Kuznetsov vs 4 Harms

[=Mac=]

How is it that the Kuznetsov can take direct hits from 4 Harms then when the attacking aircraft recommitted, the Kuznetsov again began firing the SA-15's as if nothing hit the radar? The SA-15's are semi-active, right?

Edited December 2, 2019 by =Mac=

[Northstar98]

It's because at the moment ships (like ground vehicles) don't have a component level damage model. How it works is that up until a certain point (5-10% health (I think)) the ship is fully operational then when its health gets low enough pretty much everything stops, the ship stops firing, stops moving, I even think they stop using RADARs. It's incredibly basic and it's pretty bad in comparison to real life.

[DD_Fenrir]

Why would you? A Harpoon or Tomahawk has greater standoff range keeping the launch platform outta harms way and carrying a significantly larger warhead, so if you do get a hit, it's far more likely to be lethal.

 

Yeah the component damage is lacking but until very recently, no one noticed and no-one really cared - it did the job that was required.

 

It's only now that people have been throwing HARMS at ships that it's highlighted the issue, and doctrinally, you're not likely to be throwing HARMS at ships anyhoo.

[Northstar98]

Why would you? A Harpoon or Tomahawk has greater standoff range keeping the launch platform outta harms way and carrying a significantly larger warhead, so if you do get a hit, it's far more likely to be lethal.

 

This is pretty much a moot point, just because you wouldn't doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to when in reality you absolutely can do it. I mean you can dumb bomb ships in the Hornet if you really want to (valid tactic in the Falklands) - nothing is stopping you, nothing says you can't. You wouldn't under doctrine carry 6 AIM-54s on a Tomcat or 6 Mavericks on an A-10 but it can, so it can...

 

Yeah the component damage is lacking but until very recently, no one noticed and no-one really cared - it did the job that was required.

 

I seriously beg to differ, ever since the Harpoon came out ship damage models (which are the crux of the problem) has been a serious point of improvement - I mean even lite simulators like SF2 (which have way less fidelity) have ships with exterior component level damage, it is possible to do a SEAD mission using A-7Es loaded with AGM-78s to take out RADARs in preparation for AShM attack. Just because doctrine says this isn't the right way to do it doesn't mean it should be impossible, especially when a higher fidelity damage model is more realistic.

 

I mean how ships sink is totally backwards, it's an extremely crude HP system and ships always sink in the same unnatural way, regardless of severity and location of damage. Heck there are a plethora of things you could improve with ships without going nuts.

 

This problem doesn't just affect ARMs, it also affects AShMs and bombs, don't forget weapons like the AGM-65F and AGM-119B, even against corvettes like the Grisha-V are basically useless, when in reality you could be looking at subsystem destruction, which could potentially mission kill the ship.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Northstar98

[Grimes]

For starters the HARMs guide to the center of the object and not where any radar is emitting. Secondly the warhead of the HARM isn't exactly great for dealing damage to ships.

 

 

Some ship models do have component damage, but it is mostly larger scale and difficult for it to occur due to the aforementioned missiles always guiding to the center of the ship. https://imgur.com/a/Zy0KzX4

[Harlikwin]

Thats for that bit of good/bad news Grimes.

 

Any chance the harm behavior will get fixed to hit the radar emitter on the ships rather than amidships?

[Grimes]

Not sure, more of something only ED can answer.

[CyMPAK]

How is it that the Kuznetsov can take direct hits from 4 Harms then when the attacking aircraft recommitted, the Kuznetsov again began firing the SA-15's as if nothing hit the radar? The SA-15's are semi-active, right?

 

No, 3K95 "Kinzhal" or SA-N-9 Gauntlet (naval version of SA-15) radiocommand

Kuznetsov has 4 Fire control modules

Fire control (FC) is handled by the 3R95 multi-channel FC system, (NATO reporting name Cross Swords), composed of two different radar sets, a G-band target acquisition radar (maximum detection range 45 km/28 mi,) and a K band target engagement radar, (maximum tracking range 15 km/9 mil that handles the actual prosecution of a target.

The target engagement radar is a passive electronically scanned array antenna of the reflection type mounted on the front of the fire control system with a 60 degree field of view. Much like its land based sibling, the target engagement radar can track and guide eight missiles on up to four targets at once and is effective to a range of 1.5–12 km and an altitude of 10–6000 m. The system has a reaction time of 8–24 seconds, depending on the mode of operation, and is managed by a crew of 13. Additional missile guidance antennae can be seen around the fire control system and the 3K95, like the upgraded Tor launchers, is equipped with a secondary infrared guidance system. The 3R95 can also provide fire control information for the vessels AK-630 close in weapons systems (CIWS) providing a second line of defence should anything penetrate the missile layer.

[=Mac=]

Thanks for the discussion. I hope things will change to more realism in the near future. Until then, I'm happy to sit in the seat of a flying Hornet! :)

[RaisedByWolves]

Just use a floating dry dock. Sinks it every time.