Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Stopped reading there
You mean how the psychic air assets aren't historically accurate?
Exactly. Might be better to focus on the real issue then to create a unicorn to slay the vampire! Perhaps a “realistic air ASW” setting that nerfs the helicopters & aircraft. Then when players think it makes the game to easy they can uncheck the box.
Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the PRC didn't invade Taiwan in 2000, either.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's not like submarine-launched AA missiles are anything near fantasy- the British had them back in the 70s and even sold them to Israel. The Russians developed their own sub-launched variant of the Igla for the Kilo-class.
In the 00s, the USN began developing a submarine launched variant of the AIM-9X and tested it from a submarine successfully in 2009, though since then they've been hush hush about it.
The German Navy's IDAS all-purpose submarine missile will supposedly roll a TLAM, Harpoon, and AA missile into one platform as well, though it's still in development. The list goes on...
Having an AIM-9X wouldn't be dissimilar from a Sea Lance, which is already available as a mod. They're both weapons which could have existed in the game's timeframe if the navy had considered them a priority. Heck, it'd be fine if Killerfish didn't even add the missiles in the game, as long as the AA functionality is there so modders like me have the chance to do the rest of the work.
DARPA and then USN had the SIAM program way back in the 70s which was roughly in line with the development that the RN had done with Blowpipe/HMS Aneas, however it was never fitted to a sub, although it may have been test-launched from a cannister underwater.
Until it can be employed with some kind of stand-off launch well away from ownship a sub-launced SAM remains a massive liability to the boat firing it.
It is admittedly a niche situation, which is why sub-SAM systems have been such a low priority for navies, but it's a niche situation which occurs disproportionately often in CW.
Because in reality there's never just one aircraft, positive contact with an enemy sub is going to draw them like flies to fresh dung. Even if you manage to successfully shoot down whatever you're firing at, it's going makes for a more exact flaming datum (vs the sinking of an enemy ship or submarine) due to the shorter range a submarine-launched SAM wouald have vs. its other weapons. Another thing to consider is the act of trying to engage MPA with a SAM would keep you slow and at or near PD when you should be trying to break contact and get away.
What I would guess they're probably looking at is either some kind of towed "SAM buoy" or else possibly even a mine but there are all kinds of hurdles on how you would control and target that type of thing.
It's no different from firing TLAMs or TASMs in this game. In real life those would only be only be fired when the sub is isolated from any type of ASW unit for exactly the same reasons, yet the only times the game gives you any reason to use them, it also puts you in the exact situations which would exclude their use IRL. (ASW aircraft patrolling nearby, with an ASW surface group operating / recently sunk in the immediate area)
In contrast the game frequently puts you into the exact niche situations where these subs would use their potential AA weapons: when they're currently located and actively engaged by the present ASW aircraft, especially in shallow waters where the boat cannot dive away.
Soviet invasion of West Germany was a real threat in the '60s, the tension in 1984 was real, and the tension around Taiwan Strait was also absolutely real (though it took place in 1996 instead of 2000, this is a problem of how the game dates the news articles)
With that in mind, any prototype equipments/ concepts/ blueprints would be out of place in this game, including your sub-launched AA missiles. This is not WOWS, you're playing the wrong game.
Game wise it would also be pretty difficult to build a UI like this, and changing the cruitial element of "ASW aircrafts are invincible to subs" is definitely a no-no for a game that aims at simulating cold war era submarine warfare.
I will say, however, that I think it's very important that KFG adds point-defense missile system functionality. Some ships do not have CIWS at all, and were entirely dependent on systems like the RIM-7 to shoot down incoming enemy missiles. (Early Knox-class for example)
The Blowpipe did exactly that... It blew... The weapon was never fielded operationally on subs in the Royal Navy, because they could not get it to work. I don't think the ones sold to Israel was intended for submarine use either.
Also the SAM on the Kilo class back in the late 80's early 90's could be fired from the sail, whilst surfaced.
Only in recent years have submarine launched SAM's become a thing again.
I think it speaks volumes that no submarine navy has pursued this capasity to the point of ever developing a functioning weapon... Until now...
That said, I would not mind seeing them add the possibility to add this to campaigns set in the future, or to let the player choose, like in the RSR campaigns from 1996, and onwards...
I worry though that adding this will take time and effort... So, let's have the Soviet Campaign first...
I would also welcome helicopters and MPA RTB for fuel and weapons, in trade for less god like powers... They don't have to be god to be dangerous... Ever present with less accuracy would be great...
- Dolphin 48
I don't see any evidence that these submarine-launch systems did not function- the Blowpipe's combat history was bad because the missile system itself (not the sub-launch platform, which never saw combat) was outclassed by aircraft technology when it saw the battlefield.
The fact that submarine AA platforms have not materialized on a large scale is not due to them being technologically infeasible, but rather because in a majority of situations, navies do not need sub-based AA when they have SAMs on surface vessels and carrier-based CAP support.
The advantages of sub-based AA outweigh the disadvantages only in a minority of situations, which naturally makes development and procurement of these systems a low priority.
However, Cold Waters regularly puts players into the exact situations where submarines would use AA missiles- as a "derringer" self-defense weapon, once the submarine has been located and is under attack by ASW air assets with no hope of allied AA support and limited escape options.
Laddie, you're arguing with an Active-duty Submariner. Not saying that Rokvam is infallible, he's still human (I think) but he is going to have more knowledge than he has liberty to speak about. Just be advised
And Israel did remove the blowpipe launchers from the Gal-class... whether it was because they 'blew' or because they were deemed unnecessary is unknown. From what I have read in the past, sub-launched SAMs had a pretty troubled developmental history, so at least back in the '84 campaign they would be a no-go. But the 2000 SCS campaign... they may be feaseable.
Just for reference, if I overexplain background info, it's not because I think the person I'm replying to necessarily does not know, but more generally for the sake of anyone who might be reading.