Anti-Ship missiles effectiveness...

[Ayane]

Okay, is it me, or are the effectiveness of sub-sonic anti-ship missiles against Russian and US naval vessels very little? Im talking about the AGM-84A Hapoon, Sea Eagle, and Kh-35 Kayak.. The worst one is possibly Kh-35, its accuracy is terrible.. it usually gets shot down by imcoming missiles or totally misses its targets by a few metres..

 

EG: 2 SU-30 are carry 2 Kh-35 Kayak missiles, their target is a lonely Ticonderoga Guilded Missile Cruiser, the inital altitude of the SU-30 and range from the Ticonderoga was 28,000ft and 56nm. The SU-30 fires both their missiles @ a range of 45nm and at an altitude of 15,000ft. By the time the Kh-35 reaches 15km from the ship 3 of the 4 missiles have already been intercepted by the SM-2 (RIM-66 standard) missiles, and the last one just misses the ship by a few metres causing no damage towards the ship..

 

Are the subsonic anti-ship missiles very ineffective against armed naval vessels?

[BIOLOG]

Subsonic missiles are not very effective and are generally easier to intercept. Unless they got good terminal menevers

[D-Scythe]

No, that's incorrect. Subsonic missiles are just as hard to intercept as supersonic cruise missiles. Supersonic cruise missiles seek to reduce the time it takes for a ship to react to it by flying really fast...subsonic cruise missiles does the same by flying lower and are generally much stealthier. Both designs have pros and cons.

[Alfa]

Okay, is it me, or are the effectiveness of sub-sonic anti-ship missiles against Russian and US naval vessels very little? Im talking about the AGM-84A Hapoon, Sea Eagle, and Kh-35 Kayak.. The worst one is possibly Kh-35, its accuracy is terrible.. it usually gets shot down by imcoming missiles or totally misses its targets by a few metres..

 

EG: 2 SU-30 are carry 2 Kh-35 Kayak missiles, their target is a lonely Ticonderoga Guilded Missile Cruiser, the inital altitude of the SU-30 and range from the Ticonderoga was 28,000ft and 56nm. The SU-30 fires both their missiles @ a range of 45nm and at an altitude of 15,000ft. By the time the Kh-35 reaches 15km from the ship 3 of the 4 missiles have already been intercepted by the SM-2 (RIM-66 standard) missiles, and the last one just misses the ship by a few metres causing no damage towards the ship..

 

Are the subsonic anti-ship missiles very ineffective against armed naval vessels?

 

The entire naval aspect in Lock-on was transferred directly from Flanker 2.5, and there havent been any changes to this area in Lock-on 1.1 either. The naval aspect is in dire need of an overhaul, but I wouldnt expect this to be addressed until a new title comes along.

 

- JJ.

[Alfa]

No, that's incorrect. Subsonic missiles are just as hard to intercept as supersonic cruise missiles. Supersonic cruise missiles seek to reduce the time it takes for a ship to react to it by flying really fast...subsonic cruise missiles does the same by flying lower and are generally much stealthier. Both designs have pros and cons.

 

Supersonic missiles are much harder to intercept than subsonic ones - speed does matter.

 

Subsonic missiles are not more "stealthy" by definition - what determines whether a missile is "stealthy" or not has to do with its RCS and flight profile. Most modern supersonic ASMs and SSMs have sea-skimming terminal flight stage, and e.g. the supersonic Kh-31A is no bigger than a subsonic Kh-35 or AGM-84A.

 

- JJ.

[JG27_Arklight]

A "lonely" Tico Class Cruiser probably would shoot down all those missiles before they hit.

 

lol

[D-Scythe]

Supersonic missiles are much harder to intercept than subsonic ones - speed does matter.

 

Subsonic missiles are not more "stealthy" by definition - what determines whether a missile is "stealthy" or not has to do with its RCS and flight profile. Most modern supersonic ASMs and SSMs have sea-skimming terminal flight stage, and e.g. the supersonic Kh-31A is no bigger than a subsonic Kh-35 or AGM-84A.

 

Okay, so does the flight profile of the Kh-31A match those of the Kh-35s? Or can the Kh-35 perform some more complicated profiles, like following waypoints, etc?

 

Just wondering. You're the Russian Naval guru around here ;)

 

A "lonely" Tico Class Cruiser probably would shoot down all those missiles before they hit.

 

Not the one in Lock On. It's a sitting duck.

[destroyex]

Well the thing about the anti-ship missiles is usually to attack in a big wave so that the ship won't have enough time to take out every single missile that is coming at it. Just because it is an atni-ship missile doesn't mean that it will always be better then the ship's defences.

[SUBS17]

Thats exactly right, an attack from 12 Su30s from multiple angles will more likely sink the ship. (Thats 24 missiles)

[zzzspace]

Thats exactly right, an attack from 12 Su30s from multiple angles will more likely sink the ship. (Thats 24 missiles)

 

A current AAW A/Burke with multiple VLS should knock down 24 missiles with SM-2MR Block 4, with little difficulty ... now, if you used >50 very fast ASW missiles it might have a problem killing all of them in time, but the system can effectively engage 100+ targets simultaneously. Coordinated multi-axis attack should also not offer any significant advantages against an A/Burke DDG (in fact it maybe better to use just a single axis of attack). The two VLS launcher packs can launch 90 SM-2MR missiles (normal load-out - 122 max load), at a rate of 2 per second (1 per sec from each launcher). You need a large airforce and some luck to sink just one of these ships, and the USN will have 57 in service by 2008 (was suppose to be by 2004 but was delayed by the US congress).

 

There were 27 Triconderogas in service in 1994, 22 with Mk41 VLS, and 5 original vessels with high launch surge Mk26 VLS system. If they were modelled correctly you would practically never sink one of these in a Lock On mission.

[bflagg]

zzzspace.. wft? when did you go "ED Tester"?

 

Tico is never lonely and AFIK travels with a Carrier Group....

[zzzspace]

For Lock On 1.2 ;)

[D-Scythe]

The two VLS launcher packs can launch 90 SM-2MR missiles (normal load-out - 122 max load)

 

Small correction - the Ticonderoga, being slightly larger, has a max load of 122 SM-2s. Burke destroyers carry 90, IIRC.

 

If you think Aegis is scary now, wait a few years until the newest version of the Standard, the SM-6, comes out. Theoretically, with its over-the-horizon targetting ability, plus its active radar seeker, anti-air defense will start at 100+ miles (currently, sea-skimmers can only be engaged from a max. of 40-50 miles out, because of the curvature of the earth), so no matter where you try to hide, this thing's gonna get you. As insurance, the Phalanx CIWS is also getting phased out in favour of R-116 RAM missile batteries in the next few years.

 

I also think the SPY radars are also getting a little upgrade, but I can't be too sure on that.

 

Unfortunately, the Ticonderoga in Lock On can only fire 2 *severely* undermodelled SM-2MR missiles at a time, and is nothing compared to the Moscow with its SA-N-6 system.

[zzzspace]

Small correction - the Ticonderoga, being slightly larger, has a max load of 122 SM-2s. Burke destroyers carry 90, IIRC.

 

The Tricon has 127 cells and the A/B 122 cells - 90 is a normal SM-2 load-out, with the remaining cells allocated to Tomahawks and SUBROCs.

 

Yes, they are scary ships, you would have to be ... unwell ... to wish to challenge the current USN.

 

EDIT: BTW I think you made a typo, SM-3 rather than SM-6, the SPY radars are perpetually getting upgraded.

[D-Scythe]

No, I didn't - there really is an SM-6 in development. The SM-3 is part of anti-ballistic missile initiatives started by the entire U.S. military basically. The SM-6 isn't - its uses the normal Standard missile body, based on the work done on the SM-2ER Block IV/IVA. However, instead of being guided by SARH, the new missile is equipped with a version of the AMRAAM's active radar seeker, which is being continuously improved through the AIM-120 P3I program. Thus theoretically, it can be targetted by not only the radars on Aegis, but also any off-ship platform that can provide targetting information to the missile through its (probably two-way) datalink.

 

At least, that's how its advertised.

 

And you're right about the missile loads on the Tico and Burke. My mistake.

[Ayane]

So your saying that sub-sonic sea skimming missiles are much more stealthier then super-sonic high altitude drop down attack missiles... So wouldnt that mean that ship engagement range of those missiles be shorter? The Tico seems to be able to engage those sub-sonic missiles at the maximum range of the SM-2 missiles.. which is around 40KMs..

[D-Scythe]

Sea skimming missiles have the ability to hide behind the earth's curvature - since it's essentially a sphere, right? - so naturally, the engagement range is limited to what the radar can detect, even if the SM-2/S300 have a much greater range. However, I don't think this (earth's curvature) is modelled in Lock On - at all.

[Rysi]

A current AAW A/Burke with multiple VLS should knock down 24 missiles with SM-2MR Block 4, with little difficulty ... If they were modelled correctly you would practically never sink one of these in a Lock On mission.

 

Just like an OHP should have no problem intercepting (not to mention detecting) a pair of incoming Exocets :biggrin:

[Ayane]

ahh kk, thanks for clarifying it for me, so sub-sonic missiles just suck in the game >.<

Well atleast the P-500 and P-700 are able to destroy ships with 1 shot..

 

Also on a side-note, is it possible to modify the game to include mores missiles? Like add the Exocet missiles for the French Airforce? Modify existing missiles to act differently?

[D-Scythe]

Just like an OHP should have no problem intercepting (not to mention detecting) a pair of incoming Exocets

 

Firstly, OHP is not Aegis, and thus the radars aren't that powerful. To compound that problem, the OHP that was hit by Exocets was sitting in the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz area, which is only about 40 miles wide. It was sitting in the middle of it. Furthermore, there's a lot of traffic in that area - both in the waters and in the air. Lastly, the Exocet is supersonic. Now factor all that in - the short range, the fast speed, the heavy traffic and clutter.

 

Even the Moscow or a Burke would've been hit in such a situation. The damage was made worse by the fact that OHP, Spruance and Ticonderoga class ships have relatively thin armour compared to the Burke, U.S. carriers and Russian ship designs.

[Ayane]

FYI, The AM.39 exocet missile is sub-sonic, travels @ 0.9 mach towards its target with a maximum effective range of 65KMs and is sea-skimming too ^^

[zzzspace]

So your saying that sub-sonic sea skimming missiles are much more stealthier then super-sonic high altitude drop down attack missiles... So wouldnt that mean that ship engagement range of those missiles be shorter? The Tico seems to be able to engage those sub-sonic missiles at the maximum range of the SM-2 missiles.. which is around 40KMs..

 

Not at all, even SM-1 has a max range around 70 km. The SM-2MR max range is >160 km, but its effective range is 70 km, from zero alt to 82,000 ft (i.e at 70 km an SPY-1 direct SM-2 MR produces highly probability kills against supersonic missiles and aircraft).

[zzzspace]

Just like an OHP should have no problem intercepting (not to mention detecting) a pair of incoming Exocets :biggrin:

 

Your alluding to USS Stark, right?

 

That OHP used SM-1s and much older and less capable radars, and the Stark's CIWS was not even functional when it left port (which fact came out during the inquiry into why the Iraqi's two exocets struck home without being fired upon by the CIWS).

[zzzspace]

Even the Moscow or a Burke would've been hit in such a situation.

 

Nope, they would have detected them and blown both Exocets away ... and the Iraqi F1 Mirage which launched them. The OHP should have shot down at least one, but the operators did not even detect them inbound (but the CIWS would have ... if it were actually functioning at the time).

[zzzspace]

SM-6:

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NL_SM6_110404-P1,00.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sm-6.htm