Anti-ship missile terminal phase target selection

[mmacguinness]

How does CMO manage anti-ship missile terminal phase target selection from multiple potential targets in a group?

So far as I can see, it appears to simply select the ship that is closest to the missile's course and all missiles in that salvo from the same platform, following the same course, choose that same target and it gets gang-banged by all of them. Similarly, missiles in other salvos following a similar course also choose the same target, if it has not yet been destroyed. But if it is destroyed before they get to it, and it is on the forward or trailing edge of the formation, they are often unable to select another target and just fly on.

There does not appear to be any randomisation or coordination in the target selection which would ensure more effective target selection ensuring targeting of all ships in a group.

Selection of particular ships in the group as targets for missiles from a particular platform does not appears to improve anything.

The Soviets reportedly included a networked target selection and allocation function in the P-700 Granat (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) when it was developed way back in the 70s. Whether this initial implementation was successful or not, who knows? It was never tested in combat. But 40+ years later, it must surely have been improved and developed to maturity.

"It is widely claimed that the missile, when fired in a swarm (group of 4–8) has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. If the designating missile is destroyed the next missile will rise to assume its purpose. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an onboard computer. They will attack targets in order of priority, highest to lowest: after destroying the first target, any remaining missiles will attack the next prioritized target."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit
Yes, I know, Wikipedia. But there are other sources too.

A quick and dirty search for "ssm terminal phase target selection" turns up multiple academic papers on the topic including this one:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6323003038
A better targeted search in appropriate academic publications would surely produce many more. I assume there has also been much research that is classified and unavailable.

Since this is a mature issue that has had serious research, the maths of it having been cracked long ago, I think it should be presumed, absent hard evidence otherwise, that all missiles introduced to service or upgraded since late 80's/early 90's must have this function, whether or not it has been officially declared or not.

[Dimitris]

Moved to Tech Support for possible follow-up.

[mmacguinness]

I created a scenario with a group of civilian ships positioned quite closed together.
The Kinzhals each selected a different target.

What I believe is happening in strikes against USN TFs is that the software assumes the Russian missile will stupidly and invariably select the ship with the largest electronic/radar signature. Since the destroyers emit powerful EW signals to imitate a carrier, CMO then directs the missiles to these ships, which are usually at the perimeter of the formation.

I believe this is a grevously erroneous assumption. The Russians may be many things, but stupid is not one of them. They know about deceptive EW tactics. They know the CVN is most unlikely to be at the edge of the formation, this is certainly baked into their targeting software so that strong contacts at the edge of the formation IRL are very likely to be de-prioritised in favour of ships at the center.

As noted in my initial post, the mathematics and electronic for effective target allocation was developed 40 years ago and must have matured considerably since then.

[thewood1]

Can you post that scenario? I'd like to see then end game calculations to confirm what ECMs, ECCMs, proficiencies, and tech timeframes were in play.

"CMO then directs the missiles to these ships, which are usually at the perimeter of the formation"

Standard USN CVBG formation has at least one escort, and sometimes two, very close to the CVN for this very reason. Add Nulka decoys to the mix and its very plausible for at least a few AShMs to be lured away. Its why when I design any scenario, there are two waves coming in close together. The first wave is to clear a path for the follow-on missiles a few minutes behind.

The math isn't one way. Nulkas and formations are built and continuously adjusted, reformed, and upgraded for just this type of continuous threat. It an "I know that you know that I know" situation. Its why newer generations of AShMs are multisensory with IR and image recognition or even off-platform guidance playing a role.

[mmacguinness]

12 Backfires with 2 Kinzhals each ex Engels air base on ASuW mission v CVN 78 Ford group South of Cyprus.
Ford, Normandy, Ramage, Carney, Hudner & Roosevelt.

Backfire in single aircraft flights and off-axis attack at 1000nm permitted to achieve dispersion of attack vector
or
Backfire in multi-aircraft flights and off-axis attack at 1000nm permitted to achieve dispersion of attack vector

Expectation:
=> Russian missiles are networked and will coordinate target selection within each salvo, with each being allocated a
different target. Verified that this occurs in strikes against civilian ships without EW equipment.
=> Russian awareness of USN tactics and procedures for protecting CVs will be built into the target selection algorithm.
=> This ought to de-prioritise outlying targets at the edge of the formations by classifying them as probable EW decoys

Experience:
20+ simulations of strikes against Ford group:

==> Backfires spread out in an arc from Belgorod to Astrakhan
==> RIM-174 averages 6 kills out of 24
==> CMO does not model any evasive actions by Kinzhal, though the intercept zone is highly predictable, Kinzhal is
reportedly manueverable for exactly this purpose, and a pre-programmed speed and/or course change would likely
seriously compromise AAM/ABM effectiveness.
==> All missiles in each salvo, 2, 4 , 6 or more select the same target, no target de-confliction.
==> The target selected is almost invariably an outlying member of the formation
==> Vast majority of the time, the salvo selects an outlying ship, even if this requires overflying the CV
==> Non-ABM capable AAM and CIWS are ineffective vs Kinzhal
==> EW only marginally effective (<20%, 41 fails, 9 spoofs)
==> 9 to 12 impacts or damaging near misses (better described as "near impacts", since they do cause damage)
==> Escorts destroyed 1 by 1, only then is the CV targeted. (except once)
==> Average result: All escorts destroyed, CV 5% to 20% damaged
==> Best (US)/Worst(RU) result: 3 escorts sunk, other escorts and CV undamaged
==> Worst (US)/Best (RU) result: All Escorts and CV sunk.
==> In one simulation, an escort close to the CV was destroyed with a blast sufficiently strong to damage the CV and
destroy ALL aircraft in open parking. And that appears to have been all the aircraft on the CV!

Note: CMO log files are not optimised for data collection. Very labour intensive to extract, copy and analyse it. Done for only 2 simulations so far. The stats quoted above are for only 2. As time permits, will do the remaining runs.

Preliminary conclusions:

CMO incorporates assumptions re Russian targeting algorithms that I believe are questionable.
CMO does not model evasive actions by Kinzhal, though this is a claimed capability.
These are favourable to US, detrimental to RU.

Nevertheless, as modelled by CMO:

A US CVBG is not survivable vs a half regiment of Tu-22s armed with Kinzhals. The most likely result would be all escorts sunk and some damage to the CV which would be left undefended, vulnerable to follow on strikes.

[thewood1]

So all that effort and you won't post the scenario?

[mmacguinness]

Well, the scenario doesn't tell anyone the questions I have. So, first the questions.
And the logged events do not include the terminal phase target selection process by the missiles which is what I'm questioning.

Attached is the scenario with the suffix changed to jpg to allow attaching.

And, FYI, an extract from the log of all Kinzhal related events for one run:

11/1/2023 5:48:33 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4254 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4248 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 360 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 13 - HIT
11/1/2023 5:48:37 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4255 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4249 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 100 - MISS
11/1/2023 5:48:37 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4257 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4249 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 73 - HIT
11/1/2023 5:48:58 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4256 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4250 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 358 deg - hit probability adjusted to 89%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 79%. Result: 40 - HIT
11/1/2023 5:49:05 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4258 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4251 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 99 - MISS
11/1/2023 5:49:10 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4259 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4251 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 360 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 94 - MISS
11/1/2023 5:49:13 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4260 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4251 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 360 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 95 - MISS
11/1/2023 5:49:17 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4261 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4251 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 83 - MISS
11/1/2023 5:49:32 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4262 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4253 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 360 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 3 - HIT
11/1/2023 5:49:32 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 78. Minor trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon multipled by 1.5).
11/1/2023 5:49:37 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4264 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4253 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 360 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 89 - MISS
11/1/2023 5:49:40 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4263 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4252 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 44 - HIT
11/1/2023 5:49:40 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 36. Significant trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon tripled).
11/1/2023 5:49:40 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4265 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4252 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 8 - HIT
11/1/2023 5:49:40 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 93. Minor trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon multipled by 1.5).
11/1/2023 5:49:49 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4266 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4251 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 359 deg - hit probability adjusted to 89%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 79%. Result: 84 - MISS
11/1/2023 5:49:50 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4267 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4251 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 359 deg - hit probability adjusted to 89%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 79%. Result: 72 - HIT
11/1/2023 5:49:50 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 70. Minor trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon multipled by 1.5).
11/1/2023 5:50:00 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4272 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4251 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 345 deg - hit probability adjusted to 83%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 73%. Result: 56 - HIT
11/1/2023 5:50:00 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 47. Significant trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon tripled).
11/1/2023 5:50:02 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4273 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4251 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 6 deg - hit probability adjusted to 87%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 77%. Result: 30 - HIT
11/1/2023 5:50:02 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 62. Minor trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon multipled by 1.5).
11/1/2023 5:50:03 AM - Decoy (Mk214 Sea Gnat Chaff [Seduction]; Tech: N/A) from DDG 60 Ramage is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4251). Final probability: 20%. Result: 21 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 5:50:03 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4251 has impacted DDG 60 Ramage.
11/1/2023 5:50:03 AM - [USN] DDG 60 Ramage is sinking!!!
11/1/2023 5:50:12 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4268 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4253 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 35 - HIT
11/1/2023 5:50:12 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 41. Significant trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon tripled).
11/1/2023 5:50:13 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4269 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4253 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 19 deg - hit probability adjusted to 81%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 71%. Result: 70 - HIT
11/1/2023 5:50:13 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 36. Significant trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon tripled).
11/1/2023 5:50:17 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4271 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4252 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 27 deg - hit probability adjusted to 77%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 67%. Result: 92 - MISS
11/1/2023 5:50:17 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4270 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4252 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 29 deg - hit probability adjusted to 75%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 65%. Result: 90 - MISS
11/1/2023 5:50:24 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4275 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4253 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 38 deg - hit probability adjusted to 71%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 61%. Result: 25 - HIT
11/1/2023 5:50:24 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 85. Minor trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon multipled by 1.5).
11/1/2023 5:50:28 AM - Decoy (Mk214 Sea Gnat Chaff [Seduction]; Tech: N/A) from CG-60 Normandy is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4253). Final probability: 20%. Result: 41 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 5:50:28 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)3 [ECM]; Tech: Early 1980s) on CG-60 Normandy is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4253). Final probability: 5%. Result: 19 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 5:50:28 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4253 has malfunctioned.
11/1/2023 5:50:28 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4240 has been lost.
11/1/2023 5:50:29 AM - Decoy (Mk214 Sea Gnat Chaff [Seduction]; Tech: N/A) from CG-60 Normandy is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4252). Final probability: 20%. Result: 89 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 5:50:29 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)3 [ECM]; Tech: Early 1980s) on CG-60 Normandy is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4252). Final probability: 5%. Result: 49 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 5:50:29 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4252 missed CG-60 Normandy by 115ft
11/1/2023 5:50:29 AM - [USN] CG-60 Normandy has suffered blast damage: 376.6 DPs
11/1/2023 6:04:20 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4297 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4287 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 360 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 18 - HIT
11/1/2023 6:04:21 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4295 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4288 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 62 - HIT
11/1/2023 6:04:21 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 43. Significant trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon tripled).
11/1/2023 6:04:23 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4296 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4288 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 88 - MISS
11/1/2023 6:04:35 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4298 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4289 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 306 deg - hit probability adjusted to 63%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 53%. Result: 83 - MISS
11/1/2023 6:04:42 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4300 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4290 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 23 - HIT
11/1/2023 6:04:42 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 52. Significant trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon tripled).
11/1/2023 6:04:42 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4299 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4290 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 360 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 32 - HIT
11/1/2023 6:04:42 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 37. Significant trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon tripled).
11/1/2023 6:04:46 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4301 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4289 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 32 - HIT
11/1/2023 6:04:48 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4302 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4291 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 1 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 64 - HIT
11/1/2023 6:04:48 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 42. Significant trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon tripled).
11/1/2023 6:04:50 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4303 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4292 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 26 - HIT
11/1/2023 6:04:50 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 37. Significant trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon tripled).
11/1/2023 6:04:51 AM - Weapon: RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA #4304 is attacking Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4292 with a base PH of 90%. Intercept angle is 0 deg - hit probability adjusted to 90%. Target speed modifier: -10%. Final PH: 80%. Result: 5 - HIT
11/1/2023 6:04:51 AM - ABM-optimized fragmentation warhead: 30% chance of outright destruction, 60% chance of significant deviation. RESULT: 82. Minor trajectory deviation (CEP of target weapon multipled by 1.5).
11/1/2023 6:05:10 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)3 [ECM]; Tech: Early 1980s) on CG-60 Normandy is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4288). Final probability: 5%. Result: 37 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:05:10 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4288 has malfunctioned.
11/1/2023 6:05:10 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4278 has been lost.
11/1/2023 6:05:33 AM - Decoy (Mk214 Sea Gnat Chaff [Seduction]; Tech: N/A) from CG-60 Normandy is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4290). Final probability: 20%. Result: 30 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:05:33 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)3 [ECM]; Tech: Early 1980s) on CG-60 Normandy is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4290). Final probability: 5%. Result: 26 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:05:33 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4290 missed CG-60 Normandy by 238ft
11/1/2023 6:05:33 AM - [USN] CG-60 Normandy has suffered blast damage: 177 DPs
11/1/2023 6:05:33 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4279 has been lost.
11/1/2023 6:05:34 AM - Decoy (Mk214 Sea Gnat Chaff [Seduction]; Tech: N/A) from CG-60 Normandy is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4292). Final probability: 20%. Result: 49 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:05:34 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)3 [ECM]; Tech: Early 1980s) on CG-60 Normandy is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4292). Final probability: 5%. Result: 35 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:05:34 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4292 has impacted CG-60 Normandy.
11/1/2023 6:05:34 AM - 98% penetration achieved
11/1/2023 6:05:34 AM - [USN] CG-60 Normandy has suffered weapon damage: 1372 DPs
11/1/2023 6:05:34 AM - [USN] CG-60 Normandy is sinking!!!
11/1/2023 6:05:34 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4282 has been lost.
11/1/2023 6:05:35 AM - Decoy (Mk214 Sea Gnat Chaff [Seduction]; Tech: N/A) from DDG 80 Roosevelt is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4291). Final probability: 20%. Result: 92 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:05:35 AM - Decoy (Mk234 Nulka; Tech: Early 2000s) from DDG 80 Roosevelt is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4291). Final probability: 10%. Result: 39 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:05:35 AM - Decoy (Mk59 Mod 0 Floating Decoy; Tech: N/A) from DDG 80 Roosevelt is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4291). Final probability: 10%. Result: 12 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:05:35 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)6 [ECM]; Tech: Early 2010s) on DDG 80 Roosevelt is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4291). Final probability: 20%. Result: 20 - SUCCESS
11/1/2023 6:05:35 AM - All weapon seekers were spoofed - weapon missed target
11/1/2023 6:05:35 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4283 has been lost.
11/1/2023 6:11:55 AM - Decoy (Mk59 Mod 0 Floating Decoy; Tech: N/A) from DDG 80 Roosevelt is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4308). Final probability: 10%. Result: 52 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:11:55 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)6 [ECM]; Tech: Early 2010s) on DDG 80 Roosevelt is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4308). Final probability: 20%. Result: 59 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:11:55 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4308 has impacted DDG 80 Roosevelt.
11/1/2023 6:11:55 AM - 95% penetration achieved
11/1/2023 6:11:55 AM - [USN] DDG 80 Roosevelt has suffered weapon damage: 1330 DPs
11/1/2023 6:11:55 AM - [USN] DDG 80 Roosevelt is sinking!!!
11/1/2023 6:11:55 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4285 has been lost.
11/1/2023 6:11:56 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)6 [ECM]; Tech: Early 2010s) on CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4307). Final probability: 20%. Result: 73 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:11:56 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4307 has impacted CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford.
11/1/2023 6:11:56 AM - 29% penetration achieved
11/1/2023 6:11:56 AM - [USN] CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford has suffered weapon damage: 406 DPs
11/1/2023 6:11:56 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4286 has been lost.
11/1/2023 6:17:19 AM - Decoy (Mk214 Sea Gnat Chaff [Seduction]; Tech: N/A) from DDG-116 Hudner is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4313). Final probability: 20%. Result: 86 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:17:19 AM - Decoy (Mk234 Nulka; Tech: Early 2000s) from DDG-116 Hudner is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4313). Final probability: 10%. Result: 91 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:17:19 AM - Decoy (Mk59 Mod 0 Floating Decoy; Tech: N/A) from DDG-116 Hudner is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4313). Final probability: 10%. Result: 12 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:17:19 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)6 [ECM]; Tech: Early 2010s) on DDG-116 Hudner is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4313). Final probability: 20%. Result: 22 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:17:19 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4313 has impacted DDG-116 Hudner.
11/1/2023 6:17:19 AM - 95% penetration achieved
11/1/2023 6:17:19 AM - [USN] DDG-116 Hudner has suffered weapon damage: 1330 DPs
11/1/2023 6:17:19 AM - [USN] DDG-116 Hudner is sinking!!!
11/1/2023 6:17:19 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4293 has been lost.
11/1/2023 6:17:21 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4314 has malfunctioned.
11/1/2023 6:17:21 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4294 has been lost.
11/1/2023 6:23:46 AM - Decoy (Mk214 Sea Gnat Chaff [Seduction]; Tech: N/A) from DDG 64 Carney is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4331). Final probability: 20%. Result: 59 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:23:46 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4331 has impacted DDG 64 Carney.
11/1/2023 6:23:46 AM - 86% penetration achieved
11/1/2023 6:23:46 AM - [USN] DDG 64 Carney has suffered weapon damage: 1204 DPs
11/1/2023 6:23:46 AM - [USN] DDG 64 Carney is sinking!!!
11/1/2023 6:23:46 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4310 has been lost.
11/1/2023 6:23:48 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4330 impacts surface, 9.785304m from intended target point.
11/1/2023 6:23:48 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4309 has been lost.
11/1/2023 6:29:44 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)6 [ECM]; Tech: Early 2010s) on CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4352). Final probability: 20%. Result: 80 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:29:44 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4352 has impacted CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford.
11/1/2023 6:29:44 AM - 43% penetration achieved
11/1/2023 6:29:44 AM - [USN] CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford has suffered weapon damage: 602 DPs
11/1/2023 6:29:44 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4315 has been lost.
11/1/2023 6:29:45 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)6 [ECM]; Tech: Early 2010s) on CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4353). Final probability: 20%. Result: 82 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:29:45 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4353 has impacted CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford.
11/1/2023 6:29:45 AM - 25% penetration achieved
11/1/2023 6:29:45 AM - [USN] CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford has suffered weapon damage: 350 DPs
11/1/2023 6:29:45 AM - [USN] CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford damage report: Open Parking (60x Large Aircraft (18.1-26m Long)) has been lightly damaged.
11/1/2023 6:46:33 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)6 [ECM]; Tech: Early 2010s) on CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4365). Final probability: 20%. Result: 69 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:46:33 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4365 has impacted CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford.
11/1/2023 6:46:33 AM - 32% penetration achieved
11/1/2023 6:46:33 AM - [USN] CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford has suffered weapon damage: 448 DPs
11/1/2023 6:48:34 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)6 [ECM]; Tech: Early 2010s) on CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4366). Final probability: 20%. Result: 48 - FAILURE
11/1/2023 6:48:34 AM - Weapon: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4366 has impacted CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford.
11/1/2023 6:48:34 AM - 42% penetration achieved
11/1/2023 6:48:34 AM - [USN] CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford has suffered weapon damage: 588 DPs
11/1/2023 6:48:34 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4360 has been lost.
11/1/2023 6:48:35 AM - Defensive jammer (AN/SLQ-32(V)6 [ECM]; Tech: Early 2010s) on CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] RV #4367). Final probability: 20%. Result: 7 - SUCCESS
11/1/2023 6:48:35 AM - All weapon seekers were spoofed - weapon missed target
11/1/2023 6:48:35 AM - [USN] Contact Kh-47M2 Kinzhal [700kg HE Penetrator] #4361 has been lost.

[mmacguinness]

Oops. Don't upload much.
Here it is:

002 2023 Deterence Rev.09B.zip

(808.47 KiB) Downloaded 16 times

[thewood1]

Took the scenario and cut out 95% of the units to speed it up. Left a Syrian spy ship near the Ford for spotting. Ran eight times hands off except activated all bombers at once. Got the following

four times no hits from the RVs
three times 1-2 hits on the Ford from the RVs
one time 1-hit and sinking of DDG on the attack axis and 1 hit on the Ford.

There were a lot of hits on the RVs that cause slight deflection and misses. There were a couple weapon failures on the RVs over the eight play throughs. Any hit from the RV destroyed a large number of parked aircraft. Two of the Ford hit scenarios cause fairly extensive damage to the ford.

One of the interesting apsects is that the majority of RVs were destroyed/deflected by SAMs before they got into radar seeker range. That was the main conclusion I got.

[thewood1]

Here are my last four run throughs. I messed up the logs from the eight above. So I ran it four more times. The attached are the logs from the four runs.

Run 1 - Nothing hit. A lot of deflected RVs
Run 2 - Hudson was running spoofing and drew 1 or 2 RVs on itself.
Run 3 - Ford hit not as severely
Run 4 - Ford hit severely

I see nothing amiss from what my expectations would be. The CVN group is pretty unprepared and caught flat-footed. But they still managed to do fairly well in defense. On the other side, I could have coordinated the missiles better. Not sure it would have made a huge difference.

edit: I messed up the files again. All four ended up being the same run. I'll have to sort out what I'm doing wrong.

[Dimitris]

Note: CMO log files are not optimised for data collection. Very labour intensive to extract, copy and analyse it.

The commercial version is not intended for statistical analysis. Command PE exists for that.

[thewood1]

Ran another short series of tests (x10).

No hits x2
DDG only hit x2
Ford only hit x2
Ford and DDG hit x4

A few points:

1) The Ford can absorb a huge amount of damage and remain partially functional. Most hits seem to destroy parked aircraft though.
2) Burke DDGs are made of tin foil. A single hit from a large warhead will typically doom one.
3) The DDGs are only hit if an RV is deflected off its course to hit the CVN. Its pretty consistent in that.
4) The DDGs and the CVN are typically hit at the end of the engagement. They run out of SM-6s that can engage further out. The SM-2s will still hit, but they will allow the RVs into radar range and mostly deflect. Any deflection puts escorts on the attack axis at risk.
5) I had no issues importing the txt file to Excel and doing some rough analysis. Just have to pay attention to parsing on import.

Overall, again, I see nothing that I didn't expect with the rough set up. It all seemed pretty plausible.

[c3k]

Do the missiles, launched from different aircraft, still have the ability to network and deconflict/prioritize targets?

How do they communicate with one another? (Frequency, encryption, etc?)

Curious.

[thewood1]

It has no impact here. All are targeted at the CVN. I don't think the hypersonic RVs even have the ability to communicate at speed in the atmosphere.

[mmacguinness]

I included Egyptian and Syrian systems and the Arab Fishing Fleet specifically to create a complex environment.
Because, real life is complex.
In this complex environment, most of which is non belligerent, the results i have seen are much less favorable to USN than what you report of the stripped down version of the scenarios you created.

I am working through the log files, copying the results to Excel, and developing a consolidated summary, and I am preparing tabulations of the results. It is a very lengthy and tedious process. I will post in due course as time permits.

Re hypersonics, CMO models Kinzhals as flying at 150km altitude after launch, and then diving towards the target at a dive angle of about 9 degrees and a constant speed of 4000 knots implying powered flight all the way to the target, reducing to about 5 degrees before impact. This is an assumption. There hasn't been a Kinzhal; attack against a ship. But reports indicate that for land targets it flies at a very high altitude almost all the way and dives at a very high angle , 70+ degrees, to the target. So CMKo's assumption may be invalid, but that doesn't matter. My resultas are e based on CMO.

If CMO's modelling of Kinzhal does not accurately model real world Kinzhal performance, then ofcoirse the results will be unrea;istic.

Anyway, I will post my tabulated results in due course, but so far, its not looking good for the USN in a 24 Kinzhal vs US CVBG

[mmacguinness]

"1) The Ford can absorb a huge amount of damage and remain partially functional. Most hits seem to destroy parked aircraft though."

A very complacent conclusion.

First response: destroyed aircraft means reduced capability of the CV, plus the other damage/

My experience is that few strikes destroy aircraft. Though in one run, when the escort adjacent to the CV was struck, a magazine exploded, the blast damaged the CV and all aircraft were destroyed, even though nothing hit the CV!

It's not really about whether the CV can remain functional.
Damage to a CV is, of itself, a big deal.
But if the CV is stripped of most of its escorts as in every one of my simulation runs, how long can it last? Hours or days? Hours!

In 1 run, Ford had 2 catapults destroyed. But less than 15% damage. But. even if it were to evade follow-on attacks, how long would it be out of action? 6, 9, 12 months? But it would never get to port, because all the escorts were sunk.

Anyway, wait for my results. I'm busy, I don't have the Professional version, so it'll take another week or so.

[thewood1]

I would like some clarification on your comments:

1) You say that CMO's assumptions make it unrealistic, yet you yourself are making the opposite assumptions. How do differentiate their assumptions vs yours. Do you have a source that clears it up.

2) What is CMKo?

3) I ran the full scenario three times and never had the 3rd party ships play any role in fooling the RV. The hundreds of extra units and bases seem to have no bearing on the RV capability.

4) You see 24 RVs are fired. But how many hit? I brought at least directional info on that. You don't need a full-on analysis to just say X RVs fired/X RVs hit a CVN or other. You don't need a lot more than that.

btw, what does this even mean? "A very complacent conclusion"

Also, your first post was about all ASMs. Are you now only worried about a specific ASBM?

[thewood1]

https://www.graphicnews.com/en/pages/44 ... raphicnews

About the only real world data about combat usage.

[thewood1]

"1) The Ford can absorb a huge amount of damage and remain partially functional. Most hits seem to destroy parked aircraft though."

A very complacent conclusion.

First response: destroyed aircraft means reduced capability of the CV, plus the other damage/

My experience is that few strikes destroy aircraft. Though in one run, when the escort adjacent to the CV was struck, a magazine exploded, the blast damaged the CV and all aircraft were destroyed, even though nothing hit the CV!

It's not really about whether the CV can remain functional.
Damage to a CV is, of itself, a big deal.
But if the CV is stripped of most of its escorts as in every one of my simulation runs, how long can it last? Hours or days? Hours!

In 1 run, Ford had 2 catapults destroyed. But less than 15% damage. But. even if it were to evade follow-on attacks, how long would it be out of action? 6, 9, 12 months? But it would never get to port, because all the escorts were sunk.

Anyway, wait for my results. I'm busy, I don't have the Professional version, so it'll take another week or so.

Its been a year. Is that analysis done?

[thewood1]

"Anyway, wait for my results. I'm busy, I don't have the Professional version, so it'll take another week or so."

I'm seriously curious what the analysis showed.