Slitherine

quote:


The above discussion shows that while the United States’ argument that THAAD’s range while operating in its intended terminal mode is very limited is plausible, so is the Chinese claim that the radar is physically capable of observing missile flights deep within its territory. While China would surely be able to monitor which mode the radar is operating in, there does not appear to be any technical or legal barrier to prevent it from being quickly converted from terminal to forward-based mode.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Here is a great article that discusses the TPY-2 radar. This is the unit responsible for identifying ballistic missile launches and will play a critical role in defending land targets, as well as ships (if located close enough), such as in the South China Sea.

Notice the article, which was written 5 years ago, mentions the various reported distances that this radar (which has two modes) can operate. CMO has the range listed at 870 km (540 miles), but some sources claim that it is actually closer to 3000 km (1800 miles), or more. Raytheon, its creator, claims that the radar is so powerful, and so defined, that it can "...track a home run from a ball park from several hundred miles away." That's pretty detailed.

In any case, take a look at the article. It would appear that there is a good argument that the range of the TPY-2 should likely be increased, given the specific need for the radar, and the fact that there has obviously been 5 years worth of improvements since it was written.

https://mostlymissiledefense.com/2016/07/17/thaad-radar-ranges-july-17-2018/

Doug

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Just like my comment in the DF-21 thread. Its a very multivariate challenge on both sides. Its not Df-21s vs a single USN ship. Its not just a radar vs a single unit. Its the entire multi-unit system of detection, decision, and execution. Intelligence will tell you what mode to set certain unit's EMCOM for, what missile loadouts they should have, and what the WRA should be.

The biggest issue is scenario designers sometimes try to simplify the decision-making for the player. Personally, I find it more fun to have multiple options that sort of do the same thing, but have nuances to each approach. This is versus the puzzle solving approach in a lot of scenarios. The US in the Pacific has multiple ways of detecting incoming missiles. Its not just THAAD. SBX is there, other ground-based radar, ship radars, satelites, human intel, etc. If I'm being tasked with an ABM mission in a scenario, I want the option to access some of those assets.

For example, combining this thread's topic with the DF-21 thread, the defense chain against DF-21s or DF-26s might have a BMD DG on the threat axis near the enemy shore, a THAAD system across the missile's flight path, and another BDM DG with SM-6s near the target's shore. Each one of those points has a different window to target the missile(s). Thats combined with satellites to detect prep and launch and HUMINT for likelihood of launch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Mike,

Thank you for taking the time to create the scenario. That was very nice of you to do.

I've played your scenario, and many like it, probably 500 times. I usually use the C and E versions of the SM-3.

Did you notice that the TPY-2 took a while to SEE the incoming missiles even though they were only 340 miles (or less) away. The range of the TPY-2 is 540, and it reportedly can "see a baseball being hit out of the park from several hundred miles away." Those missiles are many times larger than a baseball, yet the TPY-2 has trouble finding anything until the target gets within 340 miles (as I said). I would think that they would see them earlier, and at a greater distance than 340 miles.

On the ship end, I've had similar results. But, your scenario was set up under pristine conditions. Had you given the ship a 45 degree heading, instead of 0, the ships would have had to turn. Turning eats up precious time, it cuts into the launch window, and keeps them from being able to get off any shots even longer.
Notice, also, that the ship was only able to get off 7 of the intended 8 missiles BEFORE it could no longer fire because it wasn't able to. It would be much less if they had to turn. And, as I said, there wouldn't be any at all if it adhered to the 330k foot deck.

Also, when the hips begin firing, the DF-21s have already descended to 70 km (or 230k feet). According to the game, the deck for SM-3 is 330k feet, so it is already below the deck, and it should no longer be able to fire at them at all because they are too low.

Additionally, your TPY-2 is strategically placed in between the the target and the shooter. In real life, had the group been sailing into the SCS, any land-based radar would not be so conveniently placed. Units could be placed in Brunei , Malaysia, or the Philippines and they would be (as I said) at least 200 miles further back from the ships, and the land-based radar wouldn't be detecting them any quicker than the ships do.

Your scenario yields similar results, but degrading the situation just a little (heading/TPY-2 positioning) and it will severely alter the results.

Thanks again for making the scenario for me.

Doug

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I am not sure which satellites they have been using to track test IRBM intercepts. I do remember that there used to be an issue with satellites detecting launches in CMO. Not sure if that got sorted.

edit: It looks like STSS is what would be used in RL for the test intercepts. I am guessing that is what would be best fit in the db.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I get it, but still confused. Should the game be changed to fit one person's scenario? I guess that is my real question.