[FIXED B808] ECM vs. radar

[FIXED B808] ECM vs. radar (Full Version)

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

Message

sergiopl -> [FIXED B808] ECM vs. radar (3/26/2016 6:07:11 PM)
I´m not sure if this is a bug in the game or in my own brain... so I would try to explain it [:D] 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.

wild_Willie2 -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/26/2016 8:39:42 PM)
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.

ComDev -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/26/2016 9:10:16 PM)
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 [8D]

sergiopl -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/26/2016 9:20:40 PM)
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 [:D]

sergiopl -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/26/2016 9:35:18 PM)
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 [:D]).

ComDev -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/26/2016 11:14:15 PM)
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 [8D]

sergiopl -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/27/2016 12:45:28 AM)
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.

sergiopl -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/27/2016 11:04:09 AM)
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 [:D]). First of all, this is the disposition of the jammers around the carrier, heading north at the beggining of the test: [image]local://upfiles/53588/9D4A6ABBBF6E4A7C8CFE92E5BA70EC04.gif[/image]

sergiopl -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/27/2016 11:08:27 AM)
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... [image]local://upfiles/53588/AE115C634E4E4E89BD70570F65C6F04C.gif[/image]

sergiopl -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/27/2016 11:11:30 AM)
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: [image]local://upfiles/53588/B71DD38D45224EBD8B3D2D4A71FFCA06.gif[/image]

sergiopl -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/27/2016 11:14:01 AM)
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... [image]local://upfiles/53588/14EBAEB12EAA4FC391FE34B924A36513.gif[/image]

sergiopl -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/27/2016 11:19:22 AM)
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... [image]local://upfiles/53588/ECA89EC8B3EF4359BF5A24CB1FA7663D.gif[/image]

sergiopl -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/27/2016 11:29:57 AM)
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!

ComDev -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/27/2016 2:39:22 PM)
Thanks for the clarification [8D] Fixed B808!

sergiopl -> RE: ECM vs. radar (3/27/2016 3:41:39 PM)
Thanks to all of you for your outstanding work [&o]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.578125