Warship SAM's and AAA defenses.

KJakker · 08-13-17, 04:26 PM

Okay, here goes my first post on SUBSIM.

In Cold Waters the only ASM defenses that warships have available are Chaff and CIWS gun systems.

However the various Soviet warships also have SA-N-1, SA-N-3, SA-N-4, SA-N-6, SA-N-7, and SA-N-9 SAMs as well as AK-130, AK-100, AK-726, and AK-725 radar directed DP guns with proximity-fused shells. Warships without AK-630 CWIS guns should still be able to defend themselves to one degree or another with these other systems.

As I understand it the SA-N-1, SA-N-4, and SA-N-9, are designed for low altitude use and as such should be able to engage a sea-skimming missile. As for the guns, I understand that the AK-725 does have fire control issues, but the AK-130, AK-100, and AK-726 should all have some level of effectiveness given how proximity fused AAA was the most effective AA type during and after WWII. Yes, the hit probability per round is comparatively low but it is not statistically zero ether.

I which we could see these weapons at least attempting to engage Harpoons and TASMs. It would make the older Soviet warships more than helpless missile targets.

The Bandit · 08-13-17, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJakker

Okay, here goes my first post on SUBSIM.

In Cold Waters the only ASM defenses that warships have available are Chaff and CIWS gun systems.

However the various Soviet warships also have SA-N-1, SA-N-3, SA-N-4, SA-N-6, SA-N-7, and SA-N-9 SAMs as well as AK-130, AK-100, AK-726, and AK-725 radar directed DP guns with proximity-fused shells. Warships without AK-630 CWIS guns should still be able to defend themselves to one degree or another with these other systems.

As I understand it the SA-N-1, SA-N-4, and SA-N-9, are designed for low altitude use and as such should be able to engage a sea-skimming missile. As for the guns, I understand that the AK-725 does have fire control issues, but the AK-130, AK-100, and AK-726 should all have some level of effectiveness given how proximity fused AAA was the most effective AA type during and after WWII. Yes, the hit probability per round is comparatively low but it is not statistically zero ether.

I which we could see these weapons at least attempting to engage Harpoons and TASMs. It would make the older Soviet warships more than helpless missile targets.

You certainly have a point here, however the SA-N-1 (albeit better with newer versions of the missile), and to a lesser extent the SA-N-4 really have marginal capability (low kill-probability) when it comes to sea-skimming missiles (same with the longer-ranged "Area defense" weapons like the SA-N-3 although I think an SA-N-6 would do well), doubly true for AAA at the altitudes we're talking about (except for the pop-up maneuver), and manually aimed AAA, would just make for a nice light-show.

For sure though there should be some type of SAMs operating though if only to highlight some of the advantages the Harpoon had over the TASM

Wiz33 · 08-14-17, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJakker

Okay, here goes my first post on SUBSIM.

In Cold Waters the only ASM defenses that warships have available are Chaff and CIWS gun systems.

However the various Soviet warships also have SA-N-1, SA-N-3, SA-N-4, SA-N-6, SA-N-7, and SA-N-9 SAMs as well as AK-130, AK-100, AK-726, and AK-725 radar directed DP guns with proximity-fused shells. Warships without AK-630 CWIS guns should still be able to defend themselves to one degree or another with these other systems.

As I understand it the SA-N-1, SA-N-4, and SA-N-9, are designed for low altitude use and as such should be able to engage a sea-skimming missile. As for the guns, I understand that the AK-725 does have fire control issues, but the AK-130, AK-100, and AK-726 should all have some level of effectiveness given how proximity fused AAA was the most effective AA type during and after WWII. Yes, the hit probability per round is comparatively low but it is not statistically zero ether.

I which we could see these weapons at least attempting to engage Harpoons and TASMs. It would make the older Soviet warships more than helpless missile targets.

It's all taken into account as the defensive fire that you see as a missile approach a target. This include both gun and short range missile system like the SA-N-4/9. All other Soviet SAM of that ERA could not engage at the low altitude that the Harpoon and TASM flies at. Even the newer SA-N-6 (for that era) have a minimum altitude of 30 meters while the Harpoon and TASM flies at 5-10 meters.

Aktungbby · 09-30-17, 08:29 PM

KJakker!

-Pv- · 09-30-17, 10:55 PM

Keep in mind the time period of the default game. I don't think the SA-N-9/Tor/SSC-1a ship variant entered service until 1989.
-Pv-

Julhelm · 10-01-17, 08:08 AM

Everything I've read about the Soviet DP mounts points toward them being pretty much useless against missiles, which is why they don't engage them ingame. We do know from real life that AK-725 for instance failed to intercept a seaskimmer which hit the ship instead. And that's a fairly rapid fire weapon. Larger mounts like AK-100 and AK-130 are just not going to be effective at all.

08-13-17, 04:26 PM	#1
KJakker Nub Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 4 Downloads: 44 Uploads: 0	Warship SAM's and AAA defenses. Okay, here goes my first post on SUBSIM. In Cold Waters the only ASM defenses that warships have available are Chaff and CIWS gun systems. However the various Soviet warships also have SA-N-1, SA-N-3, SA-N-4, SA-N-6, SA-N-7, and SA-N-9 SAMs as well as AK-130, AK-100, AK-726, and AK-725 radar directed DP guns with proximity-fused shells. Warships without AK-630 CWIS guns should still be able to defend themselves to one degree or another with these other systems. As I understand it the SA-N-1, SA-N-4, and SA-N-9, are designed for low altitude use and as such should be able to engage a sea-skimming missile. As for the guns, I understand that the AK-725 does have fire control issues, but the AK-130, AK-100, and AK-726 should all have some level of effectiveness given how proximity fused AAA was the most effective AA type during and after WWII. Yes, the hit probability per round is comparatively low but it is not statistically zero ether. I which we could see these weapons at least attempting to engage Harpoons and TASMs. It would make the older Soviet warships more than helpless missile targets.

09-30-17, 08:29 PM	#4
Aktungbby Gefallen Engel U-666 Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: On a tilted, overheated, overpopulated spinning mudball on Collision course with Andromeda Galaxy Posts: 27,843 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 0	welcome aboard! KJakker! __________________ "Only two things are infinite; The Universe and human squirrelyness; and I'm not too sure about the Universe"

09-30-17, 10:55 PM	#5
-Pv- The Old Man Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,434 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Keep in mind the time period of the default game. I don't think the SA-N-9/Tor/SSC-1a ship variant entered service until 1989. -Pv-

10-01-17, 08:08 AM	#6
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 690 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	Everything I've read about the Soviet DP mounts points toward them being pretty much useless against missiles, which is why they don't engage them ingame. We do know from real life that AK-725 for instance failed to intercept a seaskimmer which hit the ship instead. And that's a fairly rapid fire weapon. Larger mounts like AK-100 and AK-130 are just not going to be effective at all.