1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> 1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity - 6/26/2014 8:58:43 PM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

The DDG 138 Taizhou (Pr 956ME Sovremenny) seems a bit too ambiguous.

within 30nm with Aegis, I'm not able to target the destroyer with any weapons systems, including SM-2MR Block 3B missiles which have a secondary Imaging Infrared seeker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-66_Standard#SM-2_Medium_Range_Block_III.2FIIIA.2FIIIB.2C_RIM-66K.2FL.2FM

quote:

The Block IIIB missile additionally has a dual semi-active/infrared seeker for terminal homing. The dual seeker is intended for use in high-ECM environments, against targets over the horizon or with a small radar cross section.

It's also listed as having a range of up to 90 nm from the brochure.

I'm also being effectively jammed right up to within 5" gun range.

I get within 14 nm of the ship and still can't target it, despite having many long range passive sensors that
should be able to see it on the horizon. You'll find the Sovremenny has no problems firing at the Burke, and jamming it. And the mission also crashes sometimes.

Edit: Seems to crash when the Burke gets hit, especially by gunfire from the Taizhou.

And apologies for posting it in the regular forum, I thought I had put this in Techical Support.

Attached is the savegame.

You can just hit the start button and let the ships close the distance.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 6/27/2014 12:27:17 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: 1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity - 6/28/2014 2:20:35 PM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

I continued with this save scenario using the new 552 build and came across a few things in the log and weapons allocation window that might narrow things down to help.

In the Log I had this:

quote:

7:35:29 PM - Only 1 out of 2 weapon sensors spoofed
7:35:29 PM - Defensive jammer (Wine Glass [MP-407]; Tech: Early 1980s) on DDG 138 Taizhou [Pr.956ME Sovremenny] is
attempting to spoof sensor: SARH Seeker(Tech: Early 1990s)(Of: RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Blk IIIB #516). Final probability: 10%. Die
Roll: 2 - SUCCESS
7:35:29 PM - Weapon: RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Blk IIIB #516 cannot have its target illuminated... will impact with severe accuracy reduction.

With the secondary IR seeker the weapon probably shouldn't be penalized for no illumination if it has a chance to see the target with IR.

With the included save, going into the manual weapon allocation on the Burke under the 5" gun I have the following message:

quote:

The target's downrange ambiguity (0.3nm) is larger than 1x the weapon's acceptable limit (0nm)

For the RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Blk IIIB:

quote:

Weapon is unable to engage imprecise target

Note the range between the Chinese Sovremenny and Burke, just seems a little off, but take note my ship and his was damaged in a gun duel.

I'm also not experiencing the crashes so far with this scenario that I was with Build 551.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 2

RE: 1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity - 6/28/2014 2:35:31 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Thanks we'll take a look

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 3

RE: 1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity - 6/28/2014 3:07:18 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Pretty sure the missile uses the ship's radar to gets its initial guidance and you can't just flip on the other sensor right out of the tube and hope to hit anything. If its the case than the behavior is correct in that you're jammed

Checking with Rag and D to see if that is correct. If not we'll make a change.

Btw same penalty on the Sovremenny. Could you not Jam it?

Thanks!

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 6/28/2014 4:18:21 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 4

RE: 1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity - 6/28/2014 4:08:00 PM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

Hi Mike,

You might be right, the info for the SM-2MR IIIB mentions the imaging IR seeker is certainly used in the terminal stage of the engagement or end game, but haven't found info if this sensor is always on after the missile is launched.

Considering the ranges of the ships, I would have expected some burn through of the ECM.

The Sovremenny is being jammed, playing as the Sovremenny in the attached savegame, you can see where the ship is firing at the Burke, and the Burke's ambiguity is smaller versus what the Burke sees. Switching to the Burke at this point shows the Burke has a larger ambiguity on the Sovremenny and it's 5" can't engage when going into the manual weapon allocation table.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 6/28/2014 5:12:24 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 5

RE: 1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity - 6/28/2014 4:29:32 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlmightyTallest

Hi Mike,

You might be right, the info for the SM-2MR IIIB mentions the imaging IR seeker is certainly used in the terminal stage of the engagement or end game, but haven't found info if this sensor is always on after the missile is launched.

Well the missile has to be pointed at the target too. It is a VLS mount and is definitely not at launch

I think the underlying game theory behind this though is your ships aren't going to shoot at something they have little or no hope of hitting because the guidance is disabled. You can play the desperation angle (this is all we got) but then you run into case logic of them shooting at other things with no good chance of success which would inspire the ire of others.

quote:

Considering the ranges of the ships, I would have expected some burn through of the ECM.

Really. Why?

quote:

The Sovremenny is being jammed, playing as the Sovremenny in the attached savegame, you can see where the ship is firing at the Burke, and the Burke's ambiguity is smaller versus what the Burke sees. Switching to the Burke at this point shows the Burke has a larger ambiguity on the Sovremenny and it's 5" can't engage when going into the manual weapon allocation table.

So the Sovremenny's sensor might be better? I'm not sure I understand your concern.

Again higher level game stuff. This probably tells you that getting into a knife fight with a Sovremenny isn't a great idea:) In the modern era its not a good idea in general.

Thanks!

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 6/28/2014 5:32:03 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 6

RE: 1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity - 6/28/2014 5:02:16 PM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

Well the missile has to be pointed at the target too. It is a VLS mount and is definitely not at launch

I think the underlying game theory behind this though is your ships aren't going to shoot at something they have little or no hope of hitting because the guidance is disabled. You can play the desperation angle (this is all we got) but then you run into case logic of them shooting at other things with no good chance of success which would inspire the ire of others

No problem, I was thinking that because you at least had a bearing of the target, and detected Jamming (Are these SM-2's HOJ capable?) that you could have used the Imaging IR seeker to find a ship sized target. No biggie though, I understand your reasoning.

Regarding the Burn though, considering the amount of output power by the Aegis system, up to 5 or 6 Megawatts, and the near visual range of the target, I would have expected the Sovremenny to be localized better, it seemed to work that way in the earlier builds.

quote:

So the Sovremenny's sensor might be better? I'm not sure I understand your concern.

Which sensor is better is the question, if the sensor is actually better or something just changed in the sensor models. The Sovremenny doesn't have Aegis class radars, going by the trend for many navies to go for Passively or Actively Scanned array's like the Aegis would seem to indicate that AEGIS type ships have a better capability vs. older mechanically rotating radar systems.

Just trying to understand how it works is all. If these ships have some capable jamming and sensor systems that can disable an Aegis ship and allow the Sovremenny to use it's guns against the Aegis while negating the Aegis from effectively firing back. I'm impressed.

quote:

Again higher level game stuff. This probably tells you that getting into a knife fight with a Sovremenny isn't a great idea:) In the modern era its not a good idea in general.

Thanks!

I suppose so, I thought it would have been getting into a knife fight with an Aegis ship wouldn't be a great idea. Was having fun with it though.

< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 6/28/2014 6:03:55 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 7

RE: 1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity - 6/28/2014 5:09:15 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

What happens is that the radars are staring right into the high-power jamming beams, causing the internal antenna temperature to skyrocket and in effect making them useless. Both ships' jammers are 'long-range jammers' and are terribly (or even ridiculously) powerful.

Command's models are pretty sophisticated and even includes sidelobe jamming but some mods are planned further down the road. Like better handling of frequency agile radars, limiting the number of radars a jammer can target, etc. So the SPY-1 should probably get _some_ good sweeps on the older Sovremenny jamming gear. But would that be enough to pop off a SM-2? Hm...

No ETA on this though, as radar/ECM stuff is terribly complex. Need a good rest & a fresh head before even starting to think about digging into this hehe

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 8

RE: 1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity - 6/28/2014 5:15:52 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Erm... yes... the SPY-1 isn't actually surface search capable in the database. Bummer.

So the Sovremenny is using the Palm Frond and powerful Top Plate Band Stand radars, while the Burke only has the far less powerful AN/SPS-67. Not exactly fair.

Ahem

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 9

RE: 1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity - 6/28/2014 5:28:55 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Ah yeah the US vs. Russian tech thing.

Okay honestly if its really about this we can't really get into it with you as it is not what we do. Second of all I'm American (live in South Boston) so its a little more than irritating. I guess our role is to smile and take it though right?

Anyways if you do have any more info or relevant stuff to post please do post.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 10

RE: 1.04 RC4 B551 Sovremenny Ambiguity - 6/28/2014 5:51:13 PM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

Ah yeah the US vs. Russian tech thing.

Okay honestly if its really about this we can't really get into it with you as it is not what we do. Second of all I'm American (live in South Boston) so its a little more than irritating. I guess our role is to smile and take it though right?

I do apologize if it seems that way, as it was not my intention to irritate you guys. As I understood it there's a physical limitation on older generation radars regardless where they were made.

Thanks for the explanation Emsoy, fascinating stuff you guys are already modelling, and thanks for the info on the SPY-1 not doing the surface search, glad you guys looked into it and are going for more complex modelling in the future, looking forward to it.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 11