Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Naval War: Arctic Circle – Developer Diary #2

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
JanH said:
I wonder how fast it can launch all of them...
Click to expand...

It's only got 22 launchers i think. So i guess it wont be one big mass of missiles hitting at the same time. Plus as i recall the Kashtan-M and AK630 both got a pretty decent rate of fire and good range.

But if you were to coordinate the SSGNs into attacking at the same time. Hella problem for ships not huddled together.
 
Andcus said:
It's only got 22 launchers i think. So i guess it wont be one big mass of missiles hitting at the same time. Plus as i recall the Kashtan-M and AK630 both got a pretty decent rate of fire and good range.

But if you were to coordinate the SSGNs into attacking at the same time. Hella problem for ships not huddled together.
Click to expand...
Only 22 launchers?! Each of those launchers contains 7 Tomahawk missiles! :p Do the math. :)
 
nimitz98 said:
Only 22 launchers?! Each of those launchers contains 7 Tomahawk missiles! :p Do the math. :)
Click to expand...

It's not like it's an automatic hellmachine firing off tomahawks like a gatling gun (though that would be awesome!). New missiles loaded into the launchers, even though done by machines, needs time to arm and acquire a target before being launched. This is all based on speculation as i (for some odd reason :rolleyes: ) can't find the specific time it takes an SSGN to load a tomahawk missile
 
In a well planned attack, they would specify a target to each tomahawk (or a group of them) before launch. Every missile in every tube is always ready for launch except for targeting, so you wouldn't have to bother with reloading.
 
But lets do the math.
154 tomahawks cruising at 880 km/h bearing down on a russian surface group consisting of a Kirov cruiser, a slava cruiser and 2 Sovremenny destroyers.
The combined CIWS capabilities of that surface group would be 6 Kashtan systems and 14 AK630 systems. The Kashtan fires around 10.000 rounds a minute and has a range of around 8 kilometres. The AK630 got half the rate of fire and range.

The tomahawks would spend 32 seconds inside the killbox provided by the Kashtans. That gives the kashtans time to fire ca. 33-34 thousand rounds combined.
The AK630's would get 16 seconds to fire at the tomahawks, which lets them fire off ca. 16-17 thousand rounds combined.
The 154 tomahawks would recieve incoming fire of something looking like 50.000 rounds.

Thats a LOT of firepower. And here we aren't even calculating the fact that due to the subsonic speed of the tomahawk, they could more easily be intercepted by SAN-9s and SAN-4s. That would widen the killbox to 14 kilometers.

Also the Fire Control system onboard the Kirov allows the targeting used by the SAN-9s to be transferred to the CIWS, meaning precious time wouldn't be wasted acquiring targets for the AK630s and Kashtans
 
nimitz98 said:
Sure, but you might want to revise your "math" to fit the time period of the game.
Click to expand...


True. By this time the Russian Navy will be heavily modernized, so replace all the AK630 systems with the Kashtans.
Still, the Kirov class has something like 100 SAN-9s alone. That gives a good defence against subsonic missiles.
 
What if you launched the tomahawks from afar, made them sircle abit before attacking and while sneakin up on their ships with your subs?

Timeline: Launch tomahawks -> sneak subs up to fleet -> order the tomahawks to attack while preparing your torpedos -> simultaneous strike with both tomahawks and torpedos.
 
To approach a battle group, a sub has to crawl very slowly to not be detected. It will have to move much slower than the surface ships. So, it would actually have to anticipate where the battle group would be going (in other words: the sub threat axis for a surface group is straight ahead). A battle group is working hard to make sure no sub ambush can anticipate its future positions.
 
JanH said:
Unlikely, as we'll include its successor the Virginia.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see some Astutes going toe to toe with some Virginias. Quite excited for this game.
 
This would not work.

Tomahawk would require the enemy battle fleet to be stationary to achieve any chance of a serious kill from a long range.

Tomahawk is slow, numbers matter but given the ability of the fleet to move at speeds of 24+ knots your Tomahawks are going to have to be fired in a dispersal pattern. Meaning that coupled with being slow they can be engaged in waves, avoided and generally managed.

Tomahawk can also be engaged by most modern fighters with look down shoot down capability. Give the speed of fighters and the slow speed of Tomahawk this could prove to be bad for the Tomahawk. Hell I suspect on a flat sea with the Tomahawk flying in a straight line a fighter might be able to engage with guns... though maybe not.

IF and this is a big IF the Battlegroup wasn't stationary. You have to keep a constant update on the battlegroup. That means you have to be able to pinpoint their location exactly to give Tomahawk the GPS location. This also means you will probably have to be running on active scanners.... You will be seen, you will be found and you will be engaged by the enemy... not good.

Finally you have the option of getting close... in which case if you get close enough to hit with a slow tomahawk and launch all 150 of before the ASW elements of a battlegroup kill you dead you deserve to hit them :D

The above is one of the reasons I'm just not sure about Tomahawk, Harpoon, NSM etc. They are slow missiles. Stealthy yes but I guess I just get nervous about that wait. Theres nothing like a missile that lets you fire, bug out and while your bugging out the enemy HAS to deal with a missile coming towards you at MACH 2.5- MACH 3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back