Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
"boats are indeed Tarantul I not III. Also added 2000 version with Quad Grom mount."
I have screwed up. It turns out that polish navy is using grom as pure manpads, either from submarine kiosk or side galleries of the of ship's bridge,
but all quad mounts are retained for original strela-2M only. They should be interchangeable in theory, but apparently ther is some minor detail like voltage, rails
width, whatever.
|
Thanks, have restored the Strela and removed the quad Grom. Also added Grom MANPADS from 2000 onwards. Sounds ok?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
OHP:
"- Removed CWIS and Mk13 mount, as they have no ammo"
I have spotted that on the photos physically CIWS is still there, but ammo is not and infact the system is not operational as repeated many times on navy enthusiasts
forums. I have edited on my scenario by making null ammo count for this, but on the other hand, most probably search radar is never enabled as well so erasing the
mount is closer to reality.
|
Thanks, also removed the AN/SPG-60 STIR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
-Remember Polish Navy has no single standard arm nor harpoon and is not planning to have. So MK13 mount is physically there on OHP, but similar situation as with
phalanx. Those ships are simply manpower-intensive huge boat chasers with good sensors keeping headcount for better times, which may never arrive. Witt updated MU-90
torpedos, also for their seasprite, with practically no reloads (20pcs or so for the whole navy)
"- Is the Grom system made up of MANPADS or Quad launcher systems?"
looks like in teh navy there are only strela-2M on quad launchers, grom as pure manpads (single tube).
apparently there are two wrobel mounts available on polish ships
ZU-23-2MR Wróbel ( http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZU-23-2M_Wr%C3%B3bel)
and
ZU-23-2MR Wróbel II ( http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZU-23-2MR_Wr%C3%B3bel_II)
the second one has reportedly handling issues when swithing between guns and rocket (assume a few good seconds ofdelay), this is why all mounts with wrobel (v1) stay
on ships where they are.
So also Wrobel II uses Strela-2M and not Grom |
Great, retaining the original Wrobel II on the Goplo and Orlik classes, with ZU-23-2 and Strela-2M.
Also updated a couple more Polish ship with Wrobel (gun-only).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
Kaszub:
This is an ASW corvette since always and wake-homing torpedo on it... was a TOTAL surprise.
What I know for sure is that polish navy is using TEST-71 ASW torpedo on ORP Orzeł (877E Kilo), Kaszub being build during the fall of commmunism, so the only
reasonnable guess for 533mm ASW torpedo is TEST-71.
|
Makes sense, have given the ships TEST-71ME and torpedo wire control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
660 Grom:
about toadfish VDS:
http://fotoforum.gazeta.pl/photo/2/c...WS6Zr5uGdX.jpg there is NOTHING between AK630M and the tail. No lift, no place for a reel. And it would make no
sense at all to put a sonar on them. Those are not Pauk-style boats, those are fast and noisy, small surface cobatants Tarantul-style, without a single armament
agains submarines. This toadfish idea is rumor copypasted from swedish sub hunters, I think. Swedes wre obsessed about sub-chasing, and grom 660 basically uses their
command&control, but not with all its possible flavours. |
I'm convinced. Copy-pasted your text into the unit's "design comments" for future reference
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
Kobben:
"- Only 4 of the eight torpedo tubes are used? Did I get that right?"
In my scenario I have empied half of them by default since I suppose total stocks of those ammo is not more than 16-20pcs for all Kobbens. Buying of MU-90 was cut
from 32 to somehting like 20 for financial reasons alone, and type 612 was simply haded over Danish Navy with Kobbens. This means if they wer shipped with full salvo
plus a few more, there is no more than a few left per ship after several naval exercices, possibly add bad maintenance etc...
"- Does Poland carry MANPADS on these operationally? Are you sure it is practically possible to fire these SAMs from the subs?"
This is not sure if those are streal-2m or grom but is quite possible given it was mentioned as practiced in Kilo to have one maybe two manpads which years ago coudl
be only strela-2m. Of course it is fired only when completely surfaced. Basically as mean of self-defense in K-19 widowmaker scenario .
|
Okay I'm keeping the full 8-round torpedo loadout and letting the scenario designers reduce the load if they want
I'm slightly sceptical about the Grom on Kobben. Not entirely sure they'd ever use that operationally...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
Kilo:
"- When was TEST-71ME installed? Some sources claim these subs were used in the anti-ship role only."
Read this several times on polish naval forums.
|
Have updated the sub with 2x TEST-71ME tubes, as per request
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
Kobben & Kilo,
"- When was Grom installed?"
Only supposed. Only after mobilisation. For sure that igla launcher mast mentioned in your original database for Kilo is not there, probably never was. Grom is VERY
popular in polish armed forces (500-800 pcs? locally built and is supplementing several hundreds of strela-2M) so no wonder one or two will be handled to navy for
the most precious units like submarines.
|
Hmm okay leaving Grom out of the Kilo, allowing scenario designer to add the MANPADS if needed.
Also removed the Igla installation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
Kobben:
This page suggests that:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobben
they have the following sensor suite after upgrades:
sonar changed
CSU-83 (DBQS-21) sonar suystem composed of: CSU 3-4 medium/high freq avtive/passive sonar
FAS 3-1 passive hull array
PRS 3-15 passive rangefinder sonar array
radar changed to Kelvin Hughes Typ 1007 navigation radar |
Hmmm okay... I'm not so sure.
The CSU 3-4 was a late 1970s system. The Kobben class originally carried AN 407 and was upgraded with the early-1990s PSU 83F. The PSU 83F is not associated with the CSU 3-4. Rather, the AN 407 which is related to AN 410 is also known as CSU 3-2. So could be some confusion here?
I have not found any evidence that suggest the Kobben class was ever fitted with the FAS 3-1, which is a CSU 83/90 supplementary flank array. Probably because the sub is too small for flank arrays?
Ditto for PRS 3-15, which is fitted to the Ula class but probably not Kobben. Ula is fitted with DBQS-21N while the upgraded Kobben had/have DBQS-21F.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
|
Thanks, restored
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
Tarantul:
"The Garpun is credited with a 70nm+ OTH range against large targets, and 24nm against small targets. The OTH capability was needed to fire the SS-N-2D out to its
maximum range, apparently."
And this is a kludge.
Ther reality is, most missile boats CANNOT fire their missiles OTH because their mast is too low for radar horison. I have read about this Garpun on FAS site. It is
OTH ONLY if one of the boats acting as emitter is closer, then the reciever boats can be further away and those are OTH. Emitter is not OTH so effectively from
tactial point of view for simple scenarios as we have it is NON-OTH radar for all practical purposes, if we make if miraculous OTH it starts working better than
high-positioned surface search on a missile destroyer or even OHP what is a nonsense. radar horison (mount altitude and target altitude) is what dictates max range
except a few very special radars, more power on large radars only makes sure that you can detect even the smallest object up to the max radar horison and this is
where big destroyer radar winds: by height and power, but only a dozen miles or so.
|
Hm yeah but there is surface ducting which allows radars to see beyond the horizon. Under good conditions surface-to-surface detections can be made out to 100nm.
It could very well be that the Garpun wasn't capable of surface ducting. Do you have a link to the FAS article?
Amongst others, Band Stand [Monolit] is credited with a 100nm OTH-SW (Surface Wave) targeting capability for SS-N-22.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
This is a problem for Polish Navy: how to direct all those RBS-15, even STYX MOD C, and NSM of course, havin a few stupid M-28 Bryza that are easy to be shot down
and even them have some 120km radar range... but for a frigate like OHP or Sovremenny. So this is reality and I think we should not provide a kludge to make 'hero
boats' appear on the map in order to feel better.
|
Agree 100%, we should not give platforms capabilities they don't have in RL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
I am afraid of a few radar simulation issues, it seem to me after playing several games that:
-In the game, enabling any radar is counted as enabling practically all radars, from the point of view of ESM. In reality ships use sectorized low power navigation
radars, and only one enables all radars. In the game, if yo enably any radar, you can detect and classify it quite easily.
|
Our current implementation is a lot better than other sims like this but as you point out there are still some limitations. The human player can manually select what radars to use, but there are no AI logics to handle this. We'll look into this later on, but it is a very complex subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
-RBS-15 III (not II) has land strike capability like tomahawk (but it is GPS+inertial thing). Yet in the game it searches for surface radar-detectable target,
therefore orbiting around let's say enemy airfield until out of fuel.
|
Okay have registered a bug report on this and assigned to me. Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
-in reality IR STYX missiles were able to strike heated, metal oil tanks during iran-iraq war, just to let you know.
|
Thanks, we need further refined (read: more complex) models for this to work right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
-radar sites have no limit on number of traced targets, the with neva alone you can basically survey large part of airspace
|
Yes this is a limitation in the current model. Been looking at this, but we're not quite sure how to get the 'contact selection' to work well without
driving players nuts and generating 1000 support tickets. "My radars are not detecting the bogies I want them to!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
-generic surface radars and others as well show optimistic range at low altitudes, something like 30% more than official polish navy publications/coverage maps even
if we include the fact that those shore-mounted towers are taller than a big cruiser mast. This leads me to thinking, that as basic equation, you use ranges, instead
of using radar horison range equation which is roughly:
|
We take both transmitter and contact height into account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
http://www.radary.az.pl/zasieg.php
dist[km]=3.57*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2)), h1 and h2 in meters are emitter and target altitude. This implementation of the lowest possible detection altitude would solve
Falkland scenario mystery and add a lot of intersting effects to the simulation.
|
3.57*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2)) or 4.12*Sqrt(h) is a textbook approximation. We use earth radius, tangent angle, etc to calculate surface angle and blah blah blah.
According to our sources the radar horizon is typically 20-30nm depending on sensor and contact height, and visual horizon is 15-20nm. So think our model is fairly good?
If there's an error it could be that we've put the radars too high on the ships, and the contact superstructure is too high as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbosak
-First contact scenarios are IMO badly designed, it should not start with all ships withing range of each other otherwise it becomes a random lottery based on ESM.
(who blinks first). This is not reality since the ships do not appear from vacuum, and detection ranges for surface radars seem to be vastly overestimated.
|
Agreed, the model could/should probably be refined. Coming up with good models that cover all possibilites is quite a challenge.