Matrix Games Forums

Hi,
Having embarked on small tests to assess (A)SSM effectiveness I came across the following issue.
Having a pair of Entendards attacking a lone HMS Sheffield (1982) I was baffled by:
* Four SAMs guided by two directors
\t * I assumed only one missile could be guided at any given time, may be I am wrong...

* The SAMs being able to kill sea skimming Exocets at 18m above water
\t * Having followed the news, and technical discussion at the time or after ther SeaDart was not considered effective against sea skimming missiles. I cannot remember any Exocet kill credited to the SeaDart. Moreover the difference between the HMS Sheffield, and the HMS Conventry attacks was the presence now of a Boxer class frigate to cope with the Exocet menace.

In another test scenario a pair uk FFGs (a Boxer & a Duke) between them trash a OSCAR II salvo of Shipwrecks. May be this is credible, but it is not in pair with the performance of AAMs. The latter seeming much more plausible as technology is bound to fail from time to time.

Thanks,

It's a known bug in reload time, it's going to be addressed (too many missiles being launched by some systems).

Thanks Sardaukar,

But can a Sheffield have 4 SeaDarts in flight at any given time with just 2 directors!?... The AEGIS yes because direction is just terminal, but then AEGIS is a leap from the legacy systems like this.

Regards,

ORIGINAL: jufinace20

Hi,
Having embarked on small tests to assess (A)SSM effectiveness I came across the following issue.
Having a pair of Entendards attacking a lone HMS Sheffield (1982) I was baffled by:
* Four SAMs guided by two directors
\t * I assumed only one missile could be guided at any given time, may be I am wrong...

* The SAMs being able to kill sea skimming Exocets at 18m above water
\t * Having followed the news, and technical discussion at the time or after ther SeaDart was not considered effective against sea skimming missiles. I cannot remember any Exocet kill credited to the SeaDart. Moreover the difference between the HMS Sheffield, and the HMS Conventry attacks was the presence now of a Boxer class frigate to cope with the Exocet menace.

In another test scenario a pair uk FFGs (a Boxer & a Duke) between them trash a OSCAR II salvo of Shipwrecks. May be this is credible, but it is not in pair with the performance of AAMs. The latter seeming much more plausible as technology is bound to fail from time to time.

Thanks,

Thanks for posting the save.

On your questions:

1) In pure-SARH systems there is no limit to the number of weapons that can be guided to a target being illuminated. You can have one, ten or one hundred missiles in the air. The grave handicap is the limited number of _targets_ having weapons enroute to them. A Type 42 and e.g. a Burke DDG may both have 10 missiles each in the air, but the Type 42 will be guiding them towards 2 targets max while the Burke may guide each one of them to a separate target.

In the late-80s/early-90s the Sea Dart system was improved via the ADIMP program, gaining abilities similar (though more limited) to Aegis/SM-2. With ADIMP, only terminal SARH illumination is necessary (like SM-2) and up to eight missiles can be in mid-course guidance via datalinks. Like Aegis, this both increases the tactical range of the missile and also enables true multi-target engagement ability. This upgrade is included in the DB3000.

2) The Sea Dart was IIRC not sea-skimmer capable at the Falklands timeframe. This doesn't mean it absolutely cannot engage VLow targets, but it does mean the hit probability suffers greatly. This modification should be listed on the message log.

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
It's a known bug in reload time, it's going to be addressed (too many missiles being launched by some systems).

The "instant first reload" problem, and the reason it's not at the very top on our fix list, have been explained here: tm.asp?m=3459796

ORIGINAL: jufinace20
In another test scenario a pair uk FFGs (a Boxer & a Duke) between them trash a OSCAR II salvo of Shipwrecks. May be this is credible, but it is not in pair with the performance of AAMs. The latter seeming much more plausible as technology is bound to fail from time to time.

Can you please post a pre-engagement save or the message log for this? Thanks!

Thanks Sunburn,

"2) The Sea Dart was IIRC not sea-skimmer capable at the Falklands timeframe. This doesn't mean it absolutely cannot engage VLow targets", in fact it does it repeatedly with the alluded penalty. One can put the blame on the random nr generator, but may be the penalty should be reassessed. I must check if there is any sea-skimmer flag target wise. Even the SeaWolf system failed miserably in the HMS Conventry demise. I recall hearing from the Weapons Officer recalling the long line of switches he failed to reset in time because the tracking computer developed an error during the engagement.

I enclose what I think was your request (a log for the encounter between a Oscar II, and a pair of RN FFGs). Here we are talking of something happening a generation after. So I was not so surprised, but even so the SeaWolf seems more like a silver bullet than a real world missile. This is strictly a feeling and you guys have the facts behind the model. I would always abide by your expert assessment.

Hi julinace20, SeaWolf is not a silver bullet as you say, but is dam close to hit with a vhigh pk against most missiles in single shot mode, and in salvo mode (2 missiles) almost 100%, speaking as someone with experience on this one

ORIGINAL: jufinace20

Thanks Sunburn,

"2) The Sea Dart was IIRC not sea-skimmer capable at the Falklands timeframe. This doesn't mean it absolutely cannot engage VLow targets", in fact it does it repeatedly with the alluded penalty. One can put the blame on the random nr generator, but may be the penalty should be reassessed. I must check if there is any sea-skimmer flag target wise. Even the SeaWolf system failed miserably in the HMS Conventry demise. I recall hearing from the Weapons Officer recalling the long line of switches he failed to reset in time because the tracking computer developed an error during the engagement.

I enclose what I think was your request (a log for the encounter between a Oscar II, and a pair of RN FFGs). Here we are talking of something happening a generation after. So I was not so surprised, but even so the SeaWolf seems more like a silver bullet than a real world missile. This is strictly a feeling and you guys have the facts behind the model. I would always abide by your expert assessment.

Hi Sirius,
Provided 1/4 of the ship isn't occupied by a Spectrum era hardware as it seemed to happen in the first implementations [:D]
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZrtzuXXGvw)

Regards,

Heh yeah FM1600 Computers were a big beast in the Computer room in the older versions of seawolf

ORIGINAL: jufinace20

Hi Sirius,
Provided 1/4 of the ship isn't occupied by a Spectrum era hardware as it seemed to happen in the first implementations [:D]
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZrtzuXXGvw)

Regards,

ORIGINAL: jufinace20

Thanks Sunburn,

"2) The Sea Dart was IIRC not sea-skimmer capable at the Falklands timeframe. This doesn't mean it absolutely cannot engage VLow targets", in fact it does it repeatedly with the alluded penalty. One can put the blame on the random nr generator, but may be the penalty should be reassessed. I must check if there is any sea-skimmer flag target wise. Even the SeaWolf system failed miserably in the HMS Conventry demise. I recall hearing from the Weapons Officer recalling the long line of switches he failed to reset in time because the tracking computer developed an error during the engagement.

I enclose what I think was your request (a log for the encounter between a Oscar II, and a pair of RN FFGs). Here we are talking of something happening a generation after. So I was not so surprised, but even so the SeaWolf seems more like a silver bullet than a real world missile. This is strictly a feeling and you guys have the facts behind the model. I would always abide by your expert assessment.

Thanks.

I isolated the weapon endgame messages:

26-02-2014 20:12:43 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf VLS Blk 2 #17) is attacking SS-N-19 Shipwreck [P-700 Granit] #11 with a base PH of 95%. Final PH: 95%. Die Roll: 28 - HIT
26-02-2014 20:12:45 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf VLS Blk 2 #19) is attacking SS-N-19 Shipwreck [P-700 Granit] #12 with a base PH of 95%. Final PH: 95%. Die Roll: 51 - HIT
26-02-2014 20:12:46 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf Blk 1 #21) is attacking SS-N-22 Sunburn [P-80 Zubr] #7 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 33 - HIT
26-02-2014 20:12:46 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf Blk 1 #22) is attacking SS-N-22 Sunburn [P-80 Zubr] #7 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 84 - MISS
26-02-2014 20:12:50 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf Blk 1 #24) is attacking SS-N-22 Sunburn [P-80 Zubr] #8 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 47 - HIT
26-02-2014 20:12:53 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf Blk 1 #27) is attacking SS-N-22 Sunburn [P-80 Zubr] #9 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 98 - MISS
26-02-2014 20:12:53 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf Blk 1 #26) is attacking SS-N-22 Sunburn [P-80 Zubr] #9 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 34 - HIT
26-02-2014 20:12:54 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf Blk 1 #31) is attacking SS-N-22 Sunburn [P-80 Zubr] #10 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 86 - MISS
26-02-2014 20:12:54 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf VLS Blk 2 #25) is attacking SS-N-19 Shipwreck [P-700 Granit] #13 with a base PH of 95%. Final PH: 95%. Die Roll: 66 - HIT
26-02-2014 20:12:54 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf Blk 1 #30) is attacking SS-N-22 Sunburn [P-80 Zubr] #10 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 53 - HIT
26-02-2014 20:12:58 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf VLS Blk 2 #29) is attacking SS-N-19 Shipwreck [P-700 Granit] #14 with a base PH of 95%. Final PH: 95%. Die Roll: 67 - HIT
26-02-2014 20:13:02 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf Blk 1 #33) is attacking SS-N-19 Shipwreck [P-700 Granit] #15 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 63 - HIT
26-02-2014 20:13:04 - : Weapon (Sea Wolf VLS Blk 2 #35) is attacking SS-N-19 Shipwreck [P-700 Granit] #16 with a base PH of 95%. Final PH: 95%. Die Roll: 93 - HIT

So:
* The VLS Sea Wolf had 5 hits out of 5 attempts (100%), reasonably close to its 95% Pk.
* The non-VLS Sea Wolf had 5 hits out of 8 attempts (62.5%), which is lower than its 75% Pk.

Note that both versions of Sea Wolf were deliberately designed to engage fast targets (no high-speed penalty) and sea-skimming targets (no sea-skimmer penalty), which is why they maintain a high Pk at impact.