What controls/guides the No Dong Missiles?

[DWReese]

I was wondering, what controls/guides the No Dong Missiles in the game?

The missile launcher does not have a FCR or any other sensor assigned to it. Is it assumed to just blast off and automatically head for a target, or are there other elements/platforms involved that are needed in order to get it to shoot?

Thanks in advance.

Doug

[Cik]

the launcher itself has no real guidance capability, it all flies out with the missile. AFAIK you can't really retarget it and there's no datalink- it flies to whatever you launched it at using an INS and when it gets close it just blows up.

it's a "guided weapon" which allows it to attack things based on "i know where i am, i know where the target is, i move from here to there and then explode" without any real external cueing (besides knowing where you are and the target is)

in-sim it works along the same system as a GBU-31/38/54 (etc.) except it flies a ballistic trajectory and goes much further.

[DWReese]

Thanks for the info.

I created a scenario, intending on using the launchers merely as targets, and much to my surprise they suddenly all fired their missiles off at some of my other assets. Many (most) of the missiles indicated that they "impacted" the surface, so I didn't know if it was a guidance thing, or what. Since I wasn't interested in that aspect of the scenario, I didn't start thinking about the guidance until afterward. When I saw that it has no sensors loaded, that's what made me think about it.

Thanks again.

Doug

[ComDev]

The missiles are internally guided, so they store the target's lat/long coordinates and fly there [8D]

If the target has moved or been destroyed, the weapons simply impact the surface and explode.

[SeaQueen]

Most ballistic missiles are controlled by some form of inertial navigation system (INS). These days that might be supplemented by GPS or equivalent systems. It might also be supplemented by some form of celestial navigation, I believe. Unless the missile has a maneuvering warhead, the ability of missiles to maneuver is fairly limited. Essentially, the rocket engines set it into motion on the path it needs to go on to hit its target, and Issac Newton does the driving from there on out for the most part, except for perhaps some small mid-course corrections using thrusters. Ballistic missiles with maneuvering warheads have additional accuracy on account of their ability to use maneuvering fins to do some terminal maneuvers as well. I don't believe the No Dong has that capability.

[zaytsev]

Its not all that known , ballistic nukes also use photographic imagery of, probably cities or satellite/U-2 photos of targets.

Something similar to that old Rus. anti-ship cruise missiles or even early Tomahawks.

So for NoDong, who knows... could be picture(s)/imagery of carrier top-down.

Remember, some year ago here on forum , someone posted US carrier model Chinese built for 'target-practice'.

So, somehow, I just don't buy it that NoDong's are 'purely' ballistic in 21st century... dude...

[ExNusquam]

So, somehow, I just don't buy it that NoDong's are 'purely' ballistic in 21st century... dude...

Using INS guidance is very different than a missing being purely ballistic. The missile will be guided through boost and post-boost RV sep before re-entry. You can achieve very respectable CEPs with this method. SeaQueen really hit the nail on the head (It's almost like she's a professional or something...)

You also need to consider the intended role - in the case of a lot of ballistic missiles they're intended for nuclear warhead delivery. If a conflict has escalated to that stage, everybody is going to be using their war reserve modes. Optical seekers can be deceived by clouds/smoke, radar can be jammed, and GNSS can be jammed/spoofed/hard-killed. INSs may not provide the best performance, but they can provide reliable performance, and it's certainly enough for a CBRN payload.

The Chinese PGM-like MRBMs (CSS-5 Mod 4/5) are a calculated trade-off. Conventional warheads require better accuracy than nukes, so in order to hold targets at risk without going nuclear the're willing to lose some weapons to soft-kill.

[zaytsev]

Yep, I concur, modern INS is, can be, very precise. But it still need GPS fix(es) from time to time , .. 30min to 1hour, because it drifts about a mile.
Nevermind how precise, how many decimal points you use for calibration, it will still drift without on-the-fly geopos fixes, as time passes.

Don't get me wrong, I know, and I believe in INS but still we're trying to hit a moving target. Carrier.
It is IMHO, impossible with any kind of 'blind' INS , its primary use is for static geo-point., not moving one... although, it could...maybe.
You need all kind of magic, trajectory calculator, intercept point... all this is actually doable, you would get very precise dumb bomb artillery., with low PK, maybe soft-kill.

On the other hand top down image of carrier is ... you can't miss it from space, even in IIR ... well yeah, cloud cover , smoke etc... all that in effect, but still better then nothing.

[ExNusquam]

INS drift is negligible on any ballistic missile flight times. Modern military INS also use very detailed gravity data, making them far more accurate than civilian systems. Minuteman III CEP is stated as ~100m on a purely inertial platform.

Your original post was about No Dong guidance. No Dongs aren't going to be used against mobile targets - pretty much the entire DPRK BM inventory is purely inertial (the exception being the MaRV they paraded out this year).

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam
SeaQueen really hit the nail on the head (It's almost like she's a professional or something...)

It's just a rumor. I just go to polo matches and parties.