Jump to content

"Lock On is not a Naval Sim"....


Recommended Posts

Okay, I know this issue has been beaten to death, and ED has repeatedly stated that Lock On focuses more on land combat than naval combat, but I still believe that there are some things they can still do that wouldn't be looked twice at in a list of fixed bugs in a standard patch, but would be very much appreciated by the gameplay. Still staying true to ED's position that the naval aspect of LO-MAC is not emphasized, there are still some little tiny things that could have a huge, positive effect for mission builders and stuff.

 

One, we all know in a battlefield, we are not by ourselves, which we almost always are in Lock On. Adding extra aircraft hacks away at FPS so there is a limit to their numbers imposed on any scenario we can think of. So, why don't we replace some of these aircraft with cruise missiles? Providing close air for ground troops while Tomahawks or Bazalts zoom past you to strike static targets (like a town or a bunker) would be amazing.

 

Currently, this isn't possible, because ships seem unwilling to engage land-based targets with their cruise missiles, unless they are close to shore. So maybe this could be fixed, so that Ticonderogas and Moscows become far more aggressive in this respect?

 

Cause currently, they CAN do it, but don't. So this seems like easy to implement (to me - it may be much harder than I think).

 

Another thing I would like is to turn the Ticonderoga and Moscow into something analogous to Patriot/S-300 batteries. Currently, cruisers can only engage 2 (the Moscow 4) targets simultaneously, which is a dreadfully low number. Can ED maybe increase the targets they can engage at the same time? I think people should be terrified to go up against a Tico or Moscow, even in numbers, but currently, it's like, "What's the big deal?"

 

Again, since they already can engage multiple targets, it is something already there and just needs to be expanded upon a bit. And again, it might take more work than I think - I honestly don't know. But I do feel with the graphical detail presented in the naval aspect so far, it is a pity that we don't have a bit more to work with mission-building wise.

 

Screenshots don't do it justice - the ripple effect on Very High has to be seen to be believed:

 

screenshot0165ze.jpg

 

screenshot0150fe.jpg

 

screenshot0148ew.jpg

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently, this isn't possible, because ships seem unwilling to engage land-based targets with their cruise missiles, unless they are close to shore. So maybe this could be fixed, so that Ticonderogas and Moscows become far more aggressive in this respect?[/Quote]

 

They can. Just use the coordnates for targeting which is petty realistis for cruise missiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I'd actually like them to take things to the next level and have people controlling the ships. That would be the ultimate, maybe for the successor they could have a separate addon with a Russian ship and a Nato ship. It expands the battlefield and also things like cruise missiles could be programmed by the player rather than through a default script. The other big one is the Mig 29K and F/A-18 hornet plus carriers. But maybe for v1.2 they could add in repair refuel and rearm on carriers. I'd be real happy with such a feature.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im looking forwar to a "Lock On: Hell above the Water" Addon. With especially more Ships and the F18+Carrier thing. It would be nice if the lifts on the carriers has any functions.

This message was sponsored by "askingstupidquestions.com" in cooparation with "icantfly.de".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about the moscow or any above that is you need to fly in packs to defeat it and have antiship missiles that out range it. Only the su33 and su25TM have that capability. Another mystery is why we didn't get the Su25TM which has more naval options than the weak su25T which is only useful against a rezky or below. Other than the weapons they carry there isn't a lot of difference between the 25T and 25TM is there? At least the FM should be the same.

 

Also adding a variety of support aircaft that aren't figters or bombers would be nice. The russians have a standoff jammer type AC like the s3b don't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Su-25TM has pretty much all of its cockpit instruments classified, unlike Su-25T, which only has it's SPO classified. Also some other bits and bobs, most of which, again, are caused by the lack of information...

The bird of Hermes is my name eating my wings to make me tame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, i finally made it so the tico's can fire its tomahawk missiles @ land base targets... just needs alot of fine tuning and alot pf patience..

 

I have 2 Tico's, firing 3 Tomahawk Missiles each @ 6 separate static ground targets (Hangers)..

 

Im in a MiG-29S armed with 2 R-27R and 4 R-73 also with AWACs support, and ive have to intercept the missiles before they hit their designated targets.. ive tried many times but i cant seem to get my R27s to hit... ive even fired it within 1 Mile from the missile, and i still miss, tho the R73 seems to have a higher chance of hitting.. So i was able to destroy 4 Tomahawk missiles.. and 2 were able to hit their targetrs sucessfully.

 

Ive also tried intercepting them with an IAF F-15C with 4 AIM-7 2 AIM-120C and 2 AIM-9M, the 120s and 7s totally miss, ive tried firing @ the tomahawks headon and from behind, and they can seem to sucessfully track and destroy the missiles.. while the sidewinders have no trouble...

 

Seems like all the Radar guided missiles have trouble hitting small aerial targets... ill keep trying, but if anyone has any ideas on how to intercept sub-sonic cruise missiles i would like to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah, I'm not saying that ships cannot engage ground targets, just that they seem unwilling to. If we have to work and fine-tune so much just to force the ships to engage, than it's not working, IMO. Besides, one Tico/Moscow IMO should easily be able to engage 6 different ground targets ANYWHERE on the map, not two.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a request in naval aspect for lockon sequel:

 

1) Your plane is manually hauled up from below the deck to the top

2) you have to drive ur plane to the spot for take off.

3) meanwhile there are ppl on the deck guiding u.

4) If u hit one guy, u get a warning.

5) u keep hitting more ppl i.e., killing them..slowly the navy thinks u r crazy and they start firing with small arms at u.

6) u take off

7) the carrier sends more aircraft against u

8) u take em down.

9) aircraft also come from a nearby airbase.

 

lol!! its like a storylinre

 

well...it would be interesting to have life like AI. :D

WHISPR | Intel I7 5930K | Nvidia GTX980 4GB GDDR5 | 16GB DDR4 | Intel 730 series 512GB SSD | Thrustmaster WARTHOG | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR4 pro |

|A-10C|BS2 |CA|P-51 MUSTANG|UH-1H HUEY|MI-8 MTV2 |FC3|F5E|M2000C|AJS-37|FW190|BF 109K|Mig21|A-10:SSC,EWC|L-39|NEVADA|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a request in naval aspect for lockon sequel(1.2 or next franchise):

 

1) Have subsystems we can destroy in the Superstructure. Naval doctrine is SEAD missiles to clear ship AD, antiship missiles(for the rest of the super structure) and finally bombs to pierce the hull. Now we can only destroy ship SAMs when the ship itself has sunk.

 

2) re-arm, refuel, and reset on carriers

ZoomBoy

My Flight Sims Page

- Link to My Blog - Sims and Things - DCS Stuff++

- Up-to-Speed Guides to the old Lockon A10A and Su-25T

- Some missions [needs update]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have subsystems we can destroy in the Superstructure. Naval doctrine is SEAD missiles to clear ship AD, antiship missiles(for the rest of the super structure) and finally bombs to pierce the hull. Now we can only destroy ship SAMs when the ship itself has sunk.

 

Actually, this is only partially true. Ground vehicles and ships seem to have this "really damaged" state, where there weapons seem to be inhibited and their mobility greatly decreased. It is entirely possible for a Moscow to be hit by enough Harpoons that it simply sits there in the water, and at that point, its SAMs are inoperative, but it's not considered destroyed.

 

But granted, yes, currently ships seem to have an HP life bar damage system, rather than subsystems that we can destroy.

 

Anyway, I was sorta asking for things we can see in a patch. Since Lock On isn't even finished yet, and the devs repeatedly stated that ship combat isn't emphasized, I think it may be unreasonable to ask for things that would take away from their focus.

 

They did make CIWS more effective in the V1.02 patch, so I still have hope :)

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good topic!

 

This is one of the few regressions LOMAC has made compared to early Flanker2.0 versions. IIRC it was possible to launch ARMs at ship-borne radars and take them out of action back then. Another neat feature was that individual masts, guns and missile launchers could be hit and destroyed, although the launchers didn't stop working, lol. Ships could also have their propulsion plants damaged partially or completely (I haven't actually checked if this isn't still the case though). Anyway, it would be extremely nice to see the potential that is suggested by the above facts realized, it isn't even adding anything new, just putting back in (and fixing) what was once there already.

 

If ED can then improve the weapons employment routines (more air targets that can be engaged at once, anti-ship and cruise-missiles being fired in volleys and at several targets simultaneously if tactically viable) and add Harpoon capability to the OHP LOMAC will actually have a very respectable naval component indeed, IMHO.

 

BTW, the Granit is solely an anti-ship weapon (Where's JJ? I can't believe he missed that) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi D-Scythe,

 

Nice to see this subject being adressed - I feel it deserves far more attention ...by the community and developers alike.

 

You are right that the naval aspect hasnt been the main focus of Lock-on, which in turn has lead it to lack behind the rest of the sim and being the aspect in most need of an "overhaul". However, to be honest I dont think it can be fixed or even reach a reasonable level of realism just by making slight adjustments. As I am sure you have found too, setting up a realistically progressing naval engagement is very difficult in Lock-on ....you have to be extremely careful about what you do at the mission building stage to avoid having the scenario turn completely stupid.

 

I think what is required is a more comprehensive plan for the naval aspect in a future release including a priority list of most important additions, refinements, fixes etc.

 

Maybe we should make a "naval wishlist" sticky-thread :)

 

About you suggestions,

 

One, we all know in a battlefield, we are not by ourselves, which we almost always are in Lock On. Adding extra aircraft hacks away at FPS so there is a limit to their numbers imposed on any scenario we can think of. So, why don't we replace some of these aircraft with cruise missiles? Providing close air for ground troops while Tomahawks or Bazalts zoom past you to strike static targets (like a town or a bunker) would be amazing.

 

Agree on the Tomahawks(TLAMs) - but not on the Bazalt bit ;) - Russian shipborne cruise missiles such as the P-270 "Moskit", P-500 "Bazalt" and P-700 "Granit" are dedicated SSMs, which use active radar for terminal homing and cannot be used effectively in the land attack role.

 

Another matter is that, AFAIK, the USN doesnt field an SSM version of the Tomahawk missile anymore - the version(s) currently carried by surface and subsurface vessels, is a dedicated land attack version(TLAM = Tomahawk Land Attack Missile), while a dedicated SSM variant(TASM = Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile) IIRC was abandonned in the late eighties. So in reality the Tomahawk missile in Lock-on should be for engaging land targets only, while the Moskit, Bazalt and Granit for sea surface targets only.

 

Another thing I would like is to turn the Ticonderoga and Moscow into something analogous to Patriot/S-300 batteries. Currently, cruisers can only engage 2 (the Moscow 4) targets simultaneously, which is a dreadfully low number.

 

Well the number of targets, which can be engaged simultaneously by these systems is down to the number of targeting channels of the tracking radar - in the case of the Moscow, the maximum number of simultaneously engaged targets is 6 :)

 

Can ED maybe increase the targets they can engage at the same time? I think people should be terrified to go up against a Tico or Moscow, even in numbers, but currently, it's like, "What's the big deal?"

 

I agree, but I believe this has more to do with the way ships use their airdefence systems in Lock-on - they often only use one system at a time and some sub systems arent active at all....i.e. not necessarily a question of a single main system being "under modelled", but rather that the ship´s AI not being sophisticated enough to make proper use of all the systems(that should be) available to it.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree on the Tomahawks(TLAMs) - but not on the Bazalt bit ;) - Russian shipborne cruise missiles such as the P-270 "Moskit", P-500 "Bazalt" and P-700 "Granit" are dedicated SSMs, which use active radar for terminal homing and cannot be used effectively in the land attack role.

 

Beat ya to it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the Granit is solely an anti-ship weapon (Where's JJ? I can't believe he missed that) ;)

 

LOL.....posted my reply while you posted yours.

 

Actually the Granit can be used in a(very) secondary role as sort of a "last resort" strategic land attack option when fitted with a nuclear warhead.

 

However, although the missile has a very sophisticated array of onboard systems and targeting means, it does AFAIK not include an autopilot that can fly the missile through a series of GPS corrected waypoints required for a dedicated terrain following land attack weapon.

 

The Granit was, as you said, designed for naval surface-to-surface warfare - more specifically for defeating entire groups of surface vessels through a very advanced onboard avionics suite, which can recognise and prioritise targets for engagement.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree on the Tomahawks(TLAMs) - but not on the Bazalt bit - Russian shipborne cruise missiles such as the P-270 "Moskit", P-500 "Bazalt" and P-700 "Granit" are dedicated SSMs, which use active radar for terminal homing and cannot be used effectively in the land attack role.

 

Another matter is that, AFAIK, the USN doesnt field an SSM version of the Tomahawk missile anymore - the version(s) currently carried by surface and subsurface vessels, is a dedicated land attack version(TLAM = Tomahawk Land Attack Missile), while a dedicated SSM variant(TASM = Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile) IIRC was abandonned in the late eighties. So in reality the Tomahawk missile in Lock-on should be for engaging land targets only, while the Moskit, Bazalt and Granit for sea surface targets only.

 

Hmm, didn't know that about Russian SSMs. Since they could like Tomahawks be used to attack land targets, I assumed that they could IRL. BTW, I agree that the Tico shouldn't be using the Tomahawk to engage ship targets (although I'm not sure the TASM was 'abandoned' - maybe phased out or converted?), it should be using the Harpoon.

 

Well the number of targets, which can be engaged simultaneously by these systems is down to the number of targeting channels of the tracking radar - in the case of the Moscow, the maximum number of simultaneously engaged targets is 6

 

Early Ticonderogas, IIRC, could support 4-8 Standard SAMs in terminal end-game plus another 16-20 in flight. Later model Standards I think were upgraded so that they use the main SPY phased array for guidance, rather than the traditional targetting radars, so probably a lot more Standards can be supported simultaneously.

 

But the Moscow? Only 6? Hmm, I always was under the impression it was more. I guess maybe because the Ticonderoga is a dedicated AAW cruiser. Anyway, thanks for the info.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I agree that the Tico shouldn't be using the Tomahawk to engage ship targets (although I'm not sure the TASM was 'abandoned' - maybe phased out or converted?), it should be using the Harpoon.

 

Well US naval stuff is not my "field", but I believe the original TLAM(BGM-109A) and TASM(BGM-109B) were to be upgraded - but for the TASM this upgrade(BGM-109E) was suspended. Later the plan was to develop a combined "multi mission" version that could undertake both tasks, but AFAIK this project was cancelled as it was deemed too expensive and a further improvement to the TLAM was pursued instead.

 

Early Ticonderogas, IIRC, could support 4-8 Standard SAMs in terminal end-game plus another 16-20 in flight. Later model Standards I think were upgraded so that they use the main SPY phased array for guidance, rather than the traditional targetting radars, so probably a lot more Standards can be supported simultaneously.

 

But the Moscow? Only 6? Hmm, I always was under the impression it was more. I guess maybe because the Ticonderoga is a dedicated AAW cruiser. Anyway, thanks for the info.

 

The S-300F "Rif" system use a combination of a dedicated long range 3D air search radar(MR-800)...

1164-mast.jpg

(the large rear antenna).

 

..and one or two phased array tracking radars - on the Moscow only one at the rear.

1164-low.jpg

 

The tracking radar can simultaneously track and engage up to 6 targets within a 60/60 deg. sector covered by the antenna and control up to 12 missiles in the air(two against each target).

 

The Kirov-class has two tracking radars - one rear and one front..

Kirov-Moskva.jpg

 

...on older Kirov-class vessels the two tracking radars are the same front and aft, while the latest vessel(Pyotr Velikiy) has an updated "Rif-M" system with an new front radar - a "collapsable" panel(IIRC called "Tombstone" by Nato).

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah :)

 

On the note of the TASM Tomahawk, according to Designation-Systems.net, the -109B TASM version actually entered service (and actually the first variant deployed to operational status). These were retired in the early 90s. There does seem to be an all-purpose missile, the RGM/UGM-109E TMMM, that is being developed designed to attack both land and sea targets, under Raytheon's Block IV upgrade in 1994, and there was no mention of its cancellation, so it seems the U.S. haven't abandoned the idea of a sea-attack option (if not a dedicated variant) entirely.

 

Oh, before I forget, I think there are some problems with the Osa ADS system in the Moscow (not sure what its naval variant is called, but it fires Gecko type missiles). When engaging cruise missiles in Lock On, they fly like one second and then just explode, which I'm almost certain wouldn't happen IRL.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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