search

PygmalionOfCyprus / cmo-db-requests

Public issue/request tracking for the Command: Modern Operations database
53 stars 17 forks source link

Changes to CM-400AKG kinematics #5417

Open Matharox opened 3 days ago

Matharox commented 3 days ago

DB Selector

DB3K

Affected DBID(s)

Weapon 2864, 2865

Summary of Changes

Currently CM-400AKG behaves as a cruise missile that cruises at 50,000ft, I believe this is inaccurate and it should follow a quasi ballistic trajectory similar to SY-400 which it is likely derived from. Hence the changes can be based on entry Weapon 2123 (SY-400 MLRS). The description and title can also be changed accordingly.

Sources

https://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/missiles-iii.html https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/sy-400.htm https://quwa.org/2019/10/03/the-jf-17s-air-launched-rocket-option-cm-400akg/

Matharox commented 3 days ago

I believe this should also address #3802

Luigi-II commented 3 days ago

I think it has something to do with the simulation of the game itself.

I've always been skeptical of classifying MLRS projectiles as [ballistic missiles] in the game. Whether it's ATACMS, PrSM or BRE, WS series long-range rockets, they become missiles that break through the atmosphere and re-enter under the simulation of the game, which is completely different from the reality. Not only are they too fast (they can reach 4,000 or even 5,000 knots), they are also difficult to destroy by non-ABMs (in fact, they do not have the strong shell and speed of the RV/HGV to avoid interception by non-ABM missiles, and are more like normal supersonic missiles).

Therefore, in my opinion, the CM-400AKG (along with a large number of MLRS projectiles) in cruise missile mode is more appropriate. Of course, if the game one day add a "semi-ballistic trajectory" or a "depressed trajectory," it would be reasonable to change it to a BM.

Matharox commented 3 days ago

I think it has something to do with the simulation of the game itself.

I've always been skeptical of classifying MLRS projectiles as [ballistic missiles] in the game. Whether it's ATACMS, PrSM or BRE, WS series long-range rockets, they become missiles that break through the atmosphere and re-enter under the simulation of the game, which is completely different from the reality. Not only are they too fast (they can reach 4,000 or even 5,000 knots), they are also difficult to destroy by non-ABMs (in fact, they do not have the strong shell and speed of the RV/HGV to avoid interception by non-ABM missiles, and are more like normal supersonic missiles).

Therefore, in my opinion, the CM-400AKG (along with a large number of MLRS projectiles) in cruise missile mode is more appropriate. Of course, if the game one day add a "semi-ballistic trajectory" or a "depressed trajectory," it would be reasonable to change it to a BM.

I still believe SY-400 would be the best analogue for the CM-400AKG in the current system. During testing I found it quite suitable and reasonable enough.

But, If it is to retain cruise level flight, then I suggest increasing the cruise altitude to 100k feet and speed band to mach 3-4. This would help it to achieve the depressed trajectory and also match the reported speeds.

I feel either solution would be a great solution over the current missile.

Luigi-II commented 2 days ago

But, If it is to retain cruise level flight, then I suggest increasing the cruise altitude to 100k feet and speed band to mach 3-4. This would help it to achieve the depressed trajectory and also match the reported speeds.

I agree with the above changes.

Luigi-II commented 1 day ago

I started a general discussion page where more of us (including the DB team) could discuss this kind of issue.