S400 batteries....? (Full Version)

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



Message

magi -> S400 batteries....? (9/23/2016 11:46:02 PM)

How maneuverable can the 40n6 and 48n6 missiles of the s400 batteries be.... They look huge....



Dysta -> RE: S400 batteries....? (9/24/2016 12:45:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: magi

How maneuverable can the 40n6 and 48n6 missiles of the s400 batteries be.... They look huge....

Same question as how SA-2 can only hit one F-4.

Look at the climb rate at database viewer, the Climb Rate can tell you how maneuverable it is.

Here are three examples for comparison:

SA-2b
Weight - 2280kg
Climb Rate: 500m/sec

SA-21a(48N6DM) and b(40N6)
Weight - 1800kg
Climb Rate: 1008m/sec

RIM-161E (SM-3 2019, largest SAM in US inventory)
Weight: 1500kg
Climb Rate:1750m/sec

Using the Climb-Weight ratio to find out the maneuverability (Climb rate/Weight):

SA-2b = 0.2192
SA-21a/b = 0.56
SM-3 2019 = 1.1666

The climb rate is also work on horizontal turning, the higher the ratio, the more responsive.

As for how a huge missile becomes more responsive, the answer is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring



magi -> RE: S400 batteries....? (9/24/2016 4:05:42 AM)

thamk you sir....



Meiktila -> RE: S400 batteries....? (9/24/2016 8:26:03 PM)

... are the nastiest SOBs in the game?



Dysta -> RE: S400 batteries....? (9/25/2016 2:19:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meiktila

... are the nastiest SOBs in the game?

Challenging because of the range advantage. This is one of the reason many countries are developing hypersonic missile, to outrun the best SAM's speed and reduce SAM launch salvos before the missile reaching it. The seekers are semi-active so you can jam it with OECM, but the SAM radar is simply too strong to burn through noises, loiter missile does not well either since it got point defense Pantsir (for Russia) to intercept it.

I think it's reasonable not to make the S-400 missiles have very high maneuverability even with thrust vectoring, otherwise it will be unstoppable unless it is empty. So far the barely working solution is using stealth assets to get to the S-400 as close as possible, and then saturate it with ARMs.



Meiktila -> RE: S400 batteries....? (9/25/2016 1:13:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Challenging because of the range advantage.


You said it. With a couple of GRUMBLES in attendance they are truly a challenge.

I like the hypersonic tactic, especially IF (big if) stealth assets could get in range with them, take some hits but get a good ARM salvo off. Is the B-2 up for that or it's an F-35 mission?



Aivlis -> RE: S400 batteries....? (9/25/2016 1:55:41 PM)

I'd warn against using specific excess power (what your ratio of climb rate to weight kinda is) as a measure of overall maneuverability.
Firstly because climb rate varies hugely, as does weight, over the flight; in fact most missiles are out of propellant during the terminal phase, with your simplified calculations, that would mean they can't turn at all.
Secondly because the maximum angular velocity of a missile, which is the true maneuverability value you want to look at, is limited by a host of factors, most aerodynamic (stall of control surfaces, stall of the main body, overall stability limits...), some mechanical (actuator load limits, lifting/control surface load limits, accelerometer saturation...) and some guidance related (seeker FoV, guidance law in use...)

Back to the OP: a large warhead can compensate for terminal accuracy, especially in the case of SAM, as aircraft are a soft target and don't usually require a direct hit to bring down.



Dysta -> RE: S400 batteries....? (9/25/2016 4:40:40 PM)

I must admit I was too vague to explain how maneuverability works in CMANO. Of course the longer flight of missile, the more weight will bring down, so the missile will eventually more favorable to turn.

There's a problem though, is the fuel quantity is measured by minute instead of weight, so I cannot tell the increase margin. Also, you're correct that the size, aerodynamic shape, turning technique are important as well.

I think large SAM's FRAG warhead are necessary for SARH, but SA-2 and S-300/400 are built with different criteria. The first is designed to bring down bombers, and does not consider the aircraft-mounted countermeasure; while S-300 and S-400 are slightly smaller FRAG than SA-2 because of the better radar, but still jammable and cannot guarantee the pin-point accuracy. If not the Grave Stone is so b***y to jam, S-400 will be as useless as SA-2 already, even the active radar in 40N6 doesn't help much.




kevinkins -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 5:05:51 AM)

I have been reading up on the S400 and there is a lot written on hiding the launch platform before launch but little on how effective the system is be defeating the incoming missiles. My tests indicate you need 1.5 B2s with JASSM stand offs for each S400 BN. That's 25 million bucks worth of JASSM firepower. Apparently a S400 battalion costs 400 million for 112 missiles and launchers. So I guess the exchange rate is acceptable if the 400 number is accurate. I am putting together a scenario and trying to give the player a fair allotment of stuff to tackle the "beast from the east".

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/price-russian-weapons-t98271.html



DrRansom -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 3:24:33 PM)

Kevinkin - for your scenario , don't forget to add the accompanying assets to a S-400 battalion: Pantsir-S1 for point defense, decoys for radar and launchers, and self defense jammers and chaff / flare launchers to defeat terminal homing missiles.




mikmykWS -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 3:59:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

Kevinkin - for your scenario , don't forget to add the accompanying assets to a S-400 battalion: Pantsir-S1 for point defense, decoys for radar and launchers, and self defense jammers and chaff / flare launchers to defeat terminal homing missiles.




You could also be a real devil and set the Pantsir's to only engage guided weapons[:)]

Mike



kevinkins -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 4:17:27 PM)

Wait. Isn't that handled by simply adding a battalion from the list of Russian SAMs? What's with the additional data links and "real devil" settings. Now I am confused. Is there a post with a step-by-step setup for the "Complete S400"? Inquiring minds want to know.

Help.




DrRansom -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 4:26:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk


You could also be a real devil and set the Pantsir's to only engage guided weapons[:)]

Mike


And, you can emulate Satan himself and give the S-400 battalion shoot & scoot logic, along with trading off which radar is emitting at any time.

Kevinkin - the problem is that a single S-400 battalion would never deploy by itself. It will be accompanied by:
Pantsir-S1 for point defense against incoming smart bombs, see mikmyk's comment.
Self-defense jammers and chaff/flare launchers to defeat terminal homing missiles.
Decoys to prevent simple strategic reconnaissance. (your stand-off picture shows a TEL, but is it real?). Note, decoys include decoy radars.

Lastly, each S-400 battalion will engage in shoot & scoot tactics to avoid being fixed for standoff strike.

It isn't a trivial task to code a full S-400 battalion to its full capability...




mikmykWS -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 4:29:53 PM)

What a rude one.

You can choose to just add the battalion as well. Being able to adjust the AI via WRA is definitely a +1.

Here's some information on WRA

http://www.warfaresims.com/index.php?s=wra

Just

1)Add the unit
2)adjust the WRA for whatever weapons you want to engage whatever class of target.

Thanks!

Mike



kevinkins -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 4:49:34 PM)

Thanks Mike. That's where I was heading for a release this weekend. I also have a test using Lua logic to flash the radars on-off based on triggers.

quote:

It isn't a trivial task to code a full S-400 battalion to its full capability...


Happy to work on this together since I am applying Lua skills to Command. Send a PM if interested. Even if the battalion's capabilities are not fully implemented, the Community would enjoy what we end up with. Thanks.



ColonelMolerat -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 7:10:21 PM)

DrRansom, when you mention these:

"Self-defense jammers and chaff/flare launchers to defeat terminal homing missiles.
Decoys to prevent simple strategic reconnaissance. (your stand-off picture shows a TEL, but is it real?). Note, decoys include decoy radars."

How would they be implemented in CMANO?

Would chaff/flare be added as mounts to the S400? I can't see any dedicated vehicles.
And decoys - would you just place another S400, but set it to have no ammo/fuel?
(Also I see that the S400 unit has a 92N2 and a 96L6 radar as sensors. I guess more sensors might be needed to be added - or other radar vehicles close by - lots of other radars are mentioned on the Wikipedia, but it's rather confusing).



DrRansom -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 7:18:51 PM)

ColonelMolerat -

Decoys could be S-400 units which are set to an unfriendly side and have no ammunition but do not share information with the enemy side. In that case, they would emit like a real S-400, but not shoot like one. The hard part is: would decoys move?

For the self-defense jammers / chaff-flare launchers, I think there is a database unit for this system... From what pictures I remember, it is a self-contained box which is placed on the ground near a battery.

The other question is if S-400 TELs would move during an operation (24 - 48 hour period) and would it move immediately after an engagement. That requires knowing what precise Russian tactics it'll use.



ColonelMolerat -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 9:15:38 PM)

Thanks for your help DrRansom!



kevinkins -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 9:56:41 PM)

DrRansom, I got your PM and will get back shortly. Thanks.

Something to consider from 100,000 feet. If one goes about making the S400, or any defensive system, more difficult to neutralize, there has to be corresponding offensive capabilities to take it out. You see, decoys and chaff etc. might already be abstracted. I do not know. Mike could help perhaps. The use of such "Satan-like" defensive systems could throw scenario game play way off. There is no way for the designer to affect attacking capabilities other than adding more firepower which might be more unrealistic than using the S400 as it's currently modeled. But the idea is worth exploring to rule it in or out up front.



DrRansom -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 10:06:12 PM)

kevinkin - This is the problem with the S-400, I don't think that there exists technology to defeat it affordably at this present stage. There is a scenario problem and a 'real-life' problem:

Scenario: if you make the S-400 much harder to defeat, then you'll have to add a greater and greater level of capabilities to the other side. This leads to serious imbalances.

Real-life: if the S-400 is this hard to defeat, then it is this hard to defeat. Note, in the past, air defense capabilities required massive expenditures to defeat them. The S-400 is only a reversion to the mean after 25 years of Western dominance.

Some further thoughts, S-400 is a strategic air defense system, not a tactical air defense. In that case, it'll only be deployed to defend strategic targets and only in limited capabilities. Anything more than a single S-400 in a scenario is unrealistic (unless a strategic bombing of all Russia scenario.)

Furthermore, while the system is mobile, I don't know how that mobility behaves on a tactical level. Would launchers redeploy after a single engagement? Can the radars redeploy often, or are they limited by site constraints? The set-up / break-down time is ~10 minutes, but in real life is it that fast? (Note, Saddam was able to set-up and fire a Scud < 30 minutes, after practice and using known targets, so there is precedent for TELs firing faster than we expect.)

Other issues: do alternate jamming methods exist, e.g. jamming missile datalinks or communication between battlefield radars and acquisition radars? What about cyber attacks? If any target calls for a cyber attack, it is a S-400 battery. There is talk about decoy radars, are decoy radars realistic or is their signature too far away from a real S-400 system?

Basically, the unknowns at this point are huge.

I do think that it is worthwhile to model the S-400 to a high-level of capability, if only to show how ridiculously powerful it can be under quasi-realistic conditions. (TEL decoys, self-defense, moderate to high mobility)



Aivlis -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 10:06:38 PM)

The thing is, if you pit systems 1v1, you're back to the infinite plane of uniform density, ie: an unrealistic, oversimplified scenario.
Would you consider an aircraft carrier all by itself? Or an Oscar-class sub without supporting SSNs to locate targets ahead of it?

There is no right or wrong solution to this problem, but if you're going for realism, remember that no weapon systems are deployed on their own.



Gunner98 -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 10:52:27 PM)

quote:

Some further thoughts, S-400 is a strategic air defense system, not a tactical air defense. In that case, it'll only be deployed to defend strategic targets and only in limited capabilities. Anything more than a single S-400 in a scenario is unrealistic


Dr Ransom, I'm not sure that this statement is totally accurate. Although this is according to Wiki, the data is fairly well referenced:

 Russia – 27 battalions in 13 regiments (at least 200 launchers)[88][115][116][117][118]
Moscow region:
2 battalions of the 210th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment, Dmitrov;[119]
2 battalions of the 606th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment, Elektrostal;[120][121]
2 battalions of the 93rd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment, Zvenigorod;[122]
2 battalions of the 549th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment, Podolsk;[123]
2 battalions of the 183rd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Western Military District, Kaliningrad;[124]
2 battalions of the 500th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Western Military District, Saint-Petersburg;[125]
2 battalions of the 589th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Eastern Military District, Nakhodka;[126][127]
3 battalions of the 1532nd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Eastern Military District, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky;[128][129][130]
2 battalions of the 1537th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Southern Military District, Novorossiysk;[131]
2 battalions of the 531st Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Western Military District, Murmansk;[132][133]
2 battalions of the 590th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Central Military District, Novosibirsk;[134]
2 battalions of the 1533th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Eastern Military District, Vladivostok.[135]
2 battalions of the 18th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Southern Military District, Feodossia, Crimea.[136]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

So some are certainly looking after Strategic assets, many of the Regts belong to Military Districts which sub allocates them to Armies, so I would say an Operational level system in that case. Also they don't come in 1's normally, generally in Regts of 2 Bns plus reinforcing lower level SAM systems. Considering the range envelope they cover, 27 Bns is a lot.

B



kevinkins -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 11:04:59 PM)

Actually the S400 is hard enough now with the current level of abstraction. So I guess the comment to me:

" don't forget to add the accompanying assets to a S-400 battalion: Pantsir-S1 for point defense, decoys for radar and launchers, and self defense jammers and chaff / flare launchers to defeat terminal homing missiles."

was tongue-n-cheek advice given the number of unknowns and affect those items would have on play balance. I took it too seriously. Glad we cleared that up. It would be interesting to compare a drop-in S400 with one on steroids. I fear the demo would not have wide appeal however. A pet project. Drop-ins augmented by scripting are the way to go for scenarios.



DrRansom -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/20/2016 11:58:37 PM)

Gunner98 - I am under the impression that the S-400 would be deployed to defend strategic sites, e.g. nuclear bases, production facilities, and airfields. It wouldn't be deployed to cover maneuver forces. That role would be given to Army Air Defense. Here, the separation is S-400 is given to PVO branch, not to the army.

That being said, a mobile SAM is a mobile SAM and can be used for any role.

kevinkin - my response was barely tongue-in-cheek. I was responding to your suggestion to make a scenario which would be NATO forces against S-400. I think that such a scenario really has to include other aspects of the S-400 system, namely the point defense weapons, the system's inherent maneuverability, and the low-radar emission tactics by the firing units.

Now, I do think a S-400 on steroids would be an interesting demo, as it represents the state-of-the-art for air defenses.

When we compare the scenario to reality, however, that's where all the other unknowns come into play. Cyber, for example, is probably a digital effect. Either the attack code works, or it doesn't. Either the NSA / USAF has a zero-day on the S-400, or it doesn't. There's no way of representing that in CMANO given public information. That's just a problem of limited information.



thewood1 -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/21/2016 1:12:37 AM)

Don't forget cyber goes both ways...as well as the hardening for cyber.



kevinkins -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/21/2016 1:23:30 AM)

"has to include" is a pretty strong recommendation. Current scenarios use drop-in S400 battalions, including the very popular LIVE collections.
I don't think you believe these scenarios are invalid which is why I thought you were pulling our chain a bit. The technical details are fascinating. But I am wrapping up 2 weeks of design so I wanted to make sure my treatment of SAMs is rational. I think it is based on how the S400 is currently used in Command. I have thoughts on a demo; look to your PMs in a bit.



DrRansom -> RE: S400 batteries....? (10/21/2016 9:32:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin
"has to include" is a pretty strong recommendation. Current scenarios use drop-in S400 battalions, including the very popular LIVE collections.


We've talked about this offline, I guess the question for the designer is the level of detail desired for SAM batteries. If they have a massive scenario already running, the drop in battalion is fine. If they're trying a more detailed one-on-one scenario, then the added capabilities would be more appropriate.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875