For those you struggling with ABM engagements...

[Gizzmoe]

The DF16s mostly got through because none of the radars saw them until too late. Not sure why.

Yes, that is what I have noticed as well. I am also not sure why. The interception rate should have been higher imo?

[Gizzmoe]

You seem to come in asking for stuff you could easily do yourself overall.

You are being unfair. You started this thread about a relevant topic, I am struggling with ABM engagements, you mentioned that "It can be done with the right units and settings" and all was asking for was a save so that I can learn something from that. You provided valuable info in this thread, but don't be so judgemental, please.

[thewood1]

The DF16s mostly got through because none of the radars saw them until too late. Not sure why.

Yes, that is what I have noticed as well. I am also not sure why. The interception rate should have been higher imo?

I'd like to hear why. Real-life interception rates are very poor, even in tests set up optimally. What do you expect?

[thewood1]

You seem to come in asking for stuff you could easily do yourself overall.

You are being unfair. You started this thread about a relevant topic, I am struggling with ABM engagements, you mentioned that "It can be done with the right units and settings" and all was asking for was a save so that I can learn something from that. You provided valuable info in this thread, but don't be so judgemental, please.

I saw this play out in another thread where you were looking someone to post a scenario. I started this thread with a resource and then pointed out it had been discussed before. Instead of using search, you wanted me to post the links. I didn't start the thread to be asked to do even more. I started it get peoples' thoughts on the opinion in the article. Then you wanted a scenario. Its a very short process to do either. Try contributing a little more than just comments and wants.

In other threads, you have seemed to come across pretty judge-y and unwilling to do some of the work yourself. So instead of coming and asking for something, do a little of the background work yourself. Less talking and more doing.

[DWReese]

The SBX is the best that I have seen for detecting and tracking the various incoming missiles. Others may detect at launch, lose contact, and then reacquire later on.

The SM-3 C has a range of 200 miles most of the interceptions occur in the terminal phase, therefore within that 200 mile radius.

The SM-3 E has a range of 1300 miles. I have not seen that it is any more useful than the -C version. The interceptions still seem to occur in the terminal phase.

If this is the way that it is designed to work in real life (I don't actually know, and no sources really go into it in any kind of detail, with any kind of actual detection/tracking numbers), then there seems to have no real advantage of the -E over the -C. Again, perhaps there is something else going on, or some other platform in existence, that makes it work. Perhaps a series of platforms stringed together could make this all come together. I just don't know.

I have seen tons of videos. Most have the detection occur at long range, and the incoming missiles are intercepted at long range. This is NOT what I have seen CMO do. That being said, the sources do not provide actual numbers, and in all likelihood, CMO has it completely right. I just don't know at this point. But, at least the interception aspect works, and that is the most important.

[Gizzmoe]

The DF16s mostly got through because none of the radars saw them until too late. Not sure why.

Yes, that is what I have noticed as well. I am also not sure why. The interception rate should have been higher imo?

I'd like to hear why. Real-life interception rates are very poor, even in tests set up optimally. What do you expect?

I expected them to be at least detected by the radar, just like you, and also wondered why the radar didn't.

[thewood1]

It was only the DF-16 that wasn't detected. You can try inserting an SBX to see if that changes the dynamics.

[Gizzmoe]

In other threads, you have seemed to come across pretty judge-y and unwilling to do some of the work yourself.

You are totally right with the "judge-y" part, I am guilty as charged, at times I should have worded things very differently. I don't have any bad intentions though, I just sometimes go too far... I am young, only 51...

But don't give me that "unwilling to do some work yourself" BS though You recently asked me in the S400 thread if I could post saves for 4-5 SAM systems, that you could have easily tested yourself within a few minutes..... Did you want to bait me there?

[Gizzmoe]

You can try inserting an SBX to see if that changes the dynamics.

Are you unwilling to test it yourself?????

[thewood1]

At least be proactive about. If you're going to ask for people to post scenarios or track down links for you, do it yourself. You said you tested the 495 version yet you never posted it, but seemed to want someone else to do it.

[thewood1]

https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-conten ... 04/BMD.pdf

Another source questioning effectiveness of BMD performance. Look at some of those numbers. Hopefully they are improving. But anything prior to 2016 has to be very suspect. Thats why I am very suprised at the effectiveness of the test I posted.

[Gizzmoe]

You said you tested the 495 version yet you never posted it, but seemed to want someone else to do it.

You posted a save that was eight versions behind DB-wise... I am not responsible for posting updated versions, you posted it first, it would have been your responsibilty to update it to the recent DB and test it before uploading. Why compare an old DB with a new build?

[Gizzmoe]

You can try inserting an SBX to see if that changes the dynamics.

I'll try that. BDukes mentioned that the SM-3 works fine against ABM, so now I need to find out what parameters I need to get those results as well, to find a good interception point, and the right combination of units to intercept the ABM.

[thewood1]

You said you tested the 495 version yet you never posted it, but seemed to want someone else to do it.

You posted a save that was eight versions behind DB-wise... I am not responsible for posting updated versions, you posted it first, it would have been your responsibilty to update it to the recent DB and test it before uploading. Why compare an old DB with a new build?

I posted it because its what I had. I posted it because I was trying to help. Your posts are always coming in after the discussion and saying "yeah, me too". How about stepping up and doing the stuff you want other people to do. I posted the scenario because its what I had at hand. Again, a helpful person would have actually updated it and posted it. Which is I was in the process of doing.

But you're only marginally helpful. You like to come into threads and point out issues that have already been pointed out and then ask people to do any of the real work for you. I pointed out that there had been several long discussion about this topic already. You could have actually done a search yourself. But your extremely superficial approach to engaging in sussing out issues is based on other people's work. You get involved in a lot of threads and do very little except point out issues.

Lets take this thread. What have you contributed other than asking for things and commenting on issues already known? Its a pattern.

...and yes, I am judging you.

[Gizzmoe]

But you're only marginally helpful.

Yes, I know that I am not 100% helpful, "marginally" isn't bad. I am just a single forum member, and I am, as you know, actually an irrelevant forum member compared to many others. What do you expect from me?

...and yes, I am judging you.

And you have of course every right to do that, I do that same. If you/I are right with the judgment is a different story.

[Gizzmoe]

How about stepping up and doing the stuff you want other people to do.

Give me one good example of what that could be what I could do.

[BDukes]

You can try inserting an SBX to see if that changes the dynamics.

I'll try that. BDukes mentioned that the SM-3 works fine against ABM, so now I need to find out what parameters I need to get those results as well, to find a good interception point, and the right combination of units to intercept the ABM.

Crawls out from under ze bus....Haven't checked lately. Maybe the post you're looking at is old?

This whole string seems like somebody baiting and then getting the internet argument they were looking for. Not looking to spoil my post-vacation buzz...

Anyways I'll test when I've got a few and will add anything found to tech support.

Mike

[Gizzmoe]

Crawls out from under ze bus....Haven't checked lately. Maybe the post you're looking at is old?

OMG, I am sorry, meant the wrong guy, DWReese wrote that You look both very similar, so....

[LettuceTurnipTheBeet]

I did some experiments and I think I got closer to understanding how ABM radars work in CMO. Namely, since update 1147.40 all radars have vertical scan limits of 30° above and below horizontal - except not exactly.

Non-ABM radars like the FPS-117 can only track targets approximately 8° above the horizon. ABM radars maintain about their nominal detection range up to 30 degrees above the horizontal, but can track targets up to 60 degrees if the distance isn't too great, as in a short-range ballistic missile being fired over the ABM site. However, 60 degrees seems to be the hard limit and I haven't been able to track anything above that with any radar.

How accurate it is, I don't know. On one hand fixed arrays like AEGIS this might as well be the case. In contrast, the TPY-2 is on a swivel mount and can be rotated to face vertically, avoiding this issue. Additionally, I'm not sure if the 30/60 degree limit takes into account the tilt of even the fixed panels. Personally I think this needs to addressed in the DB on case-by-case basis.

Feel free to correct me if you see anything patently false.

[BDukes]

Crawls out from under ze bus....Haven't checked lately. Maybe the post you're looking at is old?

OMG, I am sorry, meant the wrong guy, DWReese wrote that You look both very similar, so....

I'd feel sorry for DWReese if that was the case!

Tests look good.

The margins for a DF-26 are mighty slim and require certain components which seem to be consistent with public info. The only thing you could get iffy about is when the OODA clock actually starts and it is a difficult thing to hash out as one message is shown in the manual allocation dialog so if it fails multiple checks we don't know-or more to the point don't see the clock start. I'm not sure the value add as we're just arguing over simulation data and values regardless (Its not really real folks!). However, what we have now is incrementally better than in the past and close to what the consensus is in terms of capability and components needed, so kinda ok with the whole model right now. I think what could be most valuable is somebody posting the correct unit recipes to make ABM happen at some point.

Mike