The scenario is GIUK 2 Gauntlet.

 

NATO has 2 FF, 2 merchants and must run the gauntlet of 1 sub, 2 x Nanuchka 3, and 6 attack jets.

 

What's of interest here is how well the 2 Lynx available do against the Nanuchkas.

 

Although it might have been simpler to set up a clean new scenario, I just ran this one down to the critical point, saved the file, and re-ran multiple times from that point. Now, there were several serious anomalies in that game, but the parts of interest seemed to run OK.

 

There are 2 parts to this. First, I attacked from behind the Nanuchkas with one Lynx, and then from the front with the other one. The Nanuchkas are in column, about 5 nm apart, travelling at 5 kn. Radars are on and all the relevant units detect each other.

 

The first question is at what range the Lynx get to fire. The Sea Skua has a nominal range of 8 nm. However, when you try to launch them, the staff assistant says you must close to 7 nm. This seemed to be about the same, front or back. Conclusion: Sea Skua effective range is 7 nm. This differs from Brad's previous result.

 

The second question is when the Geckos get to fire. Nominal Gecko range is 8 nm, but they never shot at the helicopters, and only at the missiles at 5 nm or so.

 

I re-ran the test 20 times from each side. In almost all cases, each ship launched 2 Geckos, but once only 3 were launched, once only 1, and once none at all!

 

From the back, the Geckos hit about 50%; from the front, they hit about 44%. The nominal hit probabbility is 50%.

 

From the back, 8 hits were obtained with 80 Sea Skua over 20 trials. From the front, 28 hits were obtained with 80 Sea Skua over 20 trials.

 

Gecko weapons arc is front and sides, point defence weapons arc is rear and sides. Attacking from the front, PD probably did not fire. The difference of 20 Sea Skua hits, one per run, is consistent with the PD nominally getting one hit per target.

 

Moral of the story: attack Nanuchka 3s from the front!

The scenario is GIUK 2 Gauntlet. NATO has 2 FF, 2 merchants and must run the gauntlet of 1 sub, 2 x Nanuchka 3, and 6 attack jets. What's of interest here is how well the 2 Lynx available do against the Nanuchkas. Although it might have been simpler to set up a clean new scenario, I just ran this one down to the critical point, saved the file, and re-ran multiple times from that point. Now, there were several serious anomalies in that game, but the parts of interest seemed to run OK. There are 2 parts to this. First, I attacked from behind the Nanuchkas with one Lynx, and then from the front with the other one. The Nanuchkas are in column, about 5 nm apart, travelling at 5 kn. Radars are on and all the relevant units detect each other. The first question is at what range the Lynx get to fire. The Sea Skua has a nominal range of 8 nm. However, when you try to launch them, the staff assistant says you must close to 7 nm. This seemed to be about the same, front or back. Conclusion: Sea Skua effective range is 7 nm. This differs from Brad's previous result. The second question is when the Geckos get to fire. Nominal Gecko range is 8 nm, but they never shot at the helicopters, and only at the missiles at 5 nm or so. I re-ran the test 20 times from each side. In almost all cases, each ship launched 2 Geckos, but once only 3 were launched, once only 1, and once none at all! From the back, the Geckos hit about 50%; from the front, they hit about 44%. The nominal hit probabbility is 50%. From the back, 8 hits were obtained with 80 Sea Skua over 20 trials. From the front, 28 hits were obtained with 80 Sea Skua over 20 trials. Gecko weapons arc is front and sides, point defence weapons arc is rear and sides. Attacking from the front, PD probably did not fire. The difference of 20 Sea Skua hits, one per run, is consistent with the PD nominally getting one hit per target. Moral of the story: attack Nanuchka 3s from the front!

 

I would not subscribe to this advice. Here's why:

 

1. The weapons and sensor performance values in the older battlesets (e.g. GIUK) are suspect, and cannot be relied upon in other, newer battlesets or custom battlesets. For example, SA-N-4 Gecko range is signficantly further in the GIUK battleset than elsewhere and skews the results accordingly.

 

2. You can shoot Sea Skua at 8 nm from some angles (or at least, from the rear). See the screenshots in the other thread that show this. There appears to be a rounding error in the GE that causes the weapon prompt dialog to appear at 7 nm rather than 8 nm in most other cases.

 

3. You cannot rely on the Gecko weapons arc being just to the front and sides. Missiles such as Gecko may also perform point defence, and can knock down or deflect Sea Skuas there just as guns and countermeasures can. Likewise, point defence systems may have all arcs in play.

Speaking as a physicist, I'd say that my experiment reported above is completely valid within the parameters stated, up to the quality of the statistics.

 

The only necessary condition I did not state was the game version used: 2009-36, the highest available to me right now.

 

I would expect similar results to be observed in ANY GIUK scenario.

 

Not to repeat everything from my previous post, what conclusions can we draw?

 

Over 40 trials, with the Lynx within the nominal (stated) Gecko range, the Geckos never fired at it. That looks pretty definite. Prior to running this experiment, I had claimed the opposite. Mea culpa. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, because the Lynx is DANGEROUS. A Gecko travels at 2300 kn & it needs only about 12 s to cross 8 nm. The Lynx can't escape.

 

Over 40 trials, half from the front, half from the back, the Geckos almost always shot at the Sea Skuas, 2 per ship. From this we learn that weapons arcs don't matter for area defence. This is what Brad said in "I suck" thread, post 77.

 

Over 40 trials, half from the front, half from the back, the Sea Skuas achieved more than 3 x as many hits from the front. The only variable is the point defence, which faces the rear. The conclusion that the point defence never fired due to arc issues is consistent with what Brad said in "I suck" thread, post 77.

 

The quality of the statistics looks to be pretty good, based on looking at the raw data.

 

It seems unfortunate that experiments like this might produce different results for each implementation of the database and/or the game engine. I guess that is the price you pay for playing a game that is continually being improved.

It seems unfortunate that experiments like this might produce different results for each implementation of the database and/or the game engine. I guess that is the price you pay for playing a game that is continually being improved.

 

Ok, here's a test scenario, with plenty of helicopters, plenty of detection assets (an E3, default patrol zone will detect Sverdlov, move it a little or launch another to find the missile boat), a Nanuchka to kill, and a Sverdlov (322 DP) to lob missiles at, too. The Sverdlov also has an SA-N-4 launcher and an AK-630, as does the Nanuchka, but you can hit (test) it with more missiles w/o having to restart the scenario.

 

Created in the GIUK EC2003 battleset, so using commondb. In 2009.053, can't launch Sea Skua till 7 miles. I did get to 8 miles, and could not launch, SA said I was at 8 miles, but could only launch at 7 miles. DB says Sea Skua range is 8.2 miles. Target Sverdlov was not moving at the time.

 

I'm currently lobbing missiles at the Sverdlov to see what I get.

 

Ok, 4 missiles sunk the Nanuchka, 1 out of 4 hit, 1 shot down, 1 missed, so I guess PointDefense got one, too. Nanuchka had 20% defensive ECM.

 

Sverdlov was usually killing 2 of each group fired with its Gecko launcher, but wasn't getting as many misses, because Sverdlov had no ECM. SSkua is base 75% PK in DB.

 

It's late, so I'm not running a *bunch* of tests tonight, but, that's why I loaded the scenario here, so others can look at it, too.

SSKUASCm.zip

The only variable is the point defence, which faces the rear.

 

Don't forget that "point defence" can include the Geckos as well as guns and jammers/decoys.

It seems unfortunate that experiments like this might produce different results for each implementation of the database and/or the game engine. I guess that is the price you pay for playing a game that is continually being improved.

 

Au contraire, IMHO. If the sim could be broken down into a cold mathematical calculations, without any variability for chance or varying circumstances, with an automatic result, it might be a heckuva lot less enjoyable.

 

Instead, the fact that databases may differ in the values they use, that sensors do not always reliably detect contacts at a given range, that weapons don't always hit, that weather and visibility may influence an engagement, etc, all play critical roles in making this sim what it is.

 

The results of any given engagement are often reliably predictable, but they are rarely guaranteed. And I'm happy for it.

The results of any given engagement are often reliably predictable, but they are rarely guaranteed. And I'm happy for it.

 

Got a specific question here: if a defensive ECM shows a 20% hit rate, does that mean it will generally reduce incoming radar-guided missile PK by 20%, or at least some fraction of that, depending on conditions?

 

If an offensive Jammer shows a 20 mile range, and a 50% hit rate, does that mean it reduces radar detection range by 50% for any aircraft within 20 miles of it? Or how does that work?

 

Of course, if I've missed a link on exactly how that works, feel free to drop the link in here so I can go read about it.

Got a specific question here: if a defensive ECM shows a 20% hit rate, does that mean it will generally reduce incoming radar-guided missile PK by 20%, or at least some fraction of that, depending on conditions?

 

If an offensive Jammer shows a 20 mile range, and a 50% hit rate, does that mean it reduces radar detection range by 50% for any aircraft within 20 miles of it? Or how does that work?

 

1. Yes, 20% off the top. I don't recall if it is successful in that reduction every time (vague memory says yes).

 

2. There isn't such a direct correlation. 20 miles is to be thought of as a power number (20nm jammer is less powerful than 50nm jammer) but the actual jamming effect is calculated per situation. See http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2574 for some detail and a handy spreadsheet that gets you in the ballpark.