TASM

[jason taylor]

What are their proper tactics-specifically in "Barants Sea Loiter"

[Dr.Sid]

All around, sending TASM on frigates or even destroyers is useless. TASMs are slow. They will be shot down, if you send them one by one. If you send them all at once, it is quite possible that all will folow same chaff cloud and miss.
Use torpedoes for vessels with anti-missile defense. TASMs are good only for defenseless targets.
Harpoon is better. It is smaller and faster. But hardly a chance against big ships with missiles, guns and countermeasures.
Torpedo is always better. Yeah .. you must get closer, but that's what's sub good in. Any bloody frigate can shoot Harpoons, but only sub can get close enough to shoot torpedoes.

[sonar732]

What I generally do is disable the vessel with torpedo's and then take them out with TASM's. I'm closer to them and they watch from 'scope view...awesome show! :rock::rock:

[SeaQueen]

What are their proper tactics-specifically in "Barants Sea Loiter"

Here's the two options I use:

Localize the target as best you can using ESM and sonar, or even just by guessing from the information about the target's initial location, course and speed. The missile's seeker will take care of any uncertainty if you just get it in the ballpark.

Shoot a maximum sized salvo of TASMs. That means all twelve VLS tubes plus 4 torpedo tubes (16 missiles). Don't worry so much about whether all your TASMS hit or not. It only takes 1 or 2 hits to essentially put a ship out of action, so even if you manage to just pick off one of the escorts you've accomplished the goal. The point of shooting a lot of them at once is to improve the odds that at least one of them penetrates his AAW defenses and electronic warfare.

Start closing (quickly).

If you want to try a second salvo, follow up with another max sized salvo of 4 Harpoons.

Next, quickly close to engage with torpedoes. You don't want to be anywhere near the datum you just left by shooting all those missiles. Don't go too slow.

The second option requires more patience:

Get within the limiting lines of approach of the formation, slowly get close to them and engage with torpedoes when you're in range.

I haven't made up my mind about which is the best tactic, necessarily, but I can say that the second tactic is more time consuming and requires more navigational skill. The good thing is that in a nuke, you don't have to worry so much about being in a tail chase, so you'll probably be able to get off lots of shots if you use the second option.

[Bill Nichols]

I never load TASMs -- the Navy converted theirs to TLAM long ago...

[Dr.Sid]

I never load TASMs -- the Navy converted theirs to TLAM long ago...
Well .. TASMs are better than nothing, and to equip TLAMs on ASuW mission is useless. Reality is reality, but DW is DW :|\\

[Molon Labe]

I never load TASMs -- the Navy converted theirs to TLAM long ago...
Well .. TASMs are better than nothing, and to equip TLAMs on ASuW mission is useless. Reality is reality, but DW is DW :|\\

There's nothing wrong with equipping yourself the way the actual platform would be equipped in that mission.


That being said, I think the best use of the TASM against SAM-equipped ships is to fire at least 8 missiles from a range of between 5-10 miles. You might get away with 6 in some cases, but its chancey. Of course, if you can get that close, a torpedo will get the job done too. I usually only fire the missiles if I know I'm detected and I want to take out the ASROC shooters before they put some serious hurt on me.

The other way to use them would be to hit the capital ships immediately after the escorts have moved out of position due to torpedo evasion. It's basicly a sucker punch, and you hit them with the whole VLS.

[SeaQueen]

I never load TASMs -- the Navy converted theirs to TLAM long ago...

There's nothing that says we need to play in the present day time frame. I think it's interesting to compare how different technologies (TASM for example) change one's tactics. The conscious exploration of alternatives is one of the joys of wargaming. So, sometimes I play in 1988, sometimes I play in 2007.

[SeaQueen]

Well .. TASMs are better than nothing, and to equip TLAMs on ASuW mission is useless. Reality is reality, but DW is DW :|\\

That's cheesy to me, I don't like to do that kind of power gaming. I think if one is going to use them, one should be conscious of what they're doing, and compose scenarios appropriately. The Barents Sea Loiter is fun because you can play it with or without TASMs, but sometimes that's not always the case. In a lot of scenarios, if you change the weapons you change the whole game.

[Sea Demon]

I've heard on some sites that the newer version of Tomahawk (I can't remember what variant it's called), is dual land-attack/anti-ship capable. If this is true, can't we model this version by changing the database and modeling that capability?

And if true, that means 688(I) boats do have an anti-ship Tomahawk role IRL.

[SeaQueen]

The new version is the tactical tomahawk (TACTOM) which has all kinds of weird capabilities. It can do things like loiter in an area and attack on command, and other stuff. It's more like a kamakazee UAV than a cruise missile, because of that, the TACTOM's functionality is very different from the old TASM. I'm not sure the model adequately reflects that.


I've heard on some sites that the newer version of Tomahawk (I can't remember what variant it's called), is dual land-attack/anti-ship capable. If this is true, can't we model this version by changing the database and modeling that capability?



And if true, that means 688(I) boats do have an anti-ship Tomahawk role IRL.

[Henson]

Wait til y'all see the next generation weapon...

[Kapitan]

Yes its about time the USN got some better ASuW weapons

[Sea Demon]

Yes its about time the USN got some better ASuW weapons

What are you talkin' about? The USN pretty much owns the ASuW realm. Carriers with their airwings can provide an ASuW punch at a longer range than any Russian or Chinese group. Plus a carrier air wing can put 8-10 times more weaponry on any Russian group with Harpoon, JDAM munitions, Maverick, etc. in one sortie. And don't forget the MK-48 ADCAP on the numerous USN SSN's used in the ASuW mission. US SSN's are a part of CSG's. These are all excellent state of the art weapons. What they got now is quite adequate indeed. No other navy even comes close to the USN in the ASuW role. The extra stuff built into this new Tomahawk only adds to it.

[Henson]

Yes its about time the USN got some better ASuW weapons
What are you talkin' about? The USN pretty much owns the ASuW realm. Carriers with their airwings can provide an ASuW punch at a longer range than any Russian or Chinese group. Plus a carrier air wing can put 8-10 times more weaponry on any Russian group with Harpoon, JDAM munitions, Maverick, etc. in one sortie. And don't forget the MK-48 ADCAP on the numerous USN SSN's used in the ASuW mission. US SSN's are a part of CSG's. These are all excellent state of the art weapons. What they got now is quite adequate indeed. No other navy even comes close to the USN in the ASuW role. The extra stuff built into this new Tomahawk only adds to it.

POint made spectacularly. The russians focused on missile development out of necessity, due to a lack of the platforms and capabilities you described. The US was not worried about a surface threat, they were worried about air and submerged threats. An old-style soviet SAG always was, and still is unsurvivable in a modern warfare environment vs. a us CVNBG.

[Kapitan]

Any idiot with half ounce of old holbern of common sence knows a SAG wouldnt survive agasint a SAG but if you put it into context where there are 1 kirov 8 sovremennys 4 udaloys four to six oscars so how many missiles is that, too many to shoot down even with aegis i dont think aegis could counter them all at once.

[Takeda Shingen]

Any idiot with half ounce of old holbern of common sence knows a SAG wouldnt survive agasint a SAG but if you put it into context where there are 1 kirov 8 sovremennys 4 udaloys four to six oscars so how many missiles is that, too many to shoot down even with aegis i dont think aegis could counter them all at once.

And the Russians would be foolish to throw 19 platforms against a single SAG; especially since they are short on surface combatants to begin with. Who would be watching the rest of the ocean?

[Dr.Sid]

Really funny .. 'my navy is better than yours' .. be happy we don't know for sure :|\\

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

And the Russians would be foolish to throw 19 platforms against a single SAG; especially since they are short on surface combatants to begin with. Who would be watching the rest of the ocean?

What would be more foolish is to disperse assets and not kill anything.

It is an unrealistic expectation for the present Russian Navy to be able to defeat multiple US CVBGs - that expectation was hard enough to achieve during the Cold War that now it is plain delusion. But if they can kill a single CVBG or two with confidence, this will place them within the top few navies in the world, which is not bad after over a decade of decay, and a vindication of their original tactical theory.

[Kapitan]

Well for a start the second the USN CVBG enters the 150 miles limit nukes will be flying and also the russian navy will not go to the ocean to fight they will go in thier own backyard ie the american will have to come to them which then put the american in the worst possible situation as the russian land forces can shower them with numerous missiles which i could garentee 90% of them will be nuclear.

The northern fleet is capible of holding off the USN in the bearnts sea i can definatly tell you that it would loose in the mid ocean, main targets being carriers amphibious warfare vessels and aegis ships the USN has the missiles availible also the units carrying them however if it came to it the russians would deploy everything to fight off just one CVBG as they expect to loose alot hence why in the cold war they had so much naval force.

there are plans in place for such an event the whole of the baltic area around russia would be mined the north cape area and a block by the main entrancies to the ports not only that i would speculate that block ships would be put in place

So yes definatly the USN would win in the blue water but i wouldnt be sure in the home waters.

[XabbaRus]

Hence I think the USN dropped the Kola peninsula option a long time ago.

However I still think you're over estimating Russian capabilities. Although money is arriving in the fleet I still see no evidence of increased tempo of operations or in crew quality. EG the fire in Panther the other week. QC needs to be sorted out.

I know the fleet is going over to all contract sailors in 2008 but if as you say nukes were flying we'd all be ****ed.

[Kapitan]

The quality of the older ships isnt good the russian navy is no longer a blue water fighting force and its good reason the USN dropped the kola approach, but now the money is getting better so hopefully the whole fleet will be re done by 2020 or 2030

[Takeda Shingen]

And the Russians would be foolish to throw 19 platforms against a single SAG; especially since they are short on surface combatants to begin with. Who would be watching the rest of the ocean?

What would be more foolish is to disperse assets and not kill anything.

There is no nation that would committ its entire surface fleet, as well as a number of its most expensive and valuable submarines, to the destruction of one surface group. Remember, we are talking about a SAG, not a CVBG. This is, simply, not how wars are fought.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

And the Russians would be foolish to throw 19 platforms against a single SAG; especially since they are short on surface combatants to begin with. Who would be watching the rest of the ocean?
What would be more foolish is to disperse assets and not kill anything.
There is no nation that would committ its entire surface fleet, as well as a number of its most expensive and valuable submarines, to the destruction of one surface group. Remember, we are talking about a SAG, not a CVBG. This is, simply, not how wars are fought.
1) I was working under the assumption that when Kapitan said "Any idiot with half ounce of old holbern of common sence knows a SAG wouldnt survive agasint a SAG" he really meant a CVBG for the second one. Kapitan's later post seems to vindicate my assumption.
2) In any case, it is a function of what you can do. If your military is good enough have a good chance of killing three groups, then of course you will disperse your guys into three groups and send them against all three. However, if you can only kill one. A cardinal principle of warfare is adequate concentration of force.

[Henson]

There are some fundamental mistakes in the idea that a SAG could shoot so many missiles at a CVN that it would get some through. The main error is in thinking that such a super-SAG would ever get close enough to shoot those missiles to begin with.

Compare the range of an ASM with that of a carrier air wing (with tanker support). Compare the speed of a CVN with the speed of a Sovv, or a Slava. The SAG doesn't even have enough time to sprint toward first base.

No CVNBG would operate in the russian littlorals because there would be no need to. The brown-water arguments are insignificant, because they apply to an operational condition that would not exist.

Russian surface combatants were never a credible threat to a full-size CVNBG with 3-4 carriers making up the core. The threat came from soviet ground-based naval aviation and their submarines. That is the reason the US is so much more advanced in ASW and AAW than they are ASuW.

[SeaQueen]

There are some fundamental mistakes in the idea that a SAG could shoot so many missiles at a CVN that it would get some through. The main error is in thinking that such a super-SAG would ever get close enough to shoot those missiles to begin with.


Yeah! The airforce would have gotten them, never had to leave Ohio, and still gotten back in time to watch "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" :D

[Wim Libaers]

Get within the limiting lines of approach of the formation, slowly get close to them and engage with torpedoes when you're in range.


For this mission, that means you take the information given in the briefing, mark the expected course on the map at one hour intervals, go deep and fast on course 270. When you intersect the line you marked, slow down and wait for them or approach quietly. Every time I played it, the briefing information in this mission was so good the enemy group would pass over your position, at the expected time.

[SeaQueen]

For this mission, that means you take the information given in the briefing, mark the expected course on the map at one hour intervals, go deep and fast on course 270. When you intersect the line you marked, slow down and wait for them or approach quietly. Every time I played it, the briefing information in this mission was so good the enemy group would pass over your position, at the expected time.

I'm not sure that's always the best way to do it. My experience has been that if you try to get directly in front of a formation, you're usually going to get detected and pounded. That's fine if you're going to try to shoot your way past the screens to get at high value units but often that's not the wisest course of action.

Instead, I try to come in offset somewhat. That's sort of where it gets kind of squishy, because if the formation is designed smartly, to avoid detection you need to be super precise in your maneuvers.

The other option is to get behind them and shoot wakehomers from behind. It's not always such a bad idea in terms of survivability, but sometimes you can't always sink a ship.

Which mission is this, btw?

[Wim Libaers]

For this mission, that means you take the information given in the briefing, mark the expected course on the map at one hour intervals, go deep and fast on course 270. When you intersect the line you marked, slow down and wait for them or approach quietly. Every time I played it, the briefing information in this mission was so good the enemy group would pass over your position, at the expected time.
I'm not sure that's always the best way to do it. My experience has been that if you try to get directly in front of a formation, you're usually going to get detected and pounded. That's fine if you're going to try to shoot your way past the screens to get at high value units but often that's not the wisest course of action.

Instead, I try to come in offset somewhat. That's sort of where it gets kind of squishy, because if the formation is designed smartly, to avoid detection you need to be super precise in your maneuvers.

The other option is to get behind them and shoot wakehomers from behind. It's not always such a bad idea in terms of survivability, but sometimes you can't always sink a ship.

Which mission is this, btw?

Barents sea loiter. In this mission, I've achieved success by simply staying ahead of them out of active sonar range, and sending passive adcaps to meet them head-on. TASM doesn't work well here initially because the escorts have good SAM systems. However, once a few of the escorts are out of action, it can work.

[SeaQueen]

Barents sea loiter. In this mission, I've achieved success by simply staying ahead of them out of active sonar range, and sending passive adcaps to meet them head-on. TASM doesn't work well here initially because the escorts have good SAM systems. However, once a few of the escorts are out of action, it can work.

That should work.

I've never had any problem with the TASM in this scenario, though. Honestly, I think the TASM makes the scenario a bit too easy because they give you enough information to target the Russian SAG as soon as you receive the radio message. It's never out of range, so I can usually destroy at least one of the escorts using a salvo of TASMs.

The fact that they have good SAMs is the only thing that prevents me from destroying the entire battle group as soon as I get the radio message, actually. With a salvo size of 16 missiles, statistics says that at least one or two is almost certain to hit something. Suppose that a single missile only has a one in ten chance of getting through their missiles and chaff. Then the probablity of scoring at least one hit given a salvo size of 16 missiles is

pk = 1-(1-0.1)^16 = 0.81

That's pretty good! I like those odds! :know: The large salvo size lets you compensate for the relatively slow missile.

After clearing the datum from my initial cruise missile attack, I make another attack with the Harpoons. The salvo size is smaller, but they're faster and so individually they they are a little bit more likely to make it through the Russian formation's defenses. A salvo of four missiles usually does okay as well. With a little luck I can sometimes destroy a second escort.

Then I have to clear the datum again...

By that time I'm ready to make an attack with my torpedoes and finish off anything that survived the two strikes already made against it. For this I use tactics similar to what you described.

[Wim Libaers]

Well, when I played it, I had several cases where none of the missiles hit. This might also be influenced by mods though, it was some time ago when I last played this scenario, in standard DW. I think one of the LWAMI patches lowered the detectability of TASM and harpoon a bit.

[SeaQueen]

This might also be influenced by mods though, it was some time ago when I last played this scenario, in standard DW. I think one of the LWAMI patches lowered the detectability of TASM and harpoon a bit.

If that's the case then you ought to do even better!

Since these kinds of saturation tactics essentially take advantage of statistics to tilt the odds in your favor, success is never completely certain. Sometimes no missiles will make it through the formation's defences. That's okay, though, because that's realistic. It happens sometimes. All you can do is shrug it off and prepare for the next strike. To go back to the example I brought up before, assume again that a single missile by itself has a 1 in 10 chance of making it through the defensive screen. In that case, the chance of scoring zero hits with a salvo of 16 missiles is still about 19%.

That's okay, though. That 19% of the time I'll have to just get them on my next attack. TASM makes everything very leisurely. Sometimes I'll play it and one of the ships might just have been damaged by missiles. That's fine. Generally speaking though, they lose a ship, the Sovremenny usually, since that's the closest one. If I'm lucky I'll get one or two of the others. That's always very iffy though, since like you said, they have good SAMs. I'm happy if I sink one, though.

[Bort]

Yes its about time the USN got some better ASuW weapons

What are you talkin' about? The USN pretty much owns the ASuW realm. Carriers with their airwings can provide an ASuW punch at a longer range than any Russian or Chinese group. Plus a carrier air wing can put 8-10 times more weaponry on any Russian group with Harpoon, JDAM munitions, Maverick, etc. in one sortie. And don't forget the MK-48 ADCAP on the numerous USN SSN's used in the ASuW mission. US SSN's are a part of CSG's. These are all excellent state of the art weapons. What they got now is quite adequate indeed. No other navy even comes close to the USN in the ASuW role. The extra stuff built into this new Tomahawk only adds to it.
I have to disagree that the USN would totally pown a Russian SAG in a shootout, particularly regarding the airwings. To get close enough to drop a JDAM or launch a Maverick would put the pilot in quesion in range of a virtual wall of SAMs and gunfire of all sorts, which is precisely the reason Russian warships are so liberally equipped with such weapons. That leaves the Harpoon, a nice missile but much too slow for the modern naval warfare environment. What the Navy desperately needs in order to stay on top in the ASUW world is a super fast cruise missile like the Fasthawk idea being kicked around (with a mach 4+ top speed) or the RATTLRS technology demonstrator in development.
http://www.defensetech.org/images/RATTLRS%20art.JPG
Question is, will they stop being obsessed with land attack missiles and give the new super fast system a true anti ship capability?

[SeaQueen]

To get close enough to drop a JDAM or launch a Maverick would put the pilot in quesion in range of a virtual wall of SAMs and gunfire of all sorts, which is precisely the reason Russian warships are so liberally equipped with such weapons.

The thing is, the USN isn't currently anticipating having to fight the Russians. They're really only of peripheral interest (heh, Kapitan will hate me saying that :) ). If it was, the USN probably have continued developing the TASM and Harpoon. As it stands, what we have is fine. Interestingly they do continue R&D into the next generation of anti-ship cruise missiles. They want to maintain the capability, but right now they really don't need to maintain a big inventory of missiles.

Also, you don't have to fly into a wall of SAMs to attack an enemy SAG. Surpressing and destroying air defences is something the USN, USMC and USAF have down to a science. Anti-radiation missiles put warships in a real bind. They can attempt to shoot down the missiles, in which case they generally have to radiate and risk taking a hit, or they can shut down, in which case they still might take a hit either from the missile or accompanying strike aircraft. Aircraft can jam enemy radars with standoff jammers, as well as self protection. There also exist a whole host of decoys, not just chaff, but actual air launched drones which mimic strike aircraft. Radar warning receivers can actually be configured to pick out specifically naval emissions.

You can't just fly off and start dropping guided bombs and missiles like it was nothing. Attacking enemy warships from the air requires a whole operation, with all the associated components, but it's not impossible. It requires a little thought, like pretty much all strike planning, really. There's nothing that makes it fundamentally different.

Finally, torpedoes are still pretty good against a ship. Provided you can get close enough to use them (childsplay for a nuke, anyone who can work a maneuvering board can get a sub to within whatever range he wants of a given target) a single hit will sink most warships. They only ships that can really take successive torpedo hits are big capital ships, and who has more of those than anyone else? The USN, in the form of CVNs and LHDs. Even then, I think the record is like 7 torpedo hits. So... okay... that's two salvos? That's nothing. Since a nuke can almost always get close enough to shoot a torpedo, the big problem is just locating a target to sic an SSN on. That's not too hard either.

Between the SSNs and the aircraft, there really aren't a whole lot of reasons to carry an ASCM. It'd be nice in certain situations, but it shouldn't be a dire necessity if everything is thought out smartly. It's sort of a shame, really, because the lack of ASCMs takes a lot of the glamorous work away from surface ships. Now they're all tied to protecting high value units like CVNs, LHDs and TAOEs. The best one could hope for is to be a radar picket and get a piece of the air battle.


Question is, will they stop being obsessed with land attack missiles and give the new super fast system a true anti ship capability?

My guess is probably not. Right now, the Navy has to justify everything to Congress in terms of how it can kill terrorists. Al Qaeda doesn't have much beyond a speed boat with a bomb in it. What they really need to do is be able to project power ashore. That means strike, special warfare and amphibious operations are the real money makers at the moment.

The China hawks can say what they want, but China, while it has made great strides forward, still can't really compare to the threat the Soviets represented. It's not even in the same universe.