New Red Pill / Command video

[GarfunkeL]

Yeah, so WarfareSims changed the name from Red Pill to Command. Game still looks good:

http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1616

Jakob, a member of the Command development group, has been flexing his video-producing muscles lately and Command was bound to offer a tempting vehicle. In this video, Jakob demonstrates how to put together a very simple strike-oriented scenario.

So yeah, the game will include an easy-to-use scenario editor. Now Andhaira can finally create those dreams of his!

 

[GarfunkeL]

Oh yeah and if you missed it, here's a video showing YAL-1 in action:

 

[Raghar]

That's all fine and joy with small problems like: That airplane can fire into that steep angle above it, while these LASERs are able to do some deflection angle, firing above at that steep angle would require to move the whole airplane. The whole system was basically designed to intercept horisontally in the boos phase where atmosphere would expand the hole created by the hit.
Now these explosions, at what altitude? You wouldn't know if the missile was destroyed or not, because its about maxQ altitude anyway. In fact the MARVs could already separate from the booster, and at what they shot? At the booster? The most likely target would be the booster because it has the largest RADAR/IR return, and basically it would do exactly nothing.

Then there are also these problems with turning. These airplanes turned too fast for that large planes. Remember the sustained turn rate of F-22 is 28 degree/s. Yes big fat ass plane with volatile chemicals on board can turn fast, when they are not lucky they can do it once. Then there is also problem they didn't took time to do a ranging pulse. The LASER needs information for its adaptive optic, and when it will not project a reflection from the target, or place nearby it will have problem to deliver the full energy. It can use information from badly focused pulse, but then the first shot went into lest than spectacular place.

Also they lick US arse.

 

[GarfunkeL]

No they don't . Unless semi-realistically portraying US equipment is licking their butt now. You have to give the dev team some rope, much of the equipment they are trying to model is still classified.

As to YAL-1, you are absolutely correct about the initial procedure but nothing prevents it from "shooting" at missiles in-flight - the stress of supersonic flight is enough to destroy the missile as long as the laser manages to scratch it. In the tests USAF ran, the on-target time required for missile destruction turned out to be far less than estimated. Remember the targets are Iranian Shahab-3 missiles - the older, 3A version only had a single warhead. The latter, 3B version, is a MIRV but we don't really know at which point they separate from the booster/launch vehicle. Your complaint about the turn rate is a valid one. However, the whole Y/AL-1 is still on prototype stage and likely to never become operational. USAF didn't ask any money for the project in 2010 or 2011 even though the laser works - but I guess there are other problems.

 

[Raghar]

172 km? There is no atmosphere to talk about. In fact, they didn't bother to simulate descent. When you look at the image, you see these missiles to accelerate to 5000+ kts.

I have no problems with simulating a weird stuff not deployed in armies. I used Lun class in Harpoon without problem. (In North sea no less.) But there are small problems like trying to be popular at all costs. Basically a lot of theirs scenarios are quite one sided, thus calling them US lick arsers is quite reasonable.

US and China have solid state LASERs research, and solid state LASERs are much better for real world use. So I doubt they would continue development of that airborne LASER, it's outdated technology.

 

[Dimitris]

Hi GarfunkeL, thanks for the plug!

It would have been useful to include the "commentary" of the video from here: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1504

The second video depicts a patrol of two AL-1 airborne laser aircraft around the critical Al-Udeid military complex in Qatar. The video starts as a swarm of Shahab-3 ballistic missiles are detected rising from Iranian territory, in a multi-axis attack. The AL-1s are assigned the missiles as targets, and get to work. Notice that the horizontal speed of the incoming missiles is rapidly accelerating (the missiles are gradually tipping towards apogee), making targeting for the lasers increasingly difficult.
At some point towards the end of the video, the surviving missile contacts seem to disappear. This is because until this point the missiles were tracked by the IR sensors onboard the AL-1 aircraft, via their very strong (IR signature-wise) boost plumes. Now however the boost phase is over, and the warheads separate from the rest of the body. The AL-1 aircraft cannot track the warheads or any other part of the missile post-boost, so they are effectively out of the fight. (This is in fact one of the major operational shortcomings of this system). Normally at this point ATBM-capable SAM systems near the base (THAAD and/or PAC-3) would be tasked to destroy the incoming warheads.

This would have prevented some of the mis-assumptions that Raghar has formed.

Some more recent videos:

Multiple JDAM attack on airfield: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1504
Mining the Hormuz straits: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1529
Convoy attack: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1353
Military satellites: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1602

(I am linking to the articles rather than embedding the videos directly, as it appears that some guys need to read the commentary before forming an opinion and calling other people names).

 

[Dimitris]

Hi Raghar,

Please give me a minute to get the US taste out of my tongue.

Now...

That's all fine and joy with small problems like: That airplane can fire into that steep angle above it, while these LASERs are able to do some deflection angle, firing above at that steep angle would require to move the whole airplane. The whole system was basically designed to intercept horisontally in the boos phase where atmosphere would expand the hole created by the hit.
Now these explosions, at what altitude? You wouldn't know if the missile was destroyed or not, because its about maxQ altitude anyway. In fact the MARVs could already separate from the booster, and at what they shot? At the booster? The most likely target would be the booster because it has the largest RADAR/IR return, and basically it would do exactly nothing.

The commentary answers your question. The ABL-1s are shooting at the missiles as long as they are in the boost phase and hence they can track them. After burnout, the warheads separate from the booster and the lasers can no longer engage.

Then there are also these problems with turning. These airplanes turned too fast for that large planes. Remember the sustained turn rate of F-22 is 28 degree/s. Yes big fat ass plane with volatile chemicals on board can turn fast, when they are not lucky they can do it once.

I don't remember the manouverability value of the ABL-1 in the database, if it's unrealistically high we can of course modify it.

Then there is also problem they didn't took time to do a ranging pulse. The LASER needs information for its adaptive optic, and when it will not project a reflection from the target, or place nearby it will have problem to deliver the full energy. It can use information from badly focused pulse, but then the first shot went into lest than spectacular place.

The ranging pulse happens just before the main laser fires (if there is significant time difference then the range figure will be inaccurate), so for our purposes it's not worth modelling as a separate action.

Also they lick US arse.

Thank you. It's so nice to know that (together with Ragnar Emsoy) I've been fighting an uphill battle since _1995_ for more realistic modelling of "Eastern" hardware & doctrine in various air/nav games (Harpoon in particular but also others), so that in 2012 someone in a web forum can accuse me of sucking up to the US of A. It really makes these 17 years worthwhile.

The majority of the videos feature US hardware for the simple reason that that hardware is more widely known, recognized and understood by people interested in mil matters. Pretty much everyone knows the ABL-1; how many know of the Beriev A-60, or the Almaz THEL demonstrator, or, or....? When we made that video the ABL-1 was still on the edge of cancellation (it has since been axed for good, for the reasons you mention). We put it there because we wanted to show that yes, we can now model high-energy beam weapons (another first in the genre). This feature is going to be very important as beam-DEWs crawl into service.

172 km? There is no atmosphere to talk about. In fact, they didn't bother to simulate descent. When you look at the image, you see these missiles to accelerate to 5000+ kts.

Wrong. We model both variable ascent & descent rates with horizontal acceleration (as described on the commentary).

US and China have solid state LASERs research, and solid state LASERs are much better for real world use. So I doubt they would continue development of that airborne LASER, it's outdated technology.

...and as more information becomes available on these systems, including firm deployment plans, we'll be only too happy to add them to our database. We are also looking into directed-EMP warheads, another game-changer.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Hah, looking forward to your game, Dimitris. Played Harpoon to death when younger, have been looking for something like this to scratch that itch. Still sorry that you changed the name, Red Pill was original, but oh well, the game is looking good.

 

[Raghar]

The commentary answers your question. The ABL-1s are shooting at the missiles as long as they are in the boost phase and hence they can track them. After burnout, the warheads separate from the booster and the lasers can no longer engage.

Did it stopped fire after MaxQ? How large was max vertical shooting angle?

I don't remember the manouverability value of the ABL-1 in the database, if it's unrealistically high we can of course modify it.

It's about the same as the aircraft it was based upon.

The ranging pulse happens just before the main laser fires (if there is significant time difference then the range figure will be inaccurate), so for our purposes it's not worth modelling as a separate action.

How are you modelling to hit probability?

Also they lick US arse.

Thank you. It's so nice to know that (together with Ragnar Emsoy) I've been fighting an uphill battle since _1995_ for more realistic modelling of "Eastern" hardware & doctrine in various air/nav games (Harpoon in particular but also others), so that in 2012 someone in a web forum can accuse me of sucking up to the US of A. It really makes these 17 years worthwhile.

Yes that's common on internet. I was educated on game development/serious game development numerous times by small children, and other less smart people. There are two possibilities. 1. They would try you to explain stuff. You'd discover incredible things and have fun on theirs mistakes. 2. They would badmouth you behind you back. In the first case, they had passion which is a great thing. The second case means you are talking with completely normal people without spine. Who cares about them.

You said something you are fighting for introduction of non west HW into simulations. Then show that.

Brazil has its new fighter competition. Why don't you create a tongue in cheek video about Brazil's attack against Falklands? Assume Brazil would use Argentina bases. Make it absurd and funny.
For example: There is a suicide attack of Gripens NG E/F M819 against prepared EF2000 and ground defenses. Wow they even caused some damage. Too bad they run out of fuel on return.
Rafale, while its SPECTRA scared everyone even allies, at least it managed to return back. That was a big plus, too bad about price.

Then there are also Chinese fleets, and Chinese aircraft.

The majority of the videos feature US hardware for the simple reason that that hardware is more widely known, recognized and understood by people interested in mil matters. Pretty much everyone knows the ABL-1; how many know of the Beriev A-60, or the Almaz THEL demonstrator, or, or....?

A lot of people know airplanes like J-11BS, J-15, and J-20. I seen video of J-15 where two people were doing kissing sounds. Is your DB sufficiently detailed to have all Chinese air to air missiles?

172 km? There is no atmosphere to talk about. In fact, they didn't bother to simulate descent. When you look at the image, you see these missiles to accelerate to 5000+ kts.

Wrong. We model both variable ascent & descent rates with horizontal acceleration (as described on the commentary).

Are you using RK4, RK6, or something better?

...and as more information becomes available on these systems, including firm deployment plans, we'll be only too happy to add them to our database. We are also looking into directed-EMP warheads, another game-changer.

EMP is notoriously unreliable because results are often variable. One blast can kill electronic, while another can cause seemingly no damage. I wouldn't call them game changer.