Surface to Air Missile Inconsistencies

[Suhiir]

OK, here's what we have in some of the OOB's I've checked :

Egypt OOB-1
Imp HAWK ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot= 4 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0
HAWK IIIP ACC=150 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot= 3 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0
Patriot ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=22 HEP=73 HEK=73 Sabot= 4 Range=255 EW=9 FC=120 RF=0

Israel OOB-4
HAWK ACC=100 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot= 4 Range=255 EW=5 FC=100 RF=0
Imp HAWK ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot= 4 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0
HAWK IIIP ACC=150 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot= 3 Range=255 EW=8 FC=100 RF=0
Patriot ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=22 HEP=73 HEK=73 Sabot= 4 Range=255 EW=9 FC=120 RF=0

Japan OOB-5
HAWK ACC=100 Wpn=0 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=14 Range=255 EW=5 FC=100 RF=0
Imp HAWK ACC=130 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=12 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0

France OOB-6
HAWK ACC=100 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=14 Range=255 EW=5 FC=100 RF=0
Imp HAWK ACC=130 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=12 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0

Jordan OOB-9
HAWK ACC=100 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=14 Range=255 EW=5 FC=100 RF=0
Imp HAWK ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=12 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0
Patriot ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=22 HEP=73 HEK=73 Sabot=30 Range=255 EW=9 FC=120 RF=0

US Army OOB-12
HAWK ACC=100 Wpn=0 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=14 Range=255 EW=5 FC=100 RF=0
Imp HAWK ACC=130 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=12 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0
Patriot ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=22 HEP=73 HEK=73 Sabot=30 Range=255 EW=9 FC=120 RF=0

US Marines OOB-13
HAWK ACC=100 Wpn=0 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=14 Range=255 EW=5 FC=100 RF=0
Imp HAWK ACC=130 Wpn=2 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 Sabot=12 Range=255 EW=7 FC=100 RF=0
Patriot ACC=140 Wpn=2 Whd=22 HEP=73 HEK=73 Sabot=30 Range=255 EW=9 FC=120 RF=4

Now looking at this site
Raytheon MIM-23 HAWK

We see the origional HAWK had a 54kg warhead and the Improved a 74kg one. Yet the OOB's don't show any improvement.

So - I'm VERY confused here.

[PlasmaKrab]

Funny you should raise that issue, I've been bumping on the same for a couple of days. Wait until you factor in the equivalent Russian SAMs which have wildly varying HE values for similar warheads, or reverse. Not even mentioning the accuracy scaling where the western bias is way larger than for ATGMs... that's another matter.

As regards the differences between OOBs, this is simply because different OOBs have been created and updated at different times by different persons, sometimes with different views on the values to give, and no one has time to check up all the OOBs and review and compare all these figures, and as importantly, no one would agree on a common value.

Thing is, there is no other scale to which we could relate the SAM HEK/WHS values.The class-11 bombs and the artillery won't work because the weight-to-payload ratio is in a different league (around 10% explosive for iron shells against 30-50% for SAMs)

[Suhiir]

Western bias?
I suppose it could just be me but from what I've seen US AA weapons (gun and missile) are at best half as accurate as Soviet ones. I rarely see a hit probability over 15-20% for the US and under 50% for the Soviets.
Add to that the warhead issue it tends to make US anti-aircraft weapons not worth the purchase cost. They can't hit anything and if by chance they do at best they scratch the paint 90% of the time.

[PlasmaKrab]

Which period would that be in, that Soviet AA weapons are far more accurate than US equivalents?
Just to take an example, you mentioned the HAWK here. Note how the baseline HAWK (MIM-23A, IOC 1960) has an accuracy of 100 and EW of 5, while the S-125 Neva aka SA-3 Goa has an accuracy of 40 and EW of 3. As far as I can tell, both systems are broadly comparable, with accordingly a possible advantage to the HAWK in terms of guidance and propulsion. Not enough to give it the accuracy level of a Stinger, and give the improved 70s solid-state models the same accuracy as a Patriot.
As I said, there's the same issue with ATGMs, but I can live with a Konkurs at 80 acc and a TOW-1 at 90.

Now granted, at more recent dates the Russian material takes the lead to some extent, but maybe that's because the US OOB doesn't feature any SAM newer than the late 80s while the Russian developments are better modeled.
And as far as I have seen, SAMs are pretty much useless against modern aircraft in any case (I mean, any). That's probably a side-effect of EW scaling, so I think it could be worked out.

P.S. just running a test scenario with a selection of Russian aircraft against my best CWM French SAMs. It took 6 launches and 3 hits from 2 Aster-15 launchers (accuracy 180, EW 25) to down one MiG-1.42 with 20 EW. The 1990-top-range Crotale-NG with 10 EW and 150 accuracy didn't even get a chance above 5%.

[KraMax]

S-125 Neva SAM (aka SA-3) with missile V-600P - should have in 1961 accuracy 50 and EW=4 HE=60 FC=100 RANGE=120-255

[Suhiir]

OK, here are the modified values I've come up with for my OOB rebuild.

Redeye...............(1/67-1/81).....EW=2 Acc=90 Whd=4 HEP=3 HEK=3 SabotRange=12 WpnRange=66
Stinger B............(2/81-12/89)....EW=3 Acc=100 Whd=5 HEP=4 HEK=4 SabotRange=4 WpnRange=96
Stinger D...........(1/90-12/101)...EW=4 Acc=110 Whd=5 HEP=5 HEK=5 SabotRange=4 WpnRange=96
Stinger E..........(1/102-12/120)..EW=5 Acc=120 Whd=5 HEP=6 HEK=6 SabotRange=2 WpnRange=100
SLAMRAM.......(1/105-12/120)..EW=7 Acc=130 Whd=10 HEP=18 HEK=18 SabotRange=12 WpnRange=240
Nike Hercules.(1/58-12/75)......EW=4 Acc=84 Whd=30 HEP=255 HEK=255 SabotRange=18 WpnRange=255
HAWK..............(1/60-12/72).....EW=5 Acc=100 Whd=17 HEP=54 HEK=54 SabotRange=14 WpnRange=255
HAWK(imp).....(1/73-12/82)......EW=7 Acc=140 Whd=19 HEP=63 HEK=63 SabotRange=12 WpnRange=255
HAWK(pip)......(1/83-12/91)......EW=8 Acc=150 Whd=19 HEP=63 HEK=63 SabotRange=10 WpnRange=255
Patriot..............(1/92-12/120).....EW=9 Acc=160 Whd=22 HEP=73 HEK=73 SabotRange=30 WpnRange=255

Thoughts ?

[PlasmaKrab]

Suhiir, did you rerun your HE values since last time we went over the MANPADS issue?
Since that point, my Stinger all have 5-2-5 as WHS-HEP-HEK. BTW where did you get that Stinger warhead efficiency should rise over the years?

Regarding the accuracy ratings, I have stuck to the following (The early Stinger being my 100 benchmark model for comparison purposes):
Code:

---

Model       Name                Acc.  WHS  HEP  HEK  MinRange MaxRange EW

FIM-43      Redeye              60    4    2    3    ???      90       0

FIM-92A     Stinger             100   5    2    5    4        80       2

FIM-92B     Stinger             100   5    2    5    4        96       3

FIM-92C     Stinger-RMP         110   5    2    5    4        96       5

FIM-92E/F/H Stinger-RMP Block1  120   5    2    5    4        120      8

FIM-92J (?) Stinger-RMP Block2  135   5    2    5    4        160      12

---

Regarding the heavier SAMs, as I said, the warhead scale is fuzzier. For now I have settled for 1kg -> 1HEK and WHS=3.5+M(wh)/3. Gives the following, not tested yet or expanded to other countries:
Code:

---

Model        Name        Acc.  WHS  HEP  HEK  MinRange MaxRange EW

MIM-23       HAWK        80    22   5    54   40       203      3

MIM-23B      I-HAWK      90    28   5    74   30       207      6

MIM-23C      HAWK-III    105   28   5    74   30       209      10

MIM-104A     Patriot     125   32   5    91   160      214      9

MIM-104C     PAC-2       150   32   10   84   60       234      10

MIM-104D     PAC-2/GEM   150   32   10   84   60       234      15

MIM-104E     PAC-2/GEM+  165   32   10   84   60       234      18

MIM-104M (?) PAC-3       180   32   70   40   60 (?)   202      20

---

Tell me if you find more workable scales for HE and acc/EW values.

[MarkSheppard]

Now granted, at more recent dates the Russian material takes the lead to some extent, but maybe that's because the US OOB doesn't feature any SAM newer than the late 80s while the Russian developments are better modeled.

There's been a lot of Patriot improvements like:

MIM-104A : Original Production

MIM-104B: Late 1980s. Also known as the SOJC (Standoff Jammer Countermeasures) missile and uses a modified guidance and navigation hardware. The MIM-104B adds a surface-to-surface capability against ground-based radar jamming sources to the Patriot system. The missile can fly an optimized (lofted) trajectory towards the jammer, and use its seeker to select the strongest emitter for terminal homing. The anti-aircraft/anti-missile capability is the same as for the MIM-104A.

MIM-104C: 1990: The PAC-2 upgrade includes further software changes, and an improved MIM-104C missile. The MIM-104C has a blast-fragmentation warhead with larger fragments (45 g compared to 2 g for the MIM-104A/B warhead) to increase lethality against ballistic missile warheads. It also has a new pulse-doppler proximity fuze with two beams, a narrow one for missiles, and a broader one for slower aircraft targets.

MIM-104D: (PAC-2/GEM) 1994: It has a seeker with better performance against low-RCS targets, and an improved fuze against high-speed ballistic missiles.

MIM-104E: (PAC-2/GEM+) 2002: The upgrade consists of a new low-noise front end to increase seeker sensitivity (improving acquisition and tracking of small RCS targets) and a modernized fuzing system for better performance against ballistic missile targets. Reliability of the GEM+ missile is also improved by replacement of older components with new technology.

[Suhiir]

PlasmaKrab said:
Suhiir, did you rerun your HE values since last time we went over the MANPADS issue?

Yeah, I done some more looking at what real data I could find and came up with some new values. Why I was tossing them out to see what folks thought.

PlasmaKrab said:
Since that point, my Stinger all have 5-2-5 as WHS-HEP-HEK. BTW where did you get that Stinger warhead efficiency should rise over the years?

That, it turns out was a mistake on my part.
I'd thought the FIM-92A had a 1 kg warhead and the B+ a 3 kg one. Further (and better) research shows they have the same warhead, tho better fusing on the latter models, hence the slight increase in HEP-HEK.

PlasmaKrab said:
Regarding the accuracy ratings, I have stuck to the following (The early Stinger being my 100 benchmark model for comparison purposes):

Part of my problem is my OOB rebuild of the USMC is that it's intended to be compatible with the default OOB's. Thus I'm sorta stuck using the default values as a baseline
Default SA-7 (9M32 Strela-2) values are EW=1, Acc=60, WHS=4, HEP=2, HEK=2
Default FIM-43 values are EW=2, Acc=70, WHS=4, HEP=3, HEK=3
I'd found numerous indications the FIM-43 was considerably more accurate then the SA-7 so gave it a 50% accuracy increase, perhaps 25% would be more reasonable (Acc=75).
So while your values are based on math mine are based on scientific wild-***-guesswork within a preset framework *chuckles*

PlasmaKrab said:
Regarding the heavier SAMs, as I said, the warhead scale is fuzzier. For now I have settled for 1kg -> 1HEK and WHS=3.5+M(wh)/3.
Tell me if you find more workable scales for HE and acc/EW values.

I'd be very inclined to accept your values here with a couple exceptions.
I note your MM-23 is HEP=54 HEK=40 and your MM-23B HEP=74 HEK=30. I assume the HEP 54 to 74 increase is based on the warhead being increased from 54 to 74 kg. Why does the HEK go down with the larger warhead?
Since these are all medium range SAM's (range 25ish km) they all have a default MaxRange of 255 since apparently this is the "can shoot anywhere on the map" rating.
Again, I'm "stuck" with default OOB values for EW and such as a minimum.
As near as I can figure default values are WHS = warhead mass in kg/3. HEP = warhead mass in kg. HEK = warhead mass in kg. All of the above modified upwards based on some indication the warhead is more effective then normal.
As to a "better" scale I'm sure we could come up with one, but unless we plan to modify every OOB - why ?

Data I've found :

FIM-92A 1981 passive IR homing Range 4,000 m
FIM-92B 1983 Stinger-POST passive IR/UV homing Range 4,800 m
FIM-92C 1989 Stinger-RMP Range
FIM-92D 1995 upgraded FIM-92C with improved countermeasures
FIM-92E 1995 Stinger-RMP Block I
FIM-92F 2001 upgraded FIM-92E with improved countermeasures
FIM-92G 2002 upgraded FIM-92D with improved countermeasures
FIM-92H ???? FIM-92D upgraded to RMP Block I standard

The Stinger-RMP Block II (1996, also known as Advanced Stinger) replaces the IR seeker with an FPA (Focal Plane Array) IIR (Imaging Infrared) seeker, which increases detection range and accuracy especially in high clutter and countermeasures environments. The higher detection range increases the effective range to the Stinger missile's maximum range of 7,600 m. Production was scheduled for 2004, but the project was canceled in 2002

The basic Stinger (FIM-92A) is an infrared (IR) reticle-scan analog system using discrete component signal processing. The Stinger-POST (FIM-92B) employs an IR/UV dual detector (the cooled two-color, infrared-ultraviolet detector is highly resistant to IR countermeasures), rosette-pattern image scanning, and digital microprocessor-based signal processing. Advanced features include improved acquisition, false target rejection, and additional countermeasures capabilities. The Stinger-RMP (FIM-92C) adds additional microprocessor power, external software reprogramability allowed upgrades without costly retrofit as the threat evolved, and is highly countermeasures resistant. Stinger Block I (FIM-92E) added a roll sensor, a ring laser gyro eliminates the need to super elevate prior to firing, an improved computer processor and memory, improved countermeasures capabilities (IRCCM), increased terminal accuracy.

The 3 kg (6.6 lb) blast-fragmentation warhead consists of 1 (or possibly 1.2) kg of high explosives encased in a pyrophoric titanium case to ensure that the desired blast/fragmentation effect is achieved, and is equipped with both a proximity and time-delayed impact fuze. As the weapon nears its target the seeker head activates its Target Adaptive Guidance (TAG), this guidance logic will modify its trajectory away from the exhaust plume towards a vulnerable area of the target (e.g. the cockpit).

Notes :

FIM-43 Redeye Warhead - M222, 1.06 kg blast-fragmentation

Armed with SA-7 Strelas, the Arab forces in the Yom Kippur war brought down no less than twelve Israeli aircraft. Another eighteen were hit by this heat-seeking missile but were able to regain their home base owing to the poor terminal effect of the missile head.

Strela-2 (SA-7a): Is among the least sophisticated and most highly proliferated MANPAD. Strela-2s can engage aircraft only when launched from behind the targeted aircraft. Its infrared (IR) seeker - the device the missile uses to identify its target - homes in on the infrared energy emission of the aircraft. The seeker can be fooled by simple countermeasures such as flares. The missile's small 1.17 kg warhead detonates upon impact with the target.

Strela-2M (SA-7b): The Strela-2M was developed shortly after the first Strela to address several of its shortcomings. Improvements in the guidance system allows the missile to engage planes and helicopters head-on, unless the aircraft is flying faster than 540 km/h.

Strela-3 (SA-14): The SA-14 was accepted into Soviet service in 1974. Improvements to the missile's IR seeker reduce the effectiveness of flares as decoys and allow the user to engage jet aircraft head-on. The SA-14 also features a larger, more lethal warhead (1.8 kg) and a launching mechanism that prevents the user from shooting at targets outside of its range.

Igla-1 (SA-16) and Igla (SA-18): Igla missiles have warheads that are smaller (1.17 kg with 390 g explosive) but more lethal than the Strela's, and their warheads are equipped with both a proximity and an impact fuse. The missile's IR-seeker is specifically designed to distinguish between countermeasures (such as flares) and the targeted aircraft. Minimum range 800 m.

[PlasmaKrab]

I'd thought the FIM-92A had a 1 kg warhead and the B+ a 3 kg one. Further (and better) research shows they have the same warhead, tho better fusing on the latter models, hence the slight increase in HEP-HEK.

Same thing as with some Igla variants then? That'll award them +1HEK and +1HEP from the 92C onwards. Thanks for the update!

So while your values are based on math mine are based on scientific wild-***-guesswork within a preset framework *chuckles*

Math? Me? Which math?
Rest assured that all my accuracy and EW figures are 90% wild-*** guesses as well, but being fuzzy on this is easy because no one know how it works. Actual HE weight and warhead type and fuzing are a big bit more accurate, so if I can't set up a proper scale related to real-life data, people are bound to complain (I know I would)...

I note your MM-23 is HEP=54 HEK=40 and your MM-23B HEP=74 HEK=30. I assume the HEP 54 to 74 increase is based on the warhead being increased from 54 to 74 kg. Why does the HEK go down with the larger warhead?

Mmh, i think you misread my minimal (sabot) range figures for HEK. Did I write them in the wrong order?

Since these are all medium range SAM's (range 25ish km) they all have a default MaxRange of 255 since apparently this is the "can shoot anywhere on the map" rating.

Regarding that, I've tried scaling the SAM ranges offmap relatively to each other. Thing is, 200 is "one step off the map" and 255 is "farther than anything else offmap" as far as I understand it, so I don't see why there shouldn't be a real rating for that as well. As far as I can tell, it competes with aircraft standoff weapon ranges in cases of standoff attack, so both SAMs and ASMs should be ranged together, to make sure you don't have the same standoff capabilities in a HAWK and a SA-5, and that anything with more legs than a GBU doesn't have the potential to out-range a medium area SAM.
Right now my range scale is linear, which explains the short range of the HAWKs, but I'll probably try out a logarithmic scale or something.

As to a "better" scale I'm sure we could come up with one, but unless we plan to modify every OOB - why ?

Cold War mod, remember? I do plan to modify every OOB.

I'll take it for granted on the Redeye. It probably deserves a bit more accuracy than the baseline Strela-2, though we could debate for days about the relation between better operational results, inbuilt accuracy, operational use, training level...
I'll have to iron out my Igla family as well, now that you mention it. I'll tell you what comes of it.