Jump to content

VictorInThePacific

Members
  • Posts

    261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by VictorInThePacific

  1. 2) We normally used the P-3 patrols when intel indicated a possible contact of interest in an area. Where the info came from was above my level. We also used it to sanitize the area the BG was going to be transitting. I just took control of the aircraft and sent it where I was told to.

    3) Sometimes we found the target, sometimes we didn't.

     

    My old boss in the KSA, a retired Four Striper, ...

     

    Continuing ...

     

    So you were not on the actual plane? But in continuous contact?

     

    The plane is dropping a field of 16 buoys, covering 32 sq. miles, or perhaps 60-odd?

     

    Can you estimate the found/not found proportion?

     

    KSA = Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Kosher Supervision of America?

  2. A P-3 carries a loadout of at least 84 buoys, if I remember correctly from my days as an ASAC. A 5-6-5 Distro field, which is one of the more popular patterns, requires 16 buoys to cover a fairly large area. I'm not sure how the program handles this, but I don't remember ever working with a P-3 that ran short of buoys.

     

    Buddha

     

    Well, I could debate this point, based on how large an area you want to search, but it occurs to me that I should really be asking you questions based on your experience.

     

    1) I guess that all your experiences would qualify as peacetime ones?

    2) Did you go out to locate specific contacts or for more general reasons?

    3) Did you actually find things?

     

    Incidentally, I just googled "He who beats his swords into plowshares shall forever plow the fields of he who did not." Looks like you're famous.

  3. A couple of comments that have nothing to do with the original question.

     

    1) Assigning a plane to a formation patrol at a base where it doesn't belong for any reason ... this cannot be considered "wrong" in any sense. In real life, you could always give that plane orders to patrol a particular area. In Harpoon, you are only using this technique to allow an automatic routine to take care of the machanics of patrolling, and there is no routine that allows you to patrol a general area, unless there is a base or ship nearby, so you are simply using the base as a convenient reference point.

     

    2) Having said that, bear in mind that an Orion or similar plane flies for a very long time, much longer than it takes to use up all its sonobuoys in a formation patrol. So you probably only have about 2 hours of meaningful patrol in any case. 1 hour to drop buoys, and 1 hour until they die.

  4. Here are some results from a refueling test.

     

    This is not by any means an exhaustive test, either by considering all variables, or by considering any variable completely. The air groups were formed up and sent to a distant patrol location. Fueling happened automatically in all cases.

     

    Note that air groups contain at least one unit, each of which has at least one plane. All planes in a unit are identical, except that they can have different numbers of weapons remaining.

     

    1) 1 x F/A-18C plus 1 x F/A-18C tanker. At some point, the message log stated that the refueling process was beginning. 30s later, the message log stated that a particular unit was being refueled. 3 min later, the tanker asked to be sent home.

     

    2) 5 x F/A-18C plus 2 x F/A-18C tanker. The group consisted of 3 units: one with 2 tankers, one with one regular Hornet, and one with 4 regular Hornets. At some point, the message log stated that the refueling process was beginning. 30s later, the message log stated that the first unit (1 plane) was being refueled. 1.5 min later, the message log stated that the second unit was being refueled. 6 min later, the tanker asked to be sent home.

     

    As soon a unit starts refueling, its fuel status jumps, i.e. the fuel is transferred instantaneously. There is a significant delay before the next unit gets its fuel.

     

    These numbers are completely consistent with all previous results in this thread, except Brad's. But Brad's results are also consistent if he did not report the 3-min delay after fuel transfer and tanker splitting. This means that type of tanker and fuel transfer rate are not modelled.

     

    Summary:

     

    Time to refuel a plane unit = 3 min x number of planes / number of tankers. Because the fuel is transferred instantaneously, you can cheat by splitting the tanker off before the final delay period is complete. There will be cases where this does not make sense, because in RL, only one tanker can refuel a plane at a time.

     

    Incidentally, when launching the 7-plane group, because the patrol point was beyond the range of the basic Hornet, I had to add the planes in the following order: tanker, Hornet, Hornet, tanker, Hornet, Hornet, Hornet, after which another tanker would have been required. The conclusions are obvious.

     

    It also appears to be the case that the "bingo"status in the group window is the same as the "bingo" status for the first unit in the unit window.

  5. When an air group consists of more than one member of only one aircraft type, how are unused fuel and weapons allocated among the individual members? That is, is each individual member tracked independently, or is there some sort of overall "formula" that determines the allocations?

     

    For example, if only one member of a group gets re-fueled, does that fuel remain associated with that one individual member, or does it effectively get distributed evenly among all the group members?

     

    Similarly, when an air group expends part of its total available weapons, do those weapons come equally from all members of the group, or do some members expend all of their weapons, while others retain some or all of theirs? (And is there any way to see this?)

     

    When individual members of such groups get shot down, or split-off from the group, how are the currently-remaining weapons and fuel allocated among the remaining members (or between the split groups)?

     

    When an air group consists of mixed types of aircraft, how does this affect or change the way these allocations occur?

     

    When an air group consists of multiple sub-groups of the same type/loadout of aircraft, how does this affect or change the way these allocations occur? What about when they are the same aircraft type with differing loadouts (and possibly differing fuel ranges)?

     

    I am curious about these things as the result of some observations (or from some recent discussion, in one case):

     

    First, I've seen the number of remaining weapons of an air group not be proportioned "equally" after member(s) of the group got shot down - sort of implying that the weapons are tracked on an individual member basis.

     

    Second, when air groups have been split, I've seen cases where one group had proportionally more remaining weapons that the other - further supporting the idea that weapons are tracked on an individual member basis.

     

    Third, I've seen cases where there were multiple sub-groups of the same aircraft type/loadout in a group, and when partial weapons were automatically allocated to a target, they all came from the first sub-group only. This seems to imply that at least sub-groups have their remaining weapons tracked independently.

     

    OK, this is pretty complicated stuff, but I think I can address some of it. I was running a refuelling test and saw some of this information.

     

    First, multi-plane groups exist as GROUPS, which are composed of at least one UNIT, each of which has at least one plane. All planes in a unit probably need to be identical. A great deal of information is available in the unit window.

     

    Second, I am not saying how or why things are calculated, merely what you can see.

     

    1) All planes in a unit have the same fuel status. No idea how weapons remaining are allocated. Each unit is tracked individually. Resources are probably not ever transferred between units.

     

    2) You can split planes out of a unit at will. This may affect weapons available. For example, if the unit has 5 bombs and 4 planes, probably one particular unit gets an extra bomb.

  6. I use this formula:

    Aircraft Height (in meters) X Aircraft Lenght (in meters) X Aircraft Wing Area (in meters, in helicopters Rotor Area/10)= Y

    If Y <= 45 (if Y equal or smaller than 45), signature Very Small.

    If Y between 45 and 70, signature Small.

    If Y > 70 (if Y greater than 70), signature Large.

     

    Interesting. Effectively, considering the aircraft to be rectangle-shaped, this is the same as

     

    Y = (side area) x (wing area)

     

    Note that wing area has units of square meters, not meters.

     

    Instead of wing area, you should probably use top area, which is not exactly the same.

     

    But mainly, I think you should not be multiplying these two areas, but rather averaging them. This would be important for planes that are significantly larger in one view than the other. Or maybe it would have no practical effect at all.

  7. As long as the sub is underwater, it probably can't detect sound sources in the air.

     

    Take a look at the surface of the water under the helo. Do you really think a sub won't be able to hear *something* from that?

     

    Fair enough, but I was thinking about a sound source in the air, at some significant vertical and horizontal separation from the sub. This example is a large physical disturbance on the surface of the water, not an acoustic response to the flying object.

  8. Kavik Kang ... hardcore SFB ... then you will be familiar with the term "fighter sea"?

     

    Glory days, man, glory days.

     

    Why, I remember the time ... B)

     

    I literally know SFB as well as anyone, "fighter sea" must have been a local phrase used by you group. But I can imagine what you are referring too. FED CV launches 12 F-15's, 12 F-15's each launch six drones... you now have 84 more individual units to keep track of!

     

    I don't think most people have a frame of referance to understand just how out-of-control SFB can get. In a big fleet battle like that it can wind up taking you 80 hours of play time to resolve what would be about 6 minutes of real-life action. As Maxwell Smart would say: "And loving it..." :-)

     

    Oh, no, one CVA does not a fighter sea make. You must think in grander terms. Much, much grander. :P

  9. The actual refueling process, or more particularly, the time interval between receiving a message that refueling has started and the appearance of the 'No Refuel' info, seems to run about 30 to 60 seconds. (Grossly simplified for the purposes of the game, obviously, as RL refueling would take considerably longer). It has been my experience that you can rely on the appearance of the 'No Refuel' info as being an indicator that refueling is completed.

     

    The actual prompt to split off the tanker may take considerably longer. In the quick test I just ran, with a group of 4x Hornets and 1x KA-6D, it took 8.5 minutes.

     

    This is somewhat inconsistent with Donald''s result (post 7, this thread). This would suggest that there is one MORE variable: the nature of the tanker i.e. fuel delivery rate depends on the source.

     

    To recap his results, the tanker refuels planes one after the other, and each one needs 3 min.

  10. 1. Why can't subs (in the game) detect over-flying aircraft acoustically? (At least I see no indication that they do).

     

    I don't claim to be an expert in this, but I think there would be physical limitations. The propagation of sound waves in air and water is rather different due to the huge density difference.

     

    Getting the signal through the interface in a useful way is the issue.

     

    Note that when you use sonobuoys from aircraft, you drop the detector into the medium of interest. Detectors in air can detect objects in the air.

     

    As long as the sub is underwater, it probably can't detect sound sources in the air.

  11. Notwithstanding the contradictions mentioned, consider the game mechanics. Your attack group flies to near the target. This takes about an hour.

    What are the numbers for this? I was figuring longer than that... In fact, when I calculated, I was getting a two-and-one-half hour round trip... er, well, up to the point where they ran out of gas; not for the complete round trip.

     

    OK, so with the corrected values:

     

    So you are flying an atack mission with Hornets. Now the way BINGO fuel works in Harpoon, approximately, is that when the amount of cruise fuel left is somewhat more than the distance to base (source base or any base ?), the plane wants to RTB. Somewhat earlier, the plane will attempt to refuel if it can.

     

    Maximum ONE-WAY range for these Hornets is 584 nm. So BINGO happens when they have flown OUT about 500 nm. Assuming that these Hornets are carrying Harpoons, and since the target is about 500 nm away, the attack point is about 450 nm from the source base. This is also approximately the point where automatic refueling would start. Note as well that the combined group flies at 415 nm, so refueling starts just about when the Falcons launch missiles, about an hour out from their base.

     

    Preliminary calculations:

     

    With a range of 1168 nm, at 490 kn, these planes can fly for 2.38 h. Subtract .2 h for launching the full group. Since they actually fly at 415 kn, their range is now 906 nm. However, they only flew 450 nm x 2, and they had some extra fuel from tanking, so the full group won't die UNLESS there is some further critical information that was not stated. Once again, there is an internal contradiction in the numbers provided, so there's no point in me continuing this calculation with the data available.

  12. I think I mentioned that it was necessary to launch attacks by a total of 60 F/A-18s and 68 A-6Es (plus missiles from a SAG and a sub on the first iteration) a total of three different times before the first hit animation appeared for the AI's carrier group. (I ultimately launched these attacks eight times before finally killing the carrier group

     

    Please allow me to introduce myself

    ...

    I've been around for a long, long year

    Stole many a man's soul and faith

    ...

    Pleased to meet you

    Hope you guess my name

     

    (Sympathy for Mr. Grumble)

     

    The only thing that works is to simply run 'em out of SAMS, so why bother with all that other horsing around??

     

    Actually, there are things you can do ...

     

    Study this ... and I do mean STUDY

     

    http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2032492

  13. Bottom line: I will be happy to try to provide "specifics", but only if it is an unknown issue - hence my question of whether there was a known explanation for these non-splits, before putting effort into trying to capture it.

     

    Donald (post 7, this thread), has given some specific numerical results.

     

    I have proposed that you do a measurement (post 17, this thread).

     

    We need to be comparing specific narrow measurements, because nobody can do anything useful with anecdotal reports.

  14. I can understand the issue of the KA-6 slowing the group down and thus eventually running it out of fuel, but I don't see why it never completed the re-fueling, and split off (and thus would have allowed those Hornets to resume their normal cruise speed - which may or may not have allowed them to reach base, but at least would have gotten further). But I digress yet again... the crux is why the split-off didn't happen.

     

    The conditions of the situation were not properly stated. The numbers you gave appear to be internally self-contradictory. That is why you have not been given a clear response. But consider this: If you try to launch an IFR-capable plane beyond its range, you can't. If you include a tanker in the group, you can now launch. It's like removing the safety mechanism from a machine. Safety is now your personal responsibility. BTW, once you include the tanker in the group, you can then remove it, and your first plane will launch to a place it can't actually get to. Also ... see above.

     

    First, what numbers are self-contradictory, and how?

     

    "For example, yesterday, I lost 24 F/A-18s after launching them, along with a KA-6 tanker, at a carrier group that was nearly at the limit of their un-refueled range (I think the numbers were 1168 nm range, and 1026 sepration between the carrier groups). So, I threw in my only tanker "just to be safe". However, as the group reached its attack point, I noticed that the tanker was still attached, yet the report showed that it had no re-fuel stores. The group completed its attack and turned back but the tanker remained attached. The fuel range circle indicated at that time that there was still enough fuel to reach base. I then became distracted by other engagements, and next thing I knew, there was a report of 24 F/A-18s running out of fuel and crashing - about 150 nm from their carrier. So, apparently, including the tanker didn't ensure there was enough fuel. I wonder whether the re-fueling process was interrupted by the attack itself, although the group report already showed no re-fuel stores awhile before the weapons launch point, so...??? Oddly enough, I had launched my other 24 F/A-18s at the same target shortly after the large group, but in two groups of 12 planes each, with no tankers... and those groups got back with plenty of of fuel to spare, despite not being re-fueled at all."

     

    You mention 2 carrier groups. You mention attacking. Thus we conclude that the planes are flying from your carrier to attack an enemy carrier group. This is not a ferry mission.

     

    Apparently the range of your attack planes is 1168 nm. As someone has already stated, this means there AND BACK, so the furthest out one plane could fly is 584 nm. Yet you say that the carrier groups are separated by 1026 nm. So this is impossible; the GE won't let you do it ... UNLESS you add a tanker to the group (even if you later remove it, heh, heh).

     

    That is only one example of an internal contradiction in this anecdotal report, which leads me to conclude that there are errors in the report, and neither I or anyone else has the time and energy to figure them out. So we can't do anything with it.

     

    Second, this specific situation did not involve launching a group beyond its un-refueled range. I thought that I mentioned it, but in case I didn't, the 24-plane primary group was allowed to launch without a tanker (per the dialog), but because it was a large group (with associated potential fuel-consuming delays), I added the only available tanker to the group, as sort of a safety precaution. I was not aware of - and therefore did not consider - that the slower cruise speed of the tanker would actually shorten the range of the other type of planes (Hornets) in the group. As it turns out, that was a mistake. But it was compounded by the tanker not splitting off from the group, and thus forcing the group to continue at slower speed, and thus further shortening its range.

     

    Notwithstanding the contradictions mentioned, consider the game mechanics. Your attack group flies to near the target. This takes about an hour. The planes are at about 50% fuel, and probably would have reached the request-for-fuel state sometime earlier, so tanking starts. And continues ... and continues ... for more than an hour, while the planes complete the attack, turn around and head for home. Unfortunately for them, the fuel they get is very limited, and that damn attached tanker slows them down, so while the tanker is still busily refueling plane 20 ... 21 ... they all run out of gas (except the tanker). Since the process was never completed, the tanker never splits off. And in any case, as soon as the group starts to head for home, the tanker has no reason to split off, because it's going there too.

     

    As an aside, it would be helpful to understand the factors that are figured into the launch dialog's decision as to whether the group has enough range (fuel?) to reach the requested target. Empirically, it appears that the calculation takes the number of aircraft into account (in other words, any fuel consumption due to form-up of a large group) because I've seen cases where it will not allow the launch of very large groups against targets that are somewhat less distant than the specificed (individual plane's?) range for the assigned loadout, yet decreasing the number of planes assigned will allow it to be launched (and without subsequent fuel problems). Apparently, it does not account for these effects of un-matched speeds of different types of aircraft in the group, though. (?) If so, IMO, this is a bit of a problem.

     

    Are you sure? A plane's stated range must account for there AND BACK, so the GE should only allow you to launch an attack at half that distance.

     

    Incidentally, in this situation, you really do need to be launching your planes in smaller groups so the big blob doesn't waste so much fuel, especially if you're only using up defensive SAMs anyway.

  15. I just put the scenario files in the folder. Where would I get/switch databases?

     

    It is critical to match scenarios with the databases and battlesets that they use.

     

    Each scenario uploaded to HarpGamer should have the appropriate database listed on the same page where the scenario is posted for download.

     

    The available databases are likewise posted in the Downloads section of this website, appropriately enough called Databases. ;)

     

    Just want to point out that, while the draft documentation is just that, this particular point is covered there.

     

    Tony's launcher seems to cover the automation aspect. Documentation for that will be available at some point.

  16. only thing is, there may be no way of knowing which group was originally needing attention - because typically it does not report the group name, and a lot of the dialogs don't allow me to "highlight" the group involved,

     

    I think that is incorrect. The critical issues are new contacts, where you have the "show" and "select" options, and ditto for "new orders wanted" situations. Keep in mind that the SA window can be moved to expose the map underneath. Did I mention that you should have some paper handy to write things down on?

  17. I readily concur that my specific 24-plane example was extreme

     

    Not only extreme, but the real-life equivalent would be you ordering a group of planes to fly on a mission that they don't have the range for, and when someone points this out (and the game engine refuses the mission), you promise them tanker support, but then you only give them a fraction of what they need, and they all die. Not that that never happens in real life. :huh:

     

    I'm not following how that led to the non-split.

     

    I claim that the reason the split never happened was that the process took so long that it was never completed or ... see below. You can test this by launching the same 25-plane group to any patrol point. Wait for them to run out of fuel and start tanking. When they want to return to base, refuse. 72 min. after tanking starts, the tanker should split off. Try this experiment, exactly as stated, and report the results.

     

    Are you saying that a single KA-6 can not service up to 24 F/A-18s over a distance of about 2100 nm?

     

    Roger that. Not in any meaningful way. :D

     

    I can understand the issue of the KA-6 slowing the group down and thus eventually running it out of fuel, but I don't see why it never completed the re-fueling, and split off (and thus would have allowed those Hornets to resume their normal cruise speed - which may or may not have allowed them to reach base, but at least would have gotten further). But I digress yet again... the crux is why the split-off didn't happen.

     

    The conditions of the situation were not properly stated. The numbers you gave appear to be internally self-contradictory. That is why you have not been given a clear response. But consider this: If you try to launch an IFR-capable plane beyond its range, you can't. If you include a tanker in the group, you can now launch. It's like removing the safety mechanism from a machine. Safety is now your personal responsibility. BTW, once you include the tanker in the group, you can then remove it, and your first plane will launch to a place it can't actually get to. Also ... see above.

     

    I see this happen every so often where the tanker(s) does not ever split off (and it has happened with small groups, albeit without the loss of a/c as in my example). As I recall, it has usually shown up in connection with a ferrying operation, or with a group that is returning to base after a mission and the tanker was joined to the group sometime after the group had stated its return to base. I had always sort of dismissed this as possibly "normal" behavior, and my question was basically that: Are there circumstances where it is "normal" for (a) tanker(s) to stay with a group after finishing the IFR? If so, what determines that?

     

    Maybe the point is that in all these examples, the group is already doing the thing the tanker wants to do (returning to base), so there's no reason to split, while in the first example, the non-tanker planes are still out-bound.

×
×
  • Create New...