TEST: Review the stats of this test

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/11/2015 6:13:21 PM

BillSirKill

Posts: 71
Joined: 7/16/2013
Status: offline

I am attempting to learn Different strategies for ASuW warfare. I chose the F-15E Strike Eagle (1995) to attack the RKR Admiral Lazarev 1992-1994 TYPE: BCGN - Nuclear Powered Guided Missile Battle Cruiser. My ingress starts at ~68NM with 24 F-15E Strike Eagle LOADOUT: GBU-24A/B Paveway III LGB [BLU-109/B]

The test was conducted multiple times at different altitudes and speeds. I then exceled the averges for each strike parameter: 1.) Alt 36,000/Spd: 480kt No Sensors 2.) Alt 36,000/SPD 520kt Full Sensors 3.) Alt 2,000/Spd 520kt No Sensors 4.) Alt 2,000/Spd 520kt Full Sensors

The spreadsheet also has the Expenditures of both Russian and USA sides. In all cases the RKR Admiral Lazarev was sunk.

Results Summary: @ 36,000/regardless of sensors or speed >10 Eagles lost; @2,000/Full Sensors 16 Eagles lost; However @ 2,000/NO SENSORS only 2 Eagles lost multiple replays.

Is 2,000ft the suggested ingress altitude for this load out?

What loadout would you suggest for an all Airframe ASuW attack (1990 - 1995)?

Are 6 flights of 4 airframes realistic in a modern day attack?

Is this consistent with RW projections?

Thanks for you input... Bill

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/11/2015 7:16:05 PM

magi

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

This is really interesting� I will remember and use this information� Obviously lower altitude and not admitting it is certainly the way to go� Because losing 10 or more aircraft on one target certainly seems an unacceptable Rate of attrition� to me�

(in reply to BillSirKill)

Post #: 2

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/11/2015 7:22:27 PM

magi

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

This is interesting� And gives me pause for thought in and quite a few questions� To drop the paveway I I I on target at 2000 feet... They would have to be right on top of the target..... And it's surprising that only two aircraft were shot down in the most successful of the flight profiles� Because I believe if you had 20 incoming antiship missiles� They would prosecute with success far more than two of them with that defending platform�
I wonder if success of the aircraft is due to countermeasures and or maneuverability� The other would be the possibility that one or two paveways strike the target it would be effectively useless� To defend itself any further�

I am playing a difficult scenario at this time� And I think I will test your data out here little bit.....

< Message edited by magi -- 4/11/2015 8:26:15 PM >

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 3

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/11/2015 7:23:52 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Was there any profile on the ingress and what was the egress? I would think in RL, staying at the exact same altitude with sensors on would be suicide.

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 4

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/11/2015 7:36:45 PM

BillSirKill

Posts: 71
Joined: 7/16/2013
Status: offline

Was there any profile on the ingress and what was the egress? I would think in RL, staying at the exact same altitude with sensors on would be suicide.

No, the ingress was steady as stated.. there was no egress planned.. it was straight up in and out.. that would be a very good variable to test.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 5

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/11/2015 7:40:11 PM

BillSirKill

Posts: 71
Joined: 7/16/2013
Status: offline

And it's surprising that only two aircraft were shot down

I was amazed and wondered the same thought.. one of the reasons I posted.. was to see if anyone had ideas?

(in reply to BillSirKill)

Post #: 6

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/11/2015 7:43:00 PM

BillSirKill

Posts: 71
Joined: 7/16/2013
Status: offline

One further question: What would be a good mix of airframes and loadout to attack a BCGN or a CG - in this era?

(in reply to BillSirKill)

Post #: 7

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/11/2015 7:51:29 PM

Coiler12

Posts: 1203
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

Try it with the Lazarev's doctrine set to "Weapons Free". What could be happening without it is:
-With no sensors, it isn't sure of what the bogey is (and with AI, no manual designation), so it holds on firing until it's too late.
-With sensors, it uses its ESM to determine that they're hostile F-15Es, and thus can fire earlier.

< Message edited by Coiler12 -- 4/11/2015 8:52:02 PM >

(in reply to BillSirKill)

Post #: 8

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/11/2015 7:54:31 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

That is something I forget about in scenario design all the time. The AI doesn't have the instincts and context a human player has.

(in reply to Coiler12)

Post #: 9

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/11/2015 8:39:32 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

In a combat (or even crisis) situation, the Lazarev would have a declared self-defence perimeter inside which anything detected would be open season. You can model this by assigning a forbidden zone around the ship (with refpoints anchored to the ship so they move with it) and set it so that violators are marked hostile.

(Or alternatively you can set the "Engage non-hostiles" doctrine option to Enabled)

Doctrine and RoE can have a much, much bigger effect on an engagement than simply weapon and sensor stats.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 10

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/12/2015 1:31:58 PM

BillSirKill

Posts: 71
Joined: 7/16/2013
Status: offline

quote:

assigning a forbidden zone around the ship (with refpoints anchored to the ship so they move with it)

Great idea... Jeez.. there are so many variables in this sim that you could spend weeks on each scenario assigning subtle changes creating major differing outcomes.

Let's say I take the stock ship/CVN.. is there or will there be a DB for player created ships with alternate (weapons and airframes? I would like to swap out different ships and run the same scenarios (esp with CVN's)

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 11

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/12/2015 6:25:32 PM

hellfish6

Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

Interesting, but not really surprising. Low and fast has traditionally been pretty successful - that's why a lot of anti-ship missiles fly low and fast. Some questions/comments:

1. Was the Lazarev operating in EMCON mode - in other words, were its radars off?

2. Were LGBs the only viable ordnance loadout for the specific F-15Es? Those wouldn't be my first choice to go after a Kirov-class.

3. I'd be interested to know what the ranges the Lazarev detected the aircraft were at the various flight profiles, and at what ranges she engaged.

_____________________________

(in reply to BillSirKill)

Post #: 12

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/12/2015 6:55:01 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Sunburn
In a combat (or even crisis) situation, the Lazarev would have a declared self-defence perimeter inside which anything detected would be open season. You can model this by assigning a forbidden zone around the ship (with refpoints anchored to the ship so they move with it) and set it so that violators are marked hostile.

(Or alternatively you can set the "Engage non-hostiles" doctrine option to Enabled)

Doctrine and RoE can have a much, much bigger effect on an engagement than simply weapon and sensor stats.

This.

M

_____________________________

(in reply to hellfish6)

Post #: 13

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/12/2015 10:42:43 PM

BillSirKill

Posts: 71
Joined: 7/16/2013
Status: offline

quote:

1. Was the Lazarev operating in EMCON mode - in other words, were its radars off?

2. Were LGBs the only viable ordnance loadout for the specific F-15Es? Those wouldn't be my first choice to go after a Kirov-class.

3. I'd be interested to know what the ranges the Lazarev detected the aircraft were at the various flight profiles, and at what ranges she engaged.

1. Tried Both ways... no noticeable change in ordance expenditures or USA loses
2. LGB's were the only ordinance
3. F-15's engaged by the Lazarev at ~6-8NM.

< Message edited by BillSirKill -- 4/12/2015 11:43:56 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 14

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/12/2015 11:21:15 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

But did you change the ship's ROE or allow it to decalre the F-15s hostile?

(in reply to BillSirKill)

Post #: 15

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/12/2015 11:47:47 PM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillSirKill
1. Tried Both ways... no noticeable change in ordance expenditures or USA loses
2. LGB's were the only ordinance
3. F-15's engaged by the Lazarev at ~6-8NM.

I'm not sure why the Kirov didn't shoot earlier if it's radars were on. In the tests I ran if it's radars were on the Kirov would classify much further out (well beyond the exclusion zone).

As for ordinance, in real life they'd probably have used AGM-130's, if they had put the Strike Eagles on ASuW work.

(in reply to BillSirKill)

Post #: 16

RE: TEST: Review the stats of this test - Remarks? - 4/14/2015 1:16:50 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

24 Eagles at 36,000 with Paveway III vs. 91 Kirov

quote:

SIDE: Blue
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x RKR Kirov [Pr.1144 Orlan]

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
26x AK-630M 30mm/65 Gatling Burst [400 rnds]
6x PK-2 Chaff [TSP-47]
20x SA-N-4b Gecko [9M33M3]
96x SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM]

SIDE: Red
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
16x F-15E Strike Eagle

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
12x GBU-24A/B Paveway III LGB [BLU-109/B]
7x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]

Set postures to hostile
Added Kirov to patrol mission with sensors active and ROE set to engage all aircraft but friendy.

15 Eagles went down to Grumbles.
1 Fell to a Gecko

Remaining bombs struck kirov.

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 4/14/2015 2:19:52 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 17