Slitherine

quote:

SIDE: United States
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
1x AGM-114R Hellfire II
30x AGM-158C LRASM
4x CPU-123 Paveway II GPS/LGB
8x Laser COIL Shot
14x Mk48 Mod 7 ADCAP CBASS
40x RGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]
1x RIM-156A SM-2MR Blk IV [Anti-ASBM Mod]
8x RIM-161C SM-3 NTW Blk IB
28x RIM-161E SM-3 NTW Blk IIA
10x RIM-174A ERAM SM-6MR Blk I
112x UGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]
7x UGM-109I Tomahawk Blk IV MMT [Multi-Mission]



SIDE: Philippine Navy
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x PCC 756 Po Hang [Flight II]
1x PF 15 Gregorio del Pilar [Hamilton Class]
1x PS 35 Emilio Jacinto [Peacock]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
94x 76mm/62 Compact HE Burst [4 rnds]
2x Mk214 Sea Gnat Chaff [Seduction]
2x MM.38 Exocet Blk I
4x Protean Chaff



SIDE: PLAN
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x HQ-12 Twin Rail
1x Radar (China OTH-SW Receiver)
1x Radar (China OTH-SW Transmitter)
1x Radar (China YLC-2V)
1x Structure (Launch Pad)


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
4x C-802 [YJ-82, CSS-N-8 Saccade]
4x C-803 [YJ-83]
16x DF-21D [ASBM, Conventional, CSS-5 Mod-4]
11x DF-21D RV [ASBM, CSS-5 Mod-4]
1x HQ-16A [SA-17 Copy]
3x HQ-7 Crotale [FM-80] Naval
3x SA-N-12 Grizzly [9M317]

quote:

The SM-6 missile intercepted a ballistic missile target in its final seconds of flight on July 28, followed by three more tests over the next days.

quote:

“The SM-3 has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, meaning that it can only intercept the missile during mid-course, when it’s traveling through space, so an Aegis ship escorting the target would have to fire its SM-3 almost immediately in order to intercept the missile before it reentered the atmosphere, or else there would have to be an Aegis ship positioned right under the flight path of the missile. The DF-21D may be equipped with decoys that are deployed in mid-course, making the SM-3’s job harder. U.S. Aegis ships are also equipped with the SM-2 Block 4 missile, which is capable of intercepting missiles within the atmosphere, but the DF-21D warhead will be performing some high-G maneuvers, which may make it impossible for the SM-2 Block 4 to successfully intercept it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlanChan

Some comments:
1.The ASBM missile is wrong, DF-21D can only target "large slow moving target". That is CV and maybe the LHDs. The newly revealed DF-26 is able to target "large and medium sized moving target." Thus, only DF-26 could aim at DDG sized targets. Or someone said that the Wu-14 is carried by kuaizhou-1, the civilian model of DF-26. IF that is true, DF-26 brigades can also launch Wu-14.

2.The oob is wrong. Because 2nd art stress on ‘Sádˆæ(full land coverage, currently limited to mainland China), current DF-21 and DF-26 brigades can fight anywhere in mainland China. Thus in a sustained fight, you will see some DF-26 fire at 1st day, then see more DF-26s moving in from other part of China in the following few days, assuming only one brigade is a underestimate.

3.Why do you assume SM-3 can do night intercepts? IIRC, all SM-3 tests were done when targets were illuminated by sun. This hints that SM-3 RV might not able to fight incoming RVs in the night as good as it does during the day. And 2nd art demoed capacity to launch at night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ppitm
Everything I've read about the DF21 suggests that current missiles can only target it in the boost phase.

Facebook
Twitter

quote:

“The SM-3 has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, meaning that it can only intercept the missile during mid-course, when it’s traveling through space, so an Aegis ship escorting the target would have to fire its SM-3 almost immediately in order to intercept the missile before it reentered the atmosphere, or else there would have to be an Aegis ship positioned right under the flight path of the missile. The DF-21D may be equipped with decoys that are deployed in mid-course, making the SM-3’s job harder. U.S. Aegis ships are also equipped with the SM-2 Block 4 missile, which is capable of intercepting missiles within the atmosphere, but the DF-21D warhead will be performing some high-G maneuvers, which may make it impossible for the SM-2 Block 4 to successfully intercept it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Andrew S. Errickson has done a terrific work in translating an official Chinese paper about the DF-26:

http://www.andrewerickson.com/2015/12/academy-of-military-science-researchers-why-we-had-to-develop-the-dongfeng-26-ballistic-missile-bilingual-text-analysis-links/

Also, where did this information come from, that the DF-21D can only target 'large slow moving targets"? AFAIK it was successfully used to sink the decommissioned Yuanwang-4 satellite tracking ship in 2010 as test. Even if it had RCS enhancing radar reflectors, it is still a cruise-liner sized ship, not a CVN.
And more recently, it hit a decommissioned Jianghu Frigate, which is even smaller.

quote:

3.Why do you assume SM-3 can do night intercepts? IIRC, all SM-3 tests were done when targets were illuminated by sun. This hints that SM-3 RV might not able to fight incoming RVs in the night as good as it does during the day. And 2nd art demoed capacity to launch at night.

quote:

I needed roughly 150+ DF-21D ASBMs to sink an unsupported US peacetime CVBG (2 Tico, 3 AB Flight IIA, maximum SM-3/SM-6 loadout, which would be kinda unrealistic IRL) and most RVs were spoofed by ECM, actually.

quote:

but the DF-21D warhead will be performing some high-G maneuvers, which may make it impossible for the SM-2 Block 4 to successfully intercept it.

quote:

Interesting detail, thanks. We'll see what we can do about this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

My simple response is, I don't think ASBM is a single-entity weapon to be used in such scenario. It is more likely acted as intimidator (like Machine-gunner in Army squad) that forcing the enemy focusing on it instead of other low-value threats.

Anyone tried the saturation attack against CVBG with both 052D's YJ-12/100, submarines' YJ-82s, and H-6G's YJ-62 combined into the same time of DF-21D/26's arrival? More to think about it, the AI whom play the offense also should implement the 'saturation strike' attack doctrine rather than fire-in-range in random orders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ppitm

I probably remembered incorrectly, because here's this:

quote:

“The SM-3 has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, meaning that it can only intercept the missile during mid-course, when it’s traveling through space, so an Aegis ship escorting the target would have to fire its SM-3 almost immediately in order to intercept the missile before it reentered the atmosphere, or else there would have to be an Aegis ship positioned right under the flight path of the missile. The DF-21D may be equipped with decoys that are deployed in mid-course, making the SM-3’s job harder. U.S. Aegis ships are also equipped with the SM-2 Block 4 missile, which is capable of intercepting missiles within the atmosphere, but the DF-21D warhead will be performing some high-G maneuvers, which may make it impossible for the SM-2 Block 4 to successfully intercept it.

I can't post the link thanks to the wonderful forum settings. It was an article in the National Interest.

IIRC in CMANO I was knocking them down with SM-3s in the terminal phase, no problem. Not too much different from a Kitchen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FTBSS

I also think the Vessels capable of ABM need to have a flag for longer range sensors specific to Ballistic missiles the SM-3 Block IIa and Block IIb missiles have range in excess of 1100 miles but can not launch until targets are within 250 miles seems unrealistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Araner

Hello,
I've been trying to put together a version of the "South China Sea Clash 2013" scenario which would take place in 2020 and would include new and projected military developments for all sides. I've added more details about the scenario at the bottom of this post but first I need some help in addressing an issue which may or may not realistically reflect conditions in the future.

My problem is my flagship, a Flight III DDG keeps getting sunk by DF21D ASBMs in the opening shots. If this is an accurate depiction of the weapons'capabilities then there's nothing which need be changed (though the USN better start worrying!)... However, I have a suspicion that the problem comes down to the way I'm using the SM-3s, ESSMs and SM-6s as they seem to have no effect on the MIRVs when in terminal phase. This stands in stark contrast to another scenario when I deployed far larger numbers of ASBMs in a realistic depection of force deployments in the East China Sea. In that scenario, at least four DF21D brigades targeted the CV 78 and none were able to penetrate the outer ring of BMD capable DDG 51s and CG-47s. There were several major differences however... In the ECS scenario, the CBG was station behind the Ryuku Islands which was not only well covered with land-based radar stations, but also had a well established integrated BMD system in place through which missiles had to make it past forward positioned Atago Class DDGs, land-based THAAD interceptors and even land-based SM-3s before even making it to the BMD capable CBG escorts. Furthermore, the CBG also had AEW assets of its own and throughout the region to draw from.
In the SCS scenario, the only radar capable of detecting the incoming missiles is that of the DDG 51 Flight III itself. Yet again and again, multiple ASBMs glide past the SM-6 and SM-3 interceptors with ease while the ESSMs don't even seem to fire at all? I understand that terminal-phase BMD is one of the main reasons for deploying electromagnetic railguns and solid state lasers in this role, but with no railgun yet available in the database I could only add the LaWs laser to the DDG 1000 and Flight III Burke. This did actually take out half the missiles, but the ship still ends up getting hit... I then tried bringing back the SM-2 Block IV which has been serving in the sea-based terminal BMD role up to the present but this too seemed to have little effect. AFAIK, sea-based terminal BMD is supposed to be handled by the SM-6 Blk II, for which a test was successfully completed just this year. However, I don't see any option for a Block II SM-6 in the database either...
So my first question is whether or not there really are entries for an EM railgun and/or SM-6 Blk II in the database? If not, then my next question would be what I could use in their place to realistically fulfill the terminal BMD mission as of 2020? The unit firing the ASBMs is AFAIK a real unit already deployed in the Guangzhou MR as of 2014, so the scenarios realism would be seriously compromised if I simply remove it.

For those interested in learning more about the scenario I'll explain a little more about which units I'll be deploying for each side...

For the PLAN side this would include the artificial island air bases, Type 052D Destroyers, and at least one confirmed ASBM unit + kill chain including 4 OTH-SW radars, 1 OTH-B station and the Yaogan Sateliite constellation. The Phillipines have added a squadron of Golden Eagle fighters, a Pohang Class Corvette and a new Incheon Class Frigate from South Korea. Finally, the USN will be deploying its proposed doctrine of "Distributed Lethality" with the USS Zumwalt, DDG 123 (the as-yet-unnamed Flight III Burke) and two "Fast Frigate" variants of the LCS. While no CBG is in the region, elements from the USS America's Air Wing are on rotational deployment at the Puerto Princesa airport under the EDCA agreement of 2014. This includes a squadron of F35Bs, several Osprey's with aerial refueling, maritime and ASW strike packages and 3 KC130Js of which two are equipped with strike kits and one reserved as a tanker. Clark airbase also hosts a squadron of P8 Poseidons and MQ9 Tritons and serves as a reserve hub for various older UCAVs including RQ-4s and various MQ-1s of which all have been upgraded to carry weapons and jamming equipment in the event of hostilities. To compensate for the lack of information on the LRS-B program, which would in theory be deployed by the time of the scenario, I have predeployed small numbers of RQ-170s and RQ-180 over mainland China.

Assuming I get the terminal BMD issue squared away, I'd be happy to share the .scen file to anyone who is interested.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael7619

Hi

If i understand right United States has about 5 Ticonderoca-class Aegis-ships and 25 Arleigh Burke class Aegis ships. In database i found Ticonderoca-ships with RIM-161C missile, but i didn't find Arleigh Burke with that missile. I'm probably missing something. I could offcourse add missile in editor. Does all Aegis-ships have RIM-161C missile?

Regards