Sea Dart SAM

[Fleet Command CC]

I have been looking at the Sea Dart SAMs on the Type 42 DDG and I have made two new Sea Dart missiles ( SD SAM Test and SD SSM Test ) and two new Launches of the same name. I use the Guided.txt for the default Doctrines, and some other adjustments.

Then I made a test mission with 50 aircraft and tried to kill them all with the SD SAM Test missiles, I fired 50 SAMs and got 50 hits is that to accurate, also I have done this about five to ten times now and the outcome has been the same every time.

[Mike D]

Sea Dart Mod 0 is reported to have about a .60-.70 PK and Mod 2 a .70-.75 PK. Real life experiences in the Falklands lead to quite a bit lower PK for the Mod 0. Determining PK is always a bugger unless you actually have data on real-world use like on the AIM-7. There is no system with 1.00 PK. Honestly, when I determine PK/reliability of a system I do allot of research, filter though the BS, examine the technology and its pedigree, the development era and then make an educated guess.

So on the Sea Dart Mod 0 I'd give it a PK of .55-.60 against aircraft, .50 against high flying missiles, .40 against sea-skimming missiles and .45 against ships. I'd have to look at the Mod 2 again, I don't remember all the improvements to the missile and the FC radar for it but the PK would probably go up a bit across the board.

I also noticed we have the Mod 5 in NWP, the Mod 5 was never built. Should be Mod 2, need to fix that.

[Fleet Command CC]

Real life experiences in the Falklands lead to quite a bit lower PK for the Mod 0

I forget that your trying to make a mod that is has real world has possible, :) but its was just doing my head in, every time I fire a Sea Dart it ether dived into the sea, miss its target, or disappeared. So that's why I had a play around with the SD's, but I do agree I need to lower the hit rate.

Two little questions should the sensors on the Sea Darts be live or not? Also this is a bit of a thick question what's ( PK ) stand for, because I dono what that is.

[Mike D]

Two little questions should the sensors on the Sea Darts be live or not? Also this is a bit of a thick question what's ( PK ) stand for, because I dono what that is.

The Sea Dart is just like the AIM/RIM-7 its SARH, Semi-Active Radar Homing. Meaning the missile has a radar receiver and relies on the ship radar to illuminate and track the target. So if the ship looses radar lock the missile also looses lock. This was the problem with the Sea Dart during the Falklands War. The ship radar and the receiver in the missile had real problems near land separating the target from the background clutter of land and at very low levels separating the target from sea-haze and sea-clutter. But if the target was flying high the SD would work fine. So as long as you stayed below the hill tops or used a Exocet type missile the Sea Dart Mod 0 was almost worthless.

PK is 'probability of kill", essentially the % chance of a hit/kill expressed in decimal form. A PK of .40 means there is a 40% chance or a hit/kill, 1.00 is 100%. Here is a pretty detailed explanation of PK if your into math.http://books.google.com/books?id=NVEtqShrgvkC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=probability+of+kill&source=web&ots=H_tdrvLFqk&sig=jnPVvdkDoDBp5rhe8mdvreu9pVs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=15&ct=result#PPA256,M1

[Warship NWS]

I would also add that various proximity fuzes on early SAMs were prone to being effected by the surface of the water which could cause inaccurate airburst detonations. The two primary elements for improving the SAMs vs VLOW targets were the improved FCR electronics vs surface clutter and target identification/tracking and the warhead proximity fuzes.

Thanks.

[Fleet Command CC]

PK is 'probability of kill", essentially the % chance of a hit/kill expressed in decimal form. A PK of .40 means there is a 40% chance or a hit/kill, 1.00 is 100%. Here is a pretty detailed explanation of PK if your into math.http://books.google.com/books?id=NVEtqShrgvkC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=probability+of+kill&source=web&ots=H_tdrvLFqk&sig=jnPVvdkDoDBp5rhe8mdvreu9pVs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=15&ct=result#PPA256,M1

Hey Mike thanks for the info and web link I will check it out niceone. :)


I would also add that various proximity fuzes on early SAMs were prone to being effected by the surface of the water which could cause inaccurate airburst detonations. The two primary elements for improving the SAMs vs VLOW targets were the improved FCR electronics vs surface clutter and target identification/tracking and the warhead proximity fuzes.

Thanks.

Hey Warship NWS thanks for your input to niceone.