[FIXED] Shooting down projectiles.

[p1t1o]

I get that an antiship missile can be targetted by CIWS, or that modern SAMs could target a HARM.
But Im seeing freefall projectiles like Walleyes being shot down by fighters, with guns. (eg: "First Night", Desert Storm DLC)
Just a heads up that this behaviour could probably use a tune-up.
Unless there are some spectacular pilots out there IRL that Im not aware of. This surely doesnt happen IRL?

[kevinkins]

Yes, I observed the same thing today before I ran out. Specifically, AIM-120s fired from F-22As were killing GBU-31 JDAMs. At first I thought they missed the target, but the 4 JDAMs are recorded as losses not expenditures. The situation can be recreated into a save file but might take some tickering to save at the right moment. I was just starting to look into this via Google when I saw the message above. This was an US vs US sandbox - sort of like a small REDFLAG exercise.

Kevin

[Rory Noonan]

Logged for investigation.

This belongs in the Tech support forum.

Are you able to provide a save file showing this behaviour?

[kevinkins]

Will try to reproduce this in the morning. Please transfer over support Tech Support for us.

[Dimitris]

Walleye specifically is a pretty "wingy" weapon, moreso than a typical Harpoon/Exocet in fact:



More generally though, this and kevinkins's example raises a valid point: Certain weapons are significantly less susceptible to inflight damage than others, because they have smaller (or non-existent) aerodynamic surfaces whose disruption will cause them to depart controlled flight. In this case a JDAM would indeed be much harder to shoot down than a Walleye, at least with a gun or proximity-fused (flak or expanding rod) warhead.

To a certain degree this mirrors the ABM warhead modelling issues we faced a while back: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=4076

We'll come up with something. Promise [:)]

[guanotwozero]

It seems reasonable that if you manage to hit (or detonate close to) a JDAM or other guided bomb, the guidance system may be damaged enough for it to miss.

[kevinkins]

Trying to provide a save today. guanotwozero's makes a valid point, but does that amount to a highly trained F-22 pilot firing from the hip? I can't find a reference that this is part of some tactical doctrine. Has anyone seen this in CMANO? Not sure if this is a 'bug" and may be a valid part of the new combat logic in CMO. If it is valid and new to Command, it would be great to get guidance on under what conditions gravity bombs can be killed by AA missiles. The conditions might be very limited. In my case, the F22s were right next to the bombers (F117s) who released their JDAMs before being detected a short distance from the target. Not an everyday situation.

Kevin

[thewood1]

There was a long discussion thread a year or so ago about this and relating to SAMs shooting down bombs. Not sure of the link now.

[kevinkins]

Attached is a zip file with 5 screenshots showing the sequence (1-5) of two F22s engaging gravity bombs. It also contains a save from just before the F117s enter the range to the target which is a large building.

This is a highly specific situation and a lot depends on the initial track the F22s make when you hit Go.

So the engagement is not reproducible every time you hit Go. Sometimes the track allows for engagement; sometimes not. I suppose you could fiddle with the reference points for the CAP and make it more reproducible. Also, the reliability of the kill is < than 50% (just a quick estimate). I was mistaken, the kills are NOT reported in the Losses data. That may be instructive. But JDAMs are seen destroyed by AIMs.

Note: this is such a subtle situation that it could go unnoticed in a larger scenario.

Kevin

[kevinkins]

Was this behavior discussed internally and considered realistic? Or was there a fix to this along the way? Thanks.

[Primarchx]

If you could shoot down a V-1 with a Spitfire you can probably shoot down a glide bomb with a jet.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: kevinkins
Was this behavior discussed internally and considered realistic? Or was there a fix to this along the way? Thanks.

It's very much on our queue, but being a comparatively lower priority item we haven't gotten around to it yet.

Sometimes I wish for Goro's four hands, a keyboard to each of them.

[kevinkins]

Hi Dimitris ... thanks. I don't think we are addressing the fundamental question. Can or would aircraft engage gravity bombs in any era of combat? I can not find any reference where this has ever happened or when it has even been practiced in training. I can't find any tactical documents that would allow fighters to fire at gravity bombs. Please consider this. Did anyone run the save file I provided? Probably not.

Kevin

[serjames]

I find it pretty incredible to conceive of a flying fighter being able to see and be able to maneuver correctly to engage let alone shoot down iron bombs... It's just such an outside possibility imo

[LargeDiameterBomb]

Engagement of weapons with guns by aircraft, except for straight flying cruise missile (Ie cruise missiles in their cruise phase) should in my opinion be impossible.

But I don't find it hard to believe that for instance two Oerlikon GDF-005 AAA pieces (ROF 2x550 rds/min each) with AHEAD ammunition and a Skyguard 3 fire control system and fire control sensors (Released to the market in the Late 90s if I remember correctly) or a Breda Twin Fast Forty (ROF 2x 450 rds/min) with PFHE grenades with a modern fuze (Late 80s) or a very sopisticated super-quick fuze (Late 2000s) controlled by a 90s fire control system and fire control sensors should be able to hit and/or detonate close enough to a weapon and destroy the seeker portion of a Paveway, Walleye, GBU-15, AGM-65, SDB-II and so on - ie weapons dependant on a nose mounted TV, CCD or IR camera, a nose mounted laser seeker or an nose mounted radar which, depending on the weapon, would make it crash several hundred meters from it's target (An old AGM-65B for instance) or continue rougly on it's ballistic path (A sturdy bomb, for instance a Mk84 with a GBU-12 guidance kit that is completely destroyed - on the other hand if it's just damaged it might very well send commands to the guidance surfaces which makes it miss the target by quite a bit).

Especially the AHEAD ammunition, which releases a swarm of wolfram pellets in front of the target with the help of a timed fuze, a muzzle velocity indicator and a fuze programmer, and the pellets then use kinetic energy to penetrate and damage the target (a 20 round burst fired in 1,1 seconds releases about 3700 pellets each weighing about 5 grams) should have a good chance of destroying or damaging any nose-mounted seeker or perhaps the maneuvering surfaces of almost any weapon. It should be especially effective at weapons that don't maneuver much in the terminal phase and that therefore becomes much easier to hit.

And there really is no reason why a AMRAAM shouldn't be able to hit a JDAM, but the signature modifier should probably be quite severe. The part where the problem comes in is doing enough damage to a weapon that has armor equivalent to maybe two inches of hard steel. On the other hand, if the guidance or maneuvering sections are destroyed early in it's flight the bomb missing it's target is all but guaranteed.

The Israelis allegedly shot down an SA-5 GAMMON missile fired by the Syrians and aimed against one Israeli fighter that was on a strike mission near or in Syria with an ABM, an Arrow III if i remember correctly. I don't know how much value one should afford such statements as they have an obvious large propaganda value , plus a tactically deceptive value, but it doesn't seem impossible with the right engagement geometry considering the size of the SA-5 missile.


Perhaps the solution is bringing the system that was constructed for calculating what parts of an aircraft is damaged when hit which was introduced with CoW and if i remember correctly further refined later to take into consideration from what aspect a target was hit and using it for missile or AAA hits on guided weapons as well.

Here is a quickly thought out suggestion on how that could be used..

A) For missile direct hits:
A1) If the guided weapon is not built around a iron bomb (Walleye) there is a large chance of destroying the guidance system and maneuvering surfaces (95+ %) in which case CEP changes to height at hit in meters x 0,75 m and a slightly smaller chance of detonating the warhead (75 %), in which case the weapon disappears.
A2) If the guided weapon is built around a iron bomb (Paveway, JDAM, GBU-15) there is a large chance of destroying the guidance system and maneuvering surfaces (95+ %) in which case CEP changes to height at hit in meters x 0,5 m and a small chance of detonating the warhead (10 %) which could represent the guided weapon's fuze being activated, in which case the weapon disappears.

B) For missile near misses and proximity fuzed ammunition detonations of the warhead/grenade of guided weapons constructed around an iron bomb:
B1) If the missile/grenade detonates in front of a guided weapon the guidance section can be assumed to be destroyed or malfunctioning. If seeker is destroyed that gives a CEP equal to height at hit in meters x 0.2-0,5 m (a variance depending on the exact placement of the steering surfaces at the time they were immobilized or the amount of damage). It gives a very small chance of detonating the warhead regardless of type of guided weapon (5 %)
B2) If the missile/grenade detonates behind a weapon it gives a small chance of destroying/incapacitating the maneuvering surfaces and a much larger chance of affecting them. The first case increases CEP to height at hit in meters x 0,1-0,5 m if maneuvering surfaces destroyed (Representing the surfaces steering the missile wildly off course) and the latter case increases CEp to height at hit in meters x0,02-0,1 m. If It gives no chance of detonating the warhead regardless of type of guided weapon.
B3) If the missile/grenade detonates to the side of any precision guided weapon constructed around an iron bomb (JDAM, Paveway) it has only a small chance of destroying either the seeker or a small chance of affecting the maneuvering surfaces. If seeker destroyed that gives a CEP equal to height at hit in meters x 0.2-0,5 m (a variance depending on placement of steering surfaces at the time they were immobilized). If the maneuvering surfaces are affected it gives a CEP of equal to height at hit in meters x 0,05 m. If maneuvering surfaces destroyed CEP is equal to height at hit in meters x 0,75 m.

C) If the missile/grenade detonates to the side of any other precision guided weapon not constructed around an iron bomb it has only a small chance of destroying either the seeker, a small chance of affecting the maneuvering surfaces or a small chance of detonating the warhead/destroying the weapon outright (The larger the warhead in the missile/grenade the greater chance of damage). If seeker destroyed that gives a CEP equal to height at hit in meters x 0.2-0,5 m (a variance depending on placement of steering surfaces at the time they were immobilized). If the maneuvering surfaces are affected it gives a CEP of equal to height at hit in meters x 0,05 m. If maneuvering surfaces destroyed CEP is equal to height at hit in meters x 0,75 m. If warhead detonated weapon disappears.

D1) If a CIWS type weapon with non-detonating ammunition (C-RAM, Phalanx, Millenium 35/1000 with AHEAD ammuntion) is used against a weapon built around an iron bomb it can only hit the seeker or maneuvering surface depending on the CIWS is attacking the PGM from the front or the rear but there is a very large chance of destroying respective part if weapon is hit (Perhaps 99%). If seeker destroyed that gives a CEP equal to height at hit in meters x 0.2-0,5 m (a variance depending on placement of steering surfaces at the time they were immobilized). If the maneuvering surfaces are destroyed the CEP is equal to height at hit in meters x 0.75 m
D2) If a CIWS type weapon with non-detonating ammunition (C-RAM, Phalanx, Millenium 35/1000 with AHEAD ammuntion) is used against a weapon not built around an iron bomb it can hit the seeker or maneuvering surface regardless if the CIWS is attacking the PGM from the front or the rear and there is also a large chance of activating the warhead in the guided weapon (75 %) but there is a very large chance of destroying the other respective parts if weapon is hit (99 %). If seeker and maneuvering surfaces destroyed that gives a CEP equal to height at hit in meters x 0,75-1,25 m (a variance depending on how damaged the seeker, guidance module and maneuvering surfaces are). If the warhead is activated the weapon disappears.


Let me say that the numbers that i thought up regarding increased CEPs are just guesses.

Of course, I don't expect this to be implemented, it's probably far too complicated for the devs to spend the time on it, but think of it as a friendly suggestion for how one could think about this subject.

Keep up the good work.

[serjames]

Interesting data there. I have to agree that the tech exists... But for me the main factor is the OODA loop issue. Can you honestly imagine being able to reliably spot, track, engage and fire on something that is falling with terminal velocity... probably one of 10's of weapons employed concurrently... with the risk of likely getting blown up

It just seems so infeasible. I get if it was Computer driven fire-control - taking the human element 100% out of the loop, once activated. E.g. CIWS. But otherwise I think these should be considered absolute outside chances at BEST

[kevinkins]

What is the current thinking on this topic? I don't see it as being "fixed" in any release notes. But maybe conceptually the developers think a fix is not needed. Been in the queue for 2 months. Thanks.

Kevin

[Dimitris]

This was fixed last May; small munitions (and aircraft, e.g. mini-UAVs) are now significantly harder to shoot down, especially with older-generation weapons.