Andy,
You were right. If my math is on, .015km=49.5ft Still less than most players will reliably want to fly at, even with a radalt linked autopilot.
Arlki,
Closure vs. Kill Counts.
Thanks for the info, this is what I was talking about when I asked about the formation and spacing of the enemy assault forces.
I -think- what you are seeing is less like modern naval lane and zone defense than a 'B-17' solution where at least the Sea Monster threats are causing you to approach with low closure and you are catching the combined effects of every 'tail gunner in the box'.
For these threats, AAM should be the preferred solution and target size should more than outweight AGL heights.
Against a 'real ship' it shouldn't matter, at least at less than 20nm shooter distances, they just aren't fast enough to extend out of the search lane, let alone ballistic footprint.
However; if you create separate, staggered, 2-5nm echelon or diamond group-center formations all fires can be sectored-clear of each other.
Throw in outer pickets and possibly stood off AAW controller/trap platforms another 15-20nm beyond this and not only is there less likelihood of literally 'crossed' fires but you can Inner/Mid/Outer zone your fires too.
And if the lead and trailed elements zig zag on even a lazy basis, no 'unprotected' stern-on/bow-on denied aspect is shown as each element of the group is able to bring at least two (fore and aft) sensor/gun/missile inner zone systems to bear, quickly.
This is where I would start to feel 'exposed' to too many threat fires. Not by aspect but by closure on a range overlapped threat.
For myself, rather than blow the missile/defensive models completely (as IMO, has happened), I would find it FAR more 'enjoyable', gameplay wise, to have a random-
"Hey this time 4 got thru!"
Gamblers Odds Effect upon salvo fires where say 12 Penguins, fired from 11-19nm out (max range list varies between marks and tables, 17-23nm) were assigned to attack the ring ships protecting the inner ward of merchantmen or whatever.
Because Penguin can reject hulks, if AAW Escort targets #1 and #2 on the east side of the convoy were 'already burning' after shots 1-thru-5 had been shot down or decoyed but 6, 7, and 8 had scored disabling hits, then the basically defenseless inner convoy elements are now 'eligible' for the remaining rounds which reject and flyover to acquire secondarily designated threats.
Penguin is additionally advantaged in this mode because IR decoys are not as widely deployed as floater-RF and SRBOC and transports are otherwise generally defenseless.
But as stated, Penguin is also fairly short on range and so how far 'in' it goes (past the outer ring) to -find- those targets is a function of how much risk you are willing to impart in initial closure to the defense cordon of spearpoints.
If the inner ward is 20nm inside the pickets (plenty of shoot across/back volume and warning time), you have to blow a hole in the outer defenses -just to reach AGM-119 firing range- on the true targets.
OTOH, if you withhold 4 missiles and all 8 of the initial salvo are decoyed or shot down or fail to cause disabling damage, then effectively, even if you shoot again, your 'remaining' chances of just -hitting- the AAW escorts are actually lower.
And getting past them to the convoy is now effectively impossible.
It's true that the AGM-119 has a lighter charge (265lbs IIRR) compared to 'standard' 500lb Western AShM warhead or the 1-2K equivalent of Russian missiles.
_But_ like all Anti Shipping Missiles, they are designed to go delayed-action deep and the blast through multiple bulkheads, out and down.
Either 'keel holing' the ship from a popup/diver profile through a critical (CIC or magazine or power generation) compartment or as a 'stoved in' ribcrush effect against the waterline where the effects are purely hydraulic and even a 20` caused by sea influx through through a 12ft hole can take multiple weapons mounts out of engagement. On a merchie, the weak get eaten as soon as they fall out of the convoy herd.
Surprising amounts of added damage done by the incendiary effect of unburned (rocket propellant grain in this case) fuel is still only an 'after effect' to effectively keep DC from resealing compartments against flooding and establishing power/comms back to combat.
Under 10K tonnes and usually even a singlehit causes the DC crews to lose the battle and you end up with a slow sinker whose spine breaks under the tonnage of water or a Very Long Towtruck operation back to a major refit.
Comparitively, using Hellfire of any kind (but especially Shaped Charge Brimstone) you are instead looking at shell-hole type 'surface' effects no more than a foot or so across and six feet in.
These are the kinds of insignificant damages that required 8" and 11" pocket battleships like the Graf Spee and Gneisnau to sometimes expend a hundred large caliber shells to sink the commonest cargo ships in their role as merchant raiders.
Overpenetration at the surface level doesn't leave a large enough volume behind the hull-impact to compromise it's buoyancy.
Effectively, I would feel like I was engaging in Needle-In-Voodoo-Doll warfare on a _whale_.
Operationally, the problem arises when you either have to come back and try again as mentioned above or accept let-slip-thru-to-land inshore engagement on many more point threats.
In a 'beachhead' scenario, both fires and targets are mixed and the number of signature masks on both shooter and weapon are tripled so that you have a very compressed acquisition window.
That's a bad place to be.
KP
LINKS-
FAS Penguin
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/agm-119.htm NASNI
http://www.nasni.navy.mil/wings/hsl49/Penguin.htm If Russian CADWS can defeat this...
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/agm-119-980721-N-5961C-001.jpg USNI
http://www.periscope1.com/demo/weapons/missrock/antiship/w0001849.html