Is there any interest in ASW?

[Grievo]

I know, I know, Awfully Slow Warfare and all that. 
 

I think this could be an interesting and unique addition to DCS. It would open up a variety of new aircraft such as Viking, Orion, Seaking etc to the simulation, and a new angle on crewing etc. 

I also think that a multiplayer sub hunt would actually be quite challenging and dynamic. 

Just a thought, be interested to know what you all think. 

[Northstar98]

I absolutely would.

However, the work you'd need to do to really do it justice is massive and would be something that could be an entire game's worth of functionality and content.

For a brief (yes, brief) overview I'll mostly be copying a post I did on hoggit concerning the topic:

• Hydroacoustics/realistic sound propgation. Including things like sound velocity profile, thermoclines, surface ducts and convergence zones. You could also throw in ambient noise into this one too. Note - this is just scratching the surface. Sound velocity profiles depend namely on pressure (depth), but also temperature and salinity. Pressure would entail having at least semi-accurate bathymetry on maps - luckily this is mostly-ish the case, though the Caucasus is a notable exception. Temperature depends not only on surface temperature but also sea-state, as high sea-states can also mix hot and cold water, which may for instance, weaken or even prevent a surface duct from forming. Sounds might have to have a ray-traced-like set up, especially in cases where reflections are involved (such as surface ducts and bottom bounces), but perhaps these can be abstracted.

• Underwater sensors. Namely sonar (both active and passive) and magnetic anomaly detection (MAD). Both active and passive sonar would require the above and passive sonar would require each unit (or at least each class of unit) to have its own unique sound profile, which would need to change with speed (due to things like the blade-rate increasing/decreasing with propeller/screw RPM and engine noise).

• Underwater weapons. So far we have torpedoes and bombs. For the former we only have WWI-style straight-running torpedoes modelled (even for advanced, wire-guided, active/passive torpedoes like the Yu-6), though there are several schemes in the files and for the former, how bombs interact with the water needs some work (currently treated the same as land). The Hornet initially had the Mk 40 Destructor and Mk 63 Quickstrike mines (both bottom, influence mines converted from Mk 83s), but these were removed from the roadmap (the Mk 40 model is present in the files however).

• A more suitable submarine AI (think Cold Waters) - right now the only thing the AI does is follow waypoints and fire weapons, they won't manoeuvre defensively.

• Mission editor functionality - controlling things like the raising of various masts and antennas (so far the Kilo-class and the Type VIIC u-boat are the only submarines to have all their masts presents, while being separately animated). Submarine depth settings also seem to reference the geometric centroid of the unit, it should be depth below keel (especially important in shallow waters).

• Underwater effects like submerged explosions and cavitation.

• More submarines (we only have 4 and all of them are REDFOR and one of them is a variant of another).

Then we get into things like much of the specific capabilities of certain systems being classified, requiring them to be abstracted - I would be okay with abstraction (it works fairly decently in Cold Waters and C:MO for instance), but even things like what the displays look like and what functions they have isn't publicly available information. It would be incredibly difficult to have a full-fidelity ASW platform modelled.

EDIT: And then, before you consider any of that, bear in mind that the naval envionment solely concerning surface vessels is still very, very basic and the list of things either missing or lacking fidelity is also gigantic without involving ASW (and even this list isn't comprehensive).

Edited May 17, 2023 by Northstar98

[Silver_Dragon]

ASW was a old "request" to naval branch, as more realistic ships, weapons and systems. Some deep post on the wishlist.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Hog_driver]

I'd love some ASW. If I remember correctly, there were some sub-hunting missions in Dangerous Waters (with a Seahawk and Orion? I don't remember now) and they were one of the most interesting missions in that sim.

[bies]

Yes, there is an intrest in ASW - this topic returns regularly, together with ASW connected full fidelity module like late Cold War declassified S-3 Viking, P-3 Orion or SH-60 Seahawk etc., but it would probably require some dedicated 3rd party to create ASW enviroment similar to e.g. Dangerous Waters ~18 years ago.

Sound propagation with differnet bottom types, sound layers. Actual deep sea, different sound buoys, submarines AI and capabilities, a bit more detailed missiles and torpedoes etc. It didn't require any significant computing power, just a coding time. It has been done many times before in different simulators.

It would be fantastic, but i doubt ED itself, without 3rd party/cooperation would have spare manpower to code ASW enviroment. But who knows. Hunting e.g. Soviet submarines north of Kola Peninsula would be exciting and engaging, but only with proper ASW enviroment.

Edited May 16, 2023 by bies

[Grievo]

I appreciate the detailed posts gents, thank you. 
 

I don’t doubt the enormity of the task of introducing it into the sim. But I do feel there’s a place for it. But if there was to be an announcement of a Sonalysts naval assets/environment pack I’d be a guaranteed pre-order! Dangerous Waters was in fact the thought in my mind when I posted this, and the fun I had chasing subs in that game.

I agree about the problems facing modern ASW platforms, but I think modelling older systems such as Viking, Orion and Seaking (I’d like Wessex but I’m odd!) etc may be possible, and may simplify the introduction of mechanisms into the game by being more limited than more Modern platforms. 

I think definitely the detection modelling would be the most difficult part. I’m no programmer but I’m not sure how difficult modelling things like torpedoes or depth charges would be compared to missiles or bombs. Just because graphically it’s underwater doesn’t mean it is computationally, if that’s a word! The game just knows object a is travelling through space at x speed, and has y range and z limitations etc. 

[Bremspropeller]

We'll need those.

[Kang]

Interest, certainly. But I agree with Northstar98 in that it's unlikely because there is a tremendous amount of work associated with it to be even remotely working. The whole implementation of submarines in DCS so far is - given how many submarine types are in the game - lackluster at best, with the whole naval component not exactly being detailed.

[upyr1]

People have literally asked for the S-3 so there is interest. 

[QuiGon]

13 hours ago, Grievo said:

I know, I know, Awfully Slow Warfare and all that. 
 

I think this could be an interesting and unique addition to DCS. It would open up a variety of new aircraft such as Viking, Orion, Seaking etc to the simulation, and a new angle on crewing etc. 

I also think that a multiplayer sub hunt would actually be quite challenging and dynamic. 

Just a thought, be interested to know what you all think. 

I would love ASW (and submarine warfare itself) in DCS, but need need to be properly done, not just half baked.

Untill then I will have to stick with Dangerous Waters

[Minhal]

One of the many nice-to-have things. I'd really enjoy that! But reality is, we do not even get a realistic infantry squad together after... how old exactly is DCS World? And this does not even take AI behavior into account. At that speed, implementing all the necessary naval assets and all the logic behind (actual deep water, a sonar framework, temperature layers, all these things...) would probably a 2060 plus two weeks project.

[markom]

No ASW would ever be complete without Catalinas! Would love to see those in DCS!

[QuiGon]

12 minutes ago, markom said:

No ASW would ever be complete without Catalinas! Would love to see those in DCS!

Orion!

Edited May 16, 2023 by QuiGon

[markom]

2 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

Orion!

Oh, sure, sure for more modern things. But no other platform killed more submarines than Catalinas (40).

[Kang]

30 minutes ago, markom said:

No ASW would ever be complete without Catalinas! Would love to see those in DCS!

Funnily enough that would probably be most realistic as expectation, considering how that didn't involve any of the newfangled digital undersea magic, but simply watching them dive and dropping a bomb on them.

[markom]

Well, they did have magnetic anomaly detectors at some point, so there was some dark magic voodooing involved, but it was eyeballs Mk.1 most of the time, indeed.

[Silver_Dragon]

20 minutes ago, markom said:

No ASW would ever be complete without Catalinas! Would love to see those in DCS!

Meanwile PBY-5 Catalina (early / late) production was ASV radar and armed with dedicated ASW armament as:

• 4 500 lb or 1000 lb bombs
• 4 325 lb DC or 4 Mk24 FIDO
• 8 Mk17 DB
• 12 100 lb bombs
• 2 Mk13 torpedoes
• 1 Mk13 torpedo & 2 500 lb bombs
• 30 retrobombs (used with MAD)

That aircrafts was no dedicated ASW sonobouy procesors. A more specialized aircrafts was the PB4Y-2S Privateer as a dedicated Anti-Submarine version. Thas can carry APS-2G radar  and radar countermeasures. 

• 20 100 lb bombs
• 12 250 lb or 500 lb bombs
• 8 1000 lb bombs
• 4 1600 lb AP bombs or 4 2000 lb bombs
• 2 391 USG bomb bay tanks and 10 100lb, 6 250 lb or 500lb, or 4 1000lb or 2 1600lb or 2000lb bombs

On ASW receive the L-11 (Leigh Light), AN/ARR-3 Mod 1 receiver and carries the following additional loadouts:

• 2 Mk24 FIDO torpedoes and 26 AN/CRT-1 Sonobouys.
• 40 AN/CRT-1 Sonobouys
• 6 650lb or 325lb Depth Charges, 26 AN/CRT-1 sonobouys
• Can replace Mk24 torpedo with equal amount of Mk27 (1945), Mk32 (1949) or Mk43 (1951) torpedoes.

The AN/CRT-1 has the first sonobouy, 0.4 Nm detection on passive, LF-MF band, 4 hr life, no direction. Upto six can be monitored by a AN/AR-3 radio receive. The same system was equiped on some Lancasters, Saqueltons and other.
http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/lanc_crt1.html

Other aircrafts was the TBF/TBM-1C Avenger Torpedo bomber, carry aboard of the Built by GM. TBF/TBM-1CP fitted with cameras, TBF/TBM-1D optimized for ASW w/ APS-3 radar & rocket rails (some also w/ ASB radar), TBF/TBM-1E has ASH/APS-4 radar, TBF/TBM-1L has retractable searchlight. 334 to FAA, 42 to RNZAF. Tested with MAD & retro-bombs, but HVAR was finally chosen as an ASW weapon.

• 1 Mk13 torpedo internally (Some of them carry Mk24 FIDO)
• 4 500 lb or 2 1000 lb bombs or 1 1600 lb or 2000 lb bomb
• 275 USG bomb bay tank
• 12 100 lb bombs
• 1 DC or 500 lb bomb under each wing
• 1 100 USG drop tank or 4 HVAR under each wing

Other systems has 8 AN/CRT-1 sonobouys with AN/ARR-3 Mod 1 receiver.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA597432

I think that is the better aircraft to start a ASW aircrafts, a 43 torpedo bomber with U-Boat/IJN to early cold war ASW capability on CVE Hunter / Killer ASW TF.

After WW2, The TBM-1 was supresed by the TBM-3S working on pairs with the TBM-3W AEW aircraft to Korean War, after was replaced by the Grumman AF-2 Guardian on 1950 and S-2 Tracker on 1954.

 

[QuiGon]

9 hours ago, markom said:

Well, they did have magnetic anomaly detectors at some point, so there was some dark magic voodooing involved, but it was eyeballs Mk.1 most of the time, indeed.

Yeah, that's not really what I consider ASW. It's just normal ground attack tbh.

[Bremspropeller]

WW2 type of ASW aircraft relied heavily on getting the subs at the surface, which won't happen all that often if you're looking for nuke-powered subs. Also, the specialized ASW aircraft do have more interesting stations and capabilities and they'll cover a large timeframe from the 60s to today (version dependant, of course). Capability- and performance-wise, both the Atlantic and Orion are the most interesting with the Neptune coming in close behind (quirky jet-engine pods, anybody?). I'm personally not terribly interested in the S-3.

If one would want to do ASW, most sensible modules would be (in order)

- P-3, if you're into shutting down engines to stretch endurance

- Atlantic, if you like to have the right number of engines to begin with

- P-2, if you like radials, but need that jet-time to get into the airlines

Edited May 17, 2023 by Bremspropeller

[Northstar98]

On 5/16/2023 at 12:55 PM, Grievo said:

Just because graphically it’s underwater doesn’t mean it is computationally, if that’s a word! The game just knows object a is travelling through space at x speed, and has y range and z limitations etc. 

True, the dynamics of it can largely be simplified without a problem, forces involved wouldn't need to be higher fidelity than say, the SFM of aircraft (though obviously swap lift for buoyancy). However, sensors for things like torpedoes (especially sonar) is probably going to be the main hurdle - there's a lot to it and DCS has none of it, or even really the foundations for it (closest thing is radar when it comes to active sonar, but even active sonar is subject to things like sound channels, surface ducts and convergence zones - nothing of the sort is modelled for DCS' radars). The only thing we're missing are depth changes (at the moment submarines change their depth by just moving vertically as opposed to doing something more akin to flying underwater, torpedoes only have a single depth setting so it's difficult to investigate).

Right now there aren't any underwater dynamics for things like bombs (which would apply namely to depth-charges and mines). The water is treated the same as it currently is on ground - when the bomb comes into contact with it or an object, it merely decelerates at some fixed rate until it comes to a stop, if you drop a bomb over water you'll end up with a bomb magically hovering in said water, instead of sinking. This was part of a bug report I made just under a year ago.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Northstar98
finished incomplete sentence

[ironhard]

Absolutely, but as someone else said, I have no interest for a "half baked half borked" implementation.

Edited May 17, 2023 by ironhard

[Biggus]

I suspect that there would be a surprisingly large demand for this, given how much demand there seems to be for logistics modules.  So long as, as everyone has said, there's some depth (lol) to the simulation.

I've always wanted a high fidelity P-2 and P-3.

[Kang]

Perhaps best to wait how the CH-47 is going to end up then.

[upyr1]

On 5/16/2023 at 4:58 AM, Northstar98 said:

I absolutely would.

However, the work you'd need to do to really do it justice is massive and would be something that could be an entire game's worth of functionality and content.

For a brief (yes, brief) overview I'll mostly be copying a post I did on hoggit concerning the topic:

• Hydroacoustics/realistic sound propgation. Including things like sound velocity profile, thermoclines, surface ducts and convergence zones. You could also throw in ambient noise into this one too. Note - this is just scratching the surface. Sound velocity profiles depend namely on pressure (depth), but also temperature and salinity. Pressure would entail having at least semi-accurate bathymetry on maps - luckily this is mostly-ish the case, though the Caucasus is a notable exception. Temperature depends not only on surface temperature but also sea-state, as high sea-states can also mix hot and cold water, which may for instance, weaken or even prevent a surface duct from forming. Sounds might have to have a ray-traced-like set up, especially in cases where reflections are involved (such as surface ducts and bottom bounces), but perhaps these can be abstracted.

• Underwater sensors. Namely sonar (both active and passive) and magnetic anomaly detection (MAD). Both active and passive sonar would require the above and passive sonar would require each unit (or at least each class of unit) to have its own unique sound profile, which would need to change with speed (due to things like the blade-rate increasing/decreasing with propeller/screw RPM and engine noise).

• Underwater weapons. So far we have torpedoes and bombs. For the former we only have WWI-style straight-running torpedoes modelled (even for advanced, wire-guided, active/passive torpedoes like the Yu-6), though there are several schemes in the files and for the former, how bombs interact with the water needs some work (currently treated the same as land). The Hornet initially had the Mk 40 Destructor and Mk 63 Quickstrike mines (both bottom, influence mines converted from Mk 83s), but these were removed from the roadmap (the Mk 40 model is present in the files however).

• A more suitable submarine AI (think Cold Waters) - right now the only thing the AI does is follow waypoints and fire weapons, they won't manoeuvre defensively.

• Mission editor functionality - controlling things like the raising of various masts and antennas (so far the Kilo-class and the Type VIIC u-boat are the only submarines to have all their masts presents, while being separately animated). Submarine depth settings also seem to reference the geometric centroid of the unit, it should be depth below keel (especially important in shallow waters).

• Underwater effects like submerged explosions and cavitation.

• More submarines (we only have 4 and all of them are REDFOR and one of them is a variant of another).

Then we get into things like much of the specific capabilities of certain systems being classified, requiring them to be abstracted - I would be okay with abstraction (it works fairly decently in Cold Waters and C:MO for instance), but even things like what the displays look like and what functions they have isn't publicly available information. It would be incredibly difficult to have a full-fidelity ASW platform modelled.

EDIT: And then, before you consider any of that, bear in mind that the naval envionment solely concerning surface vessels is still very, very basic and the list of things either missing or lacking fidelity is also gigantic without involving ASW (and even this list isn't comprehensive).

 

I would also improve the asw of surface ships. If I have a Wolfpack hunting my carrier I want the destroyers to do their best to guard the carrier 

[markom]

On the topic of ASW and implementing underwater stuff... Those things can get very complicated or really shallowly (ha) implemented unless there is at least some kind of thermal layering modeled. It's a key aspect of underwater combat.