Air Defense and Air Search Radar

[drunkblackstar]

How my ships launch anti air missiles if my air search radar is turned off?

I understand, that Sea Power is "convinient simulator" (and its Ok and I like it), but this situation is so absurd that it makes it RTS-like.

[Soylent_Greene]

I know that theoretically the E-3 AWACS was supposed to be able to "Silent SAM" missiles, guiding them.
This was being developed when I left the service in the mid 2000s, but this game seriously predates those functions, right?

[drunkblackstar]

Julhelm lähetti viestin:

supersound99ss lähetti viestin:

SS-N-3 Shaddock's FCR on either an Echo or Kynda does not emit unless something changed very recently. I will have to test some others.

Because it doesn't illuminate the target, it tracks the missiles.

How does radar track the missile without illuminating it?

To track the target radar needs to send the wave to it and receive it back.

[supersound99ss]

drunkblackstar lähetti viestin:

Julhelm lähetti viestin:

Because it doesn't illuminate the target, it tracks the missiles.

How does radar track the missile without illuminating it?

To track the target radar needs to send the wave to it and receive it back.

Exactly. Radiating on the surface was the big flaw in the Echo II's design (among other issues). It should be easily detectable by a sub hunting plane in the area with ESM.

[drunkblackstar]

supersound99ss lähetti viestin:

drunkblackstar lähetti viestin:

How does radar track the missile without illuminating it?

To track the target radar needs to send the wave to it and receive it back.

Exactly. Radiating on the surface was the big flaw in the Echo II's design (among other issues). It should be easily detectable by a sub hunting plane in the area with ESM.

They had to use magic FCR radar, then it would be no problem.

[Irving Mainway]

Soylent_Greene lähetti viestin:

I know that theoretically the E-3 AWACS was supposed to be able to "Silent SAM" missiles, guiding them.
This was being developed when I left the service in the mid 2000s, but this game seriously predates those functions, right?

"Silent SAM" / Remote Track Launch On Search could be done between AEGIS and NTU (shooter only) ships in the 80s, Assuming the quality of the track was good (provided by an emitting AEGIS ship in this case) the "shooter" could launch an SM-2 under full EMCON (receiving track data through Link 11 datalink) and only need to illuminate the target on terminal.

This led to CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) type stuff with "Forward Pass" and "Mountain Top" (where FC illumination or possibly mid-course guidance was provided by a different platform than fired the missile).

[Mr.Gold]

drunkblackstar lähetti viestin:

Julhelm lähetti viestin:

Because it doesn't illuminate the target, it tracks the missiles.

How does radar track the missile without illuminating it?

To track the target radar needs to send the wave to it and receive it back.

Data link? Directional coms were around since WW2. the good thing about directional coms is that if you are in the opposite direction of the radiative path, you don't know anything about it. Some weapons even use satellite coms. That way unless you are a plane flying overhead, you get jack.

[Irving Mainway]

drunkblackstar lähetti viestin:

Julhelm lähetti viestin:

Because it doesn't illuminate the target, it tracks the missiles.

How does radar track the missile without illuminating it?

To track the target radar needs to send the wave to it and receive it back.

So SS-N-3 is a bit different and is basically reliant on some type of off-site detection / targeting (a Bear, a helicopter or another ship) kill chain to make use of its long range.
A ship or submarine wouldn't be able to track or detect a surface target on radar beyond the radar horizon (20-25nmi or so,notably shorter than the SS-N-3's 242nmi range).

Ownship launches the missile and then tracks it with its "FC" Radar as Julhelm said. By tracking the missile's location (and receiving Over-the-horizon targeting data from a Bear/Hormone-B or another ship) it can then issue mid-course guidance commands to the missile through data-link. Shaddock's data-link was two-way as the missile also had onboard radar which would link it's returns back to ownship which would then handle target discrimination (basically picking the radar return you want the missile to dive in on).

[supersound99ss]

Irving Mainway lähetti viestin:

drunkblackstar lähetti viestin:

How does radar track the missile without illuminating it?

To track the target radar needs to send the wave to it and receive it back.

So SS-N-3 is a bit different and is basically reliant on some type of off-site detection / targeting (a Bear, a helicopter or another ship) kill chain to make use of its long range.
A ship or submarine wouldn't be able to track or detect a surface target on radar beyond the radar horizon (20-25nmi or so,notably shorter than the SS-N-3's 242nmi range).

Ownship launches the missile and then tracks it with its "FC" Radar as Julhelm said. By tracking the missile's location (and receiving Over-the-horizon targeting data from a Bear/Hormone-B or another ship) it can then issue mid-course guidance commands to the missile through data-link. Shaddock's data-link was two-way as the missile also had onboard radar which would link it's returns back to ownship which would then handle target discrimination (basically picking the radar return you want the missile to dive in on).

From the information I found, the ASM variant had no inertial guidance. The Echo literally had to fly the missile to the target area where it's ARH would take over terminal. So they couldn't fly the missile like that without having a constant radar track on it, hence why there should be a detectable emission.

OTH targeting, sure but how would they know where the missile was at to make sure it was flying where it should? Again it has to have radar lock from the Echo since only the Echo could talk to the missile. Hence how vulnerable these subs were.

There seems to be a general lack of solid info on these series of missiles.

[Julhelm]

supersound99ss lähetti viestin:

Irving Mainway lähetti viestin:

So SS-N-3 is a bit different and is basically reliant on some type of off-site detection / targeting (a Bear, a helicopter or another ship) kill chain to make use of its long range.
A ship or submarine wouldn't be able to track or detect a surface target on radar beyond the radar horizon (20-25nmi or so,notably shorter than the SS-N-3's 242nmi range).

Ownship launches the missile and then tracks it with its "FC" Radar as Julhelm said. By tracking the missile's location (and receiving Over-the-horizon targeting data from a Bear/Hormone-B or another ship) it can then issue mid-course guidance commands to the missile through data-link. Shaddock's data-link was two-way as the missile also had onboard radar which would link it's returns back to ownship which would then handle target discrimination (basically picking the radar return you want the missile to dive in on).

From the information I found, the ASM variant had no inertial guidance. The Echo literally had to fly the missile to the target area where it's ARH would take over terminal. So they couldn't fly the missile like that without having a constant radar track on it, hence why there should be a detectable emission.

OTH targeting, sure but how would they know where the missile was at to make sure it was flying where it should? Again it has to have radar lock from the Echo since only the Echo could talk to the missile. Hence how vulnerable these subs were.

There seems to be a general lack of solid info on these series of missiles.

It's a pencilbeam, so not sure why you think it would show up on ESM unless you were right in front of it. And the ARH seeker on the missiles don't take over. There are consoles for each missile in the salvo and the operator views the radar feed from the missile and manually assigns a target.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

supersound99ss lähetti viestin:

From the information I found, the ASM variant had no inertial guidance. The Echo literally had to fly the missile to the target area where it's ARH would take over terminal. So they couldn't fly the missile like that without having a constant radar track on it, hence why there should be a detectable emission.

OTH targeting, sure but how would they know where the missile was at to make sure it was flying where it should? Again it has to have radar lock from the Echo since only the Echo could talk to the missile. Hence how vulnerable these subs were.

There seems to be a general lack of solid info on these series of missiles.

Of course that would be a detectable emission, but not nearly as easily detectable as blasting a search radar all around you looking for something that might be there.

You are simply following an object with a known position, known capabilities of changing that position, and hopefully changing that position according to your commands.

You'd only need to paint a cone in the direction of the missile to allow for some deviation and not lose it, and you'll mostly give away yourself to anyone inside that cone, plus less likely to anyone picking up scatter.

The main vulnerability would be that you need to be on the surface I'd guess, being a target for enemy radar, and broadcasting subtle hints that you are doing what you are doing.

[Soylent_Greene]

Thanks for the info on "Silent SAM"

There have been a few SciFI and Spy/Drama fiction novels about the SSBN Ohio classes being renovated into SSGN ships. It was suggested that these VLS systems on the SSGN could carry the Standard ER (forgot the numbers) missile. The sub could be near the surface, running it's data link mast, receiving data from an AWACS, JSTAR or similar ELINT plane...

Detect an inbound flight of Badgers or Bears, and suddenly they are getting threat radars lighting them up. Sure they see the AWACS but it's 350km away! But it's feeding them enough data to volley out a group of SAMs, and suddenly those Russian Bombers are wetting their diapers!

Again, cool fiction, but how much of that is based on fact?

And if it's real, AND you don't have an ASW bird nearby, that SSGN just vanishes below the layer and sneaks off!

Could possibly do the same thing at an enemy fleet formation!

[Julhelm]

Soylent_Greene lähetti viestin:

Thanks for the info on "Silent SAM"

There have been a few SciFI and Spy/Drama fiction novels about the SSBN Ohio classes being renovated into SSGN ships. It was suggested that these VLS systems on the SSGN could carry the Standard ER (forgot the numbers) missile. The sub could be near the surface, running it's data link mast, receiving data from an AWACS, JSTAR or similar ELINT plane...

Detect an inbound flight of Badgers or Bears, and suddenly they are getting threat radars lighting them up. Sure they see the AWACS but it's 350km away! But it's feeding them enough data to volley out a group of SAMs, and suddenly those Russian Bombers are wetting their diapers!

Again, cool fiction, but how much of that is based on fact?

And if it's real, AND you don't have an ASW bird nearby, that SSGN just vanishes below the layer and sneaks off!

Could possibly do the same thing at an enemy fleet formation!

The same basic idea was also the concept behind the 'Arsenal Ship' of the mid-90s which would have packed 512 VLS cells but no sensors of its own and would launched on cue from other units in theatre.

[drunkblackstar]

No matter how modern technologies ignore physics (according to Steam forum) I would like to underline some things:

1) The system of "silent SAM" works for every bit of technology of 1950s in Sea Power. Basically all SAMs in the game are silent SAMs.

2) Radar in tracking mode emits much more powerful signal than in scanning mode. In tracking it requires to know much more detailed info on the positioning and speed of the target to hit it.

As for now in Sea Power SAMs are tracked without radar or guided by magic "Fire Control Radar" (that player has no control of) and that doesn't show up on radar emissions map.

So it has all the benefits of EMCON while providing tracking capabilities dozens of miles away.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

drunkblackstar lähetti viestin:

No matter how modern technologies ignore physics (according to Steam forum) I would like to underline some things:

1) The system of "silent SAM" works for every bit of technology of 1950s in Sea Power. Basically all SAMs in the game are silent SAMs.

2) Radar in tracking mode emits much more powerful signal than in scanning mode. In tracking it requires to know much more detailed info on the positioning and speed of the target to hit it.

As for now in Sea Power SAMs are tracked without radar or guided by magic "Fire Control Radar" (that player has no control of) and that doesn't show up on radar emissions map.

So it has all the benefits of EMCON while providing tracking capabilities dozens of miles away.

That is not true, FCR does show up on ESM, and you even get a little flashing triangle thing showing the direction is is detected from when your unit detects it.

[supersound99ss]

Julhelm lähetti viestin:

supersound99ss lähetti viestin:

From the information I found, the ASM variant had no inertial guidance. The Echo literally had to fly the missile to the target area where it's ARH would take over terminal. So they couldn't fly the missile like that without having a constant radar track on it, hence why there should be a detectable emission.

OTH targeting, sure but how would they know where the missile was at to make sure it was flying where it should? Again it has to have radar lock from the Echo since only the Echo could talk to the missile. Hence how vulnerable these subs were.

There seems to be a general lack of solid info on these series of missiles.

It's a pencilbeam, so not sure why you think it would show up on ESM unless you were right in front of it. And the ARH seeker on the missiles don't take over. There are consoles for each missile in the salvo and the operator views the radar feed from the missile and manually assigns a target.

Which sounds exactly like a FCR, maybe just some differences in power. But it would still need a good deal of power to track something as small as a missile a couple hundred kilometers away.