Hold at Risk

[SeaQueen]

During the Cold War, the stated goal of the US Navy was to destroy 80% of the Soviet submarine fleet in the first 15 minutes of a conflict turning hot. That's the number that drove US SSN requirements way up because it required that a large number of SSNs be dedicated to "holding at risk" the Soviet submarine fleet.

With that in mind, I've been playing around with an idea for a scenario where the goal is to hold an SSBN at risk, with only a small chance of actually having to destroy it.

The thing is... what does that really mean within the context of DW and goal triggers?

It has to mean more than just detection, because that doesn't necessarily mean you have the capability to destroy the SSBN at any time and place. So... I'm thinking that you'd have to also be able to satisfy some weapons related parameters. Since the doctrine language doesn't let you test the quality of your firing solution, though, I'm not entirely sure what the best way to do that is, though. The other thing is that it shouldn't allow you to lose contact.

For example, if I'm seaching for my target and I find it, I haven't yet held it at risk. If I satisfy some weapons-related condition that I haven't figured out yet, but then at some point in the duration of the scenario, I either fail to satisfy it, or I lose contact then I haven't held it at risk.

Then... suppose I reacquire the target and satisfy the weapon related parameter then I have held it at risk.

It just seems like a very on-again-off-again kind of thing. Maybe it might be worth it to make several different goals, each one being to hold the target at risk for a different amount of time.

What do you guys think?

[Molon Labe]

Also be inside lethal range (which will be much shorter than detection range, esp. in stock DW) and maybe avoid counterdetection as well.

[SeaQueen]

Also be inside lethal range (which will be much shorter than detection range, esp. in stock DW) and maybe avoid counterdetection as well.

Lethal range in what sense?

[MarkShot]

I don't see how you can make your scenario work.

Clearly, checking for counter detection is easy and would be a failure.

However, simply being in weapons range does not imply that the player has a good solution.

You would need something in the goal doctrine language to measure the distance between the plotted contact and the show truth contact versus some measure of the weapon performance relative to distance in order to measure how good the solution is. Then, it would mainly be an exercise in TMA and navigating for the player.

As an MP mission it might be really interesting to see how well the RED player could derail the solutions of the BLUE player or attempt to make a detection.

[SeaQueen]

I don't see how you can make your scenario work.

Clearly, checking for counter detection is easy and would be a failure.

However, simply being in weapons range does not imply that the player has a good solution.

You would need something in the goal doctrine language to measure the distance between the plotted contact and the show truth contact versus some measure of the weapon performance relative to distance in order to measure how good the solution is. Then, it would mainly be an exercise in TMA and navigating for the player.

If there was some chance of having to destroy the SSBN once it'd been acquired, then maybe there should be a time limit after receiving the order to shoot. Actually... that'd make sense, you have 15 minutes to kill the submarine in the remote event the war turns hot. In that sense, you wouldn't necessarily have to have a trigger that'd say that you had a firing solution, however if you didn't have something fairly decent then in all likelyhood you'd fail the mission.

As an MP mission it might be really interesting to see how well the RED player could derail the solutions of the BLUE player or attempt to make a detection.

It isn't that hard to throw off a firing solution. Changing course or speed will almost always do it. The thing is, a firing solution doesn't need to be that good. Since the torpedoes are guided, it only needs to be "in the ballpark" and sometimes not even that. With wire guidence it's not unheard of for people to just guide it almost all the way in.

[Molon Labe]

Also be inside lethal range (which will be much shorter than detection range, esp. in stock DW) and maybe avoid counterdetection as well.
Lethal range in what sense?
Given the context, in as practical a sense as you can make it. I'd start with a no-escape concept modified by factors you think likely to come up given the scenario, such as the possibility of undetected cross-layer launches or the possibility of decoy spoofing or failures to reguide due to counterfire. Make a conservative judgment call and start with that range. On top of that, add arequirement that the shot be able to intercept the target quickly enough to keep it from doing whatever it is you don't want it to be able to do. Maybe your 15 minutes already serves as the benchmark for that, so use the runtime and plug and chug an initial range. Go with whichever method gives you the shortest range.

EDIT: looking at the other posts since your response, it seems that leaving it to skipper discretion and letting him/her find out the hard way is the best way to go from a design standpoint. No guesswork that way; no artificial standard that may or may not be right when the ballon goes up.
You know, since you're OK with "shooting" missions anyway.