Sub Activites--random thoughts

[DWReese]

Thanks, BD, (I think).

After reading all of the posts in the link, I see that this issue has been discussed before. I apologize if this is repetitious.

I do agree, however, with the poster who expressed the opinion that the MAD sensor appears to have a greater-than-expected success rate. Using the X-Ray scenario created by Gunner98, whom I often communicate with privately, two subs were each detected while not even moving by MAD. So, the a/c had to fly directly over (well, one was 1.3 miles away) to locate the sub. This has happened at least once every time that I sit down with this scenario. In fact, MAD seems to detect a sub in EVERY scenario that I play where subs and a/c are involved. I would estimate that MAD is responsible for approximately 60 percent of all of the detections when compared with sonobouys.

Since MAD (as many of the experts here have said) seems to be being phased out for the military, you wonder why that would be after looking at these results. If MAD is really as successful in real life as it is in this game, then I see no reason to discontinue it. It seems to work great. I can easily imagine, as the other poster indicated, that an a/c (with MAD) could comb over a 30 mile x 30 mile area and locate a slow-moving or stopped sub almost every time. If that is truly the case in real life, then the game works perfectly. But, if that isn't really how it should be, then the MAD sensors need to be trimmed a little bit, in my opinion.

My point is (based solely on my play) that MAD seems to be to be more powerful (successful) than I believe than it should be. Obviously, I don't have any game algorithms to back this claim up, so this is just an observation. But, I do know that it this point it will take quite a bit of evidence to convince me otherwise.

Doug

[DWReese]

As soon as I finished my last post I began playing the X-Ray Station scenario again. I believe that it is unrealistic to set all of the NATO subs to zero speed, so I gave them all 2 kts. Almost immediately, one of my subs was detected....by MAD. Take a look at all of the sonobouys present on the Soviet's side. There are so many you can't even see the sub that was detected. But, despite having too many sonobouys to count, it was an a/c with MAD that located the sub.

This is what I'm talking about. This isn't a random occurrence. This happens all of the time. Not just with this scenario. It happens all of the time with EVERY scenario where a/c have MAD and they are reasonably close to the sub.

Again, perhaps this is how it should be, and if it is, then so be it. But, it would appear that MAD is an awesome sensor.

Doug

[BDukes]

Maybe post this is tech supports? It’s not player you need to convinces but developers.

[DWReese]

I'm not trying to CONVINCE anyone of anything. I'm essentially ASKING the other players if they believe that MAD functions as it should, or not, given their play experiences. If it's no big deal, then it's no big deal.

I wouldn't want the developers to change anything simply because I say that I don't think that it works properly. I would much rather present the info to the game players (such as yourself) and have any of them who are interested enough to check it out for themselves to the extent that they too come to the conclusion that MAD is too powerful and that it needs to be looked at further. If several other game players check it out and then make that same determination, then it would be time to inform the developers. At the present time it is only a working hypothesis. And, thanks to you, I can see that others have brought this topic up for discussion at least once before.

Doug

[AndrewJ]

I have to admit that as a player I love MAD on my side, since it makes sub detections so easy. Flying over a sub within a little under a mile slant range (half that for non-magnetic hulls) will give you a perfectly accurate positional detection. I hate it when it's on the enemy side, since it's pure luck of the draw whether an aircraft on its random patrol path happens to pass nearby, in which case you almost always lose the sub if the enemy's armed.

Up to this point I'd not seen any hard figures about the range to which actual MADs worked in the real world, but the other day I accidentally came across a report titled "AR70-14 Soviet Antisubmarine Warfare: Current Capabilities and Priorities". This is is a formerly Top Secret report from the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology, which was published in 1972, and declassified for public release in 2017. You can read it on the CIA's website here:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0005512850.pdf


As of the early 1970s, it gave the following summary:

[font="Times New Roman"]"Presently operational saturable-core magnetometers are sensitivity limited and can provide detection ranges of 1,000 to 1,400 feet under favorable conditions. The newest optically pumped magnetometers have a sensitivity of 0.1 gamma, and can obtain detection ranges of 2,000 feet under good conditions."[/font]

and

[font="Times New Roman"]"Present Soviet aircraft MAD gear is estimated to have a detection range of 1,500 feeet. The Soviet's extensive effort in MAD sensor technology should allow them to extend this somewhat. Evidence from recent naval aircraft operations indicates that improvements have been made. Their weakness in signal and data processing will probably limit them to at most a 50% increase in range in the near future."[/font]


What strikes me about this is that the ranges are much shorter than those currently modeled in CMANO, where reliable detections occur out to ~1 nm, which is 6076 ft. Here they're talking about operational and newly developed sensors with ranges of only 1,000 to 1,400 feet (0.23 nm), 1,500 feet (0.25 nm), or 2,000 ft (0.33 nm) and that's only when conditions are good. Presumably the situation would be worse in shallow waters, where the seafloor could interfere, or near other naval vessels, which would generate false signals.

The report does mention potential technological improvements to improve magnetometer sensitivity (superconductivity!), but also seems to imply that it may be difficult to make use of such improvements given the natural environment. This, and the seeming lack of enthusiasm for MAD in recent ASW developments, makes me think that reducing the range for the generic MAD in the game would be a good idea.

[AndrewJ]

I want to add that there is one game-mechanics caveat about this.

Currently MAD detections seem to be be checked every 15 seconds. (Hover a helicopter near a sub you have detected by MAD only. I think you'll see the white contact age numbers counting up to 14 seconds and then resetting in a continuous cycle.) For a fast-moving aircraft, such as a P-3 loitering along at 205 knots, this means one detection is resolved every 0.85 nm. If the MAD had a more realistic range of 0.25 nm, for example, then there would be gaps in the search pattern. Since the MAD sensor is presumably receiving continuously, a quicker detection check interval would be needed to simulate the continuous coverage.