Ship vs ship missile combat

[PoorOldSpike]

I just finished these tests to find out  what ships can do to each other.

(Example- if you've got a Ticonderoga that's under attack by incoming Russian antiship missiles (Shipwreck/Sandbox/Moskit) there's no problem because the Tico has got green dots which indicate its SM-2 SAMs and Gatlings will engage all the missiles.

However, if a Chinese Destroyer 052B or a Frigate 054A launch their deadly YJ-83 missiles, they're red-dotted to indicate the Tico's SM-2's will have a much harder job locking onto them and firing.)

Post any comments, opinions, views, questions and thinly-veiled death threats etc in this thread..:)

 

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

 

 

Below: some anti-ship missile launches from the tests-

 

Tico launches a Harpoon

 

 

 

Russian Pyotr Veliky launches a Shipwreck

 

 

 

Moskva launches Sandbox

 

 

 

 

Molniya launches Moskit

 

 

 

Chinese Type 052B Destroyer launches YJ-83

 

 

 

Chinese Type 052C launches YJ-62

Edited February 17, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[PoorOldSpike]

Below: a typical test setup, I launch a barrage of Anti-ship missiles at a target vessel, in this example a Lincoln carrier-

 

 

 

BELOW: Some action screenshots from the tests-

 

Russian Shipwreck vs Burke

 

 

 

3 Chinese vessels engage an incoming Harpoon with their 9M317 SAMs-

 

 

 

Tico fires its SM-2 SAMs and Gatling against incoming Chinese YJ-83's. Note the SM-2 self-destruct airburst because its lost the lock on the missile-

 

 

 

A Russian Pyotr Velikiy engages a Chinese YJ-62 missile with Tor SAMs and Gatlings-

 

 

 

Russian Moskits get through this Burkes defences-

 

 

 

A Tico engages a Chinese YJ-62 with SM-2 SAMs and Gatling-

[GGTharos]

Nice job.

 

If you care to put in the effort, I would suggest counting the number of specific missiles required to disable a ship, and the total salvo necessary to get the required number through.

[Tippis]

Going by the numbers…

 

It's all about the comparison between the missile's “reflection” stat (essentially nose-aspect cross-section) in relation to the weapon system's and/or radar tracker's “reflection limit” — i.e. how small a target it can acquire.

 

Missile sizes (“reflection”)

Kh-41 Moskit / SS-N-22 “Sunburn”	0.8m²
P-500 Базальт / SS-N-12 “Sandbox”	1.2m²
P-700 Гранит / SS-N-19 “Shipwreck”	1.5m²
AGM-84A / S / E	0.08m²
(compare AGM-84D)	0.1691m²
YJ-62	0.121m²
YJ-83	0.121m²

 

Weapon systems

System	Reflection limit	Ships	Potential to defeat
3K95 Kinzhal / SA-N-9 Gauntlet	0.02m²	Pyotr Velikiy, Kuznetsov, Neustrashimy	Everything
3M86 Kortik / CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS	0.1m²	Pyotr Velikiy, Kuznetsov, Neustrashimy	Kh-41, P-500, P-700, AGM-84D, YJ-62, YJ-83
4K33 Osa-M / SA-N-4 “Gecko”	(0.1?)	Grisha, Rezky, Moskva	Kh-41, P-500, P-700, AGM-84D, YJ-62, YJ-83
A-213-Vympel-A / AK-630 CIWS	0.1m²	Grisha, Moskva, Molniya, Kuznetsov	Kh-41, P-500, P-700, AGM-84D, YJ-62, YJ-83
S-300F Fort / SA-N-6 “Grumble”	0.049m²	Pyotr Velikiy, Moskva	Everything*
S-300FM Fort-M / SA-N-20 “Grumble”	0.049m²	Pyotr Velikiy	Everything*
Phalanx CIWS	0.05m²	CG-65, CVN-70 — -75, DDG-112, FFG-46, LHA-1	Everything
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow	0.02m²	CVN-70 — -75	Everything*
RIM-66 SM2	0.1m²	CG-65, DDG-112, FFG-46	Kh-41, P-500, P-700, AGM-84D, YJ-62, YJ-83
RIM-116 RAM	0.02m² (or IR)	CVN-71 — -75, LHA-1	Everything
3S90M Smerch / SA-N-12 “Grizzly”	0.05m²	052B	Everything
H/PJ12 / Type 730 CIWS	0.1m²	052B, 052C, 054A	Kh-41, P-500, P-700, AGM-84D, YJ-62, YJ-83
HHQ-9	0.02m²	052C	Everything
HQ-16	0.02m²	054A	Everything

 

Three systems (the S-300:s and the Sea Sparrow) have an interesting limitation in that their minimum altitude is higher than most terminal sea-skimming altitudes, but the S-300 variants at leas will quite easily compensate for this by firing before the incoming missile descends to terminal altitude. Some missiles will also just fly way too high for their own good (for instance the YJ-62 and AGM-84A) and will just be mauled by anything anyway.

 

The Osa-M is an odd one in that it has no clearly defined reflection limit, but the regular Osa sits at 0.1, which seems consistent with its general behaviour.

[Seaeagle]

18 hours ago, Tippis said:

Going by the numbers…

 

It's all about the comparison between the missile's “reflection” stat (essentially nose-aspect cross-section) in relation to the weapon system's and/or radar tracker's “reflection limit” — i.e. how small a target it can acquire.

 

Weapon systems

System	Reflection limit	Ships	Potential to defeat
3M86 Kortik / CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS	0.1m²	Pyotr Velikiy, Kuznetsov, Neustrashimy	Kh-41, P-500, P-700, AGM-84D, YJ-62, YJ-83
4K33 Osa-M / SA-N-4 “Gecko”	(0.1?)	Grisha, Rezky, Moskva	Kh-41, P-500, P-700, AGM-84D, YJ-62, YJ-83
A-213-Vympel-A / AK-630 CIWS	0.1m²	Grisha, Moskva, Molniya, Kuznetsov	Kh-41, P-500, P-700, AGM-84D, YJ-62, YJ-83

 

 

 

Something is seriously wrong with those reflection limits....like a couple of zeros missing.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Seaeagle

[PoorOldSpike]

A LOOK AT THE ANTISHIP MISSILE SPECS

 

The names of Anti-ship missiles in the Encyclopaedia sometimes don't match with the actual in-game 3D names, so for clarification here are their Encyc entries.

There's 1 American ASM (Harpoon), 3 Russian (Shipwreck,Sandbox and Moskit) and 2 Chinese (YJ-83 and YJ-82)

 

AMERICAN- there are 4 Harpoon versions in the game, 2 are land attack versions and the 2 below are anti-ship.

However the in-game 3D Harpoon is the AGM-84S version which isn't in the Encyc.

(I've yellow-boxed warhead weights for interests sake)

 

 

RUSSIAN

The P-700 is the Shipwreck

The P-500 is the Sandbox

The KH-41 is called the 'Sunburn' in the Encyc, but called the 'Moskit' in the 3D game.

 

 

CHINESE

Edited February 17, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[PoorOldSpike]

Below- A look at their names in the 3D game

 

(American) AGM-84S Harpoon

 

 

(Russian) P-700 (SS-N-19 Shipwreck)

 

 

 

(Russian) P-500 (SS-N-12 Sandbox)

 

 

(Russian) Kh-41 Moskit (ASM-MMS)

 

 

(Chinese) YJ-83

 

 

(Chinese) YJ-82

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[Seaeagle]

10 minutes ago, PoorOldSpike said:

A LOOK AT THE ANTISHIP MISSILE SPECS

 

The names of Anti-ship missiles in the Encyclopaedia sometimes don't match with the actual in-game 3D names, so for clarification here are their Encyc entries-

(There's 1 American ASM in the game (Harpoon), 3 Russian and 2 Chinese)

 

AMERICAN- there are 4 Harpoons in the game, 2 are land attack versions and the 2 below are anti-ship.

However the in-game 3D Harpoon is the AGM-84S version which isn't in the Encyc.

(I've yellow-boxed warhead weights for interests sake)

 

 

 

RUSSIAN

The P-700 is the Shipwreck

The P-500 is the Sandbox

The KH-41 is called the 'Sunburn' in the Encyc, but called the 'Moskit' in the 3D game.

Yeah its a mess.

 

The ship launched version of the Harpoon is called RGM-84(several variants).

 

For the Russian SSMs;

 

P-700 "Granit"  is the complex name, while the missile itself is called 3M45 - NATO reporting name "SS-N-19 "Shipwreck"

P-500 "Bazalt" is the complex name, while the missile itself is called 4K80 - NATO reporting name: "SS-N-12" "Sandbox"

P-270 "Moskit is the complex name, while the missile itself is called 3M80 - NATO reporting name: "SS-N-22" "Sunburn"

 

A missile complex consists of guidance system(radar, opticals etc.), missile launchers and the missile.

 

[PoorOldSpike]

And speaking of missiles "radar reflections", I noticed in my tests that ships off to one side of an incoming missiles axis of approach seemed to be able to lock onto the missile better because they could see more of the missiles shape from the side, or did I imagine it?

Here's a typical screenshot; Chinese YJ-83's are coming in from the left down the blue arrows and are hitting the Russian Neustrashimy on the right which is burning.

The ship in the middle (yellow circle) is firing its Gatling at the missiles, but the ship on the left (yellow box) is firing its lethal Tor SAMs, possibly because it's locked onto the missiles larger side-aspect view-

 

[PoorOldSpike]

23 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Nice job.

 

If you care to put in the effort, I would suggest counting the number of specific missiles required to disable a ship, and the total salvo necessary to get the required number through.

 

 

WARHEAD WEIGHT

 

I might do some tests in the future, but for now the warhead weights as listed in the Encyclopaedia are a good guide to what damage they can inflict, and from observation I know bigger ships can absorb most damage.

These are the warhead weights as given in the Encyclopaedia, Red=Russian, Blue USA, Orange=China

 

Sandbox (1000 kg)

Shipwreck (750 kg)

Moskit (320 kg)

Harpoon (225 kg)

YJ-62 (210 kg)

YJ-83 (190 kg)

 

I just ran 2 short tests; in this one I subjected a Pyotr Velikiy cruiser to a saturation attack by Harpoons, it's already taken 12 hits and its health bar has dropped into the red-

 

 

 

Below: and after another 2 Harpoon hits, the ship vanishes from the map and begins to sink.

Therefore we can conclude 14 Harpoon AGM-84S hits will usually sink a cruiser-

 

 

I then set up a Russian vs Russian test and hit the Pyotr Velikiy with a Sandbox saturation attack and it sank so fast after just 4 hits that i didn't have time to do screenshots!

Not surprising really, because the Sandbox's massive 1000 kg warhead is the biggest ship-launched antiship warhead in the game..:)

 

PS: Noob tip- Saturation attacks have always been my favourite tactic in all the wargames i've been playing for the past 40 years, whether land, sea or air, as I never waste my time pussy-footing around. One of my favourite sayings is-

"Never fear to use insanely overwhelming firepower, let the fear be your enemies"..:)

Edited February 17, 2021 by PoorOldSpike

[Tippis]

Also, while we're at it with the ship damage stats…

MOAR DATA MINING!

 

Ship hitpoints

FFL 1124.4 Grisha	1,600
FF 1135M Rezky	1,800
CGN 1144.2 Piotr Velikiy	6,500
CG 1164 Moskva	5,200
FSG 1241.1MP Molniya	1,100
CV 1143.5 Admiral Kuznetsov	7,000
FFG 11540 Neustrashimy	2,180
Type 052B Destroyer	2,700
Type 052C Destroyer	3,200
Type 054A Frigate	2,500
Type 071 Amphibious Transport Dock	7,300
Type 093 Attack Submarine	1,500
USS Arleigh Burke IIa	2,100
CV-59 USS Forrestal	7,300
Nimitz-class Carriers (CVN-70 – -75)	7,300
Oliver Hazard Perry class	2,300
LHA-1 Tarawa	7,300
Ticonderoga class	2,700

 

The remaining civilian ships (and the subs) sit at 2–400 hitpoints, except for the Handy Wind at 1,000.

[PoorOldSpike]

More hands-on test results-

 

[Чарик80]

This is all bullshit until the ships are taught to replenish ammunition

[Northstar98]

43 minutes ago, Чарик80 said:

This is all bullshit until the ships are taught to replenish ammunition

 

And how are they going to do that? We don't have functional resupply ships and many of them (all of them more likely) have to go into port to replenish weapons.

[Northstar98]

On 2/17/2021 at 9:45 PM, Tippis said:

Also, while we're at it with the ship damage stats…

MOAR DATA MINING!

 

Ship hitpoints

FFL 1124.4 Grisha	1,600
FF 1135M Rezky	1,800
CGN 1144.2 Piotr Velikiy	6,500
CG 1164 Moskva	5,200
FSG 1241.1MP Molniya	1,100
CV 1143.5 Admiral Kuznetsov	7,000
FFG 11540 Neustrashimy	2,180
Type 052B Destroyer	2,700
Type 052C Destroyer	3,200
Type 054A Frigate	2,500
Type 071 Amphibious Transport Dock	7,300
Type 093 Attack Submarine	1,500
USS Arleigh Burke IIa	2,100
CV-59 USS Forrestal	7,300
Nimitz-class Carriers (CVN-70 – -75)	7,300
Oliver Hazard Perry class	2,300
LHA-1 Tarawa	7,300
Ticonderoga class	2,700

 

The remaining civilian ships (and the subs) sit at 2–400 hitpoints, except for the Handy Wind at 1,000.

 

Interesting how the Grisha V almost has the same number of hitpoints as the Krivak II, despite the former being a lot smaller (1000 vs 3000 tonne displacement).

 

Spoiler

And ED, please stop naming ships by their individual names unless they are supposed to be a very specific ship.

 

I mean seriously, USS Arleigh Burke IIa? - USS Arleigh Burke is the very first Flt. I Arleigh-Burke class, which has some significant differences between our pick 'n' mix late Flt. IIA 5"/62 (see here for more details), it has a different gun (5"/54 Mk45 Mod 1/2 instead of 5"/62 Mk45 Mod 4), doesn't have any hangars, and has 2 quad Mk141 launchers for RGM-84 Harpoon.

 

[Чарик80]

They could have reloaded as ground units from trucks or a warehouse or an airfield or from cargo ships

I would like to know where the data for reloading units is located

[Northstar98]

3 minutes ago, Чарик80 said:

They could have reloaded as ground units from trucks or a warehouse or an airfield or from cargo ships

I would like to know where the data for reloading units is located

 

How is a ship supposed to reload from a truck?

 

And how the current system works is that a unit being rearmed must be within 200m to be rearmed - which pretty much mandates pulling the ship back into port to be rearmed, DCS' AI currently can't handle that, and ships often just stop when close to the shore.

 

Cargo ships is an -ish IRL, I'm not aware of many ships that can rearm other vessels at sea, apart from submarine tenders and only in sheltered waters (i.e a bay or close to port). Missiles in general can only be reloaded from naval bases and ports.

 

Unfortunately the whole logistics element is really lacklustre in DCS, and is non-existent for ships. But IRL ships are not going to be rearming at sea - especially when it comes to missiles. 

[Чарик80]

That's what I'm talking about,disposable ships

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Чарик80 said:

That's what I'm talking about,disposable ships

 

Well, unless you can find a replenishment vessel that can actually reload things like missiles, especially at sea then I strongly doubt it. Fuel and magazines for aircraft and smaller calibre weapons yes, big stuff like missiles - no.

 

The only exception I can think of is submarine tenders, which have in the past been able to resupply SLBMs onto SSBNs, but from what I can see only in sheltered waters close to port.

[Callsign112]

On 2/17/2021 at 7:57 PM, PoorOldSpike said:

More hands-on test results-

 

Good stuff. Very interesting, and keep it coming.

[Чарик80]

6 часов назад, Northstar98 сказал:

 

Well, unless you can find a replenishment vessel that can actually reload things like missiles, especially at sea then I strongly doubt it. Fuel and magazines for aircraft and smaller calibre weapons yes, big stuff like missiles - no.

 

The only exception I can think of is submarine tenders, which have in the past been able to resupply SLBMs onto SSBNs, but from what I can see only in sheltered waters close to port.

So we need to make sure that they reload near the airfield

[Morri]

Haven't been able to replicate the Chinese 052B firing it's 9M-317s against incoming harms, it seems to never engage, whether the missiles are targeting the ship or flying past to strike another ship. did you have any extra settings or parameters set? Just trying to balance fleets for a campaign and would like to use the 52B. Thanks

[Tippis]

25 minutes ago, Morri said:

Haven't been able to replicate the Chinese 052B firing it's 9M-317s against incoming harms, it seems to never engage, whether the missiles are targeting the ship or flying past to strike another ship. did you have any extra settings or parameters set? Just trying to balance fleets for a campaign and would like to use the 52B. Thanks

The only setting that would matter is “engage air weapons”, which might not be available to ships.

 

But beyond that, the issue is that the HARM sits right at the very edge of what the SA-N-12 can detect and engage. Combine that with a relatively short engagement range (for a naval weapon) and a long lock-on time, and it might simply not have enough time to detect, lock, and engage the incoming missile during the brief window where it could be engaged. So the AI ends up not even bothering.

[Morri]

Oh thats my bad, I meant to type Harpoon not Harm lol, Even with that patch just there for the 52B they won't engage missiles fired from planes or from Ticonderogas 

[Tippis]

Oh, well, yes. Then you might be onto something because the Harpoon is… ehm… not inconspicuous, let's say.  

 

That said, I don't exactly remember its skimming altitude, because that could be the other explanation. It doesn't like going below 16', and I know there's at least one other system that has been specifically set to have a lower limit of 14.9, with the angry comment in the code that if set to an even 15, it wouldn't engage various ASMs.

 

It could be the same issue in effect here, but again, that depends on the Harpoon's terminal altitude, and it should still be shredded by (or at least engaged by) the CIWS.