|
|
Post by DrunkSailor on Apr 28, 2020 11:10:29 GMT -6
What does it actually mean? How can one regulate or know what is the limitation of the effective fire? Since it does not forbid to build the ship, does it bring some kind of penalty with it?
PS Sorry by mistake I created the thread in the bug section. Can an admin move it please? |
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Apr 28, 2020 11:19:21 GMT -6
Probably means that the fire control system cannot handle the number of missiles. Early SAMs were beam riding, without any internal radar or autonomous guidance, so you had to maintain a beam for every missile to ride.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 29, 2020 0:48:19 GMT -6
Probably means that the fire control system cannot handle the number of missiles. Early SAMs were beam riding, without any internal radar or autonomous guidance, so you had to maintain a beam for every missile to ride. actually not really the case early sams were for the most part not beam riding (with the exception of british missiles which as we saw during falklands mostly performed like ****) for example the terrier and tartar (small and medium sam) were SARH guided (semi active radar homing) while the talos the largest of the 3 Ts was beam riding the Russians as far as i can see literally never dabbled in naval sam systems that used beam riding the s-25 s-75 and s-125 all were radar guided and the s-125 (used on alot of russian warships in the 60s (it came out in 1961) was radar guided as well russian m-11 was also radar guided you need a targeting system and so on for each launcher you add so another launcher means another targeting unit |
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Apr 29, 2020 3:15:05 GMT -6
with the exception of british missiles which as we saw during falklands mostly performed like **** Only the obsolete seacat was a failure, Sea dart proved capable at long range (which was its role) Sea wolf had kills at short range (which was its role). The rapier batteries on the island itself were set up after Argentine air power was mostly curtailed so didn't do much but provide localised deterrent. It is easy to criticise a system that was tested combat when you only have the performance of other systems used against target drones to compare them against. |
|
|
|
Post by DrunkSailor on Apr 29, 2020 3:48:47 GMT -6
All these answers are quite enlightening regarding how early SAM's worked in reality but still in-game the questions remain unanswered.
Since there no mention of a separate targeting system for the SAM's, how can one know the amount needed to service all the SAM's installed?
If I ignore this message and install more SAM batteries (the game allows you to proceed), does it mean the SAM's will perform with a penalty (and if so which is this penalty?) or will not perform at all or will perform slowly?
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 29, 2020 4:08:30 GMT -6
with the exception of british missiles which as we saw during falklands mostly performed like **** Only the obsolete seacat was a failure, Sea dart proved capable at long range (which was its role) Sea wolf had kills at short range (which was its role). The rapier batteries on the island itself were set up after Argentine air power was mostly curtailed so didn't do much but provide localised deterrent. It is easy to criticise a system that was tested combat when you only have the performance of other systems used against target drones to compare them against. stuff like the s-125 did prove itself in combat shooting down an f-117 and 2 U2 spyplanes and quite a few f1 mirages f-16s and so on and was used on quite a few russian warships from the 60s onwards sea wolf was fired a total of 8 times with 2 for sure kills and 3 possible kills which are unconfirmed and considering how modern it was at the time its not really that impressive also sea dart was semi active radar the rim-8 shot down several migs during vietnam and even scored a double kill with 1 missile 2 kills were at more than 60 mile range also semi active radar rim 2 terrier only ever fired 1 missile in anger and it shot down a mig17 it was beam riding |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Apr 29, 2020 4:13:30 GMT -6
The problem was none of the systems were designed for what was faced - multiple targets at low levels on crossing attacks in extremely cluttered sea conditions (i.e. land and other ships).
On top of that, Sea Wolf was extremely unreliable - only 8 launches with 2 kills and 3 probables during the entire campaign.
Sea Dart was a SARH system. Of 26 missiles launched, 19 were unguided against low altitude targets with an 11% success rate (2 hits), though those fired against helicopters or within the normal operating range scored an 80% success rate (4 hits out of 5 shots). [Yes, I am aware 2 missiles are missing here. Wiki, go figure].
This left Sea Cat to bear the brunt of the SAM launches, with 100 launched. A subsonic missile developed from the Malkara anti-tank missile, it was considered to be useful against 1st and 2nd generation jets but obsolete by the 1970s. It's big advantage was it worked reliably.
Other issues were that the British tended to fire chaff to confuse attackers radar systems - this has been attributed to the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor. However, compare this to the Persian Gulf War of 1991. HMS Gloucester successfully destroyed a Silkworm missile with a Sea Dart whilst USS Jarrett's Phalanx CIWIS was targeted on the chaff fired by USS Missouri.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 29, 2020 5:33:27 GMT -6
The problem was none of the systems were designed for what was faced - multiple targets at low levels on crossing attacks in extremely cluttered sea conditions (i.e. land and other ships). On top of that, Sea Wolf was extremely unreliable - only 8 launches with 2 kills and 3 probables during the entire campaign. Sea Dart was a SARH system. Of 26 missiles launched, 19 were unguided against low altitude targets with an 11% success rate (2 hits), though those fired against helicopters or within the normal operating range scored an 80% success rate (4 hits out of 5 shots). [Yes, I am aware 2 missiles are missing here. Wiki, go figure]. This left Sea Cat to bear the brunt of the SAM launches, with 100 launched. A subsonic missile developed from the Malkara anti-tank missile, it was considered to be useful against 1st and 2nd generation jets but obsolete by the 1970s. It's big advantage was it worked reliably. Other issues were that the British tended to fire chaff to confuse attackers radar systems - this has been attributed to the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor. However, compare this to the Persian Gulf War of 1991. HMS Gloucester successfully destroyed a Silkworm missile with a Sea Dart whilst USS Jarrett's Phalanx CIWIS was targeted on the chaff fired by USS Missouri. things like ship positions are important the reason the ciws mount automatically went to the flares was due to A automatic radar spotting a radar signature B the mounts radar having line of sight to the chaff while not having detected the missile as such the chaff was selected as a target (and even then chaff was closer so probably prioritized if the missile was spotted) the semi active radar (not automatic) meant the silkworm could be targetted without problems by the sea dart the argentinians third gen aircraft were either f4s or f1 mirages their jets capable of effective attacks (such as ones with exocets) were with super etendard planes (i think thats the correct way to spell it) still dosent change the fact that the missiles and defensive systems of british ships performed quite poorly (though it is possible other systems would too) but i doubt other navies would have so many problems dealing with planes considering their sam systems in the 1980s us were using rim-66 and rim-8 talos missiles (though not so much in the 80s rim-8 showed good performance in vietnam and the predecessor to rim-66 (rim-2 terrier) showed good performance in nam too) russian were using the s-125 navalized and the m-11 latter untested first very tested |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Apr 29, 2020 5:49:54 GMT -6
The poor performance of Sea Wolf was due to immature control software. It would not prioritize targets correctly when more targets than fire control channels were in range. This led directly to a HMS Coventry being lost in the most successful Argentine A-4 dumb-bomb attack of the war, not coincidently because the second wave of A-4's used 250kg bombs whose fuses worked while the first wave's 1000 pounders, as usual, did not since the Argnetines did not get the manual. If they had RTFM of the 1000 punder fuse system the RN would have lost more than half the TF's ships and the war, this was one of the three decision points at which the Argentines could have won the war if they only had been more professional. That said, the ARA is one of the navies with the best personnel outside of NATO+, even today. Their system (due to politics and, since about 2+ decades underfundung) however drags them down.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 29, 2020 5:54:09 GMT -6
The poor performance of Sea Wolf was due to immature control software. It would not prioritize targets correctly when more targets than fire control channels were in range. This led directly to a HMS Coventry being lost in the most successful Argentine A-4 dumb-bomb attack of the war, not coincidently because the second wave of A-4's used 250kg bombs whose fuses worked while the first wave's 1000 pounders, as usual, did not since the Argnetines did not get the manual. If they had RTFM of the 1000 punder fuse system the RN would have lost more than half the TF's ships and the war, this was one of the three decision points at which the Argentines could have won the war if they only had been more professional. That said, the ARA is one of the navies with the best personnel outside of NATO+, even today. Their system (due to politics and, since about 2+ decades underfundung) however drags them down. yeah they landed an EXTREME amount of DUD bombs which never really did anything because the fuses never had time to arm alot of the ships would have been total losses had the fuses actually worked |
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Apr 29, 2020 8:17:55 GMT -6
Probably means that the fire control system cannot handle the number of missiles. Early SAMs were beam riding, without any internal radar or autonomous guidance, so you had to maintain a beam for every missile to ride. actually not really the case early sams were for the most part not beam riding (with the exception of british missiles which as we saw during falklands mostly performed like ****) for example the terrier and tartar (small and medium sam) were SARH guided (semi active radar homing) while the talos the largest of the 3 Ts was beam riding The Terrier didn't get semi-active homing until the 'E' variant in the 60s. The Talos didn't enter service until 58, the Tartar 62. The missiles we should be talking about are the ones on the Boston class ships that almost fit the game's timeframe, beam riding Terriers. On the original subject, according to the internet- navalmarinearchive.com/research/cruisers/cr_navsea.html#LinkTarget_8706 Edit- A note on homing missiles, early semi-active homing missiles (like the Talos) were only homing in the terminal stage, they relied on beam riding to get into acquisition range. So you the number of targets you could engage would still be dependent on the number of "illuminators" you had, regardless of the number of launchers. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 29, 2020 11:57:06 GMT -6
actually not really the case early sams were for the most part not beam riding (with the exception of british missiles which as we saw during falklands mostly performed like ****) for example the terrier and tartar (small and medium sam) were SARH guided (semi active radar homing) while the talos the largest of the 3 Ts was beam riding The Terrier didn't get semi-active homing until the 'E' variant in the 60s. The Talos didn't enter service until 58, the Tartar 62. The missiles we should be talking about are the ones on the Boston class ships that almost fit the game's timeframe, beam riding Terriers. On the original subject, according to the internet- navalmarinearchive.com/research/cruisers/cr_navsea.html#LinkTarget_8706 Edit- A note on homing missiles, early semi-active homing missiles (like the Talos) were only homing in the terminal stage, they relied on beam riding to get into acquisition range. So you the number of targets you could engage would still be dependent on the number of "illuminators" you had, regardless of the number of launchers. yeah i swapped around with the terrier and the talos the talos is radar guided the terrier is not the terrier came into service in 1956 the talos in 1958 not much of a diffrence where did you find this because the missile will never aquire the target by itself only active radar missiles do the missile in semi active guidance is constantly guided from launch by the radar illuminator which illuminates the target and the missile seeker seeks the illumination without the illumination it will never work in any phase of flight for each missile present an illuminator must be to get full effectiveness guiding them in with beam guidance would make no sense because they still need to be guided in with the SARH anyways so it literally makes no diffrence if it was active radar sure it would need to be guided and pointed into range but its SARH it uses the ships illumination radars |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Apr 29, 2020 12:26:22 GMT -6
The problem the Argentines had that they did not know they needed to fly above a certain threshold height for the 1000 pounder's fuses to arm. They did not, this to avoid the long range radar horizon of the Type 42's which they knew since they had some themselves. In a way Dart was therefore effective in second-hand negating a large part of the Argentine air threat...
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Apr 29, 2020 12:48:49 GMT -6
where did you find this because the missile will never aquire the target by itself only active radar missiles do Acquiring the target just means that it picks up a signal and identifies the signal as its target. It doesn't matter if the signal is emissions from the target (passive guidance), a reflection of a radar signal from the launch platform (SARH), or a reflection of a signal from the missile itself (full active guidance). The only kinds of missiles that don't acquire their target are kinds that don't even try to see their target: beam riders, command guided missiles, and missiles with preset guidance, and only if they have no alternate guidance mode that tries to identify the target with sensors on the missile. What dohboy is describing is this: The launch platform illuminates the target. At launch, the missile isn't close enough to pick up the reflection from the target, so it just maneuvers to keep itself in the center of the illumination beam. As it gets closer, the reflection of the illumination beam off the target gets brighter, and eventually the missile is able to see and acquire the target, at which point it stops following the beam and maneuvers as needed to hit the target. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Apr 29, 2020 13:06:13 GMT -6
All these answers are quite enlightening regarding how early SAM's worked in reality but still in-game the questions remain unanswered. Since there no mention of a separate targeting system for the SAM's, how can one know the amount needed to service all the SAM's installed? If I ignore this message and install more SAM batteries (the game allows you to proceed), does it mean the SAM's will perform with a penalty (and if so which is this penalty?) or will not perform at all or will perform slowly? I would assume that, as in real life, SAMs beyond the number of targets your radars can illuminate simultaneously will basically be spares. These spares could be used for: 1) Firing multiple missiles at the same target so that there's already more missiles on the way if the first misses (but if it hits, you've wasted the extra missiles). 2) Redundant missile emplacements in case one is destroyed in combat. 3) Extra ammo so that once an enemy aircraft is destroyed and the radar that was engaging it is free, the radar can select a new target and have a missile available to engage it with. 3b) Extra ammo in case you face more than one wave of attacking aircraft. |
|
