Note: Number of medium SAM launchers exceeds effective fire

[dohboy]

Apr 29, 2020 13:06:13 GMT -6 rimbecano said:

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).

I would have assumed this was possible but the source I quoted above, claiming the Bostons could only have two missiles up at once, makes me wonder. Could they fire multiple Terriers down one beam, or did the rear missile disrupt the beam for the ones in front and make them wander off?

[christian]

Apr 29, 2020 12:48:49 GMT -6 rimbecano said:

Apr 29, 2020 11:57:06 GMT -6 christian said:

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.

the missile alone without any illuminator will never aquire the target on its own nor will any missile which does not have an automatic tracker which automatically tracks a target


active radar missiles would automatically track a target and once its locked on and launched it will keep homing with no help from the ship

a so called "fire and forget" missile

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.

this does not make the missile a beam riding missile

the diffrence between beam riding and SARH is that SARH seeks the illuminated target when it detects it and automatically maneuvers to intercept while beam riding directly follows the beam through every bit of the flight it has no interception and thus cannot lead targets this makes it objectively worse than SARH as accuracy is worse
combined with the fact accuracy degrades over distance where as SARH just gets more accurate the closer the missile (seeker) is as the illuminated target is clearer 


they work in practise alot like eachother although there are some quite large diffrences 



nowadays laser beam riding is kinda viable due to lasers which makes them very compact 

[wlbjork]

Apr 29, 2020 5:33:27 GMT -6 christian said:

Apr 29, 2020 4:13:30 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

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

Oh, I don't deny the performances were poor - and with little excuse for the modern missiles either.

The Blackburn Buccaneer was designed specifically for low level strikes - there are stories of them flying past US Carriers below flight deck height when on exercises. The Buccaneer was in service around the time the new missile design specs were being worked out, but as normal it seems no-one put two and two together...

[christian]

Apr 29, 2020 13:06:13 GMT -6 rimbecano said:

Apr 29, 2020 3:48:47 GMT -6 DrunkSailor said:

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.

probably also for when a missile launcher is reloading you have another launcher up or in case of mechanical breakdown 

although as far as i know most ships had atleast enough illuminators for 50-75% of their missiles to be used at once (some being at 100%) 

also since the missiles could be used against surface targets with almost no problems having extra launchers might help there 

[dohboy]

Apr 30, 2020 15:24:14 GMT -6 christian said:

also since the missiles could be used against surface targets with almost no problems having extra launchers might help there 

Do you have any information to back that up, from anything close to the 1955 tech limit of the game? Modern SAMs can do it, but could a RIM-2A Terrier that could have been in service then? Even if they could, they would still be limited by the number of illuminators available, so how would extra launchers help?

And deny that early semi-active homing missiles like Talos were partly beam riding all you want, the fact is that they needed the beam to navigate to the acquisition range and keep their sensor pointed the right direction, which tied up the fire control for the entire flight. If they weren't beam riding you could send them to a waypoint and launch missiles with offset time on target and only illuminate the target when the missile was on terminal approach.

The point, for the topic of conversation, is that you can only fire as many missiles as you have fire control to support, and all the missiles available at the time required a beam to ride to the bitter end one way or another. It sounds simple to add another set of fire control radars for every launcher, it's a lot more difficult to make it happen with 1955 tech. You are forgetting, the golden age of the missile doesn't come till many years after RTW2 is supposed to "end". The designers at the time were accounting for factors we've never considered. How close could they get 2 beams together before they interfered? Do you know?

[christian]

Apr 30, 2020 19:39:26 GMT -6 dohboy said:

Apr 30, 2020 15:24:14 GMT -6 christian said:

also since the missiles could be used against surface targets with almost no problems having extra launchers might help there 

Do you have any information to back that up, from anything close to the 1955 tech limit of the game? Modern SAMs can do it, but could a RIM-2A Terrier that could have been in service then? Even if they could, they would still be limited by the number of illuminators available, so how would extra launchers help?

And deny that early semi-active homing missiles like Talos were partly beam riding all you want, the fact is that they needed the beam to navigate to the acquisition range and keep their sensor pointed the right direction, which tied up the fire control for the entire flight. If they weren't beam riding you could send them to a waypoint and launch missiles with offset time on target and only illuminate the target when the missile was on terminal approach.

The point, for the topic of conversation, is that you can only fire as many missiles as you have fire control to support, and all the missiles available at the time required a beam to ride to the bitter end one way or another. It sounds simple to add another set of fire control radars for every launcher, it's a lot more difficult to make it happen with 1955 tech. You are forgetting, the golden age of the missile doesn't come till many years after RTW2 is supposed to "end". The designers at the time were accounting for factors we've never considered. How close could they get 2 beams together before they interfered? Do you know?

since beam riding missiles are exactly that beam riding you just take the director and point it at the enemy ship exact same goes for SARH which is actually more effective as it can potentially lock onto jamming signals with its passive reciever
and SARH can also lock onto the radar waves reflected from the ship (from your own ships radar illuminators and radars)

as long as the proxy fuse dosent go off due to the altitude there should be no problem (but considering the fuse dosent go off when fired horizontally i dont think thats a problem) 

they also work as anti missile missiles as long as your radar can pick up enemy missiles and intercept them some anti ship missiles are the size of small planes and they dont do evasive maneuvers nor do they have countermeasures

for example the soviet anti ship missile KS-1 komet would be rather easy to intercept as its basically a slightly smaller radar guided mig15 with a warhead which performs no evasive maneuvers
quite an easy target (basically like a target drone but heading straight for you) 



"And deny that early semi-active homing missiles like Talos were partly beam riding all you want"

they are not

SARH is really as simple as

the illuminator is a radar transceiver (which sends out and receives signals) while the seeker in a SARH missile IS A RECEIVER which means it cant send out signals



what this means is the illumnator sends out radar waves
and picks them up again but said waves reflect off the target (how the radar transceiver picks them up again) this makes the illumnator able to track via radar 

the waves reflected can be picked up by PASSIVE radar
this is what is mounted in the SARH seeker head (as shown in this picture) 
www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/AAM-Seekers.png

there is no "beam" which guides the SARH missile because in order for it to guide it needs to have radar reflections sent into its seeker (passive radar) 
a pure SARH missile which has nothing but a SARH seeker will only guide once it can sense the illuminated target because if there is no illuminated target it cant receive radar waves to guide after

here is a good article on SARH
www.ausairpower.net/TE-Radar-AAMs.html

couple of pictures showing how SARH works

lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/xLdLYsL1CSukRlnQK2t4LKEkXVnpDYFFANSJVjtKQ5_jwraEjLCj8LExHQukHaOTRlT2w6OoPHndR1bDugJ3Mt52Nj5eXDVzxQ

qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f6b6152374db50c7f819d367d9adc2af

www.rfwireless-world.com/Terminology/Difference-between-semi-active-passive-and-active-radar-homing-missile.html




the anti radiation missile works like a passive homing missile or semi active one in that it only has a passive seeker which relies on radar waves to hit the seeker which will then guide the seeker towards where the radar waves came from (or in the anti radiation missiles case home in on radiation produced by radars)

the only difference is SARH missiles are designed to have a friendly unit illuminate a target with a transceiver which causes the target in question to bounce the radar waves from the radar transceiver (illuminator) back to the seeker on the SARH which picks up the waves and guides itself to the target


for example the SARH guided s-75 which was used during the Vietnam war could be jammed by airborne targets in order to avoid this the s-75 batteries would quite simply switch off the ACTIVE part of their radar and work purely on their receiver
they could do this because the jamming signal from jamming aircraft was strong enough the receiver could pick it up and give a target solution

thus they could fire the missile and not need to illuminate the target the s-75 missile would pick up the jamming signals and home in on them and destroy the jamming aircraft 

this also means that as the s-75 sites weren't using active radar a lot of the time they couldn't be found as they were not emitting radar signals



"is that you can only fire as many missiles as you have fire control to support"

which is represented more than 4 sam missiles will degrade firecontrol and reduce hitrate and effectiveness (2x2 launchers) which is actually quite realistic


generally speaking the 2x2 layout had FULL radar fire-control for each missile (an illuminator for each)
as seen on the USS long beach
which had 3x2 twin terrier missiles with 6 terrier fire control illuminators (those circular things on the small towers superimposed over eachother)
2 illuminators on top of the large SCANFAR radar (the big CUBE) 
for a total of 6 illuminators which matched its 3x2 missile layout

it has 1 rear 1x2 sam system and 2x2 in front
one of these is a TALOS system and the 2 others are terriers 

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/USS_Long_Beach_%28CGN-9%29_underway_at_sea%2C_circa_in_the_1960s.jpg


and the USS chicago same 4 superimposed circular things but for the talos missile system and later the terrier system (when the talos was replaced and firecontrol also was)

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/USS_Chicago_%28CG-11%29_underway_in_the_Western_Pacific_on_14_March_1978_%28USN_1172569%29.jpg


the americans also had a bunch of cruisers with a singular twin missile launcher which also had full firecontrol for each missile (uss oklahoma)





looking at russian ships their firecontrol seems harder to identify the only one i was able to easily see was the kynda class which has 2 illuminators but there is only one per side (blocked by a mast) which means you cant fire 2 missiles at 2 diffrent targets to one side though you can fire a missile to each side at once (assuming the sam launcher can swing around fast enough)

i.pinimg.com/originals/61/33/44/61334400ca4f1568539347ab9be3355e.jpg

[dohboy]

May 1, 2020 2:46:53 GMT -6 christian said:

"And deny that early semi-active homing missiles like Talos were partly beam riding all you want"

they are not

SARH is really as simple as

the illuminator is a radar transceiver (which sends out and receives signals) while the seeker in a SARH missile IS A RECEIVER which means it cant send out signals



what this means is the illumnator sends out radar waves
and picks them up again but said waves reflect off the target (how the radar transceiver picks them up again) this makes the illumnator able to track via radar
there is no "beam" which guides the SARH missile because in order for it to guide it needs to have radar reflections sent into its seeker (passive radar) 
a pure SARH missile which has nothing but a SARH seeker will only guide once it can sense the illuminated target because if there is no illuminated target it cant receive radar waves to guide after

Then why did Talos have a beam riding navigation system? Could it be that, rather than being a "pure SARH missile" as you insist, it is a hybrid missile? Perhaps they are not mutually exclusive and it could be both beam riding AND SARH.

[christian]

May 1, 2020 4:56:28 GMT -6 dohboy said:

May 1, 2020 2:46:53 GMT -6 christian said:

"And deny that early semi-active homing missiles like Talos were partly beam riding all you want"

they are not

SARH is really as simple as

the illuminator is a radar transceiver (which sends out and receives signals) while the seeker in a SARH missile IS A RECEIVER which means it cant send out signals



what this means is the illumnator sends out radar waves
and picks them up again but said waves reflect off the target (how the radar transceiver picks them up again) this makes the illumnator able to track via radar
there is no "beam" which guides the SARH missile because in order for it to guide it needs to have radar reflections sent into its seeker (passive radar) 
a pure SARH missile which has nothing but a SARH seeker will only guide once it can sense the illuminated target because if there is no illuminated target it cant receive radar waves to guide after

Then why did Talos have a beam riding navigation system? Could it be that, rather than being a "pure SARH missile" as you insist, it is a hybrid missile? Perhaps they are not mutually exclusive and it could be both beam riding AND SARH.

no such thing as a beam riding navigational system exists a beam riding guidance system does but 2 diffrent things

it has a beam riding variant for use with W30 nuclear warheads as it was judged the beam riding was better for the nuclear variant (which is true as its easier to use against surface targets you just point with the beam and let the missile go and accuracy dosent matter when its a nuke which has HUGE AOE)


www.okieboat.com/TALOS%20missile%20cutaway%201024.jpg

(source is okieboat aka those who are interested in the USS oklahoma)

it does have a telemetering antenna which as far as i know can be used to transmit data between ship and missile this could be used to adjust the missiles course during flight this system is paired with the SPW-2 radar to guide the missile if it cant pick up with the illumination radar

another thing to back this up is the talos is used with the  AN/SPW-2 missile guidance radar and the AN/SPG-49 target illumination and tracking radar
old.weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/II02%20-%20RIM-8%20Talos.html

which can be seen here

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/SPG-49_and_SPW-2_radars_on_USS_Oklahoma_City_%28CLG-5%29%2C_in_October_1963_%28NH_98688%29.jpg

(small circular radar is the SPW-2 and the large square things are the SPG-49 illuminators) 


also if the talos did have a beam riding system it wouldnt be a beam riding missile it would be a mixed guidance missile using both beam and SARH

[dohboy]

May 1, 2020 8:08:38 GMT -6 christian said:

also if the talos did have a beam riding system it wouldnt be a beam riding missile it would be a mixed guidance missile using both beam and SARH

BINGO. That's exactly what I've been saying.

From your own link above, down in the guidance specifications, old.weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/II02%20-%20RIM-8%20Talos.html

Radar beam riding, semi-active radar homing in terminal phase

[williammiller]

A quick note: Standard practice with early US naval SAM systems was to fire 2 missiles at each target (called 'shoot-shoot-look'). Later on, when the technology matured, the US Navy mostly switched to a 'shoot-look-shoot' engagement system. The doctrine on this would vary among other nations, the Soviets stayed with 'shoot-shoot-look' even with their later systems, as one example. A different engagement doctrine came about later with the AEGIS/SM-2 system, because the inertial and mid-course guidance tech + VLS allowed for far more intercepts per time-unit when using hand-offs and other techniques.

[serenity]

So I started a new 1900 ply through and haven’t gotten to missiles yet. Do all missile types come in light, medium, and heavy? Is there an accuracy penalty to firing a heavy Sam at a close range target?

[dougphresh]

There are some very interesting things about missiles in the design document for John Tiller's naval campaigns. I thought I'd post here and see how closely that aligns with the design philosophy and implementation of the team here. 

I think their determination of the probability of hits is particularly interesting, and it seems to fit with the examples they provided. 

e: This is mostly about SSM, so if I should create a new topic please let me know.

[aeson]

May 1, 2020 9:03:29 GMT -6 serenity said:

Do all missile types come in light, medium, and heavy?

There is only one type of ship-launched missile in the unmodded game - medium SAMs.

[rimbecano]

Apr 29, 2020 13:59:22 GMT -6 dohboy said:

Apr 29, 2020 13:06:13 GMT -6 rimbecano said:

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).

I would have assumed this was possible but the source I quoted above, claiming the Bostons could only have two missiles up at once, makes me wonder. Could they fire multiple Terriers down one beam, or did the rear missile disrupt the beam for the ones in front and make them wander off?

It could be that firing multiple down one beam was possible but not within doctrine. This is especially likely given that there seem to only have been two missiles per radar, making ammo conservation important.

EDIT: Didn't see William's post.

[rimbecano]

Apr 30, 2020 1:04:41 GMT -6 christian said:

the missile alone without any illuminator will never aquire the target on its own nor will any missile which does not have an automatic tracker which automatically tracks a target


active radar missiles would automatically track a target and once its locked on and launched it will keep homing with no help from the ship

a so called "fire and forget" missile

No one but you ever said anything about fire-and-forget or about the missiles in question acquiring the target without help from an illuminator. What was said about the missiles in question was

1) They acquired the target
2) with help from an illuminator (i.e, they were SARH)
3) after launch.
4) Between launch and acquiring the target, they rode the illuminator beam.

Please read what people are actually saying rather than just reacting to keywords.

Something that more recent missiles have done, that dohboy was drawing a contrast to, is:

1) The missile is launched with instructive to go to a particular point.
2) When it reaches that point, the firing platform illuminates a target and the missile engages the target in SARH mode.

With this more modern paradigm, the target doesn't need to be illuminated the whole way, only when the missile gets to the terminal phase. But that wasn't the way things were done in the period covered by the game.