RE: MAD detection of subs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support



Message


StellarRat -> RE: MAD detection of subs (10/24/2016 9:28:52 PM)

"If this was realistic, that a P3 would get a MAD contact at a sub at any depth, well I don't think the Navies of the world would be spending as much time and money in ASW as they are.

In the game; a 30x30mile patrol box of a P3 with a loiter time of 3hours would detect a sub every single time. No matter what depth or speed. Simply by flying over it with MAD. The sub could be 1400 feet deep."

- Only if the sub stayed in one place and the P3 got lucky enough to fly right over the sub and the conditions were perfect and you happen to be searching the correct 30x30 mile area to begin with. Even if it's working right it certainly isn't the ultimate sub detection system.




thewood1 -> RE: MAD detection of subs (10/25/2016 1:55:23 AM)

Found the answer to why MAD has fallen out of favor...from the Undersea warfare report from CSIS that I posted in the other thread:

Page 42 in that PDF states that Degaussing made MAD relatively ineffective. It was also stated that deep water operations hurt MAD capabilities. I should have remembered the degaussing thing. I had read that somewhere else earlier.




dvresic -> RE: MAD detection of subs (10/25/2016 5:42:12 AM)

Can't get too specific. Did some testing around Nanoose Bay. MAD detection is overly generous in this game.
There's a reason why the Ch-148 isn't outfitted with a MAD, aside from the fact Canada's not too concerned with Nuclear powered subs lurking off our coasts anymore.
Aside from that love the database.
It's not your fault. These things are too top secret for your developers to know all the ins and outs.




mikmykWS -> RE: MAD detection of subs (10/25/2016 5:46:51 AM)

Ok thanks

mike




MH-60Deuce -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/26/2019 3:59:01 AM)

I know this is an old thread but can somebody tell me that the MAD detection issue was fixed in the meantime?

I am thinking about getting Silent Service but after playing some sub scenarios some time ago which got completely spoiled by my me or the enemy detecting almost all subs getting by random MAD hits which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF HOW IT WORKS IN REALITY Iīve put it down for a while.

Reading the response "The detection check happens as the CP-140 is at 1000ft and the submarine is at 1312ft. The slant range between them is 0.60nm." Jesus and I thought Dangerous Waters is already very forgiving to MAD but this probably one of the most hilarious things Iīve heard, holy Montana, Guinness calls for 90īs MAD record.

Never got random MAD hits. After extensive sonobuoy triangulation was done, it was used to as an secondary confirmation and pinpoint instrument on the goblinīs location. It required THREE mad hits from different directions before the "mad mad mad" was called in order to release the ordnance… to ensure that these mads arenīt just another bunch of magnetic fish farts. Recommendations for the run were 200ft but down to 50 was also practicable in order to get better results. And you had to be almost EXACTLY ABOVE the target to get something useful without guarantee. Sure newer mad arrays are likely better but as somebody stated correctly deep running goblins, noise, degaussing, (…) and the effectiveness of other tools made MAD to a difficult case.

Even seeing that response considering this correct without showing any awareness of what could be wrong here left me shocking. Like one was stating with the patrol area... do the math and you see how silly it is... If this where true we just had flying MADs and the Navy wouldnīt have to drop this pricey sonobuoys and yet the Navy is even abandoning MAD despite its god-given ability to locate and blow every dolphin out of the water (at least according to CMANO).

Look CMANO is the premier dog in this genre and you guys are doing an impressive job hands down, but weīre not talking about fish farts here, last time Iīve played, ASW was a major part of CMANO thus the MAD issue portrays a major aspect wrong. Like stated in CMANO way too many subs get detected and then sunk by random MAD hits. Furthermore deciding wether something is depicted correctly or completely OUT OF SPACE is not done by putting random values in and see if "our Navy customer ever starts to mention issues in this department on our next lunch meeting" but by doing your own research and additionally! ask them for their input. There is reliable OSINT out there which just takes minutes to dig out and while you probably wonīt find and shouldnīt trust statements like MAD range is exactly X if Y (because even those guys responsible for it didnīt knew that exactly) you will get an idea pretty fast on how absurd its representation is in CMANO.

Unless of course it got fixed in the meantime which I hope for because I would instantly throw my wallet at the screen if this is the case.


Deuce




Dimitris -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/26/2019 6:00:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MH-60Deuce

I know this is an old thread but can somebody tell me that the MAD detection issue was fixed in the meantime?

I am thinking about getting Silent Service but after playing some sub scenarios some time ago which got completely spoiled by my me or the enemy detecting almost all subs getting by random MAD hits which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF HOW IT WORKS IN REALITY Iīve put it down for a while.

Reading the response "The detection check happens as the CP-140 is at 1000ft and the submarine is at 1312ft. The slant range between them is 0.60nm." Jesus and I thought Dangerous Waters is already very forgiving to MAD but this probably one of the most hilarious things Iīve heard, holy Montana, Guinness calls for 90īs MAD record.

Never got random MAD hits. After extensive sonobuoy triangulation was done, it was used to as an secondary confirmation and pinpoint instrument on the goblinīs location. It required THREE mad hits from different directions before the "mad mad mad" was called in order to release the ordnance… to ensure that these mads arenīt just another bunch of magnetic fish farts. Recommendations for the run were 200ft but down to 50 was also practicable in order to get better results. And you had to be almost EXACTLY ABOVE the target to get something useful without guarantee. Sure newer mad arrays are likely better but as somebody stated correctly deep running goblins, noise, degaussing, (…) and the effectiveness of other tools made MAD to a difficult case.

Even seeing that response considering this correct without showing any awareness of what could be wrong here left me shocking. Like one was stating with the patrol area... do the math and you see how silly it is... If this where true we just had flying MADs and the Navy wouldnīt have to drop this pricey sonobuoys and yet the Navy is even abandoning MAD despite its god-given ability to locate and blow every dolphin out of the water (at least according to CMANO).

Look CMANO is the premier dog in this genre and you guys are doing an impressive job hands down, but weīre not talking about fish farts here, last time Iīve played, ASW was a major part of CMANO thus the MAD issue portrays a major aspect wrong. Like stated in CMANO way too many subs get detected and then sunk by random MAD hits. Furthermore deciding wether something is depicted correctly or completely OUT OF SPACE is not done by putting random values in and see if "our Navy customer ever starts to mention issues in this department on our next lunch meeting" but by doing your own research and additionally! ask them for their input. There is reliable OSINT out there which just takes minutes to dig out and while you probably wonīt find and shouldnīt trust statements like MAD range is exactly X if Y (because even those guys responsible for it didnīt knew that exactly) you will get an idea pretty fast on how absurd its representation is in CMANO.

Unless of course it got fixed in the meantime which I hope for because I would instantly throw my wallet at the screen if this is the case.

Deuce



So, to distill the essence of your argument:

* Effective MAD detection ranges (slant) should be significantly reduced from their current levels.

* MAD sensors should not be able to perform volume search, only to refine existing underwater contacts.

* MAD false targets should be introduced, to make a MAD hit less of a "target present" guarantee.

You mention "reliable OSINT out there" that corroborates your argument. Can you point us to such sources?

Also, since you are asking for a fairly significant sensor change, we will probably need to contact you in private. We will also get in touch with some of our customers to cross-confirm the validity of your proposal.

Thanks.




jarraya -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/26/2019 11:09:57 AM)

The company I work for uses airborne gravitometry to look for oil. The technology we use came directly from the developments of MAD and its commercial use is still restricted by the US to certain places.

Commercial gravity measurement systems today are so sensitive they would have no issues spotting a sub at any depth. I can't imagine what military systems can do!

See article attached with A LOT of detail, if you're interested. I think the CMANO model is probably close enough to accurate for game purposes.

http://www.ga.gov.au/webtemp/image_cache/GA16642.pdf





MH-60Deuce -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/26/2019 2:09:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya

The company I work for uses airborne gravitometry to look for oil. The technology we use came directly from the developments of MAD and its commercial use is still restricted by the US to certain places.

Commercial gravity measurement systems today are so sensitive they would have no issues spotting a sub at any depth. I can't imagine what military systems can do!

I think the CMANO model is probably close enough to accurate for game purposes.

Submarines are not oil. And without having education and professional experience in the Navy ASW MAD topic, "I think" or "I imagine" is never close to be accurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
You mention "reliable OSINT out there" that corroborates your argument. Can you point us to such sources?

A 2017 example. I have no clearance for links so I added an image.

From the Abstract:
"Among these sources, ferromagnetic field source has been studied thoroughly and widely applied in magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) systems. However, the strength of this source can be largely minimized by using degaussing technology, and MAD signals usually suffer from strong magnetic noise interference from geology, geomagnetic, platform vibration and motion, ocean motion and wave, which severely limit the application of MAD systems in realistic environments [2]."
While some may argue that this publication is not an US-based one, the statement above is based on Reference [2] which is the work of Holmes J.J 2006, Naval Surface Warfare Center, US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
We will also get in touch with some of our customers to cross-confirm the validity of your proposal.

Thanks.

Perfect, I couldnīt wish for more. The internet is overflowing with "military experts" proposing heaven on earth and no statement can be taken granted. So I even support you to not treat my post different. Use your expertise, research, and your strong connections to the real deal people - your professional customers.

While they perhaps canīt or wonīt tell you exact performance values, I am in good hope that they can brief you about MADīs primary detection capabilities and what it is able to and what it isnīt able to.

Great response, thanks too.

[image]local://upfiles/63002/82B971CC22F44375AF96468F6709C583.jpg[/image]




c3k -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/26/2019 7:34:39 PM)

Not a submariner, or sub-hunter, but the pdf's linked upstream also discuss the effect of sensor velocity in regards to sensitivity. The faster it goes, the better it is able to filter out noise, and therefore detects the magnetic anomaly at greater distances.

The pdf linked upstream shows ranges at 30, 60, and 120 knots. The P8, based on the 737 airframe, patrols at a greater speed than those. 210 kts seems reasonable, based on a 737 at low altitude and max loiter. (Again, I'm not an expert in P8 ops.)

I have no idea if the sensor velocity is part of the sim.




SSN754planker -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/27/2019 11:40:48 AM)

I have tackled this subject before, and ill do so again in CMANO later today. Ill do a couple different setups.

1. Soviet/Russian MAD asset vs. NATO sub (mid 1980's)
2. NATO MAD asset vs. Soviet sub. (mid 1980's)
3. Russian MAD asset vs. NATO sub (present day)
4. NATO MAD asset vs. Russian sub (present day)

Ill do a 5th experiment with chinese subs vs japanese/US assets also if i see weird things happening.

Dimitris and I have discussed this before and MAD seems to be spot on last time we really looked at it together. But patches being patches with such a complex sim such as this could always have unintended results and "break" something that was not broken.

Ill post my results as i get things simmed out.





JamesHunt -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/27/2019 2:00:06 PM)

Always wondered about this.

I have read alot about MAD/SAD and all military sources that I have sighted state the effective detection of MAD vs subs is about 500 - 1200 feet and almost all sources state that MAD is not viable for first contact pick-up but that it is almost exclusively used for final comfirmation and final weapon solution determination.

Account by an Naval officer who worked with MAD in anti-submarine-warfare:
"The MAD gear is sensitive to about to 1200 feet depth; considering you are at 200 feet, you can detect a sub at aproximately 1,000 depth below the water."
https://books.google.de/books?id=nhgpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT190&lpg=PT190&dq=mad+submarine+operator&source=bl&ots=1T-rlGFZJV&sig=ACfU3U1P4_7OHm4Y0B043QHVwSSCTCZ-3Q&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxruzHsaLhAhUGxYUKHcIaCpwQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=mad%20submarine%20operator&f=false

Note the "to about 1200 feet". Conditions and submarine construction countermeasures can lower this range. Also note that this is calculating the planeīs height into it.

This account is consistent whith what most other military sources state about the performance of MAD.

I had incidents where my old Helix ASW helo was casually strolling back to base and accidentally located distant + deep enemy subs like the Seawolf or modern diesels via MAD and instantly killed it [:D]

The ingame MAD range of 1 nautical mile aka ~6000 feet is "extremely generous". Taking the theoretically best possible performance calculation provided by the naval officer and almost all other sources into account, Commandīs MAD still overperforms by ~500% in regards to distance. Considering that magnetic fields decrease as the inverse cube of distance you may get an idea on how big the MAD sensor sensitivity discrepancy is: 4000%, but donīt quote me on that last number, no math pro.




AndrewJ -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/28/2019 12:52:08 AM)

Here's a repost of some information I'd added to another thread last year, with a bit more added.



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:

"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."

and

"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."



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.


It turns out that sensor platform speed (helicopter vs MPA - it's easier to spot the signal when you pass over it quickly), wave (magnetic) noise, altitude (better to be further away from the waves), geomagnetic noise (space weather), geological noise (local anomalies) all have effects on MAD detection ability. This 1976 report (Speed and Depth Effects in Magnetic Anomaly Detection) for the US Navy suggests these factors combine to give useful detection ranges of approximately 1350 feet.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a081329.pdf


A 1994 thesis for the Naval Postgraduate School, "A Limited Analysis of some Nonaccoustic Antisubmarine Warfare Systems", suggests that these factors would give an effective range for the P-3's AN/ASQ-81 of a little under 500m (1640 feet) against a typical diesel sub.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a281747.pdf


The most recent MADs seem to have improved their performance somewhat; no doubt advances in signal processing have helped greatly. CAE, makers of the later AN/ASQ-508 MAD, and the recently developed MAD-XR, mentions detection ranges of "approximately 1,200 metres" (3937 feet) in their most recent promotional literature, although this is somewhat at odds with lack of recent enthusiasm for MADs in general. (Treat all promotional literature with caution, of course.)
https://www.cae.com/media/media-center/documents/datasheet.MAD-XR.pdf
https://bricanflightsystems.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/%C2%A9_BFS_TD_100_Class_II_UAV_ASW_SubDetect.pdf


One complication is that it turns out that the strength of the magnetic anomaly varies greatly depending on the relative orientation of the searcher's flight-path, the orientation of the sub, and the specific local magnetic field. A system which may give a good detection range in one pass, may have a much smaller detection range in another. See these papers for detailed mathematical examples:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1012958.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1012961.pdf

This recent (2015) Chinese paper on MAD detection highlights the variability. A sub detection which happens at nearly 800 m (~2,600 feet) flying at very low altitude in ideal orientation can drop to less than 100m (~ 300 feet) if you fly higher and the sub changes direction. (Yes, vertical separation does matter.)
http://www.jestr.org/downloads/Volume8Issue4/fulltext84172015.pdf

[img]https://i.imgur.com/fdvheRP.png[/img]

That's a lot of variation!


So based on my highly informed opinion (translation: after few hours of bewildered Googling), it looks like the current MAD model in Command is somewhat optimistic. Even the most modern figures I found don't reach the current 1 mile range that's in the database.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/83bl3B3.png[/img]


I think that think that reducing the range for the generic MAD in the game would be a good idea. Although identifying the performance of individual MAD systems would be very difficult, given the scarcity of information, it might be a good idea to replace the one 'Generic MAD' sensor with several generations of generic sensor, each covering a decade or two, and gradually stepping up detection ranges from generation to generation. Given the amount of variation MAD sensors seem to encounter, I'd suggest stepping back the detection range claims for the most modern systems a bit. I'm not sure if it would be worth modelling different magnetic signatures depending on sub size too.


I want to add that there is a 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.




AndrewJ -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/28/2019 2:10:42 AM)

Just a note to add, it is not completely unrealistic to use MAD as a search sensor. Although it is usually for refining a pre-existing contact, MAD patrols across straits and chokepoints are actually used for primary target detection.

MAD patrols of this type were used in combat in WWII. Here's an example from 1944, where a PBY patrol across the Straits of Gibraltar successfully detected a submerged U-boat with MAD, and then participated in sinking it.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/sQvxUkB.png[/img]

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/221590.pdf




SSN754planker -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/28/2019 3:22:41 PM)

quote:

I want to add that there is a 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.


If this is the case, wouldn't that make MAD detection a bit harder because the p-3 may fly right over between "ticks"

But helicopters would not have that problem. But a heli on top of you as a sub driver means certain death a lot of the time. But this is also true IRL. A heli is always the larger threat than fixed wing MPA.




SSN754planker -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/28/2019 3:29:42 PM)

Also the way "random" way ASW patrol boxes set up by ref points work now, i have noticed it may take a good amount of time for a MAD contact to happen, if ever. The sonobouys being dropped nail them before a MAD flyover would.




Herman_Hum -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/28/2019 8:04:46 PM)

Its too strong in the sim. The best `in your dreams` MAD range you can hope for is about thousand to 1200 ft. This is not different for Soviet, nor Russian, nor PLAN mad systems. First contact utility is almost nil. Subs in great depths are basically undetectable by it.




c3k -> RE: MAD detection of subs (3/28/2019 10:56:18 PM)

If those reports are being released (and unclassified) I would think that means they've been superseded by better detection methods, such as the gravity-based referenced above. But that's supposition.




Dimitris -> RE: MAD detection of subs (4/21/2019 1:49:43 PM)

We're still looking into this.




Dimitris -> RE: MAD detection of subs (5/7/2019 2:52:59 PM)

We are introducing some changes in this, you should see them on the next update release.




JamesHunt -> RE: MAD detection of subs (11/20/2019 8:51:12 PM)

I didnīt keep track of the changelogs. Was the MAD range modified in the meantime of July up to the CMO release?




apache85 -> RE: MAD detection of subs (11/21/2019 12:23:07 AM)

v1.15.6 (Build 1009.31.2) – July 26, 2019
• Major overhaul of MAD sensor modelling:
o MADs are no longer precision sensors, they have bearing ambiguity and absolutely no range estimate (the range estimate is essentially "anywhere from right in front of us up to max sensor range")
o The practical MAD detection range is affected by the displacement ratio (target displacement vs max reference figure) and under-keel depth (shallow is worse, because of the bottom background)
o MAD scan rates have been increased (only in DB3000 v478+, see below). This rewards faster sensor platforms (e.g. P-8 vs P-3 vs helicopter) as they are able to cover more distance per given time and thus refine the contact position through triangulation faster.


There's 'readme.doc' and 'whatsnew.pdf' files in your game directory that list all changes since V1.00.




JamesHunt -> RE: MAD detection of subs (11/21/2019 7:10:58 AM)

Thanks for the info




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.394531E-02