En-masse vs. single launch weapons?

[Unzen]

Does Harpoon take into account the high-precision of stand-off missiles, or does it simply rely on weight of numbers to overpower the AA defenses?

In the past, I've had high success against bases or surface groups by large formations of bombers, capable of launching long-range weapons. Obviously, a good percentage either miss or get destroyed, but the sheer numbers usually prevail - especially if nuclear capability is allowed.

But is it possible to have a high chance of hitting the target with a single, precision weapon? Are there any specific weapon types that are 'statistically' more likely to hit their target with a single launch?

Cheers.

[CV32]

ORIGINAL: Unzen
Does Harpoon take into account the high-precision of stand-off missiles, or does it simply rely on weight of numbers to overpower the AA defenses? In the past, I've had high success against bases or surface groups by large formations of bombers, capable of launching long-range weapons. Obviously, a good percentage either miss or get destroyed, but the sheer numbers usually prevail - especially if nuclear capability is allowed. But is it possible to have a high chance of hitting the target with a single, precision weapon? Are there any specific weapon types that are 'statistically' more likely to hit their target with a single launch? Cheers.

Totally depends on the ability of your own launch platform/weapon and what kind of defenses you are facing. The Cold War scenario you describe was one of Soviet Naval Aviation sending waves of Badgers, Backfires and Bears against US Navy carrier battle groups and the Reforger convoys trying to get across the Atlantic. Sheer numbers and overwhelming firepower was how they hoped to breach USN naval air defenses (typified by Aegis, the Standard SAM and of course, the F-14 Tomcat and its Phoenix missile).

The general principles remain in large part exactly the same in HCE, only they are more complex. Your probability of hitting a target with a single weapon depends on numerous factors, including:

(1) the capability of your strike aircraft to 'penetrate' enemy defenses, i.e. does it need fighter escort, is it stealthy, does it have good electronic warfare (EW) gear, can it carry precision weapons, etc?
(2) the 'thickness' of both enemy ground based air defense, which can be mobile and/or fixed, a mix of both, and incorporate both SAMs and/or AAA of numerous types, and with additional radars; and the presence of enemy fighters, airborne early warning (AEW) and EW aircraft that might spot you before you can release your weapons
and
(3) the ability of your weapons themselves, i.e. can they be launched from standoff range, are they autonomously guided (fire and forget), are they stealthy, etc?

New weapons like the several flavors of JDAM, and new cruise missiles like the JASSM, stand a very good chance of hitting their target with a single shot if the above factors lean in your favor.

[mack2]

Yeah, there is a huge difference between shooting a sub-launched Harpoon at a ASW picket ship from just beyond mininmum range, to a P-3 orion trying to get a shot off at a full Soviet Battle Group with Carrier and Battlecruiser.

[TonyE]

imho from playing I think fast missiles have the greatest benefit, possibly even more than stealthy missiles.  Brahmos is scary on all accounts!
 
In rough terms describing missile shots, fast missiles (>1300 kts) get a bump in chance to get thru, as do small missiles, and of course stealthier missiles evade detection longer. 
 

[Unzen]

Cheers for the responses. I didn't realise that there would be so many factors involved, actually. With some of the long-range subs such as the Los Angeles class, is it pretty much a waste to launch its weapons at extreme range then? I did manage to get one missile through (which caused a mere 3% damage ) but most ended up as Grail fodder to the airfield's defenses.

[Stalintc]

Dont forget! if you have jamming assets to hand jam the enemy ADA radars to hell if the situation allows this will hopefully reduce their detection distance of your missiles, giving them a better chance of reaching the target, its not a guarantee, but it can make your chances better by giving your missiles every opportunity of reaching the target!

[CV32]

ORIGINAL: Unzen
With some of the long-range subs such as the Los Angeles class, is it pretty much a waste to launch its weapons at extreme range then? I did manage to get one missile through (which caused a mere 3% damage ) but most ended up as Grail fodder to the airfield's defenses.

What scenario, Unzen? Please note that pre EC2003/Westpac scenarios use a different database, and the Tomahawk missiles in it are considerably less stealthy than those found in the newer DB. (Although shooting a handful of Tomahawks at a heavily defended Soviet (I'm guessing) airbase is not likely to result in much success).

[Unzen]

ORIGINAL: CV32

ORIGINAL: Unzen
With some of the long-range subs such as the Los Angeles class, is it pretty much a waste to launch its weapons at extreme range then? I did manage to get one missile through (which caused a mere 3% damage ) but most ended up as Grail fodder to the airfield's defenses.

What scenario, Unzen? Please note that pre EC2003/Westpac scenarios use a different database, and the Tomahawk missiles in it are considerably less stealthy than those found in the newer DB. (Although shooting a handful of Tomahawks at a heavily defended Soviet (I'm guessing) airbase is not likely to result in much success).

This one Brad - it is EC2003, iirc - but I admit I was a bit too quick to launch a scenario and didn't pay particular attention to its name! Sorry for the basic pic.






One of the bases in the north cape had v.large aricraft support (Afrikanda?), so that was my main target, thinking it would be the prime hub for the Mainstays to take off and land from. To be fair, the Tomahawks did have a raft of enemy bases to fly past - I'm amazed they performed as well as they did!

[CV32]

Ah, EC2003 GIUK Gap scenario 4.0, 'The Big Easy'.

Yes, your Tomahawks would have a tough time penetrating that air defense network. I'd say you would have more luck if you thinned the enemy herd a bit with your CVBG's air wing. [;)]

[Unzen]

ORIGINAL: CV32

Ah, EC2003 GIUK Gap scenario 4.0, 'The Big Easy'.

Yes, your Tomahawks would have a tough time penetrating that air defense network. I'd say you would have more luck if you thinned the enemy herd a bit with your CVBG's air wing. [;)]

Consider it done! [:D]