TonyE Posted February 25, 2009 Report Posted February 25, 2009 I'm not positive, but I think (in game) the launcher needs to have LOS to the target in order to launch, but the SAM will continue to pursue thereafter even if the launcher loses LOS before impact. I agree but the best way to be sure is to test and of course attach your test scen here.
VictorInThePacific Posted February 26, 2009 Author Report Posted February 26, 2009 Unfortunately, there appear to be 2 mutually exclusive positions on this. 1) The launcher has to be able to establish LOS to the target at the time of SAM launch, but after that the missile will find its own way; 2) A friendly unit can request a launch at a target the launcher cannot see, but the launcher needs LOS to the target at the time of intercept. Unfortunately, this is not just hypothetical for me. It has a critical impact on a calculation I am doing in the Matrix forum. Actually, I could manipulate either possibility to give the same result to my calculation, but if a friendly unit can control the SAM launch, and after that the missile will find its own way, it gives a huge advantage to the ship. I just downloaded the demo again, and I will try to test this myself, but perhaps someone can help me with this. The simplest possibility would be to create a scenario with an Arleigh Burke DD and a Hawkeye nearby, and a Flanker C 30 nm away from the ship at VL. Does the Flanker live or die? If the Flanker lives, pop it up to low, wait for a SAM launch, and go back to VL. Does the Flanker live or die?
Warhorse64 Posted February 26, 2009 Report Posted February 26, 2009 Unfortunately, there appear to be 2 mutually exclusive positions on this. 1) The launcher has to be able to establish LOS to the target at the time of SAM launch, but after that the missile will find its own way; 2) A friendly unit can request a launch at a target the launcher cannot see, but the launcher needs LOS to the target at the time of intercept. Unfortunately, this is not just hypothetical for me. It has a critical impact on a calculation I am doing in the Matrix forum. Actually, I could manipulate either possibility to give the same result to my calculation, but if a friendly unit can control the SAM launch, and after that the missile will find its own way, it gives a huge advantage to the ship. I just downloaded the demo again, and I will try to test this myself, but perhaps someone can help me with this. The simplest possibility would be to create a scenario with an Arleigh Burke DD and a Hawkeye nearby, and a Flanker C 30 nm away from the ship at VL. Does the Flanker live or die? If the Flanker lives, pop it up to low, wait for a SAM launch, and go back to VL. Does the Flanker live or die? Okay, I just tried this myself, using the units indicated. At 28 nm and VLow, the Flanker lives. Pop the Flanker up to Low, and the Burke launches. Drop the Flanker back to VLow as soon as the SAMs are detected, and the SAMs continue to guide and kill the Flanker at VLow. On this basis, I would conclude that your option 1) is TRUE, and option 2) is FALSE. Hope this helps ... NB ----- Just to be completely perverse, let me point out that the above results are an illustration of how THE GAME works. If I understand how Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) works in Real Life , it is just about the direct opposite: Any unit with CEC can request a launch from any other unit with CEC and the appropriate missiles, but there needs to be a unit with CEC and directors in LOS of the target for the terminal phase of the intecept, which is pretty close to your option 2) ...
VictorInThePacific Posted February 26, 2009 Author Report Posted February 26, 2009 Unfortunately, there appear to be 2 mutually exclusive positions on this. 1) The launcher has to be able to establish LOS to the target at the time of SAM launch, but after that the missile will find its own way; 2) A friendly unit can request a launch at a target the launcher cannot see, but the launcher needs LOS to the target at the time of intercept. I just downloaded the demo again, and I will try to test this myself, but perhaps someone can help me with this. The simplest possibility would be to create a scenario with an Arleigh Burke DD and a Hawkeye nearby, and a Flanker C 30 nm away from the ship at VL. Does the Flanker live or die? If the Flanker lives, pop it up to low, wait for a SAM launch, and go back to VL. Does the Flanker live or die? Okay, I just tried this myself, using the units indicated. At 28 nm and VLow, the Flanker lives. Pop the Flanker up to Low, and the Burke launches. Drop the Flanker back to VLow as soon as the SAMs are detected, and the SAMs continue to guide and kill the Flanker at VLow. On this basis, I would conclude that your option 1) is TRUE, and option 2) is FALSE. Hope this helps ... Thanks, Warhorse, for resolving this so speedily. I have also tried this and obtained the identical result. I used the demo, Westpac 9, "The Backyard (part 1)". BLUE has a bunch of stuff, including a 5-ship surface group wandering around near a Russian airbase. There are no Flanker Cs kicking around, but there are a bunch of Su-27s, which appear to be quite safe at VL altitude. The surface group in question has 4 weaker ships, but the main ship is a Japanese Kongo DDG (Arleigh Burke equivalent), with Aegis and SM-2s. I had a Mainstay within 75 nm to detect stuff. I flew a number of Flankers (3, one after the other) towards the Kongo at VL, staying away from the other ships. (There were Seahawks flying around too, but no AWACS.) At 50 nm away from the Kongo, I got the "entering AA range" warning, but nothing happened. At 40 nm, the Flanker went to med. One SAM was launched. The Flanker went to VL. Nothing happened (the SAM missed). At 31 nm, the Flanker loitered at VL. Nothing happened. The Flanker went to med. One SAM was launched. The Flanker went to VL. Splash Flanker #1. Flanker #2 came in all the way to 30 nm at VL and then loitered. Nothing happened. It went to low. One SAM was launched. The Flanker went to VL. Splash Flanker #2. Flanker #3 came in all the way to 30 nm at VL and then loitered. Nothing happened. It went to low. One SAM was launched. The Flanker went to VL. The SAM missed. The Flanker went to low. One SAM was launched. The Flanker went to VL and retreated. 42 nm from the Kongo, splash Flanker #3. My trial was somewhat complicated due to the fact that the BLUE CVBG kept sending fighters over to interfere with the advancement of scientific research. Once again, thanks for helping me to resolve this problem. I will incorporate the results into my calculation. Incidentally, Badgers do not appear to perform well at VL. I lost 2 of 4 on a maximum-range round trip. ______________________________________________________________ So my next question is, ships such an Arleigh Burke carry things that look like weapons, with ammunition and so forth: naval decoys and naval ECM. I am guessing that the decoys can be launched at incoming missiles (shortly before impact) and each of them has a 20 % chance of eliminating the missile. I am assuming that the computer controls this. Is this correct?
CV32 Posted February 26, 2009 Report Posted February 26, 2009 Just to be completely perverse, let me point out that the above results are an illustration of how THE GAME works. If I understand how Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) works in Real Life , it is just about the direct opposite: Any unit with CEC can request a launch from any other unit with CEC and the appropriate missiles, but there needs to be a unit with CEC and directors in LOS of the target for the terminal phase of the intecept, which is pretty close to your option 2) ... This is what I was trying to explain to VitP earlier about what was "technically correct". Sorry for the confusion, but keep in mind that there are Harpoon versions here other than HCE where "real life" is more closely represented and I'd like the analysis to be at least somewhat useful to everyone. Thanks.
VictorInThePacific Posted February 26, 2009 Author Report Posted February 26, 2009 there are Harpoon versions here other than HCE where "real life" is more closely represented and I'd like the analysis to be at least somewhat useful to everyone. What I have done is present the calculation (finally), using a particular set of assumptions (rules), stating the assumptions as clearly as possible. If a different set of assumptions is appropriate, then it should also be fairly clear how the calculation would be modified. I have tried to avoid suggesting an attack that takes advantage of game idiosyncrasies. Bottom line: 40 first-rate ASMs, properly employed, will wreck or sink any Aegis ship.
CV32 Posted February 26, 2009 Report Posted February 26, 2009 there are Harpoon versions here other than HCE where "real life" is more closely represented and I'd like the analysis to be at least somewhat useful to everyone. What I have done is present the calculation (finally), using a particular set of assumptions (rules), stating the assumptions as clearly as possible. If a different set of assumptions is appropriate, then it should also be fairly clear how the calculation would be modified. I have tried to avoid suggesting an attack that takes advantage of game idiosyncracies. Yes, that was the intent of the original question. Bottom line: 40 first-rate ASMs, properly employed, will wreck or sink any Aegis ship. I assume you mean 40 per Aegis ship?
VictorInThePacific Posted February 27, 2009 Author Report Posted February 27, 2009 Bottom line: 40 first-rate ASMs, properly employed, will wreck or sink any Aegis ship. I assume you mean 40 per Aegis ship? Yes. Bear in mind, there will be significant scatter about this result. Some of these weapons will roll a low damage result (pass through the captain's cabin without exploding), and some of them will do catastrophic damage (hit and destroy the ship's liquor still, causing the entire crew to abandon ship). It is also the 1-ship result, which will only apply under certain restrictions, such as the ship being in fact alone, or the ship being tactically isolated, or possible supporting ships being themselves fully engaged with other problems. And, as usual, there are a number of implied assumptions and unstated conditions, such as that we are talking about an SM-2 equipped Aegis ship.
Recommended Posts