Jump to content

how can i sink a cruiser or destroyer with AGM 84D without harpoon being shooting down ?


Recommended Posts

these ships have a very powerful surface to air missles,no matter how many harpoon i shoot,the harpoon is always shooted down by the ship,and also how many harpoon can sink a ship of different size,i always shoot 4 harpon to sink one ship,really inefficient

A-10C Warthog,Flaming Cliffs 3,F-16C VIPER,F/A-18C HORNET,Super Carrier,AV-8B Night Attack V/STOL,Mi-8MTV2 Magnificent Eight,Black Shark 2,SA342 Gazelle,UH-1H Huey,Persian Gulf Map,Combined Arms

 

Intel i5-7500| Colorful iGame GeForce RTX 2070 AD Special OC GDDR6 8G | Kingston FURY 32g DDR4 3200MHZ | MSI Z170A-PRO | Plextor M9PeG 1T SSD M.2 | ST 8T HDD 7200RPM | AOC 2790PQU 27'' 4K |Thrustmaster Hotas Warthog PC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a modern guided missile warship, you need to throw enough missiles at it to overwhelm its defenses. Exactly how many this takes depends on the exact ship, but usually at least 8, and possibly 16 or more. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, flankerjun said:

these ships have a very powerful surface to air missles,no matter how many harpoon i shoot,the harpoon is always shooted down by the ship,and also how many harpoon can sink a ship of different size,i always shoot 4 harpon to sink one ship,really inefficient

 

:hehe:  Almost as if the ship doesn't want to be sunk!  Why do you think Navies spend $$$$$ on missile defence systems?  As BC above says, you will need multiple A/C firing multiple ASMs (simultaneously, not sequentially) to stand a chance.  As for inefficient, a harpoon costs about $1.5M, A Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyer costs around $1.3B, to build.  That makes it a pretty efficient kill even if it takes dozens of Harpoons IMHO.

  • Like 2

Laptop Pilot. Aorus X7 V7, i7 7820HK o/c to 4.3GHz, 4k 17.3", 32GB DDR4, 1070M 8GB. TM Warthog, Hornet & pedals, FSSB-R3, Cougar throttle, Viper pit WIP (XBox360 when traveling). Rift S.

NTTR, SoH, Syria, Channel, CA, Supercarrier, FC3, A-10C & A-10II, F-5, F-14, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Harrier, M2000, Viggen, MiG-21, Yak-52, L-39, CE2, Gazelle, Ka-50, Mi-8, Mi-24, Huey, Spitfire & Mossie, Apache pre-order    Wishlist: Tornado, Jaguar, F-117 and F-111.  C:MO & XP11. PPL(A) IRL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact the the Harpoons have firecrackers for warheads also does not help

  • Like 1

Win10 64, MSI Krait Gaming Z370, I7 8700K, Geforce 1080Ti FTW3 ,32 GB Ram, Samsung 980 EVO SSD

 

Modules: Combind Arms, A-10C, F-86F, F/A-18, F-16, Flaming Cliffs, KA-50, L-39, P-51, UH-1, Christen Eagle II, Persian Gulf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2021 at 2:43 PM, Swiftwin9s said:

Harpoons are not torpedoes: they do not sink ships.

 

They can absolutely sink ships, it depends where you hit them and what you damage. People need to stop using the IRIS Sahand to pretend that every single weapons system but torpedoes is incapable of sinking ships.

 

USS Stark was very nearly sunk by an Exocet, (2 hit the ship, only one detonated; the first mission killed the ship without even detonating, due to the massive fires caused by the remaining burning propellant, in critical compartments). The Exocet is a missile with 75% of the Harpoon's warhead; and the Stark is an OHP frigate, a class of ship that is notoriously difficult at SINKEX to sink. If it hadn't been for the incredible efforts of damage control (which isn't a thing in DCS), the ship would've probably have been lost.

 

Obviously against larger combatants, more weapons would be required, and that's assuming they make it through defences (and in DCS ships have no soft-kill defences such as chaff or other EW equipment), and only if they manage to breach large open spaces. It doesn't really matter if the missile hits the hull above the waterline, because blast and shock can cause cracks and/or rupture water mains (the latter not operating on SINKEX targets AFAIK), both of which can lead to flooding (as evidenced by the Stark, which even though both entry holes were on the upper portion of the hull, near the front of the superstructure, the ship developed quite a heavy list from the damage).


Edited by Northstar98
*IRIS Sahand
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

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, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Swiftwin9s said:

Harpoons are not torpedoes: they do not sink ships.

 

People need to stop expecting them to

 

Maybe they should rework every other anti-ship missile in the sim then, because the harpoon does about 1/3rd of the damage then any other missile like RB4 RB15

  • Like 2

Win10 64, MSI Krait Gaming Z370, I7 8700K, Geforce 1080Ti FTW3 ,32 GB Ram, Samsung 980 EVO SSD

 

Modules: Combind Arms, A-10C, F-86F, F/A-18, F-16, Flaming Cliffs, KA-50, L-39, P-51, UH-1, Christen Eagle II, Persian Gulf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, raelias said:

 

Maybe they should rework every other anti-ship missile in the sim then, because the harpoon does about 1/3rd of the damage then any other missile like RB4 RB15

 

Isn't a big part of the problem the way damage modelling is done on ships? Whilst i'd not expect a single Harpoon to automatically send a warship to the bottom, it should at least mess up its ability to operate or defend itself (loss of propulsion, radars, C&C function, partial weapon system loss etc depending on where its hit and how hard) from that point onwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, flankerjun said:

these ships have a very powerful surface to air missles,no matter how many harpoon i shoot,the harpoon is always shooted down by the ship,and also how many harpoon can sink a ship of different size,i always shoot 4 harpon to sink one ship,really inefficient

 

Depending on the type of ship you attack, even a single ship may be able to repel a 20+ missile barrage.  In other words, bring friends, launch from a bunch of directions simultaneously with timed simultaneous TOT.

 

A single aircraft can sink a ship if that ship is unprepared, but that happens IRL rather than in-game, where everything/everyone are always on their toes.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Swiftwin9s said:

Harpoons are not torpedoes: they do not sink ships.

 

People need to stop expecting them to

Uhm, they often do as did Exocets in the Falklands war. They definitely cripple ships and render them combat uneffective more often than not, which is not the case in DCS because of the very simple health point damage system of ships.

That is if they can overwhelm the ships defenses of course, which is difficult.


Edited by QuiGon
  • Thanks 1

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 comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bfr said:

 

Isn't a big part of the problem the way damage modelling is done on ships? Whilst i'd not expect a single Harpoon to automatically send a warship to the bottom, it should at least mess up its ability to operate or defend itself (loss of propulsion, radars, C&C function, partial weapon system loss etc depending on where its hit and how hard) from that point onwards.

Sure, but not to go overboard (pun unintended) with deep systems rework of ships damage model, I'd be happy just to increase Harpoon damage to match every other anti-ship missile in the sim with similar warheads, should be easy to do and would keep people happy until ED has avalible resources to properly rework the whole thing

Win10 64, MSI Krait Gaming Z370, I7 8700K, Geforce 1080Ti FTW3 ,32 GB Ram, Samsung 980 EVO SSD

 

Modules: Combind Arms, A-10C, F-86F, F/A-18, F-16, Flaming Cliffs, KA-50, L-39, P-51, UH-1, Christen Eagle II, Persian Gulf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, QuiGon said:

Uhm, they often do as did Exocets in the Falklands war. They definitely cripple ships and render them combat uneffective more often than not, which is not the case in DCS because of the very simple health point damage system of ships.

That is if they can overwhelm the ships defenses of course, which is difficult.

 

Precisely, crippling and rendering combat ineffective is a long long way from sinking.

And to note, the health point damage system is only what is seen on the F10 map. On a lot of ships now the damage modelling is zoned so that you can do damage to specific parts individually. Have a look in the model viewer.


Edited by Swiftwin9s
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

They absolutely can sink ships, it depends where you hit them and what you damage. People need to stop using the INS Sahand to pretend that every single weapons system but torpedoes is incapable of sinking ships.

It depends what your expectations are. Most computer gamers seem to expect to hit a warship with a missile or two and watch it sink in less than 10 minutes. While that does occasionally happen in the real world it's extremely uncommon unless you're talking about patrol boats. Many ships ultimately survive missile strikes, and many that do sink because of ASM hits do so hours or days after the attack. 

 

What DCS needs is a refresh of the ship damage model that allows missile hits to take out key systems such as weapons, sensors, propulsion, and electrical generation and render a ship incapable of fighting even if it doesn't sink. And it should be presented in a way that players are happy to have turned a ship into a flaming hulk even if it doesn't sink before the mission is over. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti-ship missiles like Harpoon can absolutely sink ships on their own without any torpedoes required, but like other posters have said that probably won't happen until after the ship is already aflame and crippled. Given that we're just now getting a real damage model for aircraft it's not really that surprising that the damage model for ships in DCS is still pretty basic, but I hope they can look at implementing something more comprehensive in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Study the ship as target defensive capabilities. Like how many missile silos, ready missiles and capability to load them in time, how many Close-In Weapon Systems there are, on what directions, and what is their field of view capability.

 

The missile defense system is first to react, it can take from long range the incoming anti-ship missiles. But they are limited by amount of radars guiding them and they are not capable for 100% interception. Why the CIWS exists to create the short range but highly effective defense system together with the missiles. We do not either have the smoke screens, chaff artillery, ECM and IR/Laser jammers etc. 

 

1-4 Anti-Ship missiles should be no-go for a modern ship. It would likely be more closely to somewhere 12-20 when it is even just a task group etc. Not all ships are alone capable withstand highly saturated attack as defense systems just can not engage enough in time to all threats.

I recommend to check out "Command: Modern Operations" simulator for better understanding that what the war really would be.

 

This is why the 2000 era modules in DCS are very unbalancing and becomes boring too as there is just so much electronic warfare that will throw off the capabilities of "one man's war" as flight simulators typically are (as the DCS World is as well). Something that a better target in the 1970-1989 with two decade time frame would have offered far more accurate and capable engagements as technologies are not so high tech as modern times.

 

As well this is the place where ED seriously needs to get their RTS game properly designed so they can grow DCS World Combined Arms part to what the C:MO is about. It would as well tap in the huge RTS game genre where there are multiple times more players ready to play the slow paced campaigns where the units flying might be humans or AI. Something that would generate the multiplayer servers populated with humans that will give completely different challenge and missions for every pilot. It would be the ultimate digital combat simulator focused for the flight where one pilot is not the rockstar, but nothing more than a pawns on the board.

 

One going against a fleet is a task that can't be done. Even going against a individual battleship very likely ends stupid idea.

But to go against supply ships and such, amazing weapon the Harpoon.

If you can stop fleet having supply ships for months, you will start to wear out their capabilities. Fuel, Food, Ammunition, Repair parts etc. Supply lines are the critical component in any military.

 

 

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2021 at 4:15 PM, Swiftwin9s said:

Precisely, crippling and rendering combat ineffective is a long long way from sinking.

 

Well, not really. It still largely depends on the where whatever weapon hit, what it actually did and what the secondary effects are.

 

If it's just a fire like the Sheffield, then yes, it wasn't going to sink, though completely crippled, with its insides almost completely burnt out, it only sank from water ingress through the entry hole in rough seas, while under tow, days later. Same with the IRIS Sahand; while the ship was almost totally razed, completely on fire, barely recognisable (seriously) with just a hulk of the hull afloat, it only sank once the magazines detonated. 

 

The Stark on the other hand was a little different, it sustained similar damage as the Sheffield (mostly due to fire), but it came far closer to sinking; developing a heavy list to port, despite being hit high in the hull, close to the superstructure.

 

Quote

And to note, the health point damage system is only what is seen on the F10 map. On a lot of ships now the damage modelling is zoned so that you can do damage to specific parts individually. Have a look in the model viewer.

 

Yeah, but the localised damage system, as far as I can tell, is in most cases, purely decorative. Some elements do have an effect, but for the most part, hard to tell at best, definite no at worst.

 

Attached below is a quick test whereby a Hornet is put up against a Tarantul III missile boat, this was chosen as it is one of the ships with the localised damage zones, plus its easier to test, given its defensive capabilities.  For the most part it seems that graphical damage is purely decorative, though I will say that in one test run, the naval gun was hit and it looked like it was completely destroyed and unable to fire.


 

Spoiler

Test Breakdown and Analysis

 

The missile boat is doing 30 knots, and after 1 minute of running straight, it will start to follow a slow, saw-tooth pattern @ 30 knots. When it reaches waypoint 2, it will engage a target ship ~30km away with its AShMs.

 

The Hornet is armed with 2 AGM-65Fs, these missiles have a warhead that's slightly larger than the KDA Naval Strike Missile.

 

The first Maverick hits the front of the superstructure (which contains the bridge, and probably all of the command and control facilities and electronics on the ship), before the ship reaches its first waypoint, removing ~40% of its HP. Graphically the area is destroyed; it's just a black, burning heap. The bridge and the FCR (the large white radome ("Band Stand") which might also have a surface search mode) for its P-270 missiles is completely destroyed. However, the ship seems mostly unaffected, it hasn't lost any speed, and is still very much under control to follow the waypoints as if nothing had happened. The CIWS and their associated FCR are still operational, and continue to train and fire.

 

The second Maverick hits the ship roughly broadside, just under the starboard launch tubes. This drops the health into the red (to about 20%), but apart from a 50% reduction in speed, nothing has changed; the ship still fires off all of its missiles, and continues to follow the waypoints. As far as I can tell the MR-123 FCR and CIWS are still operational (they train at least and return to their default position). 

 

In reality, that first Maverick would've completely mission killed the ship. Destroying the bridge, (and any other command infrastructure if they're not on the bridge), should've left the ship unable to fight or steer. Such a hit I would've expected to destroy all of the command and control electronics/cabling, including the consoles, displays and computers for all sensors and weapons. I would also expect a large fire to have started in the superstructure and the blast from the warhead to buckle/breach the bulkhead in the compartment behind it (which in turn would leave the sensors mounted above disabled, as the cabling and electronics for them almost certainly runs through this compartment). Given that the Maverick hit near the bottom of the front of the superstructure, I would've also expected the compartment below to be extensively damaged, I'm not sure what this compartment is, but it looks to be in close proximity to where I'd expect an engineering space to be (looking at the angle of the shafts), though that might be another deck below.

 

So far I'd expect the ship to be basically dead in the water, with a large fire, the front half of the superstructure basically razed, with the ship completely unable to fight, steer, or maybe even call for help; a near certain mission kill. The only thing I'd expect to be working is the naval gun at most, assuming you can control it from the mount itself, which given the mounting, I wouldn't say is likely but wouldn't be surprised if it did (I know the larger AK130 can be controlled from the turret).

 

Then there's the second Maverick, it hit the hull, in a dive, just under the launchers. I expect that it would've taken out a probable engineering space, specifically the engine room; this should definitely leave the ship without propulsion, and would probably disable/destroy the ship's electrical supply and hydraulics. Given the proximity to the launchers, I'd expect the missiles inside them and maybe even the launch tubes and hatches to be damaged from vibrations). I'd expect another fire, likely even more severe than the first (with it possibly igniting fuel, and oil). Given the size of the warhead, I would expect it to cause extensive damage to the hull, leading to extensive flooding (from the hull and buckling/cracking, I also wouldn't be surprised if the blast and subsequent fire would damage and compromise the watertight bulkheads). The fire would probably make the flooding very difficult/impossible to control, and there's probably very little chance such a fire would be able to be contained. To top it off, I'd expect the engine room of this ship to be one of, if not the largest internal compartment in the hull, which is now filling with water, while being on fire. The electrical system is almost certainly gone, which means that the crew probably won't be able to pump the water out. All in all, from this hit alone, I would expect the ship to develop a heavy list to starboard and capsize and sink within an hour or so.

 

 

Tarantul III Mod. DM Test.trk


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

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, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1: damage model doesn’t really support Anti ship attacks on a functioning AI fleet without localized damage. 
 

2: anti ship warfare is hyper focused on economic and morale loss. Sinking a us carrier for example means losing so many billions of dollars, and hundreds of not thousands of crewmembers. we obviously don’t see that sort of perspective in DCS, unless you add more rts/economy layers to it.

 

3: how would a flight actually use a harpoon missile? Anti shipping, or to attack assets that are in harbors undergoing maintenance etc. 

 

so just go into the editor, place the ships near the coast and find a way to make them ignore the missile as if it’s not battle ready, or make the response delayed.

Owned: Ryzen 3900x, MSI AMD 470x mobo, 32gb 3200MHz ram, Gtx 1660 Ti, 970 Evo Plus 500GB, MsFFB2, TIR5, TMWH+18c Stick, MFG Crosswinds, Buttkicker/SSA, WinWing F-18C . Next is VR for simpit

Art Of The Kill:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AegisFX said:

1: damage model doesn’t really support Anti ship attacks on a functioning AI fleet without localized damage.

 

Localised damage is only part of the story, we also need subsystem damage, and its effects.

 

15 hours ago, AegisFX said:

2: anti ship warfare is hyper focused on economic and morale loss. Sinking a us carrier for example means losing so many billions of dollars, and hundreds of not thousands of crewmembers. we obviously don’t see that sort of perspective in DCS, unless you add more rts/economy layers to it.

 

I imagine the dynamic campaign will do something about that.

 

15 hours ago, AegisFX said:

3: how would a flight actually use a harpoon missile? Anti shipping, or to attack assets that are in harbors undergoing maintenance etc. 

 

Both AFAIK. Though it depends on what's launching it and what the seeker limitations are.

 

Submarine/Aircraft are probably going to be more useful than a surface combatant to attack ships in harbours for example.

 

As for the seeker limitations; how does a Harpoon know the difference between a building/pier from a ship? I imagine you could work around this by planning attacks carefully. 

 

15 hours ago, AegisFX said:

so just go into the editor, place the ships near the coast and find a way to make them ignore the missile as if it’s not battle ready, or make the response delayed.

 

For a ship in harbour, uncontrolled/group AI off is probably more appropriate.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

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, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Thump said:

 

 

I wish missile explosions on ships were that impressive in DCS.

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

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, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2021 at 1:36 AM, Bunny Clark said:

For a modern guided missile warship, you need to throw enough missiles at it to overwhelm its defenses. Exactly how many this takes depends on the exact ship, but usually at least 8, and possibly 16 or more. 

 

More. The GAF did not develop a second version of the Kormoran as realistically they could have only engaged single ships with the available A/C and missiles.

The defense systems are pretty effective and a Task Force can defend itself even better.

 

On 1/16/2021 at 4:53 PM, bfr said:

 

Isn't a big part of the problem the way damage modelling is done on ships? Whilst i'd not expect a single Harpoon to automatically send a warship to the bottom, it should at least mess up its ability to operate or defend itself (loss of propulsion, radars, C&C function, partial weapon system loss etc depending on where its hit and how hard) from that point onwards.

 

Like most other people said. Yes, but also a little bit no. I also think they should adjust the warhead for now, but the really important step would be to add at least a simple advanced damage model for ships. I think it would be good enough to not have all the sub systems. There are also so many other assets in game that need changes. 

Penetration of Runways and bunkers for example.

 

For us in a DCS mission, lets face it, the most important thing is to sink ship by ship and weaken the enemy, if we even play such important/interdepended missions.

Mostly its even simpler than that.

Wish list: late DCS: GR.1 (with GR.1B) Tornado, Improved Combined Arms (like OFP/ArmA), Improved Logistics

Build: R 5900X, RX 6900XT, 32GB DDR4-3600 | Virpil CM throttle, WarBRD base +5cm, TM Viper grip, MFG Crosswind pedals, TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize there are alot of factors that play into ship damage but when an AGM-65 inflict more damage to a ship than the Harpoon, I think something needs to be adjusted in-game.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

F/A-18C; A-10C; F-14B; Mirage 2000C; A-4E; F-16C; Flaming Cliffs 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on the target as well.  If we're talking Aegis cruisers/destroyers, you need to chuck over 20 at each ship just to get one or two through.   This is just the hard-kill capability, then there's soft-kill ... ie. countermeasures like chaff, flares, ECM.

 

On the other hand, there are plenty of combat ships in various fleets that could't defend themselves well against a raid of 3-4 (depending on how well the soft-kill systems work out) simply because they cannot put out the volume of fire required, be it due to more limited detection, designation of armament count capability.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, and we don't even have soft-kill countermeasures yet (namely chaff and jamming).

 

Though it should also be said that most ships (all of them?) were hit by missiles they either didn't see them coming or otherwise didn't react, in DCS that can be approximated with triggers, but I'm fairly sure AI RADARs in DCS are pretty simplified and don't take into account things like clutter - though I might be mistaken (not that this would effect more modern vessels).

 

And don't forget, with Aegis ships, before the ESSM and RIM-174A Standard ERAM (both missiles have a terminal ARH mode, but we don't have either of them) the maximum simultaneous firing channels is loosely determined by how many SPG-62 RADARs present; at least until SM-2 Block IIIB (which also has an infrared seeker); as these are the RADARs that provide the terminal CWI for the SM-2s they currently fire (SM-2 is SARH/INS/DL using inertial guidance with midcourse updates and then using SARH in the terminal stage).

 

The advantage with how Aegis is set-up, is that it can rapidly engage multiple targets, as it only needs the SPG-62s in the terminal stage, but there's a limit there of how many missiles can be actively guided in the terminal stage.

 

In DCS however, these RADARs aren't implemented, (though on the Arleigh-Burke they are animated in the modelviewer).


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

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, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...