[Resolved] 5P-42 Filin Laser-Dazzler is excessively effective

[Rawlinson]

I removed all weapon mounts with the exception of the 5P-42 from the Admiral Sergry Gorshkov. Fired 72 Tomahawks, 52 harpoons, and 8 NSMs simultaneously, and all incoming missiles were defeated in short order. During my due diligence research, I found nothing suggesting that the 5P-42 is anywhere near this effective, something isn't right with the mount performance model. I do enjoy the game, my compliments the development team.

Best regards

SIDE: US
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
8x Naval Strike Missile (NSM)
72x RGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]
8x RGM-84D Harpoon IC
8x RGM-84G Harpoon ICR
36x RGM-84L Harpoon II



SIDE: Russia
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
152x 5P-42 Filin laser-dazzler

[Rory Noonan]

Logged for investigation.

0013620

[stilesw]

I found nothing suggesting that the 5P-42 is anywhere near this effective

David,

Valid point.

The weapon was developed to dazzle and incapacitate surface attackers thus the real result would be to lower a crew’s proficiency level. Unfortunately, currently there is no provision for having a weapon do this. Instead it will be modified to work on surface vessels only (as designed) and it will do only 0.01dp – no more wiping out swarms of incoming missiles.

Thanks for catching this.

-Wayne

[michaelm75au]

I thought it was also designed to interfere with optical guidance systems in missiles and aircraft? Or was that just an extra benefit?

[stilesw]

I thought it was also designed to interfere with optical guidance systems in missiles and aircraft? Or was that just an extra benefit?

Michael,

You are probably correct but I'm not sure how to accommodate that within DB3K without actually destroying the missile. I suppose it could be argued that screwing up the guidance is as effective as an outright kill. Perhaps a lower PoK rate would work. Currently set at 80% but a lower level could simulate potential loss of effectiveness for incoming weapon.

Open to thoughts.

-Wayne

[michaelm75au]

Yea. In a sense, it would be acting like a 'counter-measure' by degrading the missile performance/guidance.

[Tailhook]

I would just count it as a countermeasure for optical seekers.

[Scorpion86]

ORIGINAL: stilesw

I thought it was also designed to interfere with optical guidance systems in missiles and aircraft? Or was that just an extra benefit?

Michael,

You are probably correct but I'm not sure how to accommodate that within DB3K without actually destroying the missile. I suppose it could be argued that screwing up the guidance is as effective as an outright kill. Perhaps a lower PoK rate would work. Currently set at 80% but a lower level could simulate potential loss of effectiveness for incoming weapon.

Open to thoughts.

-Wayne

Just my 2 cents: aren't dazzlers designed to blind enemy sensors? In a sense, aren't dazzlers a sort of optical jammers/countermeasures?
Perhaps they could act like radar jammers and DECM pods, only for optical sensors: giving a zone of uncertainty for units detected with optical/IR/laser sensors, and degrading the Hit Percentage of laser-/IR-/optically-guided weapons! (Basically what jammers or DECM pods do to radars.)

[Scorpion86]

On the other hand, dazzlers are also capable of damaging delicate imaging hardware: think of all those lenses, mirrors and prisms painstakingly designed to focus light on very delicate sensors. Now pump a laser through them in reverse. Sun and magnifying glass, anyone?
So, a sort of weapon that only damages imaging sensors? A sort of visual ARM?

[stilesw]

Some good comments above. Everything I found shows that the 5P-42 Filin laser-dazzler was developed as an offensive weapon to disorient, confuse and reduce the efficiency of the crews on surface vessels. However it does stand to reason that it could also be used to disrupt the optics/electronics of incoming aircraft and weapons.

So, for the next database implementation, it will have the following characteristics:

Surface ship (large relatively slow object), 80% PoK and 0.5 damage points.

Airborne units (small much faster objects), 10% PoK also with 0.5 dp.

This should eliminate the mass destruction of incoming missiles while still allowing for their degradation of performance via a kill. Also allows for a simulation of shipboard personnel effectiveness through slight damage to the ship itself.

Not a perfect solution but a little better than the present parameters in the database.

-WS