Anti-Ship Issues

[NineLine]

Nope, I can set up something myself to test that specific missile I am sure.

 

Sorry my bad ? Do you want the track file also ?

[GGTharos]

It took a carrier 8 hours to sink after it was hit with a nuke. There's more to shooting swarms of anti-ship missiles than getting through the aegis/ECM barrier :)

 

I feel like 16 hits to a carrier with anti ship missiles would likely sink it though,

[NineLine]

So I did a whole bunch of anti-ship missile shooting, some similar things as you guys (8 to 16 missiles, not 30 to 40 of course), although I am leaning towards what GG said and that these things were built to stay afloat, I also noticed that each time I watched it the damage could vary. The only thing I really didnt like was that I saw the bridge blown of the ship a couple times and it continued to sail along its merry way. Now I dont know much about naval stuff so maybe it has back up systems to continue moving? But seems it should atleast be disabled easier (I did notice slow downs in speed at times). Will look into it a little more...

 

I did, in the end, add in some enemy naval vessels as well, that speeded the destruction up quite a bit ;)

[NineLine]

 

I hope this is much clear to you otherwise god help ED making you two guys (CG & SiThSpAwN) moderator of this forum :joystick:

 

If you are looking to help, or to get help you sure are going about it wrong...

[FlankerNation]

It took a carrier 8 hours to sink after it was hit with a nuke. There's more to shooting swarms of anti-ship missiles than getting through the aegis/ECM barrier :)

 

There is no proof what you are saying. And definitely you don't need swarms of anti-ship missiles to sink the carrier, it will only take some numbers in 20's to destroy the carrier.

 

And Russia ain't stupid to make advance Anti-ship missiles so it can fire swarms of them, it made them effectively to breach the hull of the ships then detonate hence causing havoc and chaos finally destroying and sinking the ship or carrier in less numbers of missiles...... not SWARMS of missiles :huh:

[NineLine]

[maturin]

Since this thread was over before it began, it can't hurt to nudge it off-topic a little.

 

How many radars does your average destroyer carry, anyways? Will one good hit with an ARM silence it entirely, or is navigation split up from fire control, etc?

 

Would you be likely to put the long-range SAMs out of commission, while still needing to worry about CIWS and the like?

 

Ships really need a simple component damage model, because if we could hunt ships with multi-step strikes, silencing the radar and then pouncing on the crippled vessel with ground attack aircraft... that would be incredible gameplay.

[GGTharos]

Depends on the vessel and radar type.

 

An AEGIS cruiser tends to have 4 SPY antennas, and multiple others for surveillance. Also 3-4 guidance antennas.

 

Guidance antennas can be deleted as you go from SM-2 to SM-6.

 

A ship with dead radars can also cue fires from datalinks and let another ship guide its missiles.

 

Close in defenses can be CIWS or SeaRAM.

 

Simply put, right now attacking anti-air cruisers is way too easy.

[GGTharos]

There is no proof what you are saying.

 

That it took 8 hours for a carrier to sink after it was hit by a nuke? Of course there is, the Americans made sure to test this when they were testing their first multi-megaton shots. This is well documented. Perhaps your google-fu is kid stuff?

 

And definitely you don't need swarms of anti-ship missiles to sink the carrier, it will only take some numbers in 20's to destroy the carrier.

 

That's a swarm.

 

And Russia ain't stupid to make advance Anti-ship missiles so it can fire swarms of them, it made them effectively to breach the hull of the ships then detonate hence causing havoc and chaos finally destroying and sinking the ship or carrier in less numbers of missiles...... not SWARMS of missiles :huh:

 

And yet their tactics is to fire swarms of missiles.

[SFAL]

How many radars does your average destroyer carry, anyways?

the answer is many... and the radar operators know when to shut down the radar...

 

it is EXTREMLEY difficult to score an ARM hit on a guided missile destroyer/crusier...in fact if u want to score anything on it thats to sink it or criple it.

 

modern missile destryers and crusiers are marvels of military tech. they are a notch down from killer/hunter subs tech wise.

 

these ships have a command room and its not on the bridge for obvious reasons. its in the belly of the ship... reduntant upon redundant systems...

[NineLine]

I agree, I know that Wags was asking for items for naval ops, so perhaps a revamp is coming? I dont know... but I do know if the damage model shows the entire bridge blown off the ship, something noticeable should have changed in that ships operation :)

 

 

Ships really need a simple component damage model, because if we could hunt ships with multi-step strikes, silencing the radar and then pouncing on the crippled vessel with ground attack aircraft... that would be incredible gameplay.

[NineLine]

These were WWII Carriers and Ships as well if I am thinking of the same tests, so ships designed without nukes in mind... Now I will concede that it wasnt a direct hit on the ship (it was a tests to see what damage a nuke would do to a fleet), which could have made for different results, and it sank because the ship was too radiated to repair the leaks in the hull caused by the shockwave.

 

That it took 8 hours for a carrier to sink after it was hit by a nuke? Of course there is, the Americans made sure to test this when they were testing their first multi-megaton shots. This is well documented. Perhaps your google-fu is kid stuff?

[Silver_Dragon]

Other point (and examples):

 

Ships has ESM, ECM (SQL-32), flares and chaff launcher (C-20 chaff rocket, Mark 36 SRBOC, Seagnat, MASS) , and some towed and deployable decoys (Nulka or IDS300).

http://youtu.be/H61d_OkIht4

 

Modern AEGIS / Multinational system work and others

http://youtu.be/ms6dXiIDofE

[Silver_Dragon]

Some US antiship nuclear Testing:

[NineLine]

Well due to radiation alone, sounds like the fleet they tested on was pretty disabled. Doesnt sound like much of what was left that was usable. I sort of think thats the hang up here in this discussion, the ultimate goal seems to be sinking, when a ship can be just as useless if the top half is all but gone, but its still afloat...

 

The issue then becomes, can you disable a ship in DCS, so far I havent been able to. Least not to the level I expected, but I am gonna mess with it more this weekend.

 

I was watching some test footage on a Kh-31, and they were firing it into a net contraption at sea, so if the Kh-31 targets radar is it striking the radar components on top of the ship and perhaps not hitting the hull?

 

Read up on the Saratoga being struck from the register. He caught me off guard with that one too. One article I read said it was "literally" blown out of the water and everything on its deck was knocked off. They think if there were actually a crew on the ship they may have been able to save it from sinking, so even then a nuke from 400 yards on a WWII era carrier is debatable.

 

My wife served on the Bataan when we were stationed in Norfolk. I visited her on it many times when she was stuck on watch in port. That's not even a full carrier and it's awe inspiring to walk up to and an all around impressive ship without thinking about it being capable of surviving a nuclear strike. I don't know whether to think even more of the ship(s) or less of the nukes at this point to be honest. :helpsmilie:

[FlankerNation]

Yep...

 

Exactly My Friend !... This what we were doing in FC2. We manage to destroy the radar with anti-radar weapons until the ship radar is destroy and pounce on the crippled vessel and finally finishing it with ground weapons.

 

This is what we are missing DCSW.

 

 

Ships really need a simple component damage model, because if we could hunt ships with multi-step strikes, silencing the radar and then pouncing on the crippled vessel with ground attack aircraft... that would be incredible gameplay.

[FlankerNation]

OK but still... ?

 

This image you posted is of Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG-67) which was attack by a suicide man under water.

 

Interesting thing is that around 400 to 700 pounds (200–300 kg) of explosive were used by the suicide bomber.

 

Kh-31A is around ( 207 pounds ) - approx. 94 kg ( Current Warhead value in DCSW is 90)

 

Kh-31P is around ( 192 pounds ) - approx. 87 kg ( Current Warhead value in DCSW is 90)

 

KH58U is around ( 328 pounds ) - approx. 149 kg ( Current Warhead value in DCSW is 150)

 

OK so, the warheads are correctly valued in DCSW but the damage model of CC and DD class ships are still to be argued.

 

You can easily do the math that how many missiles are to be hit to destroy a CC or DD class ship ? and keep in mind that KH-31 P & A detonation mechanism is on IMPACT meaning when they hit they will penetrate the target and then explode.

 

 

Optional reading:

Some note on the KH58U - Western sources have referred to a Kh-58A that is either optimized for naval radars or has an active seeker head for use as an anti-shipping missile - it probably represents another name for the Kh-58U.

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

 

Edited August 23, 2013 by FlankerNation
Forgot to add something

[NineLine]

You can easily do the math that how many missiles are to be hit to destroy a CC or DD class ship ? and keep in mind that KH-31 P & A detonation mechanism is on IMPACT meaning when they hit they will penetrate the target and then explode.

 

 

 

I dont think you can easily do the math, now YES the damage model needs work BUT, there are more factors than the missile just hitting, where did it hit? Did it cause any secondary issues, etc... 1 missile strike doesnt always equal the next missile strike.

 

What I mean to say is, for example, do you experience the same damage everytime you are struck by air defenses in the A-10? No, it depends on many factors.

[FlankerNation]

ICEMAN...NEEDS TO WIN.

 

Gonna get back to you after the BELGIUM GRAND PRIX !....:pilotfly:

 

 

I dont think you can easily do the math, now YES the damage model needs work BUT, there are more factors than the missile just hitting, where did it hit? Did it cause any secondary issues, etc... 1 missile strike doesnt always equal the next missile strike.

 

What I mean to say is, for example, do you experience the same damage everytime you are struck by air defenses in the A-10? No, it depends on many factors.

[NineLine]

Gonna get back to you after the BELGIUM GRAND PRIX !....:pilotfly:

 

 

I'm jealous, enjoy! Havent seen F1 live since the Race at Indy...

[FlankerNation]

Just saw the change log of DCSW 1.2.6 and glad to know there were some changes on the anti ship missiles warhead... will test tonight see how it is working.... :)

[boquinauer]

Hi,

I've been trying to sink a Grisha-5 with a couple of Kh29T. Both made a direct hit but the ship didn't even got a scratch on its hull. Not a single fire or any visible damage.

Since the Kh29T has warhead of about 317kg and it's designed to penetrate on concrete reinforced structures and destroy ships up to 10000 tons, shoudln't it had to have a bigger effect in a frigate's hull?

Could it be a wrong damage modeling on the Grisha frigates?

 

I made the same trial with a Molniya Corvette with a single direct hit of a Kh29T. Didn't do any hull damage but I blew up the entire command bridge of the ship.

 

Thanks.

[JunMcKill]

Hi,

I've been trying to sink a Grisha-5 with a couple of Kh29T. Both made a direct hit but the ship didn't even got a scratch on its hull. Not a single fire or any visible damage.

Since the Kh29T has warhead of about 317kg and it's designed to penetrate on concrete reinforced structures and destroy ships up to 10000 tons, shoudln't it had to have a bigger effect in a frigate's hull?

Could it be a wrong damage modeling on the Grisha frigates?

 

I made the same trial with a Molniya Corvette with a single direct hit of a Kh29T. Didn't do any hull damage but I blew up the entire command bridge of the ship.

 

Thanks.

 

Good point boquinauer, but your (our) fight against ED testters, trying to have a more realistic simulator is lost from the beginning, someone will reply you with one absurd answer that no one will believe. For example the Exocet misile that sank UK ships in Falklands have a diameter of 4.7 meters, warhead of 165 Kg and a total weight of 670 kg, the KH-29T have this parameters:

 

Weight Kh-29L :660 kg (1,460 lb) [3]

Kh-29T :685 kg (1,510 lb) [3]

Kh-29TE :690 kg (1,520 lb) [3] Length Kh-29L/T :390 cm (12 ft 10 in)[3]

Kh-29TE :387.5 cm (12 ft 9 in)[3] Diameter 38.0 cm (15.0 in) [3] Warhead HE armour-piercing[1] Warhead weight 320 kg (705 lb)[1] Detonation

mechanism

Impact [1]

If you see, is more lethal than the Exocet and you will never sink a frigate in DCS with them.

[Alfa]

I've been trying to sink a Grisha-5 with a couple of Kh29T. Both made a direct hit but the ship didn't even got a scratch on its hull. Not a single fire or any visible damage.

Since the Kh29T has warhead of about 317kg and it's designed to penetrate on concrete reinforced structures and destroy ships up to 10000 tons, shoudln't it had to have a bigger effect in a frigate's hull?

Could it be a wrong damage modeling on the Grisha frigates?

 

Damage modelling for ships is simplistic to say the least and I agree that what you describe is way off, but I just wish people would stop making those silly comparisons between missiles based solely on the size of the explosive charge contained in their warheads.

 

Missiles and their warheads are designed for different things and what is devastating against one type of targets may be virtually useless or much less effective against other.

[GGTharos]

There's nothing to argue about. All vehicle damage modeling is very, very simple and based on hit-points. Don't expect that to change particularly soon.

 

OK so, the warheads are correctly valued in DCSW but the damage model of CC and DD class ships are still to be argued.