ESM question, and Harpoon vs. TASM question

[Avatar]

While I'm here,
If you go to Youtube.com and type in Dangerous Waters you'll see the DW-trailer. My game doesnt have big pieces of ship blowing off the ship and my FFG crew doesnt call "vampire." I have patch 1.03, but that's it, I dont have LWAMI patch. should I get this patch?

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by Avatar

While I'm here,
If you go to Youtube.com and type in Dangerous Waters you'll see the DW-trailer. My game doesnt have big pieces of ship blowing off the ship and my FFG crew doesnt call "vampire." I have patch 1.03, but that's it, I dont have LWAMI patch. should I get this patch?

AFAIK this movie is somehow forged. It is not actual DW engine, although it looks much like it.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Avatar

While I'm here,
If you go to Youtube.com and type in Dangerous Waters you'll see the DW-trailer. My game doesnt have big pieces of ship blowing off the ship and my FFG crew doesnt call "vampire." I have patch 1.03, but that's it, I dont have LWAMI patch. should I get this patch?

It should call Vampire. LW's LWAMI is just Doctrine and Database (a bunch of text files really) so it should have nothing to do with it. Make sure you've got radars running and the missiles are in a position where you have even a slight chance of actually detecting them - DW is pretty "generous" in announcing missile and torp launches but at some point even DW won't give you the warning.

Originally Posted by Avatar

Also, does anyone carry Harpoons on their US subs (in DW)? My only AS missiles are the TASM. I made a littoral water scenario between a 688(I) and a Udaloy DDG, and most of my TASM were soaked up by the DDG's defenses. Would the Harpoon have been a better ASM? I remember the ol' Microprose "Red Storm Rising" manual stating that the Harpoon has a lower alt and "pop-up" terminal executing manuver that makes it harder to shoot down than the TASM. Is this correct for DW?
many thanks, and happy new year folks.

There's no such thing as an evasive manuever in Dangerous Water missiles. All are straight runners. When I realized this, I changed the range of the SS-N-27's Stage 2 up to 60km - the real procedure does have the Stage 2 rocket come out 20km distance from the target, but it is supposed to zig before hitting. Since it won't zig, I decided to cram all the "zig" distance into straight run distance.

But I digress - anyway, no such thing as missile maneuvers, and evasive maneuvers cause the missile to spend more time in the WEZ - shootdown.

In stock DW, you should just stick to TASMs - they are the same speed and the same radar SL (50 on scale of 0-100). In LWAMI, Harpoon has a bit smaller RCS (40 vs TASM's 45).

Any way you cut it though, missiles are a pretty inefficient form of attack. Your only real chance is if you detect no signals on your ESM (the enemy is not radiating). If the radars are on, even with a SS-N-27 with its radar SL set on 40, expect to require like 6 just to get good hits on a lone Arleigh Burke.

Here's a better idea - just put 12 TASMs in the VLS seeing they won't hold anything else. Fling them at the enemy without any expectations, and plan to have to kill everyone with torpedoes.

[Bill Nichols]

In reality, all of the Navy's TASMs have been converted to TLAM. As for Harpoon, the U.S. Navy no longer considers it a useful weapon for submarines -- it cannot be carried by the Virginia-class and has been removed from other SSNs.

[Avatar]

I haven't played as the FFG in awhile, I cant remember if the crew announces vampire or not.
I dont think your crew announces a transient, which would really help. Although, I have seen a slight indication of transient when viewing the waterfall display. It's a slightly brighter spike than the actual contact line itself, but I must be looking at the waterfall inorder to know this is happening.
maybe that's for the next fix.
thanks for the info on the tasm and tlam, that's interesting that the virginia class cant use tasm. I guess it's better to attack with torpedoes with just about any ship or sub. Though, sometimes I try to be really quiet and sneak up on them which is probably not as accurate as real life, but kicking up to high speeds usually gets a couple of torps/asw missiles sent my way.
What tactics do most people use? fast attack or stealthy and quiet?
I guess it depends on where you are and how close you are and if things are heating up or not.

[Dr.Sid]

Sub is under water because of stealth. Stealth is it's only advantage. So you must go slow as long as it is possible.

[kage]

I haven't played as the FFG in awhile, I cant remember if the crew announces vampire or not.

If you have the CM autocrew on, they do.

Although, I have seen a slight indication of transient when viewing the waterfall display. It's a slightly brighter spike than the actual contact line itself, but I must be looking at the waterfall inorder to know this is happening.

Try LWAMI, where the missiles themselves create a lot of noise, and a bright spike.

I guess it's better to attack with torpedoes with just about any ship or sub.

Anti ship missiles are still very effective against targets without defenses. Ships like that are usually non-combatant, however.


The nature of my attacks depend on the target (convoy vs lone ship) and environment (long detection ranges or short, amount of neutral traffic in the area...) and of course the capabilities of my own ship. I've parked seawolves in front of convoys and let them meet wave after wave of 8 adcaps. I rarely run out. Though sometimes things become interesting and I have to evade torpedoes.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Bill Nichols

In reality, all of the Navy's TASMs have been converted to TLAM. As for Harpoon, the U.S. Navy no longer considers it a useful weapon for submarines -- it cannot be carried by the Virginia-class and has been removed from other SSNs.

That may be true, but I still wonder why they consider the Harpoon "not useful" for submarines. Seems to me that they would have some useful purposes like interdicting enemy SAG's at places where they may not want allied surface ships or aircraft operating. Perhaps SSN's lying in deeper waters firing into an area where littoral waters are abundant and enemy SAG's have setup screens. I'm actually quite surprised they even removed the ability for Virginia's to be able to fire them at all. I wish I knew their reasoning. I'm not convinced that removing anti-ship missiles from American SSN's is really such a good idea.

[Rip]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

That may be true, but I still wonder why they consider the Harpoon "not useful" for submarines. Seems to me that they would have some useful purposes like interdicting enemy SAG's at places where they may not want allied surface ships or aircraft operating. Perhaps SSN's lying in deeper waters firing into an area where littoral waters are abundant and enemy SAG's have setup screens. I'm actually quite surprised they even removed the ability for Virginia's to be able to fire them at all. I wish I knew their reasoning. I'm not convinced that removing anti-ship missiles from American SSN's is really such a good idea.

There isn't any 1 specific reason. More than half a dozen. Some of which may still be a little sensitive so I will only point out the obvious. You have to realize that it isn't purely a matter of if a weapon is useful but if it is useful enough to justify consumption of a spot onboard. Mines are effective but are almost never carried unless the mission will involve using them.

One thing was the shift to more of a vetical external tube approach to submarine launched missles. The sub harpoon was encapulated version of the same one everyone else used. To have used it in external launchers would have caused some major reengineering. The tomahawk was much more suited for that role.

Another thing was that it's active radar homing could be fooled with newer countermeasures systems. It was also poor at target discrimination. Especially when launched OTH from a sub. Launching it into a dense contact enviroment meant having no idea who it may choose to go after. Even potentially a friendly.

Next target acquisition. If not getting targeting data from another source (which required being at PD and having a radio antenna up then the sub would need to use an RDF system (AN-BRD7 in the day) to figure out firing parameters. This thing had a sizable antenna and you would need multiple intercepts from substantial distances apart (due to long range of target)

They were very restricted as far as speed/depth launch conditions. Meaning at launch anyone seeing it launch not only knew where you were but had a damned good idea what speed and depth.

In the end these and other factors weighed together to make the space more valuable when loaded with other ordinance. Not that having a Harpoon on board would be useless. This isn't the first/only weapon this has happened to. Just one of the few publicly known about.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Rip

There isn't any 1 specific reason. More than half a dozen. Some of which may still be a little sensitive so I will only point out the obvious. You have to realize that it isn't purely a matter of if a weapon is useful but if it is useful enough to justify consumption of a spot onboard. Mines are effective but are almost never carried unless the mission will involve using them.

One thing was the shift to more of a vetical external tube approach to submarine launched missles. The sub harpoon was encapulated version of the same one everyone else used. To have used it in external launchers would have caused some major reengineering. The tomahawk was much more suited for that role.

Another thing was that it's active radar homing could be fooled with newer countermeasures systems. It was also poor at target discrimination. Especially when launched OTH from a sub. Launching it into a dense contact enviroment meant having no idea who it may choose to go after. Even potentially a friendly.

Next target acquisition. If not getting targeting data from another source (which required being at PD and having a radio antenna up then the sub would need to use an RDF system (AN-BRD7 in the day) to figure out firing parameters. This thing had a sizable antenna and you would need multiple intercepts from substantial distances apart (due to long range of target)

In the end these and other factors weighed together to make the space more valuable when loaded with other ordinance. Not that having a Harpoon on board would be useless. This isn't the first/only weapon this has happened to. Just one of the few publicly known about.

Thank you Rip for answering. I appreciate your insight. I kind of understand the rationale for the Harpoon's currently that are in service. But if I understand it correctly, Harpoon II's correct the engagement envelopes, countermeasures issues, and a number of other things. I'm sure there are reasons that you can't say, due to security issues. I myself avoid topics on weapons I have actually fired (Mavericks ) for the same reasons. But looking at it from someone who has never fired a Harpoon, and only knows about Harpoons from open sources, I do see some usefulness to them.

I'm certain I could justify their existence and reasonably argue for why they should be deployed on US SSN's. I'm certain I could argue for the inception of Block II's on Virginia's. It's a shame they removed the ability to even use them on this platform. I know there might have been people who might have argued this back and forth behind the closed doors of the US Navy (Need to know basis) brass. As a voter and taxpayer, I've got to trust they made the right decision. But if we ever have to face China in the Taiwan straits, I'm hoping we're going to be using all options including the newer Harpoons on our SSN's. I myself see them as just another tool for our submarine sailors to use in a set of tactical situations.