Detecting subs with sonobuoys?

[mikerohan]

ORIGINAL: goldfinger35

[...]
I know it was mentioned in other posts over time, but solution would be options in ASW patrol mission:
-drop only shallow or only deep or combination
-spaced apart xy nm

+1

[schweggy]

Sometimes I'll create a very narrow corridor for an ASW mission, a lane if you will that my ship or group will transit. Typically this lane is only 5-10NM wide to keep sonobuoys overlapping as much as possible. I'll have it rotate and follow the group. I'll create an additional area for an engagement zone maybe another 10 or 30NM further out so the aircraft don't stray too far from the surface assets they're supposed to be protecting. "Investigate targets outside patrol area" in doctrine but they should only stray into that box I've created. If there's a contact that appears to be hostile, or is acting in such a manner that I feel it needs inspection and is outside this mission area I'll launch an aircraft and setup a "sub-hunt" mini mission centered over the target with WRA set to tight (unless it's ID'd as hostile, then it's "F1" go kill it.)

This way I micromanage the missions a bit but let the ASW asset go do its thing with minimal effort on my part. They can be tedious missions to control otherwise, IMO.

[thewood1]

That's a good setup. There's also a lot you can do with events and lua to activate and deactivate missions on sub detection. If you play in the editor or are designing scenarios.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: goldfinger35
Yes, buoys (at correct depth, usually shallow) 5nm apart for 50nm would be a winning strategy and that is what I have to do manually because helo/plane on ASW patrol mission will drop them shallow/deep 9nm apart a that gives us minimal chance of detection. Manual is fine for small missions but for large missions with many units [:-]
I know it was mentioned in other posts over time, but solution would be options in ASW patrol mission:
-drop only shallow or only deep or combination
-spaced apart xy nm

The other option is to make the patrol area much more narrow. The truth is that the pattern matters. Actual sonobuoy patterns are classified, so the default to random search is the "good enough" solution for most purposes.

The whole deep v. shallow thing depends in part the submarine's depth, so if the scenario designer is good, they'll use LUA to periodically change the submarine's depth settings. Other things that drive sonobuoy patterns are what you're trying to do. Are you doing a cued search versus a barrier? Is this an advancing barrier or a static barrier? What are the assumptions you're making about the target you're searching for? Are they moving fast or slow? What does your intelligence suggest? How much risk are you willing to assume? These are all TACTICAL decisions. That's what TACTICS is about, i.e. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE GAME. One of the fundamental questions your are faced with in ASW is how big of an area can you search effectively enough to achieve your goals. That is a real life problem, and your job in a scenario might be to make that decision (among others hopefully).

The guys thought a lot about whether or not to include sonobuoy patterns. The problem is that to make smart ones, you have to understand a lot of the specifics of the problem. What is the sensor target? What are the sensor properties? What are the acoustics like? What is the bathymetry like? Once you know that, then you calculate the sonar range and think about how to place them and space them. There's not one single solution, so the default was random search. If you have specific ideas about how you want to lay down your buoys in a particular situation, do it manually.

And yeah, scenarios can be too big. There gets to be a point where scenarios are difficult to manage adequately. Just because you can stick a ton of stuff on the map doesn't make it a good idea (for lots of reasons). CMO/CMANO cannot realistically be run hands off except after careful testing and tweaking to make sure there's no unanticipated behaviors, and it will most likely require extensive LUA scripting to be reasonable. It is "headless" without a person doing the thinking. The defaults are not always the best solution. They might not even be the adequate solution. Your job, as the player, is to understand the problem and intervene as necessary.

So... sorry... CMO/CMANO doesn't do your thinking for you. Life's rough, I know.

[goldfinger35]

You gave me some good ides so I have experimented with narrow corridor for an ASW mission and it works, but:
-It should be max 10nm wide
-My ship should sail at max 10nm (at cruise speed detection drops to around 50% because helo doesn't have enough time)
-Narrow corridor must be at subs correct path
-Helo should have a dipping sonar (like MH-60) because sub often gets detected with dipping sonar. Helo with MAD (like SH-60) is much less usefull (detection drops to around 50% with only buoys, MAD is useless)

[SeaQueen]

MAD is not meant to be a search sensor. It's meant to be a localization sensor. The idea is that you have a general sense of where a target might be but not quite good enough to drop a weapon on them, so you fly to that area and use MAD to determine when you're right on them. That's when you drop the weapon.

[Randomizer]

Just as an aside, I did a lot of research into the rather clandestine Canadian ASW efforts in the northwest Atlantic during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In so far as I have been able to determine, not a single initial sub contact came from sonobuoys in spite of the expenditure of virtually the entire peacetime stockpile from both the Atlantic and Pacific inventories.

It seems that initial detection were primarily from RDF as the boats communicated with the Northern Fleet HQ, radar detection of snorkels and surfaced boats and the then new SOSUS network. Sonobuoys were essential for localizing contacts though. Of course acoustic technology has greatly improved but subs are much quieter but without a choke point to canalize the sub, sonobuoy only searches in the open ocean will generally be ineffective unless you get lucky. Luck is always possible but should never be counted on in a military or naval operation.

For what it's worth I always make my LRMP patrol zones long and narrow and placed at about a 45-60 degree axis compared to the anticipated PIM of the threat subs.

-C

[SeaQueen]

Interesting. It doesn't surprise me. Even today sonar is iffy and subject to tremendous uncertainty. Back then it was probably doubly so. Also, one of the big shortcomings of the undersea warfare model in CMO/CMANO is that there's no bangers. That'd be a big deal.

Plus, who doesn't like the idea of setting off explosive charges in the water?

Well... whales...