Jump to content

To kill the Moscow with AGM-84D


evilnate

Recommended Posts

The Brits basically chose really conservative locations for their carrier, which meant their Air cover over the islands was poor, which allowed the Argies a window of opportunity if you want to call flying on fumes into the combat area an "opportunity". But in general British naval SAMS of the era were antiques, because they had a budget and were counting on American support in any actual conflict (Which was in their mind WW3). And the Exocet is a bit faster than the harpoon, but has a slightly smaller warhead.

 

With the Falklands, the Argentines had their own Type 42s with Sea Dart, they knew that the Type 965 surveillance radar was effectively blind to aircraft with landmass behind them, or flying below 100 feet, they knew that Sea Dart was designed and worked best at shooting down larger aircraft at higher altitudes. So they came in very low, close to the Ocean, with land often behind them (this was also a result of poor tactics by the British). Sea Dart however, claimed the most kills. Sea Dart in the 1991 Gulf War did manage to successful engage an HY-2 AShM

 

Sea Wolf was the most modern but again, the blame was on the RADAR and FCS. In the case of Sea Wolf the Type 910 FCR wasn't that good at engaging low flying aircraft (often requiring the use of the -910s back-up TV mode - which turns an ACLOS RADAR directed missile, into a SACLOS missile requiring an operator to manually track the target) and broke lock when targets crossed over each other (AFAIK it would perceive close formations as a single aircraft, then got confused when the single large contact became multiple smaller ones). Sea Wolf also suffered from poor launching reliability. Not only that but in the case of Coventry lock was broken because the Coventry effectively 'cut it up' by driving through the path of RADAR :doh:

 

Sea Cat was pretty much totally useless, obsolete in the -70s, developed from an earlier ATGM, by the Falklands it was upgraded to ACLOS guidance but it's still basically a faster (though still subsonic) ATGM from the end of the 1950s repurposed as a SAM. Despite it's very short range, it's almost useless for close-in air defence. It was fired tonnes of times for likely no kills but disputed (though still <4). Not only that the Argentines had the land based Tigercat, so they above they probably knew.

 

Sea Slug was in the same bag as Sea Dart but even more exclusively specialised for longer range, high altitude. Only 1 firing against aircraft, but missed. The missile was more often used for surface bombardment.

 

No ships were fitted with CIWS even though Phalanx Block 0 was around then (later fitted to Type 42 destroyers and Fearless class LPDs). The ships didn't even have ECM, in the case of Sheffield and Coventry they were positioned in a vulnerable location, Sheffield barely reacted/didn't see the missile coming and took no evasive action and Coventry got in the way of the Type 22s Sea Wolf lock.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Falklands, the Argentines had their own Type 42s with Sea Dart, they knew that the Type 965 surveillance radar was effectively blind to aircraft with landmass behind them, or flying below 100 feet, they knew that Sea Dart was designed and worked best at shooting down larger aircraft at higher altitudes. So they came in very low, close to the Ocean, with land often behind them (this was also a result of poor tactics by the British). Sea Dart however, claimed the most kills. Sea Dart in the 1991 Gulf War did manage to successful engage an HY-2 AShM

 

Sea Wolf was the most modern but again, the blame was on the RADAR and FCS. In the case of Sea Wolf the Type 910 FCR wasn't that good at engaging low flying aircraft (often requiring the use of the -910s back-up TV mode - which turns an ACLOS RADAR directed missile, into a SACLOS missile requiring an operator to manually track the target) and broke lock when targets crossed over each other (AFAIK it would perceive close formations as a single aircraft, then got confused when the single large contact became multiple smaller ones). Sea Wolf also suffered from poor launching reliability. Not only that but in the case of Coventry lock was broken because the Coventry effectively 'cut it up' by driving through the path of RADAR :doh:

 

Sea Cat was pretty much totally useless, obsolete in the -70s, developed from an earlier ATGM, by the Falklands it was upgraded to ACLOS guidance but it's still basically a faster (though still subsonic) ATGM from the end of the 1950s repurposed as a SAM. Despite it's very short range, it's almost useless for close-in air defence. It was fired tonnes of times for likely no kills but disputed (though still <4). Not only that the Argentines had the land based Tigercat, so they above they probably knew.

 

Sea Slug was in the same bag as Sea Dart but even more exclusively specialised for longer range, high altitude. Only 1 firing against aircraft, but missed. The missile was more often used for surface bombardment.

 

No ships were fitted with CIWS even though Phalanx Block 0 was around then (later fitted to Type 42 destroyers and Fearless class LPDs). The ships didn't even have ECM, in the case of Sheffield and Coventry they were positioned in a vulnerable location, Sheffield barely reacted/didn't see the missile coming and took no evasive action and Coventry got in the way of the Type 22s Sea Wolf lock.

 

So a more detailed version of what I said :) But the harriers performed well at least.

 

But yeah, The RN and really the entire British and US militaries learned a lot from the falklands.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a more detailed version of what I said :)

 

I'd go more pedantic than detailed :smartass: Look I'll even prove it: :lol:

 

You went with ancient missiles and specialisation - only Sea Slug and Sea Cat were ancient. And the Type 42 was designed for AAW. It was actually more to do with unsuitable RADAR, unreliable FCS and in a couple of cases tactical 'thickness' of some sort.

 

 

But yeah AShMs would benefit massively from improvements to damage models, though I could probably write a thesis on what's missing in the naval environment for ships just beside the damage models, of which DCS probably does the worst. In terms of implemented damage it's at best poor, from a graphics perspective it's a mixed bag.

 

Just for comparisons - lite combat flight sim SF2:NA at least models component level damage for RADAR antennae and weapons, (when hit - even by aircraft cannon fire, they stop functioning and catch fire) graphically it's inferior - no gashes, or holes and although for sinking it's still very much HP and how they sink is always the same, it is a damn sight better than DCS' slow jittery sinking before exploding in splash); Cold Waters I'm not sure about subsystems (RADAR and top-side weapons aren't really applicable), but at least they sink in a way that corresponds to location and severity of damage, graphics overall is inferior (though a fair few ships in DCS do worse), smoke plumes however look way better, at least more realistic and natural than in DCS; SH4 is probably the holy grail - okay you only have guns and torpedoes against ships, it does subsystem damage AFAIK, graphically it's pretty much perfect (far better fires and smoke than DCS, at least more natural looking, 3D holes and gashes - that match exactly where weapons impacted) and sinkings are realistic as with cold waters.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd go more pedantic than detailed :smartass: Look I'll even prove it: :lol:

 

You went with ancient missiles and specialisation - only Sea Slug and Sea Cat were ancient. And the Type 42 was designed for AAW. It was actually more to do with unsuitable RADAR, unreliable FCS and in a couple of cases tactical 'thickness' of some sort.

 

 

But yeah AShMs would benefit massively from improvements to damage models, though I could probably write a thesis on what's missing in the naval environment for ships just beside the damage models, of which DCS probably does the worst. In terms of implemented damage it's at best poor, from a graphics perspective it's a mixed bag.

 

Just for comparisons - lite combat flight sim SF2:NA at least models component level damage for RADAR antennae and weapons, (when hit - even by aircraft cannon fire, they stop functioning and catch fire) graphically it's inferior - no gashes, or holes and although for sinking it's still very much HP and how they sink is always the same, it is a damn sight better than DCS' slow jittery sinking before exploding in splash); Cold Waters I'm not sure about subsystems (RADAR and top-side weapons aren't really applicable), but at least they sink in a way that corresponds to location and severity of damage, graphics overall is inferior (though a fair few ships in DCS do worse), smoke plumes however looks way better, at least more realistic and natural than in DCS. SH4 is probably the holy grail - okay you only have guns and torpedoes against ships, it does subsystem damage AFAIK, graphically it's pretty much perfect (far better fires and smoke than DCS, at least more natural looking, 3D holes and gashes - that match exactly where weapons impacted) and sinkings are realistic as with cold waters.

 

Having never sunk an actual ship with an actual U-boat I'll take your word for it :)

 

But yeah I've played those games too.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Type 42 had a even more fundemental design flaw than the weapons fit, that was a lack of excess stability. This also affect the type21 frigate.

 

When the RN new carriers were cancelled in 70's the ships designed to defend them were also cancelled the type 82, only 1 was built HMS Bristol. They still need an Air defence destroyer so was born the type 42, but because of cost it was designed at the absolute smallest size to accommodate sea dart and the associated radars.

 

The RN was well aware of its venerbility to sea skimming missiles, and had looked into the feasibility of replacing the rear 909 radar with a seawolf launcher and Radar. But the weight of the entire system would exceeded the safe margin of stability. In fact the stability of the ship was so marginal that when the Phalanx was eventually fitted they had to permanently remove the ships boats to keep it within limits.

 

The batch 2 and 3 versions of the 42 were significantly lengthen, but never totally overcame the problem.

 

Similarly the was not enough spare capacity in the type 21 frigate to upgrade them to sea wolf and they were sold off early and replaced with the type 22/ 23's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the Batch 3 Type 42s were lengthened, the Batch 2 was a fairly minor update mainly around sensor fit.

 

As you say the Type 21s, 22s (Batch 1) and 42s were all built as small as possible for budget reasons and this turned out to be a false economy. The 21s and 42s suffered from hull cracking in heavy seas due to the light weight construction flexing and had to have external reinforcement to prevent it. At least lessons have now been learned and ships are built with spare capacity in terms of space, weight and power generating to accommodate upgrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eh.. i told many times in another topic, then was clear to me ED prefer to keep things as they are, probably for gameplay reasons, so harpoons are only good against undefended ships, that actually make no sense at all, considering you can take undefended ships with any kind of weapon...and just for the record harpoons even if they hit...they do little damage, especially compared to other weapons.

even zuni rockets are way better to kill ships.

another really sad ED choice for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well in fact they are NOT working as intended.

in reality if they reach the ship without being destroyed by CIWS , they will probably hit the main radar or at least a radar, disabling the one it hits.

its absolutely not to sink ship, but would work to blind a ship so next attack will be more successfull.

but in DCS ...well ships dont have different damage for different components...so .. no way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw HMS Glamorgan being hit by the Exocet in 1982, I was trying to get onto her from Atlantic Causeway to use her helo to get back to my unit on 2 Sisters when it struck. Scary stuff, and I saw most of the other ships being bombed and damaged/sunk in San Carlos. Modern warships are extremely vulnerable to any kind of weapon if you are lucky and hit them in the right place.

 

Its an interesting thread, and I agree re Seacat etc, utter crap, the only decent weapon we had then was Sea Wolf, and it had its limitations, but we would have been stuffed without it.

 

Bravest men I saw then - Argentinian pilots - what they did took enormous courage - no animosity with Argentina here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you can’t beat that for an eye witness account crazyeddie! Scary stuff indeed, thanks for your service.

 

Whoever came up with the concept for Sea Cat should have been locked up. Hey let’s take a subsonic anti-tank missile and try using it to shoot down jets.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...