SAMs and Air to Air missiles shooting down A-to-S weapons?

[Blast33]

Guys thanx for the latest update! Great work.
I have a proposal for the next one.

When attackin a SAM or a target with SAMs defending too often, my Air to Surface weapons will be shot down by the SAMs.
And if it is by a S-300, SA-15/17 or SA-22 Pantsir and so on I can understand this (although the hit percentage in the game is huge...)

But an SA-2 and SA-3 shooting down JASSMS and SDB's? No way!
Or what my last drop was to write this thread: AA-8 Aphid (R-60) Air to Air missiles shooting down SDBs..!?!


Could you please make an update to make this more realistic?
Thanx

[Dimitris]

Hi,

SA-2 engaging JASSMs? That's a surprise. I'd like to see a save of that.

Let's look at this in detail.

Which of the steps in the typical engagement sequence sounds unrealistic:

1) Search radar (which set?) detect the SDB.

2) Tracking/illumination radar (which system?) gets a sufficient return off the SDB to effectively track/illuminate.

3) AAW weapon (which one?) is launched at SDB. Depending on the weapon, the pre-fire checklist will be different.

4) Weapon impacts at SDB with a reasonable kill probability.

Let us keep in mind that the SDB in-flight is a non-trivial (signature-wise) aerodynamic target, and not especially hard to engage (a Paveway bomb, for example of comparison, would be a tougher target because it has no large aerodynamic surfaces to disrupt). Is there something inherent in the design of the R-60TM missile that makes it incapable of engaging such targets?

Thanks.

[towtow59_MatrixForum]

Would an glide bomb without an engine even have enough of an IR signature for an IR AAM to lock on to?

[LewisOwen]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

Hi,

SA-2 engaging JASSMs? That's a surprise. I'd like to see a save of that.

Let's look at this in detail.

Which of the steps in the typical engagement sequence sounds unrealistic:

1) Search radar (which set?) detect the SDB.

2) Tracking/illumination radar (which system?) gets a sufficient return off the SDB to effectively track/illuminate.

3) AAW weapon (which one?) is launched at SDB. Depending on the weapon, the pre-fire checklist will be different.

4) Weapon impacts at SDB with a reasonable kill probability.

Let us keep in mind that the SDB in-flight is a non-trivial (signature-wise) aerodynamic target, and not especially hard to engage (a Paveway bomb, for example of comparison, would be a tougher target because it has no large aerodynamic surfaces to disrupt). Is there something inherent in the design of the R-60TM missile that makes it incapable of engaging such targets?

Thanks.

Hi there,

don't get me wrong Dimitris, all of this sounds really nice, but it would sound even nicer with some reports of, really, any type of A-G munitions being shot down by 1960s, 70s SAM systems thrown in there. Be it guided bombs, cruise missiles, glide bombs (let alone HARMs and such) etc. It's not like there haven't been any occasions for that. My assumption is, of course, that I'm stupid and uninformed, but I am the kind of person who is always eager to expand his knowledge and learn something new everyday [:)]

(BTW: Hearing about an A-G munition being shot down by a short-range IR A-A missile would be even more enriching [:)])

With highest regards,

LewisOwen

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: LewisOwen
Hi there,

don't get me wrong Dimitris, all of this sounds really nice, but it would sound even nicer with some reports of, really, any type of A-G munitions being shot down by 1960s, 70s SAM systems thrown in there. Be it guided bombs, cruise missiles, glide bombs (let alone HARMs and such) etc. It's not like there haven't been any occasions for that. My assumption is, of course, that I'm stupid and uninformed, but I am the kind of person who is always eager to expand his knowledge and learn something new everyday [:)]

Numerous TLAMs were shot down by Iraqi ZSU-23-4s and SA-8s during Desert Storm, and IIRC there has been at least one case of a Delilah small cruise missile being shot down by Syrian defences (though it was not clarified if this was from a Pantsir system or an older kit). Antiquated triple-A was even bringing down V-1s in WW2. I'm sure others can bring up more examples.

(BTW: Hearing about an A-G munition being shot down by a short-range IR A-A missile would be even more enriching [:)])

<Shrug>Maybe no pilot has been lucky enough (or directed appropriately) to be in suitable position until now. Maybe it will happen tomorrow, maybe never. The question to ask (and the question that Command always asks) is if this is technically feasible.

The historical record is a useful reference source, but can also be misleading if the context is ignored. If we were to slavishly follow historical accounts, for example, we'd have to model Aegis/SM-2 as completely ineffective (except against airliners), or model the MiG-25 as a better fighter than the MiG-29 & Su-27 (since, contrary to them, it has actually shot down a western fighter) or mark the Tornado as a really, really terrible low-level striker.

Context matters.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: towtow59_MatrixForum

Would an glide bomb without an engine even have enough of an IR signature for an IR AAM to lock on to?

That's an excellent question, and we'll need to check the baseline signature of the SDB (in wings-deployed configuration) against the sensitivity of the R-60TM seeker to determine if a lock-on is technically feasible at a practical range.

[Primarchx]

Lots of Typhoon and Spitfire pilots knocked V1s out of the sky during the London Terror Bombing in WWII. Israel has engaged hundreds of rockets with Iron Dome. Defending against incoming ordnance is not uncommon, historically.

It would be nice to have a Doctrine, similar to that of using SAMs vs Surface Targets, that allows/denies a platform the opportunity to engage Guided Weapons if that's what a scenario designer wants to bake in. Or perhaps a WRA that limits such attacks if the ph/pk will likely be under a certain threshold.

[LewisOwen]

Numerous TLAMs were shot down by Iraqi ZSU-23-4s and SA-8s during Desert Storm

Heard about this one [;)]

TLAM hardly fulfills the definition of A-G munition, and I don't think it is irrelevant in this case.
IIRC Iraqis set up those short-range air defense systems along 109's known flight paths for the exact purpose of shooting them down. A far cry from immobile legacy area defense SAM systems spontaneously shooting down A-G munitions like it would be in their job description. This being the situation we currently "enjoy" in CMANO.

And I am sorry if my previous post was misleading, but I am mostly concerned about the performance of longer ranged legacy area defense SAM systems (read: SA-2, SA-3, SA-4, SA-5)

IIRC there has been at least one case of a Delilah small cruise missile being shot down by Syrian defences (though it was not clarified if this was from a Pantsir system or an older kit).

(from CMANO's standpoint) Rather poor performance. If CMANO would be anything to go by (the topic of this discussion), SA-5 SAM system (Reminder: SA-5 was specifically designed to engage massive strategic aircraft like B-52 or B-58. A far cry from small A-G munitions many times smaller than the already small tactical aircraft deploying them.) should have absolutely no issues successfully engaging Delilah-style cruise missiles from literally dozens of nautical miles away.

I'm not even mentioning any of the other air defense systems Syria has.

Please don't get stuck on this particular example. I am not saying that this is what should've happened, but how come we never hear about this kind of engagements (incl. outside of Syria) considering that Israel has been conducting airstrikes on Syria for pretty much as long as IAF exists?

Now this is the very essence of the notion I'm trying to bring forward here: Maybe it's just me, but I have never heard about legacy Soviet area defense SAM systems shooting down A-G munitions being any sort of major operational, strategic or tactical consideration. IIRC (I might be wrong here; don't have the book anymore) Diane T. Putney's 2004 Airpower Advantage; Planning the Gulf War Air Campaign, 1989-1991 doesn't even really mention legacy Soviet area defense SAM systems shooting down A-G munitions as being any major consideration.
Whereas in CMANO it is always one of the major considerations when conducting airstrikes against enemy with even those not-so-obsolete-after-all legacy systems. Even when deploying something like HARM against SA-5 which is capable of shooting it down. It turns almost any kind of mission into saturation-style attack. Something I would think would be reserved for more modern air defense networks.

Antiquated triple-A was even bringing down V-1s in WW2. I'm sure others can bring up more examples.

Not really relevant to the discussion at hand, is it?

...for example, we'd have to model Aegis/SM-2 as completely ineffective (except against airliners)...

Are you talking about deployment against maneuvering targets? If not then as an example:
https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-ma ... les-attack

Lots of Typhoon and Spitfire pilots knocked V1s out of the sky during the London Terror Bombing in WWII.

Not really relevant to the discussion at hand, is it?

Israel has engaged hundreds of rockets with Iron Dome.

Not really relevant to the discussion at hand, is it?

DISCLAIMER:
I am really sorry if any of my statements come off as being passive-aggressive or presumptuous. I try to be nice to everybody on this forum [:)]

Cheers

[ARCNA442]

I tend to agree with Blast33 that CMANO probably overestimates the capabilities of defensive weapons. This is particularly noticeable in modern scenarios where basically the only way to defeat systems like Aegis or S-300 is to throw weapons at them faster than they can shoot them down.

However, I also agree with Dimitris that the historical record is rather thin and there is no way to say for sure who is correct in this debate.

Still there is something I've noticed with CMANO that may explain this problem - the game assumes that all systems are on full alert and operating at 100%. In the real world this is rarely the case, and distractions, surprise, fear, and fatigue will substantially reduce the on paper effectiveness of weapon. While modelling such effects would likely present a considerable challenge, it would likely substantially improve the realism of CMANO.

Another smaller but possibly contributing factor is that I see the weapons endgame calculations do not show any sort of size modifier. This might be a simpler way of toning down the effectiveness of defensive weapons against things like SDB.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442
I tend to agree with Blast33 that CMANO probably overestimates the capabilities of defensive weapons. This is particularly noticeable in modern scenarios where basically the only way to defeat systems like Aegis or S-300 is to throw weapons at them faster than they can shoot them down.

He's talking specifically about older systems. An entirely different proposition.

Aegis, S-300 and the like were specifically designed to shoot down almost anything you'll throw at them.

[ARCNA442]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442
I tend to agree with Blast33 that CMANO probably overestimates the capabilities of defensive weapons. This is particularly noticeable in modern scenarios where basically the only way to defeat systems like Aegis or S-300 is to throw weapons at them faster than they can shoot them down.

He's talking specifically about older systems. An entirely different proposition.

Aegis, S-300 and the like were specifically designed to shoot down almost anything you'll throw at them.

Sorry but I accidentally posted before I was done typing - see my edit.

Also, saying that S-300 were specifically designed to shoot down almost anything isn't quite correct given the parallel development of systems like Pantsir especially to deal with guided weapons.

[Dimitris]

LewisOwen < Can you please provide specific save files?

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442
Still there is something I've noticed with CMANO that may explain this problem - the game assumes that all systems are on full alert and operating at 100%. In the real world this is rarely the case, and distractions, surprise, fear, and fatigue will substantially reduce the on paper effectiveness of weapon. While modelling such effects would likely present a considerable challenge, it would likely substantially improve the realism of CMANO.

This is a reasonable observation. The answer to this is two-legged:

Leg 1: Tactical surprise against alert units is definitely feasible in Command, and is in fact one of the chief reasons for the existence of the OODA loops. When we put together OODA, we specifically had in mind the canonical example of IAF strikers popping over ridges and blasting SA-6 batteries in the window of a few precious seconds before the SAMs could engage them. Play the "SAM busters" or "Bekaa Valley" scenarios in "Shifting Sands" if you haven't already.

Leg 2: Lower states of readiness (aka "Condition" levels in ships). This is something we've considered since the early beta days of Command and have deliberately avoided including in the core sim so far, mainly because having to make this critical decision on a regular basis (which ship(s) goes on high alert so that others can stand down and rest?) would add one more layer of management that the player has to handle. Now you may say "well, implement it and have it managed by the 'task force commander' AI". That's OK, but now you have one more soft, squishy, _endlessly debatable_ factor that needs to be correctly articulated and explained when analyzing simulated combat results. The internet is already awash with CMANO matchups that fetishize hardware while almost completely ignoring the human element ("WHUT IS DOCTRINE/ROE???").

That said, if you feel that you absolutely must include this factor, you can, through Lua.

Another smaller but possibly contributing factor is that I see the weapons endgame calculations do not show any sort of size modifier. This might be a simpler way of toning down the effectiveness of defensive weapons against things like SDB.

Look at the message log on the OP. You'll see some of the messages mentioning target size as a modifier.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442
Also, saying that S-300 were specifically designed to shoot down almost anything isn't quite correct given the parallel development of systems like Pantsir especially to deal with guided weapons.

Hence the "almost".

[Blast33]

Bugger, I made lots of tests and put it in a long thread but it will not post it because it was timed out!
All the text is gone.. and the previews where fine..

Could you please give a warning before this happens? I push the button ok and now all is gone, while the preview was fine..[:(]
One evening spend for nothing is not good to explain to my wife [X(]

[Blast33]

I lost my main data because of the time-out but this is was still available:

SA-6 vs GBU-31 JDAM

22:28:03 - Weapon: SA-6a Gainful [3M9] #101 is attacking GBU-39/B SDB #88 with a base PH of 45%. Intercept angle is 264 deg - hit probability adjusted to 24%. Target signature modifier: -15%. Final PH: 9%. Result: 75 - MISS 31

SA-6 vs. SDB:
22:27:45 - Weapon: SA-6a Gainful [3M9] #97 is attacking GBU-39/B SDB #91 with a base PH of 45%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 45%. Target signature modifier: -15%. Final PH: 30%. Result: 41 - MISS

So a SAM produced from 1968 (WIKI) is shooting down projectiles with a sub meter frontal aspect (RCS) with almost one out of three missiles?

SA-3 vs. JDAM:
22:17:31 - Weapon: SA-3b Goa [5V27, V-601P] #68 is attacking GBU-31(V)3/B JDAM [BLU-109/B] #65 with a base PH of 40%. Intercept angle is 360 deg - hit probability adjusted to 40%. Target signature modifier: -15%. Final PH: 25%. Result: 27 - MISS

SA-3 vs. SDB:
22:23:52 - Weapon: SA-3b Goa [5V27, V-601P] #83 is attacking GBU-39/B SDB #72 with a base PH of 40%. Intercept angle is 360 deg - hit probability adjusted to 40%. Target signature modifier: -15%. Final PH: 25%. Result: 89 - MISS

A missile produced from 1961 is hitting small bombs better than real aircraft in Iraq and Serbia?

SA-2 vs. Brimstone..
22:27:10 - Weapon: SA-2f Guideline Mod 1 [S-75M2 Volkhov, 5YA23 / V-759] #104 is attacking Brimstone 2 #97 with a base PH of 35%. Intercept angle is 315 deg - hit probability adjusted to 26%. Target speed modifier: -15%. Target signature modifier: -20%. Final PH: 1%. Result: 50 - MISS
The Final PH is 1% but we all understand that a FAN SONG FC radar will not see a Brimstone and get a fire solution to fire a SA-2

Would it be an idea/ technical feasable to give only the double digit SAMs a limited capability against incoming projectiles?

[ARCNA442]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

Look at the message log on the OP. You'll see some of the messages mentioning target size as a modifier.

I see a size modifier for the guns, not for the missiles. Since it was already implemented for some weapons, it seemed like a simple fix for other weapons.

Seeing that the signature modifier only appeared for 2 of the 4 missile attacks also made me look up the SDB IR signature in the database and apparently the weapon is 7.26 times more detectable from the side than from the front/rear (1.89nm vs 0.26nm) while visual signature is only 2.76 time more visible from the side (0.71nm vs 0.26nm). A similar ratio can be found for many (if not all) of the other guided bombs in the database - what's the reasoning behind the huge difference in IR and visual side signatures when front/rear are identical?

[LewisOwen]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

LewisOwen < Can you please provide specific save files?

The concerns I expressed in my previous post are well beyond any particular save files.

What save files do you expect me to provide you with?

ORIGINAL: Blast33


Would it be an idea/ technical feasable to give only the double digit SAMs a limited capability against incoming projectiles?

Buddy, I'm sorry, but that's just not how the world works.

Your original post seemed to be somewhat more reasonably worded and seemingly focused on legacy soviet area defense SAM systems so I decided to join the discussion. Performance of modern, sophisticated SAM systems appears to be more or less pretty well guesstimated.

You have to remember. Most of those modern SAM systems (both short and long range) have been specifically designed to be able to engage a vast array of modern A-G munitions. Depending on the system this includes sea-skimming/low-level cruising cruise missiles and supersonic ARMs.

Something like Pantsir can be described as somewhat of a land based CIWS and it is, in principles, not that much different from something like Kortik CIWS. Its whole point of existence is to shoot down incoming munitions, not aircraft. Even though, of course, there's nothing stopping it from doing that too.

Naval-based versions of S-300 are employed in a similar fashion to something like SM-2 and similar things are expected of it. (obviously I'm kinda ignoring Aegis here, but you get the point)

Their land-based counterparts are not that much different and excel at engaging, really, pretty much anything thrown at them, because that's what they have been designed to do.

Some of those more modern SAM systems have anti-ballistic capabilities. Think about this for a moment.
If a SAM system is capable of achieving a reasonable Pk against ballistic missile's warhead reentering at Mach 7 (if not more) then how difficult for a SAM system can it possibly be to successfully engage slow, subsonic, unstealthy, non-maneuvering glide bomb calmly gliding towards its target?

You just have to put everything in the right perspective.

There is a reason why Hypersonic, maneuvering, ballistic missiles are the closest thing you'll get to a "game-changer".

My point was that things just kinda start to fall apart once you start going back in time and start applying the same rules to the legacy area defense SAM systems.

Cheers

[ARCNA442]

ORIGINAL: LewisOwen

You have to remember. Most of those modern SAM systems (both short and long range) have been specifically designed to be able to engage a vast array of modern A-G munitions. Depending on the system this includes sea-skimming/low-level cruising cruise missiles and supersonic ARMs.

Something like Pantsir can be described as somewhat of a land based CIWS and it is, in principles, not that much different from something like Kortik CIWS. Its whole point of existence is to shoot down incoming munitions, not aircraft. Even though, of course, there's nothing stopping it from doing that too.

Naval-based versions of S-300 are employed in a similar fashion to something like SM-2 and similar things are expected of it. (obviously I'm kinda ignoring Aegis here, but you get the point)

Their land-based counterparts are not that much different and excel at engaging A-G munitions, because that's what they have been designed to do.

Some of those more modern SAM systems have anti-ballistic capabilities. Think about this for a moment.
If a SAM system is capable of achieving a reasonable Pk against ballistic missile's warhead reentering at Mach 7 (if not more) then how difficult for a SAM system can it possibly be to successfully engage slow, subsonic, unstealthy, non-maneuvering glide bomb calmly gliding towards its target?

The problem is the actual track record of these systems falls far short of their claimed performance. There is literally camera footage on YouTube of Israeli missiles hitting Pantsir systems Syria. We have seen Patriot batteries struggling to intercept crude UAV's in Saudi Arabia. We saw AEGIS fail to neutralize single digit raids of subsonic weapons and have to rely on soft kill systems off Yemen.

And ABM capabilities are really not relevant. Even the slowest most basic glide bomb is infinitely less predictable than any ICBM - even if it doesn't make any radical defensive maneuvers, a guided weapon by definition have to make some maneuvers or else its guidance couldn't achieve anything.

[AndrewJ]

Another item to consider is the capability of the warhead fuze systems. In most cases the SAM warheads are proximity fuzed, and not only have to be able to detect the target, but must detect it in time to detonate the warhead at the proper distance for the fragmentation pattern to hit the target.

In the case of the big older SAMs, which have fuze sensors optimized for full size aircraft, the sensor may not be able to detect small munitions like HARMs and SDBs at any useful range, and would fly by without detonating. Similarly, in cases of extreme closing rates (e.g, SAM vs HARM) the detection may happen so late the warhead detonation happens after the target is already past the effective fragmentation cone. (This proved to be a concern with early models of Patriot trying to engage SCUDs in Desert Storm.) Continuous rod warheads, with their very limited fragmentation pattern, would be particularly vulnerable in this regard.

Incidentally, if it is considered realistic to for a fighter to engage a HARM or similar target with it's missiles, why isn't it considered realistic to engage an incoming Sparrow, of similar size, shape, and speed? I think most of us would agree that we don't expect fighters to be knocking down each other's air-to-air missiles. But we are allowing the shoot-down of air-to-ground missiles of the same general configuration. This seems inconsistent. I think we may be over-estimating the ability of non-specialist systems to engage this sort of target.