It has become quite clear that you don't believe anything that I confirm myself, so I sought confirmation from others.

 

Another false assumption, I'm afraid, but if it makes you feel any better, feel free to ignore my advice and offered information and instead listen to what others are telling you.

Addendum to earlier post, still talking about the 'stealthy' MiGs in Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario:

 

I did get somewhat of a 'sneaky' MiG in mine. I put my E-2 at about 30 miles inside SM-1 ER range, and fighters in pairs at 30, 90, and 150 miles. The first the F-4B at 150 miles knew of the Mig-21 coming in was when he was fired at by the Mig-21's cannon. The MiG was headed in for the E-2, though, so I intercepted with the F-4, and killed the 2 Fishbeds with 2 Sparrows apiece.

 

So, yeah, they're VSmall radar targets, and the old E-2B doesn't see them very clearly at long range. Not surprising, considering the timeframe of the scenario. And the F-4 doesn't see them at all on radar unless it's pointed in the right direction and gets lucky or very close; first pickup was visual, but, again, the radar on the F-4B wasn't very good, and only operated in a small cone. Further checking says that the F-4B's radar is 25 miles vs big targets, so call it 8 miles vs VSmall targets, and there's still that cone issue on a loitering/circling fighter. i.e. if the F-4B is turned the wrong way, a MiG can close at 600 knots (10 miles/minute) and get from detection range to right on top of the F-4 w/o ever being detected fairly easily, since he can get from 10 miles (outside detection range) to 0 range in less than a minute.

 

Also, don't forget (and this info comes directly from 'Full Report' on the relevant aircraft in-game) that the E-2's PD is only 60%, and the F-4B's is only 50%. Also, E-2B is only ~80 miles max vs VSmall targets. What's the cycle time on radar detection again?

 

(For contrast, I checked an E-2C Group II Hawkeye, and it showed 120 miles max vs VSmall, and 75% PD)

And BTW, it now occurs to me that it seemed to take an inordinate amount of AAW fire for the carrier group to down those MiGs.

 

50% PK SM2ER Block I missiles at long range vs a highly maneuverable (high ATA rating) VSmall target? Yeah, very possible you'll have several misses. At that range on a VSmall plane target, it might miss more than with straight in (non-maneuvering) VSmall missiles.

When you're on the other side of the equation, how does the player accomplish comparable jinking so as to avoid said missiles. It seems to me there is little parity from side to side in this regard.

And BTW, it now occurs to me that it seemed to take an inordinate amount of AAW fire for the carrier group to down those MiGs.

 

50% PK SM2ER Block I missiles at long range vs a highly maneuverable (high ATA rating) VSmall target? Yeah, very possible you'll have several misses. At that range on a VSmall plane target, it might miss more than with straight in (non-maneuvering) VSmall missiles.

When you're on the other side of the equation, how does the player accomplish comparable jinking so as to avoid said missiles. It seems to me there is little parity from side to side in this regard.

 

As far as I know, anything to do with the ATA rating is done automatically. In fact, I'm not sure if it's used in missile evasion. Tony, you have any insight? (i.e. I might be completely wrong, and the ATA rating makes no difference to missile PK vs aircraft.) Even if it's not, you're dealing with older radars in Thanh Hoa. See my last post for how much difference 20 years makes.

 

Another issue, for Brad: is the E-2B supposed to be w/o ESM capability? The RA-5 is ESM-capable, but the E-2B is not. I verified in the DB, and the ESM flag is not set on the E-2B, but the E-2C has it.

Tony say DATA is used in missile evasion and can have a large impact.

 

before modifiers hit chance is

 

missile ph - target ATA + 30

 

So missile with ph of 70 fired against an unloaded Harrier II with DATA of 40 give a rawish chance to hit of 70-40+30 = 60%.

 

A F/A-18C/D with unloaded DATA of 20 against that same ph 70 missile:

70 - 20 + 30 = 80% rawish hit chance.

 

Let's just say it gets ugly for C-5 Galaxies

Tony say DATA is used in missile evasion and can have a large impact.

 

before modifiers hit chance is

 

missile ph - target ATA + 30

 

So missile with ph of 70 fired against an unloaded Harrier II with DATA of 40 give a rawish chance to hit of 70-40+30 = 60%.

 

A F/A-18C/D with unloaded DATA of 20 against that same ph 70 missile:

70 - 20 + 30 = 80% rawish hit chance.

 

Let's just say it gets ugly for C-5 Galaxies <g>

 

Yeah, C-5 is DATA of 5, MiG-21 is DATA of 20, and MiG-17 is DATA of 25. Harrier II GR.7 and 9 have DATA's of 40, while most of the other Harriers are 20, for example. Rafale's defensive is 30, but offensive ATA is 55...don't dogfight one, even with a Flanker.

 

If I had one wish for the older DBs, it would be the ability to see some of the 'flag' values in-game (in Platform Display, I guess) for the old DB aircraft, particularly NOE flags. Until then, with the old DB, I'll have to do the save/see if it crashes at vlow/reload if it does method.

 

Edit: more interesting things on the E-2B. Besides having no ESM, it doesn't have the LDSD flag on the radar that the E-2C and others have, so this quote from the manual applies if the incoming fighter is at low or medium altitude while the E-2 is at high, so if a MiG came in at low or medium altitude, detection range would be halved. If this is accurate, that's fine, but I wonder if it is. Only Brad knows.

 

Without the LDSD flag, radar range is halved even one band below the emitting (so High vs Med would be penalized), or more than one altitude band above emitter (Low vs High would have penalty, Low vs Med would not)

 

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.

Edit: more interesting things on the E-2B. ... it doesn't have the LDSD flag on the radar that the E-2C and others have, so this quote from the manual applies if the incoming fighter is at low or medium altitude while the E-2 is at high, so if a MiG came in at low or medium altitude, detection range would be halved. If this is accurate, that's fine, but I wonder if it is. Only Brad knows.

 

Without the LDSD flag, radar range is halved even one band below the emitting (so High vs Med would be penalized), or more than one altitude band above emitter (Low vs High would have penalty, Low vs Med would not)

 

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.)

 

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.

I'm going to toss my hat in here: At scenario start of Thanh Hoa Bridge, the CVBG was only 329 miles from ZVa, one of the airfields with a Mig-17, and only 374 miles from ZZa (Hanoi). Seeing an E-2 that's radiating at that distance with ESM is not a stretch at all, even if it's directly over the carrier.

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.

Edit: more interesting things on the E-2B. Besides having no ESM, it doesn't have the LDSD flag on the radar that the E-2C and others have, so this quote from the manual applies if the incoming fighter is at low or medium altitude while the E-2 is at high, so if a MiG came in at low or medium altitude, detection range would be halved. If this is accurate, that's fine, but I wonder if it is.

 

Yeah, the E-2A/B lacks ESM. It (via the ALR-59) was introduced with the E-2C variant.

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.

 

I think mavfin is referring to detection via ESM, rather than radar.

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.

 

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?

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?

 

ESM is not necessarily limited by the radar horizon. As you know, ESM can receive radar signals much further than the radar operator can himself get a return. So, yeah, the refractive nature of the atmosphere does play a role. The more advanced and sensitive the ESM equipment, the further over the horizon they can 'see'. HCE (unfortunately) doesn't differentiate between levels of ESM sophistication, but we're probably getting well beyond the sophistication of the code here anyway.

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.

 

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 claim no expertise in RL ESM capabilities, but... Think about HAM radio transmissions reaching around the globe. Seems like ESM ought to be as capable as that - if configured for such things. But the coverage and reliability of that sort of signal detection would likely be akin to convergence zones on sonar. My thinking is that, yeah, ESM might be able to detect signals at great distances... but would it be particularly useful for locating targets out in the ether? And the probability (reliability) of even making such a detection would seem to be rather low a times - influenced by the EM environment, weather, ozone, sunspots... maybe even by the phase of the moon? I would even suspect that ESM ought to be seriously affected by jamming. But, as I said, I'm no expert in the matter - by any means.

I claim no expertise in RL ESM capabilities, but... Think about HAM radio transmissions reaching around the globe. Seems like ESM ought to be as capable as that - if configured for such things. But the coverage and reliability of that sort of signal detection would likely be akin to convergence zones on sonar. My thinking is that, yeah, ESM might be able to detect signals at great distances... but would it be particularly useful for locating targets out in the ether? And the probability (reliability) of even making such a detection would seem to be rather low a times - influenced by the EM environment, weather, ozone, sunspots... maybe even by the phase of the moon? I would even suspect that ESM ought to be seriously affected by jamming. But, as I said, I'm no expert in the matter - by any means.

 

That's actually a pretty good assessment on the whole, Joe. As for jamming and its effects on ESM, yes, there are electronic warfare techniques, some direct and some rather subtle, that can influence the performance of ESM receivers. Of course, some of those jamming techniques also send signals that ESM can receive, classify and analyze to the detriment of the jammer. (ESM is unaffected by jamming in HCE, the model is not that complex).