|
Post by brygun on May 25, 2020 17:43:12 GMT -6
EDIT: Contrary to everyone else, I think BBGs/“Arsenal Ships” are going to end up very useful. I think the 24 tons for Heavy SSMs is a placeholder value, and they will end up about as heavy as SAMs. If that’s the case, then BCGs will be in the sweet spot of high speed and high free weight. While still being heavily gun-armed to clean up stragglers. This assumes that missile mounts aren’t limited by fire control capabilities. Not as big surface ship BBGs though. The real world has already transitioned to holy-tuna-bat-man quantity of 154 of tomahawk missiles from a former ballistic missile submarine. Each chamber that used to hole one nuclear missile now holds a quantity of tomahawks. Multiply by the number of nuclear missile tubes converted and you get 154. The ability of it as a submarine to park off of someone's coast is far more defensible for it than a BBG that many nations can track from orbit. Some links: nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-navy-has-one-submarine-could-drop-154-tomahawks-missiles-23529en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarineSSBN/SSGN conversions USS Ohio being converted from an SSBN to an SSGN in March 2004 In 1994, the Nuclear Posture Review study determined that, of the 18 Ohio SSBNs the U.S. Navy would be operating in total, 14 would be sufficient for the strategic needs of the U.S. The decision was made to convert four Ohio-class boats into SSGNs capable of conducting conventional land attack and special operations. As a result, the four oldest boats of the class—Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia—progressively entered the conversion process in late 2002 and were returned to active service by 2008.[16] The boats could thereafter carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 66 special operations personnel, among other capabilities and upgrades.[16] The cost to refit the four boats was around US$1 billion (2008 dollars) per vessel.[17] During the conversion of the first four submarines to SSGNs (see below), five of the submarines, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Nebraska, Maine, and Louisiana, were transferred from Kings Bay to Bangor. Further transfers occur as the strategic weapons goals of the United States change.
|
|
|
Post by titanuranus on May 25, 2020 17:49:29 GMT -6
EDIT: Contrary to everyone else, I think BBGs/“Arsenal Ships” are going to end up very useful. I think the 24 tons for Heavy SSMs is a placeholder value, and they will end up about as heavy as SAMs. If that’s the case, then BCGs will be in the sweet spot of high speed and high free weight. While still being heavily gun-armed to clean up stragglers. This assumes that missile mounts aren’t limited by fire control capabilities. Not as big surface ship BBGs though. The real world has already transitioned to holy-tuna-bat-man quantity of 154 of tomahawk missiles from a former ballistic missile submarine. Each chamber that used to hole one nuclear missile now holds a quantity of tomahawks. Multiply by the number of nuclear missile tubes converted and you get 154. The ability of it as a submarine to park off of someone's coast is far more defensible for it than a BBG that many nations can track from orbit. Some links: nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-navy-has-one-submarine-could-drop-154-tomahawks-missiles-23529en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarineSSBN/SSGN conversions USS Ohio being converted from an SSBN to an SSGN in March 2004 In 1994, the Nuclear Posture Review study determined that, of the 18 Ohio SSBNs the U.S. Navy would be operating in total, 14 would be sufficient for the strategic needs of the U.S. The decision was made to convert four Ohio-class boats into SSGNs capable of conducting conventional land attack and special operations. As a result, the four oldest boats of the class—Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia—progressively entered the conversion process in late 2002 and were returned to active service by 2008.[16] The boats could thereafter carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 66 special operations personnel, among other capabilities and upgrades.[16] The cost to refit the four boats was around US$1 billion (2008 dollars) per vessel.[17] During the conversion of the first four submarines to SSGNs (see below), five of the submarines, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Nebraska, Maine, and Louisiana, were transferred from Kings Bay to Bangor. Further transfers occur as the strategic weapons goals of the United States change. I’m talking about the game, not real life... The tech timeline stops in ~1957, long before anything you mentioned came into existence.
|
|
|
Post by eaterofsuns on May 26, 2020 9:39:15 GMT -6
After playing with SSNs, two things are clear to me: 1. SSNs need to be backed up by guns for decisive results (so BBs/BCs are still needed) 2. SSNs really need better logic, or the ability to dictate targeting priorities. Right now ships empty their magazines at the first enemy in sight, an issue exacerbated by the apparent fact that missiles only cripple and kill over time. EDIT: Contrary to everyone else, I think BBGs/“Arsenal Ships” are going to end up very useful. I think the 24 tons for Heavy SSMs is a placeholder value, and they will end up about as heavy as SAMs. If that’s the case, then BCGs will be in the sweet spot of high speed and high free weight. While still being heavily gun-armed to clean up stragglers. This assumes that missile mounts aren’t limited by fire control capabilities. I would guess that the optimal fleet would be DDGs, CLGs (same reason as BCGs on a smaller scale), BCGs, and CVs + support ships. If they remain recognizable, I see missiles as long ranged, highly accurate torpedoes. The also are probably more useful that they appear on CVs, they will give them relatively light-weight defensive weapons so their constant turning into the wind won’t be such an issue. Honestly, I think the weight is probably spot on for these missiles, look at some examples of the tiny things that carried them:
If Wikipedia can be trusted, that's 2 P-15s on a 66.5 ton max load ship.
I do like the idea of putting some on CV's though, since the game ignores the missile launch debris problems for SAMs already. I think you will find that BCG's end up being too expensive and too vulnerable, though that might depend on how much armor the missiles can penetrate; I haven't seen any information on penetration for these yet.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 26, 2020 16:45:36 GMT -6
EDIT: Contrary to everyone else, I think BBGs/“Arsenal Ships” are going to end up very useful. I think the 24 tons for Heavy SSMs is a placeholder value, and they will end up about as heavy as SAMs. If that’s the case, then BCGs will be in the sweet spot of high speed and high free weight. While still being heavily gun-armed to clean up stragglers. This assumes that missile mounts aren’t limited by fire control capabilities. What makes you think this? Given that SSM launchers can be as simple as a box and a three ton missile while Surface to Air Missiles require multi-ton launchers, large magazines, and radar fire control systems far above the deck.
|
|
|
Post by tordenskjold on Jun 1, 2020 17:42:12 GMT -6
So, I finished my first game allowing SSMs, but right until 1970 the AI mounted SSMs on no bigger ships than DDs. So I guess that there just are no templates for other classes including SSM mounts and I have to model some templates similar to Kynda, Kresta or Slava classes or that Peruvian Almirante Grau by hand... well, let's see if this works.
|
|
|
Post by tordenskjold on Jun 3, 2020 7:57:23 GMT -6
Yes, it works. The AI now builds those ships modeled after - from top to bottom - Long Beach, Almirante Grau and Leahy. However the AI so far not has yet produced any of the designs that mimick Soviet classes, and the Kirov-inspired BC design doesn't even turn up as one of the suggestions in my own design window, neither do any of these handy SSM-armed KE designs.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 3, 2020 14:50:49 GMT -6
Does AA engage missiles?
|
|
|
Post by tordenskjold on Jun 3, 2020 16:01:11 GMT -6
Uhm, I don't think so. But apparently passive countermeasures have a massive effect, i.e. with the respective technology missiles aren't that "accurate" anymore. Opposed to this, in an earlier save-edit with me having all technology and the AI starting at zero, most of my missiles hit their targets.
|
|
janic
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by janic on Jun 26, 2020 0:20:06 GMT -6
Is it posible to change Visual and Place Location of SSM Launchers to get the Square Chessboard lock that would be nice I simly doesnt like the lock of a Ship packed whit Launchers
|
|
|
Post by durhamdave on Jun 28, 2020 2:36:17 GMT -6
By square chessboard look, do you mean Vertical Launch System? As the first one of those on a cruiser, and therefore I think surface ship, was in the 1970s, the Azov.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 22, 2022 4:08:46 GMT -6
So, after about 3-4 days of testing, it appears that SSMs (in their present, "unofficial" form) have a huge effect on the balance of the game. It appears just too easy to cram as many launchers as possible on even the smalles ships, neglect guns and possibly also armor and then just watch your fleet launching flocks of missiles at approaching enemies at radar distance, which effectively cripples them usually even beyond coming within gun range. In the outcome, the enemy fleets usually were virtually annihilated - my fleet hardly suffered any losses, only from mines or submarines at best. This also holds for even the worst initial conditions in a battle, i.e. it's easily possible to gain total wins with a handful of missile-armed light cruisers and destroyers vs. several squadrons of BBs. I admit again that these are the observations from a game in which I just enabled all technology early on by save-editing, but still: Even in the 1940s and with technology percolating to the other navies by selling or espionage, the outcome does not change (it will probably once the AI starts using missiles as well, but time hasn't proceeded this far right now). Austria-Hungary is easily ruling the waves thanks to massive fielding of SSMs. So yes, leading in this technology will definitely give any navy a decisive edge. Still, some questions I was not able to answer. For example, I have only observed the "ultimate" potential of SSMs. I thus cannot tell how "early" SSMs play out. They might probably be less accurate and heavier to mount, effectively offering less "destructive power per weight" and thus should be less easily have guns turned in for them. Also, I obviously have not yet had the experience of these things being fired at me, so I also can't tell what the actual exchange ratio of missiles vs. missiles might be. However, the most interesting question finally is how this tech might affect shipbuilding. How effective against SSMs is armor? It doesn't seem to be that important anymore, since it turned out that also BBs and BCs were not match for SSMs. Thus, it might indeed be tempting to save armor, weight and cost when concentrating on SSMs, which thus brings us to those rather light, unarmored ship designs typical for the Cold War.
:EDIT: Oh, and to underline that latter point, here's Austria-Hungary's very own rendition of a Slava-class lookalike:
<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button>
:EDIT 2: Oh, and what I find convenient is that salvos of SSMs within a ship formation are apparently distributed among a number of possible targets, which guarantees that not all ships of that formation expend their missiles on one single ship, but are thus able to attack even larger formations all at once. In my current game as Japan (with save-editing all nations to maximum technology plus base resource multiplied by 10 - now the US has about 100 BCs in their fleet... unfortunately, so far [1925] no AI uses SSMs), this allowed even smaller formations of a handful of CAs and DDs to batter the usual medium-sized flock of 8-10 BBs and BCs plus their entourage.
Its kinda what happened The first soviet missile cruiser had two quadruple missile turrets with 4 missiles each and a pair of reloads each for a total of 16 missiles each clocking in at a weight of approximately 5 tons. on a 5900 ton cruiser said 5900 ton cruiser also had a SAM system in addition to its anti ship missiles. Worth noting its a 1961 ship Soviets used alot of heavily armed ships and focused heavily on anti ship and anti submarine warfare. They had a torpedo boat with 4 large 3 ton missiles and it weighted 300 tons (OSA torpedo boat) With regards to missile effectivness this is a great article calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/27962/analysisofhistor00schu.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=ySadly alot of real world examples are against smaller patrol boats which are not only hard for the missiles to track but are very easily obscured by countermeasures
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 22, 2022 7:34:41 GMT -6
An advance of MAA is going to be Radar Direction, and suitable missiles will be vulnerable to engagement. Or at least, I have seen this happen in testing. Note there are many ways to make this more difficult (electronics, propulsion, tactics) so radar directed MAA will not be a panacea against missile attack.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 22, 2022 21:14:29 GMT -6
An advance of MAA is going to be Radar Direction, and suitable missiles will be vulnerable to engagement. Or at least, I have seen this happen in testing. Note there are many ways to make this more difficult (electronics, propulsion, tactics) so radar directed MAA will not be a panacea against missile attack. Something something sailors forgot to turn the radar on
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Apr 22, 2022 22:56:20 GMT -6
An advance of MAA is going to be Radar Direction, and suitable missiles will be vulnerable to engagement. Or at least, I have seen this happen in testing. Note there are many ways to make this more difficult (electronics, propulsion, tactics) so radar directed MAA will not be a panacea against missile attack. Something something sailors forgot to turn the radar on Or had to turn the radar off so they could use the comms system.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 25, 2022 3:42:16 GMT -6
An advance of MAA is going to be Radar Direction, and suitable missiles will be vulnerable to engagement. Or at least, I have seen this happen in testing. Note there are many ways to make this more difficult (electronics, propulsion, tactics) so radar directed MAA will not be a panacea against missile attack. I think this is a good idea Early anti ship missiles should be able to be shot down by MAA though it should be pretty difficult for it to do it (aka rare) In testing how effective have you found large anti ship missiles to be against ships damage wise ? Also how well does CIWS/ light SAM systems do against missiles ? And how strong/good are Heavy SAM
|
|