Proposed sensor changes for commercial ships (Full Version)

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



Message

gbethel -> Proposed sensor changes for commercial ships (8/27/2018 1:44:22 AM)

I am doing some research for a scenario I am making. I found that all vessels over 3k tons are required to have X-band and S-band radar (old NATO I and F bands) and an echo sounding sonar for obstacle avoidance.

reference. Tracking ship devices are compulsory as per COLREGS (International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea). SOLAS Chapter 5, Regulation 19 states that “All ships of 3000 gross tonnages and upwards shall, in addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph 2.5, have a 3 GHz radar or where considered appropriate by the Administration a second 9 GHz radar, or other means to determine and display the range and bearing of other surface craft, obstructions, buoys, shorelines and navigational marks to assist in navigation and in collision avoidance, which are functionally independent of those referred to in paragraph.”

https://www.marineinsight.com/marine-navigation/marine-radars-and-their-use-in-the-shipping-industry/


Commercial ships in the game only have the generic navigation radar, 1970's technology. Not only 50 years ago but commercial ships only average 10 year life times.

I propose that we add sensor groups to allow scenario designers to update ships to meet requirements of that generation. For example, a sensor group containing Furuno 2817, Furuno 2837, and Generic avoidance sonar.

Comments?






SeaQueen -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/27/2018 1:56:10 AM)

I like the idea. INMARSAT makes almost all merchant ships easily tracked these days, but that's best handled in the side settings. I think the most important thing is to be able to capture the technology of the era, so a scenario set in the 1970s is no more or less correct than a scenario set in 2025.



i224747 -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/27/2018 8:54:15 AM)

I have not seen any cmano scenario which got the commercial background marine + flight traffic right.

Marine traffic: English channel - Monday, August 27, 2018 08:44:54 AM UTC
[image]https://img.xrmb2.net/images/458678.jpeg[/image]



LMychajluk -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/27/2018 3:28:07 PM)

I'm not sure off the top of my head if it's already modeled, but AIS is also a relatively new requirement for commercial ships, requiring a ship to broadcast its AIS data every few seconds while underway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_system

AIS is broadcast via VHF, so the effective range would be ~25nm, give or take. It would make locating valid commercial ships much easier. It could also make for interesting scenarios where a suspect ship (enemy combatant, smuggler, etc...) could be 'spoofing' the AIS data of a non-combatant that routinely travels those waters. This would require that a ship's identity be confirmed visually, via sonar from a sub, or by other means. 'Ghost' contacts can also be transmitted as being in a particular location, tying up resources of any forces trying to confirm a contact via radar or visual ID.



Gunner98 -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/27/2018 3:58:58 PM)

AIS is modeled by the side setting 'Auto Track Civilians' which as SeaQueen mentions also handles INMARSAT and other tacking systems.

Modeling of commercial ship sensors only becomes important, I think, if they are on the player, hostile or tattletale side. If they are simply on their own side to clutter an area and confuse the player's targeting problem, I don't believe their sensor setup is that critical.

Adding sensor groups is a really good idea so the designer can update those ships that are important to the scenario easily and quickly. I like it.

There are some scenarios out there that model a lot of civilian traffic, but you need to ask the question - what's the point? I see several:

1. Hide vessels of interest
2. Hide lurking sensor platforms that help the AI target the player
3. Confuse and confound the player's targeting problem
4. Add a representational amount of civilian traffic to show the shipping lanes etc

Perhaps there are others but they should be integral to the scenario design. Shipping companies and ships captains will try very hard to steer clear of conflict zones, why risk the ship and cargo, its only surprise conflicts that should catch them in the line of fire.

I honestly don't see a point in replicating every ship on the ocean, it clutters the game, takes a long time to build (although someone created a Lua scrip, I just have't seen it used), and eats system resources. If that is considered 'right', I guess I must be wrong.

B



ARCNA442 -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/27/2018 4:20:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Modeling of commercial ship sensors only becomes important, I think, if they are on the player, hostile or tattletale side. If they are simply on their own side to clutter an area and confuse the player's targeting problem, I don't believe their sensor setup is that critical.



I'm not sure this is true. I've found that in scenarios that have civilian traffic to complicate the tactical picture, it is often easy to sort out the civilian vessels since they all have the same generic radar while military vessels have specific radar sets.



Gunner98 -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/27/2018 4:26:09 PM)

quote:

it is often easy to sort out the civilian vessels since they all have the same generic radar while military vessels have specific radar sets


That's a fair point. But I think it stands that military radars and emitters will stand out however wide the variety of civilian radars present. A competent staff would sift the wheat from the chaff pretty quickly.

But if there was a wider variety of sensor suites available to put on key ships, and a designer was to put one of them on a warship... and only emit from that... now there is a possibility[8D]

B



SeaQueen -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/27/2018 4:31:10 PM)

quote:

Shipping companies and ships captains will try very hard to steer clear of conflict zones, why risk the ship and cargo, its only surprise conflicts that should catch them in the line of fire.


I agree. If you look at conflict zones around the world (e.g. Syria or Ukraine) using any online flight tracker, you'll see very little air traffic and ship traffic over or near it, because they specifically avoid the area unless necessary. Instead they prefer to go around. Sometimes I think people over-emphasize the importance of commercial and civilian traffic in some scenarios.



AlexGGGG -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/27/2018 7:46:54 PM)

I remember at least one scenario involving multuiple pirates attacking multiple commercial ships, and there were heaps of commercial ships, like maybe fifty. That scenario would probably change significantly if sensors were to change.



gbethel -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/28/2018 5:59:29 AM)

The reason I started researching this is because generic navigation radar, in-game, does not have any surface search function. It emits but doesn't detect anything. The only detection capability of civilian or commercial shipping is derived from the MK1 eyeball. From a practical perspective it doesn't have a lot of relevance except in a tattle-tale situation, where the shipping is part of one of the combatant sides or friendly to one of those sides. Then it is pretty important.




BeirutDude -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/28/2018 8:19:34 AM)

Depends upon if it is a known conflict area or a sudden flair up of hostilities. Also certain choke points (Suez Canal, Straits of Hormuz/Gulf) they are going through unless it is major conflict because there is money to be made. I know of at least three civilian airliners shot down being in the wrong place at the wrong time when things flared up.



SeaQueen -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/28/2018 6:35:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
Depends upon if it is a known conflict area or a sudden flair up of hostilities.


I'd argue armed conflicts rarely really suddenly "flare up." In almost all cases there's a protracted period of increasing tensions, forces massing, strategic communication, reconnaissance, scouting, probing, harassment, etc. The perceived suddenness with which violence sometimes erupts has more to do with where the media (especially television media's) attention is focused at any given moment, than it does with military or political decision making.

quote:

Also certain choke points (Suez Canal, Straits of Hormuz/Gulf) they are going through unless it is major conflict because there is money to be made.


That is absolutely the case. Even appearing to maybe threaten those would be enough to provoke a fairly substantial naval response, probably internationally. That was certainly the case with the Suez Canal, the Somali pirate problem and CTF 150.

quote:

I know of at least three civilian airliners shot down being in the wrong place at the wrong time when things flared up.


Tell me! Let's talk about those.



Gunner98 -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/28/2018 6:59:53 PM)

quote:

has more to do with where the media (especially television media's) attention is focused


If a war starts and it's not near the Hotel district - does anybody hear it??? ---sorry couldn't resist![;)]



SeaQueen -> RE: Proposed Radar changes for commercial ships (8/28/2018 8:35:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98
If a war starts and it's not near the Hotel district - does anybody hear it??? ---sorry couldn't resist![;)]


There's definitely something to be said for the "CNN Effect." Every day there's conflicts going on around the world, many of which receive little or no media coverage in the United States or Europe. There's correspondingly little pressure for foreign intervention. If, for some reason, something happens which attracts the attention of the press, that might change, as people see tragic images and pressure their representatives to "do something," about problems halfway around the world in countries they can't find on a map. Most worrisome, the exact nature of that "something" is somehow always vague.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the availability of decent hotels was a consideration when it comes to whether the international press corps covers a given event, especially since these days local bureaus are becoming scarcer.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.09375