Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bellman
 It is difficult to judge the degree/s of risk exposure for the different platforms in setting-up a scenario.
My feeling is that the weighting of chance of survival should mostly favour the FFG. She is the lynch pin, the quaterback,
she coordinates the 'dance of death.' She may have several players aboard (?)
I would appreciate others views but would aim in general at FFG survivability of 60% as opposed to subs 40%
varying +/- 10 % in differing situations. :hmm: |
Heh, you're asking about an operations analysis problem in Dangerous Waters. I could get into this. :-)
In my experience, the FFG is a lot more survivable than a submarine. For one FFG scenario I made, I actually sat down and made a spreadsheet to figure out how many cruise missiles I needed in the air, based in different assumptions, to stand a reasonable chance of putting the FFG out of action. The short answer is that it takes A LOT in DW, but the results varied widely based on ROE and other things.
Also, ability to survive and attack does not mean the FFG is likely to kill the Akula. He might just sit there and dodge missiles and torpedos until the Akula is out of stores and gives up. If you have a convergence zone and you play the FFG intelligently, your odds of getting the Akula are descent. If you have bad acoustics, so that you're only going to get maybe a couple of miles of sonar range, than your odds are pretty bad.
On the other hand... if you have bad acoustics but the Akula decides to shoot a missile instead of a torpedo then you have your survivability in your favor so you might be able to get the Akula before the second shot, because your search problem is simplified.
To really give you a hard answer would require a lot more discussion. I don't think it's fair to just blanketly say one way or the other because a lot of what drives the risk for the different platforms is the scenario you construct.