air attack on US SAG

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

air attack on US SAG

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition >> air attack on US SAG

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

air attack on US SAG - 2/13/2009 5:19:31 AM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

"What exact combination of anti-ship missiles, ARMs, jamming, and/or decoys is needed to defeat a modern day Aegis protected naval group?"

That is the question.

So let us start this discussion. I will be requesting feedback at various points during the process.

There are several implied assumptions in this question. The first one is that we are dealing with a US surface action group. The second one is that the attacking force is Soviet airplanes (possibly Oscars or a Soviet SAG, less likely but still possible, Charlies). Why? Who else has Aegis but the US? Who else would attack the US but the Soviets?

BTW, if anything I say here is wrong or somehow objectionable, just say so. Then we will go back and fix the problem and resume the discussion from that point.

We can also rule out a US CVBG. Why? Because then the main issue is about wading through all those Tomcats, which is a whole other discussion in itself.

At this point we need to make some general comments about the nature of a Soviet attack against a US SAG. Its characteristics will tend to be very different than those of a NATO attack against a Soviet SAG. NATO will always have excellent detection over the whole battlefield. The Soviets will generally not have this, and in many cases, their airplanes are operating blind. NATO will generally have air superiority, which means that its aircraft can operate in the region with impunity, while Soviet aircraft cannot be there. So the US SAG will need to be far from friendly air support for this discussion to proceed. NATO aircraft need to approach within 100 nm of the target (or much less), and they will have a wide variety of weapons available. The Soviet aircraft will most likely be launching only Kitchen and Kingfish missiles from over 250 nm away.

That is about all I want to say about this so far. Do people agree with the this so far? I have to point out that if this is the case, then the most likely result will be that the Soviets will just need to bring a whole bunch of missiles (approximately twice as many as the US SAMs), because there really won't be any opportunities for anything else.

< Message edited by VictorInThePacific -- 2/19/2009 5:57:15 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/13/2009 3:02:43 PM

CV32

Posts: 1046
Joined: 5/15/2006
From: The Rock, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific
There are several implied assumptions in this question. The first one is that we are dealing with a US surface action group. ...
We can also rule out a US CVBG. Why? Because then the main issue is about wading through all those Tomcats, which is a whole other discussion in itself.

I can appreciate why you want to avoid involving the carrier air wing, since this question is about tactics to tackle the US Navy Aegis system (invariably fitted to cruisers and destroyers).

However, I think it would be best if you still approached the problem as if it were a carrier strike group (CSG), since this is the typical asset that Aegis will be seeking to protect, and you get the right combination of cruisers and destroyers. You can assume, perhaps, that the air wing is absent. If you like, I can post an example group?

quote:

The second one is that the attacking force is Soviet airplanes (possibly Oscars or a Soviet SAG, less likely but still possible, Charlies). Why? Who else has Aegis but the US? Who else would attack the US but the Soviets?

Well, several navies now have Aegis, but I'd like to the example of a US Navy Aegis group (since this is probably the most powerful combination). However, the Soviet example has been studied to death over the years, and I (for one), would like to see a new opponent in the analysis. China would a great choice.

_____________________________

Brad Leyte
HC3 development group member for HCE
Author of HCDB official database for HCE
Harpgamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to VictorInThePacific)

Post #: 2

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/13/2009 10:34:17 PM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV32

You can assume, perhaps, that the air wing is absent.

gasp ... treason ! ... put someone against the wall !

quote:

and I (for one), would like to see a new opponent in the analysis. China would a great choice.

Oh, that makes it easy. Just use Songs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 3

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/13/2009 10:38:52 PM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

If you like, I can post an example group?

(My serious reply to Brad's post.)

Yes, this would be helpful. Where I am headed for, several steps into the future of this discussion, is to have a particular target group (including a specific formation) and a particular attacking force, with probably a specific geographical location of all the units as well.

This scenario may be considered to be a representative one or not.

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 4

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/13/2009 11:53:26 PM

CV32

Posts: 1046
Joined: 5/15/2006
From: The Rock, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific

quote:

If you like, I can post an example group?

Yes, this would be helpful. Where I am headed for, several steps into the future of this discussion, is to have a particular target group (including a specific formation) and a particular attacking force, with probably a specific geographical location of all the units as well. This scenario may be considered to be a representative one or not.

Okay, let me suggest Carrier Strike Group Seven (CSG-7), including DESRON-7, and comprising:

Nimitz class carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)
Ticonderoga (Bunker Hill) class Aegis cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 62)
Arleigh Burke Flight II class Aegis destroyer USS Decatur (DDG 73)
Arleigh Burke Flight IIA class Aegis destroyer USS Howard (DDG 83)
Arleigh Burke Flight IIA class Aegis destroyer USS Gridley (DDG 101)
Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigate USS Thach (FFG 43)
Supply class fast combat support ship USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10)

Let me suggest, as well, that the geographic location is the Western Pacific, and more particularly, let's say the East China Sea, so that Chinese land based air can actually reach the carrier group.

_____________________________

Brad Leyte
HC3 development group member for HCE
Author of HCDB official database for HCE
Harpgamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to VictorInThePacific)

Post #: 5

Harpoon Classic Scenarios - 2/14/2009 12:18:30 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

Will the PRC be able to employ the Anti-Carrier Ballistic Missile as part of the equation?

_____________________________

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 6

RE: Harpoon Classic Scenarios - 2/14/2009 2:56:57 AM

Warhorse64

Posts: 154
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline

Ya know, this raises a rather interesting question that I've wondered about from time to time ... I understand that once upon a time, the Luftwaffe lost a couple of Tornados when they flew too close to a commercial FM broadcast tower, and the radiated energy zorched their onboard electronics. AFAIK, commercial FM stations don't usually run more than about 100 kilowatts, omnidirectional. Supposedly, the SPY-1 radar on a Tico can pump out six *megawatts* down a one degree cone. Which leads to the question: to what degree is the Aegis RADAR system a weapon?

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 7

RE: Harpoon Classic Scenarios - 2/14/2009 4:00:09 PM

TonyE

Posts: 1551
Joined: 5/23/2006
From: MN, USA
Status: offline

VitP, I suggest you make use of the 'bump' post when looking for feedback. i.e. you change your initial post then reply to your own thread with a post says something along the lines of, "bump for edit of weapon type selection", otherwise we don't know that you've edited your original post.

_____________________________

Sincerely,
Tony Eischens
Harpoon (HC, HCE, HUCE, Classic) programmer
HarpGamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to Warhorse64)

Post #: 8

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/16/2009 3:50:20 AM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

Okay, let me suggest Carrier Strike Group Seven (CSG-7), including DESRON-7, and comprising:

Nimitz class carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)
Ticonderoga (Bunker Hill) class Aegis cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 62)
Arleigh Burke Flight II class Aegis destroyer USS Decatur (DDG 73)
Arleigh Burke Flight IIA class Aegis destroyer USS Howard (DDG 83)
Arleigh Burke Flight IIA class Aegis destroyer USS Gridley (DDG 101)
Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigate USS Thach (FFG 43)
Supply class fast combat support ship USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10)

Let me suggest, as well, that the geographic location is the Western Pacific, and more particularly, let's say the East China Sea, so that Chinese land based air can actually reach the carrier group.

Hearing no objections, this will be the target group and the location.

I do have a couple of comments regarding group composition.

1) As I have indicated above, I do not think that a US CVBG being anywhere without its fighters is a realistic possibility, especially when there is any chance that the group will be attacked. As I understand it, the fighters are in fact the main defense of the group against attack, for the obvious reason of shooting down attacking airplanes before they can launch weapons, but perhaps more importantly, for the reason of shooting down enemy recon planes before they can even detect the ships.

2) I expect that there would always be at least one first-line sub attached to such a group. However, for present purposes, that is not relevant, except as noted below.

The next thing we will need is a specific formation for the group.

Some comments about the formation:

1) When I set a formation, I generally pack the ships as close together as possible, just out of nuke range. (Maybe someday I will make a post about a totally evil nuclear attack tactic if the ships are too close together.)

2) Since most of the ships appear to carry the same primary air-defense weapon, there will be little opportunity to exploit any weaknesses in the formation, but I will certainly be looking!

Attacking force:

I am not really familiar with Chinese airplanes, but I have started to look at what's in the database. They appear to be quite similar to older Russian airplanes. It looks like the main asset will be the Badger. We will need to decide exactly which airplanes and weapons will be available.

Detection:

How have the US ships been detected? Is there a recon aircraft close by? (One that hasn't been shot down before the fighters decided to fly away, that is.) Is there a sub close by? (Maybe one of those undetectable Songs, or maybe the US submariners are all asleep at the sonar.) These are important questions, but I am going to ignore them. I am going to assume that the exact location and class of all the US ships is known.

Electronics:

As I understand it, ECM has 2 main function.

1) To decrease the effective range of enemy radars. I will ignore this effect.

2) To decrease the hit probability of incoming weapons. Somebody will need to provide this data; otherwise the calculation will be only approximately correct.

If there are any false or objectionable statements in the above, please correct them. Otherwise, we will move to the next step, which will be discussion of the defensive weapons. After that, there will be a discussion of the attacking force and weapons. Then we will move to the main calculation.

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 9

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/16/2009 1:31:45 PM

CV32

Posts: 1046
Joined: 5/15/2006
From: The Rock, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific
I do have a couple of comments regarding group composition.

1) As I have indicated above, I do not think that a US CVBG being anywhere without its fighters is a realistic possibility, especially when there is any chance that the group will be attacked. As I understand it, the fighters are in fact the main defense of the group against attack, for the obvious reason of shooting down attacking airplanes before they can launch weapons, but perhaps more importantly, for the reason of shooting down enemy recon planes before they can even detect the ships.

Yes, that's true, but this is a very focused analysis. We're only interested in how to defeat Aegis, and this group composition represents the pinnacle of Aegis. If you want to tackle how to defeat the carrier strike group, including the air wing, Aegis will become just one component of that analysis. And it gets a whole lot more complicated. But you're the guy with the calculator, so whatever you like.

quote:

2) I expect that there would always be at least one first-line sub attached to such a group. However, for present purposes, that is not relevant, except as noted below.

Yeah, there would ordinarily be a submarine (or two). But, as you hint, not really relevant. Its neither a target nor a shooter in the sense of an Aegis engagement.

quote:

The next thing we will need is a specific formation for the group.

The size and layout of the formation is dictated by the mission, the ocean environment, the threat, etc., but here it is a a factor that can be played with to help determine the most (or least) effective defense.

quote:

2) Since most of the ships appear to carry the same primary air-defense weapon, there will be little opportunity to exploit any weaknesses in the formation, but I will certainly be looking!

I expect no less.

quote:

Attacking force: I am not really familiar with Chinese airplanes, but I have started to look at what's in the database. They appear to be quite similar to older Russian airplanes. It looks like the main asset will be the Badger. We will need to decide exactly which airplanes and weapons will be available.

There's plenty of information available in open sources on the Web. I suggest, for example, a look at sinodefence.com

quote:

I am going to assume that the exact location and class of all the US ships is known.

I think thats a sensible assumption for the purposes of this exercise.

quote:

Electronic [warfare]
2) To decrease the hit probability of incoming weapons. Somebody will need to provide this data; otherwise the calculation will be only approximately correct.

This will always be an approximation, since we are dealing with open source values and guesstimates as to the effectiveness of both attacking weapons under ECM attack and the effectiveness of defensive ECM at diverting/seducing/confusing those weapons.

< Message edited by CV32 -- 2/16/2009 1:32:25 PM >

_____________________________

Brad Leyte
HC3 development group member for HCE
Author of HCDB official database for HCE
Harpgamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to VictorInThePacific)

Post #: 10

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/17/2009 2:41:09 AM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

Nimitz class carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)
Ticonderoga (Bunker Hill) class Aegis cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 62)
Arleigh Burke Flight II class Aegis destroyer USS Decatur (DDG 73)
Arleigh Burke Flight IIA class Aegis destroyer USS Howard (DDG 83)
Arleigh Burke Flight IIA class Aegis destroyer USS Gridley (DDG 101)
Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigate USS Thach (FFG 43)
Supply class fast combat support ship USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10)

Seeing no suggestions for a formation, I will start with the VitP special:

1) All ships packed as closely as possible, just outside of nuke range.
2) High symmetry. God demands it.
3) All ships in the first two zones. I want the ship movement to be identical to the group movement.

I won't provide a picture for this at this point in time. There are only 7 ships.

Main body: CG, CV, AO in line astern.
AA ring: 3 x DD
FF in front

With these ships, the formation winds up looking like a cross: FF, CG, CV, AO, DD in line astern with 5 nm separation. At right angles to the main line, to left and right of the CG and at 5 nm separation, are one DD each.

formation modified - see below

Threat axes: For air attacks, this is a moot point. The formation must be considered static, and the airplanes can and will attack from any direction. For surface actions, the enemy ships will generally approach from the front, and you should always have enough time to rearrange the formation if necessary. For submarine attacks, I would expect the subs to approach from the front as well. I am thinking of putting together a new thread on this subject.

This formation is strongest against air attack, and it is one of the strongest formations against air attack. The interlocking fields of fire mean that each ship can be defended by almost every other ship. There aren't enough ships to provide perfectly symmetric defense, so I have decided to put the main strength up front. If you don't like the weaker rear aspect, the flank destroyers could be moved back slightly.

The formation is not intended to be used in a surface action, but it is one of the strongest for surface actions, with almost all of the most powerful ships up front, where the main action is expected.

The formation is weakest against submarines. On the one hand, The close packing of the ships means that they may interfere with each other's sonar. On the other hand, all the ships will always be moving relatively fast, which degrades their sonar. However, the best ASW ships are screening the weakest ones in all directions, and the best strength is up front, from where any sub attack is expected. And bear in mind, we do have at least one first-line sub attached to the formation, which is not being considered here.

This formation is very flexible. This statement is irrelevant and false against air attack. No ship formation can maneuver against air attack. However, the formation can easily maneuver against surface attack, although that probably won't be needed because it's already very good against surface attack. The main point is that the best ASW ships can easily be detached for independent operations against subs. In particular, some of them, especially the FF, could be sent further away to do the sprint/drift thing.

One weakness of a tightly-packed formation, against any type of attack, is that if the attack is by seeking weapons against poorly detected targets, when the weapon activates its own tracking mechanism, it can't fail to find a target.

< Message edited by VictorInThePacific -- 2/19/2009 5:51:55 AM >

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 11

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/17/2009 2:53:45 AM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

On Aegis:

I do not know how Aegis is modeled in HCE. As far as I know, all that it does is increase the fire rate of the ships. If there is something else operating in the background, someone will have to tell me about it.

On SAM rate of fire:

In the weapons section of the unit reports, each weapon is given a target tracking number. I believe that this tells you how many shots can be fired per weapon cycle time, which I believe is 15 s. However, I have seen a number of anomalies, which might be bugs, or my understanding of rate of fire might be wrong.

I will be treating these statements as true until someone refutes them.

On air support:

I am assuming that the US has AWACS available. This would have been used to wipe out the enemy aircraft. It would be used to provide intelligence for possible surface engagements. It will still be used to determine when the ships turn their radars on.

For purposes of this scenario, the US radars will be assumed to be on. We don't care about any information about the attacking airplanes, because there's nothing we can do about it. However, I am assuming that any incoming missiles will be detected early enough that all defense systems will shoot as soon as possible, limited only by weapons range and horizon effects.

< Message edited by VictorInThePacific -- 2/17/2009 3:01:00 AM >

(in reply to VictorInThePacific)

Post #: 12

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/17/2009 6:10:44 AM

FransKoenz

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/3/2005
Status: offline

Nice analyses.......

With 1 Tico and 3 Burkes, this formation is a massive weapon against [almost] all threats....
Still, your formation is no party against 1 single submarine. These weapons may collide with each other accidently, but, even a diesel can turn your day into a nightmare. Not to mention the ASM that slips throught your defence lines.

Just hypothetical.... what if you do not have a aircraft carrier? Then you have no AWACS right away. You must rely on the land based EW/EAW.

When a Russian Kirov class and a Oscar class launch their SS-N-19 and these missiles arrive at the same time, you are in deep trouble. But, that's of course all hypothetical. Only 1 Shipwreck kills a Tico and 3 of them are enough to kill your 5,000-people home base.
What about a second attack? Once your CG and DDG's are out of ammo, they only have a 76mm gun and their CIWS........

A clue? Yes. Massive ASW-ops and stay away from enemy surface formations.
But, again. These are all hypothetical issues.

I wouyld love to meet you in a MP-game to prove that you might be wrong. I say MIGHT, because your formation, with 1 Tico and 3 Burkes, is something to count with.

Greetz,
Snarf.

_____________________________

(in reply to VictorInThePacific)

Post #: 13

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/17/2009 3:51:43 PM

CV32

Posts: 1046
Joined: 5/15/2006
From: The Rock, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific
On Aegis:
I do not know how Aegis is modeled in HCE. As far as I know, all that it does is increase the fire rate of the ships. If there is something else operating in the background, someone will have to tell me about it.

Actually the advantage of Aegis is its ability to effectively control and coordinate the air defense of the entire group. (Something not terribly well modeled by Harpoon). Throw CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) into the mix, and you get the ability for even better coordination of sensor information and engagements, even over the horizon. HCE does a better job of modeling this aspect (rather accidentally).

Firing rate of the SAMs, meanwhile, is a function of the missile, the launcher, and the directors.

quote:

On air support:
I am assuming that the US has AWACS available. This would have been used to wipe out the enemy aircraft. It would be used to provide intelligence for possible surface engagements. It will still be used to determine when the ships turn their radars on.

I guess for the purposes of this analysis, it would perhaps make sense to have the E-2 Hawkeye AEW&C available to the CSG. (Enables better CEC function too).

quote:

For purposes of this scenario, the US radars will be assumed to be on.

I'm sensing a bit of a disconnect here with what you said above about the AEW&C aircraft determining when to energize the ships' radars. I'd say leave all the radars on, including the ships and the Hawkeye, so that both attackers and defenders have the most complete picture possible of what is happening. (Removes a few more variables that way).

_____________________________

Brad Leyte
HC3 development group member for HCE
Author of HCDB official database for HCE
Harpgamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to VictorInThePacific)

Post #: 14

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/18/2009 12:25:21 AM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

With 1 Tico and 3 Burkes, this formation is a massive weapon against [almost] all threats....
Still, your formation is no party against 1 single submarine. These weapons may collide with each other accidently, but, even a diesel can turn your day into a nightmare. Not to mention the ASM that slips throught your defence lines.

For purposes of this thread, torpedo attacks by submarines are not being considered. Dealing with this threat will involve modifying the formation and replacing assets that have been deleted.

Line 1 of the thread:

"What exact combination of anti-ship missiles, ARMs, jamming, and/or decoys is needed to defeat a modern day Aegis protected naval group?"

quote:

Just hypothetical.... what if you do not have a aircraft carrier? Then you have no AWACS right away. You must rely on the land based EW/EAW.

Actually, this has been bothering me. Although there is an aircraft carrier in the middle of this formation, it is more proper to think of the US force as a surface action group that just happens to contain a large target that behaves in some ways like a CV, rather than a CVBG that is missing all its airplanes.

Some further comments about AWACS. As I recall, the Hawkeye is considerably less capable that the Sentry, both in terms of radar range and cruise time. Not that it would be an issue in real life, but in the game, I am somewhat irritated by the fact that I have to keep sending up a bunch of Hawkeyes to do the job of one Sentry, so wherever possible, I like to make sure that I have a Sentry nearby, after which I can generally forget about it.

But for purposes of this scenario, all I'm using the AWACS for is to make sure that the US group will not be surprised by an enemy surface group or by incoming missiles. Based on the stated location, a Sentry could be flying from Japan. Or we could just include the 2 criteria in this paragraph as part of the scenario definition, and let it go at that.

quote:

When a Russian Kirov class and a Oscar class launch their SS-N-19 and these missiles arrive at the same time, you are in deep trouble. But, that's of course all hypothetical. Only 1 Shipwreck kills a Tico and 3 of them are enough to kill your 5,000-people home base.

What about a second attack? Once your CG and DDG's are out of ammo, they only have a 76mm gun and their CIWS........

Zeroth-order approximation to the answer to the problem:

(Working just from memory right now)

The US group carries about 240 Standard missiles. They hit about 75% of the time. So they will wipe out approximately 180 incoming missiles. Due to the closely spaced formation, all of the SAMs will be available against any attack. I will assume that the guns on each ship will kill one missile, that each ship will be missed once, and that the first hit will sink each ship. So the divide occurs at about 200 incoming missiles: less will have no effect, more will wipe out the fleet.

Adding rate of fire to the calculation:

The fleet can pump out 30 missiles per cycle time. In 2 cycles, that's 60 missiles and 45 kills.

Between them, a Kirov and and Oscar can launch less than 40 missiles. So you can see that the US fleet will simply swat that attack aside without breaking a sweat. Actually, they could swat 3 such attacks aside without breaking a sweat. After that, they will be sweating buckets.

The figure of 200 applies to a piecemeal attack. Of course, we would like to reduce the number of attacking missiles required. Due to the nature of the formation and the SAMs in play, I see no realistic option to do this by maneuver or choice of attacking missiles. As stated above, the formation is weakest from the rear (or wherever the CG is NOT). There is no way around this problem, as there is only one CG. So the attack will come in from that direction. Now, even though these are Aegis- and VLS-equipped ships, it may be possible to saturate the defenses, but that will have to wait for a more detailed calculation.

One more definition: nukes are not available. The formation has been set up so that a nuke is going to do no more than a regular missile, which is sink one ship. (Actually, nukes essentially don't miss, so the first hit will be a kill, not the second. That means you need a few less missiles.)

quote:

A clue? Yes. Massive ASW-ops and stay away from enemy surface formations.
But, again. These are all hypothetical issues.

Enemy surface formations are not being considered in this problem. To be precise, gun actions will not happen. We will allow for incoming missiles from surface or subsurface platforms, but those missiles will be considered equivalent to those launched from airplanes.

quote:

I would love to meet you in a MP-game to prove that you might be wrong. I say MIGHT, because your formation, with 1 Tico and 3 Burkes, is something to count with.

Well, it probably won't be me, because my software, hardware, and other resources do not permit it at this time. But all the details of the calculation will be out in the public, so anyone can find any mistakes. And people are welcome to try the thing out in practice and let the rest of us know if the calculation works. I may set up a test scenario, but that will be far in the future.

The next step will be an analysis of the specific defensive weapons systems. If things work out, this will take about 1 day.

< Message edited by VictorInThePacific -- 2/18/2009 1:21:15 AM >

(in reply to FransKoenz)

Post #: 15

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/18/2009 1:40:59 AM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific

I do not know how Aegis is modeled in HCE. As far as I know, all that it does is increase the fire rate of the ships. If there is something else operating in the background, someone will have to tell me about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV32

Actually the advantage of Aegis is its ability to effectively control and coordinate the air defense of the entire group. (Something not terribly well modeled by Harpoon). Throw CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) into the mix, and you get the ability for even better coordination of sensor information and engagements, even over the horizon. HCE does a better job of modeling this aspect (rather accidentally).

What I meant by my earlier comment is that I have not observed any difference in the game between ships that have Aegis and those that don't, except that ships with Aegis tend to have a larger number of directors (eg. 6 for the Arleigh Burkes), and they appear to be able to launch more SAMs in a given time interval.

quote:

Firing rate of the SAMs, meanwhile, is a function of the missile, the launcher, and the directors.

How do I use the information available in the game (number of directors) to get the information I need (rate of fire)?

quote:

I guess for the purposes of this analysis, it would perhaps make sense to have the E-2 Hawkeye AEW&C available to the CSG. (Enables better CEC function too).

Does the presence or absence of this unit have an observable effect on how Harpoon responds to incoming missiles?

quote:

I'd say leave all the radars on, including the ships and the Hawkeye, so that both attackers and defenders have the most complete picture possible of what is happening. (Removes a few more variables that way).

I agree.

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 16

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/18/2009 6:36:53 PM

CV32

Posts: 1046
Joined: 5/15/2006
From: The Rock, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific
What I meant by my earlier comment is that I have not observed any difference in the game between ships that have Aegis and those that don't, except that ships with Aegis tend to have a larger number of directors (eg. 6 for the Arleigh Burkes), and they appear to be able to launch more SAMs in a given time interval ... How do I use the information available in the game (number of directors) to get the information I need (rate of fire)?

Harpoon4 assigns a ROF of 20x SM-2 for the Aegis cruisers and destroyers. (The later mods of Aegis probably have the capability to control 24x SM-2 at a time, related to datalink channels, but here we use 20). The Bunker Hill class cruiser Chancellorsville has 4x SPG-62 directors and the Burkes have three (not six, btw).

quote:

Does the presence or absence of this unit [the E-2C Hawkeye) have an observable effect on how Harpoon responds to incoming missiles?

Yes, because it will detect approaching missiles sooner than if you relied only on shipborne radars.

More information on missile loadouts for the ships of the formation:

Reagan
2x 8 cell Mk 29 GMLS (RIM-162A ESSM)
2x 21 cell Mk 49 RAM (RIM-116B)

Chancellorsville
SPY-1B radar w/4x SPG-62 directors
2x 61 cell VLS, SAM loadout: 82x SM-2MR Block IIIB, 24x RIM-162A ESSM
2x 127mm/54 Mk 45 Mod 1 gun
2x Phalanx Block I CIWS

Decatur
SPY-1D radar w/3x SPG-62 directors
1x 29 cell VLS, 1x 61 cell VLS, SAM loadout: 62x SM-2MR Block III
1x 127mm/54 Mk 45 Mod 1 gun
2x Phalanx Block IA CIWS

Howard
SPY-1D radar w/3x SPG-62 directors
1x 64 cell VLS, 1x 32 cell VLS, SAM loadout: 68x SM-2MR Block IV
1x 127mm/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 gun
2x Phalanx Block 1B CIWS

Gridley
SPY-1D radar w/3x SPG-62 directors
1x 64 cell VLS, 1x 32 cell VLS, SAM loadout: 62x SM-2MR Block IV, 24x RIM-162A ESSM
1x 127mm/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 gun

Thach
1x 76mm/62 Mk 75 gun
1x Phalanx Block 1B CIWS

Bridge
Unarmed

_____________________________

Brad Leyte
HC3 development group member for HCE
Author of HCDB official database for HCE
Harpgamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to VictorInThePacific)

Post #: 17

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/19/2009 12:48:01 AM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV32

More information on missile loadouts for the ships of the formation:

Reagan
point defense only

Chancellorsville
4x SPG-62 directors
2 x VLS, 82x SM-2MR Block IIIB, 24x RIM-162A ESSM
guns will get one (maybe 2) attacking missile per cycle time

Decatur
3x SPG-62 directors
2 x VLS, 62 x SM-2MR Block III
guns will get one (maybe 2) attacking missile per cycle time

Howard
3 x SPG-62 directors
2 x VLS, 68 x SM-2MR Block IV
guns will get one (maybe 2) attacking missile per cycle time

Gridley
3x SPG-62 directors
2 x VLS, 62x SM-2MR Block IV, 24x RIM-162A ESSM

Thach
guns will get one attacking missile per cycle time

Bridge
Unarmed

Thanks muchly, Brad, for all that data. Of course, I will be asking for much more as this discussion continues.

I have edited the list you gave to suit my purposes.

quote:

Harpoon4 assigns a ROF of 20 x SM-2 for the Aegis cruisers and destroyers. The Bunker Hill class cruiser Chancellorsville has 4x SPG-62 directors and the Burkes have three (not six, btw).

Forgive me for continuing to hammer away at this, but does the above mean 4 or 3, respectively, directors per VLS, for a total of 8 or 6, respectively, on the ship? And does the ROF / director combination mean that the ship could launch 20 x SM-2 at a total number of targets equal to the number of directors on the ship? And would it further be intended that no more SAMs could be launched once the directors are all in use until some of those missiles hit or run out of fuel? And is the ROF stated per second, per minute, or per some other time interval? And is one director needed per attacking unit or per attacking group?

I suppose I should wait until these questions are answered, but I will jump the gun and make assumptions and correct mistakes later.

So I am going to assume the answers to the above questions to be:
yes, yes, yes, 15 s, unit

Is the ROF of 20 listed anywhere that the players have access to? I don't recall seeing it in the unit descriptions.

**********

The following numbers will need minor or major revision.

I am using a range for the SM-2 of 40 nm, and a speed of about 1400 kn. I believe they can engage targets at all altitudes. I am using a speed for the attacking missiles of about 1800 kn, and a flight altitude of medium. Radar range from a ship to a medium-altitude air unit is well above 40 nm, so the SAMs will engage at their maximum range. (Actually, as they are launched to intercept, they may be launched while the attacking missiles are still more than 40 nm away.)

Start by shooting at a DD.

At 1800 nm / 3600 s, the attacking missiles need 80 s to move through 40 nm. I will assume that 2 SAMs will be fired at each ASM. So one of the DDs would fire 12 SAMs to start, after which its directors will all be in use. The first engagement happens at 40 nm. That should wipe out 6 ASMs. 12 more SAMs are launched, again occupying all the directors. The second engagement happens about 17.5 nm out and 45 s later. This will wipe out 6 more ASMs. 12 more SAMs are launched. The third engagement happens 7.5 nm out and 20 s later. 6 more ASMs are wiped out. 12 more SAMs are launched. The fourth engagement happens 3.5 nm out and 8 s later. 6 more ASMs are wiped out. The SAMs don't get another shot.

SAMs expended: 48. ASMs shot down: 24.

What's the rest of the fleet doing in the meantime? Stay tuned.

*************

In the meantime, I also need to ask what the flares on the ships do. I am assuming that these are used to wipe out incoming missiles as though the flares were weapons, but it would be good if someone can actual explain how they work from certain knowledge.

I will also need to know speed and range of the ESSMs. Hit probability isn't too important, as long as it's in the 50% to 75% range.

And just by the way, I am moving the flank DDs of my formation back by 5 nm.

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 18

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/19/2009 1:36:14 AM

CV32

Posts: 1046
Joined: 5/15/2006
From: The Rock, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific
Forgive me for continuing to hammer away at this, but does the above mean 4 or 3, respectively, directors per VLS, for a total of 8 or 6, respectively, on the ship? And does the ROF / director combination mean that the ship could launch 20 x SM-2 at a total number of targets equal to the number of directors on the ship? And would it further be intended that no more SAMs could be launched once the directors are all in use until some of those missiles hit or run out of fuel? And is the ROF stated per second, per minute, or per some other time interval? And is one director needed per attacking unit or per attacking group?

It means a total of 4x directors per ship (for the Chancellorsville) and 3x directors per ship (for the Burkes). Note that the directors are for illuminating targets in the terminal guidance phase, with the SPY-1B/D responsible for the detecting and tracking of targets.

"20x SM-2 at a time" means the ship can control 20x SM-2 missiles simultaneously. So it can shoot 20x SM-2 at twenty different targets, or 2x SM-2 at ten different targets. (The usual practice is to shoot two missiles at each target).

"ROF" in Harpoon4 terms means the rate of fire per engagement turn (which is 30 seconds).

quote:

Is the ROF of 20 listed anywhere that the players have access to? I don't recall seeing it in the unit descriptions.

It would appear only in a HCE database (and viewed with the PE) or in the Harpoon4 data annexes.

Data on the relevant SAMs:

SM-2MR Block IIIB: min range 3.0 nm, max range 60 nm, ATA 7.0 (pH = 70), speed 1980 kt, altitude Vlow to Vhigh
SM-2MR Block IV: min range 3.0 nm, max range 81 nm, ATA 7.0 (pH = 70), speed 1980 kt, altitude Vlow to Vhigh
RIM-116B RAM Block 1: min range 0.3 nm, max range 5.0 nm, ATA 5.5 (pH = 55), speed 1320 kt, altitude Vlow to Med
RIM-162A ESSM: min range 0.5 nm, max range 18 nm, ATA 6.5 (pH = 65), speed 2250 kt, altitude Vlow to Med

_____________________________

Brad Leyte
HC3 development group member for HCE
Author of HCDB official database for HCE
Harpgamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to VictorInThePacific)

Post #: 19

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/19/2009 1:46:03 AM

Warhorse64

Posts: 154
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline

From the latest version of the HCDB:

SM-2MR Block IIIB: altitude VLow-VHigh, air range 60 nm, min range 3 nm, speed 1650 kts, air PH 70%
SM-2MR Block III: altitude VLow-VHigh, air range 60 nm, min range 3 nm, speed 1650 kts, air PH 60%
SM-2MR Block IV: altitude VLow-VHigh, air range 60 nm, min range 3 nm, speed 1650 kts, air PH 70%
RIM-162A ESSM: altitude VLow-Medium, air range 30 nm, min range 0.5 nm, speed 2640 kts, air PH 65%

(in reply to VictorInThePacific)

Post #: 20

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/19/2009 1:47:27 AM

CV32

Posts: 1046
Joined: 5/15/2006
From: The Rock, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warhorse64
From the latest version of the HCDB:
SM-2MR Block IIIB:� altitude VLow-VHigh, air range 60 nm, min range 3 nm, speed 1650 kts, air PH 70%
SM-2MR Block III:� altitude VLow-VHigh, air range 60 nm, min range 3 nm, speed 1650 kts, air PH 60%
SM-2MR Block IV:� altitude VLow-VHigh, air range 60 nm, min range 3 nm, speed 1650 kts, air PH 70%
RIM-162A ESSM:� altitude VLow-Medium, air range 30 nm, min range 0.5 nm, speed 2640 kts, air PH 65%

These figures are slowly being replaced by the more recent H4 data I mentioned above.

_____________________________

Brad Leyte
HC3 development group member for HCE
Author of HCDB official database for HCE
Harpgamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to Warhorse64)

Post #: 21

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/19/2009 1:54:41 AM

Warhorse64

Posts: 154
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline

Fair enough ...

We were posting simultaneously, and as soon as I finished, I saw your numbers, and thought "Oh, crud, what did I do wrong?!?" but they are as listed in HCDB-090128.

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 22

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/19/2009 1:57:15 AM

CV32

Posts: 1046
Joined: 5/15/2006
From: The Rock, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warhorse64
Fair enough ...�� We were posting simultaneously, and as soon as I finished, I saw your numbers, and thought "Oh, crud, what did I do wrong?!?" but they are as listed in HCDB-090128.

I figured that's what happened. No harm done.

Its gonna take awhile to update the HCDB - its always a work in progress, ya know.

_____________________________

Brad Leyte
HC3 development group member for HCE
Author of HCDB official database for HCE
Harpgamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to Warhorse64)

Post #: 23

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/19/2009 3:58:09 AM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

Data on the relevant SAMs:

SM-2MR Block IIIB: min range 3.0 nm, max range 60 nm, ATA 7.0 (pH = 70), speed 1980 kt, altitude Vlow to Vhigh
SM-2MR Block IV: min range 3.0 nm, max range 81 nm, ATA 7.0 (pH = 70), speed 1980 kt, altitude Vlow to Vhigh

Based on this additional information, which increases the maximum range and speed values beyond what I was using, and seems to leave the fire per time values relatively unchanged, my initial assessment of this would be that there would be no way to saturate the Arleigh Burkes, so they would never be hit before all their SAMs were used up.

I will do a more detailed calculation later.

But I still don't understand the relationship between the rate of fire and the number of directors. Suppose there are 10 ASMs approaching. I shoot 2 each SAMs at the ASMs. That's 20, which is the ship control limit. But when the SAMs are about to impact, can only 3 be controlled?

I presume that a ship with both Standard missiles and Sea Sparrows will use the Sea Sparrows at short ranges and save the Standards for long ranges.

What is the ROF for the CV?

A comment on the hit probabilities:
With 2 SAMs targeted on one ASM, the chance of both missing is 30% x 30%, or about 10%. But if the first one hits, as I understand it, the second one gets to choose another target. So what I am going to do with this is, without any further calculation, treat the allocation of 2 SAMs per target as exactly one kill and leave it at that.

< Message edited by VictorInThePacific -- 2/19/2009 4:16:33 AM >

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 24

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/19/2009 5:56:27 AM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

The updated formation. All ship separations are 5 nm. This is good enough against nukes. A nuke hit will sink only one ship - but then so will one hit from a big ASM.

The formation is weak against subs, as discussed above, but subs are not being considered here, and the unused frigate and the deleted sub would be used in that case.

Against a surface attack from any direction, there will always be time to rotate the formation and move the flank DDs forward, or even to flee with the whole group. But any missile attack is being treated as equivalent to an air attack.

Due to the fact that an air attack can and will come in from any direction at the attacker's discretion (you divide the treasure; I choose the pile), the formation needs to be as symmetric as possible. Unfortunately, the 4 main ships all have quite different properties. But the Gridley is almost as capable as the cruiser (in terms of SAMs), so it will be placed opposite the cruiser, at the back of the formation. In terms of air defense, I almost rated the FF as a target only. Since the formation is so closely packed, all the SAMs except the RAMs can be used to protect each ship in the formation.

I'm not really sure what is the best direction from which to attack this formation. Both flanks are well defended by both of the best ships plus one of the weaker ones. Probably the best attack is from the back, but the second best ship is there. In any case, unless someone has a better suggestion, the attack is coming in from the back.

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

< Message edited by VictorInThePacific -- 2/19/2009 6:34:19 AM >

(in reply to VictorInThePacific)

Post #: 25

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/19/2009 6:38:43 AM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

Second version of the basic calculation.

I am using a range for the SM-2 of 60 nm, and a speed of about 2000 kn. Some of the SAMs have an 80 nm range, but I am simplifying the calculation by standardizing the ranges. These SAMs can engage targets at all altitudes. I am assuming that those ships with the Enhanced Sea Sparrows will use them as soon as they are in range instead of the Standard missiles. I am ignoring the differences in terms of speed, hit probability, and operational altitude.

I am using a speed for the attacking missiles of about 1800 kn, and a flight altitude of medium. Radar range from a ship to a medium-altitude air unit is about 100 nm, so the SAMs will engage at their maximum range. (Actually, as they are launched to intercept, they may be launched while the attacking missiles are still more than 60 nm away.)

Start by shooting at a DD.

At 1800 nm / 3600 s, the attacking missiles need 120 s to move through 60 nm. I will assume that 2 SAMs will be fired at each ASM. So the target DD would fire 20 SAMs (the control limit) to start. The first engagement happens at 60 nm. That should wipe out 10 ASMs. 20 more SAMs are launched. The second engagement happens about 31.5 nm out and 57 s later. This will wipe out 10 more ASMs. 20 more SAMs are launched. The third engagement happens 16 nm out and 31 s later. 10 more ASMs are wiped out. 20 more SAMs are launched. The fourth engagement happens 8.5 nm out and 15 s later. 10 more ASMs are wiped out. The SAMs don't get another shot, because 30 s after the fourth engagement, the ASMs are only 1 nm away from the ship.

SAMs expended: 80. ASMs shot down: 40.

As predicted above, the DD actually runs out of SAMs before it gets hit; it isn't possible to saturate its launch capacity. It looks like it IS possible to saturate the CG, which will still have 25 or so missiles when it gets sunk. So perhaps the best attack actually starts from the front!

The 4 main ships should be able to get off 80 + 80 + 70 + 60 = 290 SAMs before the guns cut in. So the attacker needs to bring over 150 missiles to do any damage. The first 150 missiles can be ARMs, nukes, decoys, dud missiles, spitballs, whatever, they won't hit. That's 50 Backfires or 75 Badgers or the equivalent.

This still needs to be revised to include the CV and a few other details.

Stay tuned.

< Message edited by VictorInThePacific -- 2/19/2009 7:18:41 AM >

(in reply to VictorInThePacific)

Post #: 26

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/19/2009 1:44:47 PM

CV32

Posts: 1046
Joined: 5/15/2006
From: The Rock, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific
But I still don't understand the relationship between the rate of fire and the number of directors. Suppose there are 10 ASMs approaching. I shoot 2 each SAMs at the ASMs. That's 20, which is the ship control limit. But when the SAMs are about to impact, can only 3 be controlled?

The 20x SM-2 limit is related to datalink channels, needed to keep the SM-2 going in the general direction of its target (the "basket"). The director is only needed to illuminate the target with a very narrow radar beam in the final few seconds of the engagement. As well, with CEC, the directors of other ships can be used to illuminate targets for other ships' missiles.

quote:

I presume that a ship with both Standard missiles and Sea Sparrows will use the Sea Sparrows at short ranges and save the Standards for long ranges. What is the ROF for the CV?

I think that's a safe assumption. ROF for both the Mk 29 GMLS (with ESSM) and the Mk 49 RAM launcher is 15.

quote:

A comment on the hit probabilities: With 2 SAMs targeted on one ASM, the chance of both missing is 30% x 30%, or about 10%. But if the first one hits, as I understand it, the second one gets to choose another target. So what I am going to do with this is, without any further calculation, treat the allocation of 2 SAMs per target as exactly one kill and leave it at that.

It would be interesting to investigate whether there is any real advantage to shooting two missiles at each target, given their high hit probability, or whether this method should be reserved for the most difficult targets.

Which brings to me another issue: I think its important not to forget that some attacking missiles make for more difficult targets than others, i.e. supersonic vs subsonic, high altitude vs sea skimming, stealthy vs not, etc. We need to determine what the Chinese attack can bring into the mix before we dive into calculations.

< Message edited by CV32 -- 2/19/2009 1:46:20 PM >

_____________________________

Brad Leyte
HC3 development group member for HCE
Author of HCDB official database for HCE
Harpgamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to VictorInThePacific)

Post #: 27

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/19/2009 11:46:50 PM

Warhorse64

Posts: 154
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV32
Which brings to me another issue: I think its important not to forget that some attacking missiles make for more difficult targets than others, i.e. supersonic vs subsonic, high altitude vs sea skimming, stealthy vs not, etc. We need to determine what the Chinese attack can bring into the mix before we dive into calculations.

I would definitely agree with this. As an example, in HCE I find that the later model stealthy Harpoon missiles almost always get well inside 20 nm from their targets before being engaged, even though the radar horizon for a target at VLow from a Large ship is 26 nm, and the target usually has helo and/or AWACS cover.

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 28

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/20/2009 1:10:45 AM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

It would be interesting to investigate whether there is any real advantage to shooting two missiles at each target, given their high hit probability, or whether this method should be reserved for the most difficult targets.

Well, Brad, you're absolutely right. You should always shoot only one SAM at a target unless you have SAMs to spare. At that point, depending on how much time you have, you should or should not double up. And this is true regardless of whether the hit probability is high or low. As long as there is no secondary targeting, doubling (or more) up on a target leads to wasted SAMs each time you get a double (or more) hit.

Considering the example of 70% hit probability, if you fire 20 SAMs at 20 different targets, you will on average hit 14 times. If you fire these 20 SAMs 2 each at 10 targets, you will on average destroy only 9 targets. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the method Harpoon actually uses is to fire 2 (usually) SAMs per target, but to reallocate SAMs within the target subgroup where there would have been a double kill. For those 10 ASMs, the 20 SAMs get a double kill about 50% of the time, and a double miss about 10% of the time. The "unused" 5 SAMs then all go for the lone surviving ASM, which has only a .24% chance of surviving the second round. That's why I have assigned exactly 10 kills to my 20 SAMs in the calculation earlier in the thread.

If there are 52 attacking missiles, and their flight time was such that the SAMs get to shoot 4 times, the optimum method would be to target 1 SAM per ASM on the first 3 rounds, killing 42 and leaving 10. Double up on the last round, killing 9. The guns can get the last one. The method used earlier in the thread would only get 40 ASMs, so the ship would wind up very dead.

However, if I am shooting AAMs at airplanes, I like to double, triple, or even quadruple up. I am certain that the pilot of the target airplane is going to do his utmost to outmaneuver the AAM. Probably he can outmaneuver one AAM, regardless of the stated hit probability. Maybe he can outmaneuver two. Can he outmaneuver 3? Four? I think it is a lot harder to outmaneuver 4 coming in all at once than sequentially. (I have no idea if this actually has an effect, but it certainly feels like it is the right approach.)

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 29

RE: air attack on US SAG - 2/20/2009 1:18:16 AM

VictorInThePacific

Posts: 169
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

Which brings to me another issue: I think its important not to forget that some attacking missiles make for more difficult targets than others, i.e. supersonic vs subsonic, high altitude vs sea skimming, stealthy vs not, etc.

So far, I have completely ignored this. I am using only the basic hit probability. I expect that there are percent modifiers, but I have no idea what those might be. I am also assuming that the ASMs are acquired early enough by the ship that the SAM is only limited by its fuel range or the ship's radar range.

I do have anecdotal evidence from Harpoon that (fast) Grumbles kill more (slow) Harpoons than early Standards kill Kitchens, so it looks like the relative speed is used by Harpoon to modify the hit probability.

< Message edited by VictorInThePacific -- 2/20/2009 1:20:24 AM >

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 30