Page 1 of 1
[DB ERROR] PAC-3 MSE unable to engage target while PAC-2 GEM+ is able
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2026 9:11 am
by Dimitris
Posting on his behalf since he is facing technical troubles.
LetMePickThat wrote:
Hi all,
Using the V512 DB, there seems to be an issue with some dual-use AAW/BMD units like the Patriot or the SAMP/T.
Setting up a Patriot site augmented by a TPY-2, one can see that the system never engages incoming SRBMs using the PAC-3 MSE ("unable to intercept") whereas it does do so with the PAC-2 GEM+ when allowed to use it against that target type. The SAMP/T (NG) shows a similar behaviour, with the notable difference that since that system is single-missile type, it has nothing to fall back on and never engages ballistic threats at all.
A quick look at the manual engagement window shows that the GEM+ is deemed usable for the engagement when both the Aster 30 Block 1(NT) and the PAC-3 MSE are not. This behaviour is consistent until RV impact.
The MSE and Aster are never offered an engagement window despite being, in real life, much better A(T)BM interceptors than the GEM+. Both the Aster 30 B1(NT) and the MSE offer better acceleration, higher ceiling and better terminal homing characteristics (PIF-PAF/ACMs vs pure aero control).
As a sidenote, the maximum target speed for the Aster 30 Block 1NT is inconsistent with the ballistic missile class that it was designed to counter (1500km): 4000 kt currently vs a correct value of ~7400 kt. I'll submit a DB change request.
Re: PAC-3 MSE unable to engage target while PAC-2 GEM+ is able
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2026 9:29 am
by Nikel
Both work in B1825.11
To force the PAC-3, removed the PAC-2 weapons. Perhaps the PAC-3 is not wasted if the PAC-2 can do the job? The PAC-2 are fire first if too many missiles are incoming.
- P3.gif (542.3 KiB) Viewed 307 times
The Aster is also fired, however causes more trajectory deviations than destructions.
- A.png (77.7 KiB) Viewed 309 times
Re: PAC-3 MSE unable to engage target while PAC-2 GEM+ is able
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2026 3:32 pm
by LetMePickThat
Nikel wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2026 9:29 am
Both work in B1825.11
To force the PAC-3, removed the PAC-2 weapons. Perhaps the PAC-3 is not wasted if the PAC-2 can do the job? The PAC-2 are fire first if too many missiles are incoming.
P3.gif
This is an unrealistic behavior. PAC-3, be it MSE or CRI, is always preferred against ballistic threats because it offers inherently better ATBM performance. PAC-2 GEM+ is used as a fallback if no PAC-3 is available, and should not be the default option. As a general rule, US' doctrine (and, I assume, that of all Patriot customers that ordered more than one missile type) is to prioritize PAC-2s against ABTs, and PAC-3 vs BMs. PAC-3 also offers more magasine depth, and PAC-2 should be saved for long-range shots.
As for the Aster, I can't get them to fire no matter the geometry. I'll try switching to a different DB version and see of that helps.
Also, Aster is HtK against ballistic threats and should be treated as such by the sim, and the maximum target speed of B1NT should be 6700 kt to accommodate the baseline threat (generic 1500km ballistic missile).
Re: PAC-3 MSE unable to engage target while PAC-2 GEM+ is able
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2026 3:40 pm
by Nikel
LetMePickThat wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2026 3:32 pm
This is an unrealistic behavior. PAC-3, be it MSE or CRI, is always preferred against ballistic threats because it offers inherently better ATBM performance. PAC-2 GEM+ is used as a fallback if no PAC-3 is available, and should not be the default option. As a general rule, US' doctrine (and, I assume, that of all Patriot customers that ordered more than one missile type) is to prioritize PAC-2s against ABTs, and PAC-3 vs BMs. PAC-3 also offers more magasine depth, and PAC-2 should be saved for long-range shots.
As for the Aster, I can't get them to fire no matter the geometry. I'll try switching to a different DB version and see of that helps.
Also, Aster is HtK against ballistic threats and should be treated as such by the sim, and the maximum target speed of B1NT should be 6700 kt to accommodate the baseline threat (generic 1500km ballistic missile).
Repost your scen for the devs, if they want to take a look.
For some reason it was gone.
Regarding the Aster, I used your scen because could download it before it was gone. So it is not a matter of the db, but of the build of CMO.
Re: PAC-3 MSE unable to engage target while PAC-2 GEM+ is able
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2026 7:35 pm
by SteveMcClaire
The primary issue here is that the PAC-2 interceptor has (as defined in the DB) a higher max target altitude than the other two types of interceptors. Since the ballistic missile is coming down at a steep angle, altitude is the primary factor in when it is within range or not. Since the PAC-2 is within range first, it is fired first, and the other interceptors don't engage automatically.
If you assign a manual salvo via Shift+F1 for PAC-3 or Auster (or remove all the PAC-2s) these missiles will also fire once the BM has desceneded low enough.
I will make a note to have the DB team review the target maximum altitude values for these missiles so they behave as expected. Thanks for the report.