TLAM Strikes?

[jenrick]

I think it's kind of shady to have the players success or failure based on having the missile actually strike the target. We're not setting up a TLAM strike with waypoints etc as one in the real world.

I'd either have it set to where the player just has to launch the 10 TLAM's into the circle (simulating the first waypoint or something), or they need to get to specific location on the strategic map (this is how RSR did it).

I'd prefer the second option personally. Real world if I've got some time in the schedule and also have a missile with over a 1,000 NM range, I'm going to find a nice quiet spot in the ocean away from everyone to launch them, rather then sailing in artillery range of the base almost to launch them. It'd be one thing if they were say strikes against in-land targets, but they way it's written it's against coastal targets you can almost launch from port (it's 1,500 miles from Holy Loch to Murmansk straight line). You can hit Murmansk from the middle of the Norwegian Sea with no issues, and with missiles have a semi-realistic flight path (minimum of 100 miles off shore until the final leg).

I like the mission concept, just the way it's done it feels to forced. You have to sail in close enough to almost launch a SEAL team to launch a cruise missile with a 1,500 mile range to hit the port?! In RSR it worked well, as embarking TLAM's really took up a lot of stores space, so you dodged any contacts while you worked your way close to the launch point. Once you got close enough, it was a cut scene and your were given a mission success.

-Jenrick

[VizlaN]

Just got my first strike mission on Murmansk, it is impossible to finish.
Images

 

Tried 3 different angles and they all end up hitting the mountain, you can't even reach the waypoint.

[cookiemonste]

I had a strike mission the other day and got failure messages too.
What I learned from another member is that you need to fire at least 4 more missiles at the target. Because they can get shot down.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by jenrick

I think it's kind of shady to have the players success or failure based on having the missile actually strike the target. We're not setting up a TLAM strike with waypoints etc as one in the real world.

I'd either have it set to where the player just has to launch the 10 TLAM's into the circle (simulating the first waypoint or something), or they need to get to specific location on the strategic map (this is how RSR did it).

I'd prefer the second option personally. Real world if I've got some time in the schedule and also have a missile with over a 1,000 NM range, I'm going to find a nice quiet spot in the ocean away from everyone to launch them, rather then sailing in artillery range of the base almost to launch them. It'd be one thing if they were say strikes against in-land targets, but they way it's written it's against coastal targets you can almost launch from port (it's 1,500 miles from Holy Loch to Murmansk straight line). You can hit Murmansk from the middle of the Norwegian Sea with no issues, and with missiles have a semi-realistic flight path (minimum of 100 miles off shore until the final leg).

I like the mission concept, just the way it's done it feels to forced. You have to sail in close enough to almost launch a SEAL team to launch a cruise missile with a 1,500 mile range to hit the port?! In RSR it worked well, as embarking TLAM's really took up a lot of stores space, so you dodged any contacts while you worked your way close to the launch point. Once you got close enough, it was a cut scene and your were given a mission success.

-Jenrick

It could be argued that TLAM strikes have to be carried out from as close as possible to minimize the chance of detection and interception. Considering warships are constantly patrolling the waters, if you were to fire cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away, you'd give the enemy ample time to put vessels in the warheads' path and easily shoot them all down.

You already have considerably less than 100% accuracy being around the corner. Imagine if the Soviets had something like an hour to make sure that figure is zero.

[jenrick]

It could be argued that TLAM strikes have to be carried out from as close as possible to minimize the chance of detection and interception. Considering warships are constantly patrolling the waters, if you were to fire cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away, you'd give the enemy ample time to put vessels in the warheads' path and easily shoot them all down.

The odds of a TLAM strike being picked up from a distance would be minimal. That's the point of cruise missiles. They have standoff, and are very hard to detect. Yes there is always a risk of having them overfly some random surface unit that can engage them, but it's minimal. Why did we spend all the time and resources to develop them to have 1,000+ nm ranges if we're going to launch them from less then 15 miles off shore?

As far as interception goes, a TLAM flies at approximately 550 mph (478 knots). Lets say the soviets have something that can do 50 knots and knock down a TLAM handy. Using the longest launch range I can find (1,550 miles) to give the longest time to move to the interception point, said surface craft would have to be within 150 nautical miles (plus whatever the weapon engagement envelope would be) of the flight path at the moment of launch. I'll be generous and say 200 nautical miles. That's assuming they can take off at flank speed the second the missile breaks the water. Honestly the risk of a surface unit being in range to intercept (other then by blind luck), is really only an issue as you get close to the target of the strike. Where air cover, ground based defenses, etc are all in place already.

You already have considerably less than 100% accuracy being around the corner. Imagine if the Soviets had something like an hour to make sure that figure is zero.

The accuracy of the attack has nothing to do with range. You actually want the missile to have a couple of land legs to get the navigation straightened out and the most accurate. At the time frame of CW the navigation would have been done most likely with terrain matching (I don't believe the GPS guidance would have been in place yet), and water makes for a poor piece of terrain to compare against. So unless the soviets can radically reshape the landscape (which theoretically you could do with atomic munitions for an important enough target), they can't do anything to decrease missile accuracy. The worst quoted CEP I can find for the TLAM is 80m for the TLAM-N (nuclear), and on average the block II models are listed as having a CEP of 10m.

I'm not crazy about the TLAM mission currently, but if it was base on simply firing off the TLAM's and getting out alive I'd be okay with it. Having the success or failure of the strike be on the player though (since we can't set ingress routes, pick target points, etc) I think is a little punishing.

-Jenrick

[ollie1983]

Operationally a TLAM strike would be near impossible to meaningfully intercept. With that effective range, their speed, small physical size and contour following guidance, they would be near impossible to stop without airborne interceptors being placed at the right time to find and hit them. It would still be no small feat to hit a missile tracking the ground at low altitude using air to air missiles given the effect of ground clutter on radar.

Even SAM and AAA on the ground at the intended target would have seconds to make a shot. CIWS on the seas is one thing, but on land it is a another matter entirely.

[Shadow]

The crux of the matter is that it's either this or no mission at all, because moving to a viable launch position on the strategic map and clicking on a button is not a challenge at all. Especially considering the long range TLAMs have, it'd be far too easy (and unpredictable for the enemy) to find a suitable spot with no threats within dozens of nautical miles and launch entirely safely.

The interception argument came from me thinking in CMANO terms, really, given there cruise missiles are detected with some anticipation and SAM batteries usually have time to fire off several shots, making stand-off attacks feasible only in significant volumes, which the average attack sub can't put out fast enough.

[jenrick]

The crux of the matter is that it's either this or no mission at all, because moving to a viable launch position on the strategic map and clicking on a button is not a challenge at all.

I have no issue with having to launch and get the TLAM's to the circle on the map and then survive exfiltrating as a game-play mechanic. It's giving the player a mission failure for literally something outside of their control (TLAM on target performance) that I have a problem with. I'd think something along the lines of getting to a certain area on the map, selecting fire from the status menu, and then having a bunch of hunter-killer groups converge on you in the strategic map would be a good option as well. Each their own though.

Also in CMANO it's usually the result of firing them into/through a very high density air-defense environment with no attempt at using terrain. It took me a while to get into the habit of actually planning the route, using terrain masking, etc. Once I did that, they became MUCH more effective for me.

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by ollie1983

Operationally a TLAM strike would be near impossible to meaningfully intercept. With that effective range, their speed, small physical size and contour following guidance, they would be near impossible to stop without airborne interceptors being placed at the right time to find and hit them. It would still be no small feat to hit a missile tracking the ground at low altitude using air to air missiles given the effect of ground clutter on radar.

Even SAM and AAA on the ground at the intended target would have seconds to make a shot. CIWS on the seas is one thing, but on land it is a another matter entirely.

On the other hand, if you launch your missiles from a long distance they can be picked up early by radar (especially if they're flying in a group) and the enemy will have sufficient time to scramble some jets. And I'd assume that for a flight of fighters shooting down 10 missiles is a matter of minutes, considering they fly in a straight line and relatively slow (to a supersonic fighter jet). If I were a pilot I'd even forget the missiles (TLAMS might be too small for them to intercept) and just deal with them using guns.

But if you fire them at closer range even if they are picked up by radar there's not enough time to intercept them.

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

On the other hand, if you launch your missiles from a long distance they can be picked up early by radar (especially if they're flying in a group) and the enemy will have sufficient time to scramble some jets. And I'd assume that for a flight of fighters shooting down 10 missiles is a matter of minutes, considering they fly in a straight line and relatively slow (to a supersonic fighter jet). If I were a pilot I'd even forget the missiles (TLAMS might be too small for them to intercept) and just deal with them using guns.

But if you fire them at closer range even if they are picked up by radar there's not enough time to intercept them.

Actually, you would want to launch them as far away as possible. It's not easy to shoot down a TLAM, Unless it was detected at launch and engaged right away. they will be below the radar horizon (about 28 miles given a flight altitude of 100ft and a radar height of 100ft) of any surface radar in 3 minutes and with their ability to have programmed course changes. you wouldn't even have an idea where they are headed. Even fighters with look down/shoot down radar or a Mainstay will have problem picking them up given their size and ground clutter until they are very close.

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Wiz33

Actually, you would want to launch them as far away as possible. It's not easy to shoot down a TLAM, Unless it was detected at launch and engaged right away. they will be below the radar horizon (about 28 miles given a flight altitude of 100ft and a radar height of 100ft) of any surface radar in 3 minutes and with their ability to have programmed course changes. you wouldn't even have an idea where they are headed. Even fighters with look down/shoot down radar or a Mainstay will have problem picking them up given their size and ground clutter until they are very close.

You may be right. It just seems logical to me that the longer a missile is in flight the greater the chance that it will be discovered and the more time the enemy has to prepare before it reaches its target.