SM-2 Surface attack

[LoBlo]

Problem: AI missile defense systems won't shoot down SM-2 that are incoming. They just let them close in without a fight.

Cause: Its the "guided" option on the DWEdit Object Dialog. From what I'm seeing, anything that's been flagged "guided" will not register as a threat to the AI missile defense, even if the missile is also flagged as a "SSM"

Solution: A little around the bush, but produces the desired effect...
1. Create a brand new missile called "SM-2 SS" with the same speed, warhead, etc and make it a SSM only (no guided).
2. Give it a replica of the "Missile" doctrine, but with an additional code insert to only home-in on surf ships. ( IF NEWTRACK and TgtClass $= "Surf" THEN { ... ) . This will simulate the "guided" effect of the missile (since a missile that is being guided to the target by a firecontrol radar will be immune to chaff imho). You can call the doctrine "SM-2SSM" if you like.
3. Remove any Surface attack ability from the original SM-2
4. Add the SM-2 SS to the VLS loadout to Tico''s, Burks, and Kongo's

Only really applies to Ticos, Burkes, and Kongos (I don't think any other AI platforms use SM-2 iirc). Its a bit of a round about solution, but will trick the AI's to figthing back against incoming SM-2 threats in scenarios where Aegis and enemy ships are duking it out.

cheers

[LuftWolf]

This has recently come up...

I'm not convinced it's possible for a FCR to paint a missile as small as an SM-2, that also has its speed and maneoverability.

I've just never heard of SAM's shooting down other SAM's before... perhaps a RAM SAM should shoot down an SM-2, but I'm not convinced an SM-2 could shoot down an SM-2, let alone an SA-9 or any other SAM.

Also, this would make an inconsistency with the FFG7, since the fix cannot be applied to that platform, as it is a playable.

Cheers,
David

[Bill Nichols]

This has recently come up...

I'm not convinced it's possible for a FCR to paint a missile as small as an SM-2, that also has its speed and maneoverability.

I've just never heard of SAM's shooting down other SAM's before... perhaps a RAM SAM should shoot down an SM-2, but I'm not convinced an SM-2 could shoot down an SM-2, let alone an SA-9 or any other SAM.

Also, this would make an inconsistency with the FFG7, since the fix cannot be applied to that platform, as it is a playable.

Cheers,
David

I'm with you on this one, LW.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

This has recently come up...

I'm not convinced it's possible for a FCR to paint a missile as small as an SM-2, that also has its speed and maneoverability.

Speed ... we're in the age of shooting down ballistic missiles. If the SM-2 cannot handle the target's speed, that's SM-2's problem, not anyone elses.

Maneuverability ... the SM-2 might be maneuverable to match the turn of its targets. However, in surface attack mode, the SM-2 is hitting an effectively stationary target and will not maneuver. Thus, the trajectory is an easily predictable, aeroballistic parabola.

Size: The SM-2 is pretty small, but at ~600kg weight and 34cm diameter, it is not smaller than Harpoon. It is also bigger than the 122mm artillery rockets the SA-15 was tested against.

I've just never heard of SAM's shooting down other SAM's before... perhaps a RAM SAM should shoot down an SM-2, but I'm not convinced an SM-2 could shoot down an SM-2, let alone an SA-9 or any other SAM.

Actually, at least one of Patriot's TBM tests was a shot at one of its own simulating a SRBM.

Also, this would make an inconsistency with the FFG7, since the fix cannot be applied to that platform, as it is a playable.

A problem there, but that's separate from whether it is appropriate to do so.

There's no reason to presume newer SAMs have no capability to shoot down surface-attack SAMs (they are effectively small SRBMs in that role, with no decoys, and I don't think anybody disputes that modern SAMs can successfully engage SRBMs).

[LuftWolf]

This issue is not the missiles' physical abililty to hit the other missile, the issue is the ability of the Fire Control Radar to keep the target missile illuminated.

[Molon Labe]

This issue is not the missiles' physical abililty to hit the other missile, the issue is the ability of the Fire Control Radar to keep the target missile illuminated.

How hard is that when the missile's bearing is constant?

[LuftWolf]

DW isn't going to be able to distinguish one case from the other.

And I don't know, I've never tried to illuminate a missile with a STIR before in RL. :)

The bottom line, is that no one is going to be able to point to a case where a SARH missile from a ship is able to shoot down a missile as small as a SM-2, which is also moving as fast.

Keep in mind, illuminating these missiles is not exactly easy, there is no ESM track, and they're moving at over mach 2...

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

DW isn't going to be able to distinguish one case from the other.

And I don't know, I've never tried to illuminate a missile with a STIR before in RL. :)

The bottom line, is that no one is going to be able to point to a case where a SARH missile from a ship is able to shoot down a missile as small as a SM-2, which is also moving as fast.

Keep in mind, illuminating these missiles is not exactly easy, there is no ESM track, and they're moving at over mach 2...

Cheers,
David

Mach 2 at peak velocity or at the time of impact? It's got a solid rocket motor, so it burns out and glildes the rest of the way to the target, slowing down the whole time.

Probably needs a bit of a ballistic trajectory, too.

[LuftWolf]

We're beginning to get into things that strictly aren't modelled in DW.

I simply don't believe that it would be accurate to have missiles intercepting SM-2's at the same success rate as C801's.

And that's the only option because the only control of missile intercept effectiveness is the "weapon effectiveness" parameters in the database, and that controls intercept behavior for ALL targets of the given weapon.

Sorry.

Cheers,
David

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

This issue is not the missiles' physical abililty to hit the other missile, the issue is the ability of the Fire Control Radar to keep the target missile illuminated.

Since the SAMs in my provided examples apparently engaged the mentioned targets (all comparably fast and small as a SM-2 acting as a TBM would be) successfully, I must assume that all stages, including the tracking and illumination went at least fairly well.

You might be able to help DW distinguish the difference by making reducing the FCR SL of the SM-2 and other very fast weapons. That should reduce the range of engagements. This is realistic - effective missile DLZs fall off drastically when engaging TBMs. And if you set it right, then as a whole, the chances of successfully defending will be more or less accurately simulated, which is the most important point.

In any case, the C-801 (and all the subsonic skimmers) has its own set of difficulty factors. It is slower, but there's the radar reflections from the waves to consider.

[LuftWolf]

The problem with all those cases you mentioned is that the operators knew exactly where to aim their radars to intercept the track of the weapon... the geometry of the weapon track in fact could be preprogrammed into the fire control simply to eliminate the skill of the operator during the test.

This would be an effective demonstration of the capability of the technology under ideal conditions, but not proof or example of how the weapon system as a whole, including the search radar and human operator systems, would perform during battle conditions.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Oh, did I also forget to mention that removing the Guided flag for the SM-2 would allow ships to shoot the missiles over the horizon... :-?

I have a good sense of things (I like to think) and I really don't think doing this is a good idea for a number of reasons, but I'll look into it...

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Oh, did I also forget to mention that removing the Guided flag for the SM-2 would allow ships to shoot the missiles over the horizon... :-?

I have a good sense of things (I like to think) and I really don't think doing this is a good idea for a number of reasons, but I'll look into it...

Cheers,
David

Having OTH again would blow chunks