Jump to content

AGM-84 (Harpoon) Damage Issue


Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

 

This might have been addressed previously, and I know the missile is in still early stages but despite of it regularly receiving new functionality the damage modelling of it stayed the same.

 

It doesn't matter what mode we select POP or normal, the total damage that a direct impact causes a missile is between 1-2% that makes the missiles unusable.

 

I doubt this would be realistic unless the US Navy shoots 100+ Harpoons at enemy ships :D

 

ED, could you check this for us please? I personally would love to use the Harpoon more instead of bombing or JSAWing ships only.

 

Proofs:

 

Many thanks,

Witch_Doctor


Edited by Witch_Doctor
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a compound problem of the limited damage modelling of the ships themselves (single-unit healthbar, no subsystem damage) but even with the crude damage modelling the AGM-84D doesn't do that much damage when it should (out of the RB-04E, RB-15F and Kh-35, the Harpoon has the largest warhead, only beaten by a smidge by the Sea Eagle) and yet does the least damage AFAIK.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a compound problem of the limited damage modelling of the ships themselves (single-unit healthbar, no subsystem damage) but even with the crude damage modelling the AGM-84D doesn't do that much damage when it should (out of the RB-04E, RB-15F and Kh-35 the Harpoon has the largest warhead, only beaten by a smidge by the Sea Eagle) and yet does the least (AFAIK) damage

I see that makes sense, and yes it should def do more damage. I wonder if it would be possible to temporarily increase the damage, just to match its capabilities to other anti-ship missiles until the dmg model fo ships is improved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi guys,

 

This might have been addressed previously, and I know the missile is in still early stages but despite of it regularly receiving new functionality the damage modelling of it stayed the same.

 

It doesn't matter what mode we select POP or normal, the total damage that a direct impact causes a missile is between 1-2% that makes the missiles unusable.

How you calculate 1-2%?

 

I doubt this would be realistic unless the US Navy shoots 100+ Harpoons at enemy ships :D

 

ED, could you check this for us please? I personally would love to use the Harpoon more instead of bombing or JSAWing ships only.

 

Proofs:

My proofs:

B-52 MARITIME OPERATIONS ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE MISSION

2130771681_.jpg.346a11260ec5da791191b9c4a78e9820.jpg

Я не смотрю телевизор

ЧИЖ

 

Вакансии в ED

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I can relate. I can take missiles that are not anti-ship with SU-25T - 2x KH58U, 4x KH25MPU, 2x S-25L and sink an aircraft carrier in two runs. Hornet, I would get old before it sinks aircraft carrier with its harpoons, that are actually supposed to be more powerful.

Ryzen 3 3100 @ 4.2 GHz (temporarily, until Ryzen 5 5600 non-X is available)

B550 DS3H

2x16GB DDR4 3600 MHz CL16 Trident Z Neo
Asus ROG Strix RTX 2080 Ti 11GB

Xiaomi 34" 3440x1440 144Hz curved gaming monitor

Link to post
Share on other sites
How you calculate 1-2%?

 

 

My proofs:

B-52 MARITIME OPERATIONS ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE MISSION

 

It´s easy...

I fired 2 x AGM-84D against the "Peter the Great", both was fired in pop up mode and hit the ship from the top down to the deck. The message on screen was "Damage 1%" for the first hit and then"Damage 2%" for the second hit.

i7-10700K 3.8-5.1Ghz, 32GB RAM, RTX 2070 Super 8GB, 1 TB SSD, 2 TB HDD 7200 RPM, Win10 Home 64bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we fix tis? Like, what's the point of having an A2G radar with SEA mode if the Harpoons are literal rocks you throw at ships? This has been an issue since day one. The much older RB-04 and RB-15F missiles do a much better job at this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How you calculate 1-2%?

 

 

My proofs:

B-52 MARITIME OPERATIONS ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE MISSION

 

The information about the real world missiles that doesn't actually disprove what they're saying One person showed video of a Harpoon hitting an undefending Kirov class and doing 1% damage. By the chart it should have done around 20%.

 

Though, I've read some studies about the effectiveness of anti-shipping cruise missiles and there's all kind of information about attrition-based damage models (cannons), but very little about pulse-damage (torpedoes and missiles). The studies I read can be summarized best as: Yep, one missile can take a destroyer out of action, but larger warships are a complete unknown. They're remarkably effective against undefending and defensible (but not defending) targets, but once a ship attempts to defend - even with just chaff and ECM - their effectiveness drops off rapidly.

 

The best information against large ships is during the Tanker War of the 1980s and generally the large, civilian crude carriers could take a hit or two and survive. I seem to recall only a small handful of tankers (low single-digits) actually sank. Large warships are hypothesized at one Exocet-class missile (or 1,000lbs bomb equivalent) hit per 300 feet of length to have a mission kill. And the number of hits for a mission kill were substantially lower than sinking.

Windows 10 64-bit | Ryzen 9 3900X 4.00GHz (OC) | Asus Strix B450-F | 64GB Corsair Vengeance @ 3000MHz | two Asus GeForce 1070 Founders Edition (second card used for CUDA only) | two Silicon Power 1TB NVMe in RAID-0 | Samsung 32" 1440p Monitor | two ASUS 23" 1080p monitors | ASUS Mixed Reality VR | Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS | MFG Crosswind

 

A-10C Warthog | AV-8B Harrier (N/A) | F/A-18C Hornet | F-16C Viper | F-14B Tomcat | UH-1H Huey | P-51D Mustang | F-86F Saber | Persian Gulf | NTTR

Link to post
Share on other sites

The chart that Chizh posted shows missiles assessed necessary for a mission kill, IE the ship is no longer functionally capable of fighting. Not sunk, that would be a K-Kill, or catastrophic kill.

 

To get there you need to model the subsystems and various other parts of the ship that the missiles are wrecking. It is very unlikely in a combat scenario against a large warship like that to actually sink something like a Kirov with harpoons. They all hit above the waterline, so you aren't going to be flooding the ship, just destroying the various systems on top/putting the crew into damage control mode to stop the fires.

 

If you want to sink a major surface combatant, you either hit it with a torpedo, a nuke, or several really big bombs (or missiles) to crack the hull open. Harpoons aint gonna do that.

DCS isn't there yet in its modelling of ships and subsystems, altho it seems they intend to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The fire on Sheffield was fought for almost four hours before Captain Salt made the decision to abandon ship due to the risk of fires igniting the Sea Dart magazine, the exposed position to air attack of Arrow and Yarmouth that were assisting the firefighting, and that the combat capability of the destroyer was irredeemably lost. As Sheffield' crew were departing on HMS Arrow, Sub-lieutenant Carrington-Wood led the crew in singing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" from Monty Python's Life of Brian.[25][26] Most of the Sheffield's crew climbed over onto Arrow a few transferred by Gemini RHIB to Yarmouth, while some were taken by helicopter to Hermes.[3]

 

Over the six days from 4 May 1982, as the ship drifted, five inspections were made to see if any equipment was worth salvaging. Orders were issued to shore up the hole in Sheffield's starboard side and tow the ship to South Georgia.[10] Before these orders were effected, however, the burnt-out hulk had already been taken in tow by the Rothesay-class frigate Yarmouth. The high seas that the ship was towed through caused slow flooding through the hole in the ship's side, causing a list to starboard and which eventually caused Sheffield to roll over and sink on the edge of the Total Exclusion Zone in 1,000 fathoms (6,000 ft; 1,800 m) of water at 53°04′S 56°56′W on 10 May 1982, the first Royal Navy vessel sunk in action since World War II.[24]

 

Example of what just one missile hitting does to a much smaller ship. Note that it floated for more than 5 days,and they did multiple inspections to see if they could salvage it before it succumbed. Other things to note is that there were many reasons this single missile ended up disabling the ship (state of damage control training, when and how it impacted the ship etc...) But the missile hitting and its explosive effects did not result in a catastrophic kill immediately on the ship. That took several days and an out of control fire that burned the ship down. It was still essentially sea worthy and getting towed.

 

If you look at WW2 and large surface comabatants (carriers, battleships etc.) airborne attacks do a really good job of messing up the crew, burning the ship down and making it unfeasible to operate, but until you get to torpedoes below the waterline or a really lucky magazine hit, you are probly not sinking it outright by bombing or the equivalent/missile attack. IE the yorktown at midway, pummeled, but didnt sink till days later when hit by a submarine torpedo. All of the japanese carriers at midway, not sunk by bombs, burned down and assessed unsalvageable, sunk by torpedoes from their escorts or scuttled. Etc...

 

Note how many hits and torpedoes the Yamato withstood and how long it stayed afloat before going down. (yes its a battleship with armor, but this is a large combat ship just getting pummeled)

From the first attack at 12:37 to the explosion at 14:23, Yamato was hit by at least 11 torpedoes and 6 bombs. There may have been two more torpedo and bomb hits, but this is not confirmed.

 

The Bismarck, same thing...Torpedoes and scuttling over many hours of damage and tons of above waterline damage were required to sink it.

First Officer Hans Oels ordered the men below decks to abandon ship; he instructed the engine room crews to open the ship's watertight doors and prepare scuttling charges.[126] Gerhard Junack, the chief engineering officer, ordered his men to set the demolition charges with a 9-minute fuse but the intercom system broke down and he sent a messenger to confirm the order to scuttle the ship. The messenger never returned and Junack primed the charges and ordered the crew to abandon the ship.[127] Junack and his comrades heard the demolition charges detonate as they made their way up through the various levels.[128] Oels rushed throughout the ship, ordering men to abandon their posts. After he reached the deck a huge explosion killed him and about a hundred others.[129]

 

The four British ships fired more than 2,800 shells at Bismarck, and scored more than 400 hits, but were unable to sink Bismarck by gunfire. At around 10:20, running low on fuel, Tovey ordered the cruiser Dorsetshire to sink Bismarck with torpedoes and sent his battleships back to port.[130] Dorsetshire fired a pair of torpedoes into Bismarck's starboard side, one of which hit. Dorsetshire then moved around to her port side and fired another torpedo, which also hit. By the time these torpedo attacks took place, the ship was already listing so badly that the deck was partly awash.[128] It appears that the final torpedo may have detonated against Bismarck's port side superstructure, which was by then already underwater.[66] Around 10:35, Bismarck capsized to port and slowly sank by the stern, disappearing from the surface at 10:40.[131]


Edited by KlarSnow
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not going to disable a ship by doing 1% damage to it. I completely understand that it is not going to make a ship blow up just by one, two or even tree or four missiles, but it will definitely disable a small cruiser type ship.

 

Seeing stuff explode is just the DCS way for the most part, because of the simplistic damage modeling, but you are not going to make the ship loose sensors even with 10 missiles hits, if it only takes 1% health away with every missile.

 

I have not personally tested the Harpoons as of late, but doing 1% damage was definitely the case when they came out for the Hornet. If ships are anything like other units, it is not going to receive sensor damage until it has at least 50% damage anyway.

 

Then we can talk about the CIWS... which is so ineffective. I have not seen a CIWS stop a single missile....

 

I have seen Viggen anti-ship bombs either tanking multiple hits (if Tacview isto be believed) or just dodge the CIWS. Meanwhile the russian AK defense guns can quite reliably defeat the Viggen missiles.

'Shadow'

 

Everybody gotta be offended and take it personally now-a-days

Link to post
Share on other sites

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

We've had AGM-84D for 10 months, but their operation is still similar to fireworks on Independence Day, than to a 500 pound warhead. Is repairing the destructive power of these missiles so difficult? The mere satisfaction that the missile will reach its destination is not enough to settle for this weapon. Many topics in the forum talk about this problem. Unfortunately, I don't see ED's answer to this problem. I think this is not just my request to address this problem.


Edited by padonis
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I know this post is getting old but just wanted to add my thoughts to it. The Harpoon is pretty much useless in the sim. We've hit the Krivak 6 or 7 times and still not enough to do damage that disables the ship, but I can hit it 3 times with a AGM-65F and it's a goner. So something is wrong with the Harpoons IMO.

Nvidia GTX-1080

Intel i7-4820K 3.7 Ghz

ASUS ROG Rampage IV Extreme MB

32 GB Memory

Windows 7 Pro 64 Bit

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys, I have moved to object errors as its not a Harpoon issue, I am working on a report about ship damage and what can be done until a more advanced DM can be added. Thanks.

 

Well there already is one in terms of the guidance to the center of the object which results in the few ships that have sub-system damage rarely occurring. Granted not many ships are setup with it. Though even if there wasn't a visual DM for it the results of a missile hitting the bridge on all ships should have the same result.

The right man in the wrong place makes all the difference in the world.

Current Projects: Scripting Wiki, Something...

Useful Links: Mission Scripting Tools MIST-(GitHub) MIST-(Thread), SLMOD, IADScript, Mission Editing Wiki!, Mission Building Forum

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys, I have moved to object errors as its not a Harpoon issue, I am working on a report about ship damage and what can be done until a more advanced DM can be added. Thanks.

I'm sorry but this is definitely a Harpoon issue in my humble opinion and not just a visual problem. When it takes 5 or 6 of them to do the same thing as 3 mavs then it's an issue with the Harpoon not having enough boom.

Nvidia GTX-1080

Intel i7-4820K 3.7 Ghz

ASUS ROG Rampage IV Extreme MB

32 GB Memory

Windows 7 Pro 64 Bit

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry but this is definitely a Harpoon issue in my humble opinion and not just a visual problem. When it takes 5 or 6 of them to do the same thing as 3 mavs then it's an issue with the Harpoon not having enough boom.

 

That is more or less accurate with Harpoons afflicting approx 440 damage while the large warhead mavericks do somewhere between 840-870 damage. Unsure if those numbers have changed much. They are mostly a few years old at this point.

The right man in the wrong place makes all the difference in the world.

Current Projects: Scripting Wiki, Something...

Useful Links: Mission Scripting Tools MIST-(GitHub) MIST-(Thread), SLMOD, IADScript, Mission Editing Wiki!, Mission Building Forum

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

75th-VFS-Striker is right. The warhead of a Harpoon is almost twice that of a Maverick, but its lethality is practically the same or event less (!??). Surely there must be an explanation, but after so long it is hard for me to understand that new weapons continue to be developed but instead the existing ones are not corrected...

 

It is not classified information, it is pure logic, more warhead, more damage ...


Edited by shon
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

A few months have passed, the Harpoon will be improved soon, unfortunately it is still useless. AGM-64 gives better results. I am not counting on a new damage model for ships, because it's probably a lot of work, but strengthening the destructive power of the shell is probably not that difficult?

Please, gentlemen from ED, let us enjoy what is already here, because now these rackets are probably in the training version.

It would be a great gift for the new "SEA" mode and finally these rockets would not be useless anymore.

Please!

 


Edited by padonis
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2020 at 5:36 AM, Rolds said:

So until an amazing damage model changing fix is implemented, perhaps we could increase the damage done by harpoons to make them useful?

That's how I understand ED as well ☹️


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

The recent Hornet A/G SEA mode addition has flared up the discussion on this again. Here's a diligent list bij u/Hammer_keys on Hoggit as well, though i wouldn't agree with the tone set out in the title.

What good is the Hornet's SEA radar if Harpoons can't kill anything? ED has known about Harpoon damage since 2019 and have done nothing to fix it : hoggit (reddit.com)

 

The discussion here and in the Hoggit link's comments on how 2-4 missiles are far from enough to achieve a catastrophic kill, instead of a mission kill are in the right. 


However, I believe in the interest of actually ever being able to achieve a mission kill, perhaps we should take the third-party approach and up the missile damage parameters, or hold a poll which the community would prefer, the realistic or 'fun' interpretation of this simulator, for as long as the ship damage model is in this state. Just my 2cts on that topic.

 

However, there DOES SEEM TO BE funky stuff going on with the warhead, observe this simple test: Harpoon: 5% damage on a molniya, and 1% on a Moskva. Maverick: 42% on a Molniya, 9% on a Moskva. Here's the recording as proof.

 

This discrepancy needs to be addressed if the above discussion on # of missiles required for a kill is to be taken seriously. The devs don't want to up the damage on the Harpoon missile in the interest of realism, but the Maverick actually already does damage to ships on the 'fun' side of things. My vote would be to up the damage on the Harpoon while ED addresses the limits of ship Damage models.

 

If this issue doesn't get handled, we're left with no real tool for engaging any ships larger than a missile boat. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

T.16000m HOTAS + Pedals || TrackIR5 ||

Win10 64bit || 120+500GB SSD, 1TB HDD || i5 4440 @3.3GHz || 16GB RAM @ 1600MHz || GTX1070 G1 ||

FCIII, L39ZA, AJS-37, Normandy '44, Persian Gulf, Channel

F/A-18C, Bf-109 K-4, WW2 Asset Pack, CA, P-47, F-16

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, as long as there is no advanced damage model for shis and we still have to deal with the health bar damage system, the damage of the Harpoons should be increased, so that 1-2 missile hits are sufficent to sink frigates and 2-4 missile hits are enough to sink cruisers.

  • Like 3

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 2/15/2020 at 10:36 AM, Witch_Doctor said:

Hi guys,

 

This might have been addressed previously, and I know the missile is in still early stages but despite of it regularly receiving new functionality the damage modelling of it stayed the same.

 

It doesn't matter what mode we select POP or normal, the total damage that a direct impact causes a missile is between 1-2% that makes the missiles unusable.

 

I doubt this would be realistic unless the US Navy shoots 100+ Harpoons at enemy ships :D

 

ED, could you check this for us please? I personally would love to use the Harpoon more instead of bombing or JSAWing ships only.

 

Proofs:

 

 

 

 

Many thanks,

Witch_Doctor

 

Ok so last night I hit a Russian Moscow Cruiser with 2X Harm, then landed rearmed, hit it with 4X Harpoons, landed rearmed and hit it with 8X 154-C JSOWs in delay and instant- My wing man also threw a lot of ordnance against it-very little effect but I watched all the hits (Except the HARM and Harpoon) through FLIR and they looked pretty devastating-this can't be functioning correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...