Regarding the ASBM balance

[thewood1]

Comms is always going to be the key. Even with modern digital comms, there are serious integration issues in any kill chain. The US is only just getting over the hump on that and have spent decades developing it. . There will be significant delays in detection to analysis to command to execute. BMs take 15-30 minutes to erect and fire. If a CVBG CAP is pushed out 200 miles, you won't get a solid enough track to launch BMs. Even satellites (geostationary or not) are not a guarantee of a FC-worthy track. I attached a simple and contrived scenario that gives China options of satellite, sub, MP, or AEW to find a firing-worthy track on a CVN. The key ends up being if the CVBG pushes out CAP far enough to kill detecting aircraft.

edit: Interestingly, In my play throughs, I lose on average a Burke. It looks like it happens because of HOJ. One tactic I edited in was a two-ship picket 4-500 nm ahead of the CVBG. This gave the CVBG enough of a warning to start firing earlier. And the picket itself pared down the 40 ASBM a dozen or so.

[thewood1]

Updated the scenario with more modern CGs and DDG weapon loadouts. I shorted the USN on SM-3s because I put the wrong CGs in. It makes pretty big difference in the CMO world. The SM-3s whittle down the DF-26s enough that the SM-6s can clean up the RVs.

[Currahee150]

Ok I'll pitch in my 2 cents.

how much confidence can we place in Command's portrayal of the DF-26 and opposing BMD, as of this year?

I will ask this question: if we had used Command to estimate the survival time of the Ukrainian Air Force on February 21st, 2022, we would likely have concluded it could be estimated in days or hours. However, last I checked the UkAF is still very much alive and kicking, S-400s have been destroyed by cruise missiles that according to Command should have been vaporized as soon as they got picked up by radar, and a CG got waxed by circumstances that from what I've read on this forum take some creativity to even get close to replicating.
My point is that Command is very good tool to analyze challenges, logistics, and tactics in the current operating environment, but I'm not sure I would wager real life results on it reliably. We know based on Command that the DF-26 is a threat to the USN, which is a pretty undisputable fact. At the same time, Command probably won't generate you a solution that reliably lines up with real life (at least on the bleeding edge side of things, which the DF-26 question is), because there's a ton of factors that go into combat, even in naval combat (where from what I can tell its a lot more statistics, averages, and technology driven). To steal a few points made earlier in the thread, some of those factors can be: how far out is CAP? Is there a DDG picket? Is it one CSG or have three CSG come together to great the mother of all SAM baskets? Do we have the [insert latest tech refresh for SM-3s]? Has LEO now started to compete with the Kuiper belt for number of objects in orbit after a short violent ASAT war? Did the Admiral get his third cup of black coffee this morning to make timely decisions? Did the DF-26 crew have to stay up all night fixing a maintenance casualty and now they just aren't on top of their game? And more importantly, has China figured out how to hit an target they very much does NOT want to get hit, at vast distances, where a incorrect datum or miscalculations can translate to CEP of a great deal of miles, all while using a kill chain that will under active and passive assault by various US military assets, both kinetic and non-kinetic?
Some of these Command can model...a lot of them (as absurd as some of them sound), it cannot (and neither can any simulator on the market, probably ever).

[GeneralVikus]

Updated the scenario with more modern CGs and DDG weapon loadouts. I shorted the USN on SM-3s because I put the wrong CGs in. It makes pretty big difference in the CMO world. The SM-3s whittle down the DF-26s enough that the SM-6s can clean up the RVs.

Thanks for this, I'll check it out shortly. Now seems like a good moment to chip in my US forces database which I've been working on for the past few days by going through the Budget Justifications.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing . Note that FY 2024 procurement is included in the missile totals. I've set it so anyone can edit.

I have yet to go back and look for SM-3s and SM-2s as they don't appear in the FY24 budget. As you can see, there are 681 SM-6s Blk Is, with 115 more Blk IAs coming in FY2024. That works out to about 8 SM-6 per destroyer right now, which I think is about as many missiles as a destroyer can fire against a DF-26 raid.

[GeneralVikus]

Ok I'll pitch in my 2 cents.

how much confidence can we place in Command's portrayal of the DF-26 and opposing BMD, as of this year?

Some of these Command can model...a lot of them (as absurd as some of them sound), it cannot (and neither can any simulator on the market, probably ever).

When it comes to ordinary, run of the mill SAM engagements, I think I would tend to trust DCS mods more than CMO. Command is pretty poor when it comes to air combat. Obviously the quality is not going to be uniform, but there are a lot of really high quality free mods out there, so for something popular like the S-400, I'm guessing you could find a pretty good one. But I'm not well versed enough in the DCS community to make a good judgement on that. Generally speaking, I would only rely on Command for something like specialized such as ballistic missiles / BMD, which is completely outside the purview of DCS.

[SunlitZelkova]

The interesting side effect of China forcing the US to heavily invest in ABM capabilities is that it might upset the nuclear deterrence angle. Its why ABM was always in the Soviet-US treaties. It can completely screw up the balance of power.

This is what has already happened. I'd say the Chinese and Russian development of HGVs was actually a response to US ABM development originating with its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty around 2000.

I think the plan for China is to fire dozens at one CVBG. I am pretty sure the plan is overwhelm any defense.

Which would work the first time, but after that the USN would adapt and deny China any info on the location of their fleets. In that way it is a on-hit-wonder, it works well in the grey zone between war and peace, but once the gloves are off I don't think PLA will be able to do it again. USN would adapt similar to how USN did against the soviets in Red Storm Rising. it is so heavily dependent on good targeting info.

US would shoot down any AWACS that sniffs outside the Chinese coast and shoot down all known Chinese Reconnaissance satellites (as would probably China vis-à-vis Western Reconnaissance satellites that is within range).

I guess whether ASBM are effective is a matter of context and perspective. Give how expensive a Gerald R. Ford carrier is and the aircraft on it, losing a single one is a massive loss, which US would have to account for when deciding whether to defend Taiwan.

I disagree, but the Chinese have more sensors than just satellites and AWACS. Destroyers, frigates, and submarines will be in the area and will be able to report the locations of American carriers.

Note that satellite shoot downs may be unlikely in real life. The current US administration is heavily against direct ascent ASAT weapons, so use of the SM-3 as an ASAT weapon may be out of the question.

Ok I'll pitch in my 2 cents.

how much confidence can we place in Command's portrayal of the DF-26 and opposing BMD, as of this year?

I will ask this question: if we had used Command to estimate the survival time of the Ukrainian Air Force on February 21st, 2022, we would likely have concluded it could be estimated in days or hours. However, last I checked the UkAF is still very much alive and kicking, S-400s have been destroyed by cruise missiles that according to Command should have been vaporized as soon as they got picked up by radar, and a CG got waxed by circumstances that from what I've read on this forum take some creativity to even get close to replicating.
My point is that Command is very good tool to analyze challenges, logistics, and tactics in the current operating environment, but I'm not sure I would wager real life results on it reliably. We know based on Command that the DF-26 is a threat to the USN, which is a pretty undisputable fact. At the same time, Command probably won't generate you a solution that reliably lines up with real life (at least on the bleeding edge side of things, which the DF-26 question is), because there's a ton of factors that go into combat, even in naval combat (where from what I can tell its a lot more statistics, averages, and technology driven). To steal a few points made earlier in the thread, some of those factors can be: how far out is CAP? Is there a DDG picket? Is it one CSG or have three CSG come together to great the mother of all SAM baskets? Do we have the [insert latest tech refresh for SM-3s]? Has LEO now started to compete with the Kuiper belt for number of objects in orbit after a short violent ASAT war? Did the Admiral get his third cup of black coffee this morning to make timely decisions? Did the DF-26 crew have to stay up all night fixing a maintenance casualty and now they just aren't on top of their game? And more importantly, has China figured out how to hit an target they very much does NOT want to get hit, at vast distances, where a incorrect datum or miscalculations can translate to CEP of a great deal of miles, all while using a kill chain that will under active and passive assault by various US military assets, both kinetic and non-kinetic?
Some of these Command can model...a lot of them (as absurd as some of them sound), it cannot (and neither can any simulator on the market, probably ever).

I disagree with this, because scenarios are the exact tool used to analyze these various situations. We can put most of these variables into a scenario. We can say whether we want satellites destroyed by interceptors or not, and we can even say whether the missile crews are at the top of their game based on when we decide to fire (for example, Denixen decided to wait one hour before firing to model a hypothetical delay in targeting time. We can also say whether one carrier is at sea or three. None of the things you listed seem like major challenges to me.

I think Ukraine is a poor comparison for China. The situation in Ukraine is being heavily driven by the idea within the Russian military that Ukraine is not a threat. Thus the Moskva wasn't sailing with radars on, and few cruise missiles were used to take out the air force. Russia also assumed the Ukrainian military would collapse and thus didn't feel a need to use lots of weapons.

Another thing to note is that S-400s, nor any SAM, can have its radar operating constantly. And we don't know how deep Ukrainian infiltration of Russian intelligence is or if there are possible traitors within Russia. These cruise missile strikes may have been carried out within intelligence that the radars would not be operational.

Note that Soviet doctrine, which both Russia and Ukraine use, it not built around massive punishing strikes intended to shut down airfields. It is more structured around supporting the grunts on the frontline. So neither Russia or Ukraine have the ability or desire to try and destroy each other's air forces in the same way the US did to Iraq.

In contrast, China's doctrine is centered around actual destruction of the enemy, and most certainly will not be based on the assumption of a passive enemy now that they have learned from Ukraine.

Furthermore, if we limit the scenario to a certain period of the war rather than trying for a generalized "catch all" simulation, we can control all of the variables, and get a good idea of what might be going on.

No satellites were used on either side, the target was always the ship in the back, which was auto - detected. The SAMs are Aegis Ashore and THAAD batteries, which provided the ships with warning, but did not help to defeat the missiles. I believe China now has geostationary detection satellites with both radar and optical sensors; so if the satellites which the US relies upon for missile defence are safe from attack, then China is equally secure in its ability to detect surface targets and track them until impact, and does not need to rely upon aircraft to target its ASBMs.

Hence, the problem is that if the allies can defend their warships, those warships cannot hide; whereas if the warships can hide, then defence is impossible, and therefore destruction is only a matter of time.

I am sceptical of the 'delay before firing' argument. Clearly reducing reaction time is not easy, but it is doable; for instance, aircraft and missiles on alert against a theatre ballistic missile attack in Europe, or US strategic bombers on alert for a submarine attack, had to launch on six minutes' notice, if I recall correctly - this was forty years ago, and involved crews running to their aircraft, starting them up, taxiing and taking off. I do not see why responding to a detection and classification of a naval target should be so much harder than responding to detection and classification of an inbound missile, especially if modern AI is involved.

I have created my own scenario to test ASBMs. I used the actual PLARF order of battle, the actual satellite network, and the actual position of the Ronald Reagan CSG in early October. I also included a large number of civilian ships. The scenario assumes a crisis has erupted over Taiwan, and China is about to preemptively strike.

I found the CSG actually was able to defeat 36x DF-26D and 24x DF-21D which were all launched at the same time. It had support from a single Japanese Aegis DDG which in real life would be nearby. The missiles that did make it through actually failed to lock on to the carriers and destroyers, instead targeting the nearby civilian ships.

I think the presence of civilian ships is crucial in a "initial period of war" type scenario.

Feel free to check it out!

[GeneralVikus]

I found the CSG actually was able to defeat 36x DF-26D and 24x DF-21D which were all launched at the same time. It had support from a single Japanese Aegis DDG which in real life would be nearby. The missiles that did make it through actually failed to lock on to the carriers and destroyers, instead targeting the nearby civilian ships.

I think the presence of civilian ships is crucial in a "initial period of war" type scenario.

Feel free to check it out!

On this point, I found a great CBO report today comparing various types of hypersonic weapons and alternatives. It estimated the cost of a conventional intermediate range ASBM at $26 million for 300 missiles (similar to the inflation adjusted cost of the Pershing II, which checks out) and a boost - glide IRBM at $46 million for 300 missiles.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58924#_idTextAnchor109

SM-3 production todate stands at 572 missiles, with an average unit cost of about $9 million (though I don't think it's inflation adjusted.) The unit cost is jumping up to $12.5 in FY 2024 and $13.8 in FY2025 as the production rate decreases from 47 to 27. That's 6.65 missiles per destroyer, not accounting for testing.

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals ... B_2024.pdf

[thewood1]

Ok I'll pitch in my 2 cents.

how much confidence can we place in Command's portrayal of the DF-26 and opposing BMD, as of this year?

Some of these Command can model...a lot of them (as absurd as some of them sound), it cannot (and neither can any simulator on the market, probably ever).

When it comes to ordinary, run of the mill SAM engagements, I think I would tend to trust DCS mods more than CMO. Command is pretty poor when it comes to air combat. Obviously the quality is not going to be uniform, but there are a lot of really high quality free mods out there, so for something popular like the S-400, I'm guessing you could find a pretty good one. But I'm not well versed enough in the DCS community to make a good judgement on that. Generally speaking, I would only rely on Command for something like specialized such as ballistic missiles / BMD, which is completely outside the purview of DCS.

I am pretty well versed in DCS. I have posted a lot about here as a comparison. Even mods on SAM engagements are poor in DCS. CMO at least tries to bring real physics into it. DCS is player aircraft-centric and the AI outside of that is not good. Its AI is terrible and there's little you can do about it. At least in CMO, you have the tools as a designer to bring some semblance of reality to it.

Again, I have posted several articles on DCS's AI issues that would have this forum burned down if that had them in CMO.

[GeneralVikus]

Again, I have posted several articles on DCS's AI issues that would have this forum burned down if that had them in CMO.

I totally agree that DCS AI is a huge limitation, but I'm surprised you said that CMO has the advantage in 'real physics.' For instance, weapon release altitude and speed in CMO has no impact on range - a pretty massive simplification. Until recently, as far as I can tell, aircraft accelerated and decelerated almost instantly - i.e. they had no energy as such - and obviously they don't have flight models like DCS aircraft, which is also particularly relevant to SAM engagements. And while the DCS AI is undoubtedly poor, it's not totally braindead - when shot at, it does attempt to defend, and I don't see how the CMO AI is any better. So in what areas of physics and AI does CMO have the advantage?

One huge issue I noticed with DCS is that AI aircraft drop dumb bombs with 100% accuracy. But that's not relevant to air to air or ground to air engagements.

[GeneralVikus]

Comms is always going to be the key. Even with modern digital comms, there are serious integration issues in any kill chain.

Could you explain why comms is so much more of a problem for responding to anti - surface targeting information than it is for responding to a warning of a missile attack? On the surface, it seems like they're very similar; a missile attack requires a satellite detection of a launch to be transmitted through the communications system down to units on the ground; and we know that alert aircraft could scramble inside of 7 minutes, including reaching the aircraft, start - up, taxi, and take-off. Even as early as the late 1960s, SAC alert aircraft were on 15 minute alert. Clearly, missile warnings can be transmitted to units on the ground extremely quickly, and it should not be a major bottleneck compared to the flight time of an IRBM. So why is communication of targeting information so much slower?

[blu3s]

This is going to be a bit of an essay I apologize for that, but I have been thinking a lot about this before.

...

Agree 100% with this post.

In the case of the South China Sea, three bands of 46 satellites each (138 spacecraft in all) operating in 40-degree inclined polar orbits would be required to provide constant monitoring.

https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-c ... bility.pdf

[BDukes]

Comms is always going to be the key. Even with modern digital comms, there are serious integration issues in any kill chain.

Could you explain why comms is so much more of a problem for responding to anti - surface targeting information than it is for responding to a warning of a missile attack? On the surface, it seems like they're very similar; a missile attack requires a satellite detection of a launch to be transmitted through the communications system down to units on the ground; and we know that alert aircraft could scramble inside of 7 minutes, including reaching the aircraft, start - up, taxi, and take-off. Even as early as the late 1960s, SAC alert aircraft were on 15 minute alert. Clearly, missile warnings can be transmitted to units on the ground extremely quickly, and it should not be a major bottleneck compared to the flight time of an IRBM. So why is communication of targeting information so much slower?

Without knowing classified stuff, the flow is different. Strategic level comms flows down. Most of the missile detection assets are at that level, and info flows down. Tactical-level stuff must flow up through a chain and then routed down to the appropriate units. There are more points of failure, more data to transmit, more to process, and the receiver might have a lot to do with it.

M

[Kobu]

Hi

I totally agree that DCS AI is a huge limitation, but I'm surprised you said that CMO has the advantage in 'real physics.' For instance, weapon release altitude and speed in CMO has no impact on range - a pretty massive simplification. Until recently, as far as I can tell, aircraft accelerated and decelerated almost instantly - i.e. they had no energy as such - and obviously they don't have flight models like DCS aircraft, which is also particularly relevant to SAM engagements. And while the DCS AI is undoubtedly poor, it's not totally braindead - when shot at, it does attempt to defend, and I don't see how the CMO AI is any better. So in what areas of physics and AI does CMO have the advantage?

The altitude at which the shooter is located and the altitude at which the target is located is very important and is simulated in CMO.

Quick example:

F-15 with AIM-120C-7 vs F-18
First engagement both at 36k ft the F-15 launch at 60NM.
Second engagement both at 10k ft the F-15 launch at 37NM.

There is a big difference and the altitude is taken into account. Regarding speed, I have not seen significant changes in the range and it is probably not implemented although its effect is less than altitude.

Regarding the acceleration of the planes, they have said that they are with it and for the moment they have lowered it, which I personally find more realistic.
Regarding energy, a "G tolerance" was implemented a long time ago where during turns the plane loses energy and speed quickly, obviously it will never be as precise as a specific flight model for a flight simulator but it fulfills its function and has margin of improvement over the years between the different aircraft.


I don't know how DCS will be now but IMHO I don't think it is the best simulator to compare A-A or ground to air engagement.


Regards

[thewood1]

I think the OP needs to read up on the changes made to energy modeling of missiles over the last few years. DCS only recently, and self admittedly, started modeling lofting missiles properly. And even then, only a small subset of the most common missiles. There are several videos on DCS on YT that show the complete disconnection from physics modeling on SAM launches. CMO's devs have been working on this for 5-6 years at least. And they have gotten very good at it. Is it perfect...no. But its probably the best of an combat simulator out there.

DCS does not model any type of comms or IADS except around the player. There all kinds of modeling techniques available to the player/designer in CMO to show integration and communication systems. Its been talked about ad nauseum on these forums.

One thing this whole discussion shows is that if you are going to send a single CVN into the SCS, you better load up on escorts, SM-3s, and SM-6s. But it also shows that it'll take multiple dozens of missiles to break through the BMD defense to even get one of the escorts. Thats even if you can isolate a CVN track long enough to get a real firing solution. The only way I can see China being effective with ASBM is if they are the main focus of an opening salvo. Catching a CVN in port in Japan, short on escorts, or with a poor escort missile mix might be the only way to get inside the BMD screen.

[BDukes]

I think the OP needs to read up on the changes made to energy modeling of missiles over the last few years. DCS only recently, and self admittedly, started modeling lofting missiles properly. And even then, only a small subset of the most common missiles. There are several videos on DCS on YT that show the complete disconnection from physics modeling on SAM launches. CMO's devs have been working on this for 5-6 years at least. And they have gotten very good at it. Is it perfect...no. But its probably the best of an combat simulator out there.

DCS does not model any type of comms or IADS except around the player. There all kinds of modeling techniques available to the player/designer in CMO to show integration and communication systems. Its been talked about ad nauseum on these forums.

One thing this whole discussion shows is that if you are going to send a single CVN into the SCS, you better load up on escorts, SM-3s, and SM-6s. But it also shows that it'll take multiple dozens of missiles to break through the BMD defense to even get one of the escorts. Thats even if you can isolate a CVN track long enough to get a real firing solution. The only way I can see China being effective with ASBM is if they are the main focus of an opening salvo. Catching a CVN in port in Japan, short on escorts, or with a poor escort missile mix might be the only way to get inside the BMD screen.

Agree.

I don't even know why DCS is in the discussion to be honest, mostly because of scope.

The cost-benefit (earlier part of this discussion) isn't missile versus missile. It's how much is China willing to spend to roll US forces back for whatever reason. Cost per missile is just sunk into the larger cost of the decision to wage a great power war to do X.CMO doesn't really model this stuff, although it greatly impacts the narratives of our campaigns and scenarios.

CMO is not the real world, so makes sense to model and develop your own load-outs with respect to what CMO does. This is not a dig but how simulation works. Trial and error will largely give you the needed weapon counts etc. Same with sensor detections and all sorts of things. The underlying lessons you learn from the interactions are useful in how you view real-world stuff.

Peace-Out.

Mike

[GeneralVikus]

There are several videos on DCS on YT that show the complete disconnection from physics modeling on SAM launches. CMO's devs have been working on this for 5-6 years at least. And they have gotten very good at it. Is it perfect...no. But its probably the best of an combat simulator out there.

Can you link one of the videos you are referring to? I would very much like to learn more on this topic. I searched "DCS SAM physics" on youtube and all I got was several 'SAM evasion techniques' videos.

[thewood1]

If I can find it in passing, I will. I think one of them was done by PGat.

Easier to find discussions and links to discussions about DCS missile and radar modeling here. One that comes to mind.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... s#p5077154

I also looked at the IADS mod for DCS. I had played around with it a couple years ago, but gave up on DCS due to overall AI issues. Its actually what got me going on developing IADS testing for CMO. For a focused designer, CMO is hands down better at IADS and the implications of all its functioning parts. Again, been discussed a lot here.

Searched PGat's videos under SAM. Suggest you browse through them.

https://www.youtube.com/@PGatcomb/search?query=SAM

[SunlitZelkova]

This is going to be a bit of an essay I apologize for that, but I have been thinking a lot about this before.

...

Agree 100% with this post.

In the case of the South China Sea, three bands of 46 satellites each (138 spacecraft in all) operating in 40-degree inclined polar orbits would be required to provide constant monitoring.

https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-c ... bility.pdf

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/26/investi ... ength.html

China already has 290 ISR satellites and launched 180 in 2022. China has also invested in solid fueled launch vehicles derived from the DF-31 ICBM, that could be used to replace satellites rapidly during wartime.

[Dimitris]

I will ask this question: if we had used Command to estimate the survival time of the Ukrainian Air Force on February 21st, 2022, we would likely have concluded it could be estimated in days or hours. However, last I checked the UkAF is still very much alive and kicking, S-400s have been destroyed by cruise missiles that according to Command should have been vaporized as soon as they got picked up by radar, and a CG got waxed by circumstances that from what I've read on this forum take some creativity to even get close to replicating.
My point is that Command is very good tool to analyze challenges, logistics, and tactics in the current operating environment, but I'm not sure I would wager real life results on it reliably. We know based on Command that the DF-26 is a threat to the USN, which is a pretty undisputable fact. At the same time, Command probably won't generate you a solution that reliably lines up with real life (at least on the bleeding edge side of things, which the DF-26 question is), because there's a ton of factors that go into combat, even in naval combat (where from what I can tell its a lot more statistics, averages, and technology driven). To steal a few points made earlier in the thread, some of those factors can be: how far out is CAP? Is there a DDG picket? Is it one CSG or have three CSG come together to great the mother of all SAM baskets? Do we have the [insert latest tech refresh for SM-3s]? Has LEO now started to compete with the Kuiper belt for number of objects in orbit after a short violent ASAT war? Did the Admiral get his third cup of black coffee this morning to make timely decisions? Did the DF-26 crew have to stay up all night fixing a maintenance casualty and now they just aren't on top of their game? And more importantly, has China figured out how to hit an target they very much does NOT want to get hit, at vast distances, where a incorrect datum or miscalculations can translate to CEP of a great deal of miles, all while using a kill chain that will under active and passive assault by various US military assets, both kinetic and non-kinetic?
Some of these Command can model...a lot of them (as absurd as some of them sound), it cannot (and neither can any simulator on the market, probably ever).

You may have missed this: https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=5349

Also, this pair of slides is from our most recent CUE:





Modelling soft factors and context has always been a high priority in Command. Some scenarios do it right, others move them to the background in favor of hardware porn, but the tools and constructs are there.

[Dimitris]

I totally agree that DCS AI is a huge limitation, but I'm surprised you said that CMO has the advantage in 'real physics.' For instance, weapon release altitude and speed in CMO has no impact on range - a pretty massive simplification.

Pretty sure it does, and by design. (For unguided weapons we even dynamically shrink/expand the ASuW weapon range-ring as speed & altitude change, to indicate this).
If you've come across a case where this doesn't happen please open a new thread on Tech Support with a suitable save. Thanks!

EDIT: The above is for A2G weapons release. For A2A weapons altitude definitely matters, and speed as well but the latter needs some more tuning in its effects. Details: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p5063327