Issue with formation station patrols

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

Probably, if something were to be changed, what SHOULD be happening, is the original helo (Say, Helo 1) should lay a portion of their sonobuoys in a line, rather than all of them,.monitor them for a short time while the formation is advancing, then fly forward, laying another line, and repeat this until it is nearly bingo fuel, at which point, helo 2 takes off, they pass in the air, and helo 2 proceeds to do the same.

Emphasis by HH

That is how things operated in H2 and H3 and what everyone else in this thread is already advocating. The fact that the aircraft can run out of buoys has more to do with the size of the patrol zone assigned and the problem with the ANW AI' refusal to employ any buoys with active sonar. That is not the problem currently under discussion.

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

The intended behavior is for the aircraft to maintain station and monitor a sonobuoy line. The last couple of posts have laid that out concisely. If aircraft are off station because they moved or the formation moved then they should move to their station and lay another sonobuoy line. If they cannot they should RTB. As Freek pointed out, we've covered this before.

I disagree that aircraft should land as soon as their last sonobuoy is laid. I believe they should RTB when they can no longer cover their station. Doing otherwise is a potential waste and not every set up can maintain this.

So what is new in this thread is a bug reported by Herman in RC1 and confirmed by using his test scenario. Thanks for that Herman. What is happening is the aircraft is being replaced because it is off station and out of viable sonobuoys (another issue there). However, the aircraft are not being ordered to RTB. That's the bug I wanted to handle and is in fact new in RC1. This leaves the aircraft off station and idling until they hit Bingo fuel.

Working on the fix now.

Thanks,

[hermanhum]

I believe that some clarification is in order so that the correct problem is solved and not a mis-perception.

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

I believe they should RTB when they can no longer cover their station.

This is the correct behaviour and was what happened in H2 and H3. Planes RtB after they try to lay another line and find that there are no more buoys available.

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

So what is new in this thread is a bug reported by Herman in RC1 and confirmed by using his test scenario. Thanks for that Herman. What is happening is the aircraft is being replaced because it is off station and out of viable sonobuoys (another issue there). However, the aircraft are not being ordered to RTB. That's the bug I wanted to handle and is in fact new in RC1. This leaves the aircraft off station and idling until they hit Bingo fuel.

Emphasis by HH

This is not what is happening. The planes are not waiting to exhaust all of the planes' fuel before they RtB. They are waiting for the sonobuoy fuel to expire. Once the battery power from every last sonobuoy laid by that particular plane is exhausted, then the plane will RtB.

However, the corrective measure suggested (having the plane RtB once it is out of viable sononbuoys and unable to lay a new buoy line) is the proper one and should fix the problem in either case.

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

So the aircraft assigned to sonobuoy stations will now RTB when they are out of passive sonobuoys and are off station.

How soon aircraft will become off station depends on the group's speed, the number of sonobuoys available, and the shape of the station area. I'll continue testing this in other missions.

Something I noticed was that aircraft could plot a series of waypoints to lay a new sonobuoy line while having insufficient sonobuoys. Despite running out of sonobuoys around the 5th (for example) position, it would still go through the motions of laying the rest of the 12 sonobuoy line. What do you guys think should happen for this case?

Thanks,

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Something I noticed was that aircraft could plot a series of waypoints to lay a new sonobuoy line while having insufficient sonobuoys. Despite running out of sonobuoys around the 5th (for example) position, it would still go through the motions of laying the rest of the 12 sonobuoy line.

That has always been the behaviour for H2 and H3. If a plane starts to lay a new buoy line and has just one possible sonobuoy available, it will lay it, go through the motions of laying the other non-existent sonobuoys, then stop and monitor the single buoy. Only when it tries to lay the next buoy line and finds absolutely no buoys available does it RtB at that point.

I believe that this behaviour is acceptable.

[FreekS]

I agree, good enough. Freek

[Bucks]

Gents,

I did some testing on this months ago (well before this discussion). I found a link between the "unacceptable" behaviour and maybe what's "expected".

The size of the zone has to fit the size of the sonobuoy line the aircraft will drop. The buoys are spaced at something like 1.5 x the maximum range of the sensor (sonar) carried on the buoy. For example 2nm Passive Sonar Range would produce a 3nm buoy separation. Don't quote me 100% but it's something like that from memory.

So say we have an aircraft with a flight time of 120mins. 10mins out to station, 10mins back to ship, 10mins reserve, leaving 90mins of sonobuoy dropping. If the aircraft drops every say 30mins and carries 24 sonobuoys, we should observe 3 lines of 8 buoys at 3nm spacing (from above). The 3 lines will have a "speed of advance" spacing of the parent formation. If your convoy is moving at 12kts, your lines are 6nm in advance of the last (line dropped every 30 mins or 1/2 hour, therefore 12kts/2 = 6kts.

X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X = 21nm line
|
|
| 6nm
|
|
|
X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X = 21nm line
|
|
| 6nm
|
|
|
X---X---X---X---X---X---X---X = 21nm


That might be for say a SH-60B. If you make a Patrol Poly with a width of less than 21nm you'll find unexpended buoys or multiples dropped at the last point in the line.

A S-3 Viking might have 90 Passive buoys and be able to stay on station for maybe 240mins, you assign it a formation zone of say 30nm breadth meaning it will drop 11 sonobuoys per line. That would give 8 lines of 11 buoys and 240mins/8lines = 30mins/line QED [:)]

I'll try to find the screens I have of what I consider to be correct behaviour (formation zone positioning), concluding in a sucessful prosecution of a RED force sub when it crosses a USN sonobuoy line and post them here asap.

Cheers

Darren

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

The buoys are spaced at something like 1.5 x the maximum range of the sensor (sonar) carried on the buoy. For example 2nm Passive Sonar Range would produce a 3nm buoy separation. Don't quote me 100% but it's something like that from memory.

At this time with ANW 3.9.4, sensor sensitivity is irrelevant to the the spacing of sonobuoys. AI-controlled platforms will drop buoys at the same interval regardless of sensor performance.

This image shows two aircraft. One is a P-3 Orion and the other is Il-38 May. (It does not matter which is which). Sensor sensitivity is also irrelevant as both aircraft drop sonobuoys at the same intervals when ordered to lay a string of sonobuoys. If sensor performance determined buoy spacing, then at least some variance would appear.

[Bucks]

Herman,

Sorry wrong value quoted. Check the passive sonar sensitivities of those two sonobuoy types in your test. I bet they are very close i.e one might be -30 the other -31 or -32 or even identical.

Try some test sonobuoys with passive sensitivity values ranging from say -27, -28, -30, -34 & -38. You'll notice a change in the size of the indicated sonar range ring and a varied spacing for drop points based on the range ring displayed.

On a map with varying sea states you will also notice changes for individual sonobuoy types based on the sea state effect on "estimated" detection ranges. The game engine drops the buoys with a spacing that should allow an overlap of the 25% detection band of the sensor.

The sonar range ring you see is I believe displayed at the 50% detection band. I've just confirmed it here. The spacing can actually be calculated using the HUD3 sonar spreadsheet. No insult intended Herman, but you have yourself admitted your sensor system is based on copying a similar system already existing in the PDB. Here's a quick example of differing sonobuoy spacings in the screen shot provided.

Top of map buoys are SSQ-801 Barra, bottom buoys are SSQ-41 - LOFAR. At top of screen notice the effect of Sea State on "estimated" detection range. At bottom the buoys are being dropped at 4.2nm intervals in Sea State 1. In Sea State 0 the SSQ-41 - LOFAR drops at 6.8nm spacings. The Barra's long range is due to the limited CZ capability.

Cheers

[hermanhum]

The passive value for the VLAD employed by the Orion is -13 for Low Freq and -2 for the BM-2 with a Med Freq.

The test may not be that good since it mixes a Low and Med freq system and thus can be difficult to compare. I'll try other sonobuoys and values that are more similar. Here is my test scenario.

[Bucks]

Here's a little further into the test.

The Sonobuoys you're looking at are all SSQ-41 - LOFAR buoys (except at top left). The difference in the range rings is due to a difference in Sea State from 0 to 1 you're looking at a map over 60nm (111km) across and weather conditions can easily vary over such distances.

It's readily observed that displayed range rings (50% detection band) directly affect the spacings assigned to the sonobuoy drop points. So it's a variable based on Passive sonar sensitivity and the effect of Sea State on how that value generates the sonar range bands we can display. Clear as mud?

Cheers

Darren

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Sorry wrong value quoted. Check the passive sonar sensitivities of those two sonobuoy types in your test. I bet they are very close i.e one might be -30 the other -31 or -32 or even identical.

Behavior is confirmed. Sensor sensitivity does affect separation of sonobuoy deployment. The two sonobuoys originally selected were insufficiently dissimilar to show the effect.

[Bucks]

Thanks Herman,
 
I might do more work on it soon, will need to speak to Russell about some of the latest sonar mods before I spend any time on it.
 
Cheers
 
Darren

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Sonobuoys are spaced according to their calculated detection range with a 50% chance of detection against a 100 dB target. The usual factors for sonar detection apply. A minimum of 1 nm is used and if the range is less than 3 nm it will double the value used for sonobuoy line spacing.

The point that bothers me is the laying of multiple sonobuoys on one point. I'll look into this further.

Thanks,

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Sonobuoys are spaced according to their calculated detection range with a 50% chance of detection against a 100 dB target.

Is this calculated detection range based upon the passive detection value from the sensor annex or does it use the Max Range value from that same sensor annex?

Does the Max Range field play any role, now?

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Sonobuoys are spaced according to their calculated detection range with a 50% chance of detection against a 100 dB target.

Is this calculated detection range based upon the passive detection value from the sensor annex or does it use the Max Range value from that same sensor annex?

Does the Max Range field play any role, now?

It's based on the sensor's passive input (sensitivity) value, that shows up from the test we did a day or so back doesn't it?

The "max range" value is informative only.

Case in point being the ability to add fuel that would allow a missile to travel past the stated "informative value" Maximum range of the missile. Eg Max range 20nm using say 40secs of fuel, adding another 10 secs would give the missile a max range of 25nm. Not adjusting the information field just means you're having, "a lend" of the DB user. Of course you won't be able to launch until you're 20nm away from the target, but the missile will fly for 25nm...

Cheers

Darren

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

The "max range" value is informative only.

That has always been the case with H2 and H3. I am seeking AGSI confirmation that this has not changed and that the field remains purely cosmetic with respect to game calculations.

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Confirmed.