Page 1 of 6

[Logged] Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2020 8:46 pm
by MarechalJoffre
In my experience, in most combined arms scenarios subs always get slapped by helos and aircraft employing sonobuoys. It is almost impossible to get into torpedo range without getting detected by something. Which makes submarine torpedoes of questionable importance, you're usually better off firing a couple anti-ship missiles.

I'm not saying submarines should be invisible, but they are detected a bit too easily in my opinion. In real life exercises getting a fix on adversary submarines have always proven to be extremely tough. So much so that subs often have to employ shaft shakers and other kinds of noise makers to give the surface group a chance.

In CMO however, you get anywhere near a surface task group and you're instantly detected. Passive sonobuoys, dipping sonars or ship hull sonars. Near impossible to hide.

Is it me or are submarines a bit too underpowered in CMO? Or maybe ASW assets are too powerful?

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:04 pm
by JamesHunt
I share this impression.

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 2:33 am
by Battelman2
I've likewise noticed that hull sonar on surface combatants seem "too good" at detecting subs.

I recently had a Virginia-class SSN creep near a lone Udaloy and promptly get Orlan'd. I don't see how that should be possible without assistance from another platform.

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 5:08 am
by cmanouser1

In CMO however, you get anywhere near a surface task group and you're instantly detected. Passive sonobuoys, dipping sonars or ship hull sonars. Near impossible to hide.


Not my experience at all, but you need to understand well the submarine mechanics. Doing the tutorials then the Silent Service campaign is a must in that regard.

Among other things:
* the closer you are to the surface group, the slower you travel
* play close attention to the speed of the surface group; the faster they go the faster you can go as it reduces their detection
* you only travel in 2 locations: inside the layer, or on the sea bottom if you can reach it, to minimize detection. Then, you periodically stop, peak above the layer at 0 kt, then go back to hide
* you don't want to get into torpedo range, you want the surface group to get in your range while you stay hidden at 0kt inside the layer (thus you need to predict where the group will be)
you're usually better off firing a couple anti-ship missiles.
I wouldn't say that, 1 torpedo can do the job of 60+ missiles on a surface group that has proper anti-missile defence

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 5:58 am
by MH-60Deuce
Submarine survivability has improved in Command but I still consider them hardly useful in many scenarios as they seem to be detected too easily.


ORIGINAL: cmanouser1
you need to understand well the submarine mechanics.
* you only travel in 2 locations: inside the layer, or on the sea bottom
I question the benefit of travelling inside the layer compared to below when facing a surface threat.
ORIGINAL: v1.0 manual, p.133
In-layer: Similar to above, the towed array hangs below the layer but the counter-detection reduction is not as great (sound has to go through a lot less to reach an enemy sensor). Also the unpredictable mixup of warm and cold water at this depth range significantly reduces detection ranges against other subs also in the layer

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 9:18 am
by MarechalJoffre
ORIGINAL: cmanouser1
Not my experience at all, but you need to understand well the submarine mechanics. Doing the tutorials then the Silent Service campaign is a must in that regard.

Among other things:
* the closer you are to the surface group, the slower you travel
* play close attention to the speed of the surface group; the faster they go the faster you can go as it reduces their detection
* you only travel in 2 locations: inside the layer, or on the sea bottom if you can reach it, to minimize detection. Then, you periodically stop, peak above the layer at 0 kt, then go back to hide
* you don't want to get into torpedo range, you want the surface group to get in your range while you stay hidden at 0kt inside the layer (thus you need to predict where the group will be)
I have completed the tutorials twice, and played most of Silent Service scenarios to at least know what I am doing with submarines at this point. I just fail to see submarines being effective in any scenario except the ones that are specifically designed for them. Even then, they feel too weak.

For example, I don't understand how an Udaloy could get a 6nmi active sonar fix on Virginia moving in the shadow zone at 5kts. Same goes for inside the layer. Try it out yourself.

You will get detected by a random sonobuoy, despite moving at tactical speeds (think 10-15kts) in a very quiet submarine like the Seawolf. Only a matter of seconds before dozens of Helix helis are hovering above and torpedoing you to oblivion. If this was how things worked in real life countries wouldn't be investing in submarines as much as they do today.

I invite you to play one of Northern Fury scenarios that involve subs (among other assets), or any other scenario with combined arms warfare present. You'll see how and why subs feel practically useless. CMO's instant C2 doesn't help much either in this regard.

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 11:01 am
by cmanouser1
I question the benefit of travelling inside the layer compared to below when facing a surface threat.
Below the layer is the worst place if the surface threat has a TASS.
moving at tactical speeds (think 10-15kts)
This is really fast in my book. I'm moving around 5-8kt when close to threats, or even less.
If this was how things worked in real life countries wouldn't be investing in submarines as much as they do today.
Even if it is how things work in real life, there are many other reasons to have submarines beyond delivering torpedos to surface groups.

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 11:25 am
by thewood1
My experience for myself and others I have seen play is that most people don't have the patience to play subs realistically. It takes a lot of attention to distance, depth, and speed. On top of that, knowing the environment you are in and will be in when you encounter the enemy is critical. Its a very slow game. If you are at 10 knots or over anywhere near a modern surface contact, you are just asking for trouble.

Except in heavily recon-ed or sanitized areas, I usually travel less than 10 knots. Anything over 10 knots requires frequent stopping/slowing to let your passives get a reading of the surrounding areas. Even a modern sub given orders to just blast through an enemy occupied area at over 10 knots won't last long. Of course enemy sensors, density, sea depth, etc. have an impact too.

Instead of just complaining about it, post a scenario at a point where you think something is off and let some people look at it.

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 11:34 am
by Dimitris
ORIGINAL: MarechalJoffre
For example, I don't understand how an Udaloy could get a 6nmi active sonar fix on Virginia moving in the shadow zone at 5kts. Same goes for inside the layer. Try it out yourself.
My first guess would be that the Udaloy's VDS (which is trailed just under the thermal layer) is picking you up. If you are right under the layer you are actually making it easier for him because the DSC greatly amplifies sound transmission (2x range bonus). You are better off going much deeper than the layer's floor or, if you want to hold contact with the ship, rise above the layer and stay away from the surface duct.

Switch to the Udaloy's side, select the contact that represents your sub, and see which sensors are detecting it.

If you are still adamant that something is 'off', feel free to post a save for investigation.
You will get detected by a random sonobuoy, despite moving at tactical speeds (think 10-15kts) in a very quiet submarine like the Seawolf. Only a matter of seconds before dozens of Helix helis are hovering above and torpedoing you to oblivion.
Do you try to actively avoid sonobuoys, helos & MPAs? A buoy close enough (especially an active one) will detect you even in a silent-as-a-tomb sub.

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 12:17 pm
by gsalvar
Agree. I no longer play scenarios with submarines. No sense.

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 12:41 pm
by mikerohan
ORIGINAL: MarechalJoffre


I invite you to play one of Northern Fury scenarios that involve subs (among other assets), or any other scenario with combined arms warfare present. You'll see how and why subs feel practically useless. CMO's instant C2 doesn't help much either in this regard.

I'm not an expert with submarines. I have "Silent Service", but I know they are not my kind of scenarios.
So I'm saying this from my limited experience, particularly with the Fury scenarios: I too find that subs are "too easy" to find when you are looking for them but I think it **could** have something to do with the AI. They are given a general mission (patrol and hunt at a given area) but **maybe** the AI logic it's not as good at avoiding a net of sonobuoys, plus dipping sonars a the same time that it's trying to plot an interception path...

Of course in a one vs one situation it's easier to switch to the other side, as Dimitris says, and see a(and learns) the situation from the other end. I'm just referring to one **possibility** in medium sized scenarios where the submarines being managed by the computer seem to be not-that-diffcult to find if you pay attention to your patrols.

Uhmmm, maybe I'll get back to Silent Service in a couple of weeks [:D]

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 12:54 pm
by goldfinger35
If enemy ship only has a hull sonar: dive as deep as possible, creep or 0kts.

My testing vs enemy ship with active hull sonar, my sub as deep as possible:
-my electric sub is detected at 0-4 nm at 0kts

My testing vs enemy ship with passive hull sonar, my sub as deep as possible:
-my electric sub is detected at 3nm flank/2nm creep/0nm at 0kts
-my nuclear sub is detected at 4nm cruise/2nm creep/2nm at 0kts


If enemy ship has a VDS: dive to shallow, creep or 0kts:

My testing vs enemy ship with VDS, my sub at shallow:
-my electric sub is detected at 25nm flank/10nm cruise/6nm creep/0nm 0kts
-my nuclear sub is detected at 15nm cruise/10nm creep/5nm 0kts


RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 2:23 pm
by MH-60Deuce
A 100% increase in detection range between creep and 0kts sounds drastic to me. Isn“t the noise emitted by the ownship already higher than making revs for very low speeds?

Nevertheless sub detection in most scenarios is an absolute walk in the park and I have an hard time to take subs serious in most scenarios.




RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 3:28 pm
by ultradave
Active VDS and active sonobuoys will doom most submarines, while modern subs can hide fairly well from strictly passive sonar. Tried a couple of quick tests with Russian ships with VDS, and they detected VIRGINIAs at about 10nm as soon as they turned on their active VDS. But not before that. Same in reverse - Arleigh Burke using towed array only - hard time finding anything. Turn on the hull sonar (active), and boom, there's the Akula, about 5 miles away. This was just quick and dirty setups using the Quick Battle generator.

Against active sonar, it doesn't matter how whisper quiet a sub is.

Dave

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 3:53 pm
by goldfinger35
IMO the hardest thing when sneaking as a sub is to avoid passive sonobuoys; they are undetectable and in some missions target area is flooded with them,

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 6:56 pm
by SeaQueen
ORIGINAL: MarechalJoffre
Is it me or are submarines a bit too underpowered in CMO? Or maybe ASW assets are too powerful?

Ugh... this is a really super complicated question. I'm going to try to answer it simply. The bottom-line up front is this:

It depends.

There are definitely things the CMO/CMANO gets wrong. I could enumerate them for you some time if you're interested, but it would get into a lot of engineering and oceanography. There are definitely things they could do things to improve the sonar model. The problem is that without corresponding improvements to the database information, I don't think that improved representation of sonar phenomenology would necessarily correspond to an improved ASW model overall. Almost all the database values are probably wonky. That's okay though, because there exists no opened-source data on any of these platforms. Actual sonar target strengths and passive source levels are classified, just like rcs data in the real world. You can sometimes guestimate it from basic physics, but these are likely to be very rough, and based on massive assumptions about everything from materials and internal structure to arguments by analogy (X is sort of like a Y, so we'll say they're equivalent and call it a day). They're quite rough.

The stories you hear in opened source about submarines being detected at whatever range are also completely useless for determining the sonar equation parameters necessary to actually model a given platform accurately. If they were useful for that purpose, they would be classified. Actually measuring those values requires a very detailed understanding of both the systems and oceanographic properties of the water column. Those are values to which the developers are not privy.

The other problem is that the ocean environment, and the sonar performance that goes with it, are highly variable. When you ask, "Can submarine X really be detected at range R?" the real answer is, that for all values of X and R, "Yes, sometimes." For the right conditions, you can probably get that detection range. Are those conditions modeled in CMO/CMANO? Sometimes... In the real world, every day sonar technicians on a ship or submarine will estimate the "range of the day," for that sonar against some target of interest. They usually do that based on a figure of merit (FOM). The problem with that is, the FOM gives you the median detection range. That means you've got even odds of detecting the target of interest both further away than the FOM suggests and closer, possibly much closer. Even then, that range of the day is a very very rough estimate. Because the ocean is a highly variable dynamic environment, by the time they arrive at that number it's probably already obsolete.

So are submarines underpowered? I don't have a cut and dry answer for that. It depends. Similarly, are ASW assets overpowered? There isn't really one answer for that either. I can say that historically, aircraft have been the absolute biggest killer of submarines. The issue has to do with what's called, "search rate." That they have a lot of sensors and can cover a lot of ground quickly. They can track and kill submarines and there's not a lot the submarines can do about it, besides either run or hide. Against aircraft, submarines are pretty decisively at a disadvantage.

There's another dimension to the ASW assets being overpowered. In commercial scenarios, people tend to pile everything on top of everything else in scenarios. This can be fun because everything happens very quickly, but in the case of ASW this screws everything up. A huge factor in ASW is space. A lot of what makes things stealthy is being a pinhead sized target in a relatively large space to hide in. It doesn't mean they CAN'T find you, but to do it they'll have to devote the effort. If the spatial extent of the scenario is too small, yeah, submarines are going to be found quickly and destroyed. The ocean is vast. There's a lot of space from which a submarine attack can originate. If you're only using a fraction of the space available, then you're not giving the submarines enough credit.

There's another problem. Scenario designers need to add in false targets, and they need to add in BELIEVABLE false targets that an experienced player isn't going to immediately recognize as a false target based on its behavior and immediately reallocate the ASW resource to the more credible threat. That means they have to move like a real target. They should also vastly outnumber the real targets. If I see 3 targets on my scope, I should know that most of them are probably false targets. If I spend time prosecuting them and drop my two torpedoes on them, I now need to send the helo back to be rearmed and refueled. That's time I can't use the helo to prosecute the real target that might be out there (possibly undetected).

Anyhow... I hope this helps answer your question.

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 8:45 pm
by BrianinMinnie
Also do we ever hear in public, of the High end version of CMO being used to sim for ASW combat, it all seems Air\Sea combat. Land & ASW appear a afterthought. can anybody speak to the Hi-pref CMO versions capabilities, at least in a generalized sense?

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:27 pm
by SeaQueen
I'm not sure what you mean by "high-end," or "high-pref" (sic?).
Also do we ever hear in public, of the High end version of CMO being used to sim for ASW combat, it all seems Air\Sea combat. Land & ASW appear a afterthought. can anybody speak to the Hi-pref CMO versions capabilities, at least in a generalized sense?

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:55 pm
by thewood1
I assume he means the professional edition.

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 11:12 pm
by Rory Noonan
ORIGINAL: BrianinMinnie

Also do we ever hear in public, of the High end version of CMO being used to sim for ASW combat, it all seems Air\Sea combat. Land & ASW appear a afterthought. can anybody speak to the Hi-pref CMO versions capabilities, at least in a generalized sense?

You won't hear in public the vast majority of what CPE is used for; it's the nature of the industry I'm afraid.