Chaff for ships

[D4n]

Please add chaff to ships so they can (realistically) defeat anti-ship missiles for example. (making this thread after a user pointed out that it's still missing)

 

 

[Northstar98]

+1 absolutely definitely.

Only issue is, it would mandate changing the models (particularly for the Slava and Kuznetsov, which feature a trainable decoy launcher), but none of the ships have arguments for their decoy launchers.

To be honest the whole of the naval aspect, from their sensors, AI, damage models to dynamics, even their models (to an extent). All could do with a major rework as it is very basic and missing quite a few things; countermeasures being one of them.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[D4n]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

a trainable decoy launcher

what is that?

and why don't you own Persian Gulf and Harrier modules?

[Northstar98]

On 3/2/2021 at 10:08 AM, D4n said:

what is that?

One is actually shown in your video, it's a decoy launcher that's kinda like a turret - it can fire in a direction independently to the ship; a lot of countermeasure systems, (such as the Mk36 SRBOC on US vessels) which are fixed.

The system I'm talking about in particular is the PK-2, which uses a ZiF-121 trainable launcher:

This system in particular chiefly fires 2 types of rocket.

• TSP-47 Chaff
• TST-47 Flare

There's also 

• TSO-47 Combined Effects
• TSTV-47 (no idea)

Source

Currently, in DCS, this system is present on the Slava/Pr. 1164, Kuznetsov/Pr.1143.5, though in an unanimated (not even having arguments in the modelviewer) and completely non-functional state.

The other main systems present in DCS is the PK-10 [SR-50 (chaff) and SO-50 (flare)], PK-16 [TSP-60U (chaff) and TST-60U (flare)], Mk36 SRBOC [Mk214 Sea Gnat (chaff - distraction), Sea Gnat Mk216 (chaff - seduction) and Mk245 GIANT (flare)] and Nulka (hovering ECM).

Quote

and why don't you own Persian Gulf and Harrier modules?

I do own the Persian Gulf, my signature is just what it was originally called; the Straits of Hormuz (which is actually more accurate to the area depicted).

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[D4n]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I do own the Persian Gulf, my signature is just what it was originally called; the Straits of Hormuz (which is actually more accurate to the area depicted).

Ah, true. They probably renamed for marketing reasons only... Hope they will add more airfields this year, one in Quatar and one at Kuwait city hopefully, like the attached image (why is Bahrain missing completely? o_O )

Edited March 2, 2021 by D4n

[Seaeagle]

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

+1 absolutely definitely.

 

Only issue is, it would mandate changing the models (particularly for the Slava and Kuznetsov, which feature a trainable decoy launcher), but none of the ships have arguments for their decoy launchers.

Yes but thats just one decoy system(PK-2) - IIRC it can also deploy a torpedo decoy, which is what the the ramp in front of the Zif-121 launcher is for. But most Russian ships also have multiple fixed KT-216 decoy launchers for the PK-10 system.

Quote

 

To be honest the whole of the naval aspect, from their sensors, AI, damage models to dynamics, even their models (to an extent). All could do with a major rework as it is very basic and missing quite a few things; countermeasures being one of them.

 

Indeed!

Edited March 2, 2021 by Seaeagle

[WelshZeCorgi]

Yeah, even the AI just sit there and wait to be destroyed, not only do they not use any countermeasures, they don't take any evasive maneuvers or try to get behind cover or otherwise act to defend themselves. Makes ground attack missions too easy, repetitive and boring. 

[Northstar98]

6 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Yes but thats just one decoy system(PK-2) - IIRC it can also deploy a torpedo decoy, which is what the the ramp in front of the Zif-121 launcher is for.

 

Maybe that's what the TSTV-47 round is for? I can't find anything about torpedo decoys associated with the PK-2.

 

I mentioned several other decoy systems present in DCS, as well as the rounds they fire, including the PK-10, and PK-16 system (both present on the Tarantul-III to name just one example). I mentioned the PK-2 because it would require the most work (being a trainable launcher, though the PK-16 might be trainable in elevation too, looking at the launcher).

 

If it can fire torpedo decoys (I've seen hot metal mentioned, maybe that refers to a decoy using a metal that reacts violently in water - serving as a bubble generator and noise maker to disrupt torpedoes with acoustic guidance) We would need new features to the underwater environment; we don't have any underwater acoustic anything, the only torpedo guidance we have is WWII style gyroangle straight-runners (and even they have a problem).  

 

One good thing though, is while 2.5 introduced transparent water, a recent update (not sure which, but it was this year IIRC) added an actual 'underwater', in that if you managed to clip the camera underwater, it actually looks as if you were underwater, with the transparency and lighting you'd expect (obviously it is still limited - no underwater light rays or effects), but compared to before where the water was transparent from above, but if you clipped through there was no underwater rendering at all. So maybe in the future, we'll be able to take the camera underwater freely, providing more suitability for stuff underwater.

 

I also imagine decoys for ships would require a fidelity upgrade of RADAR and infrared guided missiles, as I doubt their seekers are modelled with much fidelity.

 

Quote

Indeed!

 

Mmm, I could go on for ages and ages. Even how vessels sound, i.e all the exact same, regardless of propulsion system, even freaking submerged submarines.

 

I wonder if I should make a thread going over the issues... It would be an absolute epic however.

 

6 hours ago, WelshZeCorgi said:

Yeah, even the AI just sit there and wait to be destroyed, not only do they not use any countermeasures, they don't take any evasive maneuvers or try to get behind cover or otherwise act to defend themselves. Makes ground attack missions too easy, repetitive and boring. 

 

I totally agree, ships should manoeuvre defensively, and open up firing arcs on weapons, as well as deploying appropriate countermeasures. They should also have their own ECM systems (typically both offensive and defensive ECM).

Edited March 2, 2021 by Northstar98

[Seaeagle]

30 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Maybe that's what the TSTV-47 round is for?

I was thinking that too when I saw your "?" for that round, but I don't know.

Quote

I can't find anything about torpedo decoys associated with the PK-2.

I came across it at one point - I cannot remember whether the round is a decoy or a mine, but apparently when loaded with such a round, its not "fired" but merely pops out of the launcher and slides over the side of the ship via the ramp. I remember this, because I had wondered about the purpose of the ramp .

 

Quote

I mentioned several other decoy systems present in DCS, as well as the rounds they fire, including the PK-10, and PK-16 system (both present on the Tarantul-III to name just one example). I mentioned the PK-2 because it would require the most work (being a trainable launcher, though the PK-16 might be trainable in elevation too, looking at the launcher).

I don't know mate - animating traverse and elevation for such a launcher is a 5 minute job(I know because I do it every day on my own models). Besides, wouldn't it also be "required"(or desirable at least) to animate loaded/empty launchers for the fixed ones?.

 

Anyway, the bigger work has to do with modelling the decoys themselves - i.e. their effect on the various missile homing heads, which would be the case for all types.

 

 

Quote

If it can fire torpedo decoys (I've seen hot metal mentioned, maybe that refers to a decoy using a metal that reacts violently in water - serving as a bubble generator and noise maker to disrupt torpedoes with acoustic guidance) We would need new features to the underwater environment; we don't have any underwater acoustic anything, the only torpedo guidance we have is WWII style gyroangle straight-runners (and even they have a problem).  

 

One good thing though, is while 2.5 introduced transparent water, a recent update (not sure which, but it was this year IIRC) added an actual underwater, in that if you managed to clip the camera underwater, it would actually look like you were underwater with the transparency and lighting you'd expect (obviously it was still limited - no underwater light rays or effects), compared to before where there were no underwater transparency or lighting effects. So maybe in the future, we'll be able to take the camera underwater freely.

Sure, but I only mentioned this in connection with your listing of the various rounds for the PK-2 - the entire underwater aspect is in its infancy and IMHO improving on the fidelity of surface ships should have priority - not least as we are now slowly getting flyable aircraft with actual anti-ship capability.

 

Quote

I also imagine decoys for ships would require a fidelity upgrade of RADAR and infrared guided missiles, as I doubt their seekers are modelled with much fidelity.

Yes most likely.

Quote

Mmm, I could go on for ages and ages. Even how vessels sound, i.e all the exact same, regardless of propulsion system, even freaking submerged submarines.

 

I wonder if I should make a thread going over the issues... It would be an absolute epic however.

Knock yourself out - unfortunately I doubt ED has any interest in this :(

Quote

 

 

I totally agree, ships should manoeuvre defensively, and open up firing arcs on weapons, as well as deploying appropriate countermeasures. They should also have their own ECM systems (typically both offensive and defensive ECM).

Exactly.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Seaeagle

[Northstar98]

On 3/2/2021 at 5:44 PM, Seaeagle said:

I was thinking that too when I saw your "?" for that round, but I don't know.

Fair enough, it's just not something I've seen pop up during limited research, I know the Udav-1/RBU-12000 has some counter torpedo capability.

According to that source though, it shares the same fuze and rocket motor, so I don't know.

EDIT: According to this (page 583) the TSTV-47 is a floating smoke round designed to block laser rangefinders, I imagine it would also block EO/IR targeting systems.

Quote

I came across it at one point - I cannot remember whether the round is a decoy or a mine, but apparently when loaded with such a round, its not "fired" but merely pops out of the launcher and slides over the side of the ship via the ramp. I remember this, because I had wondered about the purpose of the ramp .

Interesting, though not something I've come across in my limited research, oh well never mind.

Quote

I don't know mate - animating traverse and elevation for such a launcher is a 5 minute job(I know because I do it every day on my own models). Besides, wouldn't it also be "required"(or desirable at least) to animate loaded/empty launchers for the fixed ones?.

Oh absolutely, but you'd also have to teach the AI to fire it in proper directions, as well as programming in the reloading cycle (the ZiF-122 launcher for the SA-N-4 system on the Slava class has kinda a borked animation for reloading; the launcher retracts horizontally, clipping through its covers. When deploying and retracting normally it does so vertically, like it's supposed to).

Quote

Anyway, the bigger work has to do with modelling the decoys themselves - i.e. their effect on the various missile homing heads, which would be the case for all types.

Absolutely, same for appropriate RADAR systems in general. And yes, it would require upping the fidelity on the seekers, but the more I look at it, the more issues and holes I find. I think it's fair to say that the whole naval aspect could do with some major reworking.

Quote

Sure, but I only mentioned this in connection with your listing of the various rounds for the PK-2 - the entire underwater aspect is in its infancy and IMHO improving on the fidelity of surface ships should have priority - not least as we are now slowly getting flyable aircraft with actual anti-ship capability.

Agreed. Though even for surface vessels, to get it really fleshed out there's just so much that could be done - like I said I could write a few novels on the subject.

Quote

Knock yourself out - unfortunately I doubt ED has any interest in this :(

I agree, which is quite off-putting.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[D4n]

On 3/2/2021 at 11:16 AM, Northstar98 said:

The system I'm talking about in particular is the PK-2, which uses a ZiF-121 trainable launcher:

why named "trainable" ? Is it being "trained" to perform in a specific way?

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, D4n said:

why named "trainable" ? Is it being "trained" to perform in a specific way?

 

Kinda!

 

The word 'train' as a verb has 2 meanings (courtesy of google).

1. Teach (a person or animal) a particular skill or type of behaviour through practice and instruction over a period of time. Eg: "the scheme trains people for promotion" - this is probably the one you're familiar with.
2. Point or aim something, typically a gun or camera, at. Eg: "the detective trained his gun on the side door" - Here's the one I'm referring to.

So 'trainable' just means the mount can be pointed in different directions, it is "point-able"; "trainable" is just a synonym that seems more commonly used. 

 

So train = point at, e.g "train the gun".

Trained = past-tense of 'train', e.g "the gun was trained".

Trainable = can be pointed in different directions, e.g "the mount is trainable".

 

Just as an example:

 

 

"DANGER TURRET MAY TRAIN WITHOUT WARNING" meaning that the turret might move around and point its gun at something, without a warning.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Northstar98

[Seaeagle]

21 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Fair enough, it's just not something I've seen pop up during limited research,

I will see if I can dig it up again - IIRC it was on a Russian site(with lots of good info).

 

21 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I know the Udav-1/RBU-12000 has some counter torpedo capability.

Yes thats what its meant for. The system is called RKPTZ-1 "Udav-1" and consists of the KT-153 launcher with below deck magazine/loading device for 3 types of rounds:

 

- 111SO decoy

- 111SZ mine

- 111SG dept charge

 

...and the control system of course, which is connected to the ship's sonar system and is highly automated in order to provide a low reaction time to a torpedo attack.

 

I have seen the "RBU-12000" designation many times, but I really don't know where it came from - its not official and frankly doesn't make any sense either - for the RBU-1000 and RBU-6000 the number indicates the approx engagement range of the launcher in meters(probably ballistic rather and operatonal), but the Udav-1 does not have anywhere near that range(something in the order of 3000 m).

21 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

According to that source though, it shares the same fuze and rocket motor, so I don't know.

 

EDIT: According to this (page 583) the TSTV-47 is a floating smoke round designed to block laser rangefinders, I imagine it would also block EO/IR targeting systems.

I guess that could have been it(floating smoke generator), but I am quite sure it said that it just pops down the ramp into the water, so it may be something different. 

 

21 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Oh absolutely, but you'd also have to teach the AI to fire it in proper directions, as well as programming in the reloading cycle (the ZiF-122 launcher for the SA-N-4 system on the Slava class has kinda a borked animation for reloading; the launcher retracts horizontally, clipping through its covers. When deploying and retracting normally it does so vertically, like it's supposed to).

Funny you should mention the Zif-122 launcher, because I was thinking about which existing DCS launcher logic could be used for the PK-2 system and the first one that came to mind was exactly the Zif-122 - a launcher that traverse and elevate into the direction of the incoming threat - with two ready to fire rounds and a reload sequence....I guess you could even get the missiles to detonate well ahead of the target by fiddling with the fuze distance :) . But anyway, still need the actual decoy rounds and their effect on the seeker of the incoming missiles.

 

21 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Absolutely, same for appropriate RADAR systems in general. And yes, it would require upping the fidelity on the seekers, but the more I look at it, the more issues and holes I find. I think it's fair to say that the whole naval aspect could do with some major reworking.

Indeed.

21 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Agreed. Though even for surface vessels, to get it really flushed out there's just so much that could be done - like I said I could write a few novels on the subject.

 

I agree, which is quite off-putting.

Yeah it is.

 

[Seaeagle]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Just as an example:

 

 

 

Ah the British 4.5 inch MK8 mod 1 - on my 3D short list :) . I spent quite a bit of time watching videos of this gun firing in order to figure out how the barrel recoil is "absorbed" - I thought it was in the lump on the middle of the barrel, but it turned out that the whole barrel moves into the turret instead.

[Northstar98]

On 3/4/2021 at 5:16 PM, Seaeagle said:

Ah the British 4.5 inch MK8 mod 1 - on my 3D short list . I spent quite a bit of time watching videos of this gun firing in order to figure out how the barrel recoil is "absorbed" - I thought it was in the lump on the middle of the barrel, but it turned out that the whole barrel moves into the turret instead.

Yeah, I wonder if this video is any help (4.5" Mk.8 Mod 0, on a Type 22 Batch 3), though it seems to cut off the actual recoil system (which I think is hydraulic - just like a tank).

The hump is just a bore evacuator, which is odd seeing as the turret is unmanned.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[WelshZeCorgi]

40 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

The hump is just a bore evacuator, which is odd seeing as the turret is unmanned.

 

Well you still don't want all that particulate smoke to enter the turret, if there are still some burning propellant and it enters the turret, it could cause a fire where ammunition is being handled. Also all that smoke isn't just air, it's suspended particulate matter and can start collecting on the mechanical surfaces, building and caking on the moving parts and gumming up the works, increasing cleaning and maintenance hours. So while yes, there's no one inside, it still makes sense to keep all the spent propellant from reentering the turret.  

[Northstar98]

On 3/4/2021 at 6:15 PM, WelshZeCorgi said:

Well you still don't want all that particulate smoke to enter the turret, if there are still some burning propellant and it enters the turret, it could cause a fire where ammunition is being handled. Also all that smoke isn't just air, it's suspended particulate matter and can start collecting on the mechanical surfaces, building and caking on the moving parts and gumming up the works, increasing cleaning and maintenance hours. So while yes, there's no one inside, it still makes sense to keep all the spent propellant from reentering the turret.  

True, but if you look at most naval guns, almost none of them have bore evacuators, the Mk8 is the only one I can think of that has one. The predecessor - the QF 4.5" Mk VI gun didn't have a bore evacuator, and I think that had a semi-automatic loader (i.e automatically rammed, but manually loaded AFAIK).

The US 5"/54 Mk42 doesn't have one, neither does the 5"/54 / 5"/62 Mk45. On the Soviet side the A-192, AK-100, AK-130, AK-176, AK-725 and AK-726 - none of which have bore evacuators; the Italian OTO Melara 76/62 and Otobreda 127/64 don't have one either, neither does the French 100mm, and finally, the Swedish 57mm L/70 gun also doesn't have a bore evacuator.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[WelshZeCorgi]

Don't those have a different method of clearing the barrel? Like firing compressed air/nitrogen or water (not seawater) though the barrel before loading in the next round?

 

 

As you can see, after the round is fired, you see a little puff of smoke come out of the muzzle right before the shell casing is ejected. I think this one clears the barrel by shooting compressed gas down the barrel before the next round is chambered. 

Edited March 4, 2021 by WelshZeCorgi

[Seaeagle]

13 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

True, but if you look at most naval guns, almost none of them have bore evacuators, the Mk8 is the only one I can think of that has one. The predecessor - the QF 4.5" Mk VI gun didn't have a bore evacuator, and I think that had a semi-automatic loader (i.e automatically rammed, but manually loaded AFAIK).

 

The US 5"/54 Mk42 doesn't have one, neither does the 5"/54 / 5"/62 Mk45. On the Soviet side the A-192, AK-100, AK-130, AK-176, AK-725 and AK-726 - none of which have bore evacuators; the Italian OTO Melara 76/62 and Otobreda 127/64 don't have one either, neither does the French 100mm, and finally, the Swedish 57mm L/70 gun also doesn't have a bore evacuator.

 

 

 

Well I don't know much about guns, but the MK8 barrel is not water cooled, so I wonder if a bore evacuator could have cooling effect?

[Northstar98]

Gun heating is mostly due to friction of the round AFAIK, and less due to propellant gases (they're hot, but I doubt they generate as much heat as the friction from the round itself - especially in rifled guns). I'm not sure if a bore evacuator would have any significant cooling effect, seeing as it's just gobbling up the exhaust gases and then shoving them forward, just using the changing pressure of the gun - the gases don't go anywhere but out the end of the barrel.

The majority of guns have a jacket that seawater is pumped through, either that or they're just air cooled. The pipes for water cooled guns are usually quite visible, particularly on Soviet/Russian gun systems.

It might be due to the high fire rate of the Mk8, which is significantly higher than most guns of a similar calibre. So maybe the designers expected more gas to build up in the barrel, so stuck an evacuator down it to clear it faster. But once, again I'm speculating here.

The Mk8 definitely doesn't shoot any gas down the barrel in between firings and the video I linked above shows it (the yellow tube that swings to close the breach is an electrical initiator, as well as carrying spent cartridges away. On that thought, maybe they were also concerned about gases eroding the initiator, maybe?

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Seaeagle]

5 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Gun heating is mostly due to friction of the round AFAIK, and less due to propellant gases (they're hot, but I doubt they generate as much heat as the friction from the round itself - especially in rifled guns). I'm not sure if a bore evacuator would have any significant cooling effect, seeing as it's just gobbling up the exhaust gases and then shoving them forward, just using the changing pressure of the gun - the gases don't go anywhere but out the end of the barrel.

 

It might be due to the high fire rate of the Mk8, which is significantly higher than most guns of a similar calibre. So maybe the designers expected more gas to build up in the barrel, so stuck an evacuator down it to clear it faster. But once, again I'm speculating here.

 

The Mk8 definitely doesn't shoot any gas down the barrel in between firings and the video I linked above shows it (the yellow tube that swings to close the breach is an electrical initiator, as well as carrying spent cartridges away. On that thought, maybe they were also concerned about gases eroding the initiator, maybe?

 

Hmm ok - I don't know then.

 

But "high fire rate of the Mk8"?. Its something like 25 rounds a minute no? - for comparison the AK-100 does up to 60 a minute and even the AK-130 is something like 45 a minute(per barrel).

[Northstar98]

On 3/4/2021 at 7:03 PM, Seaeagle said:

Hmm ok - I don't know then.

 

But "high fire rate of the Mk8"?. Its something like 25 rounds a minute no? - for comparison the AK-100 does up to 60 a minute and even the AK-130 is something like 45 a minute(per barrel).

Yep you're right - having a brain fart.

Its only really compared to the Mk42/Mk45 5" gun where the Mk8 comes out on top in terms of fire rate.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Seaeagle]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Yep you're right - having a brain fart.

 

Its only really compared to the Mk42/Mk45 5" gun where the Mk8 comes out on top in terms of fire rate.

Ok I just remembered researching different naval guns and noticed the stated firing rate for the Mk8 - thinking that it must be a mistake, but no its pretty low.....mind you the MK-45 is even lower.

[upyr1]

 

On 3/2/2021 at 4:05 AM, Northstar98 said:

+1 absolutely definitely.

 

Only issue is, it would mandate changing the models (particularly for the Slava and Kuznetsov, which feature a trainable decoy launcher), but none of the ships have arguments for their decoy launchers.

To be honest the whole of the naval aspect, from their sensors, AI, damage models to dynamics, even their models (to an extent). All could do with a major rework as it is very basic and missing quite a few things; countermeasures being one of them.

 

This is why I keep saying DCS fleet ops would be a good idea. The ships aren't the highest priority on their list. However all of this would need to be fixed for Fleet Ops to work, Eagle would just need a good interface to make it worth buying. If they can come up with a good interface, then they could pay for all the necessary changes

[Northstar98]

On 3/4/2021 at 11:08 PM, upyr1 said:

This is why I keep saying DCS fleet ops would be a good idea. The ships aren't the highest priority on their list. However all of this would need to be fixed for Fleet Ops to work, Eagle would just need a good interface to make it worth buying. If they can come up with a good interface, then they could pay for all the necessary changes

While I'm all in favour of reworking the ships in DCS, there's just so much that probably needs doing before it's really up to scratch - and it effects basically every single vessel, including the newest additions; sensors, physics, dynamics, AI, damage model, weapon modelling etc.

Some of these are even part of larger issues such as DCS' flat maps, in fairness they use a workaround to deal with RADAR LOS (I'll have to test it more to make a conclusion on it though), but what about visual LOS? And if the long-term goal, even if it is very far away is a global map I would hope that future maps switch over to being spherical caps, instead of flat planes.

Personally, I think it would be better off getting all the aircraft up to scratch (including the AI ones), then the ground vehicles, then surface ships, then submarines.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting