The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

User avatar
NakedWeasel
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by NakedWeasel »

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

This is exciting news for more advanced cruise missile attacks.

In response to this big jump in capability, are there plans to make air defenses more survivable in 1.10?

Are you somehow suggesting that the fantastic Russian SAM's like the S-300+ and S-400 are in some way not capable enough?

They are capable, but, there are ways for the game to make them more capable in a way which reflects their unique capabilities.

As you well know, the Russian SAM TELs have extremely short set-up / breakdown time, ~ 5 minutes, allowing them to redeploy within the response time of a SEAD mission. I would like to see a specialized mission for highly responsive TELs which reflects this capability.

To describe it further:
The mission would allow the player to assign a squadron of TELs (SAM, ballistic missile, cruise missile) to a specific task, e.g. air defense or surface warfare, but with the provision that only a fraction of the missiles will be emplaced at any time. The other missiles will move around randomly, then find a new hide. Maybe the mission divides the squadron into 3rds, 1/3rd ready to fire, 1/3rd moving, 1/3rd hiding. When a launcher fires, after a period of time it begins to move again.

This automated mission would make targeting modern SAM batteries appropriately hard, as it emphasizes the mobility defense that those systems have. By putting it into a mission, it makes it easy for scenario designers to assign that behavior to non-player ADNs.

But, it would require a ton of work and I don't know if anything like this is on the developers radar. I'd be nice to see it, but we have so much promising stuff coming along I'll be content to wait.

1. You obviously aren't talking about anything bigger than an SA-17.

2. Constantly moving them does not save them from Anti-radiation missiles like HARM and AARGM. Nor will it save them from a saturation attack from a TACTOM/JASSM(ER)/MALD-J strike. Eventually, the S-300s and S-400s run out of big expensive missiles to shoot down more numerous strike weapons launched to destroy them, and that is that. The West smells what Russia is cooking, and they have developed super effective strike weapons to serve up more cowbell. I'll see your road convoy of SA-20's protected by SA-17s and SA-22s, and I'll raise with TACTOM, JASSM, JSOW, SDB II, LRLAP, Spice, Delilah AL/HL/GL, Popeye, JSM, Taurus KEPD, Apache, Storm Shadow/SCALP, AASM Hammer, and HOPE/HOSBO. And this is just the stuff we know about/in-use. Wait till the next gen stuff comes online, like the railgun, and lasers.

3. Strike weapon and stealth technology is outpacing SAM system technology. Take into account long range "smart" missiles and bombs, and the SAM site is indeed going to get smoked, in short order. There have been quite a few test scenarios made by people like myself that proves this fact. Throw a small number of F-22s into the scenario, some equipped with SDBs and AMRAAMs and the S-400 becomes a smoking hole in the ground with a single sortie. This does not require OECM jamming, or hundreds of other strike planes or cruise missiles- this is a single squadron of F-22s with nothing more than a single sortie.
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
User avatar
Dysta
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:32 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by Dysta »

Like I said before, no one would just stand still and offer his neck in a middle of combat, except the ambush. For such successful circumstance, the US or whatever country see Russia as invaders in a middle of anti-IS/rebel missions, and aggressively deal with them AT FIRST HAND. But we are getting off the topic.

The real issue is, tricky course-changing cruise missiles are less expectable than atmospherical-skipping ballistic missiles, they don't have to directly attack hostile air defenses, but rather disrupting hostile's defensive premieres when they can attack something else on-the-fly. But also don't forget, cruise missile's weakness is speed, it can hide, but it cannot dodge, once hostile aerial sensors and patrols had found and intercept them.

That is why Russia also deploy Su-34s, giving the ability to intercept air threats in defensive measures.
DrRansom
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:52 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by DrRansom »

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

1. You obviously aren't talking about anything bigger than an SA-17.

2. Constantly moving them does not save them from Anti-radiation missiles like HARM and AARGM. Nor will it save them from a saturation attack from a TACTOM/JASSM(ER)/MALD-J strike. Eventually, the S-300s and S-400s run out of big expensive missiles to shoot down more numerous strike weapons launched to destroy them, and that is that. The West smells what Russia is cooking, and they have developed super effective strike weapons to serve up more cowbell. I'll see your road convoy of SA-20's protected by SA-17s and SA-22s, and I'll raise with TACTOM, JASSM, JSOW, SDB II, LRLAP, Spice, Delilah AL/HL/GL, Popeye, JSM, Taurus KEPD, Apache, Storm Shadow/SCALP, AASM Hammer, and HOPE/HOSBO. And this is just the stuff we know about/in-use. Wait till the next gen stuff comes online, like the railgun, and lasers.

3. Strike weapon and stealth technology is outpacing SAM system technology. Take into account long range "smart" missiles and bombs, and the SAM site is indeed going to get smoked, in short order. There have been quite a few test scenarios made by people like myself that proves this fact. Throw a small number of F-22s into the scenario, some equipped with SDBs and AMRAAMs and the S-400 becomes a smoking hole in the ground with a single sortie. This does not require OECM jamming, or hundreds of other strike planes or cruise missiles- this is a single squadron of F-22s with nothing more than a single sortie.


I have a question, if you don't know where the launcher is, how can you target the cruise missile?

EDIT:

To be less flippant, NakedWeasel says that strike weapons and stealth are outpacing SAMs, yet from every source I've seen about the USAF/USN air operations in the future, they assume the opposite. Indeed, the idea of a Day 1 / Day 2 air campaign appears to have gone the way of the dinosaur. The threat of hostile air defenses has risen so much that different think tanks have been commissioned on how to run electronic / cyber warfare against integrated air defenses, with their recommendations focusing more on achieving temporary success instead of total dominance.

What is interesting is the disconnect between what CMANO simulations show and what is the driving reality. There are several weaknesses in the CMANO simulation which may drive this:
1. Ground target locating is advanced, but still has several weaknesses. First, a player, upon detecting a target, can actually schedule a strike mission against the target sub-elements without having detected them. Second, there is not a good model of camouflage / hiding for systems. For this to be implemented, there has to be a terrain model and then a model of camouflage within that terrain. The combination of these two simulation weaknesses is that it is still unrealistically easy to detect ground targets. But, the problem gets worse, because there also needs to be consideration of decoys. There are images of S-300 / S-400 decoys and other decoys were used to great affect in the Serbian air campaign. Without a good model of ground camouflage and unit decoys, the task of the ground attack force is much easier.
2. Even if the ground target simulation were improved, the game still does not capture the full capability of the newest generation of mobile SAMs (and missile TELs in general). There is not a good way to model highly mobile systems, which employ a Hide-Shoot-Scoot doctrine to evade counterfire.
3. Lastly, there simulation lacks a good model of integrated air defense to improve detection range and decrease subsystem radar usage. In the modern integrated air defense, the long range search radars detect stealth aircraft with low resolution, then activate hidden local radar launchers to target aircraft within the battery's engagement zone. This restricts the SEAD mission to targeting the long range radars, which will generally be defended by SA-22s and their own mobility.

Now, the above is not to say that CMANO is a bad simulation. On the contrary, this game is hugely impressive as it stands and only a team as good as CMANO's developers would even begin to think about these advanced simulations. Rather, I think that the above indicates some ways to make the future air defenses even more daunting and strike warfare even more realistic.


If those above ideas were implemented, move advanced ground targeting simulation, mobile missile launcher doctrine, IADs model, then I think we'd see the balance shift decisively back to the defender, just what is occurring today.
User avatar
NakedWeasel
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by NakedWeasel »

If it radiates, its location is known. If it stops radiating, its last location is known. If its location is known, it can be destroyed. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
ExNusquam
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:26 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by ExNusquam »

ORIGINAL: DrRansom
To be less flippant, NakedWeasel says that strike weapons and stealth are outpacing SAMs, yet from every source I've seen about the USAF/USN air operations in the future, they assume the opposite.
To back up NakedWeasel, you have to admit that when you compare the changes to combat aircraft with changes to air defenses, the difference is pretty dramatic. Aircraft are now stealthy, whereas SAMs have seen kinematic improvements, which don't directly counter the stealth.
Indeed, the idea of a Day 1 / Day 2 air campaign appears to have gone the way of the dinosaur. The threat of hostile air defenses has risen so much that different think tanks have been commissioned on how to run electronic / cyber warfare against integrated air defenses, with their recommendations focusing more on achieving temporary success instead of total dominance.
I'd like to see a link to those papers. It's important to remember that temporary successes are needed initially to achieve air dominance. Working small numbers of munitions through gaps in the IADS coverage is how you create bigger holes.
What is interesting is the disconnect between what CMANO simulations show and what is the driving reality. There are several weaknesses in the CMANO simulation which may drive this:
1. Ground target locating is advanced, but still has several weaknesses. First, a player, upon detecting a target, can actually schedule a strike mission against the target sub-elements without having detected them.
SAM sites generally have very predictable deployment patterns and are usually limited by the physical links between the command, radar and firing systems.
Second, there is not a good model of camouflage / hiding for systems. For this to be implemented, there has to be a terrain model and then a model of camouflage within that terrain. The combination of these two simulation weaknesses is that it is still unrealistically easy to detect ground targets. But, the problem gets worse, because there also needs to be consideration of decoys. There are images of S-300 / S-400 decoys and other decoys were used to great affect in the Serbian air campaign. Without a good model of ground camouflage and unit decoys, the task of the ground attack force is much easier.
While I will agree with you that the Command ground detection model has room for improvement, it's honestly very easy to add decoys. Create a separate side called "decoys", set it to blind. Add some SAM sites to it, and voila. The player has to VID the SAM sites to asses what side they are on, or risk wasting munitions on sites that are not going to shoot at him.

2. Even if the ground target simulation were improved, the game still does not capture the full capability of the newest generation of mobile SAMs (and missile TELs in general). There is not a good way to model highly mobile systems, which employ a Hide-Shoot-Scoot doctrine to evade counterfire.
lua
3. Lastly, there simulation lacks a good model of integrated air defense to improve detection range and decrease subsystem radar usage. In the modern integrated air defense, the long range search radars detect stealth aircraft with low resolution, then activate hidden local radar launchers to target aircraft within the battery's engagement zone. This restricts the SEAD mission to targeting the long range radars, which will generally be defended by SA-22s and their own mobility.
lua

Less flippantly, most of those "issues" can be rectified by a smart scenario designer using lua. It overmodels mobility of modern systems, since there is no set-up/breakdown time and all SAM units move at 30 kts. You create a trigger based on a weapon being in a very small area around a SAM site, then have the SAM move to an alternate site, say 10 minutes after firing. The exact same thing is true of the IADS.
mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by mikmykWS »

Some of our SAM sites are actually mobile so you can move them.

Overall though why is everybody talking about parlor tricks instead of tactics?

The game allows you to set firing parameters and even direct SAM sites to protect other SAM sites against weapons and aircraft. SAMs are just part of a an air defense system as well so fighters, AAA guns, jammers and all sorts of things would complicate targeting and attacking. We've given you many tools to work with this in the game.Needless to say I'm excited to see the scenarios you come up with when you dive into a little deeper waters.

Oh and what EN said as well. lua[:)]

M
User avatar
Dysta
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:32 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by Dysta »

Agreed. This isn't duel, it is involved with all the dimensions.

But we like tricks, anyway. Course-changing weapons, NLOS are also the icons of modern warfare, so why not use the best of it?
DrRansom
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:52 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by DrRansom »

Hey, what is with the hostility here? I thought I was suggesting some doctrinally and operationally relevant aspects of modern IADs which would help enhance CMANO from it's already incredibly impressive state. I can see that some aspects may be automated with LUAs or have a very simple fix, e.g. a side which is Decoys, given TELs and set to blind / purely passive.

But I think there may be some advantages in automating more complex tasks, such as shoot and scoot and improving the terrain and camouflage modeling.

For mikmyk, I would strongly disagree that Shoot and Scoot is parlour tricks. The Russians have spent a significant amount of money in ensuring that every aspect of their modern SAM network is highly mobile. For example, the newest long range search radars are said to be able to move after only ten minutes. This expensive emphasis on mobility suggests that Russians view this as not parlour tricks but something very essential.

ExNusquam - I disagree about relative development, in the last years, I think SAMs have developed far faster than stealth.

I'll add sources tomorrow, have to run.
User avatar
Dysta
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:32 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by Dysta »

This is gonna be an interesting debate before the update is released.

A relative question: will the course-changing feature applied to all the capable weapons in a database, or only support some specific missiles for the moment? Wanna know a list of course-changeable weapons so I can plan out a new scenario with it.
AlmightyTallest
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:00 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by AlmightyTallest »

Don't forget the satellite support available in this sim that aids in detecting emissions and actually seeing the target.

http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/YugoWarSats.html
Lacrosse. The NRO operates a clutch of radar-imaging spysats known as Lacrosse. They also have been referred to as Onyx, Vega, Indigo and other code names. Each of these huge sky-high night watchers weighs 15 tons and is as big as a school bus. They orbit 400 miles above Earth's surface.

Lacrosse is built around a synthetic aperture radar (SAR), which can see through clouds and send down photographic-quality images. Each satellite has a huge wire-mesh radar antenna and 150-ft. solar panels to generate the kilowatts of electricity required by its powerful radar transmitter.

Each Lacrosse passes over its assigned observation target on the ground twice a day, peering down through bad weather to show military commanders elsewhere on the ground where to strike and what damage was caused by strikes. Lacrosse satellites can show objects as small as a foot across at night and in bad weather. Big objects on the ground, like tanks or surface-to-air (SAM) missiles, can be seen even if hidden in a woods.
KH-12, or Advanced KH-11, weighs 30,000 lbs. and can see 100 miles to the left and right of its ground track. The resolution of the optical images are said to be as fine as 4-6 in. during daytime. At night, other infrared and radar satellites can see things as small as 2-3 ft.
As war started in March 2003, six NRO high-resolution imaging satellites maintained hourly watch over Iraq. They were three Advanced KH-11 satellites with infrared and optical cameras and three Lacrosse radar satellites able to search at night and in bad weather for production of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

Image

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/prowler.htm
The PROWLER geosynchronous SIGINT geolocation platform was initially intended to help locate strategic relocatable targets. The design of this spacecraft is said to include low-observable features.

PROWLER was an antecedent of the Precision SIGINT Targeting System (PSTS) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration [ACTD]. Apart from the Army RC-12 Guardrail's Communications High-Accuracy Location System (CHALS) and Quicklook ES systems use of time-difference-of-arrival direction-finding, few existing SIGINT systems provide targetable geolocation accuracies against communications or radar emitters. PSTS is a Joint Service and Defense Agency effort to develop and demonstrate a near-real-time, precision targeting, sensor-to-shooter capability using existing national [including overhead] and tactical systems. PSTS will provide tactical users with targeting that is one order of magnitude improvement over what can be accomplished by any of the single candidate systems operating alone.


This is a Signals Intelligence US Satellite, to detect radio emissions, the 350 foot dish size surprised me.

Image

Image
User avatar
Dysta
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:32 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by Dysta »

Guys, if all the conversation's ulterior motive is to piss Russia off, then why not just set a scenario about using course-changing TACTOMs straight into Kremlin, or wherever Putin is at? You all making S-400 and/or Russian SAM system is a much bigger threat than the man who's in charge of the Russian campaign.
Hongjian
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:11 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by Hongjian »

Well, if CMANO gives us ASAT weapons (both DEW and Kinetic), then we could build scenarios involving even this factor.
I, for one, would really like to simulate a few actual A2AD scenarios involving everything from subsurface, surface, ground, air, space and electromagnetic spectrum [:)].

As for every counter, there's a counter-counter.
DrRansom
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:52 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by DrRansom »

How has a discussion about a new military capability become a nationalistic measuring contest?

It is a fact that Russia has a developed advanced surface to air missile systems designed to evade counter-targeting efforts. They are not perfect, as no system is, but these capabilities are designed to make targeting much harder. And, where vulnerability cannot be avoided, new point defense systems help protect against stand-off attack.

It is also true that very advanced electronic warfare systems exist for the US, to help locate mobile targets.

However, the presence of US capabilities is not an argument against modeling the new IADs capabilities. Strangely, that seems to be the line taken here...

Anyhow, sources on think-tank and USAF concerns about advanced SAM defenses:
Maintaining Precision Strike - CSBA
Article argues that emerging point defenses will force the USAF to radically change it's precision strike techniques, from one plane, multiple targets, to one plane, one target. Alternate techniques such as relying on JASSM is cost prohibitive, thus 'something' new is required to help penetrate advanced targets.

USAF Chief on loss of air superiority: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=2034

mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by mikmykWS »

Can you provide examples of what you'd like these systems to do and perhaps we can discuss how they can be implemented?


Thanks!

Mike
Triode
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:18 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by Triode »

Hmm, DrRansome you use words "mobile" and "5 minutes" in reference to S-300/S-400

there is two guidance in "Tactic of Anti-Air Missile Forces" :

1) your position should be prepared to enemy atack as good as posible

which led us to inner joke of Air Defence forces about this "mobility":
"Trees die standing"

Image
Image
Image
as you can see S-300 radars is almost always on mast , so for S-300/S-400 it is more than 2 hour to retract/erect radar on mast, so generally speaking big Anti-Air Defence systems fight where they stand, of course S-300/400 can fire from ground ,but in our age of low level flight stealth munitions this is not very wise move, so work "from ground" is for training or really dire situations

2) Anti-Air Defence system should have 3-4 reserve positions

This is big problem to find one good reserve position ,well if you not in flat desert
change position could take many hours - days ,depending on distance , and occured only after end of operation/under cover from other AAD systems,
this is complex operation that demand time and support from other elemets of AAD network

if you whant example of mobility look at S-300V and other Army systems,
there you can find "can go everywhere", "5 minutes, shoot,5 minutes, ready to move" ,etc.

sorry for offtopic
DrRansom
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:52 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by DrRansom »

As an update, I'm trying to track down the exact behavior of a battery / regiment in combat operations. It is possible that the batteries rotate position, rather than individual TELs. In that case, the only change would be to increase spacing between elements in a modern S-400 battery, as they are designed to have quite some distance between battery element.

For Shoot and Scoot tactics elsewhere, even if it doesn't apply to S-400 TELs, such a behavior type would be very useful for other TELs. Shoot and Scoot could be a RoE setting, where a unit automatically displaces after firing a weapon. The time lag between firing and moving and the speed of movement can be set by unit age and proficiency.

Triode - from looking up that radar system, it looks like that is the CLAM SHELL radar attached to S-300 batteries. The radar equipment for S-400s appears to be different.

PS. So. Many. Russian. Radars... (Thanks APA)

AndrewJ
Posts: 2449
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:47 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by AndrewJ »

Perhaps a variant of the Patrol mission could be used for mobile air defence systems? The scenario designer or player could assign a series of reference points to the mission, and the air defence system would move between them. The mission type would include a choice for when the system moves (move at regular time interval, move at random time interval, move after shooting), and a choice for how it moves (follow route in sequence, move to random reference point). It might also be useful to have a switch for 'do not move while enemy is in prosecution zone' (i.e., don't start moving while you still have something to shoot at).

Air defence systems would probably need to have a "breakdown and setup time" as part of their database entry, and this would be applied between the decision to move and the actual change of position, and then again between stopping and the actual ability to fire once more. (This would also be useful for a number of ground systems such as artillery, shore-based ASMs, surveillance radars, etc.) Unit proficiency would modify this time.
DrRansom
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:52 pm

RE: The road to v1.10: Waypoints for cruise missiles

Post by DrRansom »

AndrewJ - That is a great idea. Maybe extend it so that if several units are attached to the patrol, only one unit at a time moves. This would simulation hopping batteries around to evade fixing.


From what I've gathered, it appears that the minimum tactical movement occurs with batteries of the S-400, but as several batteries are attached to a regiment, then tactics suggest that the batteries hop around while maintaining a continuous over-watch.
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”