Jump to content

SDI, how it works.


Maelstrom Vortex
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am creating this topic to address something that is important, but that I don't really have an opinion on. How does SDI work? What does it cover? Territory? Deployed Forces? Fleets.

 

I am rather indifferent and willing to play how others play, but I would like to know the standard to avert future argument, thus, per Markus' suggestion, have created a topic for discussion. Try to keep a level head, and give us your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Seeing as Aegis is a key element in real-life ballistic missile defence I believe fleets should be able to fall under SDI coverage as well as actual territory. Deployed ground and air force is a bit more iffy, I would say sufficiently large formations could have ballistic missile defences however smaller groups definitely couldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts of projected range of SDI? Strictly to borders or beyond?

Seeing as it's already a bit of a stretch from reality to have 60% chances to shoot down a nuclear weapon and the fact SDIs protect against all possible platforms used by such weapons I think realism shouldn't count for the ranges of the SDI already and as such stop right at the border+territorial waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SDI should only cover your territory (and territorial waters). Maybe your AEGIS capable fleet. It definitely doesn't cover soldiers or aircraft in the field. The SDI protects your nation from being nuked. If your troops are outside your nation, then they're outside the protection of the SDI. I'd be inclined to say that fleets should be outside the protection, or that their SDI coverage (while outside normal SDI protection) should be less than 60%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could limit SDI effectiveness to half of what it is now (or, 30%) if the target is not within the current map-approved proper land borders of that nation. That would allow for protection of naval assets and troops in the field, without allowing us to just give other people our SDIs or starting OOC disputes over what constitutes territorial waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Systems like Patriot are highly mobile though so larger concentrations can definitely be covered by them.

From what I'm reading, Patriot is designed for use against tactical ballistic missiles, not ICBMs. Wiki (yes, I know, not hyper-reliable) states that ABM systems like Patriot are actually incapable of intercepting an ICBM. The wording's not clear, but it looks like AEGIS would have trouble intercepting one as well.

 

So what I'm gathering is that these systems protect against battlefield missiles (e.g.: those launched from aircraft, naval ships, or missile artillery), but not ICBMs. Therefore, they would not provide protection against ICBM based nuclear attacks.

 

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#United_States_of_America]Link[/url] to the material I'm referencing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I'm reading, Patriot is designed for use against tactical ballistic missiles, not ICBMs. Wiki (yes, I know, not hyper-reliable) states that ABM systems like Patriot are actually incapable of intercepting an ICBM. The wording's not clear, but it looks like AEGIS would have trouble intercepting one as well.

 

So what I'm gathering is that these systems protect against battlefield missiles (e.g.: those launched from aircraft, naval ships, or missile artillery), but not ICBMs. Therefore, they would not provide protection against ICBM based nuclear attacks.

 

Link to the material I'm referencing.

You're right because a rl counter ICBM system is really only in a pretty early stage of being operational which is why so far we have only been able to extrapolate ABM in general to RP SDIs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, that means that we accept that a nation has a SDI for anti-ICBM stuff, but that it is in fact a national project. That is, it's something that's big and clunky. Too big and clunky to send out with troops or ships. Or, accept that it's beyond the tech limit that we all fall under, and still can't be sent out with troops or ships that are outside your territory.

 

As for quibbling over territorial waters, we can come to an agreement that the SDI extends out x miles from a nation's ocean/sea borders (I wouldn't count lakes in this), for the purposes of RP (allowing people to squabble over how far territorial waters extend for political purposes without impacting the mechanical aspect of the SDI).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we had this debate with tywin I recall the first successful use of AEGIS against an ICBM was 2003 or somewhere along those lines, and since then the technology has been refined, but still never proven in combat.(obviously)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as Aegis is a key element in real-life ballistic missile defence I believe fleets should be able to fall under SDI coverage as well as actual territory. Deployed ground and air force is a bit more iffy, I would say sufficiently large formations could have ballistic missile defences however smaller groups definitely couldn't.

 

I like your avatar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we had this debate with tywin I recall the first successful use of AEGIS against an ICBM was 2003 or somewhere along those lines, and since then the technology has been refined, but still never proven in combat.(obviously)

ICBM, or tactical ballistic missile? It was my understanding that AEGIS was unproven against tactical missiles, even, until the early 2000's, but that no anti-ICBM systems are known to currently exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RIM-161 SM-3 Block 1A has intercepted an IRBM which uses a ballistic trajectory and is considered a ballistic missile. The test was a success and this apparently has been a repeat performance many times over.

 

http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis-future-capabilities.html

 

Anything equipped with the AEGIS or equivalent Raytheon suite and that missile type should be able to protect itself. It has successfully intercepted 3 targets.

 

Ground tests of ground system.. have only achieved a 50% success rate.. kind of approximating CN's sdi systems.

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/missile-defense-agency-slated-0421.html

 

There appears to be no official name for the system other than Ground Based Midcourse defense.. or GMD.. and no name for the missile other than "exoatmospheric kill vehicle" or EKV. The nose portion which does the intercept is typically a particular model. Current model is the CE-II. It launches from a ground vehicle and isn't mobile. There is no discussion of the intercept range that I've found so far sadly.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the wiki on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense]GMD[/url]: "The system consists of ground-based interceptor missiles and radar". So, again, no protection for fleets or aircraft in the field, and very unlikely that it'd protect troops in the field unless those troops were stationed at a military base that was upgraded to include a GMD facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with restricting SDI to borders and waters, with a lesser (maybe half) efficiency on fleets away from port. There's naval based S-300FM missiles which seem to work against some ballistic missiles, which is what the Federation uses as one part of its SDI system.

 

If the question is whether there are systems available within RP2's tech levels to provide anti-ballistic capability to fleets, there sure seem to be. I wouldn't put my money on extending it to armies and aircraft, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with restricting SDI to borders and waters, with a lesser (maybe half) efficiency on fleets away from port. There's naval based S-300FM missiles which seem to work against some ballistic missiles, which is what the Federation uses as one part of its SDI system.

 

If the question is whether there are systems available within RP2's tech levels to provide anti-ballistic capability to fleets, there sure seem to be. I wouldn't put my money on extending it to armies and aircraft, though.

 

Lol S-300 (hint it doesn't)

 

However, the PAC-3 and Standard Missile are the best bet.

 

The actual missile defense effeciveness is much lower than what Mael says because we fed test missile sensor data until very recently to our missile defense missils to get those kill rates.  However, it is a good point that there exists no reliable defense against ICBMs and in point of fact the sea based system is our most reliable, so there is not really a good argument for NOT including fleets in the SDI based on current technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're all focused on the wrong idea here. The SDI is a fictional concept that never actually was put into use, and so technically should be against the rules of the RP because the technology has never been proven in service. Making arguments based on realism for this surreal concept can only end in a headache. We have to craft the SDI mechanic so that it functions well in the context of the RP.
 

We could limit SDI effectiveness to half of what it is now (or, 30%) if the target is not within the current map-approved proper land borders of that nation. That would allow for protection of naval assets and troops in the field, without allowing us to just give other people our SDIs or starting OOC disputes over what constitutes territorial waters.


So far, this post of mine is the only one I think accurately takes into account the long-term considerations of such a game-altering wonder. Personally, I think the best way to handle things to keep them as realistic as possible would be to simply scrap the entire concept and let nukes be as devastating and accurate as they are IRL. Barring that, since you guys want to alter reality with the SDI in order to benefit the RP (see: the people who have the SDI wonder want to have benefits over those who don't), how about we give consideration to what benefits or drawbacks come from each system? In doing so, I think you'll come to the same conclusion I did... that my suggestion here is the best workable system for the RP. Edited by Hereno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would support giving a baseline 20% SDI chance to anyone possessing anti ICBM technology(ie AEGIS), if they have the required assets prior to nukes flying.

 

edit: we tossed this idea around before when I was going to level hawaii, since there are systems in 2001 that MIGHT be able to shoot down ICBMs.

Edited by Mogar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, leave the SDI system as it is, the SDI system should cover 12nm off shore and all of your territory (not protectorates). It should cover fleets and expeditionary forces IF and only IF the correct RP has been put in place, IE, RPing the deployment of such systems to the field.

 

No SDI, no protection, 60% is an arbitary number and even with that on somebodies side, every nuke can still get through down to simple bad luck.

 

There is a mechanic IG for nuke defence, and it, alongside the manhattan project, are the only two wonders that anybody has ever bloody cared about in RP1 and RP2, so dont mess with how we have translated those mechanics into CNRP2. I just ate eleven nukes, Mogar ate god knows how many more, Euphaia and others in Europe all ate nukes, we get over it, but removing that defence entirely is silly and altering how we use it is even worse.

 

Dont try to fix what isnt broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...