April 27, 200917 yr How does the GE/A.I handle ASM/SSM attacks as it pertains to SAM's? Using this example: Platform A: Center of formation; SAM's with a 50nm range Platform B: 25nm from Platform A; SAM's with 35nm range Platform C: 40nm from Platform A, 15nm from Platform B; SAM's with 25nm range (assume ships are positioned in a straight line from Platform A to C) A missile is inbound and is headed for C (assume it's origin is Point D which is 100nm from C on the same bearing) Which ship will launch to intercept?
April 27, 200917 yr How does the GE/A.I handle ASM/SSM attacks as it pertains to SAM's? Using this example: Which ship will launch to intercept? The game goes thru the platforms in the group from the first added to the last added, the first one within range fires enough to saturate the target if it can, otherwise the next ship is asked on down the line. So ideally you would add your shortest ranged shooters to the group first in the scenario editor if your main concern is air attack. And yes, I started a more intelligent replacement well, 4+ years ago but haven't developed it far enough to be useable. It takes into account both the group the ship is in as well as surrounding groups under threat and makes difficult decisions about whether to help neighboring groups or not.
April 27, 200917 yr Author The game goes thru the platforms in the group from the first added to the last added, the first one within range fires enough to saturate the target if it can, otherwise the next ship is asked on down the line. So ideally you would add your shortest ranged shooters to the group first in the scenario editor if your main concern is air attack... So in building a CVBG for instance, I would want to start with my FFG's and then DDG's before I get to the CG's, assuming my formation is in the reverse order (ex. CG's towards center, next layer DDG's followed by FFG's on the outer perimeter?..
April 27, 200917 yr So in building a CVBG for instance, I would want to start with my FFG's and then DDG's before I get to the CG's, assuming my formation is in the reverse order (ex. CG's towards center, next layer DDG's followed by FFG's on the outer perimeter?.. That would be my suggestion to reduce the wastage of LR SAMs when shorter ranged missiles could have been used.
April 27, 200917 yr Author ...And yes, I started a more intelligent replacement well, 4+ years ago but haven't developed it far enough to be useable. It takes into account both the group the ship is in as well as surrounding groups under threat and makes difficult decisions about whether to help neighboring groups or not. I've heard about that... I think they call it "Aegis"...
April 28, 200917 yr Don't let the navy contractors hear that. It may piss them off to know a guy with a 1000 puter and a 50 dollar piece of software can replicate a multi billion dollar program
April 28, 200917 yr Don't let the navy contractors hear that. It may piss them off to know a guy with a 1000 puter and a 50 dollar piece of software can replicate a multi billion dollar program The devil is always in the details isn't it... I don't have to code Link16 or make CEC work across a bevy of different generations of equipment, each with their own unique flavor. Nor do I have to make it work on a 1980s computer (even if it started there!). Still trying it for real would be an educational adventure.
April 28, 200917 yr That is always the entertaining part in talking to some service guys from navy and air force, how much of the most advanced equipment is still run by some computers built around 20 years ago.
October 17, 200916 yr That is always the entertaining part in talking to some service guys from navy and air force, how much of the most advanced equipment is still run by some computers built around 20 years ago. Probably because that generation of computers was more reliable!
October 17, 200916 yr That is always the entertaining part in talking to some service guys from navy and air force, how much of the most advanced equipment is still run by some computers built around 20 years ago. Probably because that generation of computers was more reliable! The most reliable system is still the Eyeball Mk I. Funny as it sounds, an old Bofors 40mm with visual guidance is not going to fail you on air defense, even if the computer and radar completely fail. So in some ways, older ships are more dependable, if less survivable.
October 19, 200916 yr It always amazes me when people look back on the "good ole days" with anything other than relief that they are over... The average life of your random piece of machinery (with comparable performance and adjusted for cost) has gone up by leaps and bounds. That visually sighted 40mm Bofors might never have a computer or radar fail... But manually aimed visually sighted AA guns were barely acceptable in WW2, much less now. The real reason why much military hardware is based on ancient tech is because it takes decades for your average (recent) procurement program and the required docs (and associated cost) to make any change and roll it out is obscenely high.
October 19, 200916 yr It always amazes me when people look back on the "good ole days" with anything other than relief that they are over... The average life of your random piece of machinery (with comparable performance and adjusted for cost) has gone up by leaps and bounds. That visually sighted 40mm Bofors might never have a computer or radar fail... But manually aimed visually sighted AA guns were barely acceptable in WW2, much less now. The real reason why much military hardware is based on ancient tech is because it takes decades for your average (recent) procurement program and the required docs (and associated cost) to make any change and roll it out is obscenely high. That's for sure! But in the case of computer systems available to the public, the old stuff was more reliable. The recent generations have evolved in such a highly-competitive enviroment that robustness often has been sacrificed to the gods of complexity, "capability", and sale-ability. If it can be touted as having better features, higher technology, and/or higher speed, or simply being more in vogue, than the competing brand, then it's unleased upon the market - despite often being ill-tested, bug-ridden, improperly integrated, and/or having a really marginal design that's prone to failures, especially when "stressed". I (somewhat fondly) recall the days when the only headaches one had with computers were the result of one's own faulty programming logic. Nowdays, even perfect programming seldom guarantees proper performance - because of faults hidden elsewhere in all the not-so-robust layers of complexity.
October 20, 200916 yr But in the case of computer systems available to the public, the old stuff was more reliable. The recent generations have evolved in such a highly-competitive enviroment that robustness often has been sacrificed to the gods of complexity, "capability", and sale-ability. If it can be touted as having better features, higher technology, and/or higher speed, or simply being more in vogue, than the competing brand, then it's unleased upon the market - despite often being ill-tested, bug-ridden, improperly integrated, and/or having a really marginal design that's prone to failures, especially when "stressed". I (somewhat fondly) recall the days when the only headaches one had with computers were the result of one's own faulty programming logic. Nowdays, even perfect programming seldom guarantees proper performance - because of faults hidden elsewhere in all the not-so-robust layers of complexity. Heh, hogwash. The old stuff wasn't more reliable at the same point in their lifecycle... Examples: * Anything with vacuum tubes. * WW2 torpedoes * WW2 radars (and to a lesser extent even as far as the Vietnam era like the SPS-30) * Pershing (and plenty of other) tank transmissions * Early AIM-7 Sparrows * Early Tartar/Terrier/Talos * Any number of fighter radars over the years that wouldn't spin up * E-2 Hawkeye avionics (originally a rotary drum computer and general overheating problems) * Read the reports on reactivating the USS Iowa back in the 80s (25W lightbulbs in use 'cause 50W bulbs would blow fuses!) * Early Patriots And that is mostly fairly bad stuff and not just general expected breakdowns / high maintenance needs. Read the reports on the reactivated USS Iowa back in the 80s where they had to use 25W lightbulbs 'cause 50W bulbs would blow fuses! Try to tell me that was good old robust hardware... Early computers weren't even attempted put into military vehicles originally 'cause they sucked so bad that even in fixed installations with the engineers standing by, they failed regularly to perform when needed. Add to that the fairly primitive state of the art in programming and you get a recipe for a large amount of nothing. Your modern glitchy computer in pretty much anything accomplishes far more than the entire computing power of the DoD combined did back in the good ole days even assuming perfect function[/slight hyperbole]. Unreliable military hardware isn't anything new... And a reliabel lack of capability is not preferable over measured progress. I'm pretty sure I'd rather be sitting under the Aegis/Standard umbrella than even a later Terrier/Talos shield or riding in a computerized gas turbine M1 over a Pershing. (Does that mean we sometimes walk over the line in our advance? Sure. We also sometimes don't keep up with the pace...) If you are talking about plain jane commercial hardware, it is even less true. If you want to pay the same *adjusted* price for hardware and software, you can get better reliability and performance. But I don't see many people spending megabucks to buy a super-solid computer any more... And it doesn't necessarily make much sense to do so. Tradeoffs are a fact of life...
October 20, 200916 yr Unreliable military hardware isn't anything new... The Sea Dart on Glasgow failed during the engagement that led to its damage.
October 20, 200916 yr Sea Dart ? A very slow rythm movie, but you must wait to the end of the film .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IosXz9rNsJw
Create an account or sign in to comment