RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

ComDev -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/14/2013 5:15:40 AM)

Yes this is a LOS thingie, both radar and ESM use the same horizon limitations.

Have registered a new item on this and assigned to me.

Thanks [8D]



Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/14/2013 7:53:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Yes this is a LOS thingie, both radar and ESM use the same horizon limitations.

Have registered a new item on this and assigned to me.

Thanks [8D]


Thank You!

That of course explains why air-air ESM worked since LOS was not a real factor.

Since you are the father of the Sensor Models I of course have some follow up questions: [:)]

How are LPI radars like AESA or electronically steered phased arrays handled in the game? Are these undetectable by more basic ESM systems or how have you reasoned? Without the parameters visible for each sensor, its hard to get a clear picture of how everything is modelled. The IR detection range, as well as radar cross sections are listed under platform signatures. The same for active sensors would probably help a lot of players to understand the importance of EMCON.

You mentioned that both the radar model and ESM model takes the power output into account, and the ESM systems use sensitivity (dB ref 1mW) and System Loss (dB) as input params. With more modern systems output power does not equal range, and the power transmitted can also be done in such a way that it would reduce the effectiveness of a classic ESM receiver.

COMINT, I asked and don't think that I got an answer. Are there any plans to bring it into the simulation since all those comms are listed in the databse?

Btw, I was really happy to see multi-static radars in the database. Does the game mechanics allow you to make them work or are you planning to keep the simplified function they have now? I realised that I could set different point values on transmitters (low) and receivers (high), thus incorporate the value of them as points in a scenario.

Thanks again for your effort and a great product!




ComDev -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 2:51:58 PM)

...LOL there is such much activity here at Matrix, the tester forum and the warfaresims forum I'm sure I'm missing at least half the threads! So guys if you've made a post and not gotten a response make sure to bump the thread [8D]

LPI radars have their real-life power output (0.1W or 1W) and pulse lengths in Command, and have much lower System Noise Level and better Processing Gain/Loss than conventional sets. We do not simulate the 'ESM-style analysis techniques' used by these radars in real life, we adjust the processing gain. As such LPI radars work just like any other radar set except they are detected at much shorter ranges. Modern LPIs are often detecting stuff before being counter-detected, and this is also the case in Command.

Cross-posting:

"frequencies, horizontal and vertical beamwidth, System Noise Level, Processing Gain/Loss, Peak Power, Pulse Width, Blind Time (pulse compression is your friend, woh-hoo!), PRF, min & max range, min & max altitude, scan interval, range/height/angle resolution, various capabilities such as air/surface/ground/periscope & range/altitude/speed/heading (RASH) info, OTH-B/OTH-SW, pulse-only & early/later doppler with limited/full LDSD, MTI, NCTR, Phased Array continuous target tracking, CW and CWI capability"

As such, the crappy old 600kW radar on the MiG-25 may have much shorter detection range than a modern 50kW radar, etc.



Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 3:14:59 PM)

Great! Thank You for the answer.



bsq -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 6:05:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

...LOL there is such much activity here at Matrix, the tester forum and the warfaresims forum I'm sure I'm missing at least half the threads! So guys if you've made a post and not gotten a response make sure to bump the thread [8D]

LPI radars have their real-life power output (0.1W or 1W) and pulse lengths in Command, and have much lower System Noise Level and better Processing Gain/Loss than conventional sets. We do not simulate the 'ESM-style analysis techniques' used by these radars in real life, we adjust the processing gain. As such LPI radars work just like any other radar set except they are detected at much shorter ranges. Modern LPIs are often detecting stuff before being counter-detected, and this is also the case in Command.

Cross-posting:

"frequencies, horizontal and vertical beamwidth, System Noise Level, Processing Gain/Loss, Peak Power, Pulse Width, Blind Time (pulse compression is your friend, woh-hoo!), PRF, min & max range, min & max altitude, scan interval, range/height/angle resolution, various capabilities such as air/surface/ground/periscope & range/altitude/speed/heading (RASH) info, OTH-B/OTH-SW, pulse-only & early/later doppler with limited/full LDSD, MTI, NCTR, Phased Array continuous target tracking, CW and CWI capability"

As such, the crappy old 600kW radar on the MiG-25 may have much shorter detection range than a modern 50kW radar, etc.



ESM/ELINT
Energy to the ESM/ELINT system only has to travel one way to its receiver that is probably just as good as the radar receiver, so at the right height for the ESM receiver, the ESM advantage is at least twice the radar range.

Radar Detection Ranges
Scope range here is important and may well be unknown for some radars. Ok worked example:

PRI = 1234 (max range that the radar can see on a first time around return = 100 NM)
Scope for same radar has a max range scale of 100 nm (its matched to its PRI as all good radars should be)
It transmits 5kw peak power (a Navigation Radar figure) and again matched to the range it wants to see stuff at.

Therefore even though the energy carries on going (EM waves just don't stop), the radar has no means of determining the range, because the target is out of range of the scope or the MTUR of the radar (Max Theoretical Unambiguous Range) (please don't get me started on MUR, binning or delay lines). So the 'I see you as you see me' model is wrong - even LPIs for vs modern ELINT systems and modern ESM are not that 'LPI', its just likely the advantage is less.



Dimitris -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 6:23:41 PM)

Fetching the popcorn. This should be good.



bsq -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 7:14:45 PM)

You'll have to do better than that [:D] before I consult the book of very hard sums...



Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 7:17:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Fetching the popcorn. This should be good.


[image]http://allthingsd.com/files/2012/01/nerdfight.png[/image]



bsq -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 7:37:14 PM)

Can you be a 'nerd' if it is your day job? [:D]



ComDev -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 7:38:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Radar Detection Ranges
Scope range here is important and may well be unknown for some radars. Ok worked example:

PRI = 1234 (max range that the radar can see on a first time around return = 100 NM)
Scope for same radar has a max range scale of 100 nm (its matched to its PRI as all good radars should be)
It transmits 5kw peak power (a Navigation Radar figure) and again matched to the range it wants to see stuff at.

Therefore even though the energy carries on going (EM waves just don't stop), the radar has no means of determining the range, because the target is out of range of the scope or the MTUR of the radar (Max Theoretical Unambiguous Range) (please don't get me started on MUR, binning or delay lines). So the 'I see you as you see me' model is wrong - even LPIs for vs modern ELINT systems and modern ESM are not that 'LPI', its just likely the advantage is less.


True in certain cases. Normal RWRs have much smaller antennas than the LPI radars, and thus the LPI has an advantage as it uses signal analysis methods similar to that of the RWR. For more advanced RWRs and ESM sets the LPI will be picked up at longer ranges.

As is also the case in Command.



Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 7:51:05 PM)

I think you are comparing chalk to cheese, or in this case RWR and dedicated ESM/ELINT suites.
I am all for "design for effect" but the basic physics should be handled right in order to produce realistic ranges and sensor capabilities.



bsq -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 7:53:06 PM)

RWR = ESM (more or less)

ELINT is different



ComDev -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 8:41:09 PM)

The fight is ON! :)

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. Lot 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.

WARNING! If you have information on these sets that does not come from public sources, please please please do NOT post that info here (for obvious reasons). Only public info, period.

[image]local://upfiles/20643/B440A97DD493445994273D99659AF396.jpg[/image]



ComDev -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 8:44:10 PM)

More radar sets:



[image]local://upfiles/20643/952F3082050A48EABA3270715F85C21A.jpg[/image]



ComDev -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 8:50:26 PM)

There are 678 ESM/RWR systems in the database. 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.



[image]local://upfiles/20643/D637F605790040C18E2CECE803EA5ED9.jpg[/image]



bsq -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 9:12:09 PM)

Couldn't possibly comment [;)] so will this do for you [8D]

Oh and don't worry about excessive ranges, I am sure in years to come 'aliens' with RWR's will come here (Planet Earth) to see what all the noise is about



smudge56 -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/15/2013 10:21:28 PM)

My head has exploded [&:]



ComDev -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/16/2013 9:10:45 AM)

Yeah Command is actually pretty complex under the hood [:D][:D][:D][:D] So guess what we've learned from this thread is that we haven't been good enough at showing off all the neat stuff the simulator actually has. Will try to post more as time allows.

Have to finish a whole bunch of high-priority database requests and also finish coding the new Speed/Altitude window and Waypoint Orders first.



smudge56 -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/16/2013 12:30:44 PM)

[&:] ok im going to lie down now[:)]



bsq -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/16/2013 4:06:33 PM)

Do you use a straight power based calculation for max detection range (when looking at the game engine) moderated of course by radar horizon or do you use some form of detection range capping based either on PRI or possible/probable scope limited range.

I guess what I am basically asking is if I have 2 units within each others RF horizon, will they detect each other solely based upon the power vs rcs calculation or is it mitigated by anything.



ComDev -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/16/2013 5:53:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Do you use a straight power based calculation for max detection range (when looking at the game engine) moderated of course by radar horizon or do you use some form of detection range capping based either on PRI or possible/probable scope limited range.

I guess what I am basically asking is if I have 2 units within each others RF horizon, will they detect each other solely based upon the power vs rcs calculation or is it mitigated by anything.


Yeah we use range capping (see Max Rng column) to simulate PRF cutoff and scope limitations [8D]



bsq -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/16/2013 6:30:29 PM)

Ok, one more then. If the radar is part of a weapon system (and I am thinking now more of ship and land based systems where there is a dedicated TA radar) do you model the TA radar to have significantly more range than the FCR and then do you model the FCR to have a range that allows detection (and possible shots) beyond optimum of the missile?

So if I flew a U2 at altitude could the Tall King/Odd Group 'see' it way beyond what the Square Pair can 'see' it and then as it is a slow and big target would the radar allow for a max range shot (as opposed to an ideal range shot) once the Square Pair did detect it.

Sorry this takes this thread further OT, but the whole way you are modeling these is completely 'awesome', especially as you did this all from open source and guesses. [:D][:D][:D]



ComDev -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/16/2013 6:49:07 PM)

Yes we do [8D]



Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/16/2013 7:17:42 PM)

People that complain about the pricing of this military grade simulation software obviously have no idea or appreciation of what's under the hood. Fabulous work, and thanks for sharing the spreadsheets.



ExMachina -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/16/2013 7:52:46 PM)

So far (in v1.01 [X(]), CMANO has already delivered more quality, breadth and depth than any other war game that I have knowledge of.

The best part, is I know that this is just the beginning! [:)][:)][:)]



Tomcat84 -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/16/2013 8:10:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

and also finish coding the new Speed/Altitude window and Waypoint Orders first.



i love it when you say stuff like that [:D]



smudge56 -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/16/2013 9:44:01 PM)

My head is still hurting need to lie down again[;)]



sneekyzeke -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/17/2013 7:54:23 AM)

quote:

When just considering power in the radar/ESM range equation a radar with a effective range of 100km (against a 1 sq m target) could be detected by ESM on over 500 times its radar range(probably alot more).
1.5 times max radar range is a more realistic figure IRL, if I remember correctly.



El Savior -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (11/14/2013 6:41:53 PM)

Anything knew about ESM capabilities of surface ships? Using build 460 and I tested with Arley Burke class and Russian Kara class. Arley Burke is radar on and Kara radars off. First detection is always made by Arley Burke and few seconds later Kara pick up ESM signals. Air radar signals are not picked up by Kara at all, only after getting inside Arley Burke's surface radar detection range detection is made.

I made similar test with Russian Tu-95 Bear and E-2 Hawkey. This time Tu-95 Bear picks up ESM signals before E-2 detect it by radar. This seems correct, but I'm wondering should surface ships pick up ESM before they are lighted by radar. Thanks!



ComDev -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (11/30/2013 2:24:57 PM)

Okay sorry about the delays guys, but 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.

Thanks!

[image]local://upfiles/20643/76E2E1D65C834F75B4604AC542F5F24E.jpg[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.15625