I'm curious, you state that you had your doubts once before, so I assume you are like the rest of us and not a developer or something related to that, how do you know all this stuff?
I just read their devblogs, actually. And the forum natter (search "runway damage" and you'll see what I mean vis a vis the care put into runway modeling.) But mostly their own wordpress blog over on their site, wafaresims.com. The "generational" abstraction for fixing ECM is here. Note the following quote:
We investigated these reports, and concluded that the fundamental problem was that our radar/ECM formulas, while technically quite accurate, failed to take into account the various counter-countermeasures (and counters to them, and counters to the counters, ad naseum…) that are applied by both radars and the jammers that target them. Discretely incorporating these techniques in a public-domain simulation is tricky, not least because non-classified information is scarce, both on the details of these techniques and also as to which system supports which tricks.
You can multiply that issue by ten for anything involving communication jamming, because in the modern context this is a lot more than just jamming voice communications on a VHF radio - you're talking about jamming digital datalinks and all sorts of ~classified~ stuff. Radar, however, has been around a lot longer, and the physics of it are pretty well known - even AESA is just a new wrinkle on an old equation (which is why PESA arrays are still around, as they can do most of what AESA can do; it's nowhere near worth the expense to replace the AN/SPY-1s on existing Burkes, for example.) And yet, even with that, the generational tweaking is needed to account for things such as older Soviet radars being long "compromised," i.e. everyone knows the very intricate details of how they work, so jammers can be programmed with specific "attacks" that are very useful at overwhelming them. That's just one example of how age degrades a radar when up against a modern jammer, for instance. Modern datalinks and commo? Hooo.
Read all their devblogs - it's a fantastic window into the development process, and the challenges and considerations they have to tackle.
You are correct. Many amateurs in China are actually very fond on CMANO, and they made one of a scenario in attempt to sink Liaoning Carrier by US recently. Sparked hundreds of redirects and thousand replies all over military fan communities.
This would explain much... I post over on the "weapons" board of 4chan, "/k/," where the phrase "my scenario stands" has become a board in-joke because of the frequency with which one particular Chinese poster would use it after presenting a CMANO scenario result proving the great and terrible might of the PLAN. Of course this sometimes backfires, but I can attest to CMANO being popular as an analysis tool on that side of the Pacific.
EDIT: I just read that grogheads.com thread and good heavens that was a lot of bellyaching. I suppose none of them have lived through a few years of following Kerbal Space Program's development
< Message edited by Demetrious -- 2/14/2017 11:47:06 AM >