RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2)

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: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2)

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 >> RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2)

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 1:06:23 AM

thewood1

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

Increasing the range of the THAAD radar will help with detection and more detailed tracking, but according to the Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress report, interoperability for passing tracking info to an SM-3 BLK IIA for actual fire control is only planned for testing by 2028. Deployment is further out than that.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf

So even with a range increase in THAAD radar, I'm not sure it will solve the OP's original issue of having a 1000 nm SM-3 missile and no way to fire at it at its max range. In RL, its why multiple DDGs and CGs are stationed off of Japan and Korea. The Burke Flight IIIs with the SPY-6 help a little, but will most likely be limited to 600 m for BMD.

(in reply to c3k)

Post #: 31

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 1:25:26 AM

DWReese

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

Paul,

Thank you, and the rest of the team.

I sincerely appreciate it. This change will really help all things related to ABM warfare.

Doug

(in reply to PaulTheWolf)

Post #: 32

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 3:54:51 AM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese
But, in order to shoot at something that will be 200 miles away, you have to first be able to detect it with enough time to be able to maneuver into position to be able to shoot at it.

That's not true. There isn't a lot of maneuvering going on with ballistic missile defense. The reason is that Issac Newton is doing the driving with ballistic missiles, so if you know the stuff you care about, you would position the BMD assets so that they could engage things passing through that space.

The challenge of ballistic missile defense is that they can't maneuver much. They've got to stay in their box, defending their stuff, and so they're vulnerable. It's all about defending them, so they can defend other things from ballistic missiles.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 33

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 5:58:12 AM

KnightHawk75

Posts: 1450
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline

@PaulTheWolf @DWReese Thanks for rising the issue and for the upcoming addition.

(in reply to c3k)

Post #: 34

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 10:16:34 AM

thewood1

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

"Issac Newton is doing the driving"

That made me laugh.

(in reply to KnightHawk75)

Post #: 35

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 12:30:49 PM

DWReese

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

SeaQueen,

I'm not talking about real life. I'm talking about how things work in the game.

The way that the game is designed, with the ballistic missile envelope, it is extremely limited. The missile, because it moves so quickly and is descending, moves in and out of the envelope. You will get an OODA message indicating that you can fire in something like 8.2 seconds, but after the 8.2 seconds pass you will often get a message that says that it is no longer within the envelope. This happens all the way until the missile destroys the target because eventually it falls below the deck.

The only way for this to work, in the game anyway, is to make the radar range longer. That way, the radar can detect it, hold the contact, and the SM-3s can fire. By substituting a longer radar, the game permits the 200-mile range SM-3 to shoot when the DF-21 is 350 miles away, and by the time that the two meet, the SM-3 is now 200 miles away. In essence, it all works out if the radar is longer.

You should try it out and you can see what I'm talking about. Use the Lorenzen so that you can detect things.

Doug

< Message edited by DWReese -- 3/23/2021 12:32:32 PM >

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 36

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 12:36:58 PM

thewood1

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

I come back to this...if thats how it works in real life, why change the game? The THAAD radar can't use cooperative engagement with the SM-3. It still years away from being active, if at all. Maybe I'm missing something on how the TPY-2 interacts with the USN missiles. Again, this is why so much focus has been placed on the SM-6 and extending its range and engagement window.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 37

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 9:56:06 PM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

Or place the BMD ship further down the threat axis so it has more time to detect/engage the RV before it descends below the SM-3's floor. The SM-3 is a mid-course interceptor, not intended for point defense. If you need to defend the ship itself, as previously noted, you're probably going to need external cueing either from SBIRS/DSP or a TPY-2.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 38

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 10:40:29 PM

kevinkins

Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

There are plenty of hypothetical systems in this game. DWReese's idea is a reasonable compromise to play around with. That is, you can have the "real life" radar system. Or you play around with a hypothetical radar once the developers add it into the DB. All of these systems are top secret in real life - does it matter to argue over them? No one knows about these systems. You can't have such such deadly China systems without a way to to counter them within a game. Scenarios become unplayable, which is why the Warfaresims agreed with DEWeese. The military will have many people looking at computer screens with incomings. YOU have just one - on a laptop. YOU. While YOU are fighting WW3. So it will be impossible to engage on the 8 second window DWReese has demonstrated. CMO will never be good at simulating highly classified systems. Warwarsims has no access to anything meaningful that can be passed on to the public that is not already in the public domain. This is why the hypothetical part of the DB is so engaging to players.

< Message edited by kevinkins -- 3/23/2021 10:59:45 PM >

_____________________________

�The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.�
― Alfred Thayer Mahan

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 39

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 11:10:07 PM

thewood1

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

I actually agree with that. But that wasn't how this all started it started because the OP was claiming the missiles weren't working. When it turned they were working, which I don't think he ever acknowledged, he switched tact to wanting to get a radar in the fit his scenario and went out and found a link to fit the narrative. I'm just pointing out that its not a real world capability. If the devs want to put in a hypothetical capability, its their choice. But do it for that reason, not because its a realistic capability.

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 40

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 11:22:59 PM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I actually agree with that. But that wasn't how this all started it started because the OP was claiming the missiles weren't working. When it turned they were working, which I don't think he ever acknowledged, he switched tact to wanting to get a radar in the fit his scenario and went out and found a link to fit the narrative. I'm just pointing out that its not a real world capability. If the devs want to put in a hypothetical capability, its their choice. But do it for that reason, not because its a realistic capability.

Nah. Doug's alright and an incremental fix is a win. Let it go...don't make me make post of .wav file of me singing that to you..

Mike

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 41

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 11:31:02 PM

thewood1

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

Feel free, but in that funny accent you used to have. Its not a fix. I'm not against putting it in, but lets admit why.

This issue started with a complaint that the last update made the SM-3s more realistic in their intercept window. Its meandered through multiple threads to the point that asking for a change to an unrealistic capability is the new ask.

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 3/23/2021 11:32:47 PM >

(in reply to BDukes)

Post #: 42

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 11:35:53 PM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Feel free, but in that funny accent you used to have. Its not a fix. I'm not against putting it in, but lets admit why.

This issue started with a complaint that the last update made the SM-3s more realistic in their intercept window. Its meandered through multiple threads to the point that asking for a change to an unrealistic capability is the new ask.

Ok. Hey, you ever thought about taking it up with him privately?

Mike

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 43

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 11:43:14 PM

thewood1

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

We have. Don't you worry about it.

(in reply to BDukes)

Post #: 44

RE: The EYES of THAAD (TPY-2) - 3/23/2021 11:54:05 PM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline