[FIXED] MAD detection of subs

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Tried this now.

The maximum detection range of the CA/ASQ-508(V) MAD sensor is 1nm.

The detection check happens as the CP-140 is at 1000ft and the submarine is at 1312ft. The slant range between them is 0.60nm, well within the MAD sensor's range, so the detection happens.

Which, if any, of the above elements is unreasonable ?

That's all the input required for a MAD detection? range?

What are we missing?

Thanks!

Mike

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: dvresic

If this was realistic, that a P3 would get a MAD contact at a sub at any depth, well I don't think the Navies of the world would be spending as much time and money in ASW as they are.

In the game; a 30x30mile patrol box of a P3 with a loiter time of 3hours would detect a sub every single time. No matter what depth or speed. Simply by flying over it with MAD. The sub could be 1400 feet deep.

Therefore I think the model is broken.

Scenario after scenario. Subs sunk due to a MAD hit.

I've posted a scenario...2 US SSN's (LA and Virginia class )are trying to Break out/Break in thru the San Juan Straight. It's not Sonar that picks them up. In every case it's a P3 flying patrol overhead with MAD.

Real navies are looking at our sim and haven't complained about how we're doing this yet.

What is your point of expertise exactly? If its sub command, 688I or Dangerous Waters the scopes of the games are different. We don't model every button push or fish fart but make the assumption that the crew etc. handle these functions leaving the player to worry abut higher level things.

Thanks!

Mike

[stilesw]

ROTFL! Sorry, couldn't resist.

-WS

[Gunner98]

or fish fart

is that really a thing?

[Schr75]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

or fish fart

is that really a thing?

It sure is [:D]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwCYIfm6eA

[Zaslon]

Thanks Sunburn for the answer.

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Tried this now.

The maximum detection range of the CA/ASQ-508(V) MAD sensor is 1nm.

The detection check happens as the CP-140 is at 1000ft and the submarine is at 1312ft. The slant range between them is 0.60nm, well within the MAD sensor's range, so the detection happens.

Which, if any, of the above elements is unreasonable ?

That's all the input required for a MAD detection? range?

What are we missing?

Thanks!

Mike

You can add Distance to the seabed. MAD doesn't work well in coastal waters because the magnetometer dont measure absolute parameters. THe magnetometer measure differences...contrast...then in coastal waters, MAD detect a lot of natural anomalies of the seabed (and also can detect sunken ships). When the seabed hasn't natural anomalies....It still can mask the magnetic signature of the submarine, his signature can be decreased over his signature in deep waters because we are measuring differences, not an absolute parameter as I said so the magnetic signature of the seabed is greater than the magnetic signature of the sea water.

A friend of mine told me that they do not use MAD in areas with depth less than 1,000 meters (3,330 ft).

P.S. that is very simplistic but can work here. Heading of submarine and Aircraft, speeds...also take account in real life.

[mikmykWS]

Seems reasonable. Do you have a source with reliable data handy?

Obviously when asked by a pro why we did this we can't say Zaslon's friend told us to[:)]

Mike

[thewood1]

Actually, that's a little too generic also. The US Navy used to spend time and money surveying and mapping the behavior of magnetic fields. This is specifically so magnetic-type sensing could be used. Because it is all relative and having a baseline is very important. There are still huge sections of the ocean that haven't been mapped and fields can shift. They tended to map common routes for subs. But it does require constant updating.

I have always suspected that is why MAD fell out of favor. Don't have any data, but my uncle served on a survey ship. It's primary mission in the 1970's was ocean floor mapping, but its secondary mission was field mapping.

[Zaslon]

Mike, a MAD its a magnetometer used in Aeromagnetic campaigns. What I wrote can be found in any basic manual about geophysics. But areful because sometimes basic concepts were explained in gravimetry (both methods have similarities).

My buddy only told me the threshold (a rule-of-thumb) betweetn coastal waters and deep waters for MAD detection. If you take the idea, surely Paul or any ASW guy can define a good threshold.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

Mike, a MAD its a magnetometer used in Aeromagnetic campaigns. What I wrote can be found in any basic manual about geophysics. But areful because sometimes basic concepts were explained in gravimetry (both methods have similarities).

My buddy only told me the threshold (a rule-of-thumb) betweetn coastal waters and deep waters for MAD detection. If you take the idea, surely Paul or any ASW guy can define a good threshold.

Will do. Thanks

Mike

[StellarRat]

"If this was realistic, that a P3 would get a MAD contact at a sub at any depth, well I don't think the Navies of the world would be spending as much time and money in ASW as they are.

In the game; a 30x30mile patrol box of a P3 with a loiter time of 3hours would detect a sub every single time. No matter what depth or speed. Simply by flying over it with MAD. The sub could be 1400 feet deep."

- Only if the sub stayed in one place and the P3 got lucky enough to fly right over the sub and the conditions were perfect and you happen to be searching the correct 30x30 mile area to begin with. Even if it's working right it certainly isn't the ultimate sub detection system.

[thewood1]

Found the answer to why MAD has fallen out of favor...from the Undersea warfare report from CSIS that I posted in the other thread:

Page 42 in that PDF states that Degaussing made MAD relatively ineffective. It was also stated that deep water operations hurt MAD capabilities. I should have remembered the degaussing thing. I had read that somewhere else earlier.

[dvresic]

Can't get too specific. Did some testing around Nanoose Bay. MAD detection is overly generous in this game.
There's a reason why the Ch-148 isn't outfitted with a MAD, aside from the fact Canada's not too concerned with Nuclear powered subs lurking off our coasts anymore.
Aside from that love the database.
It's not your fault. These things are too top secret for your developers to know all the ins and outs.

[mikmykWS]

Ok thanks

mike

[MH-60Deuce]

I know this is an old thread but can somebody tell me that the MAD detection issue was fixed in the meantime?

I am thinking about getting Silent Service but after playing some sub scenarios some time ago which got completely spoiled by my me or the enemy detecting almost all subs getting by random MAD hits which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF HOW IT WORKS IN REALITY I´ve put it down for a while.

Reading the response "The detection check happens as the CP-140 is at 1000ft and the submarine is at 1312ft. The slant range between them is 0.60nm." Jesus and I thought Dangerous Waters is already very forgiving to MAD but this probably one of the most hilarious things I´ve heard, holy Montana, Guinness calls for 90´s MAD record.

Never got random MAD hits. After extensive sonobuoy triangulation was done, it was used to as an secondary confirmation and pinpoint instrument on the goblin´s location. It required THREE mad hits from different directions before the "mad mad mad" was called in order to release the ordnance… to ensure that these mads aren´t just another bunch of magnetic fish farts. Recommendations for the run were 200ft but down to 50 was also practicable in order to get better results. And you had to be almost EXACTLY ABOVE the target to get something useful without guarantee. Sure newer mad arrays are likely better but as somebody stated correctly deep running goblins, noise, degaussing, (…) and the effectiveness of other tools made MAD to a difficult case.

Even seeing that response considering this correct without showing any awareness of what could be wrong here left me shocking. Like one was stating with the patrol area... do the math and you see how silly it is... If this where true we just had flying MADs and the Navy wouldn´t have to drop this pricey sonobuoys and yet the Navy is even abandoning MAD despite its god-given ability to locate and blow every dolphin out of the water (at least according to CMANO).

Look CMANO is the premier dog in this genre and you guys are doing an impressive job hands down, but we´re not talking about fish farts here, last time I´ve played, ASW was a major part of CMANO thus the MAD issue portrays a major aspect wrong. Like stated in CMANO way too many subs get detected and then sunk by random MAD hits. Furthermore deciding wether something is depicted correctly or completely OUT OF SPACE is not done by putting random values in and see if "our Navy customer ever starts to mention issues in this department on our next lunch meeting" but by doing your own research and additionally! ask them for their input. There is reliable OSINT out there which just takes minutes to dig out and while you probably won´t find and shouldn´t trust statements like MAD range is exactly X if Y (because even those guys responsible for it didn´t knew that exactly) you will get an idea pretty fast on how absurd its representation is in CMANO.

Unless of course it got fixed in the meantime which I hope for because I would instantly throw my wallet at the screen if this is the case.


Deuce

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: MH-60Deuce

I know this is an old thread but can somebody tell me that the MAD detection issue was fixed in the meantime?

I am thinking about getting Silent Service but after playing some sub scenarios some time ago which got completely spoiled by my me or the enemy detecting almost all subs getting by random MAD hits which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF HOW IT WORKS IN REALITY I´ve put it down for a while.

Reading the response "The detection check happens as the CP-140 is at 1000ft and the submarine is at 1312ft. The slant range between them is 0.60nm." Jesus and I thought Dangerous Waters is already very forgiving to MAD but this probably one of the most hilarious things I´ve heard, holy Montana, Guinness calls for 90´s MAD record.

Never got random MAD hits. After extensive sonobuoy triangulation was done, it was used to as an secondary confirmation and pinpoint instrument on the goblin´s location. It required THREE mad hits from different directions before the "mad mad mad" was called in order to release the ordnance… to ensure that these mads aren´t just another bunch of magnetic fish farts. Recommendations for the run were 200ft but down to 50 was also practicable in order to get better results. And you had to be almost EXACTLY ABOVE the target to get something useful without guarantee. Sure newer mad arrays are likely better but as somebody stated correctly deep running goblins, noise, degaussing, (…) and the effectiveness of other tools made MAD to a difficult case.

Even seeing that response considering this correct without showing any awareness of what could be wrong here left me shocking. Like one was stating with the patrol area... do the math and you see how silly it is... If this where true we just had flying MADs and the Navy wouldn´t have to drop this pricey sonobuoys and yet the Navy is even abandoning MAD despite its god-given ability to locate and blow every dolphin out of the water (at least according to CMANO).

Look CMANO is the premier dog in this genre and you guys are doing an impressive job hands down, but we´re not talking about fish farts here, last time I´ve played, ASW was a major part of CMANO thus the MAD issue portrays a major aspect wrong. Like stated in CMANO way too many subs get detected and then sunk by random MAD hits. Furthermore deciding wether something is depicted correctly or completely OUT OF SPACE is not done by putting random values in and see if "our Navy customer ever starts to mention issues in this department on our next lunch meeting" but by doing your own research and additionally! ask them for their input. There is reliable OSINT out there which just takes minutes to dig out and while you probably won´t find and shouldn´t trust statements like MAD range is exactly X if Y (because even those guys responsible for it didn´t knew that exactly) you will get an idea pretty fast on how absurd its representation is in CMANO.

Unless of course it got fixed in the meantime which I hope for because I would instantly throw my wallet at the screen if this is the case.

Deuce

So, to distill the essence of your argument:

* Effective MAD detection ranges (slant) should be significantly reduced from their current levels.

* MAD sensors should not be able to perform volume search, only to refine existing underwater contacts.

* MAD false targets should be introduced, to make a MAD hit less of a "target present" guarantee.

You mention "reliable OSINT out there" that corroborates your argument. Can you point us to such sources?

Also, since you are asking for a fairly significant sensor change, we will probably need to contact you in private. We will also get in touch with some of our customers to cross-confirm the validity of your proposal.

Thanks.

[jarraya]

The company I work for uses airborne gravitometry to look for oil. The technology we use came directly from the developments of MAD and its commercial use is still restricted by the US to certain places.

Commercial gravity measurement systems today are so sensitive they would have no issues spotting a sub at any depth. I can't imagine what military systems can do!

See article attached with A LOT of detail, if you're interested. I think the CMANO model is probably close enough to accurate for game purposes.

http://www.ga.gov.au/webtemp/image_cache/GA16642.pdf

[MH-60Deuce]

ORIGINAL: jarraya

The company I work for uses airborne gravitometry to look for oil. The technology we use came directly from the developments of MAD and its commercial use is still restricted by the US to certain places.

Commercial gravity measurement systems today are so sensitive they would have no issues spotting a sub at any depth. I can't imagine what military systems can do!

I think the CMANO model is probably close enough to accurate for game purposes.

Submarines are not oil. And without having education and professional experience in the Navy ASW MAD topic, "I think" or "I imagine" is never close to be accurate.

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
You mention "reliable OSINT out there" that corroborates your argument. Can you point us to such sources?

A 2017 example. I have no clearance for links so I added an image.

From the Abstract:
"Among these sources, ferromagnetic field source has been studied thoroughly and widely applied in magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) systems. However, the strength of this source can be largely minimized by using degaussing technology, and MAD signals usually suffer from strong magnetic noise interference from geology, geomagnetic, platform vibration and motion, ocean motion and wave, which severely limit the application of MAD systems in realistic environments [2]."
While some may argue that this publication is not an US-based one, the statement above is based on Reference [2] which is the work of Holmes J.J 2006, Naval Surface Warfare Center, US.

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
We will also get in touch with some of our customers to cross-confirm the validity of your proposal.

Thanks.

Perfect, I couldn´t wish for more. The internet is overflowing with "military experts" proposing heaven on earth and no statement can be taken granted. So I even support you to not treat my post different. Use your expertise, research, and your strong connections to the real deal people - your professional customers.

While they perhaps can´t or won´t tell you exact performance values, I am in good hope that they can brief you about MAD´s primary detection capabilities and what it is able to and what it isn´t able to.

Great response, thanks too.

[c3k]

Not a submariner, or sub-hunter, but the pdf's linked upstream also discuss the effect of sensor velocity in regards to sensitivity. The faster it goes, the better it is able to filter out noise, and therefore detects the magnetic anomaly at greater distances.

The pdf linked upstream shows ranges at 30, 60, and 120 knots. The P8, based on the 737 airframe, patrols at a greater speed than those. 210 kts seems reasonable, based on a 737 at low altitude and max loiter. (Again, I'm not an expert in P8 ops.)

I have no idea if the sensor velocity is part of the sim.

[SSN754planker]

I have tackled this subject before, and ill do so again in CMANO later today. Ill do a couple different setups.

1. Soviet/Russian MAD asset vs. NATO sub (mid 1980's)
2. NATO MAD asset vs. Soviet sub. (mid 1980's)
3. Russian MAD asset vs. NATO sub (present day)
4. NATO MAD asset vs. Russian sub (present day)

Ill do a 5th experiment with chinese subs vs japanese/US assets also if i see weird things happening.

Dimitris and I have discussed this before and MAD seems to be spot on last time we really looked at it together. But patches being patches with such a complex sim such as this could always have unintended results and "break" something that was not broken.

Ill post my results as i get things simmed out.