[FIXED DB v442] HQ-9 minimum target altitude (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support



Message

MaxDemian -> [FIXED DB v442] HQ-9 minimum target altitude (11/9/2015 10:53:56 AM)

Hello,

I have just recently purchased the game and have been extremely disappointed to see that the Chinese 052 C/D fleet air defense destroyers have been rendered impotent against sea-skimming and low flying ASCMs. In this regard, they seem to be less capable than an outdated Sovremennyy 70's era class destroyer. And we're talking mid 2010s hardware with AESA radars, guiding dual SARH/IR seeker equipped missiles that just happen to have an arbitrary floor of 61m making them useless against most ASCM threats in this game. Even the late 2000's export version of the Chinese HQQ-9A, had a minimum target altitude of 25m - and this is a land based SAM, where many terrain features would stand out above that and potentially block LOS to target.

I would be grateful to hear some feedback on this problem and the reasoning as to why HQ-9 A/B missiles cannot strike targets closer to the sea surface. In the case of a SARH/TVM missile, the minimum target altitude should only be limited by the illumination radars: as I see it, there is no reason to impose an artificial floor on the AESA radars onboard the 052 C/D destroyers as these are more than likely to pack the processing power sufficient to de-clutter the signal noise.



Rudd -> RE: HQ-9 minimum target altitude (11/9/2015 12:29:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaxDemian

Hello,

I have just recently purchased the game and have been extremely disappointed to see that the Chinese 052 C/D fleet air defense destroyers have been rendered impotent against sea-skimming and low flying ASCMs. In this regard, they seem to be less capable than an outdated Sovremennyy 70's era class destroyer. And we're talking mid 2010s hardware with AESA radars, guiding dual SARH/IR seeker equipped missiles that just happen to have an arbitrary floor of 61m making them useless against most ASCM threats in this game. Even the late 2000's export version of the Chinese HQQ-9A, had a minimum target altitude of 25m - and this is a land based SAM, where many terrain features would stand out above that and potentially block LOS to target.

I would be grateful to hear some feedback on this problem and the reasoning as to why HQ-9 A/B missiles cannot strike targets closer to the sea surface. In the case of a SARH/TVM missile, the minimum target altitude should only be limited by the illumination radars: as I see it, there is no reason to impose an artificial floor on the AESA radars onboard the 052 C/D destroyers as these are more than likely to pack the processing power sufficient to de-clutter the signal noise.

Welcome,

Prepare for endless hours of enjoyment with Command.

When requesting DB updates/additions, please post links/sources(I see its your first post, but you can get creative on how you write it in the thread) and/or pics.

I'll add some info for devs
Re: DB3000 entries #1225 and #2690
Not sure how accurate but APA says ~80ft
From http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-HQ-9-FD-FT-2000.html#mozTocId527286

[image]local://upfiles/45258/A73191BB4BBB42C4AF92DA5C4870AD7E.jpg[/image]
APA's source is Zhongguo zhenshi chukou hongqi-9 diduikong daodan’, Tanke zhuangjia cheliang, 2009 Niandi, 2 Qi, Zhongdi 277, p. 2



Rudd -> RE: HQ-9 minimum target altitude (11/9/2015 12:52:36 PM)

But...

80ft still isn't going to help you...LRASM, Harpoon, and the TLAM MMT cruise between 30-60ft in the DB, looks like the Chinese have to rely on their HQ-10s



ComDev -> RE: HQ-9 minimum target altitude (11/9/2015 1:08:57 PM)

Hi MaxDemian,

Thanks for raising you concerns. The minimum altitude info comes from open sources like Rudd pointed out. It is often the fuze that limits engagement altitude, not the fire-control system.

What should the minimum altitude be in your mind?



MaxDemian -> RE: HQ-9 minimum target altitude (11/9/2015 2:05:53 PM)

Hi Rudd, hi emsoy. Thank you for your replies and clarifications. I appreciate it.

Now, while I agree that ideally all the entries in the DB should be backed by public access references, in case of Chinese weapon systems, this is often not possible. Yet, we can make some educated inferences.

For example, it is widely held that the land version of the weapon, HHQ-9 is a SA-20 derivative. S-300PMU1 and S-300PMU2 (SA-20) are publicly credited with a minimum OPA of 10m (I am not allowed to post links): the source is Russian, and can be found on the Wikipedia page for S-300 missile.

Given how long the Chinese have had access to this technology, it seems rather implausible that they would not be able to replicate it in their navalized HQ-9 systems.

Thus, what I would propose is the following:
1. Alter the DB entry for HQ-9A and HQ-9B, so that the minimum OPA is 10m or roughly 30ft. This would put them in the same class with SM-2 missiles, where they should arguably belong.
2. Since this is a SA-20 derivative, the command link should be of SA-20 class, instead of SA-10.



ColonelMolerat -> RE: HQ-9 minimum target altitude (11/10/2015 9:34:23 PM)

Oops! Replied to wrong thread.



falcon2006 -> RE: HQ-9 minimum target altitude (1/10/2016 11:55:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Hi MaxDemian,

Thanks for raising you concerns. The minimum altitude info comes from open sources like Rudd pointed out. It is often the fuze that limits engagement altitude, not the fire-control system.

What should the minimum altitude be in your mind?

Hi, emsoy, I come from China, and the minimum altitude, according to the son of its designer, also a lecturer of radio, communication and navigation in an university, is less than 25 metres(FD-2000, the export version, >= 25m). And about its guidence system, I don't know what's your source, but almost all Chinese military fans know that it will be Inertial guidance plus active radar homing.(This information is also shown on WIKI En). So, I really hope this problem can be solved in the future update.



falcon2006 -> RE: HQ-9 minimum target altitude (1/10/2016 11:57:48 AM)

Sorry, its not will be, its Inertial guidance plus active radar homing since its entering service.



ComDev -> RE: HQ-9 minimum target altitude (1/11/2016 7:40:32 PM)

Okay have opened a separate ticket on this one, will look at when I get the database editor back [8D]



ComDev -> RE: HQ-9 minimum target altitude (1/17/2016 3:51:12 PM)

Fixed DB v442 (for v1.11, not 1.10).



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.140625