VictorInThePacific

see my post 22, "scenario creation" thread

Continuing into Joe's report: (35 minutes in) "As of this point, NONE of the Red air groups have yet been detected by the Blue side, even though ZER (with its radar active) came within 75 nm of Hawkeye ADA, AND was within the radar range of ACA." Explanation: Hawkeye does not have ESM, so does not pick up radiating fighter ZER. Hawkeye does not see ZER visually, because it's small, and if there was a chance, Hawkeye failed. Hawkeye, on the other hand is big (easier to see), and besides, it is being tracked after a previous contact. Hawkeye ACA can see the fighter at best at 80 nm via its own radar (not its radar range of 240 nm. "At 11:12:xx to go, ... ZCR is 81 nm from Hawkeye ADA; both have their radars on, but so far, NONE of the Red air groups have been detected by Blue." Explanation: ZCR is low, Hawkeye is high (vertically challenged radar, no ESM), so Hawkeye doesn't see ZCR. BTW, speeds are pretty reliable, no real need to investigate them. "At approximately 11:00:xx to-go, ZDR passes nearly over the center of the carrier group, with both now approximately 100 nm from stationary Hawkeye ACA." Explanation: I think this plane is safe until the carrier group turns its radars on, unless it gets within gun range. It may or may not be visually detected, low-ship range = ?. This does not bother me. The SE Hawkeye had a good chance to detect it at 38 nm, but well below 100%. Hawkeye ACA IS detected by the green/red drug runners, and therefore gets hunted. "At 10:03:15 to-go, YZR, still at cruise/Med, passes over the center of the carrier group, and is 59 nm from ACA at that point. Carrier group shows visibility of 21 nm." Explanation: This is an exaggeration. See SS 2. The fighters are about 25 nm from the group icon. We don't actually know where the ships are, because the unit window is hidden. Again, the plane is small, so I am guessing that visual detection ranges are reduced. "At 09:55:55 to-go, YZR is the first Red air group detected by Blue in the entire game, and is detected by ACA only. YZR is still cruise/Med at that time, and is located 40 nm from the ACA Hawkeye, and 24 nm from the carrier group center." Explanation: So far, so bad. Maybe you got some bad luck, but there are no unexplained phenomena yet. "At 09:13:xx to-go, Red air group YXR ... appears near base ZVa ...with target of Hawkeye ACA, and is detected via ESM from the RA-5C, but no group for it shows on the Group Window in normal mode. At 09:06:xx to-go, Red air group YWR ... appears near base ZVa ... with target of RA-5C AEA, and is detected via ESM from the RA-5C, but no group for it shows on the Group Window in normal mode." They should show up. Look at the icon name - these are not base formation patrols. Also, interceptors get separate icons. Maybe we are dealing with a screen refresh issue here. I have observed a small delay in some situations. Then the visual detection results are just plain bad, but I think this is normal in Harpoon. more later

This was done for testing purposes. It is not an actual attempt to play the scenario.

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: Which about says it all. So, really, the answer to Joe's question, oh so long ago, really should have been, yes, the AI sees you in ways that you cannot see it. Joe reported that his Hawkeyes did not turn on sensors until well away from the carrier. So the detection must have been visual. Even though the whales are working for the Vietnamese (I think this is certain because there just isn't any other way to detect that Hawkeye), they are still submerged, and can't see much. This leaves only the drug runners. Joe stated that his trial was during daylight, so the drug runner would have been able to see the Hawkeye. I bet that when Brad, who presumably lives in a different time zone, did his trial, it was night, so the Hawkeye was NOT spotted visually. Corollary: if you're trying to test whether an interceptor can track a radar-silent plane, make sure it's beyond visual range, and keep the time of day in mind. At this point, I would say that everything in Joe's SS1 is explained. Now, when I played that scenario, I was deliberately exposing my Hawkeyes, and I was never surprised that they should be found. Joe was hiding his, so he was surprised that they were found. Donald, the ESM data is in Brad's post 36, "scenario creation" thread and following.

My comments on Joe's screenshots (other than the above): [sS1] Why does the intercepting AI fighter have its radar on? Doesn't this require a specific reason? One, I know, is if it is itself detected by radar. The other might be that it is tracking down an uncertain contact.

Are the Vietnamese fighters ESM-capable? I believe we've already worked out that the Hawkeye, starting from the carrier and moving NE, is always outside ESM range from any Vietnamese ground unit.

The red thing north of the carrier group is a November-class sub. Better not be ESM on that thing; it's underwater. I presume the neutral units aren't feeding info to the Vietnamese, especially the whales.

Thanks, Joe, for doing all that work. The first point to keep in mind is that I cannot imagine that you photoshopped those screenshots together, and presumably no one else is going to either, so you have provided clear proof of certain things. I will need to study the information in detail to know exactly what it is I am looking at. Just one tidbit: In the first screenshot, how could any AI unit possibly know about the Hawkeye going NE? (it's being intercepted.) It's below the radar horizon from the Vietnamese bases, and its radar is off in any case. Are the Vietnamese fighters carrying telescopes?

Ah, good. Since radar range due to LoS (Earth's curvature effect) from high to ground is about 250 nm, we can now say that ESM could pick up the plane at about 275 nm. Add 25 nm for the attached ground units. Therefore, if the radiating Hawkeye at high altitude is within 300 nm of either Vietnamese base proper, then it will be detected by ESM. Further away, it is below the horizon.

They can't. It is. This is definite.

In the meantime, here's another point that might have been lost in the shuffle and may have a bearing on being detected when you don't think there are any enemies around that could: Installations also have ESM. As I interpret this, all those SAMs and what have you that are scattered around the base, some of which are much closer to the plane than the actual base is, are also capable of detecting the radiating Hawkeye.

There is such a thing. It's called a screenshot. I have provided 2 in the "scenario creation" thread from exactly the relevant instant. Now you claim, Joe, that your AEW planes are constantly being jumped by stealthy enemy fighters. Fine. Next time it happens, lean back, stretch, press "print screen", dump it into Paint, save as a JPEG, and upload it here. Then do it again. This will not help for formally debugging the problem, but it will certainly help to convince everyone here that you are actually seeing this effect. Of course, after I have made this plain statement, if you do NOT provide such screenshots, then everyone here, realizing how easy it is to provide them, will be certain that you do not actually see such effects. No, a screenshot - or even a series of screenshots does not provide the play-back that I was thinking of. As far as screenshots providing any "evidence" necessary to convince anyone for or against this, I would debate the "weight" of that sort of "evidence" as being far less compelling than the game-saves I've already provided - albeit not for the sneak attacks situation. Since those were not believed, then I can't see this being believed, either. And lastly, how can it be logically contrued that if I fail to provide convincing screenshot(s), then that "proves" anything, one way or the other? At best (worst?), it might lead people to assume that I don't see the effects... but that has been the case since the outset, so nothing new there. Be that as it may, I'd ask what sort of screenshot is going to demonstrate what you seek here - that is to "convince" anyone that the situation happens even once, let alone regularly. I mean, seriously, what would it have to show in order to be "convincing" of this situation? Is it even possible to demonstrate that way? (I surely don't see how). Joe, I'm not trying to be nasty, merely logical. There is a very clear mechanism for resolving this and related issues, and I am using it. But you need to be cooperating. The thing I've asked for is precisely the thing I want and need to see. It's sort of like someone phoning me up to say that there's a Susquatch in his yard. Well, maybe I believe him, and maybe I don't. So I tell him, take a picture with your cell phone and email it to me. If he does so, then there probably is a Susquatch in his yard. But if he refuses, then I am going to conclude that there is no such event. The screenshot I have asked for has great forensic value. Here's why: At the moment of first detection of a unit, a very specific thing occurs. All the HCE veterans know what this thing is. This thing has a very specific signature. In addition, the game is paused when it occurs, so there is no rush to take any action. When you take the screenshot, you record a whole bunch of things. When we look at the screenshot, we can learn a great deal from it. It may even completely resolve this particular issue. Now maybe you can photoshop together something that looks reasonable. I am betting that you can't make an adequate forgery. Therefore, if you provide the screenshot as requested, I am going to believe you. However, it is possible that an AEW plane does get jumped, once in a blue moon. That's why I want to see 2 screenshots. Based on your claims so far, this ambushing happens frequently, so it should be easy for you to reproduce. I am not making an onerous demand. Finally, what I am asking for is completely different from what Tony asked for (saved games), and for different reasons.

There is such a thing. It's called a screenshot. I have provided 2 in the "scenario creation" thread from exactly the relevant instant. Now you claim, Joe, that your AEW planes are constantly being jumped by stealthy enemy fighters. Fine. Next time it happens, lean back, stretch, press "print screen", dump it into Paint, save as a JPEG, and upload it here. Then do it again. This will not help for formally debugging the problem, but it will certainly help to convince everyone here that you are actually seeing this effect. Of course, after I have made this plain statement, if you do NOT provide such screenshots, then everyone here, realizing how easy it is to provide them, will be certain that you do not actually see such effects.

Is there a definite number for ESM range in Harpoon? 500 nm? Double the the range of the receiver's radar?

I think mavfin is referring to detection via ESM, rather than radar. Yes, but doesn't whatever is involved in ESM still have to abide by the fact that the emitter is below the physical horizon? What's the emitter's signal doing, going through the water? Bouncing off the ozone layer?

I believe the manual states that tankers can't refuel THEMSELVES. I think you are right but I think the translation into Harpoon reality is that you can't refuel tankers in general, at least I've never been able to using normal refuelling procedures. There might be a trick to do it, any ideas?? Don That reminds me of a situation that happened recently, where I had four F-14A's configured with tanker loadouts, and due to a SNAFU, they were heading off towards a base in Timbuktu, instead of to their originating base. Thus, they were running out of fuel. Fortunately - or so I thought - a KC-10 was nearby, so I introduced them and tried to re-fuel. It seemed to be working, but the range circle on the F-14s kept on getting smaller, and eventually they dropped out of the sky. Now, this was close enough that I'm not sure if it was just a case that there was not enough time to do the refueling, but it certainly gave the impression that the F-14's were not IFR capable (like the similar situation with that KA-6, which actually happened in the same incident, BTW). Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that F-14As were IFR-capable... or does having them in the Tanker loadout remove that capability? Confirm, and confirm. Just ran a test: Battle for Norwegian Sea 2 Nordic Light. 1) Launch F/A-18C (tanker). This plane type CAN ifr. After it gets low on fuel, it tries to refuel itself. The result is that it simply dumps its own refuel store with no other effect. 2) Launch F/A-18E (tanker) to bring fuel to first plane. Refueling proceeds normally, except that the second plane simply dumps its fuel. Conclusion: tankers cannot be refueled, and an ifr-capable plane with the tanker loadout loses its ability to be refueled.

The difficulty with that is that the curvature of the Earth should get in the way. The manual states that high altitude-to-ship radar range is about 250 nm. (I haven't checked that figure.) So a Hawkeye above the carrier should be below the horizon from the base. How high is the base radar mast? Does radar pass through water? I think that the base can't detect the Hawkeye unless it moves closer. Radar distance from high altitude to ships is about the same as high to low. So the V. planes, presumably all at low, shouldn't be able to detect the Hawkeye either, even if they had the right equipment.

Some analysis of the screenshot in my post 7, this thread. 1) You can clearly (?) see the air radar "circles". (In fact, they are ellipses, but we can live with that.) The Vietnamese base radar range is 200 nm. The carrier is 350 nm SE of the V. bases. The Hawkeye is 200 nm N of the carrier, and 250 nm E of the bases. 2) In 2D, 350 SE + 200 N = 250 E. In 1D, 350 + 200 = 250 means you flunk math. 3) The game clock shows that 55 min have elapsed since scenario start. 40 min for the Hawkeye to get to its station, and 15 min for the nearest V. fighter to respond. That's perfectly reasonable and reproducible. In physics, they teach us to record all observations. Relying on memory for observations is unacceptable. Even for rocket scientists. They also teach us to provide evidence (in this case, a screenshot) to support all claims. Claims without proof have no merit.

This does mean that one of the things said in another thread, by Joe K, about putting E-2Bs in different altitude bands, actually has some merit in this case. By God, Mavfin, you've found it! I totally was unaware of this, and I've read the manual carefully. In my defence, I point out that this rule is only stated in one place in the Platform Editor manual, not really part of the Harpoon manual proper, so why would I read it? I'm not editing platforms. If you look at the screenshot in my post 7, this thread, you will clearly see that the Vietnamese fighter pops into view 40 nm from the Hawkeye, half the "expected" range. As I had reported there and elsewhere, and as reported by Brad in the "AEW testing" thread, this figure is reliably reproducible. (The actual number might be less; this is the "best" result.) My Hawkeye is at high altitude. Where else would it be? The AI fighters always come in low. So we can never see them at less than 40 nm. And this completely explains the only anomaly I observed while analyzing the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario. Still, my Hawkeye is perfectly safe. Can anyone guess where my Phantoms are? (No guess required if you read my AAR. ) Might I also suggest that the "inferior" E-2B is probably only seen in this one scenario, simply because all the other scenarios take place in a later time period. Look what happens when the Hawkeye comes in at low (see how small the ground radar circle is?)! (Enemy fighter cruising at medium.)

By this point it needs to be plainly recognized that the AI units do NOT have any detection advantage "cheat" over the human units. If they did, given that no one seems to be saying that the game definitely does that, then if the game did in fact do that, Tony, Brad, and all the other Harpoon experts here would have to be lying through their teeth. It's an either-or case. Personally, I am going with the first possibility. And therefore any further suggestion that such a "cheat" is the explanation for certain observed effects is just wasting people's time. If anyone finds that their planes are being bushwhacked by the AI time and time again, you can be fairly certain that the scenario designer has positioned the AI units where they can bushwhack you, if you let them. Nor is a question of the game running wrong on one specific machine. If the game file is corrupt, then the game won't run at all. I am making it my personal mission to track down the real explanation for these effects.

I could imagine questions arising about the above results, specifically the Mig-23 and Mig-29, why are the actual detects much shorter than the theoretical as defined by the radar RCS spreadsheet? It goes back to the roll of the dice, radar runs once every 30 seconds, PD on the radar is only 60 so you have a bad string of luck at the dice rolling table and detect ranges get downright scary. Looks like everyone, EVERYONE, including Brad & Tony, missed the key point here. Mavfin found the explanation. Note how in all cases but 3, the ACTUAL detection ranges are less than half the theoretical range? Brad didn't say, but I BET that the Hawkeye and the 3 anomalies are all at Med altitude! E-2B does not have LDSD radar, thus off-altitude detection ranges are halved!

And DO keep in mind that CTRL-S saves the game, perhaps over top of an important previous save!

Not meaning to step on anyone's toes here, and I hope I don't get it wrong, and anyway Tony has already answered this, but the point is that any money that comes in from game sales goes to the company that owns the game, and it's not going to the folks who are posting here. The hardcore posters are the ones who are actually developing this version of the game (for free). ANW is a different version of Harpoon.

Is there another way to set up radar logging without using the launcher?

Actually, HCE doesn't have USNI, as far as I know. HUCE and the demo do. Donald, if you do get flogged, or better yet if you do the flogging, I hope you will provide an AAR?