Real world, not one Tomahawk shot down by Syria

[TMP95]

The recent Tomahawk strike on Syria was interesting from the POV that not a single cruise missile was taken down. Syria has a somewhat large SAM and EW system (not top of line) but have been a strong loyal Russian customer. But just like in Iraq (91, 2002) Our cruise missiles hit with impunity. Though, rarely do we see this when simming. Seems like always some are taken out (and sometimes quite a large number).

[JPFisher55]

IMHO, the AI knows more about how to use the Russian equipment than Syrians or Iraq's. I doubt that the Syrians know how to turn any
how to install the AD equipment or even turn it on.

[TMP95]

and granted. I haven't play tested in past 6 months (busy with work) but love CMNO and come here often to read others events. I just found it interesting how Syria (with a modernized to some extent) did not even attempt to knock out one tomahawk. Do we know if Growers or other JAM AC were used on them?

[TMP95]

ORIGINAL: TMP95

and granted. I haven't play tested in past 6 months (busy with work) but love CMNO and come here often to read others events. I just found it interesting how Syria (with a modernized to some extent SAM/EW systems) did not even attempt to knock out one tomahawk. Do we know if Growers or other JAM AC were used on them?

Probably excellent point!

[Dimitris]

See here: https://www.facebook.com/caffeinatedana ... =3&theater

Even when the targets are the air defences themselves, we've shown how careful route planning, maximizing terrain masking, can significantly reduce attrition: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=4043

[Primarchx]

Exactly. One of my favorite innovations in Command is being able to plot my cruise missile strikes to take advantage of terrain.

[Dysta]

You'd understand why US Navy hate in passions when Kamikaze washed over a portion of fleets with flame. Not because of the devious attempt to bring the ship down with pilot's life, but the surprise and course plotting ability to 'intelligently' do the damage, with the pilot's brain.

Unlike many guided missiles before 90s, there is no cruise options and they must be guided by constant course correction systems and sensors, so the missiles in mid-flight is pretty much a singular direction, and could be easily found and intercepted with good SAM deployment.

The use of Tomahawk however, outsmarted nearly all the carefully planned air defenses by having a 'brain' to plot where it should go, and where it's SAFE to go. It doesn't need to be supersonic to penetrate air defense or narrowing the window of interception, just plan simple (NOT!) sneaky diversions with terrains and outside SAM's inescapable range to evade most of the obstacles.

The word 'cruise' isn't just means to use fuel efficiently for range and speed, but also an affiliate meaning of 'roam' -- to go where it can go at anytime.

[Rhygin00]

Yeah I simulated this attack as soon as I heard of it. My conclusions:


1. The Russians were not able to see NAP flying missiles from their base up north with ground radars.

2. The real life Syrian air defense does not have sufficient readiness, since its systems should be able to see and engage the missiles.

3. Command tomahawks cannot pierce concrete shelters like the real world tomahawks can (as far as I can see). In real life aftermath footage you can see neat holes in the ceiling of some shelters while the aircraft below is a blackened mess of mangled metal.

4. Local topography is made for low flying attacks. Still there should be enough time to shoot down a few missiles.

[Nangleator]

I have been shaking my head over the fates of Bradleys and Abrams in warfare sims ever since the Battle of 73 Easting.

[Panther Bait]

It also probably matters that the Syrians were not anticipating that the US would attack, so they might not have even been looking. Many war sims assume the constant, high-level readiness of war time, not the semi-readiness of low-level conflict.

Mike

[Primarchx]

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

It also probably matters that the Syrians were not anticipating that the US would attack, so they might not have even been looking. Many war sims assume the constant, high-level readiness of war time, not the semi-readiness of low-level conflict.

Mike

It would be cool to have a 'readiness' factor along with a crew skill factor (we already have) to bring this into focus. One idea I've been toying with is having air defenses without ammo in place which are then swapped with LUA for fully-armed units once they're determined to be readied (if they still exist).

[JPFisher55]

CMANO assumes that all the equipment is well maintained and fully operational. I doubt that this is true for Syrian AD equipment.

[Rhygin00]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

It also probably matters that the Syrians were not anticipating that the US would attack, so they might not have even been looking. Many war sims assume the constant, high-level readiness of war time, not the semi-readiness of low-level conflict.

Mike

It would be cool to have a 'readiness' factor along with a crew skill factor (we already have) to bring this into focus. One idea I've been toying with is having air defenses without ammo in place which are then swapped with LUA for fully-armed units once they're determined to be readied (if they still exist).

But if you want to do scripting anyway, you could just set their doctrine to hold fire until you think they should react. But that is likely the problem. When do people become ready when they are not ready now? Only two significant answers are possible: Either "In Time" or "Too Late".

[VFA41_Lion]

so not to rain on the parade or anything but do we know 100% for sure all 59 missiles got through?

[Primarchx]

ORIGINAL: Rhygin00

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

It also probably matters that the Syrians were not anticipating that the US would attack, so they might not have even been looking. Many war sims assume the constant, high-level readiness of war time, not the semi-readiness of low-level conflict.

Mike

It would be cool to have a 'readiness' factor along with a crew skill factor (we already have) to bring this into focus. One idea I've been toying with is having air defenses without ammo in place which are then swapped with LUA for fully-armed units once they're determined to be readied (if they still exist).

But if you want to do scripting anyway, you could just set their doctrine to hold fire until you think they should react. But that is likely the problem. When do people become ready when they are not ready now? Only two significant answers are possible: Either "In Time" or "Too Late".

I'm so used to using hold fire for myself I forget I can do it for the AI!

[Primarchx]

Just a little historical perspective.

"During the (First Gulf) war, 297 Tomahawks were fired, of which 282 began their mission successfully (9 failed to leave the tube and 6 fell into the water after leaving the tube). At least 2 (and possibly as many as 6) were shot down, most or all of them in a single quickly arranged stream attack (the missiles had to fly a single mission profile most of the way to their target)." From: "Desert Victory - The War for Kuwait" by Norman Friedman Naval Institute Press 1991.

The reason the Iraqis were able to shoot down inbound TLAMs is that while commanders could target a variety of locations the PATHS to those locations' vicinity was often hardcoded in the guidance data they had. Therefore they could target buildings all over Baghdad but the missiles themselves would follow just a few select paths into the city. Once the Iraqis figured that out they were able to position AAA to interdict them for a time.

[jtoatoktoe]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were air assets jamming while those TLAM's were inbound in Syria as well.

[Gunner98]

missiles themselves would follow just a few select paths into the city

Do you know if that was a hardware or software limitation of the older missiles or were they limited due to Airspace restrictions and coordination measures. The airspace was pretty crowded and the TLAM shares the same altitude band with Helicopters and probably Harriers - and there were a few of them used as well I think [;)]

B

[Gunner98]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were air assets jamming

I would be surprised if there wasn't...

[Primarchx]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

missiles themselves would follow just a few select paths into the city

Do you know if that was a hardware or software limitation of the older missiles or were they limited due to Airspace restrictions and coordination measures. The airspace was pretty crowded and the TLAM shares the same altitude band with Helicopters and probably Harriers - and there were a few of them used as well I think [;)]

B

See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-116/pdf/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-116.pdf

Tomahawk was not responsive to the tactical commander’s needs, since route selections were limited, mission planning times were lengthy, and its arrival with tactical aircraft was difficult to coordinate accurately.

The limited number of routes used by Tomahawks to approach Iraqi targets and the tactics employed to ensure coordination with tactical aircraft missions may have contributed to missile losses. Because the usable routes into Iraq were so limited, multiple Tomahawks were launched along the same route. Thus, Iraqi gunners might have come to expect that, once a Tomahawk was sighted, others would soon follow along the same path. As a result, it would have been much easier to identify and engage the missiles that followed. According to a CNA study, the success rate for Tomahawks fired within the first 2 days of the air war was much higher than for those fired later, indicating that the Iraqi gunners might have become accustomed to seeing the missiles using certain routes and flying in stream raids.