COMMS EMCON and COMINT

[Dimitris]

Here is a suggestion. Start a thread with DB problems on the Mods & Scens subforum and we'll make it sticky so that we can keep track of fixed & outstanding items.

Fair?

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist

ORIGINAL: Sunburn
Could you please post a save demonstrating this? We'll need to examine it to see if there is any special factor involved.

The "special factor involved" is mostly the thousands of omissions in the current database for loadouts, sensors, equipment, engines, capabilities, probably because you built the database from the ground up, instead of falling back to data from DB2000 where current data was not available. I already demonstrated several cases where platforms were working in DB2000 and certain capabilities are now missing in DB3000.

The result is SDVs that don't have an engine, ELINT ships that can't pick up emissions, replenishment ships that can't replenish anything, mine layers that can't lay mines, nuclear bombers without nuclear bomb loadouts, EW aircraft that can't even identify radars, and I'm sure the list goes on...

There are dozens, maybe hundreds of platforms in there that are currently only placeholders, without any of the functions they are actually supposed to be used for.

I already asked this in another thread, but I'll ask again: How long do you think you will take to work on these thousands of errors, without giving us players a way to effectively communicate them to you?

Right now, the only way is complaining in the forums and hoping it gets picked up. [&:]

Here is a non-helpful way:
"SDVs that don't have an engine, ELINT ships that can't pick up emissions, replenishment ships that can't replenish anything, mine layers that can't lay mines, nuclear bombers without nuclear bomb loadouts, EW aircraft that can't even identify radars, and I'm sure the list goes on..."

Here's a helpful way:
"SDV X123 (ID #567 in DB3000) is missing an engine.
ELINT ship X123 (ID #789 in CWDB) does not have the sensor XYZ which it carried in RL.
The 1982 variant of the Sacramento class (ID #987 in DB3000) is missing the "Refuel to starboard" flag."

Please do more of the latter and less of the former, since you obviously want to help us.

Thanks!

Regarding ESM, its pretty hard to know what's right and what's wrong without knowing how the function actually is modelled in the game. I for example have no clue of how an "AN/SLQ32" compares to a "Generic ESM [Average]" and an "ES-3701 Seawatch" differs from a "Generic ESM [Advanced] . What designs choices have the team made, and what parameters are you actually using when simulating ESM detections, classifications and ranges.




Command is outstanding is it is now, our critic just aims to make it even better.

[Dimitris]

We know the intention is good, and we want to make good use of all this energy.

It turns out a thread with this suggestion has already been created, so I moved it to the Mods & Scens subforum and stickied it: tm.asp?m=3436106

Please post any DB problems there.

Thanks!

[ExMachina]

Regarding ESM, its pretty hard to know what's right and what's wrong without knowing how the function actually is modelled in the game.

Exactly. There are two issues in this thread--units lacking components (an obvious DB issue) and whether or not the sensor model is correct.

The sensor modeling questions raised here will not be addressed by database sticky.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Pergite!

I just took some time to make a couple of controlled tests and came to the conclusion that the current ELINT/ESM function is not working properly.

The advantage with ESM collection is that the platform can remain electronically silent and detect and analyse RADAR transmissions beyond the RADAR detection range because of the greater power of the transmitted electromagnetic pulse with respect to a reflected echo of that pulse.

I just tested this out and it does not work. A E-3 Sentry detects through RADAR airborne and shipborne intelligence and surveillance platforms utilizing dedicated ELINT sensors. This has nothing to do with sensor quality, this is about the laws of physics.

Pretty disappointing...

Edit:
The NATO E-3A seems to be especially good. I changed to the USAF version, and it offered a more reasonable ESM detection range (45nm advantage). It also seems that Surface platforms has difficulties in detecting air-search radars. Is the curving of the earth or antenna directivity involved in the current calculation or what governs that calculation?

Thank you for your beedback Pergite!

Just to be clear, you say the E-3 detects the ELINT aircraft before the ELINT aircraft detects the E-3?

Both the radar model and ESM model takes the power output into account, and the ESM systems use sensitivity (dB ref 1mW) and System Loss (dB) as input params.

Would be great if you could upload a scenario showing this, so that I can check the various sensors and possibly also do some debugging.

Thanks! [8D]

[ComDev]

Strike last, will test scen. Thanks [8D]

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Strike last, will test scen. Thanks [8D]

Air to air radar/ESM seems to work fine. I were never able to reproduce the initial oddity. The scenario is just air to surface as described in the post.

[Der Zeitgeist]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Here is a suggestion. Start a thread with DB problems on the Mods & Scens subforum and we'll make it sticky so that we can keep track of fixed & outstanding items.

Fair?

I put up a spreadsheet to collect DB3000 issues here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... sp=sharing

I also linked to this file in the thread that was stickied.

[Dimitris]

Thanks!

[jpkoester1]

The problem is probably related to radar horizon and LOS. Symptoms sound to me like ESM gear will only detect radar if it is above the horizon. This means that most powerfull radars will be able to detect enemies at the same range as ESM gear will be able to pick ip their radiation (i.e. when visual LOS is the limiting factor to active radar range it will also be the limiting factor for the ESM gear). I am no expert, but my laymans understanding is that ESM gear should probably be able to detect active radars that are below the horizon by a couple of degrees (ducting. etc...). Probably they should incur an accuracy penalty in these cases.

Not sure what the formula should be though.

Cheers,
JP

[ComDev]

Yes this is a LOS thingie, both radar and ESM use the same horizon limitations.

Have registered a new item on this and assigned to me.

Thanks [8D]

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Yes this is a LOS thingie, both radar and ESM use the same horizon limitations.

Have registered a new item on this and assigned to me.

Thanks [8D]

Thank You!

That of course explains why air-air ESM worked since LOS was not a real factor.

Since you are the father of the Sensor Models I of course have some follow up questions: [:)]

How are LPI radars like AESA or electronically steered phased arrays handled in the game? Are these undetectable by more basic ESM systems or how have you reasoned? Without the parameters visible for each sensor, its hard to get a clear picture of how everything is modelled. The IR detection range, as well as radar cross sections are listed under platform signatures. The same for active sensors would probably help a lot of players to understand the importance of EMCON.

You mentioned that both the radar model and ESM model takes the power output into account, and the ESM systems use sensitivity (dB ref 1mW) and System Loss (dB) as input params. With more modern systems output power does not equal range, and the power transmitted can also be done in such a way that it would reduce the effectiveness of a classic ESM receiver.

COMINT, I asked and don't think that I got an answer. Are there any plans to bring it into the simulation since all those comms are listed in the databse?

Btw, I was really happy to see multi-static radars in the database. Does the game mechanics allow you to make them work or are you planning to keep the simplified function they have now? I realised that I could set different point values on transmitters (low) and receivers (high), thus incorporate the value of them as points in a scenario.

Thanks again for your effort and a great product!

[ComDev]

...LOL there is such much activity here at Matrix, the tester forum and the warfaresims forum I'm sure I'm missing at least half the threads! So guys if you've made a post and not gotten a response make sure to bump the thread [8D]

LPI radars have their real-life power output (0.1W or 1W) and pulse lengths in Command, and have much lower System Noise Level and better Processing Gain/Loss than conventional sets. We do not simulate the 'ESM-style analysis techniques' used by these radars in real life, we adjust the processing gain. As such LPI radars work just like any other radar set except they are detected at much shorter ranges. Modern LPIs are often detecting stuff before being counter-detected, and this is also the case in Command.

Cross-posting:

"frequencies, horizontal and vertical beamwidth, System Noise Level, Processing Gain/Loss, Peak Power, Pulse Width, Blind Time (pulse compression is your friend, woh-hoo!), PRF, min & max range, min & max altitude, scan interval, range/height/angle resolution, various capabilities such as air/surface/ground/periscope & range/altitude/speed/heading (RASH) info, OTH-B/OTH-SW, pulse-only & early/later doppler with limited/full LDSD, MTI, NCTR, Phased Array continuous target tracking, CW and CWI capability"

As such, the crappy old 600kW radar on the MiG-25 may have much shorter detection range than a modern 50kW radar, etc.

[Pergite!]

Great! Thank You for the answer.

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

...LOL there is such much activity here at Matrix, the tester forum and the warfaresims forum I'm sure I'm missing at least half the threads! So guys if you've made a post and not gotten a response make sure to bump the thread [8D]

LPI radars have their real-life power output (0.1W or 1W) and pulse lengths in Command, and have much lower System Noise Level and better Processing Gain/Loss than conventional sets. We do not simulate the 'ESM-style analysis techniques' used by these radars in real life, we adjust the processing gain. As such LPI radars work just like any other radar set except they are detected at much shorter ranges. Modern LPIs are often detecting stuff before being counter-detected, and this is also the case in Command.

Cross-posting:

"frequencies, horizontal and vertical beamwidth, System Noise Level, Processing Gain/Loss, Peak Power, Pulse Width, Blind Time (pulse compression is your friend, woh-hoo!), PRF, min & max range, min & max altitude, scan interval, range/height/angle resolution, various capabilities such as air/surface/ground/periscope & range/altitude/speed/heading (RASH) info, OTH-B/OTH-SW, pulse-only & early/later doppler with limited/full LDSD, MTI, NCTR, Phased Array continuous target tracking, CW and CWI capability"

As such, the crappy old 600kW radar on the MiG-25 may have much shorter detection range than a modern 50kW radar, etc.

ESM/ELINT
Energy to the ESM/ELINT system only has to travel one way to its receiver that is probably just as good as the radar receiver, so at the right height for the ESM receiver, the ESM advantage is at least twice the radar range.

Radar Detection Ranges
Scope range here is important and may well be unknown for some radars. Ok worked example:

PRI = 1234 (max range that the radar can see on a first time around return = 100 NM)
Scope for same radar has a max range scale of 100 nm (its matched to its PRI as all good radars should be)
It transmits 5kw peak power (a Navigation Radar figure) and again matched to the range it wants to see stuff at.

Therefore even though the energy carries on going (EM waves just don't stop), the radar has no means of determining the range, because the target is out of range of the scope or the MTUR of the radar (Max Theoretical Unambiguous Range) (please don't get me started on MUR, binning or delay lines). So the 'I see you as you see me' model is wrong - even LPIs for vs modern ELINT systems and modern ESM are not that 'LPI', its just likely the advantage is less.

[Dimitris]

Fetching the popcorn. This should be good.

[bsq]

You'll have to do better than that [:D] before I consult the book of very hard sums...

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Fetching the popcorn. This should be good.

[bsq]

Can you be a 'nerd' if it is your day job? [:D]

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: bsq

Radar Detection Ranges
Scope range here is important and may well be unknown for some radars. Ok worked example:

PRI = 1234 (max range that the radar can see on a first time around return = 100 NM)
Scope for same radar has a max range scale of 100 nm (its matched to its PRI as all good radars should be)
It transmits 5kw peak power (a Navigation Radar figure) and again matched to the range it wants to see stuff at.

Therefore even though the energy carries on going (EM waves just don't stop), the radar has no means of determining the range, because the target is out of range of the scope or the MTUR of the radar (Max Theoretical Unambiguous Range) (please don't get me started on MUR, binning or delay lines). So the 'I see you as you see me' model is wrong - even LPIs for vs modern ELINT systems and modern ESM are not that 'LPI', its just likely the advantage is less.

True in certain cases. Normal RWRs have much smaller antennas than the LPI radars, and thus the LPI has an advantage as it uses signal analysis methods similar to that of the RWR. For more advanced RWRs and ESM sets the LPI will be picked up at longer ranges.

As is also the case in Command.