[BUG] Rb 04E cannot be hit by CIWS

[MBot]

45 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

In some cases those systems shoot down every single missile launched at them unless you completely saturate them which is more unrealistic than them having issues with them.

I guess it boils down to this and this is were we disagree. I am far from being an expert on naval matters, but from all the things I have read on the subject this is exacly what I would expect. Even if that means that you have to spend 3 or more SAMs to reliably hit a sea skimmer, which with VLS is not a fundamental problem. With the introduction of AEGIS (and later similar systems) and VLS in the 1980s, saturation is essential to defeat a modern warship. Of course you still want a layered defense and ultimately CIWS for the holy-mary save against any leakers. But I do not see how indivdual or pairs of subsonic sea skimmers have any reasonable hope to penetrate a modern, prepared(*) SAM defense. And I don't want to see it in DCS either.

*This of course exludes major goofs such as Moskva.

[QuiGon]

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

The problem is that if you increase the height above the minimum engagement height of long range SAM systems on ships in DCS they'd become way to good at downing them. In some cases those systems shoot down every single missile launched at them unless you completely saturate them which is more unrealistic than them having issues with them.

That's exactly how EDs own anti ship missiles (like the AGM-84 Harpoon) are configured. For the more potent warships you need at least 10+ Harpoons to saturate them in order to achieve a single hit, as those ships kill Harpoons like flies. The way older and less sophisticated RB-04 is much more potent than the much more modern Harpoon in DCS due to how it is configured in DCS, which is kinda weird.

[Naquaii]

36 minutes ago, MBot said:

I guess it boils down to this and this is were we disagree. I am far from being an expert on naval matters, but from all the things I have read on the subject this is exacly what I would expect. Even if that means that you have to spend 3 or more SAMs to reliably hit a sea skimmer, which with VLS is not a fundamental problem. With the introduction of AEGIS (and later similar systems) and VLS in the 1980s, saturation is essential to defeat a modern warship. Of course you still want a layered defense and ultimately CIWS for the holy-mary save against any leakers. But I do not see how indivdual or pairs of subsonic sea skimmers have any reasonable hope to penetrate a modern, prepared(*) SAM defense. And I don't want to see it in DCS either.

*This of course exludes major goofs such as Moskva.

Yeah, that's what it boils down to in the end. What I can tell you is that I work with stuff like this and there's a reason the russians moved away slightly from high and fast diving missiles and started producing sea skimmers of their own and that the Standard system continued to evolve this functionality.

If we're talking non sea skimming missiles like the majority of the earlier soviet systems I'm 100% with you.

And in the end I guess we can just agree to disagree. I don't want to see foolproof missile shields in DCS that shoots down everything, from my professional standpoint that's just silly and unrealistic.

17 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

That's exactly how EDs own anti ship missiles (like the AGM-84 Harpoon) are configured. For the more potent warships you need at least 10+ Harpoons to saturate them in order to achieve a single hit, as those ships kill Harpoons like flies. The way older and less sophisticated RB-04 is much more potent than the much more modern Harpoon in DCS due to how it is configured in DCS, which is kinda weird.

My main answer to that is that the AGM-84 is way underperforming in DCS.

 

But circling back to the initial topic of this thread. Yes, the gun CIWS should be more effective against the RB 04, it should not swat every one of them but it should have a decent chance.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Naquaii

[wowbagger]

On the flip side, my RB-15's manage to penetrate the CIWS all the way to the ship ... ... almost never. I will try switching over to RB-04s.

[Naquaii]

2 minutes ago, wowbagger said:

On the flip side, my RB-15's manage to penetrate the CIWS all the way to the ship ... ... almost never. I will try switching over to RB-04s.

It all depends on the CIWS and amount of it. But yeah, the RB 04 shouldn't be better, the RBS 15F should be slightly better if anything.

[QuiGon]

I've never seen an RB-04 being taken out by gun CIWS.
 

35 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

My main answer to that is that the AGM-84 is way underperforming in DCS.

Really? Interesting. I always thought the AGM-84 is the only anti ship missile in DCS that is performing somehwat realistically, as you really have to saturate AEGIS and similar equipped ships with them, which is what I would expect how it works IRL (not taking things like surprise or technical issues into account). That's also what I'm used to from Command Modern Operations, as I have no experience with these things IRL.

Edited August 10, 2023 by QuiGon

[Naquaii]

26 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

I've never seen an RB-04 being taken out by gun CIWS.
 

Really? Interesting. I always thought the AGM-84 is the only anti ship missile in DCS that is performing somehwat realistically, as you really have to saturate AEGIS and similar equipped ships with them, which is what I would expect how it works IRL (not taking things like surprise or technical issues into account). That's also what I'm used to from Command Modern Operations, as I have no experience with these things IRL.

 

Well, it's a combination of factors. And keep in mind a lot of this is my personal opinion. But it feels like a lot of long range and older SAM systems are way too good at shooting down other missiles. And as for the AGM-84 it seems like it just doesn't really sea skim and it used to do way too little damage. At least the damage part has been much improved.

The main issue is that in DCS there's not much middle ground between shooting down everything and nothing which is also what the height issue boils down to. Increasing the height would afaik make something like the SA-10 or SM-2 shoot down most if not all RB 04 which is more unrealistic than not at all.

[QuiGon]

6 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

Well, it's a combination of factors. And keep in mind a lot of this is my personal opinion. But it feels like a lot of long range and older SAM systems are way too good at shooting down other missiles. And as for the AGM-84 it seems like it just doesn't really sea skim and it used to do way too little damage. At least the damage part has been much improved.

Yeah, although imho the damage stuff is more an issue of the way too simplistic damage model of the ships, rather than the warhead size of the missile.

  

6 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

The main issue is that in DCS there's not much middle ground between shooting down everything and nothing which is also what the height issue boils down to. Increasing the height would afaik make something like the SA-10 or SM-2 shoot down most if not all RB 04 which is more unrealistic than not at all.

Very true. Currently it's pretty much either all of them get intercepted or none of them is. It's missing a more nuanced simulation of missile interceptions.

[LazyBoot]

4 hours ago, wowbagger said:

On the flip side, my RB-15's manage to penetrate the CIWS all the way to the ship ... ... almost never. I will try switching over to RB-04s.

If you attack from the correct angles, you can sometimes get a hit if you fired 2, but not too frequently. However, get a buddy and launch 4 (especially if you attack from different angles) you can almost always get at least 1 hit, and quite often more.

[wowbagger]

1 hour ago, LazyBoot said:

If you attack from the correct angles, you can sometimes get a hit if you fired 2, but not too frequently. However, get a buddy and launch 4 (especially if you attack from different angles) you can almost always get at least 1 hit, and quite often more.

Ya, that's my problem I know. Viggen vs ship requires overwhelming the defenses, but I am usually playing by myself ... and with regards to flying the Viggen, always playing by myself. 

[QuiGon]

25 minutes ago, wowbagger said:

Ya, that's my problem I know. Viggen vs ship requires overwhelming the defenses, but I am usually playing by myself ... and with regards to flying the Viggen, always playing by myself. 

Ue the RB-04. It passes by most naval defenses, including gun CIWS.

[wowbagger]

3 hours ago, QuiGon said:

Use the RB-04.

Yes, that seems to be the answer. Will give a try next time I'm ship hunting.

[renhanxue]

On 8/9/2023 at 10:01 PM, MBot said:

Just to put Rb 04E into historical perspective a bit. The Swedish Air Force was expecting to fight mostly transports and second-line units. The Soviet Baltic fleet's most numerous and capable units where Krivak class guided missile frigates with SA-N-4 and a few Kashin class DDGs and a Kynda CG with SA-N-1. All the "good" stuff of the Soviet Navy was with Northern and Pacific Fleet dealing with NATO.

Unfortunately the only tactical field manual I have access to for the Swedish air force strike groups is the 1961 edition with corrections/updates added up until 1967, but that one does have doctrinal advice for rb 04 usage (in its earlier incarnations, carried by the A 32 Lansen). It states that against cruisers and frigates rb 04 is the weapon system of choice, with bombs and armor-piercing rockets as secondary alternatives if missiles are not available. It then outlines these rules of thumb for sizing the strike package:

The relevant item here is the 4th item from the top, "Raid eller mineringsföretag" (mineringsföretag = mine laying), against which it suggests deploying anywhere between 1 and 6 full squadrons of 8 aircraft. The two right columns make recommendations regarding sub-targets. Against a cruiser (Sverdlovs in this era), deploy anything between a squadron or a flight (half squadron; 4 aircraft), against a frigate or a destroyer use a flight or a twoship, against any smaller surface combatant use a twoship or possibly a single aircraft. The A 32 didn't really have countermeasure pods (not widely available ones at any rate) so it's two missiles per aircraft.

 

On a side note the Rb 15F's lowest sea skimming altitude isn't fixed; it's "waveheight adaptive". I don't have any information on what that means specifically but it certainly sounds pretty low.

Edited August 10, 2023 by renhanxue