[FIXED] ABM Issue

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

[FIXED] ABM Issue

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 >> Tech Support >> [FIXED] ABM Issue

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

[FIXED] ABM Issue - 2/25/2021 1:17:38 PM

AceOfSpadeszzzzzz

Posts: 53
Joined: 4/12/2016
Status: offline

In this scenario, some ASBMs are flying towards a cruiser. There is an SBX 1 between the missile and the ship. Just a few seconds after the SBX detected the missile, the game freezes. I suppose this is because the ship tries to engage the missiles with SM-3?

The .scen file is attached, just keep it running for a few seconds and the game should freeze.

EDIT: The version I'm using is 1147.17 with DB v487.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Steve McClaire -- 2/25/2021 8:52:57 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: ABM Issue - 2/25/2021 1:22:26 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

What version of the game are you running?

(in reply to AceOfSpadeszzzzzz)

Post #: 2

RE: ABM Issue - 2/25/2021 3:12:32 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Confirmed; we'll take a look.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 3

RE: ABM Issue - 2/25/2021 3:17:21 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I just built a duplicate of the scenario from scratch. It runs under all conditions except where the SBX detects a missile. I have a copy if you want it pre-lockup.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 4

RE: ABM Issue - 2/25/2021 3:54:14 PM

AceOfSpadeszzzzzz

Posts: 53
Joined: 4/12/2016
Status: offline

Sorry, I forgot to mention that, I'm using version 1147.17.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 5

RE: ABM Issue - 2/25/2021 8:52:23 PM

SteveMcClaire

Posts: 4472
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

This will be fixed in the next update.

(in reply to AceOfSpadeszzzzzz)

Post #: 6

RE: ABM Issue - 2/26/2021 5:00:44 AM

AceOfSpadeszzzzzz

Posts: 53
Joined: 4/12/2016
Status: offline

Awesome, thank you!

(in reply to SteveMcClaire)

Post #: 7

RE: ABM Issue - 3/1/2021 1:36:14 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

I know that you have stated that "this will be fixed in the next update", but I just wanted to make sure that you are completely aware of the entire issue. (I'm not saying that you aren't, but if what I am about to discuss is NOT what you fixed, then you will obviously have something else to fix with this the next time around.) If it is what you have already fixed, then simply disregard this message.

_____

The SM-3 (RIM-161) comes in two variants The C-version which has a range of 200 miles, and the E version which has a range of 1275 miles.

Since the US doesn't have many ships that carry these missiles, and because they would likely be guarding a carrier or other HVU, it is safe to say that they would likely be very close by to any carrier group, if one was operating within close proximity to the enemy.

Regardless of which version you have, within 200 miles the ballistic missile has already begun its descent toward the targets and is already beneath the floor of the weapon's altitude. The RIM-161C (of which the US Navy has a lot more of than the E-version) only has a 200 mile range (as I stated), and with the descent already in progress, the RIM-161C can NEVER fire at the ballistic missile (a DF-21 or 26) because it is NEVER within the firing envelope within the game's programming. I have tested this for several days. Occasionally, you might get a spurious 1 or 2 second gap, but it is never long enough to fire. While the new method is probably much more realistic due to the accurate altitude range, it essentially renders the RIM-161C useless, unless it's on severe picket duty. This is a dramatic change from version 1147.16

The RIM-161E can shoot at targets greater than 200 miles, if another means is able to detect the ballistic missile from farther away. But, if it doesn't get a detection before the incoming missile gets within 200 miles, then the RIM-161E is no better off than the RIM-161C.

So, hopefully, when you said that it is "fixed for the next update" you are talking about this issue as being part of the fix. If so, then just disregard this message.

If not, please have a look at this aspect of the problem as well.

Thanks.

(in reply to SteveMcClaire)

Post #: 8

RE: ABM Issue - 3/1/2021 2:40:19 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

But SM-3 equipped ships are not typically deployed guarding just a carrier. They have been stationed along the threat axis of a potential missile launch. As more long-range SM-3s come on line (a very slow process) and theater detection systems come on line, they might stay with carriers as escorts and still be able to provide ABM coverage.

This isn't the devs problem. This is the real world challenge the USN faces. Its why you have SM-6s being cranked out faster then Navy SM-3s. Ship-based SM-3s are not expected to be the sole savior of the western world from ballistic missiles. They are there as fillers for theater protection gaps until the broader systems go online. They are mobile and can set up quickly until THAAD and Patriots get in theater to provide more permanent cover.

Its up to the scenario designers to make sure you have the right missiles loaded, have the appropriate threat intel, and have in-theater detection and ABM capabilities. Otherwise, those SM-3s are just taking up missile slots that could have been used for SM-6s. If a scenario designer leaves with an SM-3 armed ship escorting a carrier 600 nm from a potential launch site and you think you need to have the detection capability for any launches, change the scenario, speak to the author, or skip the scenario altogether.

I'm not sure why you spent days testing the SM-3. Its obvious the SM-3 is working as it should with the update. You can go into any scenario and swap out the SM-3s for SM-6s however you like. I'm not sure what you think the devs need to consider.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 9

RE: ABM Issue - 3/4/2021 9:55:29 AM

caohailiang

Posts: 48
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Its up to the scenario designers to make sure you have the right missiles loaded, have the appropriate threat intel, and have in-theater detection and ABM capabilities. Otherwise, those SM-3s are just taking up missile slots that could have been used for SM-6s. If a scenario designer leaves with an SM-3 armed ship escorting a carrier 600 nm from a potential launch site and you think you need to have the detection capability for any launches, change the scenario, speak to the author, or skip the scenario altogether.

i find this quite interesting so i tested the situation you mentioned: a CSG (carrying RIM-161c) deployed 600nm from DF26 site. several SM-3 missiles are launched and 3 out of 4 DF26 are intercepted. This seems to me is an ok result?
are you saying this is bad way of deploying sm-3? how it should be deployed?

more details:
*when df26s were at 200nm from the CSG, they were flying at 227km high (in the engagement envelope of rim161-c), but at that moment they were not detected by the CSG but only by J/FPS-5
*at 147nm, DF26s were detected by SPY-1D
*when the target is at ~85 nm away and ~85km high, rim161c are fired
*3 out of 4 were intercepted at 12nm away from the carrier and only at 36k ft high

@DWReese, you mentioned "Regardless of which version you have, within 200 miles the ballistic missile has already begun its descent toward the targets and is already beneath the floor of the weapon's altitude", seems to me that is not the case but i am confused because the database does say target attitude for rim161c is 100~300km

so what is the deal?

< Message edited by caohailiang -- 3/4/2021 9:56:25 AM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 10

RE: ABM Issue - 3/4/2021 11:21:11 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Are you using the latest beta 1147.17 or 1147.16?

With the older one I get the same results as you. With the newer one, the programming doesn't allow the RIM-161 to shoot if its altitude is BELOW 330000 feet (which is roughly 100 km), because that is the stated limit of the weapon.

Technically speaking, the game now has it correct. (The target range for this weapon isn't UP TO 330,000 feet. It BEGINS at 330000 feet. It operates between 330000 to 1000000. So, basically, this weapon isn't supposed to be used at anything under 100 km.

With the new version, if the RIM-161-armed ship is in the group with the carrier, then the DF-21 or DF-26 is already headed down toward the target group, and when it is detected (around 160 miles away), it is already below 330000 feet, so it (again rightfully) can't shoot at the incoming missiles because they aren't in its envelope. This essentially renders them useless for defending any targets that they are guarding because by the time that they detected, their altitude is too low to be fired at.

Make sure that you are using 1147.17 and you can see what I am talking about. There's a huge difference between the two. All of the older scenarios are based on the 1147.16 concept. This is very different.

There is a stark contrast between the two versions.

Doug

< Message edited by DWReese -- 3/4/2021 11:46:28 AM >

(in reply to caohailiang)

Post #: 11

RE: ABM Issue - 3/4/2021 11:32:52 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

The issue is that its a multivariate challenge. You have to have some understanding of the threat, a theater detection system, proper positioning of the defending unit. That doesn't mean you can't get the C version to work on its own, but that it has to be in the perfect position to detect, track, and launch.

There is a ton of info on how these systems work on the web. I would just google SM-3 engagement or something like that. You'll see that the majority of tests of the SM-3 were with systems that had broad coverage to detect a launch so the ship can position itself. The E changes things because you now have a longer engagement envelope, but you still need detection.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 12

RE: ABM Issue - 3/4/2021 1:16:25 PM

caohailiang

Posts: 48
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline

but i am using 1147.17, what did i do wrong? just download the zipped exe file and replace the old version, right? anything else i miss?

i attach the scen file here, if you would kindly take a look please. the csg is to the south east of taiwan.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 13

RE: ABM Issue - 3/4/2021 2:14:51 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Wow, that's a huge scenario.

Question: Was your scenario designed to immediately show me something? If so, it didn't start doing anything.

In any case, I attempted to force an attack on the Reagan using the DF-21s from China. Then I realized that most (if not all) of your missiles aren't designed to attack ships. They are only deigned to attack land-based items. That isn't what I was really talking about. I was talking about the ships using RIM-161Cs to defend THEMSELVES.

Additionally, you have land-based ABM radar units, so they are able to see these launches headed for the land targets, and the RIM-161Es are able to shoot at them because they are being detected far away and they have a 1375-mile range.

Now try a scenario like I posted where the ships are the only means of being able to detect the incoming missiles, and the RIM-161Cs are the ones that are being used to fire at them. As you said, the missiles are picked up at 160 miles away, but the RIM-161Cs won't be able to fire because of what I mentioned before, they are outside of the envelope.

Attacks on land-based targets using ships to defend them is not the same as the ships having to detect the incoming missiles and also being the targets themselves. It's like apples and oranges, or chalk and cheese.

Doug

(in reply to caohailiang)

Post #: 14

RE: ABM Issue - 3/4/2021 2:41:27 PM

caohailiang

Posts: 48
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline

sorry my bad, i have now saved the scen after df26d launch at the CVN, please check it again.

then i noticed the really weird behavior:
1, if i just let it run, there will be several sm-3 launched
2, if i delete all the sensors/units on southwestern islands of Japan before i let it run, then yes, the behavior is as you said, no 161c will be fired

Attachment (1)

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 15

RE: ABM Issue - 3/4/2021 3:33:10 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Were the SM-3s that were fired the RIM-161Cs or Es? They were probably Es.

I believe that in situation #1, it only fires a few because the window is closing, and it can't get off any more shots before the targets are out of the envelope.

In situation #2, they aren't detected until they are already out of the envelope, so they can't fire at all.

I know that it was mentioned that land-based ABM radars (like what you had) can be used to detect incoming missiles, but a carrier isn't always around these units, so they can't be dependent on those. Furthermore, most only have a 540 mile range, so that really hurts as well.

The SBX exists, but there is only one of them (AFAIK), so you can't depend on them either.

A carrier group needs to be able to defend itself, and with this situation (detection/defend), the incoming missiles can't be detected before they have already moved out of the DLC altitude/range where they can be defended.

If this is how it really is, then the US Navy has a HUGE problem, because (based on these game results) they can't defend themselves against the DF-21 and 26, under the circumstances that I have described (alone, and without any land-based ABM radar).

< Message edited by DWReese -- 3/4/2021 3:36:40 PM >

(in reply to caohailiang)

Post #: 16

RE: ABM Issue - 3/4/2021 5:15:31 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Again, as I said before, SM-3s really aren't meant for carrier defense. SM-3s are generally being used for theater or area defense. That is a generalization, but the best way to think about it. If you want task force defense, make sure you have SM-6s.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 17