Initially i set this up to test the HAWC AShM as i was unconvinced by its 1DP, anyway turns that it works just fine usually sinks a ship with one hit. What i did notice though is the defending ship fire most of its missiles backwards away from the incoming missiles (see below picture). I'm not sure if this is the correct behaviour or not but it seems strange. I have set up some saves so you can just play and watch it happen, just set it going and watch from the RED side. Save AShM v8, is an attack on one ship using HAWC. Version AShM v11, is the same scenario but using LRASM instead of HAWC, they don't seem to do it against the LRASM, which is why i'm not sure if it is actual problem. The final save AShM v8d, is the same scenario using HAWC against multiple targets to amplify the issue. Logs are also included.
Shooting Backwards.png (2.42 MiB) Viewed 862 times
Checked this now with the current update release, and confirmed.
I _think_ what is happening is that the SAMs are just unable to rise fast enough to make an intercept "ahead " of the ship, and the soonest interception point is calculated after the ship, so the SAMs are directed towards that point.
(The incoming HAWCs are flying high, fast and level, and this is what the calculation of the intercept point is based on; there is not yet an indication that they are diving towards this ship.)
After a few seconds, the HAWCs do begin to dive towards the ship, and this completely throws the original intercept calculation of the window, with the SAMs being wasted.
It's hard to say if this genuinely a "bug" or an accurate reflection of the challenges that such weapons (incl. Zircon) place on "traditional" SAMs....
Did some more digging on this, with an eye towards removing all the "obstacles" that doom the ship in this scenario.
1) Insufficient early detection: By the time the ship detects the incomings, the earliest possible intercept point is "behind" the ship; this causes the backwards-firing SAMs behavior. Solved by placing an E-2D along the threat axis, far out. (This BTW is why counter-hypersonics advocates talk about placing huge early warning & tracking satellite constellations in orbit. If you don't detect & track early, nothing else down the line will work.)
2) Even with early detection, the ship was not auto-targeting and beginning shot-evaluation far outside its nominal AAW range, so again the earliest intercept point was delayed. Solved by a code change (included on the next update); the "outer range limit" for auto-targeting and shot-evaluation against aero targets now dynamically expands with target mach value.
3) The ship would still not shoot early enough. Why? Insufficient range on sensors and weapons: The ship needed to obtain a track on the targets on its own in order to fire (no CEC!), and by the time it did the earliest intercept point was again behind the ship.
To confirm that #3 was indeed a showstopper, I placed a Burke Flight III DDG alongside the Russian frigate, armed with some SM-6 Blk IAs. Soon after the HAWCs were detected, the Burke immediately started firing SM-6s against them; the first volley was CEC-guided by the E-2D, while for the second salvo the leakers were close enough that it was able to track them with its own radars. All of them were killed.
I think this conclusively resolves this issue. Hypersonic threats apparently signal the end of AAW ships (and likewise, land-based SAM/ABMs) as "isolated islands". You can no longer rely solely on your own sensors and weapons for the job; the response window is too shrinked. You either fight as part of a network, with offboard early tracking and preferably with remote-guided interceptors, or you suffer.
The above explanation and the detail from the S-300 issues thread are great detail for long-time and newer players. It would be great if the FAQ was updated with this info. There are several other threads out there that would save time if the warsim FAQs were update, and then posted as a pinned thread in the main forum. I would also add them to the new manual. If something will be done with it, I'll go through and start assembling those nuggets for a FAQ 2.0.
The original mega-FAQ page was taken down as it had become increasingly obsolete. I have moved it to a Google doc and if anyone is interested, I can provide access for contributions & updates.
The firing backwards problem is happening with any fast ballistic target such as an SM-6 in ship attack mode, some of the 9M96D's turn and intercept but others don't and it wastes all the missiles.
They *can* intercept, but the trajectory is wrong.
I am curious where the range data and general information for the four face radar 3P96-2 [Poliment-Redoute] was sourced from.
Its listed as only 150km, however the land S-350 SA-25 FCR [50N6A] is 400km. 150km seems low and could be related to why it can't intercept them properly as they are detected too late. As a comparison the early 1990s naval TOMBSTONE is listed as 165km and the TOP PLATE [MR-710 Fregat M2EM] is 300km.
Horchata wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2023 1:36 pm
The firing backwards problem is happening with any fast ballistic target such as an SM-6 in ship attack mode, some of the 9M96D's turn and intercept but others don't and it wastes all the missiles.
They *can* intercept, but the trajectory is wrong.
See what I wrote above. Lone-ship CONOPS are being dinosaured by very fast threats. Cooperative engagements are the way forward.
I am curious where the range data and general information for the four face radar 3P96-2 [Poliment-Redoute] was sourced from.
Its listed as only 150km, however the land S-350 SA-25 FCR [50N6A] is 400km. 150km seems low and could be related to why it can't intercept them properly as they are detected too late. As a comparison the early 1990s naval TOMBSTONE is listed as 165km and the TOP PLATE [MR-710 Fregat M2EM] is 300km.
This is the wrong thread and forum for this, please submit it on the DB Github together with any relevant sources.
1. Possible CEC mode.
2. Sometimes a long-ranged weapon is paired with a sub-optimal VSR/FCR set simply because there is nothing else available in that range bracket, and other alternatives are too short-ranged for the task. As a result the weapon has a lower practical range against a head-on target, but can put the "surplus" kinematic energy to good use against evading/manouvering threats. Classic example that comes to mind is SM-1MR on OH Perry class FFG.
