For the THAAD system encountered the situation

[yUsie108]

DB Selector

DB3K

Affected DBID(s)

Facility 3215 3181 2347 150 2346

Summary of Changes

In my long time of playing and testing, I always have a question about the THAAD system. The number of fire channels it has is 72, and when we compare the other similar end interception systems laterally, the Patriot system has 9 fire channels and the David Sling system has 8 fire channels. Therefore, I believe that the arrangement of the number of fire channels for THAAD system is excessively unfair, and after considering the current technical conditions and the different technical levels of countries, I request that the number of fire channels for THAAD system be adjusted to 9. In addition, the distribution radius of THAAD equipment is 200 meters, which makes it extremely difficult to attack the THAAD system. I was once in a situation where I could not destroy any of the facilities using 6 submunitions in a campaign and requested that the dispersion radius of the equipment be adjusted to 100m.

• [ ] Adjust the number of THAAD fire channels to 9

• [ ] Adjust the device distribution radius of the THAAD system to 100 meters

Sources

DB itself

[HunterDNiu]

BMD is hard but the game has never been fair. The original, PESA PATRIOT radar MPQ-63 can do 9. But TPY-2 is a powerful AESA and has over 25k TR modules. Frankly 72 channels is well below its legitimately expected capability. And both terminal and forward based modes were able to do DL. I do want to see directional DL implemented in game but that would require sim side tweaks. THAAD's C2 system is at least on par with newer PATRIOTs and with IBCS dispersion radius could well be 200km. These days it's popular to put your radiating stuff away from the launchers.

[RickDNiu]

As I said earlier:

[Luigi-II]

As I said earlier:

I would like to express my opinion that there may be no analogy between T/R modules with different functions. For air defense and anti-ballistic missiles, we have different requirements for radar accuracy and detection range. X-band is a common fire control band, which can provide higher accuracy, but at the same time, the detection range may not be as good as L, C and S bands. For a KKV Hit-to-Kill missile like THAAD, guiding the weapon requires not only sufficient detection range, but also higher accuracy, which is a huge test for radar. The PAC-3 MSE uses a Ka-band seeker, which can provide higher precision locking requirements, while THAAD uses an IR seeker, which may require higher FC accuracy for TPY-2.

At the same time, we make a horizontal comparison: APG-77 can accommodate nearly 2000 X-band T/R modules in less than 1㎡ of space, while SPY-6 can only accommodate about 5000 S-band T/R modules in 4m x 4m space. The SBX-1 X-band radar has 40,000+ T/R modules and it has an early warning capability of thousands of kilometers, but we have not heard of any FC capability.

If the TPY-2 really has 72 channels of FC, that means it has the ability to guide 144 rounds of interceptor to attack, which is three times more interceptors than a typical THAAD battery TELs can carry!

Taken together, I think TPY-2 may indeed increase the number of FC channels compared to MPQ-65. At the same time, it has far better accuracy and locking distance than the MPQ-65. I think a 14 channels (guiding 28 missiles, attacking all kinds of BM only, simultaneously) of FC is appropriate enough.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/sea-based-x-band-radar-1-sbx-1/?cf-view https://pidc-construction.com/projects/sbx/ https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/amdr/ https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/defense/pac3-missile-seeker/pdf/PAC-3_Missile_ProductCard_040323.pdf

[Luigi-II]

The game is never fair, but how unfair can it be?

[Luigi-II]

Remember one thing, the number of FC channels is different when it comes to anti-ballistic missiles, anti-aircraft or cruise missiles. MPQ-65's maximum FC channels are 9, perhaps for aircraft and cruise missiles, when facing BMs, this number will likely be greatly reduced! If we look at it this way, THAAD's ability to provide 14 anti-BM FC Channels is quite an excellent performance.

[RickDNiu]

It's unheard of that IR guided high/Exoatmospheric ABM requires higher precision. FPS-132, TPY-2, SBX, STSS all can and had provided FC data for BMD. That's why BMD engagement rule is rather relaxed in game. There were even studies for space based boost phase interceptor relying solely on DSP data. MPQ-65 is PESA. For the TVM guided PAC-2 it's required to illuminate the target and the interceptor almost continuously. With AESA LTAMDS and PAC-3 using datalink midcourse it certainly can do more. BMs are fast and hypersonics are even more time sensitive and harder for computers to predict, and some radar systems had or would eventually lag behind. See eg #4943. When we fight wars we intend it to be a game that is unfair, but that requires $$$ and hard work and you are seeing one of them.

[Luigi-II]

It's unheard of that IR guided high/Exoatmospheric ABM requires higher precision. FPS-132, TPY-2, SBX, STSS all can and had provided FC data for BMD.

IR or Ka-Band, well, there really is no evidence of which is need more accurate guidance, just take that claim as bulls**t. And I'm not denying that these devices can provide FC guidance, but the question is, how much "accurate enough guidance" can they provide? Without evidence, we can only cross-reference some "known", "functionally similar" things.

I always adhere to the principle of reasonable analogy. As you can see, I did not boldly propose the J-20 and J-35 stealth performance of the -60dBsm based on the scholarly literature clues I provided yesterday.

Yes, war is unfair, not only $, but also production capacity. If the opponent has a strong strength in both aspects...... https://www.safeguardglobal.com/resources/top-10-manufacturing-countries-in-the-world-2023/

Wait, we're not talking about national power here, are we?

[Luigi-II]

To further add, the upper limit on the number of FC Channels is not only related to the number of T/R components, but also to signal processing and waveform. More T/R components also allow for denser and more powerful beam scanning, which is reflected in more accurate and longer range tracking of targets.

[sr71xx]

To further add, the upper limit on the number of FC Channels is not only related to the number of T/R components, but also to signal processing and waveform. More T/R components also allow for denser and more powerful beam scanning, which is reflected in more accurate and longer range tracking of targets.

This is true, especially fot FC channels. I see some people being mislead by the whole "thousands of different frequencies simultaneously" for AESA transmitters, because that would make it impossible for the AESA antenna to properly create beamforming. They confuse this for the larger bandwidth with AESA designs, which give them better accuracy/range for detection/targeting, plus improved filtering of against noise/spot jamming

[sr71xx]

As I said earlier:

I would like to express my opinion that there may be no analogy between T/R modules with different functions. For air defense and anti-ballistic missiles, we have different requirements for radar accuracy and detection range. X-band is a common fire control band, which can provide higher accuracy, but at the same time, the detection range may not be as good as L, C and S bands. For a KKV Hit-to-Kill missile like THAAD, guiding the weapon requires not only sufficient detection range, but also higher accuracy, which is a huge test for radar. The PAC-3 MSE uses a Ka-band seeker, which can provide higher precision locking requirements, while THAAD uses an IR seeker, which may require higher FC accuracy for TPY-2.

At the same time, we make a horizontal comparison: APG-77 can accommodate nearly 2000 X-band T/R modules in less than 1㎡ of space, while SPY-6 can only accommodate about 5000 S-band T/R modules in 4m x 4m space. The SBX-1 X-band radar has 40,000+ T/R modules and it has an early warning capability of thousands of kilometers, but we have not heard of any FC capability.

If the TPY-2 really has 72 channels of FC, that means it has the ability to guide 144 rounds of interceptor to attack, which is three times more interceptors than a typical THAAD battery TELs can carry!

Taken together, I think TPY-2 may indeed increase the number of FC channels compared to MPQ-65. At the same time, it has far better accuracy and locking distance than the MPQ-65. I think a 14 channels (guiding 28 missiles, attacking all kinds of BM only, simultaneously) of FC is appropriate enough.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/sea-based-x-band-radar-1-sbx-1/?cf-view https://pidc-construction.com/projects/sbx/ https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/amdr/ https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/defense/pac3-missile-seeker/pdf/PAC-3_Missile_ProductCard_040323.pdf

14 is pretty reasonable, given all the info. Each battery has 4-6 launchers, so it doesn't make much sense to increase channels drastically

[sr71xx]

It's unheard of that IR guided high/Exoatmospheric ABM requires higher precision. FPS-132, TPY-2, SBX, STSS all can and had provided FC data for BMD.

IR or Ka-Band, well, there really is no evidence of which is need more accurate guidance, just take that claim as bulls**t. And I'm not denying that these devices can provide FC guidance, but the question is, how much "accurate enough guidance" can they provide? Without evidence, we can only cross-reference some "known", "functionally similar" things.

I always adhere to the principle of reasonable analogy. As you can see, I did not boldly propose the J-20 and J-35 stealth performance of the -60dBsm based on the scholarly literature clues I provided yesterday.

Yes, war is unfair, not only $, but also production capacity. If the opponent has a strong strength in both aspects...... https://www.safeguardglobal.com/resources/top-10-manufacturing-countries-in-the-world-2023/

Wait, we're not talking about national power here, are we?

I believe Arrow uses UHF C-band fire control radar, and missiles have their own terminal electro-optical/infrared seekers Also A-135 ABM-4 uses VHF A-band fire control radar, with infrared terminal seeker.

From what I've read online and seen in game, it seems as long there is an adequate terminal seeker and a 2/3 way datalink on the missile, the guidance radar does not have to be in the C/X band or higher. For example SAMP/T and David's Sling (S band). But missiles using SARH TVM need a very precise radar band.

Even SAM batteries that traditionally use C or X band engagement radars can override their main FCR if the missiles equipped in the battery have 1) their own terminal seekers, 2) have an onboard datalink connected to main FCR, alternative radars/acquisition, and command post. This would allow via data networking for alternative lower band radars to give coordinates for a missile launch against a target, all through the main FCR datalink channels. Synchronization and datalinks are very important. But here the FCR doesn't even need to radiate since it's in a network and missiles have midcourse/datalinks/terminal seekers. TVM of course, that would require FCR.

Same way OTH radars or GPS coordinates can guide an anti ship missile towards a target as long there is a terminal seeker of some sort and midcourse datalinks. Neptune missile ,for example