Page 1 of 3
For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:59 pm
by thewood1
...there might be a reason we struggle with it in CMO.
https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/g ... rformance/
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:13 am
by LettuceTurnipTheBeet
Recently (1265.1) the most common reason I have when trying to engage ballistic missiles is not the interceptor being unsuccessful but that even dedicated ABM sensors cannot track them in time. When, say, a Burke with a SPY-1D detects a DF-21 RV the projected intercept point is already too low to be engaged with a SM-3. Even long range ABM radars like the SMART-L cannot track them as of recently.
In addition, the Attitude Control-Combined variable is missing from many ABM missiles, rendering them nearly useless, even against predictable targets like satellites.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:33 am
by thewood1
There are several long threads on tracking of BMs for engagements. Its VERY dependent on the type of BM, position of the weapon platform, the type of ABM missile, and where exactly the BM is tracked. The weapon-based radars are only for local tracking. You need specialized theater-based radars to find the BM and hand off to the local weapon. Its not just telling a single ship to fire.
What I have found out from CMO is everything has to be perfect for a good interception. Real-life seems to be showing that.
edit: If you search "SBX" you'll get a long list of this stuff being discussed and changes that the devs have continuously made to get ABM to work like people think it should work. Not necessarily the way it works in real-life.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 1:12 pm
by Gizzmoe
thewood1 wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:33 am
What I have found out from CMO is everything has to be perfect for a good interception. Real-life seems to be showing that.
I haven't played around with ABM much, but when I did I indeed struggled. In other words, I couldn't intercept them
Could you please post an example save where we can see in which situation an Anti-ABM would work successfully, that would be helpful.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 1:19 pm
by Transient
I think the problem is that in real life, SBIRS and DSP would have already provided initial warning and cued the sensor to search the correct parcel of airspace in order for the ship to form the necessary track organically as early as possible.
In Launch on Remote (LOR)mode, the missile would have already launched on a remote track formed by other sensors before the missile launching ship even formed a track organically.
Problem with all the above is that in such scenarios, the SBIRS/DSP systems and/or the THAAD sensors etc would have to have been included. And not sure if LOR is modelled in game? So trying to model ABM scenarios without all the above is in fact severely handicapping the defending USN side.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 1:28 pm
by Gizzmoe
Transient wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 1:19 pm
In Launch on Remote (LOR)mode, the missile would have already launched on a remote track formed by other sensors before the missile launching ship even formed a track organically.
Interesting. Can that somehow be done in CMO as well?
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 1:59 pm
by thewood1
It can be done with the right units and settings. I think I did it a few years ago using a line of lua also. The key issue continues to be that, just like in real-life, you have to have the entire chain in place. And even then, there are very small interception windows for different weapons in the chain. SM-3, SM-6, SM-2, THAAD, etc. all have different interception windows and require different sensor configurations.
You'll note, if you search, whenever there is an theater-wide interception test or an expected NK launch, SBX heads out to sea. Its because its the one link in the chain common to medium or long range missile interception.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 2:19 pm
by Gizzmoe
thewood1 wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 1:59 pm
It can be done with the right units and settings [...] And even then, there are very small interception windows for different weapons in the chain.
Yes, and it would be great if someone could post a save showing an example of a good interception window and the needed units in CMO, for example an SM-3 vs. a Chinese ASBM.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 2:24 pm
by thewood1
If you do the search I suggested, there are a couple in some of the threads.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 2:47 pm
by Gizzmoe
thewood1 wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 2:24 pm
If you do the search I suggested, there are a couple in some of the threads.
Ok, I'll look for it. Maybe you should consider posting the links to the threads you mentioned that are relevant to this topic for future reference, not everyone wants to wade through the search to find the things that you made a point about.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 2:49 pm
by DWReese
I've played around with CMO and ABM quite a bit over the years.
The intercept model that they currently have works GREAT. If the missiles (SM-3, in particular) are fired, they will hit what they are aimed at. Big thanks to the devs for this. They have done a great job.
That being said, these intercepts are dependent on having the proper detection platform available. The SBX is great, but there is only one of them. Other platforms now seem as though they detect the initial launch, but then everything switches to detection and tracking as the attacking missiles start to descend. The missile seems to be somewhat lost in the middle. Earlier versions had the missiles being intercepted at 500 or 600 miles away. Now, they seem to be intercepted only in the terminal phase which, again, works great.
I don't know enough about the detection, and particularly the tracking, real life methods. It would seem that most sources exaggerate what can be done, at least when compared to the way that CMO handles it. I'm inclined to believe CMO.
Again, I don't know how tracking is really done, or what platforms can actually track what incoming missiles. It does seem to be a situation of being able to optimize things to make them function, and I'm not sure how often that that is really the case, but the intercept model works great.
Great job, devs!
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 3:28 pm
by thewood1
Gizzmoe wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 2:47 pm
thewood1 wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 2:24 pm
If you do the search I suggested, there are a couple in some of the threads.
Ok, I'll look for it. Maybe you should consider posting the links to the threads you mentioned that are relevant to this topic for future reference, not everyone wants to wade through the search to find the things that you made a point about.
I don't want to either. If someone is interested enough, they can wade through it. Here is an old test scenario I modded from someone else. A number of good interceptions happen. Its db 487 so relatively old.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 3:29 pm
by thewood1
DWReese wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 2:49 pm
I've played around with CMO and ABM quite a bit over the years.
The intercept model that they currently have works GREAT. If the missiles (SM-3, in particular) are fired, they will hit what they are aimed at. Big thanks to the devs for this. They have done a great job.
That being said, these intercepts are dependent on having the proper detection platform available. The SBX is great, but there is only one of them. Other platforms now seem as though they detect the initial launch, but then everything switches to detection and tracking as the attacking missiles start to descend. The missile seems to be somewhat lost in the middle. Earlier versions had the missiles being intercepted at 500 or 600 miles away. Now, they seem to be intercepted only in the terminal phase which, again, works great.
I don't know enough about the detection, and particularly the tracking, real life methods. It would seem that most sources exaggerate what can be done, at least when compared to the way that CMO handles it. I'm inclined to believe CMO.
Again, I don't know how tracking is really done, or what platforms can actually track what incoming missiles. It does seem to be a situation of being able to optimize things to make them function, and I'm not sure how often that that is really the case, but the intercept model works great.
Great job, devs!
You can read the article I just posted to start this thread. It lays out what a lot of people have suspected. Its more of an info war than a missile war.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 4:14 pm
by Gizzmoe
thewood1 wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 3:28 pm
Here is an old test scenario I modded from someone else. A number of good interceptions happen. Its db 487 so relatively old.
Have you also tried it with a Deep Rebuild for DB495 , no Preserve OOAD and with 1267.1? The result doesn't look good imo, but of course I could be wrong again.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 4:47 pm
by thewood1
You know...you could try some of this your self. Took 2 minutes for the rebuild a a couple more for two test runs. And yes, I did. Basically the same results within the margin of errors I would expect.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 4:56 pm
by Faceplate
Al Sandrik's 'Firey Cross Reef, 2021', in the community pack, demonstrates ABM work. THAAD and SBX intercept DF-26C. It uses DB 491, easily upgraded to 495. Might need to test in the editor, since the launch unit sometimes shoots less than a full salvo.
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 4:56 pm
by Gizzmoe
DWReese wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 2:49 pm
f the missiles (SM-3, in particular) are fired, they will hit what they are aimed at. Big thanks to the devs for this. They have done a great job.
That being said, these intercepts are dependent on having the proper detection platform available. The SBX is great, but there is only one of them.
Does the SBX help the SM-3 to acquire the target/fire earlier or do they just give a higher detection range or both?
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:00 pm
by Gizzmoe
thewood1 wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 4:47 pm
You know...you could try some of this your self.
I did, I didn't ask you to provide a DB495 version, I just asked if you tried it yourself
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:06 pm
by thewood1
Here are pics of the message log and losses screen in a 495 test. You'll see that interceptions were fairly regular on DF11 and Fatah BMs. The DF16s mostly got through because none of the radars saw them until too late. Not sure why. As you see, a few made it through.
Doesn't show the entire log, but just a few examples of interceptions.
- Screenshot 2022-08-07 125940.jpg (153.64 KiB) Viewed 10816 times
The losses screen shows that a high % of the BMs were intercepted. Probably higher than in real life. WRA is important if there is a guided RV. The settings are seperate from the BM settings.
- Screenshot 2022-08-07 125927.jpg (102.11 KiB) Viewed 10816 times
Re: For those you struggling with ABM engagements...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:08 pm
by thewood1
Gizzmoe wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:00 pm
thewood1 wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 4:47 pm
You know...you could try some of this your self.
I did, I didn't ask you to provide a DB495 version, I just asked if you tried it yourself
You seem to come in asking for stuff you could easily do yourself overall.