ASUW Weapons Employment

[Molon Labe]

Post your skimmer-killing tactics here! (ASUW= Anti SUrface Warfare)

Once again, I'll go first. =)


Antiship Missile Employment

SS-N-27 ASM (3M-54E Klub ASCM): This is arguably the most effective ASUW weapon in the game, and is certainly the best ASM. This missile is fired from Akulas and from Chinese Kilo 368, from depths of 100m or less and at speeds of 6 knots or less.

When fired, the missile has an initial boost phase during which it is visible to radar from long range. It then accelerates to about 500 knots and drops to sea-skimming height for the remainder of the transit. At sea-skimming altitude, the missile will likely be detected by surface radar at a range of about 10 miles, unless it is raining, in which case it might not be detected at all. It has no minimum enable range, and once enabled it turns its homing radar on (which can be detected by ESM sensors) and accelerates to about 1900 knots. It will then begin homing on the first target it detects (probably the closest, largest (aspect) ship. During the pre-enabled phase, the missile is an easy target for the SM-2 missile carried by the FFG and AEGIS warships; the SM-2 is about 80% effective during this time. During the enabled/homing phase, the SM-2's effectiveness is cut in half. The CIWS is usually ineffective against the SS-N-27.

Players using the SS-N-27 should keep this profile in mind when employing this weapon. The main question is at what range to enable the missile. Enabling the missile too early risks alerting the enemy ship to the missile's presence on the ESM sensor, and it also could cause the missile to home in on the wrong target. Enabling too late allows the enemy the luxury of engaging the missile at its vulnerable cruising speed.

A good rule of wrist is to enable the missile 10 miles from the target if it has its radar on (use your ESM mast), this way you do not alert the ship to the missile's presense until it is already likely to be detected on radar. Just make sure there are no other ships less than 10 miles in front of the target, and use the "narrow" search pattern. If the target does not have his radar on you should enable the missile as close to the ship as possible without risking an overshoot. His first indication that he is under attack will be the ESM warning, so he won't be shooting at the missile in the cruise phase.

An editorial note: This weapon is so powerful that it throws the game out of balance. If you fire a large salvo of these at an FFG--or even an Arliegh Burke--your target has no chance of survival. This isn't good for gameplay, and it also hurts realism since this is a very expensive weapon that would not be used in a saturation attack against low-value targets. Use them sparingly, or against aircraft carriers or troop transports (or another ship worthy to recieve them in large numbers...).

[Scared]

As an FFG user I have to agree with what Molon Labe said. I no proplem's with haveing missiles fired at me infact I find it quite fun but Have a large amount of SS-N-27 Fired at you is not fun because if they enalbe at 1 NM there isn't a lot you can do against them. Plus in the real world SS-N-27's are not used in mass numbers like that against FFG's and other such targets.

[Molon Labe]

UGM-84 Harpoon and UGM-109 Tomahawk: These missiles are fired by the 688(I) class and the Seawolf class SSNs from depths of 150ft or less and speeds of 6kts or less. Both missiles have a minimum enable range of 5nm and a speed of 510 knots. The TASM (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile), however, has a very large warhead. Both weapons appear to be equally easy to shoot down (effectiveness of most Russian SAM systems appears to be 70% or better), so there is no reason to use the Harpoon instead of the TASM.

These are not easy weapons to use effectively against a prepared target. They are best used in situations where you need to strike quickly (and thus cannot use a torpedo) or against targets that cannot defend themselves (either non-SAM equipped ships or warships that have their radars OFF).

If you must engage a warship with it's radar ON, you should close to as close to the 5 mile limit as possible...but keep in mind that active sonars are effective to about 10 or even 12nm. The close range will minimize the number of SAM salvos the ship can fire, increasing the chance of a hit. The good news is that a single TASM is enough to kill a small warship, and will cripple the larger combattants.

EDIT: I'd like to clarify that the method of attack by closing to 5nm is only meant to get the most effective attack out of the missile possible. As Subsim's SeaQueen correctly points out, this is neither realistic nor necessarily the best decision tactically. At risk of belaboring the obvious, the doctrinal method of attack against a warship or formation would be to fire from maximum range, thus maximizing the response time of the enemy helos. You won't get a lot of "bang for your buck" doing this, but you may get something, and you do it without giving them a shot at you--definitely a good thing.

[Molon Labe]

Torpedo Employment

53-56K and KE Wakehoming Torpedo: This weapon is fired from the Akula SSN and the Kilo SS submarines. When used by the Kilo, it must be fired from less than 240m to function properly (from 240m exactly sometimes it works, sometimes it fails...probably due to the depth readout being rounded). The torpedo uses a wakehoming sensor, causing it to turn towards a ship that it has been fired behind. If it comes close enough, it can also attack a ship or sub from the front or side (I guess we can call it a "bow wake"), but for this to happen the shot has to be nearly dead-on. It is not wireguided, so cannot be resteered or shut down.

The 53-56K is most effective against AI controlled ships. Ideally, they should be fired from behind the target, directly into it's wake. As a practical matter, you will probably have to fire from the front or side. In the case of a side-attack, try to fire from as close as possible, and fire directly on the bearing of the ship--do not try to lead it (at least not too much...) If you lead it and it turns to the side or away from the shot, you will miss.

If the ship is facing you, fire at least two torpedoes on a close spread on either side of the ship. The ship will almost certainly turn one way or the other, allowing one of them to sniff the wake.

If you are shooting at a player-controlled FFG, life is more difficult. A good FFG skipper will respond to your shot by changing course and running for a few minutes, and then slowing the ship. This will prevent the ship from producing a wake that your weapon can home in on. The only way the wakehomer will strike the ship is if it comes close enough that it doesn't need the wake. The only way to do that is to guess which way the skipper will run, where he will stop, and to make sure you put at least one torp there (fire a spread and pray). I recomend using the 53-56K in conjunction with active/passive homing torps like the TEST or USET...slowing will make him an easy target for the conventional torps while running will make him vulnerable to the wakehomer.

Always pay attention to any neutrals near your line of fire...you cannot call this weapon back! Also, mind your run to enable range, especially if you are shooting past a ship that is not your target. The wake it detects can be quite long, so if you are trying to shoot a CVN in the middle of a convoy, the DDG in front of it could easily draw the weapon away (Or an innocent trawler, for that matter).

[Molon Labe]

USET-80, SET-53, and TEST-71 Torpedoes: All of these weapons are passive/active homing multipurpose torpedoes carried by Kilos. They are all subject to the same depth restriction as the 53-56K--must be fired from less than 240m. The TEST-71 is also wireguided.

The SET-53 is only carried by Chinese Kilos. It is extremely slow, weak, and short ranged. There is no reason to use it since the TEST-71 is superior in all respects.

The USET-80 is the best weapon carried by the Russian Kilos (and is available only to the Russian Kilos). It has a 20km/10.8nm range, a 50 knot top speed, and a warhead as good as the 53-56K (enough to kill an FFG with two hits). Employing this weapon is as simple as locating your opponent...if it is in range and you fire it in the right direction, its sensors will be good enough to locate the target. So, to use the USET effectively, get within 7nm of your target (so it can't run away) and lead it a bit. If you are shooting against a ship that uses over-the-side countermeasures (as opposed to the towed decoys used by US warships), its a good idea to set the enable range BEHIND the current location of the ship. This could allow the torp to pass the decoys before enabling, increasing your chance of a hit.

There isn't much of a difference between active and passive modes in shooting at surface ships (subs are another matter...). Active homing weapons are slightly more prone to counterdetection (the FFG has no active intercept but the passive sonar may indicate the pings if they are paying close enough attention). Passive torps wash out at higher speeds, but surface ships are usually loud enough that the torpedo will still detect the ship at 50 knots...if you're not 100% confident you can get the torp very close (5 miles or so) at the enable point then you can slow it to 45 knots, which should take care of any washout.

The TEST-71 is primarily an antisubmarine weapon. Its warhead is a bit weaker than the USET and 53-56K, and it only moves at 40 knots. In the case of the Chinese Kilos, however, these might be your best bet at attacking player-controlled FFGs, since the -56K is rather easy to evade. Try using both torpedoes at the same time: fire the TEST directly at the FFG, then fire a spread of 53-56Ks, one on each side of the FFG. Track the FFG's movement so you can steer the TEST in his direction of evasion. The FFG will be in a tough spot...if he accelerates to get away from the TEST he will be vulnerable to the wakehomers.

The FFG's nixie is about 50% effective at decoying these weapons.

[Molon Labe]

65cm Torpedo and Mk 48 ADCAP: The 65 cm torpedo is arguably the best ASUW weapon (the other is the SS-N-27 ASW). It can be carried only in the Akula's 65cm tubes. It has a range of 27nm, a top speed of 50 knots, active/passive homing, wire guidance, and a massive 900kg warhead--enough to kill a Ticoderoga class cruiser with a single hit. Two will kill a Nimitz class aircraft carrier.
The ADCAP is carried by the American subs, and is nearly equivalent to the 65 cm, except that it has a 55 knot top speed and has a smaller warhead (it will take two to kill most warships).

These weapons' speed and range mean that any ship within about 18 miles should not be able to outrun it and will have to rely on decoys. Since it is wireguided, the ship will not be able to clear datum--because you, of course, will be tracking the target and resteering the torp to keep it on target.

American ships use the Nixie towed decoy. It is about 50% effective against active/passive torps...so shoot two 65cms and keep them close together (spreading them out gives the nixie a better change against the second).

Russian ships, and probably other nations in DW as well, use over-the-side CMs. These are much more effective than the Nixie, and several can be dropped as the ship is running. To avoid these, track the enemy ship and try to mark its path on the NAV map. The decoys will be along that path...so run your torpedoes on a parallel track adjacent to the ship's path...when the weapon is nearly even with the ship, turn it towards the target. This sounds easy, but remember that the ship will turn away once it realises the torp is no longer behind it.

When using passives, it is probably a good idea to use a 45 knot top speed unless the target is very close. High speeds will wash out the sensors, requiring the torp to be very close to the target to acquire...the snake pattern the torpedoes use before acquiring slows down the progess of the weapon and helps the target to escape.

[TLAM Strike]

Here is how to cause total chaos with the Kilo and USET-80…
First go deep and quiet and wait for the convoy/CVBG to get very close. Set your torpedoes’ floor to 200m so they don’t hit you. Fire two 53-65 torpedoes at the lead escort at about 2000m and rush in behind them. Once you’re close to the convoy launch all six tubes (you two empty tubes are reloaded quick on the kilo due to autoloaders) with the fish set to ‘circle’ and enable after around 150m then watch the destruction. Stager the RTE and snapshot bearings for maximum effect.

This works real well with two Subs, one draws the attention of the escorts while one goes for the kill. I’ve done it with two subs before and it was sweet!

[Sea Demon]

For using UGM-84 Harpoon and UGM-109 Tomahawk. I agree with what Molon Labe says above. I'd like to add a consideration where longer ranged shots are required. For example, when an E-2, P-3, or Predator drone has updated the link with an enemy SAG 65 - 150 nm or greater from you. Use a spread angle on your salvo. Even the Russian ships with excellent AAW capabilities will have a much harder time because they have to scan a wider amount of sky to engage all incoming missiles. Use the "rule of 60" to determine how much spread.

Rule of 60 = if an object has travelled sixty miles, then an error in track of one mile is approximately a 1° error.

Example - If target will be projected on a bearing of 340 degrees and 120 NM away at time of weapons enable, you fire 1 TASM on a bearing of 339 and another on a bearing of 340. When the two missiles are at the enable point, they will be roughly 2 nm away from one another. If the target was 60 miles away, they would be 1 nm away. You also could open up the spread by firing on a bearing of 339 and another on 341. For the 120 Nm shot, they would be seperated by 4 nm. Always use the largest possible numbers of missiles for the attack. Using this tactic, I usually can score 1 or 2 hits on Kirov or Slava type vessels which is enough to do the job.

[Molon Labe]

Missile warfare is all about saturation. The idea is to overwhelm their defenses so that something gets through, and the best way to do that is almost always going to be concentrating as much firepower at a single point in as short a time frame as possible. Spreading out a missile salvo gives more escorts in a formation the opportunity to fire. That means less missiles get through.

Against a single ship, though, there may be an advantage to spreading it out a little. The way this works is that some ships, the Sovremmenyy for example, have multiple missile systems with limited--but overlapping--firing arcs. When attacked, the Sov will beam the vampires so that it can use both of its SA-N-7 launchers at the same time. Now, if the missiles are coming from two directions, both launchers will still be active, but it might be the case that each launcher can only engage one prong of the attack. If this happens and one missile launcher is successful in shooting down the vampires while the other is not, the "free" launcher will not be able to target the missiles missed by the busy launcher. But if the attack was on a single axis, both launchers are free to reattack anything they miss. The tradeoff you get with this is that you might increase the number of CIWS systems that get to shoot at the missiles. And of course, if there are multiple ships in the formation, you're probably going to have two SAM shooters active instead of just one.

The Kirov's main defenses, SA-N-6 and SA-N-9, have 360 degree coverage though, so you're not gaining anything against it. The Slava has only 180 degree arcs with no overlap on the SA-N-4, which means if the AI was good you'd actually be hurting yourself--but I doubt the AI in stock or LW/Ami is smart enough to point the bow between the prongs to capitalize on that. In any case, you get no advantage against that ship either. You only gain an advantage against ships with limited but overlapping engagement arcs.

I think another thing that needs to be mentioned here is that you're obviously using stock DW, and the air defenses in stock DW are simply broken. They conflict with each other, engage poorly, have too few fire control radars modeled (can't engage as many targets simultaneously as they should), or just completely non-functional (in the case of the CADS/SA-N-11). More often than not, the LW/Ami Kirov--with the Grumble, Gauntlet, and Grison launchers all working in concert--will smack down a 12 TASM salvo without breaking a sweat, and can handle a full 16 quite nicely too. And you won't sink that monster with just one hit anymore. :biggrin:

[Molon Labe]

DW 1.04 Update: The Effect of Variable Torpedo Range

All torpedoes in DW 1.04 have a range-speed relationship. Maximum range occurs 10 knots below maximum speed, and is practically unchanged from 1.03. Maximum speed carries with it a 20% range penalty. Going below max -10 also results in a range penalty.

What this means is that ranges at which vessels could be successfully hit has been reduced. Perhaps more importantly, more players have become intuitively aware of the concept of "no-escape range" and have become more willing to use dragging (running out of range) as an evasion tactic, rather than trying to decoy and avoid the torpedo while remaining engaged offensively. So, in the world of DW 1.04, it is crucial to have an analytical understanding of no-escape range and to apply that understanding to torpedo employment.

No Escape Range Analysis
No-escape range is the maximum range your target can be from you where it cannot successfully drag a torpedo shot. It is a product of the speed of the torpedo, the runtime of the torpedo, and the speed of the target. You can imagine the concept as a ring contained within the ring representing the torpedo's range (at the torpedo's speed setting). The distance between the rings is a line representing the distance the target ship can run during the torpedo's runtime. At the end of the runtime, both the target ship and the torpedo meet at the outer ring. The implication is that if the target begins its run outside the inner ring, it will end its run outside of the outer ring, without the torpedo having caught it. If it begins inside the ring, the torpedo will overtake the target ship before it reaches the outer ring.

No escape range is mathematically expressed as:
(torpedo range)-(distance the target ship runs during runtime)
or
(torpedo range)-(target speed*runtime)
or
(torpedo range)-(target speed*torpedo range/torpedo speed)

The greatest no-escape range will always be obtained using the highest torpedo speed, because a successful intercept requires a high closure speed. Reducing an ADCAPs speed to 45 knots will knock your closure speed against a 30 knot target from 25 knots to 15 knots--a far greater price than the 20% range penalty.

For an ADCAP vs. a Udaloy, no-escape range is 9.82 miles in 1.04. It was 12.27 miles in DW 1.03.

And because I know you all hate math as much as I do, I made this table (http://www.commanders-academy.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=136&d=1190658378) for you, for target speeds of 17-40 knots.

Tactical Implications
Of course, the mathematical concept of no-escape range isn't the only thing that determines if your torpedo will have the smash to catch a fleeing target. The target may not run directly away, or it may slow to listen. It may need to turn before it can run. It also might not hear the torpedo right away, and won't start evasion until it finally does. All this makes the effective no-escape range further out than in the mathematically idealized case. Similarly, any time your weapon spends on a course other than lead pursuit pulls the effective no-escape range closer in; for example, snaking while the weapon is searching, chasing after a decoy, or error in the intercept course.

What this means to you when it comes time to torpedo a tin can is that you want to try to get as close to no-escape range as possible before firing, or even closer if you can do so without putting your boat at risk. It also means that it is crucial to fire the weapon from under the layer, thus giving your weapon a "head start" before the skimmer hears it.

Kilo skippers need to be particularly aware of this, as they will need to close to about 3nm for a USET or 53-56K to be able to catch a target--and it's going to be worse for wakehomers, because they do not travel on a lead pursuit course. It will be very difficult to get close enough to take a good against ships with active sonar. A pincer attack involving two subs attacking from different directions would help reduce the problem.

[Sea Demon]

Missile warfare is all about saturation. The idea is to overwhelm their defenses so that something gets through, and the best way to do that is almost always going to be concentrating as much firepower at a single point in as short a time frame as possible. Spreading out a missile salvo gives more escorts in a formation the opportunity to fire. That means less missiles get through.


You can destroy the rationale for my tactic contribution all you want. I'm just contributing what works for me through long hours of learning to employ these USN missiles. And it works. Nobody said you have to use it......geeeesh. :mad:

[Molon Labe]

You can destroy the rationale for my tactic contribution all you want. I'm just contributing what works for me through long hours of learning to employ these USN missiles. And it works. Nobody said you have to use it......geeeesh. :mad:

I'm not destroying it, I'm just explaining how it would work and how it wouldn't. I actually hadn't thought about the overlapping missile launcher arcs before, but since you posed this approach I figured it out. And I stated the reasons why it wouldn't work in other situations. If you disagree, instead of pouting about it, why don't you respond with the reasons why it would still work despite what I've added to the conversation. That way, we'll both learn something and so will everyone else who reads this.

[Molon Labe]

So I ran a few more tests that might shed some light on this subject.

The first was using LW/Ami. I fired a 16 TASM salvo, spread into two prongs 4 degrees apart, target (a Kirov) range 60nm.

The Kirov performed as expected. It rippled 6 Grumbles (the maximum guidable) and began rippling Gauntlets seamlessly. The first Grumble arrived (and missed) after the fourth Gauntlet was fired, so the Kirov switched back to Grumbles at that point. Whenever there were 6 Grumbles in the air, it would shoot more Gauntlets. There were 11 SAM in the air at a time at the peak. After all that, one TASM was left, which was picked off by the SA-N-4. During the peak salvoes, at least two distinct Gauntlet launchers could be seen firing (fore and aft).

The second test used the same spread, but with stock DW. The Kirov performed "as expected" for stock DW, which is to say piss poor. It fired one Grumble, then one Gauntlet after the Grumble hit, and so on. There was only one missile in the air at a time. The Kirov managed to survive anyways, because most of the missiles from both prongs of the spread went after chaff. No hits.

The final test used stock DW and a single stream of TASMs. The Kirov's air defense behavior was identical to the previous run. The chaff, again, was very effective, spoofing just about all the missiles, except the last one. The Kirov allowed that last missile to pass something like 4nm without shooting at it--or any of the others--the whole time. The Kirov was damaged to 71%.

So, its pretty clear that in LW/Ami, the Kirov's air defenses are going to pwn any subsonic missiles that come in. It's also pretty clear that the Kirov's SAMs are pretty much impotent against a concentrated salvo in stock DW, regardless of whether they approach along different angles. There is no observable difference in SAM behavior caused by having the missiles approach at different angles--which is exactly as I predicted in the previous post, because the Grumbles and Gauntlets have a 360 degree field of fire. In stock DW, since the Kirov can't get enough missiles out of the launch boxes to protect itself, its survival depends on the effectiveness of the chaff it puts out. In this test, the one missile that got through with a single stream as opposed to zero with a spread isn't significant. I would not rule out the possibility that having missiles approach from different angles changes the effectiveness of chaff.

I'm no expert in surface chaff by any means, but I'd hypothesize that chaff is at its most effective when it ends up between the target ship and the missile, much like a torpedo decoy. If that's correct, then if the missiles are approaching from abeam of the target ship, spreading out the missiles could improve your chances of hitting, because you only have to deal with one chaff launcher and if it's in the right spot to spoof one stream, it may not be in the right spot to spoof the other. On the other hand, if the missiles approach from fore or aft, spreading them could allow a chaff launcher on the side to become effective which otherwise would not have been. It would take more testing to be sure, but if you have been using BOTH methods frequently and you consistently have better results using the spread method, then the reason why it has been working is probably because of reduced chaff effectiveness (as opposed to radar/SAM effectiveness...as if anything a player could do would make the stock Kirov's performance any worse!:biggrin:)

[Sea Demon]

I'm not destroying it, I'm just explaining how it would work and how it wouldn't. I actually hadn't thought about the overlapping missile launcher arcs before, but since you posed this approach I figured it out. And I stated the reasons why it wouldn't work in other situations. If you disagree, instead of pouting about it, why don't you respond with the reasons why it would still work despite what I've added to the conversation. That way, we'll both learn something and so will everyone else who reads this.

After reading your forum "rules and goals", I understand your counterpoint on the issue. Fair enough. I was just sharing something that I noticed gets me better results. It seems like aiming all subsonic missiles on the same bearing, or threat axis to the target, makes it easier for the ship to defend. They seem to get swatted down alot quicker. One right after the other, like flys. Perhaps for the ships that have 360 degree coverage it's not that much of an issue. But I have seen a moderately better result spreading out the missile tracks. Not much, but better nonetheless. I don't know what results you've gotten. But for me, it works out pretty good. I have no problems using TASM or Harpoon as potent weapons against any ships of the game. The thing is, like you said, it takes a big salvo (16) to make work. And the target type must be considered. Against Indian, Chinese, or any other non-Slava/Kirov target, I'm pretty comfortable with 8 missiles minimum(Seawolf). Against Slava and Kirov, it's got to be a full load, and it still may be unsuccessful. And on the reverse side, I notice that Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke are even better against Russian missiles. They fire relentless streams of SM-2's at missile targets. I've had difficulties getting SS-N-27 type missiles to hit them unless I got my Akula pretty close and enable a massive load quickly. I have to play around a little bit more on the Russian units.

By the way, I'm also convinced that these USN subsonic missiles are harder to hit in Real Life, than what's represented in DW.

[Molon Labe]

After reading your forum "rules and goals", I understand your counterpoint on the issue. Fair enough. I was just sharing something that I noticed gets me better results. It seems like aiming all subsonic missiles on the same bearing, or threat axis to the target, makes it easier for the ship to defend. They seem to get swatted down alot quicker. One right after the other, like flys. Perhaps for the ships that have 360 degree coverage it's not that much of an issue. But I have seen a moderately better result spreading out the missile tracks. Not much, but better nonetheless. I don't know what results you've gotten. But for me, it works out pretty good. I have no problems using TASM or Harpoon as potent weapons against any ships of the game. The thing is, like you said, it takes a big salvo (16) to make work. And the target type must be considered. Against Indian, Chinese, or any other non-Slava/Kirov target, I'm pretty comfortable with 8 missiles minimum(Seawolf). Against Slava and Kirov, it's got to be a full load, and it still may be unsuccessful. And on the reverse side, I notice that Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke are even better against Russian missiles. They fire relentless streams of SM-2's at missile targets. I've had difficulties getting SS-N-27 type missiles to hit them unless I got my Akula pretty close and enable a massive load quickly. I have to play around a little bit more on the Russian units.

By the way, I'm also convinced that these USN subsonic missiles are harder to hit in Real Life, than what's represented in DW.

There are definitely easier targets out there. I wouldn't elevate the Slava and Kirov to the top of the chart though, especially if you're playing stock DW. So here's the rundown: (And, so you know where I'm coming from this, I was involved in extensive testing for the LW/Ami updates to the Russian missile defense systems, so I've got a lot of experience dealing with a lot of systems both individually and in combination with others.)

Generally speaking, the SA-N-6 Grumble and SA-N-9 Gauntlet are the SAMs that will be most effective. Also, in stock DW, ships with only one type of defensive SAM perform better than those with multiple SAM types.

As for specific ships:
Kuznetsov CVG
4 x SA-N-9 Gauntlet (all with 360 degree arcs)
4 x SA-N-11 Grison (60 degree arcs)
4 x AK-630 CIWS (120-180 degree arcs)
Stock: The Grison is broken in stock, so this effectively only has the -9 and the CIWS in stock DW. Expect 2-4 missiles in the air at a time. You have a decent chance of getting through, but it will take a full salvo
LW/Ami: The boat can guide as many as 8 SA-N-9s at a time. It should be able to fire at least 3 salvoes. The missile is 80% effective. That doesn't leave much. The SA-N-11 is capable enough to handle any leakers.

Kirov CGN
1 x SA-N-6 Grumble (360)
2 x SA-N-9 Gauntlet (360)
2 x SA-N-4 Gecko (180)
6 x SA-N-11 Grison (240)
Stock: Grison broken; the other SAMs conflict with each other. Only one missile airborne at any given time. The Kirov will shoot down 3-4 missiles at the most; it must rely on chaff.
LW/Ami: The Kirov can get about a dozen -6s and -9s in the air at a time. Again, it can fire at least 3 salvoes (although a "steady stream" of missiles is probably a better description); that's about 80% effective (the Grumble does a little worse than the Gauntlet). The -11 can take care of any leakers.

Slava CG
1 x SA-N-6 Grumble (360)
2 x SA-N-4 Gecko (180)
6 x AK-630 CIWS
Stock: Both SAM systems work. It can get one Grumble in the air at a time, and should be good for 1-3 missiles. It can get 2 Geckos in the air at a time--at least when the missiles are spread out a bit--but the Gecko is only about 25% effective. It'll only get 1-2 missiles. Whatever is left just has to get past the chaff.
LW/Ami: It can get 4 Grumbles in the air at a time. That should be good enough to take out about 10 missiles. The SA-N-4 isn't any better though. You might get through with just the VLS; you have a very good chance at getting through with 16.

Udaloy DDG
3 x SA-N-9 Gauntlet (360)
4 x AK630 CIWS
Stock: 3 of the same launcher means 3 SAMs in the air at a time, which is good for about 8 missiles. CIWS and chaff might get a few more. You can get through with 12 sometimes, and can get through pretty reliably with 16.
LW/Ami: It can theoretically guide 12 Gauntlets at a time, and fire 3-4 salvoes, but it doesn't always reach optimal performance. Do expect it to shoot a lot of SAMs, and be able to handle the VLS. 16 missiles has a fair chance.

Sovremmenyy DDG
2 x SA-N-7 Gadfly (240)
4 x AK 630 CIWS (160)
Stock: The Gadfly does halfway decent. It's about 50% effective, and it can get 2 in the air at a time. It will usually get 2-4 missiles. The CIWS is more effective on the Sov than on any other ship. Expect it to get at least two. The CIWS can be made less effective by packing the missiles as close together as possible.
LW/Ami: slight decrease in CIWS effectiveness, otherwise the same.

Neustrashimyy FFG
1 x SA-N-9 Gauntlet (360)
2 x SA-N-11 Grison (240)
Stock: Piss poor; Gauntlet can only get one missile up at a time and the Grison is broken. It'll get 2-4 missiles, plus chaff spoofs.
LW/Ami: The Gauntlet can guide 4 at a time, swatting down as many as 12 missiles, probably at least 8. The Grison usually gets at least 2. This is probably the only Grison-shooter that you can overwhelm, since one Gauntlet launcher doesn't get the job done quite well enough.

Others
Most other Russian boats are armed with crap missiles like the -4, -3, and -1, or even the -8 (normally shoulder-fired). They'll be happy to shoot down even one missile. [Most Chinese ships fall into this category as well; the Sovremennyy is the best-defended boat they have].

[Sea Demon]

Been awhile since I've been here. Great post Molon Labe. Looks like you've definitely conducted more extensive testing than I have, so I bow to your greater experience on the subject matter. Looking at your comparisons, and your statement that Kirov and Slava may not top the chart, do you believe that the Kuznetzov CVG is the most difficult ship to use TASM's and Harpoons against? In LWAMI, it seems extremely difficult to get even one hit on it despite range to target, salvo size, or any other consideration.

[Molon Labe]

Been awhile since I've been here. Great post Molon Labe. Looks like you've definitely conducted more extensive testing than I have, so I bow to your greater experience on the subject matter. Looking at your comparisons, and your statement that Kirov and Slava may not top the chart, do you believe that the Kuznetzov CVG is the most difficult ship to use TASM's and Harpoons against? In LWAMI, it seems extremely difficult to get even one hit on it despite range to target, salvo size, or any other consideration.


Well, the Kirov is close to the bottom in stock DW, but in LW/Ami it is right up there at the top. As for who gets that top spot, I think the Kuznetsov is probably right. The SA-N-9 is marginally more effective than the -6 at medium ranges, and in that envelope the Kirov relies mainly on the -6 first, so that gives the Kuznetsov a slight edge going into close range, where they are very close to equivalent.