Thread 63955885

How reliable is ship air defense in reality?

>>63955885 (OP)
>Aegis destroyer
Could probably down russians stealth things before it can ping them
>Russian ship
Sinks on it own before the plane can a lock on it.

it's generally better than ground-based since your horizon isn't as cluttered. it's still not easy and if your systems and crew both aren't working properly, it won't work as well as advertised.

some examples:
>uss gravely failed to detect an incoming c-802 and it was only saved by a last second ciws burst on auto.
>uss mason got early warning on 5 incoming c-802s and shot down or spoofed 4 of them (the 5th was spoofed by another ddg).
>uss lincoln's cvbg failed to detect an incoming albm and it splashed down within a few miles of lincoln
>uss stark and moskva both ate 2 sea-skimmers; start didn't detect them, and moskva almost certainly didn't

>>63955949
Didn't the Ukies also use a drone (may or may not have been a Bayraktar, my memories are fuzzy) as a distraction during the Moskva op?

>>63955962
i recall that they had one up, and that might have distracted them, yes. incoming subsonic sea-skimmers don't have much thermal emissions and have a smallish radar cross-section that can make them hard to detect. awacs is a much more reliable way to detect them.

some more:
>hms gloucester detected and shot down 1 of 2 silkworms fired on uss missouri
>uss laboon shot down 3 incoming albms (it shot down one sea-skimmer on another occasion)

>>63955926
Pretty much this.
The only reason an Aegis wouldn't intercept a target is that it knew several hundred miles beforehand that it was going to miss.

>>63955885 (OP)
what game is that

>>63955926
...Yeah, that's fair.

>>63956075
Nuclear Option. You're welcome.
Also there's one or two threads up on /k/ atm with discussion about NO

>>63956441
Thanks anon, appreciate it.

>>63955949

>some examples:
>uss gravely failed to detect an incoming c-802 and it was only saved by a last second ciws burst on auto.
>uss mason got early warning on 5 incoming c-802s and shot down or spoofed 4 of them (the 5th was spoofed by another ddg).
>uss lincoln's cvbg failed to detect an incoming albm and it splashed down within a few miles of lincoln
>uss stark

wtf? when was that!?

Which videogame?

>>63956451
gravely, mason is probably ongoing red sea thing.
lincoln group might be a live fire excercise.
stark was tanker war, a subtheater of 80-88 iran-iraq war.

How far are we from datalinks / HMD displays actually being as robust as they are in Nuclear Option? How the fuck do ground vehicles survive in this environment?

>>63958191
>How far are we from datalinks / HMD displays actually being as robust as they are in Nuclear Option?
We're 9 years in. F-35 is so smart they have to implement software patches to make it accept training decoys as real targets because it normally discerns and rejects them. F-22 is kinda similar in the air but much less capable against ground targets because unlike the Lightning it was designed 90% for air to air, while the latter was the opposite.

>>63955885 (OP)
Pretty damn good if the crew is all on the same page and systems are working. You can fit bigger and more capable sensors and weapons on a ship then you could ever hop to mount to a plane or tank

>>63955926
I mean you're not wrong.

>>63956075
>>63956441
I can attest it's a very nice game. It's the best entry level 'sim' game basically on the market that has decent SP and MP components, and one of the only I've found where mouse and keyboard is just as viable and useable as HOTAS, MOTAS, HOETASS and other such HO's and ASS's components

>>63959717
It's not as m&kb friendly as, say, War Thunder, but it's playable. Personally I play it on the Steam Deck and by leveraging the four buttons on the back of the grip and I managed to create a layout that fits all controls in a very ergonomic way: target select and cancel are mapped to my left middle and ring fingers, fire and countermeasures are mapped to my right middle and ring fingers, which means that all main functions can be performed without losing control of both aircraft and view.

The game is still a bit rough around the edges, there's quality of life improvements that need to be implemented, but I agree, it's the most approachable sim and I love it.

>>63956451
the first three were in the red sea; though it wasn't lincoln, rather eisenhower that had the asbm land nearby (this was only reported in a single journal by bong intel agents). there's quite a few more from the red sea from the coalition forces. drones, asbms and/or cruise missiles shot down. the houthi arsenal isn't the most modern, but subsonic sea-skimmers are quite dangerous no matter, and asbms can be hard to shoot down depending on what missiles you have.

wikipedia lists nearly everything that occurred during the recent red see crisis and those in previous years.

I always thought modern ships were lame and boring, but maybe they are actually cool

>>63960183
If you stick to your frigates and destroyers modern ships are really interesting on the inside.