INS+SARH guidance

[Kobu]

Hi

The missiles listed with INS + SARH guidance do not have mid-course guidance and when the part where the radar illuminates the target for final guidance arrives, the missile is very far from the target and never reaches the target.

See attached.

It happens with SA-17, SA-11 and surely with all systems listed as INS+ SARH.

The problem I am seeing is that there is no unification of the guidance systems for missiles and that leads to problems like those in the other post about TSARH guidance.

In the simulator there are these guidance systems right now:

1.- INS+SARH


2.- DL+SARH


3.- DL+TSARH


4.- TVM/SAGG


5.- SARH


Of these five I would reduce it to three: DL+TSARH (or Command guided datalink +SARH no matter what you call it), TVM/SAGG and SARH. Right now INS+SARH and DL+SARH do not work well as I explain in this post and this one https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0&t=399216. And these two should work the same as DL+TSARH since they are the same.

I know that it is a lot of simplification and each one has its ramifications such as TVM and SAGG or GAI or Command guided (which is basically INS+Datalink) but to begin with and since this is not an exclusive simulator of SAM systems I think it is fine and therefore At least we would have something that works and is more or less coherent and the most important thing is that between each of the three guides there are clear advantages and disadvantages.


Regards

[Raptorx7_slith]

Thanks for the report

logged 0015366

[Kobu]

Hi
Just to clarify my previous post a little.
For radar-guided SAM systems (some applicable to A-A systems as well, such as SARH...) I think these three systems should be represented.

1.- SARH guidance. This system works well in the simulator, I have only looked at a couple of units with this system but I don't see any problems with them, also the disadvantages of this system are very well represented in the simulator.

Advantages: I don't see any relevant ones from the simulator's point of view.

Disadvantages: Requires that the target can be tracked by the radar and that the radar be able to reflect enough energy on the target for the missile to "see" it and be guided to it.



When they launch a missile, the target generally, if it has some RWR type system, will receive an alert that a missile has been launched.



You can only guide missiles against a single target. One target for each FCR radar the unit has.



As I say, this guidance is perfectly represented in CMO.

2.- Command guidance

Here things get complicated, this type includes many different names that end up being the same.
This system can be found as "Pure" Command guidance, which is not represented in the simulator and covers a few very old units of the first SAM systems that came out, or in combination with other types of guidance for the final phase.

"Pure" Command guidance to simplify it, I would not represent it in the simulator, I would change it to SARH. For example, the first versions of the SA-2 use this type of guidance, characterized by being imprecise when the target is far from the radar.

In the simulator, for example, the SA-2 listed as SARH has a PH of 30%, which in itself represents the weaknesses of this type of guidance.

Due to the problems of this system, it is normally used in combination for the final phase with other guidance systems such as SARH or ARH.

This is represented in the simulator with very different names such as DL+SARH, DL+ TSARH, INS+SARH... which are basically the same. The problem is that none of these three work correctly since they do not have the mid-course updates nor is the radar turned on to provide those updates.
My opinion is to simplify them all as Command guidance + SARH.

Advantages: this system can guide more than one missile to different targets and only requires SARH type guidance in the last seconds of the flight.

While guiding the missiles you continue to have situational awareness of other contacts against the "pure" SARH guidance.

3.- TVM/SAGG/GAI
The "last" system is three, but I would classify it as one since the differences are subtle and for a simulator like CMO it is useless and imperceptible to make distinctions between them.
This system solves problems and improves the Command guidance and SARH systems.

Advantages:
Eliminates the need for final guidance (allowing to engage multiple targets at the same time in the final phases of the engagement) , the target has no warning through systems such as the RWR that a missile has been launched and others that are not relevant to the simulator.
You can list Patriot systems as TVM and systems like SA-10 as SAGG but at our simulation level the differences are imperceptible.


There are other systems with mid-course guidance via datalink and ARH terminal phase that have no problem and do not have the mess of as many versions as those mentioned above.

I hope to have clarified this a little and help to better represent these systems in the simulator and their correct operation.

Regards

[blu3s]

Hi Kobu,

we're looking into this. Attached is an example featuring both the SA-11 and SA-17 systems.

These systems activate their radars only during the missile's terminal phase. The missiles are classified as INS + SARH.

Launching in inertial mode requires knowledge of the target's location.

A potentially confusing aspect is the handling of INS corrections. In INS mode, specific coordinates are established for the missile, which cannot be updated in this guiding mode. This means the weapon will proceed to a predetermined point regardless of the target's movements. Upon reaching this point, during the terminal phase, the SAM activates its FCR radar to illuminate the target, allowing for missile redirection towards the target's location.

GUIDANCE INS + SARH SAMs.zip

(8.72 KiB) Downloaded 33 times

Hope this makes sense.

[Kobu]

Hi

Thanks for looking at this.

First, I am not an expert by any means, but in order to have a better simulation I consider that some things like this are not well represented.

Although there are systems capable of launching missiles and activating the radar at the last moment to guide the missile to its target, I see this more as a last resort than as the normal way of operating. It is like firing an Amraam in maddog mode (just as I understand that this mode is not simulated, I do not understand this way of operating these INS+SARH missiles).

If instead of the cheese board radar you place an AWACS with the radar off and it detects the targets with its ESM equipment, the SAMs can still fire without activating their radar without having a precise location and without data such as the speed of the target. How is this data exchange between the AWACS and the SAMs simulated? By datalink? If instead of an A-50U you put an E-3 Sentry the result is the same so there is no datalink that interferes here, it is more of an abstraction of the simulator.
Ins+Sarh allows you to shoot without turning on the radar at targets whose position and data are not completely known with a notable impact capacity when other much more modern systems require active radar to be able to launch the missile as well as a good quality track of the target.

If firing an Amraam without mid-course updates and with active final guidance gives very little probability of impact, this system would have to approach almost 0 probability of impact.



Again, it's just my opinion.

Regards

[blu3s]

Hi Kobu,

thanks for your clarifications.

The AMRAAM is simulated as INS/DL + ARH and for air-to-air we check that the contact is detected by the aircraft itself so unless is the D version who can be guided by CEC, it's mandatory for the fighter to detect the target and get a good quality track of the target, you can read more about it here: https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=4884

Although there are systems capable of launching missiles and activating the radar at the last moment to guide the missile to its target, I see this more as a last resort than as the normal way of operating.

INS + SARH exactly simulates that behaviour, you launch at a GPS point, and in the terminal phase activates your radar.

How is this data exchange between the AWACS and the SAMs simulated? By datalink? If instead of an A-50U you put an E-3 Sentry the result is the same so there is no datalink that interferes here, it is more of an abstraction of the simulator.

It's true by the current abstraction of the simulation in comms, that any unit in your side that can detect this target can share this information with the launcher platform so there's no DL in the communication. As said before there's an exception where we check that the shooter has a good quality track of the target.

Ins+Sarh allows you to shoot without turning on the radar at targets whose position and data are not completely known with a notable impact capacity when other much more modern systems require active radar to be able to launch the missile as well as a good quality track of the target.

Yes, I'm aware of that flaw, IMO we should have a Doctrine that allows you to choose between respects EMCON and not provide midcourse corrections with INS/DL + ARH weapons like the PAC-3 or ignore EMCON and turn on your radar to provide midcourse corrections through datalink to these weapons, but it is always complicated to introduce changes at such a high level, and right now we have a few open fronts.

If firing an Amraam without mid-course updates and with active final guidance gives very little probability of impact, this system would have to approach almost 0 probability of impact.

Well, it depends, if you are launching against a slow target with predictable course, you'll have a chance to have a kill, even against a Viper like the Serbs did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH2vLMpR4zw


In short, INS+SARH does not perform missile path updates since it would need a datalink to receive such updates, this command guidance mode must always have a datalink.

[Kobu]

Hi

Thanks for the explanation Blue3s.

In short, INS+SARH does not perform missile path updates since it would need a datalink to receive such updates, this command guidance mode must always have a datalink.

Everything clear here.

It's true by the current abstraction of the simulation in comms, that any unit in your side that can detect this target can share this information with the launcher platform so there's no DL in the communication. As said before there's an exception where we check that the shooter has a good quality track of the target.

The biggest problem I see is not that units on the same side share information but rather that that information is instantly used by units to target sensors and weapons. A unit can know that it has an enemy at 60NM but it has to detect it on its own without just because another unit detects that enemy before, this other unit instantly points its sensors at the enemy.

This is also where, as I have reported on other occasions, a "sensor fusion" comes in, where different sensors from different platforms "communicate" by pointing sensors and weapons when they should not, resulting in too perfect situational awareness.

Here I do think it is worth influencing and changing things. I would start from a much more restrictive base and then over time I would implement which sensors can share information and which weapons they can target. I think it's better to "fail" to be too restrictive than to allow everything to relate to everything.

The AMRAAM is simulated as INS/DL + ARH and for air-to-air we check that the contact is detected by the aircraft itself so unless is the D version who can be guided by CEC, it's mandatory for the fighter to detect the target and get a good quality track of the target, you can read more about it here: https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=4884

I remember perfectly when this was implemented and the great leap that was made in terms of realism.

If I remember correctly, there is a planned change in datalinks and communications.

Regards

[PN79]

...

2.- Command guidance

Here things get complicated, this type includes many different names that end up being the same.
This system can be found as "Pure" Command guidance, which is not represented in the simulator and covers a few very old units of the first SAM systems that came out, or in combination with other types of guidance for the final phase.

"Pure" Command guidance to simplify it, I would not represent it in the simulator, I would change it to SARH. For example, the first versions of the SA-2 use this type of guidance, characterized by being imprecise when the target is far from the radar.

In the simulator, for example, the SA-2 listed as SARH has a PH of 30%, which in itself represents the weaknesses of this type of guidance.

Due to the problems of this system, it is normally used in combination for the final phase with other guidance systems such as SARH or ARH.

This is represented in the simulator with very different names such as DL+SARH, DL+ TSARH, INS+SARH... which are basically the same. The problem is that none of these three work correctly since they do not have the mid-course updates nor is the radar turned on to provide those updates.
My opinion is to simplify them all as Command guidance + SARH.

Advantages: this system can guide more than one missile to different targets and only requires SARH type guidance in the last seconds of the flight.

While guiding the missiles you continue to have situational awareness of other contacts against the "pure" SARH guidance.

...

I will stand up for pure command guidance because I think that its difference against SARH are bigger especially in jamming environment.

Firstly it was and it is still used in many SAM systems - not just early variant of SA-2 but all variants of SA-2 and also all variants of SA-1, SA-3, SA-4, SA-8, SA-15 and also the first variant of SA-10.

Major tactical difference is how many missiles can system guide against single target. SARH system can guide unrestricted number of missiles but command is limited by number of its command links (NIKE AJAX/HERCULES - one, SA-2 three, SA-3 two, SA-4 one, SA-8 two but its navalized version SA-N-4 only one). Currently in game there is no such restriction and only through WRA setting it is done for some of them (but player can change it during scenario).

Another difference is how it can use radar in jamming. If it has optical sight the SAM can guide missiles without using radar at all (one cannot do that with SARH). This is usually backup mode but for shorter ranged ones used quite often to ignore jamming. Hence SA-8 myth that is hard to jam (its radar is actually very easy to jam but the system can just completely ignore it and guide missile purely through camera). Even warhead explosion can be in many of these systems ordered by operator (this way SA-2 can overcome chaff corridors).

On the orher hand if adversary has means to jam command link then missile is dead and operator cannot do anything about it - that was a thing in Vietnam. SARH has no such limitation and on the contrary some type of jamming can attract SARH guided missile - the jamming optimized against command guided SAMs are ineffective against SARH. One concrete practical effect is that soviet ECM SPS-141 had different modules optimized against NIKE or HAWK and before flight it has to be decided which module to use (both modules cannot be used at the same time). // This I don't want to be implemented here as that would be like changing head on AGM-45 Shrike according to type of radar which one want to hit - i.e. unnecessary micromanagement. //

Finally there one more trick difference against SARH SAMs - the way how targeted aircraft's RWR see them. For SARH SAMs aircraft's RWR will see engagement radar beam but will not see missile itself (this has to be spotted by different means). With command guided SAM the aircraft's RWR can detect engagement radar but on its own it still says that no missile is in the air. Only after RWR detect command signal than the missile can be in the air - but it doesn't have to as command signal can be faked by SAM operator and different types of RWR can or cannot distinguish it.

So instead of current SARH representation for mentioned SAMS I would like to see proper command guidance added with its major quirks.

[Blast33]

I agree, in a sim as CMO, command guidance should have a place.

One nuance:
Quote:
Another difference is how it can use radar in jamming. If it has optical sight the SAM can guide missiles without using radar at all (one cannot do that with SARH). This is usually backup mode but for shorter ranged ones used quite often to ignore jamming. Hence SA-8 myth that is hard to jam (its radar is actually very easy to jam but the system can just completely ignore it and guide missile purely through camera). Even warhead explosion can be in many of these systems ordered by operator

True, but the probability of kill decreases a lot because there is only angluar information and no range. In contrary to your sentence, you still use the radar!
And the operator has to activate the proximity fuze at the right time. If a target is very low (e.g. helicopter) the ground/trees can trigger the fuze too early. Further decreasing the pk.

Maybe, now it looks like only old systems used it but also the SA-15 is command guided.
I like CMO a lot, but this would be a very healthy addition!

[blu3s]

FYI, the Command Guidance is currently simulated in Command, but it is true that some weapons still have the old SARH + low PH of the old Command Guidance approach form.