Consider skip-glide ballistic missile trajectory?

[Sanyr1310]

Actually, I've been wanting to talk about this for a long time. I've always noticed that all the ballistic missiles in the game fly at a very high altitude, a constant parabolic trajectory, making them easy to track and intercept.

As far as I know, the ballistic missiles developed and equipped by mainstream countries in the world today do not use traditional ballistic flight (Chinese DF-21D/26B ASBM for example), but use a jump - glide trajectory similar to Sangar ballistic trajectory (cost speed but almost not get out of the atmosphere, or maybe one or two times, probably use secondary ignition to sustain speed), and their trajectory is usually only hundreds of kilometers (the game's medium-range ballistic missiles often fly thousands of kilometers high).

In addition, tactical ballistic missiles such as ATACMS, DF-12, Iskander, their maximum flight altitude generally does not exceed the Karman line (about 50km or so of the ballistic high point), and in the game they need to re-enter the atmosphere flight.





https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... y-defenses

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/worl ... rsonic.htm

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcon ... k_gradthes

[Dimitris]

Most BMs in fact use MET (the "high parabolic" trajectory you refer to) for a very simple reason: It's the most energy-efficient one.

Now, some systems do in fact use skipping, but only once the RV has re-entered the atmosphere; in a typical trajectory this is fairly late in the sequence. Most RV designs simply do not have a sufficient L/D ratio to support a prolonged glide in the upper atmosphere; those that do are HGVs of various configurations.

While we are indeed interested in modelling atmospheric pull-up and skipping, it will have to wait until our plate has thinned up a little. We have too many things to work on ATM.

Now if your request was coming from a governmental org, willing to fund this, this might change its priority. If that's the case then let us know.

Thanks!

[Sanyr1310]

Most BMs in fact use MET (the "high parabolic" trajectory you refer to) for a very simple reason: It's the most energy-efficient one.

Now, some systems do in fact use skipping, but only once the RV has re-entered the atmosphere; in a typical trajectory this is fairly late in the sequence. Most RV designs simply do not have a sufficient L/D ratio to support a prolonged glide in the upper atmosphere; those that do are HGVs of various configurations.

The kind of RVs you are talking about are MARVs, yes they are just maneuvering in the final segment. However, as I mentioned earlier, mid-course orbit change can be achieved through secondary ignition. Also, you should note that I also mentioned that the ballistic missiles in the game are too high. I remember earlier versions that didn't seem to be the case, their orbits were much lower and faster back then, in reality, a ballistic missile leaving the atmosphere can keep its orbital altitude as low as possible while maintaining high speed (instead of gliding into the atmosphere).

And the tactical missiles I mentioned, their trajectories in the game are really too high, even though they're flying through a parabola.

In addition, I would like to make one more small request: is it possible to consider adding some kind of modification (the kind that showed in message log) based on MaRV and HGV mobility? I noticed that the MaRV and HGV in the game use the same modification as the regular RV, making their ability to break through the SAM system almost the same. In reality, both Chinese, Russian and Western scientific research results and military intelligence have made it clear that MARVs and HGVs are capable of various types of maneuvers to break through SAM system interceptions. Therefore, I think the game can add modifications based on this to better simulate reality.

[Dimitris]

Most BMs in fact use MET (the "high parabolic" trajectory you refer to) for a very simple reason: It's the most energy-efficient one.

Now, some systems do in fact use skipping, but only once the RV has re-entered the atmosphere; in a typical trajectory this is fairly late in the sequence. Most RV designs simply do not have a sufficient L/D ratio to support a prolonged glide in the upper atmosphere; those that do are HGVs of various configurations.

The kind of RVs you are talking about are MARVs, yes they are just maneuvering in the final segment. However, as I mentioned earlier, mid-course orbit change can be achieved through secondary ignition. Also, you should note that I also mentioned that the ballistic missiles in the game are too high. I remember earlier versions that didn't seem to be the case, their orbits were much lower and faster back then, in reality, a ballistic missile leaving the atmosphere can keep its orbital altitude as low as possible while maintaining high speed (instead of gliding into the atmosphere).

And the tactical missiles I mentioned, their trajectories in the game are really too high, even though they're flying through a parabola.

I will comment on this separately, after first discussing with someone far more experienced than me on this subject.

In addition, I would like to make one more small request: is it possible to consider adding some kind of modification (the kind that showed in message log) based on MaRV and HGV mobility? I noticed that the MaRV and HGV in the game use the same modification as the regular RV, making their ability to break through the SAM system almost the same. In reality, both Chinese, Russian and Western scientific research results and military intelligence have made it clear that MARVs and HGVs are capable of various types of maneuvers to break through SAM system interceptions. Therefore, I think the game can add modifications based on this to better simulate reality.

That's actually a good suggestion. I have two tweaks for this in mind:

1) As you point out, MaRVs can manouver during their atmospheric re-entry and thus pose a more difficult target for interception. The manouvering capability starts off very small during the initial re-entry (very thin atmosphere near the Karman line), maximizes around the middle of the altitude band (~50km) and then rapidly shrinks - not because of physical limitations, but because manouvering too much close to impact risks missing the target (ie. the MaRV itself has to stay within a reasonable "basket").

2) MaRVs have aerodynamic surfaces by necessity (fins or flaps usually), and these are a point of vulnerability - even for a non-ABM optimized missile (ie. SM-2/6) damaging a MaRV is easier than an RV. So in sim terms a much higher probability of knocking it off-course - IF successful intercept is made.

We'll try to incorporate those going forward.

[Sanyr1310]

Most BMs in fact use MET (the "high parabolic" trajectory you refer to) for a very simple reason: It's the most energy-efficient one.

Now, some systems do in fact use skipping, but only once the RV has re-entered the atmosphere; in a typical trajectory this is fairly late in the sequence. Most RV designs simply do not have a sufficient L/D ratio to support a prolonged glide in the upper atmosphere; those that do are HGVs of various configurations.

The kind of RVs you are talking about are MARVs, yes they are just maneuvering in the final segment. However, as I mentioned earlier, mid-course orbit change can be achieved through secondary ignition. Also, you should note that I also mentioned that the ballistic missiles in the game are too high. I remember earlier versions that didn't seem to be the case, their orbits were much lower and faster back then, in reality, a ballistic missile leaving the atmosphere can keep its orbital altitude as low as possible while maintaining high speed (instead of gliding into the atmosphere).

And the tactical missiles I mentioned, their trajectories in the game are really too high, even though they're flying through a parabola.

I will comment on this separately, after first discussing with someone far more experienced than me on this subject.

In addition, I would like to make one more small request: is it possible to consider adding some kind of modification (the kind that showed in message log) based on MaRV and HGV mobility? I noticed that the MaRV and HGV in the game use the same modification as the regular RV, making their ability to break through the SAM system almost the same. In reality, both Chinese, Russian and Western scientific research results and military intelligence have made it clear that MARVs and HGVs are capable of various types of maneuvers to break through SAM system interceptions. Therefore, I think the game can add modifications based on this to better simulate reality.

That's actually a good suggestion. I have two tweaks for this in mind:

1) As you point out, MaRVs can manouver during their atmospheric re-entry and thus pose a more difficult target for interception. The manouvering capability starts off very small during the initial re-entry (very thin atmosphere near the Karman line), maximizes around the middle of the altitude band (~50km) and then rapidly shrinks - not because of physical limitations, but because manouvering too much close to impact risks missing the target (ie. the MaRV itself has to stay within a reasonable "basket").

2) MaRVs have aerodynamic surfaces by necessity (fins or flaps usually), and these are a point of vulnerability - even for a non-ABM optimized missile (ie. SM-2/6) damaging a MaRV is easier than an RV. So in sim terms a much higher probability of knocking it off-course - IF successful intercept is made.

We'll try to incorporate those going forward.

With great respect to you！The hardworking members of the CMO development team have been working hard to improve the game and provide a better experience for players.

I believe that improvements in these aspects will make game simulations more realistic. But that alone may not be enough. As you quoted in another of my posts, there are many more aspects where CMO‘s BMD simulation needs to be modified and improved.

Thanks again to the CMO development team!

[Blast33]

For Iskander trajectories please I found some data in the database gidhub Database request.
Probably good to take into account:
https://github.com/rafal9820/9M723-Iska ... me-ov-file (lots of data)
And a mentioned comment on https://twitter.com/M51_4ever/status/16 ... 5117454384 for trajectories from this post and more:

F5RhhW0XMAAYI1b.jpg (117.64 KiB) Viewed 2448 times

Has been submitted to the DB forum in October.
https://github.com/PygmalionOfCyprus/cm ... ssues/2429

[laro]

I submitted that DB request.

Practical in-game side effect of not having this implemented is that for example all exoatmospheric missiles attempt to intercept Iskanders when they are not launched at their maximum range (in reality they fly the flattened curve).

Happens all the time for me with Aegis Ashore in Poland and Iskanders launched from Kaliningrad/Belarus for example.

The design principle is to fly slightly under the limits of atmosphere (to avoid exoatmospheric interceptors) yet high enough to avoid most of SAM systems (plus terminal phase dive) which is something CMO does not simulate currently. Does not apparently help that much if a target is protected by Patriot with PAC-3MSEs (as shown in Ukraine). That success rate knowing the difficulties involved is simply mind-blowing.

The GitHub analysis of Islander is extremely informative and a recommended reading for anybody interested in the this topic.