Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Filitch

Filitch,

Aus air power didn't conduct simulations against any specific target, they simply display generic detection ranges in their graphs. In other words, the detection ranges for low frequency (VHF and UHF) radars are not applicable to narrow band stealth aircraft such as the F22. However, they are more applicable to broadband stealth aircraft such as the B2 (and the RQ180 also featured in CMANO). What I did was see where the alleged RCS of the B2 fits into the Aus air power graph. Since I am new to the forum, I cannot post the graph or the links to the Aus air power site, but you can search "low frequency radars aus air power" or something similar in a search engine and it will provide you with a link. As for the sources that list the B2's RCS, there is global security and a number of authoritative books on aerospace engineering. They do not specify from which angle though, but I'm guessing its from the frontal aspect since that is where the aircraft is supposed to be the least detectable. As for altitude, again there is no specification since it is highly classified.

In the simulations I conducted in CMANO I has the aircraft bearing directly towards the aircraft (since it is meant to be the least observable from its frontal aspect). The altitude was high (thirty six thousand feet). The radars I used were the newer Russian Nebo series radars which are active electronically scanned arrays (AESAs). I highly doubt that even advanced Russian radar systems (and similar Chinese radars) can detect a broadband stealth aircraft at 50 to 55nm.

Also, I had a SA3 site detect a B2 at approximately 15 to 16nm. Yet, during Operation Allied Force in 1999, B2s were utilized to take out fixed Yugoslav SAM sites (back then they could only carry unguided munitions and GAMs/JDAMs), so we are talking about ranges of less than 10 to 12nm (assuming they were dropped from high altitudes).

I think it's pretty normal if radar in simulator have better result than real life examples, the reported specification are usually found under controlled tests, which is theoretical.

In real life, radar is an passive asset, so there are many non-objective detections that need operators to determine, be it like weather, migrating birds, civilian planes, or even the radar's own noise can cause some lossy results. The 'confirmed detection range' is usually below the theoretical range, and RCS should not be one of a reason.

You could try again by adjusting the radar's proficiency and weather, non-A/PESA radar will face challenge in this condition.

Thanks for the comment Dysta. Indeed, weather parameters, operator skill, radar-type and other factors will affect the detection range. I wanted to point out that the RCS of broadband stealth aircraft in CMANO appears to be modeled in the same way as for narrow band stealth aircraft. That is, they have only a slightly smaller RCS in the low frequency range, when it should be significantly smaller. The reason it would be great to have that adjusted is that (apart from being more realistic) it'll allow players to experiment with various approaches of utilizing broadband and narrow band stealth aircraft.

ArmChairGen
Look at the wider problem. We have two theoretical results. From CMANO and from Aus Air Power. We don't know what methods of calculation are used. Possible model might look like this (I think Sunburn can clarify this question when it's not a secret). The amount of energy that comes from the radar to the target is calculated. The amount of energy reflected depends on the reflection coefficient for each of the planes (see. Signatures table of the description of the aircraft) is calculated. There's a specificity. On reflection factor affects the geometric shape of the object. One approach - as an aircraft model can be used parallelepiped, whose walls have respective coefficients, and the amount of reflected energy depends on the angle between the bearing to the radar and the aircraft course. Another approach - to use real 3D model of the aircraft. But this is enough computation-intensive. The amount of energy going back to the radar is calculated using one of the approaches described above. And if the amount of the returned energy over a certain threshold, then the radar "sees" the target. Also we have too small practical data about this cases. So we can't decide - what result is closer to the reality. You frustrated that B-2 is detected at 50 nm instead 20 nm. You decide that the CMANO model is worse, less realistic than Aus air power model. But this is the subjective opinion only. [;)]

Filitch,

I never said the CMANO model is worse or better then some other model, please don't twist my words. As I've indicated in my reply to your previous post, Ausairpower didn't actually model the detection of a specific aircraft; their graphs are intended for general reference, and, in the case of detection ranges for low frequency radars, are applicable to broadband stealth platforms. I just wanted to point out that its unlikely for broadband stealth aircraft to be picked up from such large distances, even by advanced VHF or UHF radars. Also, as I've already noted in the previous post, in one of the simulations I conducted, the higher frequency radar systems of a SA 3 site picked up the B2 from about 16nm; this is likewise inconsistent with combat records from Operation Allied Force in which B2s were used to take out a number of SA 3 sites from very close ranges (the aircraft were not configured to carry stand-off weapons back then).

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the reply and sorry for the trouble. I wanted to make a suggestion about the radar cross section of stealth aircraft in CMANO but wasn't sure where best to post (I figured that since my suggestion is related to specific aircraft and radar systems, it would be best to try and post it here, so I did but then the posts evolved into a technical discussion). Feel free to delete the posts.

P.S. Thanks again to the CMANO development team for such an outstanding game! [:)]

I noticed many radars that are described as "mobile" on the general description in the DB as well as on my online searches are categorized as a building (surface) in the DB. Is this correct or should they be categorized as a mobile vehicle(s)?

The list is long but I noticed this on most of the Chinese radars.

Please add:
SSM Sturm-S (USSR-Russia)
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%D0%9F149

SSM AT-15 Springer (Russia)
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D1 ... %A0%D0%9A)

ORIGINAL: orca

I noticed many radars that are described as "mobile" on the general description in the DB as well as on my online searches are categorized as a building (surface) in the DB. Is this correct or should they be categorized as a mobile vehicle(s)?

The list is long but I noticed this on most of the Chinese radars.

Depends on how they're used in the game.

If you need a change or an add just list what it is.

Thanks!

Mike

New submarines for the German Bundeswehr

https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswi ... ot632.html

Sry, in db already

Some DB issues. Please, check and thanks in advance!
- R-73 has range up to 16 nm. Website of the manufacturer: eng.ktrv.ru

- The article about Kh-31A AS-17 Krypton A (#1309) has a wrong image. Used image of the P-270 Moskit (SS-N-22M Sunburn). You can use the image from the site of manufacturer: ktrv.ru

- According this site many aircrafts can carry family of the Kh-31A/AD/P/PD missiles. For Kh-31AD and Kh-31PD there are Su-30MK, Su-35, Mig-29K, Mig-29KUB, Mig-35 and as we can see below Su-34.

- Su-34 can carry 6 x Kh-31AD.

Unsuccessfully I can 't post links and images, so I can't add proof links to my post above.

You might want to spend some time going through the forum and also reading the new player thread. The images are handled by a community team and they have a thread for that feedback. Images are separate from the database.

A suggestion for all new players is to play the game, read the new player thread, read around the forum for a while to get a feel for how it works, and read the new player thread. I know I said that one twice. Another good set of threads is the War Room section.

One piece of advice if you are brand new is to not start out immediately asking for changes or debating unit XXX performance. It will save everyone the frustration of debates about favorite unit, technology, country, etc. going on and side tracking important threads. Get to know the game first and how the units operate in context of the scenario, environment, opponent, etc.

I'm sorry. I'm not a new player but a new forum's user. Before I registered I have read many threads. CMANO is my favorite game, may be more than game. And I just want to help CMANO get better. Realism - one of biggest advantages of CMANO. Realistic characteristics of the weapons - important component of this advantage.

I'm playing around with some near future scenario ideas and did a little research on some vessels currently under development, and came up with four generic surface vessels. Weapons and sensors have been left out so that these platforms can be customized as needed. Thanks to the nice people at Navantia for providing lovely sales brochures with many technical specifications (see http://www.navantia.es/ for more details). Please consider the following...

Class: Avante Alpha 4000 (hypothetical)
Type: frigate
Service: Generic
Service Dates: 2015-present
Pennants: ---
Displacement: 3800 tons
Length: 113.2 meters
Beam: 15.6 meters
Depth: 4.7 meters
Installed power: 4 x 10,000 kW
Propulsion: 2 shafts
Speed: 30 knots
Range: 4000 naut. miles at 18 knots
Radar: None (to be added as needed)
Sonar: None (to be added as needed)
Endurance: 21 days
Complement: 150
Armament: None (to be added as needed)
Aircraft carried: 1 x medium (10-ton) helicopter, landing pad and hanger
Boats carried: ---

Class: Avante 2200C (hypothetical)
Type: Corvette
Service: Generic
Service Dates: 2015-present
Pennants: ---
Displacement: 2500 tons
Length: 97.5 meters
Beam: 13.6 meters
Depth: 4.1 meters
Installed power: 4 x 4,440 kW
Propulsion: 2 shafts
Speed: 25 knots
Range: 4500 naut. miles at 15 knots
Radar: None (to be added as needed)
Endurance: 21 days
Complement: 58 + 23
Armament: None (to be added as needed)
Aircraft carried: 1 medium (10-ton) helicopter, hanger and pad
Boats carried: 2 x RHIBs


Class: Avante 1400 (hypothetical)
Type: OPV
Service: Generic
Service Dates: 2015-present
Pennants: ---
Displacement: 1500 tons
Length: 79.9 meters
Beam: 11.8 meters
Depth: 3.7 meters
Installed power: CODAD, Diesel engines: 2 x 5,920 kW
Propulsion: 2 shafts
Speed: 22 knots
Range: 4000 naut. miles at 16 knots
Radar: None (to be added as needed)
Endurance: 35 days
Complement: 35 + 29
Armament: None (to be added as needed)
Aircraft carried: Flight deck for 1 medium (10-ton) helicopter
Boats carried: 1 x RHIB


Class: Avante 500 (hypothetical)
Type: Patrol/Fast Attack
Service: Generic
Service Dates: 2015-present
Pennants: ---
Displacement: 500 tons
Length: 61 meters
Beam: 9.3 meters
Depth: 2.3 meters
Installed power: 2 x 4.300 kW
Propulsion: 2 shafts
Speed: 30 knots
Range: 1500 naut. miles at 15 knots
Radar: None (to be added as needed)
Complement: 37 + 4
Armament: None (to be added as needed)
Boats carried: 1 x RHIB

Thanks for considering these.

Hi Mark.

Avante 1400 was built as Guaicamacuto Class for Venezuelan Navy, GC-21. #1928
Avante 2200 was built as Guaiquerí Class also for Venezuela, PC-21. #2542

For both, RHIB capacity is missing.

Davit was only missing on 2542. Added.

Yes, I know. I requested these as truly generic platforms, using the brochures from the company to get the performance statistics. These four platforms are meant to serve the same way those generic carrier platforms, something people can customize as need be. I wouldn't mind seeing more such generic platforms, in fact, but I figure with four to start with (500 tons, 1500 tons, 2500 tons, and 3800 tons covers a very wide range of warships) and the three carriers you could design a lot of near future/alternate universe navies.

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

Hi Mark.

Avante 1400 was built as Guaicamacuto Class for Venezuelan Navy, GC-21. #1928
Avante 2200 was built as Guaiquerí Class also for Venezuela, PC-21. #2542

For both, RHIB capacity is missing.

Hello. If you have time, could you update F-16XL(Hypothetical) for 2016(equipped AN/APG-83 SABR AESA with AIM-120D)?

Also, YF-23 radar is upgrade to follow F-22 Raptor. Thus it is equipped AN/APG-77(v1) AESA.

And ROKAF(South Korea) purchased Airbus A.330-200 MRTT, But It isn't change yet.

The main job of RKF-16 is aerial reconnaissance. So I think, ALQ-200K ECM Pod is correct. This plane is equipped reconnaissance frame camera(It replaced RF-4). So It has only Unarmed Recon.

I checked US aircraft list. How about upgrade ESM sensor for F-14E Advanced Super Tomcat-21 and Super Tomcat-21.

They are equipped AN/ALR-67(v)2, But F/A-18 E/F is equipped AN/ALR-67(v)3. I understand Quickstrike variant, But '-21' means 21 century variant.

I would much prefer to upgrade sensors, it likes AN/ALR-67(v)3 (2002), AN/ALQ-214(v)2 (2011).

And F-14E ST-21 and AST-21 radar is almost the same AESA radar. How about write AN/APG-71(v)2 AESA, AN/APG-71(v)1 AESA for Super Tomcat?

Are you actually using those in a scenario you are building?