SAM accuracy when intercepting missiles

[JamitovHymem]

For example, I tried to hit a modern destroyers using suppersonic antiship missiles and it takes like 30-40 missiles to kill a single destroyer when it is by itself(the destroyer doesn't even have any AEW support and detects the missiles when they are approximately 20nm away from the ship)
If you use subsonic missiles it takes even more
In most cases they got hit because they ran out of ammunition on there primary SAM
They seem to be too effective
If you have a modern fleet along with AEW support they just seem invulnerable until they run out of ammo
Should they really be this accurate?

BTW, is there a way to view how many missiles a FCR radar can guide simultaneously?

[lamboman43]

What kind of destroyer were you shooting at when it took that many missiles?

[JamitovHymem]

I tried a few different ones
Arleigh Burke IIA, Sejong the Great, 052D, all were very effective
I even tried the Petr Vekiliy and it intercepted more than 100 harpoons before it sank

[CapnDarwin]

All basically Aegis based platforms with VLS SAMs (Petr Vekiliy has over 130 SAMs and then a bunch of CWIS systems as an example). You need to use decoys, jammers, ARMs against its radars, and strike from multiple angles with a bunch of ASMs to overwhelm these types of ships.

[kevinkins]

I don't have any answers for you. But this ties into the discussion we have been having re: taking out the S-400 battalion efficiently.

Kevin

[Dysta]

Sounds like a question for economists: how pricey to kill a warship.

Very dependable, but it's the strategy and use of weapons could tell the answer.

[Cik]

as long as the destroyer's alone and you have a reasonable force concentration you shouldn't have too much to worry about; approach low on the deck and the ship will have ~30s max to shoot down your huge swarm of missiles (assuming that they are surface skimmers and so are the launching platforms)

use ECM/antiradar missiles to blind it's radars. if all else fails you can try circumventing the defenses.

if you continue to have trouble you should record a demo of what you're doing to attack it. personally i haven't had too many problems attacking even pretty good missile defenses, so either i'm a prodigy (not likely[8D]) you're doing something wrong, or the ship is getting extremely lucky on it's anti-missile dicerolls (possible)

[Dysta]

One thing that keep annoying me is the AI cannot perform sustaining strike with 1 or 2 missile per salvo, especially the grouped units.

I want to force hostile FCRs and jammers stay open to intercept my 'low-value' ASMs, while ARM do the most works of them. But it can only be done manually. I tried the WRA adjustment, but the whole group of units will fire lots of missiles regarding the target's 'Harpoon-value', and making a very small window for ARM strike.

[Cik]

it's an interesting thought. the behavior would be nice for CAS too; as it is my warthogs tend to spend all of their mavericks in 20 seconds and then disengage, which leaves me high and dry sight-wise.

a function that allows maintaining contact and only sporadic fire would be good for anti-shipping and CAS. granted in the case of ships you'd still probably need a wall of ARMs to saturate the defenses, but at least you'd be able to maintain long-range tally at all times with ELINT. you could snooze most of your radars in theater and rely on TGP + ELINT for tracking enemy ships, giving you a detection/EW advantage.

WTOT would also help a lot with overwhelming ship-based missile defenses. coordinating a mass launch of ARMs and harpoons, both of which travel at such different speeds is a pain.

[Lowlaner2012]

Ship Sam's are not to accurate, you just need to experiment... attacking from different directions at the same time, use jammers and overwhelming tactics... etc..

Thats whats great about this game, you can experiment and find your own solutions to various situations...

[wild_Willie2]

Modern VLS celled warships have a field-day against older ASM missiles. If you utilize weapons like the JSM or LRASM, things get a bit easier, but these ships are no pushovers, especially when working closely together.

[Primarchx]

Once you get Aegis (large number of near-simultaneous engagements), sea-skimming-capable SAMs (better accuracy vs seaskimmers) and VLS (high rate of fire) the conventional subsonic seaskimming ASM is pretty much outclassed. It's why new ASM designs are either extremely fast or stealthy.

[KungPao]

similar topic has been discussed many times

tm.asp?m=4142443&mpage=1&key=combined%2Carms&#4142681

When you have to face a modern surface group, either oversaturation or combined arms. Combine ASM, ARM, OECM, Submarine and some freedom fighters who riding on their yacht and waving RPG, you need a well coordinate strike.

[Filitch]

I read enough interested study "COMMANDING THE SEAS. A PLAN TO REINVIGORATE U.S. NAVY SURFACE WARFARE" by BRYAN CLARK from Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA).
They wrote:

Figure 3 shows the number of ASCMs that can be defeated with a hundred ship-based interceptors, which is
close to a DDG-51’s total VLS capacity of ninety-six cells. As the figure shows,
using today’s standard shot doctrine of “shoot, shoot, look, shoot” (SS-L-S),
fewer than fifty incoming missiles could be engaged regardless of the intercep-
tor’s probability of “killing” the missile (also known as Pk for “kill probability”
or “probability of kill”). A S-L-S shot doctrine may enable more ASCMs to be
engaged, but would increase risk because unless the ASCM is initially engaged
at long range (which would require OTH targeting data), it may reach the target
before a second engagement can occur. Point defense and EW systems do not
enable the ship to reduce the number of interceptors shot at incoming ASCMs
because they cannot defeat the ASCM until late in flight; instead they are used
as a last resort to stop “leakers” from reaching the defended ship. As a result,
the complete VLS capacity of a DDG (if all devoted to air defense) would be
consumed against fewer than fifty ASCMs—missiles that would cost the enemy
about 2 percent the price of a DDG

[Dysta]

Well, it's kinda understandable to fire large salvo of ASMs at closer range, the defending side will have shorter amount of time to intercept.

This is also my frustration when both sides runs out of ASM, and force to engage at gun range. If there is a ship have large amount of short range AGM like hellfire (a bit too short) or maverick can perform the close range saturation strike, the more likelihood to punch through their SR-SAM and CIWS. The important key is stealth, and not getting attacked inside their gun range.

[kevinkins]

by BRYAN CLARK from Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA).

Mr. Clark makes the rounds among the security think tanks. Thanks for sharing. A youtube search will pull up a few of his talks.

Kevin

[Filitch]

Another opinion about Aegis capabilities:

In tests using surrogates that were both slower and higher than the Mach 2 Soviet SS-N-22 Sunburn missile, it was clear that the Aegis system could not be relied on for an effective defense of itself or aircraft carriers it was escorting.

http://nation.time.com/2012/12/04/more-than-the-navys-numbers-could-be-sinking/

[giantsquid]

On this topic, here is an interesing article about Brahmos/supersonic missiles attack against modern ships
https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/12/27/ ... s-missile/

I tested Brahmos against an alerted USN Burke DDG with ESSM in CMANO.

8 Brahmos missiles at 30 ft at 1450 knots
Missiles detected at 16 nm by SPY1D
First SAM launch t+10 sec

All easily intercepted by ESSM, some redirecting weapons
Weapon: RIM-162A ESSM #12 is attacking PJ-10 Brahmos #4 with a base PH of 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Target signature modifier: -10%. Final PH: 70%. Result: 57 – HIT

9-10 Brahmos seems to be the saturation limit. With 16 weapons I always scored hits on Burke
Impact at T+45sec. Missiles were fired all together in automatic mode, approaching from the same direction in “train” formation. Probably you can obtain better result plotting the course and making 2x4 of them arrive at the same moment form different directions.

Another try vs Chinese Type-52D Luyang III, always with 8 Brahmos
Always detected at about 16 NM and them shot down by HQ-9B, same as before

Weapon: HQ-9B #40 is attacking PJ-10 Brahmos #31 with a base PH of 80%. Target signature modifier: -10%. Final PH: 70%. Result: 37 – HIT

I tried with 16 missile and the Chinese ship was hit. I noticed the terminal maneuver, great work by devs! I’m always impressed with the level of detail of the simulation. I think it only applies when Brahmos locks on target I the last few NM. Below some interception with terminal maneuvers.

13:00:17 - Gun (30mm China H/PJ-12 [Type 730, 240 rnds]) is attacking PJ-10 Brahmos #32 with a base-Ph of 70%. Base-Ph adjusted for distance: 70%. Target speed modifier: -30%. Target size modifier: -3%. Target is missile with zig-zag terminal manouver - hit probability reduced by 33%. Final Ph: 24%. Result: 17 - HIT
13:00:14 - Weapon: HQ-9B #58 is attacking PJ-10 Brahmos #32 with a base PH of 80%. Target signature modifier: -10%. Target is missile with zig-zag terminal manouver - hit probability reduced by 33%. Final PH: 46%. Result: 59 – MISS

Maybe the Target speed modifier: -10% & Target signature modifier: -10% were too optimistic for such a small, sea skimming, ultra fast missiles? According to the article the Pk should be more around 40-50%. What do you think?

[stilesw]

Giantsquid,

Thank you for the reference. I've included the article in the unofficial Dropbox CMANO reference library. Anyone who would like access to this library please PM me with your email address.

-Wayne Stiles