[FIXED B998.5] Active Sonar query (Full Version)

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



Message

R0blake -> [FIXED B998.5] Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 2:51:07 PM)

It was my understanding that tactically active sonar has few uses as it gives away the
submarines whereabouts at more than twice the distance that the submarine can detect contacts with active sonar.

However in Command V1.14 Build 998.4 Active sonar doesn't seem to have any drawbacks and gives the sub or ship using
active sonar a first look first shoot if the target is on the same side of the layer


In the attached scen. using Command V1.14 Build 998.4

A Seawolf is heading towards a Akula II. Both subs have speed set to creep just under the layer.

The Seawolf is using passive sonar. The Akulla II is using Active sonar.

In this test the Akulla II detects the Seawolfs exact position at a range of 39.9miles
At this range it can fire its SS-N-15 and sink the Seawolf without being detected.

If the Akulla II holds fire the Seawolf doesn't detect the active pinging Akulla II until its within 20 miles.

So my question is why doesn't the Seawolf detect the active pings from the Akulla?



TyphoonFr -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 4:18:53 PM)

To detect active ping, the seawolf uses his AN / AWR-9B (Acoustic Intercept 15nm) and the Akula his Generic Acoustic Intercept.
At 20 miles, it is not even the active ping that the seawolf detects. Performs the test by cutting the active sonar of the Akula, the range of detection will be identical.
If the seawolf would have detected the ping, you would have a mention "HFsonar" or "LF sonar" written above the contact.
I do not think I'm wrong if I tell you that most of the ways to detect an active ping in Command have a range of 15 nm and even sonobuoys do not detect active ping ..

So if you have no enemy contact within 15nm, your active sonar is not detected.


Now, is this normal, good question

We go to war with what we have, not with what we would like to have.




thewood1 -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 4:32:46 PM)

Just ran my Op Drum benchmark scenario and turned on the sonar for the SSN Virginia. Within 30 seconds a PLA-885 (Yasen) on the Russian side got a contact on the US sub at an estimated range of 38 mi. It was a 10 mile and very narrow uncertainty zone simulating a bearing contact. Within 5 minutes, I had an accurate contact from 28 mi. As soon as I shutoff the active sonar, the US sub uncertainty zone began increasing quickly.



thewood1 -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 4:45:42 PM)

I also noted that orientation of the sub that is pinging makes a difference on detection range. From an engineering standpoint that kind of makes sense.

Also noted that the contact comes in and out of being solid once out beyond 15 mi. under 15, it is fairly steady. Over 15, it might stay solid for a few minutes than drop, and so on. Past 20, the uncertainty zones becomes very large.



BrianinMinnie -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 4:47:02 PM)

"In this test the Akulla II detects the Seawolfs exact position at a range of 39.9miles
At this range it can fire its SS-N-15 and sink the Seawolf without being detected."

Doesnt this mean that when Piloting a Akulla against Nato subs, just keep your Active on and you'll always locate them before they see you? assuming your on the same side of the layer.

he said "detects the Seawolfs exact position at a range of 39.9miles"

Does this still apply when the Seawolf within in the layer?




ExMachina -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 4:47:35 PM)

Just looked at this save and it seems like suspicious behavior indeed. Don't see how is possible for a ping to travel 39nm and then back to pinging sub w/o it also being detected by the target sub.

Tried shifting the Seawolf's aspect in case the towed sonar was blinded by the bow. Also varied the Seawolf's depth. Throughout all this the Seawolf never detected anything.

On the other end, the only thing that broke Akula's avtive fix was bringing the SW above the layer.


EDIT: clarity



TyphoonFr -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 5:09:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Just ran my Op Drum benchmark scenario and turned on the sonar for the SSN Virginia. Within 30 seconds a PLA-885 (Yasen) on the Russian side got a contact on the US sub at an estimated range of 38 mi. It was a 10 mile and very narrow uncertainty zone simulating a bearing contact. Within 5 minutes, I had an accurate contact from 28 mi. As soon as I shutoff the active sonar, the US sub uncertainty zone began increasing quickly.


So if I understand correctly, a Yasen detected the active Ping of a Virginia is 38 miles with the mention "HFsonar" or "LF sonar" written above the contact.
I can not reproduce it (with v1.14 Build998.4).

Do you have a backup?



R0blake -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 5:12:45 PM)

Thanks for your reply's

The question I have is why can the Acoustic Intercept sensor only detect active sonar within 15nm?

This is fine if the hostile subs active sonar has a range of less than 15nm.

However a lot of modern Russian subs have an Active sonar range of 40nm.

In the game as long as you’re 15nm away from a target, Active sonar doesn’t have any drawbacks.



thewood1 -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 5:15:17 PM)

I didn't check the detection method. I'll do it when I get back.



TyphoonFr -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 5:20:00 PM)

It would be necessary to increase the detection range of the means allowing the acoustic interception (AN/ALY-1 for a Virginia or AN/AWR-9B for a Seawolf) which have a range of 15 miles.
They are the ones that allow the detection of active ping sonars (Hull array, Sonobuoy, Dipping sonar ..)



thewood1 -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 5:57:28 PM)

Just did a series of tests. I think you are correct around the 15 mile exact range to get a solid contact if the target is pinging. I did an apples to apples test. The same two sets of subs. In one run, target is pinging. In second no active sonar.

In the ping test, the red sub picked up a relatively uncertain contact at 26 mi. The uncertainty quickly became a solid bearing contact with a long and thin uncertainty zone. It did not solidify until 15 miles and then was exact down to the type of sub.

In the non-ping test, the red sub didn't get a contact with even an uncertainty zone until 21 miles. But it stayed uncertain even with 4 mi. At that point it had speed and depth. It never got more than speed and depth while I had it running.

The main difference is how quickly the red sub got a bearing and type of sub in the pinging test. I probably could have fired on the blue sub at over 20 miles, if I had the range. In the non-pinging test, I would have had to fire a pretty wide spread to even have a chance. It never had a real solid contact.



ExMachina -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 6:55:15 PM)

I would still like to know what's going on in OP's .save scenario



ComDev -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 7:16:32 PM)

Hi guys,

Yeah I agree we should increase the range of ping intercepts, thanks for pointing this out [8D]



R0blake -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/22/2018 8:14:59 PM)

Thanks for the quick response to this issue!





Dimitris -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/23/2018 4:05:52 PM)

There were multiple issues in this setup.

* As Ragnar pointed out, AIRs had too short ranges and thus did not detect active pings coming from beyond 15nm.
* The reason the Akula was detecting the Seawolf was that the performance of bottom-bounce mode was exaggerated. Adjusted to max 120% of direct path (best case), as indicated by public sources.
* AIRs were not evaluating pings using bottom-bounce mode.
* Active sonars and AIRs were both too precise in CZ detections.

All these have been fixed for the next update.



BDukes -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/23/2018 4:14:29 PM)

Why not beta team catch this for submarine DLC? Not trying to give you hard time but it seems like big oops. You may want to have beta do another testing cycle with this kind of stuff in the process. Customer catching basic issue not great. Lazy reviewers seem to pick up on this stuff even if meaningless.

Hope this help!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

There were multiple issues in this setup.

* As Ragnar pointed out, AIRs had too short ranges and thus did not detect active pings coming from beyond 15nm.
* The reason the Akula was detecting the Seawolf was that the performance of bottom-bounce mode was exaggerated. Adjusted to max 120% of direct path (best case), as indicated by public sources.
* AIRs were not evaluating pings using bottom-bounce mode.
* Active sonars and AIRs were both too precise in CZ detections.

All these have been fixed for the next update.




thewood1 -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/23/2018 6:12:36 PM)

I'm sure that constructive criticism helps a lot.

Are you stalking me again? I was already here you know. btw, still waiting to hear from my ISP. Did your ISP ever tell you when I can expect a call?

Again, I would have done this privately, but you seem so wanting to keep it public.



BDukes -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/23/2018 7:08:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I'm sure that constructive criticism helps a lot.

Are you stalking me again? I was already here you know. btw, still waiting to hear from my ISP. Did your ISP ever tell you when I can expect a call?

Again, I would have done this privately, but you seem so wanting to keep it public.


It doesn't matter what you think about anything. Stop bugging customer. [:)]



thewood1 -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/23/2018 7:24:27 PM)

I am not the one that cam into a thread and started the bugging. Did you forget the thread below?



BDukes -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/23/2018 7:34:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I am not the one that cam into a thread and started the bugging. Did you forget the thread below?


No. It easier to just keep log of your harass nonsense and repost whenever. Who give you badge to pick on user who posts you do not like? You definitely don't like when it done to you so why you do to others? This is only question I care to ask you.

Thank You



thewood1 -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/23/2018 7:35:41 PM)

I am not even sure what you are saying. I think you need to slow down a little and form clearer sentences.



BDukes -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/23/2018 7:36:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I am not even sure what you are saying. I think you need to slow down a little and form clearer sentences.


You can pick on my english all you want. It just make you sound like bigot.



thewood1 -> RE: Active Sonar query (2/23/2018 8:16:00 PM)

Its not the english. Its that you are all over the place.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875