F-14 for a kill shot. According to this article http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm Iran only has 20 Tomcats and only 7 can be put in the air at one time. The article mentions the Hawk missile rumor, but does not comment on it. Even if they are deploying Hawks on F-14s, I don't think they are a serious threat. Bill

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/20/2006 12:58:08 AM)
In the present age, anything that might work is a "serious threat." We rarely face much effective opposition. And our planes and ships and SAM equipment is expensive - losing only one matters. But no, this isn't the sort of thing to win a big, long term conflict. It is the sort of thing that could produce an "incident" we don't like. It also might be related to other things, down the road. Iran is a big country - and it sell stuff too. Much of the evidence supports an evaluation this is developmental stuff - not necessairily wide scale operational stuff. And yes, I bet F-14s are used in a very circumspect way - given value, numbers and lack of replacements. I opposed their export to Iran - and trapped a State Dept official in my living room until he said "You are almost certainly right. And I will not write or say one word to oppose it. It isn't good for your career to be right in ways not popular at the top."

veji1 -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/20/2006 12:40:30 PM)
so how does RHS plan to represent the Radar situation that was exposed by Andy Mac's tests ? Not that I am an expert in that field, but are you planning changes regarding allied radars ? Jap radars ?

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.796875