SeaQueen -> RE: Blinking Radars (12/5/2021 9:17:44 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DWReese I'd like to explore Blinking Radars NOT associated with SAMs, and on naval vessels. SAMs, naval vessels, it's all the same thing, basically. Keep in mind, relative to a jet, a ship is basically sitting still. quote:
I've been recreating attacks on surface ships, and exploring what happens. For example, if every ship in a group had its radar on, then they are all hit with HARMs. If none of them turn their radars on (and they aren't protected by another radar source), then they are easily destroyed by missiles such as Harpoons. Obviously, a surface group sailing without air cover will need to turn on at least one radar for protection. Maybe. You need to plan these things. There's a lot of advantages to doing things like detaching a small number of surface combatants from the main body in order to screen it. That's called scouting, if you ever read Fleet Tactics, which every CMO/CMANO player should. You might do things like move a few units hundreds of miles forward, independent of the main body and turn on their radars. Their job would be to warn the main body when something is coming, so that they can remain silent. You're playing risk games there, increasing the risk for a small portion of the force, while decreasing it for the most powerful part. Another trick you can do when you have lots of ships of the same type, is emit nothing unique. That way, for example, if you have your force divided into three groups, turn one AEGIS (or some other type) radar on in each of them, so an observer can't really tell which one they want to focus their attention on. They know three CRUDES are out there, but they don't know which one is important, and they don't necessarily know what is. In a good scenario, some things are always more important than other things. Part of being a good player is deciding what you're willing to risk, and what you need to protect. quote:
I've come to realize that just one ship with active radar is sufficient. The other ships will activate their FCRs when then are going to start firing at the incoming missiles. (I have never had a problem with SAMs turning on their radars in the game when the time to shoot presents itself.) Often, yes. Maybe the above will help you have some ideas about how you might be able to take advantage of it? quote:
So, I've seen the code for the Blinking Radar units on SAM sites. Does it work on just regular search radars? Heh, a regular search radar is an air search radar in my mind, but yeah it should. All it does is change the EMCON on the designated units. quote:
I assume that it does, but I haven't seen any scenario with just blinking radars (not affiliated with SAMs). Do you know of any? I don't, but I'm weird. I'm a bad person to ask. I don't play a lot of the commercial or community scenarios. I actually find them very frustrating. I often find myself in the position of "fighting the scenario," and not the battle. It has to do with the fact that people are often trying harder to write Tom Clancy novels than actually create an interesting tactical problem. They end up with all kinds of inappropriate injects, and often slave themselves to a concept of "balance," which I think is rooted in a misunderstanding of what the actual challenges of a given scenario might be. They also often have weird scoring criteria which have the effect of quantifying performance in terms of a weighted loss-exchange ratio, rather than how I think about problems, which is, "Did I accomplish the stated mission objectives within the stated acceptable levels of risk?" If I do that, I'm golden. In some scenarios I might be willing to lose everything in the course of getting weapons on target (e.g. Doolittle Raids) or I might be only willing to lose a very small amount in spite of having a superior force (e.g. Package Q raid). It just depends. One of the things I spend a lot of time thinking about is how to express "mission success" so that the score is not just "I lost X of mine and you lost Y of yours, if aX < bY where 'a' and 'b' are arbitrary coefficients then I win." That sucks. I hate it. It makes for stupid scenarios. It hurts my head. Don't do it. quote:
Also, what do you think of the idea? Is it something that is actually done? There is a window (I don't know the tim e frame) whereby the firing unit can shoot at a radar which was recently de-activated. Perhaps it depends on the radar. Perhaps there is a set time period. If the emitter is a tracking radar then the window is the flyout time of the weapon associated with it, if you're shooting an ARM at it. I think it gets back to what I was talking about in the previous post, not everything needs to be emitting all of the time. There's reasons to emit and reasons not to emit. You need something to emit in order to maintain a certain amount of situational awareness, but you have to balance that against the fact that emitting also makes you vulnerable in some ways as well. If you've been found, then who cares? Light 'em all up! There's no benefit to trying to hide anymore. This gets into the cat and mouse of it a bit. What do you reveal versus what do you conceal? Maybe you sometimes want to reveal a little bit of yourself, if it's going to reveal something about them too, and allow you an information advantage. Maybe in the beginning I might start off emitting things very selectively, and then when I find what I'm looking for, I might turn things on more steady to keep them fixed, while I position for a robust strike, then switch to the offense on them when I'm at an advantage, now I've revealed myself, so I turn on all my radars on because there's no sense in hiding anymore and I need to deal with a potential counter strike from the survivors. Could it be encoded in LUA? Maybe. My goal is to encode a smarter and more hierarchical IADS. I think I'd strike a better balance in terms of reveal/conceal. I'm sure something else could be encoded for a naval scenario as well, if you understood the problem well.
|
|
|
|