[Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post bug reports and ask for game support here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

[Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by DWReese »

This is a new problem that has developed AFTER version 1147.17 came out. Version 1147.16 did not have this.

I have incoming DF-21 missiles aimed at a carrier group. With version 1147.16, the carrier group fires its RIM-161 missiles and they destroy all of the incoming missiles. The game ran slowly whenever ABMs are involved, and the most recent version was an attempt made to speeding it up.

With the new version (1146.17) the carrier group refuses to fire its RIM-161 missiles at all, and half of the carrier group gets destroyed. If you stop and manually try to fire the missiles it always says that it is "outside of the DLZ envelope." If you save the scenario, and change out the version (replace 1147.17 back to the older 1147.16) then the missiles fire as they should.

Attachments
ABMProblem.zip
(1.89 MiB) Downloaded 3 times
SteveMcClaire
Posts: 4094
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:31 pm

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by SteveMcClaire »

Logged for investigation.
thewood1
Posts: 6880
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by thewood1 »

I have run this and my standard ABM test scenario multiple times and have had no issues with automatic launches. One thing just to make sure of is the SM-6 has to wait for reentry before shooting, I think. In this run, as soon as the missiles/warheads hit the atmosphere, the SM-6s launched.

Image
Attachments
Capture.jpg
Capture.jpg (306.51 KiB) Viewed 46 times
You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes
Dimitris
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by Dimitris »

One of the improvements that we added to ABM calculations in B1147.17 (apart from fixing the performance slowdown) was that the estimated intercept altitude is checked against the interceptor's valid altitude envelope. This is particularly important for ABMs, because there is a wide discrepancy between different systems on the altitudes that they can be used. This still from a LM promotional video illustrates the different "engagement windows" well: https://i.imgur.com/V52mLKO.png

(Where Aegis = SM-3)

For the SM-3, who is exo-atmospheric only, this makes it even more important that incoming BMs/RVs are detected and precisely tracked as early as possible. Otherwise, by the time a firing solution is achieved, the intercept point (or even the incoming target itself) may have moved outside the missile's engagement window. This is why the US has spent, and continues to invest, a ton of money on early detection & tracking systems.

Endo-atmospheric weapons like the SM-6 do not have this restriction so they can be fired later during the engagement timeline.
thewood1
Posts: 6880
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by thewood1 »

Can/Should the SM-6 fire on exo-atmo targets in CMO?
You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes
thewood1
Posts: 6880
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by thewood1 »

Thought this gives a good overview.

Image

This makes VLS loadouts even trickier for AAW/BMD ships. You have to balance long range threats vs. close in defense from warheads/REVs.
Attachments
aegisbmd..216728.jpg
aegisbmd..216728.jpg (131.71 KiB) Viewed 47 times
You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes
Dimitris
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by Dimitris »

AFAIK the SM-6 uses purely aerodynamic control and has no separate kill-vehicle with gas control, so probably not.

Of course the missile can nevertheless be fired against incoming targets who are exo-atmospheric _at the time of launch_, if the estimated intercept point is within the missile's altitude envelope. Altitude considerations in ABM shots are a whole different ball game than when shooting at conventional aero targets.
DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by DWReese »

In the save file that I provided, the Hawkeye detects the DF-21s at approximately 162 miles each time. This seems pretty consistent.

With the old exe, the SM-3 (Rim 161) engages right away and it destroys all of the incoming ballistic missiles.

With the new exe and the same scenario, the DF-21s are never in the envelope, and no SM-3s can ever be fired. Several ships are sunk, sometimes even the carrier.

This is a stark contrast between the first and second exe files.

So, are you saying that the game now works as it should, and that nothing needs to be fixed? Or, are you saying that it might need a little more tweaking?

From what I have seen, using the new exe file, no ships are EVER able to fire at the incoming DF-21s, and all of the SM-3s are essentially useless. Perhaps this is how it is in real life, I don't know.

So, is this issue now resolved as it WAD, or what?

Doug
thewood1
Posts: 6880
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by thewood1 »

What I'm seeing...

At Zulu 04:46:52 - Missile is first detected by the ABM radar on the Shiloh. There is no speed or altitude data.

At Zulu 04:46:56 - Missile has a speed of 6300 kts and altitude of 111 km. The OODA loop is 8.5s until firing solution.

At Zulu 04:47:04 - Missile has been detected long enough to get the firing solution. Its speed is 6300 kts and altitude is 99km. The SM-3 1B minimum altitude is 100.5 mk.

At Zulu 04:47:42 - The SM-6s fire. The SM-6 upper boundary is 35 km. Target missile speed is down to 6100 kts and altitude is 54 km.

At Zulu 04:48:22 - The first SM-6 intercepts the target missile at an altitude of 11 km. All ASBMs are destroyed but one. That one hits the Shiloh and eventually sinks it.

I would say its working as the dv said it would. Not sure why your run through sees so many ships hit.



You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes
thewood1
Posts: 6880
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by thewood1 »

btw, in my run through the Hawkeye never detected the missiles or the REVs. I am not sure the radar on the Hawkeye is capable of detecting a ballistic missile. The first detection of the ASBM is by the Shiloh's ABM radar.

On a second run-through, I spread my BMD ships out a little in the formation to give some separation from the HVU. I think I moved them out 50 miles with an AAW destroyer nearby as guard. Then I changed WRA to more than one shooter. This gave a better chance of killing the REVs. Of course, this is all hindsight, but starts to point to missile engagement parameters, formation, and detection being the critical components of the ABM strategy.
You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes
SteveMcClaire
Posts: 4094
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:31 pm

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by SteveMcClaire »

Hi DWReese,

The short answer is yes, the new behavior is working as intended. Prior to the last update the SM-3 was able to engage targets at any altitude and now has its minimum altitude checked. The SM-3 is designed to be used on ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere, and thus the targets are almost always going to be detected by some other platform.


For existing scenarios that rely heavily on the old SM-3 behavior, some tweaking may be required -- adding TPY-2 or SBX-1 radars to the scenario, for example, on a picket ship or a land base along the potential flight path of incoming ballistic missiles. And possibly some satellites that may be in a position to detect ballistic missile launches.


Image
Attachments
image.png
image.png (307.61 KiB) Viewed 46 times
boogabooga
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:05 am

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by boogabooga »

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

And possibly some satellites that may be in a position to detect ballistic missile launches.

I believe that there is an open ticket related to satellites not being able to detect missile launches. Has this been addressed?

Sorry for not being prepared, but I need to take some time later to find the relevant post.
The boogabooga doctrine for CMO: Any intentional human intervention needs to be able to completely and reliably over-ride anything that the AI is doing at any time.
Dimitris
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by Dimitris »

ORIGINAL: boogabooga

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

And possibly some satellites that may be in a position to detect ballistic missile launches.

I believe that there is an open ticket related to satellites not being able to detect missile launches. Has this been addressed?

Sorry for not being prepared, but I need to take some time later to find the relevant post.

It's being worked on.
DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by DWReese »

Steve,

Thank you for your explanation. Based on this new approach, I can now see that the new exe is excellent. While it represents a radical departure from the way that things were previously handled, and it will be much more realistic and accurate.

As you mentioned, I can also see that many older scenarios will now need to be changed to accommodate this new approach. (Has anyone tried SALVO with this new exe? That should be fun.)

Not that real life is wrong, but I can definitely foresee that the existing short-ranged ABM radar distances can/will be a problem for many of these scenarios. The TPY-2, which has the longest range, other than the SBX-1, only has a 540 mile radius. And, with missiles approaching at speeds of 6500 kts (or greater), there isn't much time to detect and be able to react. In fact, there is hardly any room for error at all. (I can definitely see a need for the real life creation of longer-ranged radar units based on the need as displayed in CMO.)

Thanks again for the explanation concerning these changes.

Congrats on a great product!

Doug
DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by DWReese »

Steve,

Here's something that you might not have completely considered concerning the trajectory calculations of the SM-3 (RIM 161-C and RIM 161-E):

The RIM-161E, of course, has a 1300+ mile range, so as long as the missile can be tracked, then it is pretty easily destroyed. In essence, the range on this missile is great. It attacks at the apex, just like in your depiction.

The RIM-161-C version, of which there are a lot more of them, only has a range of 200 miles. And, with the new calculations involved, the window for shooting at them is very small. Unlike your diagram whereby the missile is intercepted at its apex, the RIM-161-C version is essentially shooting at its incoming as the missile descends downward toward its target. This will create a very small window, given the new calculations parameters.

thewood1
Posts: 6880
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by thewood1 »

The C version deployment was based on a ship sitting off the coast of the threatening country. It was expected to hit the missile in space as it was climbing above the atmosphere. Its well known that its a short window and its why the changes were made in the game. The E version was developed so that other systems could track the missile and then the ship shoot. The C was able to handle shorter ranged missiles. The E was for turning the ship into a theater defense system. But it still has to be able to connect to the track and kill chain. And the SM-6 is really for fleet defense.

Just like in real life, its about ship deployment, threat location, detection systems, and VLS loadouts. The new shoot windows now make you think like a real theater commander as to where your ships are, their capabilities, and coordination with non-USN units and other countries.

If you go back and look, I have been pushing loadout templates for ships. This is the exact reason why. At the start of a scenario, make the commander choose loadouts that meet their strategy. In some cases you get what you have in theater, in other cases, you can choose a loadout, and in even other cases, you might have to wait for a ship to arrive to get the capability you want.
You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes
BDukes
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by BDukes »

ORIGINAL: boogabooga

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

And possibly some satellites that may be in a position to detect ballistic missile launches.

I believe that there is an open ticket related to satellites not being able to detect missile launches. Has this been addressed?

Sorry for not being prepared, but I need to take some time later to find the relevant post.

Yeah it's here

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4873258

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4939907

Mike
Don't call it a comeback...
thewood1
Posts: 6880
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by thewood1 »

Where are the satellites in the BMD process for SM-3s? My understanding from reading the detailed fictional accounts in the David Poyer books is that satellites will only provide an estimated track. The SPY-1 radar is used in a very specific window because of range and engagement limitations. IIRC, in those books, several ships were stationed at specific locations in order to catch missiles from NK or China. They were backup by Patriot systems on shore.

Not sure how accurate those books were, but they had a very detailed description of the engagement process for SM-2ER IV missiles and eventually SM-3 missiles. Now that we have the altitude limitations in CMO, it plays out very similarly to those books. It would be interesting to see what CMO platforms can provide cooperative engagement capability for BMD ships.
You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes
BDukes
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by BDukes »

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Where are the satellites in the BMD process for SM-3s? My understanding from reading the detailed fictional accounts in the David Poyer books is that satellites will only provide an estimated track. The SPY-1 radar is used in a very specific window because of range and engagement limitations. IIRC, in those books, several ships were stationed at specific locations in order to catch missiles from NK or China. They were backup by Patriot systems on shore.

Not sure how accurate those books were, but they had a very detailed description of the engagement process for SM-2ER IV missiles and eventually SM-3 missiles. Now that we have the altitude limitations in CMO, it plays out very similarly to those books. It would be interesting to see what CMO platforms can provide cooperative engagement capability for BMD ships.

Good point. I haven't read those books but should.

I think satellite detection should start the OODA clock.

Currently, the DF-26 warheads can't be intercepted in the game by Patriot because of warhead speed. There may be some truth to that. Will leave it up to the devs to sort out.

Mike
Don't call it a comeback...
Boagrius
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:37 pm

RE: [Logged] A New ABM Issue With Latest File

Post by Boagrius »

AFAIK Patriot (PAC3 MSE) has been tested against BM targets up to and including MRBM class, but I haven't heard anything about IRBMs.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 113850-600

I know they have been working on integration between THAAD and Patriot, allowing the latter to use data from the TPY-2 radar for missile cueing. Leaves me wondering whether this may eventually allow Patriot to engage IRBMs as a point defence system, or whether the PAC3 missile is simply too small/slow for the job.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ne ... ystem.html
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”