Avoiding instantaneous control of/communication with submarines

[Peacemaker32]

I have noticed that the majority of scenarios (including LIVE/DLCs) involve submarine units behaving as if they are in constant communication with the surface/air. This is obviously not what occurs in real life; as the Silent Service DLC illustrates, various methods of communication are required to transmit/receive messages to submarines when they are not at depth, and constant communication is generally an impossibility.

I was wondering if any more experienced Command veterans/developers could comment as to whether functionality for more realistic submarine warfare (for instance, allied submarines operating as "neutral" for the majority of a scenario, and only coming under player control at specific times to transmit contact information/receive new tasking orders). Obviously, this could be accomplished with enough Lua scripting, but a more elegant/streamlined solution would no doubt be highly appreciated.

[Dimitris]

A more integrated solution is coming.

And it will be optional.

[SeaQueen]

A lot of this stuff depends on the time period. Submarine communications in 1979 was a lot more limited than submarine communications in 1988 and not nearly as extensive as is possible in 2017+. It also depends on tactics (e.g. mast exposure rates). Even in 1988, though, submarine communication might be as simple as picking up the phone (underwater telephone, "Gertrude"). A lot of the problems with limited communications are minimized by good waterspace management (e.g. don't have an MPA search the same area as a friendly SSN). Even that might not be an unviable tactic, though because there's such a thing as relay buoys (https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/we ... ssq-86.htm). Without a much more detailed representation of undersea warfare, I'll always be suspicious of placing limitations on comms with submarines. While it's not essential to do it in Command, there's nothing preventing you from doing it. Submarines are probably pretty good about reporting what they see in a timely manner, they're probably less good at getting useful information immediately. There's also limitations to the AI which suggest that not having a person supervising their behavior is probably less realistic than having a human be able to step in as necessary.

I was wondering if any more experienced Command veterans/developers could comment as to whether functionality for more realistic submarine warfare (for instance, allied submarines operating as "neutral" for the majority of a scenario, and only coming under player control at specific times to transmit contact information/receive new tasking orders). Obviously, this could be accomplished with enough Lua scripting, but a more elegant/streamlined solution would no doubt be highly appreciated.

[Peacemaker32]

I was thinking of something along the lines of the NOCOMM feature; that is, setting up a selectable option to implement a communications loss whenever submarines drop below a certain depth. Scenario designers could choose to either include or ignore this feature, depending on their goals.

In the best case, this feature would vary the depth at which NOCOMM occurs depending on the equipment carried by the specific submarine (underwater telephone, radio mast, streamable antenna, etc.). Additionally, the frequency and duration at which the submarine (s) on the player's side would surface could be adjusted by the player, both at scenario start and during any communications interval throughout the scenario.

[lumiere]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

A more integrated solution is coming.

And it will be optional.

[X(]

[SeaQueen]

In the best case, this feature would vary the depth at which NOCOMM occurs depending on the equipment carried by the specific submarine (underwater telephone, radio mast, streamable antenna, etc.). Additionally, the frequency and duration at which the submarine (s) on the player's side would surface could be adjusted by the player, both at scenario start and during any communications interval throughout the scenario.

Yeah, but there's more to it than just depth, COMM/NOCOMM. There's also the rate of communication. A very deep submarine might have no bandwidth. A shallow submarine might have quite a lot. A submarine at periscope depth might have even more intermittently. Then you get into the issue of satellite, versus ELF, versus VLF, versus blah blah blah. Different types of information might be more easily exchanged than others. Really, in Command, communications is mostly about passing sensor tracks around. In that case, the proper effect might not be COMMS versus NOCOMMS but the age of the contact information when it's finally passed due to low bandwidth.

Submarine communications is a huge topic.

[Peacemaker32]

It seems to me (and I could very well be wrong) that the majority of currently existing communications methods between submarines and other units are focused on transmitting information/orders *to* the submarine, rather than receiving contact information; that is, submarines are often forced to remain passive due to mission requirements, as a transmission on their end would localize their position significantly. Having that in mind, I definitely agree that speed of transmission is also a concern; for instance, ELF communications would require a longer transmission time for the same message versus VLF/other methods.

"H-Hour" (the Northern Fury novel) has a few instances in which friendly submarines are mistakenly targeted by allied MPAs/surface ships; Command does not model this possibility, as the locations of all friendly submarines are known constantly to the player ( as well as those of hostile submarines being known to the AI). I believe Red Storm Rising contains some situations in which US/UK submarines are each unaware of the other's presence, due to a lack of constant communication between submerged submarines under standard circumstances.

[BDukes]

Sound like developer going to work on. All is well.

[8D]

[Andrea G]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

A more integrated solution is coming.

And it will be optional.

That will be a gamechanger

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: Peacemaker32
It seems to me (and I could very well be wrong) that the majority of currently existing communications methods between submarines and other units are focused on transmitting information/orders *to* the submarine, rather than receiving contact information; that is, submarines are often forced to remain passive due to mission requirements, as a transmission on their end would localize their position significantly.

That would be incorrect. One of submarine's most important functions is scouting, because they can go where other platforms can't and operate with relative invulnerability (e.g. deep under the SAM bubble and other coastal defenses). Their value as scouts is nil if they can't report back what they see. Therefore a lot of the advances in submarine communications technology have been in increasing bandwidth for both reception and transmission.

"H-Hour" (the Northern Fury novel) has a few instances in which friendly submarines are mistakenly targeted by allied MPAs/surface ships; Command does not model this possibility, as the locations of all friendly submarines are known constantly to the player ( as well as those of hostile submarines being known to the AI). I believe Red Storm Rising contains some situations in which US/UK submarines are each unaware of the other's presence, due to a lack of constant communication between submerged submarines under standard circumstances.

Deconfliction of air, surface and submarine forces is generally handled by waterspace management. That is actually typically handled at the SUBRON level. I'm not sure how well we coordinate with allies, but I suspect that in a conflict, that would be a high priority.

I have complicated thoughts about the scene in Red Storm Rising, where the USS Chicago was trying to approach a Soviet surface group but was foiled by an unknown submarine operating nearby. My general thought is that multiple things had to go wrong for that kind of thing to happen, and it shouldn't be commonplace at all.

[Gunner98]

"H-Hour" (the Northern Fury novel) has a few instances in which friendly submarines are mistakenly targeted by allied MPAs/surface ships; Command does not model this possibility, as the locations of all friendly submarines are known constantly to the player ( as well as those of hostile submarines being known to the AI). I believe Red Storm Rising contains some situations in which US/UK submarines are each unaware of the other's presence, due to a lack of constant communication between submerged submarines under standard circumstances.

Just picked this up and I should preface by saying I'm an artilleryman not a submariner - so could have things quite wrong.

H-hour SPOILER ALERT*************

I believe the two instances you refer to are:

1) A Soviet Sub that engages a target which a surface and air group was hunting down. What we were trying to paint here is that the sub was returning from patrol (early for mechanical reasons - but that bit got cut) and did not realize that there was a war on until he stumbled into this situation. I think a wise sub commander would have either steered clear or identified himself but we though it would be a fun twist.

2) A Norgi sub that took advantage of Soviet reaction to a missile boat threat. Although the Norgi missile boats did not know where he was, the Sub commander certainly knew that the missile boats were supposed to be prowling in the area.

In both cases the subs seized an opportunity presented to them, the first was far more dangerous to the sub than the second because neither sub nor surface elements knew the full picture. I understand Battlespace management far better than Waterspace management but am pretty sure the principles are the same. In the first instance those principles were violated and in the second they were exploited.

I do look forward to Dimitris' solution. It will provide a real shift in how subs are used i think.

B

[Peacemaker32]

SeaQueen,

Thank you for your detailed responses; they are very informative and much appreciated.

If I may ask: what is your background in this area (theoretical/practical/both)? I don't mean to question the information you've provided; on the contrary, I'm simply curious as to its source (s).

- Peacemaker32

Edit: in reply to Gunner 98, I was indeed referencing the first instance from "H-Hour", involving the Kilo independently prosecuting a target.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: Peacemaker32
If I may ask: what is your background in this area (theoretical/practical/both)? I don't mean to question the information you've provided; on the contrary, I'm simply curious as to its source (s).

I'm an analyst for the Pentagon. 15 years experience doing modeling and simulation for them. For about 9 years of it I did primarily ASW analysis.

[Peacemaker32]

To the extent you can answer (obviously without involving sensitive/classified information): what are the main limitations of CMANO that you perceive regarding submarines/ASW, and what could be introduced to reduce their effects?

[SeaQueen]

The representation of ASW in Command gets the main features, but there's definitely things that could be improved. I doubt they'd be the things you'd care about, though. My pet peeves with respect to ASW include things like the ocean model / transmission loss model looks off, as someone whose spent a lot of time looking at TL curves. There's no cutoff frequency for surface ducts. There's no representation of multistatic sonars (e.g. EER/IEER/MAC/ADAR). MPA don't maintain a reserve of sonobuoys for localization, and will use all of them to search. MPA seem to have perfect comms with sonobuoys. Whether they detect or not doesn't seem to depend on things like radio line of sight, for example. Effectively an MPA can monitor all buoys all the time, which isn't the case. The exact numbers depend on the specifics of the MPA's setup. P-8s can monitor more buoys than P-3s. Early model P-3s probably can't monitor as many as later models.

One thing I noticed which would probably be an easy fix and I keep forgetting to report (I just set the station's altitude) is with the P-8s and HAAWC, they shouldn't have to descend so low to drop them. The whole point of HAAWC is that P-8s can stay up high where their engines are most efficient and the radio horizon is more distant so they can save gas and monitor more sonobuoys.