LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #13: The Stallion

[LuftWolf]

It's time for another exciting edition of "How Is It That You Want DW To Be?"

In our quest to rid the game of useless and redundant weapons, the next weapon on the list is the Stallion.

I can't recall ever firing a Stallion... let's face it, the UMGT-1 is pretty pathetic.

So, I would like to know how you guys feel about loading the APR-3 onto the Stallion, a pairing that absolutely could be done in real life, if the Russians had the budget and desire. Amizaur had originally said that the APR-3 was going to be loaded on the SS-N-27 but the missile simply did not have the capability to lift the torpedo.

For those of you who don't know, the APR-3 is a "turbojet" torpedo capable of something like 85kts or so (I have to look it up), but with a very short range. The APR-2 currently modelled in the game has a max speed of 55kts because anything over that starts to do funny things to the game engine, but this can be compensated for.

Also, I would like to make the APR-3 payload on the Stallion a straight runner, meaning it would travel out along the course of the missile that fired it.

My ideal APR-3 for LWAMI 3.xx would have a max speed of 55kts with a max range of 1.5nm, would travel in a straight line (with no snake search pattern) when equipped as the payload on the Stallion.

Ultimately, there are five practical choices, so I'll put it in a poll for you.

Cheers,
David

PS Keep in mind, the increased bearing error on the TA in the recent version of LWAMI *will* make a big difference in terms of the effectiveness of these weapons at long range without good TMA or a linking platform.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I voted for Option 3. It is arguably the most realistic while making Stallion a useful weapon with a unique capability (at 55kts for 1.5 miles I might as well take the chance with the MPT-1E that's now loaded in the SS-N-27).

It also makes the best use of LW's advanced skills and experience. Any lubber who does not like the swap to 65kt+ APR-3 can easily swap the launcher loadout back to the UMGT-1 with ~5 minutes of effort in DWEdit. It will be much harder for laymen to go in the other direction and make a 65kt+ APR-3.

I chose between straight or circle solely based on what I would have set in the setters assuming there was a button to set Circle/Snake.

[Molon Labe]

I've been trying to Google accurate information on the specs of the Stallion's payload, but no success so far.

Suffice to say that I'm not interested in enhancing the Stallion's capabilities from a balance agenda.

If there is reason to do so for a realism agenda, then I would consider the change. But if not, I'd leave it as is.

[Bellman]

I would be concerned with a loss of balance by empowering long distance probing and flushing with straight-running combos.

I could live with option 2 - but would really prefer the status quo.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I've been trying to Google accurate information on the specs of the Stallion's payload, but no success so far.

Suffice to say that I'm not interested in enhancing the Stallion's capabilities from a balance agenda.

If there is reason to do so for a realism agenda, then I would consider the change. But if not, I'd leave it as is.

The current payload (UMGT-1) is actually historically accurate, but the weapon is quite useless as it is. The batteries inside are also not getting newer. Soon, they'd either have to take the weapon out of service or change the torpedo inside.

I'd actually have preferred using the APSET-95, the one with 50 knot capability and 30km max range (though not both at once). Yes, I know Jane's said it is really a UMGT-1, but Jane's also said the Neu carried a 10-tubed RBU-12000 (meanwhile, to the right of the description, there's a picture that shows the Neu carrying the 12-tubed RBU-6000, just like what everyone else says). Besides, apparently if you trust Jane's, then the APR-3 would have a range of 10000 yards which will make it a a nice nightmare as well.

Further, according to DITG.org, the APR-3 is perfectly fittable onto the long SS-N-27 (reasonable, considering that even the short antiship SS-N-27 carries a 400kg warhead + a 60kg radar seeker and the APR's only supposed to be 450-475) - in terms of length the assembly comes to only 7.65m (the long-antiship version is 8.2m long), so there's no obvious weight or length problem. It is the short, <=6.2m short SS-N-27 that's forced to use the puny MPT-1UE. So you can argue that forcing it to fit onto a Stallion (thus preventing a theoretical 8-missile shotgun salvo) is already an artificial restriction on the Russian side.

For the circle/snake call, if the snake pattern is more effective, somehow I doubt realistically the Russians would force the torpedo to select "circle". Most probably it'd have both, and if it only had one, it'd be the more effective selection. The only reason to force the selection of circle is gameplay balance, not realism, IMO.

That above covers realism.

For gameplay, if it consoles you any, the active sonar on an Akula is crap (to make it start to show blips I had to increase the theoretical Active Sonar Nrd to over the Seawolf, which of course is unrealistic but is the only way I've found so far to make it a bit useful), so at least you won't be actively ranged. Without the accuracy provided by active ranging, and only 1.5NM ranges for the APR-3. As a 688I, you should get first detect and thus first passive TMA solution. Then you can maneuver in zigzags to deny those short-legged torps their solution until you close in and shoot torps.

Further, realistically, if they don't change the torp soon they'd have to stop using it. So if you really hate this, just try and persuade your opposite in MP to not use Stallion - that's the other realistic option. Or just swap the torp back yourself and persuade your opponent to use your database. But let LW at least develop his APR-3. At least we can stick it on a helicopter or something...

[LuftWolf]

Well, something smacked me in the forehead today on the train... I haven't yet corrected the payload on the SS-N-27!

There is NO WAY in hell the MPT-1UE makes 55kts. NO WAY.

So, my solution for LWAMI 3.xx is to:

1) reduce the SS-N-27 payload torpedo, MPT-1UE, speed to 45kts

2) add the APR-3 to the Stallion as a straight running torpedo making 70kts with a 1.5nm MAX range, and an initial slow search pattern (40kts or so). After the weapon has acquired a target, it will go to max throttle, at which point its range will be cut by the current speed vs. range features in 1.04. Keep in mind, this weapon DOES NOT have reattack capability and has limited maneovering capability, if it misses on the first pass, it cannot reacquire.

This ought to either 1) make everyone happy for the same reason, 2) piss everyone off for different reasons.

Feedback please!

Incidentially, I have a two stage version of the APR-3 with the high speed physics corrections already coded and ready to go, I've just been holding off because I wasn't sure what the reaction would be. In my testing, I have found the AI to be more than capable of out manovering this weapon simply because its turning capability is very limited at high speed, so I know you guys can.

Also, if you guys are STILL feeling off about this, I can increase the bearing and range error on the stallion missile...

There's a lot I can do to address balance issues once the weapon is brought into the game, but my gut reaction is not to leave something as useless when it could be made useful.

Cheers,
David

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

There is NO WAY in hell the MPT-1UE makes 55kts. NO WAY.

Oh, you hadn't changed it yet? Man, I really hadn't noticed.

1) reduce the SS-N-27 payload torpedo, MPT-1UE, speed to 45kts

Blind pro-Russian side (blame Tom Clancy): Damn!
More realistic side: Ah well, given the weights and masses involved, reasonable.

2) add the APR-3 to the Stallion as a straight running torpedo making 70kts with a 1.5nm MAX range, and an initial slow search pattern (40kts or so). After the weapon has acquired a target, it will go to max throttle, at which point its range will be cut by the current speed vs. range features in 1.04. Keep in mind, this weapon DOES NOT have reattack capability and has limited maneovering capability, if it misses on the first pass, it cannot reacquire.

Since the brochures give it up to 2 minutes to finish its mission, I'd propose giving it a slightly longer range, to say 1.5NM at its full speed. That's 75 seconds at full speed, and translates to ~2.5NM at 40kn. At the current setting, it can barely run said two minutes at 40 knots, and given you cut you mentioned, probably barely a NM at 70 knots.

[LoBlo]

I voted to leave it as is. I'm in favor of maintaining the historic accuracy of the weapon system as it publically known, even if the original concept by its Soviet designers is impractical. An 80nm ASW missile? Got to hand it to the Ruskies... they break the bank on unconvential wepon systems.

If tweaking the system is an absolute must and it deemed imperative to give the Stallion a hypothetical 'boost' in utility, then there's an option that hasn't been considered...one could also duplicate the UMGT-1 but with a modified doctrine (call it UMGT-1a running the UMGT-1_subroc doctrine) that alters the torp behavior to a straight runner to gain some diversity in capability. Something to consider.

[XabbaRus]

Right just looking in my Military Parade book from 2005 which is in effect a catalogue of the main naval weapons the APR series of weapons do a circle search pattern only.

The interesting feature is that they are dropped into the water and descend in a corkscrew patterwit the motor switched off, only engaging the motor once it has detected the target. So based on that I would leave the Stallion with the current payload and if you alter the APR series take into account what I have just written.

Also all sources seem to state the Type 82R torpedo as the payload for which I can't find much info or a recognisable name.

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Right just looking in my Military Parade book from 2005 which is in effect a catalogue of the main naval weapons the APR series of weapons do a circle search pattern only.

The interesting feature is that they are dropped into the water and descend in a corkscrew patterwit the motor switched off, only engaging the motor once it has detected the target. So based on that I would leave the Stallion with the current payload and if you alter the APR series take into account what I have just written.

Also all sources seem to state the Type 82R torpedo as the payload for which I can't find much info or a recognisable name.

Well, the best available data definately tells us that the APR-3 has not been deployed to the Stallion, it is certainly not ready. In fact, my gut tells me that the Russians have had loads of trouble developing virtually any new naval weapons systems for any number of reasons, such as failing to be able to maintain basic maintaince on a portion of their fleet...

But let's not fool ourselves... if we really wanted to have the most accurate mod possible, the Akula would probably be hopelessly vulnerable to just about everything in the US arsenal, so I like to think I'm modding a world where the Russians have at least nominal parity with the USN, which is clearly does not and never has had, especially when it comes to submarines.

So, I'm not compelled by the arguement that it HASN'T been doesn in RL so I shouldn't. I'd like to think if the Russians could develope already existing weapon systems they would, so I venture into the plausible, and thus I added to the game three Akula II Modified hulls that are currently unpaided for hulks rusting in their construction yards (or non-existent) but certainly WOULD have been finished by the Russians if they had the funds.

Xabba, the data you've given me regarding the APR is consistent with the information I have about the helo launched versions of the weapon, I suppose I'm assuming the SUBROC version would have a different feature-set.

Admittedly, its venturing on "dangerous ground" but not because there is not president in the mod, but because this is a very touchy subject (giving Russians effective weapons that is).

Of course, I could make the SW go 45+kts, make it twice as quiet and dive 500 ft deeper and that would be perfectly acceptable. :p

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

I mean, keep in mind, this is my "fall-back" position:

Reduce the speed of the MPT-1UE for the SS-N-27 to 45kts, and add the already existing APR-2E in the game to the Stallion as a circle search torpedo with a 1.5nm range @ 55kts.

Since this actually decreases the overall capability of the Akula SUBROCS while still making the Stallion modern and useful, I can't see the majority having a problem with this.

So, assume this is the change that is definately going to happen, but I want to go further, so either convince me not to, or encourage me, it's up to you.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

There seems to be agreement that the UGMT-1 is the actual payload. So determines my vote.

I advise caution in adding hypothetical weapons and capabilities. The title is "...realism mod" after all. That's not to say that it should never be done, but it should be done sparingly and only when there is both some evidence to suggest that it is accurate in RL and improves gameplay balance. I'm not convinced that is the case here.

And as for the "hurt the russians" swipe, I remind you that I argued for the akula-II to be nearly as quiet as the SW, for the Akula-1Imp to be quieter than the 688I, and for the Kilos to be quieter than all the nukes at patrol speeds. I even seem to remember that you had to turn the SW's NL up after one of the earlier versions because it was nearly invincible. =P

[LuftWolf]

The UMGT-1 IS the torpedo payload of the Stallion... from the late 1970's.

And 70% of USET-80's when tested at sea fail.

What's the fun of modding/playing a decrepit Russian fleet incapable of modernizing?

IF the Russians could, they WOULD mount an APR family weapon on the Stallion, this is what the best information shows currently. The weapons are not hypothetical, only the pairing of the weapons.

Cheers,
David

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

But let's not fool ourselves... if we really wanted to have the most accurate mod possible, the Akula would probably be hopelessly vulnerable to just about everything in the US arsenal, so I like to think I'm modding a world where the Russians have at least nominal parity with the USN, which is clearly does not and never has had, especially when it comes to submarines.

Wow, those are some pretty bold statements...

Might I suggest some light reading... I just bought Submarine Technology for the 21 st Century by Stan Zimmerman and it presents some interesting facts and perspectives about the various capabilities/problems/innovations out between the nations. Of note is that Russians were the first nation to use Anechoic coating, the first to develop wakehoming torpedoes, and the first with supercavitating technology... those guys can put out great engineering.

If 80% of USET-80's failed, here's an interesting quote from the book to put that into perspective...

Originally Posted by Stan Zimmerman in "Submarine Technology for the 21st Century"

But torpedo unreliability continues to haunt American submariners. "We've learned the Mk 48 ADCAP isn't as good as we thought it would be. We're working on that," Vice Adm. Henry Chiles told a submarine audience in 1993. It is probable Chiles was thinking of a General Accounting Office report in late 1992. While the GAO was looking into the BSY-1 submarine combat system destined for the Improved 688-class of attack submarines, it also noted a devastating fact. A defense trade press publication reported, "Navy evaluators are also interest in available programs to correct torpedo deficiencies, but is [sic] concerned about about inadequate funding for that pursuit, GAO notes. Tests on the system's torpedo-engagment capabilites were hampered because about 56% of those torpedoes missed their targets due to technical failures."....

... The British suffered even more embarrasing problems with the Tigerfish heavyweight torpedo, which will be retired from the fleet by 2000, replaced by the newer Spearfish. The Tigerfish cost more than one billion British pounts ($1.6 billion) to develop but never proved successful. "[T]he disastrous saga of the Mark 24 Tigerfish provides a salutary example of exactly what can go wrong with a new weapon system," wrote Edwyn Gray. "It is said that early versions of the Mark 24 suffered a 75% failure rate -a record of misfortune that puts it in the same class as America's wartime Mark 14..."

[edit]excuse any typos

[LuftWolf]

However, at one point the USET-80 was a reliable torpedo.

The differences between the Russian problems and the problems mentioned above is that those weapons fail because they are cutting edge with teething techinical problems, the Russian weapons fail because they were manufactered 25 years ago and are well past their overhaul dates.

In regards to the Akula's and other Russian nukes, I am very suspicious of their current operating capabilities, particularly their quieting, given the current state of the Russian nuclear fleet, and also the fact that I suspect the Russian's active quieting systems are particularly maintenance intensive even over and above the regular issues of keeping up nuclear boats.

Cheers,
David