Ships Air Defence weapon tests

[PoorOldSpike]

I ran these tests to give me an idea of how different units perform so that I can use the data when mission building.

(Feel free to post comments, observations, death threats, questions etc)

 

USA SHIPS AIR DEFENCES against SU-25T's at 2000 ft altitude

Ships skill= Average, SU's skill= Veteran.
Both sides under AI control.

 

The best missile is the SM-2 which only the Tico, Burke and Perry have. 

Hit rate is about 40% below 10nm.

Range is about 24nm but very low hit rate at that distance.

 

Next best missile is the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow which the 6 x carriers have, hit rate is about 30% below 10nm.

Range is about 14nm but very low hit rate at that distance.

 

4 of the carriers also have RIM-116A missiles, hit rate is about 40% at or below its max range of about 6nm.

 

The US Fleet-

 

 

 

 

SHIP WEAPON LAYOUTS

 

Note: The Tico's VLS launchers can fire Harpoons AND Tomahawks.

The Tom can't be targetted against ships or ground units, we have to target them at a spot on the ground or a spot on the sea and hope the blast kills any unit nearby-

 

 

 

The Burke has no anti-ship missiles-

 

 

The Perry is an old ship, its single SAM/Harpoon launcher has a very slow rate of fire-

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Lincoln has the best mix of Air Defence weapons-

 

 

The next best carriers are the Truman, Roosevelt and Washington, they have the same SAMs as the Lincoln but only 2 Gatlings each.

I'd rate the Vinson next because it only has 3x RIM-7 launchers and no RIM-116s, although it does have more Gatlings (4) than any of the other carriers.

The Stennis rates last because its two RIM-116A launchers don't work, they stay empty for the whole mission, so it has to rely on just its 2x RIM-7 launchers and 3x Gatlings.

 

Below: typical test setup, I placed blue ships in the middle then overflew them from both sides with groups of unarmed SU-25T's (4 planes per group) and logged how well the ships Air Defences did..

 

 

 

Rapid-fire feeding frenzy of SM-2 launches from Tico (64 missiles in forward VLS launcher and 64 in aft VLS launcher)
They usually began firing at about 25 nm range but most missed until the range lessened-

 

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[PoorOldSpike]

An SM-2 from Tico takes down an SU-25T

 

 

 

A RIM-7 Sea Sparrow launch from a carrier.

Note the 8 missile launcher box and the Gatling next to it-

 

 

A RIM-116A launch from carrier

Note the 21 missile launcher box

 

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[PoorOldSpike]

AIR DEFENCE RANKINGS

 

1- Ticonderoga ranks first,  it carries 128 long-range SM-2 SAMs and fires them at a very high rate of fire, and has 2x Gatlings and 2x cannons.

2- Arleigh Burke, its fast-firing SM-2 SAMs perform just as good as the Ticos but it only carries 96, and has 2x Gatlings.

3- The Lincoln is the carrier with the best Air Def weapon mix of 2x RiM-7, 2x RIM-116A, and 3x Gatlings. 

4/5/6- Washington, Roosevelt, Truman each have 2x RIM-7's, 2x RIM-116A's and 2x Gatlings. 

7- Vinson has 3x RIM-7 boxes but has no RIM-116A boxes, and has 4x Gatlings.

8- Stennis has 2x RIM-7 boxes but its RIM-116A's launchers stay empty. It has 3x Gatlings.

9- Tarawa has 2 x RIM-116A boxes

10- Perry destroyer ranks last because it only has one very slow-firing SM-2 launcher and only 1 Gatling

Edited February 5, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[Tippis]

I'll just drop my standard self-promotional data dives into the setups of western and eastern ships here, as well as a note that some (or even most) of the supercarriers currently  have various broken engagement zones that will cause unexpected behaviours that may go away at some point in the future.

[buur]

Maybe you can extend your table with the total amount of fired ante-air weapons.

It make it easier to the mission designers.

 

By the way, I like your work. Keep on.

[Tippis]

Oh, the total amounts are there, pulled directly from the Lua files.

You can't always trust the models to determine how much each ship carries — VLS:es in particular in some cases cover a mix of weapons, and for some ships have two or three missiles stacked on top of each other in each tube… somehow

[PoorOldSpike]

15 hours ago, buur said:

Maybe you can extend your table with the total amount of fired ante-air weapons.

It make it easier to the mission designers.

 

Okay I've just changed the table above to read how many missiles each vessel carries and fires.

Note: the Stennis has two RIM-116A boxes but they begin empty and never get loaded..

Note: the Perry fired 12 missiles during the 20-minute tests, that's a very slow rate of fire of almost 2 minutes between each shot, perhaps a sailor has to carry each one up and reload it. There might be more than 12 missiles in the hull that must be carried up.

 

Below: the Perry only has this single SM-2 launcher-

 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[Northstar98]

12 hours ago, Tippis said:

Oh, the total amounts are there, pulled directly from the Lua files.

You can't always trust the models to determine how much each ship carries — VLS:es in particular in some cases cover a mix of weapons, and for some ships have two or three missiles stacked on top of each other in each tube… somehow

 

ESSM in Mk41s are quadpacked, the main cell is divided into 4, to make 4 smaller cells, each with a single ESSM.

 

Unfortunately though, we don't have ESSM (even though our Arleigh-Burke should definitely have them at the very least, same with RIM-167A Standard ERAM, RUM-139 VL-ASROC and RIM-161 SM-3).

[Silver_Dragon]

Some Details:, the main problem of DCS has the lack of weapons and erroneous ship configurations.
-CVN-70 series replace all RIM-7M on Mk-29 box by RIM-162D ESSMs. on late 2000, early 2010.

-Bunker Hill (CMP) aka "Ticonderoga" VLS weapon loadout: 80 SM2MR Blk IIIB, 24 ESSM,10 SM3, 24 Tomahawk, 8 VL ASROC (2015), previously VLS loadout 96 SM2MR Blk II, 26 Tomahawk.
-Arleigh Burke Flight IIA Restart: 38 SM2MR, 6 SM3 Blk IA/IB, 16 SM6, 32 ESSM, 4 VL ASROC, 24 Tactical Tomahawk (2016)

-O.H. Perry: Mk13 has 36 SM1MR Blk VI, 4 Harpoon IC

 

[Northstar98]

To be honest, I'm not sure what Arleigh-Burke DDG they were going for.

 

They're named from the early Flt. IIAs all the way to the restart, even though the actual Arleigh-Burke we have is an early Flt.IIA 5"/62 variant, the difference being that it has 2 Phalanx mounts, these were far less numerous with only 4 ships (DDG-81 to DDG-84)

 

The later IIAs were far more numerous (DDG-85 to DDG-112), and these ships we have the liveries for; only the real ships only have 1 Phalanx CIWS (the rear one); the restarts are identical.

 

I guess it's just another DCS inconsistency.

[Ramsay]

On 1/23/2021 at 4:57 PM, PoorOldSpike said:

Over the next week or two if i'm still alive I'll test the Red navy's Air Defence capabilities against Hornets, then i'll also test how each side does against anti-ship missiles.

I'll use the Harpoon against Red ships, but I'm not sure what the Red equivalent of the Harpoon is, any suggestions?

The Harpoon is probably the weakest of DCS's anti-ship missiles v.s. the CIWS/anti-missile defences of the Neustrashimyy - if you have the time/modules, I suggest doing side by side tests with the RB-15F (Viggen) and/or C-802AK (JF-17) firing in salvos of 2-4 at a time.

 

You may also want to check how the different Harpoon flight profiles BO and RBL low (5,000), medium (15,000) and high (35,000) altitude cruise perform, as the higher altitude profiles have failed to hit unarmed cargo ships in the past.

 

As it's a modern aircraft, the JF-17 is my preferred launch platform, so it would be my REDFOR choice (even though I mostly fly the JF-17 as blue).

 

The C-101's Sea Eagle could also be included for completeness but as it's target can only be set in the ME, IMHO it's a low priority.

 

I'm waiting for the new OB patch to drop before re-testing, OTOH you may wish to do BEFORE-AFTER comparisons.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Ramsay

[Tippis]

A large part of the problem is that the Harpoon is just a pretty slow missile, it loves to fly where it is trivially detected (and being slow, it stays there for a long time), and its pop-up terminal manoeuvre mainly ends up putting it within the firing solution of more defensive systems than the ones that stay at a lower altitude. It's relatively small (for an ASM), and some systems won't be able to detect it, but constantly exposing itself doesn't do it any favours.

 

Not related to ships, specifically, but a funny comment in the code that might hint at one other issue, is with the Tunguska. Its missile definition includes what sounds like a very annoyed tweak where its minimum flight altitude is set to 14.5m rather than something round and easy “cause ASM fly on 14.9992 m above the sea level. NOT ON 15”.

 

It could just be that the Harpoon got its own tweak at some point and actually flies higher than those 14.9992m, making them more susceptible to anything than most ASMs.

[PoorOldSpike]

BTW, why do some anti-ship missiles have a pop-up terminal manoeuvre and dive onto the ships superstructure?

Why don't they stay at sea-skimming height all the way so that wave clutter helps mask them from radar, plus they'll smack into the vulnerable side of the hull?

[Ramsay]

6 hours ago, PoorOldSpike said:

BTW, why do some anti-ship missiles have a pop-up terminal manoeuvre and dive onto the ships superstructure?

Why don't they stay at sea-skimming height all the way so that wave clutter helps mask them from radar, plus they'll smack into the vulnerable side of the hull?

 

Just guessing -

 

The hull is quite strong and compartmentalised, while the superstructure is relatively soft and squishy and is where the weapons and radar/radio masts are.

 

11 hours ago, Tippis said:

A large part of the problem is that the Harpoon is just a pretty slow missile, it loves to fly where it is trivially detected (and being slow, it stays there for a long time), and its pop-up terminal manoeuvre mainly ends up putting it within the firing solution of more defensive systems than the ones that stay at a lower altitude. It's relatively small (for an ASM), and some systems won't be able to detect it, but constantly exposing itself doesn't do it any favours.

 

Not related to ships, specifically, but a funny comment in the code that might hint at one other issue, is with the Tunguska. Its missile definition includes what sounds like a very annoyed tweak where its minimum flight altitude is set to 14.5m rather than something round and easy “cause ASM fly on 14.9992 m above the sea level. NOT ON 15”.

 

It could just be that the Harpoon got its own tweak at some point and actually flies higher than those 14.9992m, making them more susceptible to anything than most ASMs.

 

The Pre-service 1974 AGM-84A SAC shows it sea skimming at 50-200 ft for most of it's cruise with a pop up / top down attack near the target.

From a surface/air launch, it pulls out of it's initial dive 3-6 NMI after launch and cruises at 50-200 ft ASL for a max range of 61 - 66 NMI i.e. it had similar attack profile to the DCS RB-15F and C-802AK.

 

With 2x C-802AK fired as a pair with different terminal attack profiles - while the pop-up/top down attack is engaged by CIWS, etc., the sea skimmer often gets through.

 

 

Very different from ED's RBL profiles, which have the AGM-84D descending (from 5,000 ft) into anti-missile defences at 6 NMI and then popping back up at 2-3 NMI for a terminal attack.

 

IIRC BN said the Harpoon's radar was increased, l can't wait to see if the cruise profiles have also improved in the next patch.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Ramsay

[PoorOldSpike]

4 hours ago, Ramsay said:

 

Just guessing -

The hull is quite strong and compartmentalised, while the superstructure is relatively soft and squishy and is where the weapons and radar/radio masts are.

 

Hmm...yes I suppose the missile designers know what they're doing because if you can wipe out a ships weaponry with terminal dives you reduce it to a toothless hulk..:)

 

[PoorOldSpike]

I compiled the following test data to help me when creating scenarios, but I may as well also post it here for my popcorn-munching audience bless their little cotton socks. Feel free to give feedback in the form of comments, opinions and the usual death threats etc..:) 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Below: the setup for the multiple tests, I pincered each AI Russian ship in turn between incoming AI Hornets (at 2000 feet altitude) and logged what happened.
All the ships  were average skill and the Hornets were veteran skill-

 

 

 

Below:  typical firework show, here the Kusnetsov carrier is fighting for its life.
Note: there were usually so many SAMs of different types flying at the same time in the tests that it was impossible to log exact hit percentages, but the average was about 30% to 45%.

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[PoorOldSpike]

Below: The vessels weapon layouts, Orange = SAMs, Yellow = Gatlings, Green = Anti-ship missiles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[PoorOldSpike]

Below: SAMs and Gatlings in action

 

Grumble

 

 

 

Tor

 

 

 

Gecko

 

 

 

Tunguska   (note the dual Tunguska/ Gatling launchers)

 

 

 

Twin Gatlings  (note they're attached to the Tunguska launcher)

 

 

 

Single Gatling  (this one is on the Grisha)

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[PoorOldSpike]

For good measure I might as well include ANTISHIP MISSILES data- 

 

Only the following 3 Russian ships carry anti-ship missiles-

Shipwreck fired by Pyotr Velikiy: max range 295 nm when manual fired (and 20 nm AI fired)

 

 

 

Sandbox fired by Moskva: max range 270 nm  when manual fired (and 20 nm AI fired)

 

 

 

Moskit fired by Molniya: max range 70 nm when manual fired (and 15 nm AI fired)

Edited February 6, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[Northstar98]

On 1/31/2021 at 7:42 AM, PoorOldSpike said:

Shipwreck fired by Pyotr Velikiy: max range 300 nm when manual fired (and 20 nm AI fired)
 

Sandbox fired by Moskva: max range 270 nm  when manual fired (and 20 nm AI fired)

Moskit fired by Molniya: max range 70 nm when manual fired (and 15 nm AI fired)

If the AI is operating entirely by itself, they're limited by LoS limitations (typically the RADAR horizon caused by the curvature of the Earth); you can extend this range if you employ offboard targeting (such as by placing an AEW aircraft or an MPA in the mission - IIRC (I'll test it) the A-50, Tu-22M3 and Tu-142 work, though a better offboard targeting aircraft would be the the Tu-95RT); in DCS we don't have RORSATs (RADAR Ocean Reconnaissance) or other reconnaissance satellites to provide offboard targeting (such as the US-A satellites). EDIT: It doesn't look like they do that anymore, you have to use attack group to extend the range.

 

I think if you also use the attack group task in advanced waypoint actions -> perform task, they will fire at longer range.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Seaeagle]

11 hours ago, PoorOldSpike said:

I compiled the following test data to help me when creating scenarios, but I may as well also post it here for my popcorn-munching audience bless their little cotton socks. Feel free to give feedback in the form of comments, opinions and the usual death threats etc..:) 

 

 

 

No death threats(because it isn't your fault), but the proper names for the naval AD systems are:

 

- SA-N-11 / M87 "Kortik" (9M311)

- SA-N-9 / 3K95 "Kinzhal" (9M330)

- SA-N-4 / 4K33 "Osa-M" (9M33M)

- SA-N-6 / S-300F "Fort" (5V55) - Slava class

- SA-N-20 / S-300FM "Fort M" (48N6 and 48N6E2) - Kirov class(Pyotr Velikiy only)

 

So I wish ED would change those idiotic missile labels in the sim and delete the references to ground based launch systems from them - i.e. just leaving "9M311", "9M330" etc.

 

Its even more stupid with the "Moskit" missile, which is labelled as an airlaunched variant although it only exists as an SSM in the sim - following the above naming convention it should be: SS-N-22 / P-270 "Moskit" (3M80E)....or simply "3M80E".

 

Quote

The Russian Fleet-

Below: the setup for the multiple tests, I pincered each AI Russian ship in turn between incoming AI Hornets (at 2000 feet altitude) and logged what happened.
All the ships  were average skill and the Hornets were veteran skill.

To  get a better idea of relative launch ranges for the different missile systems, you should probably change the target altitude - a higher altitude will provide more realistic engagement ranges for the long range systems(unless you just used the Hornet at that altitude to replicate an ASM?).

 

The Kuznetsov actually has 22 "gatlings" - 2x Gsh-6-30K for each Kortik combat module(16 in total) and 6x AK-630 mounts.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Seaeagle

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

So I wish ED would change those idiotic missile labels in the sim and delete the references to ground based launch systems from them - i.e. just leaving "9M311", "9M330" etc.

 

Its even more stupid with the "Moskit" missile, which is labelled as an airlaunched variant although it only exists as an SSM in the sim - following the above naming convention it should be: SS-N-22 / P-270 "Moskit" (3M80E)....or simply "3M80E".

 

I thought I was the only one who took issue with how DCS names things!

 

Also things like the Hawk SAM using the RADARs of the I-HAWK PIP Phase 1 (c. 1979); but the missile is called MIM-23K, which is from a much more modern I-HAWK system, with different RADARs, we should be using the MIM-23B - which is what the missile appears as in the encyclopedia.

 

Also, can anyone tell me what the hell an AGM-84S is? It should be RGM-84x or something because A signifies air-launched, and there's no such thing as an -84S (maybe they meant AGM-84C, but the cyrillic C is a latin S).

 

Also, ships, why aren't they named by class? If they're a class of one or it only depicts a particular, then fine go for the individual name. 

 

I had no idea what a "1135M Rezky" was, I didn't realise that the number was a project number, but when I spawned one in I instantly recognised it as a Krivak II frigate. Wouldn't it be better to call it something like: Krivak II-class FF (Pr. 1135M "Burevestnik-M" SKR) i.e in English localisation use the NATO reporting name, with the native designation in parentheses?

 

And for Russian localisation swap them around i.e: пр. 1135М «Буревесник-М» СКР (Кривак 2 фф/Krivak II FF).

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Northstar98

[PoorOldSpike]

5 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

 I wish ED would change those idiotic missile labels in the sim and delete the references to ground based launch systems from them - i.e. just leaving "9M311", "9M330" etc..

 

..To  get a better idea of relative launch ranges for the different missile systems, you should probably change the target altitude - a higher altitude will provide more realistic engagement ranges for the long range systems(unless you just used the Hornet at that altitude to replicate an ASM?).

 

..The Kuznetsov actually has 22 "gatlings" - 2x Gsh-6-30K for each Kortik combat module(16 in total) and 6x AK-630 mounts.

 

 

1- Thanks, yes ED's  names are confusing, for example I've abbreviated their 'SM 330 Tor (SA-15 Gauntlet)' to just 'Tor'..:)

 

2- These tests took me 10 days to do, so regrettably I don't have the time to run more tests with every variable like altitude, different skill settings, different aircraft target types and size, weather, day/night, target aspect and so on or they'd take forever, I'm 72 years old so the 'doomsday clock' is ticking down for me..

 

3- thanks, yes  i've edited '22 Gatlings' for the Kus into the starter post-

Edited January 31, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[Tippis]

For reference, I used this site http://russianships.info/eng/warships/ to determine what the actual ship names and types were for the wiki page, based on the listed project and hull number. It's a neat resource if not the most intuitive or easiest to navigate.

[PoorOldSpike]

Incidentally, the game's FSG Molniya's encyclopaedia entry (below) says it's got SAM Strelas but during all my tests it never fired any. 

And I can't see any Strela launchers on the vessels graphic.

I've circled possible suspects, are they Strela launchers? If they are they must be empty-

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by PoorOldSpike