Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/10/2019 1:25:29 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1133
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
If you take a look at that report that I included, it states that a ship is considered t be a Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) ship if it has the RIM 156, RIM 174, or the RIM 161 missile. Like you said, the ONLY ONE worth a darn is the sm-3 (RIM 161). The others can't hit anything.

I suppose that there are slower ballistic missiles that they are effective against, but not against the DF-21. Unless it is a direct shot, no off-angle like in my demo, these missiles don't have a chance. They can't turn fast enough.

Doug

(in reply to Kobu)
Post #: 31
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/10/2019 1:59:16 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1013
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
Doug,

Great document. I've added it to CMANO's unofficial Dropbox reference library.

As always, any forum member can have access to this Dropbox resource. Just PM me with you email address.

-Wayne Stiles

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 32
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/10/2019 4:45:24 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1133
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
One last thing about the RIM 156.....I bunched that shooter tight next to the carrier, so that the angle would be almost identical to the incoming missiles. In other words, it would be shooting down the same axis. Well, that is the ONLY way that the RIM 174 and the RIM 156 can have any kin of impact. I did manage to get a couple of missile kills using that method.

here's the fun part....With the RIM 156 it apparently has some kind of warhead that air bursts and scatters fragments everywhere. You will get a report of it when it happens. It can damage (or destroy) and throw off that missile, and any other incoming missiles that happen to fly through the debris field (the starburst) on the screen. I thoroughly enjoyed seeing that.

Still, the DF-21 is one tough cookie. With enough SM-3s you could probably do that. But, in reality, how many DF-21s would China shoot to begin with, and how many SM-3s would a carrier group really have on hand? None of the reports that I have provided have any info on that other than to say that there aren't (weren't) that many at the time (maybe even now) and that they would have to be divided up among all of the BMD ships or TGs. So, (and I'm guessing here), probably somewhere between 4 and 12 might be an accurate number. Maybe 16 if they expect some trouble. But, 8 seems to be about right. But, who knows? The navy certainly isn't saying.

Doug

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 33
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/10/2019 4:50:12 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 2960
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
Nice info, Doug. I'm enjoying that BMD doc, too!

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 34
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/10/2019 5:29:14 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1133
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
Thanks.

In the game, the first hit by the DF-21 consistently delivers 4200 damage points to the carrier (Reagan), which is listed at about 54 percent. The raging fire is usually controlled by the time it reaches 75 percent, if not before. A second hit will, of course, sink her.

As was said, if China ever decided to use the DF-21, it would certainly be opening Pandora's Box. Their ships would NEVER be able to go anywhere else other than the immediate area around China after that, for fear of retaliation and retribution.

The DF-21, if it really works like this, is very unique and it is not a weapon that anyone would want to encounter. At the same time, it's almost nuke-like because its existence alone represents the deterrence factor. Using it, however, may be similar to crossing the proverbial line. But, that's a discussion for those above my pay grade. <lol>

Doug

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 35
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/10/2019 7:03:01 PM   
Zanthra

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kobu


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zanthra

I can't post a direct link to it, but I made a video on youtube with an ID "ekmUmdrf15E" showing the SM-3 engagement on the DF-21D going wide due to the target not being in radar of the launching vessel when it reaches intercept. Perhaps there is something I am doing differently with the attack that causes this?


Can you upload the savegame of that scenary??


Aha, I can. Missiles are unfired, so you have to load it in editor and fire the DF-21Ds before switching to the defense side to watch the SM-3s.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Zanthra -- 2/10/2019 7:04:23 PM >

(in reply to Kobu)
Post #: 36
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/10/2019 10:12:54 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1133
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
I just played your scenario. Indeed, the first batch of missiles go wide to the right. But, after that, the SM-3s all attack the targets. I killed 9 of the 12. Then, the decoys took care of the others. I lost no ships.

What is it that you are asking? An explanation for The first group of missiles, or something else?

Doug

< Message edited by DWReese -- 2/10/2019 10:20:05 PM >

(in reply to Zanthra)
Post #: 37
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/10/2019 11:04:30 PM   
Zanthra

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline
My recent concern was that my game was broken if no one else was seeing what I was, but if you say the first batch does go wide for you also, then I believe that is a bug. Either the firing ships should be much more strict in when they will fire their SM-3s, or they should be able to track ballistic missiles from any friendly unit (ballistic missiles don't tend to maneuver much, but the game launches based on straight line intercept given target speed and vector at lauch, without updates, the ballistic missile curves down from that point).

As it stands though, if you are using ballistic missiles like the DF-21D in a scenario with SM-3s as defense against them, make sure that there is no early detection, or limit the engagement range, as they can allocate the missiles to targets they have no chance of guiding close enough for the SM-3 seeker to pick up. An allocated SM-3 even without a track from it's datalink is still considered an allocated missile for that target, meaning other missile will not be fired until the SM-3 has reached the intercept point and drops it's target.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 38
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/10/2019 11:34:07 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 2960
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
The report posted above has a great quote by CNO Adm John Richardson - "... if you know a little bit about this business (Ballistic Missile Defense) you know that geometry is a tyrant."

What the admiral is talking about is exactly what people have been pointing out in this thread. Engagement geometry is crucial. Richardson was arguing that it is of little sense, outside of temporary necessity, to have ongoing patrols in little patches of ocean to defend static land locations using scarce naval vessels when a land facility would do just as well.

(in reply to Zanthra)
Post #: 39
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/11/2019 12:02:32 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1133
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
I figured out what the problem is.

The game has to handle ballistic missiles differently. Because the ballistic missiles change altitude and speed so much, the regular rules governing firing have to be much more liberal.

Normally, units won't fire until it has the altitude and speed of the target are exactly known. But, in order to "have a chance" to down a ballistic missile the game lets it break those rules. The AI is letting program fire the ABMs (like the SM-3 and RIM-156) to get them out toward the target. If you were following my thread, then you know that the AI fires all of these RIM-156s at targets that it wouldn't normally be able to fire at. In the case of the RIM-156s, it allows then to fire even if it isn't in the normal altitude window. So, when the RIM-156s get to where they were going, they can't keep up speed-wise, and it can't turn fast enough. Like I was saying earlier, unless the target is dead ahead, it has no chance of hitting anything.

So, your missiles were flying by because their altitude and speed weren't known. The second wave did have that info so they were more aware of things.

You could use WRA to set the distance to engage with the SM-3s and that might help you situation, although you are really just testing.

Again, if you saw the report that I posted, then you know that the SM-3s are of a premium and there aren't that many of them. So, in all likelihood, you fired way more missiles than a group would normally have to fire. But, I don't actually know if that is true or not. I'm just passing along what I read. <g>

Doug



(in reply to Zanthra)
Post #: 40
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/11/2019 1:24:57 AM   
Zanthra

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline
Lets take any discussion of the SM-3 tracking to the bug thread I made in the Tech Support forum.

< Message edited by Zanthra -- 2/11/2019 2:53:44 AM >

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 41
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/11/2019 1:42:59 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1892
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
As far as I see those comments ranging around it’s working principle and actual effectiveness, I am certain that ASBM in CMANO is still act like what it’s intended -- to flash every radars and BMD system at their approach.

I believe those are weapons that force US ships and bases to reveal themselves upon the approach with their radars, and give such time of opportunity to accompany with Chinese Anti-Rad and cruise missile strikes. It’s not meant to be used alone. If you see them approaching, it’s usually means there must be Chinese subs, missile boats and jets nearby and waiting for the strike.

If that is true, a brigade of DF-21D/DF-26 will not fire a large salvo instantly, but a sustaining and prolonging, fire-for-effect kind of multi-salvo shots per 1 or two missiles. Unless those E-2, E-3 and other land based BMD radars are doing their parts, those carriers will be in danger, but not just by getting hit with those ASBMs. I really hope WRA have such functionality to force enemy radar stays open.



< Message edited by Dysta -- 2/11/2019 1:52:56 AM >

(in reply to Zanthra)
Post #: 42
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/11/2019 2:07:54 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1133
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
Dysta,

You're a smart guy, so here is a question for you.

there are so,e scenarios that have been published that feature platforms with the SM-3 missile. In one of them, one side has over 80 SM-3s just on the US side, not to mention 20+ more with Japan. That's over 100 SM-3 missiles. Can you envision any situation where a side could have over 100 SM-3 missiles? Is that realistically possible? I mean, I can see a situation where 100 SM-3 could be needed, but how long would it take to accumulate that many missiles at one location. Realistically speaking, how many SM-3s would ROUTINELY be carried? Any idea?

Doug

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 43
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/11/2019 6:23:19 PM   
Zanthra

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline
From the defense budgets, it looks like there have been about 30-50 SM-3 missile procured per year since 2012, so perhaps around 250 missiles total owned by the US. Having 80 in the Pacific seems reasonable.

< Message edited by Zanthra -- 2/11/2019 6:24:16 PM >

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 44
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/11/2019 7:28:17 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1133
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
it looks like there have been about 30-50 SM-3 missile procured per year since 2012, so perhaps around 250 missiles total

Well, that's one way to look at it. Here's my argument against it:

Using your figures, if only 30 (instead of 50) were built a year (the low end), then there would be only 210. Additionally, since 2019 hasn't really occurred as of yet, and if you don't count that, then you are down to 180.

Then, if you divide them up by Atlantic/Pacific Fleets (which you probably can't really do because there is likely a bigger threat in the pacific), then you are at 90 each, if they actually do it that way. (Again, I think that the Pacific would get more, but I don't know for sure.)

So, I'm not sure that the US would put a total of 60 SM-3s on just two ships (as was depicted in the scenario) for one battle. I might be wrong. But, that seems a little far fetched to me. Also, if a sub or something suddenly wiped out one of those two ships, then you just lost half of your allotment and now you are in real trouble.

I believe that I read that each SM-3 costs $5M a piece, unlike a Tomahawk which is about $1M. At a cost of $5M a shot, I figure that the US would be pretty frugal with their usage. In fact, if there were 80 of them in one battle, at $5M a piece, that's $400M worth of missiles.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that your assessment isn't accurate. Perhaps it is. It just seems to me that having that many, at one place, at one time, is excessive.

I just think that it is a little like laboriously pushing your cannons all the way up a hill to reach the top in hopes that the enemy comes there. If they don't, and they end up at another hill, then there is nothing to defend that hill with.

I don't see these engagements to be something like a Championship Fight where the boxers have six months to train. I see these as a flash point kicks off something that suddenly takes places within a period of 24-36 hours at the most. So, you end up fighting a battle with what you have available right now, as opposed to what you could possibly get in three weeks.

Again, this is just my opinion. I don't know the real answer. That's the reason that I threw this question out there.

In any case, it's an interesting topic.

Doug



< Message edited by DWReese -- 2/11/2019 7:32:06 PM >

(in reply to Zanthra)
Post #: 45
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/11/2019 8:42:58 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1133
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
According to a very recently released report, as of the end of 2018, there were as many as 336 US SM-3 missiles available. I believe that this number includes land-based SM-3s as well. That number is actually less due to the fact that some of the missiles have been used for testing.

Doug

< Message edited by DWReese -- 2/11/2019 9:19:32 PM >

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 46
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/11/2019 9:13:59 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1133
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
Here's another great link.

http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/missile-defense-systems/u-s-deployed-intercept-systems/aegis-afloat/

It lists the various versions of the SM-3 missile, along with the distances that they can fire.

"Around 11 deployed Aegis BMD vessels are equipped with upgraded Aegis 5.0 Baseline 9 software. The Aegis BMD 5.1 was certified by the U.S. Navy in September 2018 and will integrate the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor into the combat system to defeat longer-range ballistic missiles and allow the capability to engage on remote."

Apparently, according to this, the longest-shooting version that we have in the game RIM-161E (which is the Blk IIA version and can fire 1325 nm) needs the Aegis BMD 5.1 software to fire it. The report lists the software for each of the Aegis BMD ships and none of the ships currently have been updated to have this software. Ergo, if I read this correctly, no ship should have the SM-3 Blk IIA (RIM 161E) version as of yet.

Doug


< Message edited by DWReese -- 2/11/2019 9:15:11 PM >

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 47
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/15/2019 11:53:43 PM   
ARCNA442

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 4/7/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Here is my stripped down version. I left out the Hornets because they can't fire at the DF-21s anyway.

Doug


I took your scenario and played around with some different tactics.

The key is to have early enough detection that SM-3 can launch at max range.

The E-2D doesn't appear to be able to detect ballistic missiles so I deleted it. Instead I placed one of the Burkes that didn't have any ABM weapons 150nm down the threat axis with active radar to serve as early warning. Another Burke and a Tico were placed 50nm from the carrier with 10 SM-3 between them, and the last Tico was 5nm from the carrier with the last 6 SM-3.

This layered defense was combined with a Shoot-Look-Shoot WRA that more efficiently used the limited number of SM-3 to basically guarantee a successful defense.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

As far as I see those comments ranging around it’s working principle and actual effectiveness, I am certain that ASBM in CMANO is still act like what it’s intended -- to flash every radars and BMD system at their approach.

I believe those are weapons that force US ships and bases to reveal themselves upon the approach with their radars, and give such time of opportunity to accompany with Chinese Anti-Rad and cruise missile strikes. It’s not meant to be used alone. If you see them approaching, it’s usually means there must be Chinese subs, missile boats and jets nearby and waiting for the strike.


I don't think this would actually be so simple. While CMANO doesn't appear to allow it, Aegis BMD is built around engage on remote and done properly you only need a single ship to have active radars. While the PRC could of course spend its time and weapons killing the picket ships, doing so leaves the carriers free to operate.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 48
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/16/2019 1:43:36 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1892
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442

I don't think this would actually be so simple. While CMANO doesn't appear to allow it, Aegis BMD is built around engage on remote and done properly you only need a single ship to have active radars. While the PRC could of course spend its time and weapons killing the picket ships, doing so leaves the carriers free to operate.

This precise the point of not firing large salvo, if one destroyer flashing around is easy enough to fool all of those missiles, then it is already useless in the first place.

Actually, like I said before, a better way of this is rely on carrier’s E-2 or USAF’s E-3 to detect ASBM approach, so the whole surface fleet can close the radar and only keep the comm/CEC active. This is why PLAN is practicing ELINT ops from spy ships and ELINT sats, way before the real-time imaging sats could make carrier hunting becomes easy.

I will try the scenario you make later.

(in reply to ARCNA442)
Post #: 49
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/16/2019 4:10:17 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1133
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
It is an interesting concept.

Of course, for testing purposes, it's nice to know what to expect. In real life, your wouldn't split up your group that far.

Like you said, the E-2, for some reason, doesn't get a whiff of anything until the missiles are about 175 miles away, at the earliest. That seems to coincide with the Destroyer's ABM launcher's radar. So, at that point, you have a Mach 6 moving target heading (generally) in your direction, so you won't really get off a bunch of shots. (I've never seen what the exact ROF is on the SM-3.)

Another angle to this is the number of SM-3s has to be a limited number in real life. I think that I read that there are currently 75 SM-3 (E version, the one that can fire 1325 miles). If you spread those out, you don't have many. The other versions only have a 200+ range anyway, so the detection thing probably doesn't matter.

According to the paperwork that I read, only the software version 5.0 or 5.1 can even shoot the SM-3 E version. There are only a handful of them. (I can give you the names if you want. Only one Burke actually has 5.1 at this time. It's a brand new model. So, if you are talking about the 200+ mile shooters, there aren't even that many. There are currently only 36 US ships that can shoot the SM-3 at this time.

The RIM 156 and RIM 174s were only good if they could race straight out and hit the target. If they have to turn, they would never catch it. So, the game seems accurate to me.

Doug

(in reply to ARCNA442)
Post #: 50
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/18/2019 6:08:35 PM   
ARCNA442

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 4/7/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

It is an interesting concept.

Of course, for testing purposes, it's nice to know what to expect. In real life, your wouldn't split up your group that far.

Like you said, the E-2, for some reason, doesn't get a whiff of anything until the missiles are about 175 miles away, at the earliest. That seems to coincide with the Destroyer's ABM launcher's radar. So, at that point, you have a Mach 6 moving target heading (generally) in your direction, so you won't really get off a bunch of shots. (I've never seen what the exact ROF is on the SM-3.)

Another angle to this is the number of SM-3s has to be a limited number in real life. I think that I read that there are currently 75 SM-3 (E version, the one that can fire 1325 miles). If you spread those out, you don't have many. The other versions only have a 200+ range anyway, so the detection thing probably doesn't matter.

According to the paperwork that I read, only the software version 5.0 or 5.1 can even shoot the SM-3 E version. There are only a handful of them. (I can give you the names if you want. Only one Burke actually has 5.1 at this time. It's a brand new model. So, if you are talking about the 200+ mile shooters, there aren't even that many. There are currently only 36 US ships that can shoot the SM-3 at this time.

The RIM 156 and RIM 174s were only good if they could race straight out and hit the target. If they have to turn, they would never catch it. So, the game seems accurate to me.

Doug



I'm not sure if splitting ships up that much is unrealistic. It's really not any different than the WWII radar pickets once you scale up for the difference in modern sensors and weapons, and from my reading it seem the Navy contemplated similar dispersion during the Cold War. A Burke is pretty capable on its own and it would be easy enough to give it substantial air support at that distance.

While the US has a limited number of SM-3, the Chinese seem to have an even more limited quantity of DF-21 - the most common number I'm seeing is 80 (though given Chinese secrecy that could easily be much higher). Against that the US has over 330 SM-3 Block I/IA/IB (about 8 per BMD ship, assuming no cross-decking). The SM-3 Block IIA is probably overkill since the DF-21 is only a MRBM and IIA would likely be reserved for countering IRBM's and even ICBM's.

Page 7 of the following has some numbers on the SM-3 inventory: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 51
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/18/2019 6:51:28 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1120
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
$400M worth of missiles to save $13B+ worth of aircraft carrier? Seems like a fair trade to me.

I think sometimes that people are put off by these sorts of numbers because they measure things relative to their own salary. By government standards, though, very few very wealthy people even make a dent in the kinds of numbers the government deals with. Really, you need to think of things in terms of fraction of GDP. Last year the US gross domestric product was 19.39T USD. Which is to say that the sum of all the goods and services sold in the US in just one year was more than a thousand times greater than the cost of one aircraft carrier and more than ten thousand times the cost of the missiles to protect it. We're a wealthy nation. We can afford to shoot off a lot of expensive missiles if it protects something that's important enough to us.


< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 2/18/2019 6:58:37 PM >

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 52
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/19/2019 12:00:12 AM   
Zanthra

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline
Keep in mind that by default in CMANO, if ships detect an incoming missile and they have "Ignore EMCON when under attack" enabled, they will turn on their radars, and be detectable and identifiable by advanced ELINT, even if the incoming is entirely detectable by another unit.

< Message edited by Zanthra -- 2/19/2019 12:01:25 AM >

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 53
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/19/2019 2:25:17 AM   
ARCNA442

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 4/7/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zanthra

Keep in mind that by default in CMANO, if ships detect an incoming missile and they have "Ignore EMCON when under attack" enabled, they will turn on their radars, and be detectable and identifiable by advanced ELINT, even if the incoming is entirely detectable by another unit.


This is something I tested. I put one picket destroyer with active radar and then told the rest of the ships to remain in EMCON even when under attack. In theory it should work with Aegis's launch on remote capability, but for some reason CMANO doesn't allow SM-3 engagements unless the launching ship is radiating (which is doubly strange, because the launching ships are clearly firing at targets beyond their own radar range).

(in reply to Zanthra)
Post #: 54
RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile - 2/19/2019 9:29:12 PM   
Zanthra

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zanthra

Keep in mind that by default in CMANO, if ships detect an incoming missile and they have "Ignore EMCON when under attack" enabled, they will turn on their radars, and be detectable and identifiable by advanced ELINT, even if the incoming is entirely detectable by another unit.


This is something I tested. I put one picket destroyer with active radar and then told the rest of the ships to remain in EMCON even when under attack. In theory it should work with Aegis's launch on remote capability, but for some reason CMANO doesn't allow SM-3 engagements unless the launching ship is radiating (which is doubly strange, because the launching ships are clearly firing at targets beyond their own radar range).


True, but I have observed some ships to turn their radars on as long as they are guiding missiles even with ignore EMCON disabled, although they need to have the manual sensor control disabled (checked) under the sensors window. Also ships that don't have ABM missiles don't need to turn their radars on.

< Message edited by Zanthra -- 2/19/2019 9:30:40 PM >

(in reply to ARCNA442)
Post #: 55
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: DF-21D Carrier Killer Missile Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.188