Missile/plane interception should be when they head towards nose not chasing tail. Fix that!!! Check World in conflict modern warefare, there you can find a lot about trajectory of missile and radar operations...
If you guys did research on this I'll absolutely take your word for it, but I'm pretty sure SM-2s have a frag warhead that hits head-on. I don't think they're capable of slowing down, turning 180, then accelerating fast enough to catch a missile. That design would allow an incoming missile or bomb valuable closing time. Also, I've noticed the phalanx and rolling air frame missiles, how should I put it, suck bawls. Does the effectiveness of these systems in-game represent the effectiveness of real-life systems? Or was it adjusted for game balance? I'm simply curious; I've wondered that about many systems in this game.
The newer Standard Missile's have a kinetic type warhead, meant to slam into the target not explode. So yes. SM-2/3 should probably be a head on or collision type with either a hit or miss at the merge. Only standard SAM's and A-A missiles usually have blast fragmentation warheads. SSM's usually have high explosive or penetrating and small missiles like RAM\ESSM usually have blastfrag/HE.
AIM-9x can do 180 targeting but range and fuel limits to what extent. Missile retargeting is something else. Some could do it yes. Most are of the SSM type, like some Russian ASuw, and I think Harpoon. But not generally doing a 180 and coming back at another target. A-A missiles might be able to soon so that might be okay maybe for only the newest high tech missiles. ie. maybe the AIM120D can, but not the B and C models, making for variety.
Not all SM-2s have a kinetic warhead...the ones fitted to the "ABM" DDG/CGs have those, and that is due to the nature of their patrols. They are designated anti ballistic missile patrols, and have set areas they deploy to.
Those that act as area defense for CVNs and Amphibious Assault groups would still have a fragmentation style warhead which DOES NOT turn 180 and engage from a rear aspect.
Actually, the RAM, ESSM and SM all engage head on...and the RAM has an advertised 99.5% success rate in testing, which is why it has replaced some PHALANX mounts.
Is there a way to correct the aspect that the missiles engage from and accuracy? I to have noted a less than acceptable success rate for RAM and Phalanx.
Now, with certain Russian anti-ship missiles, there is deceptive maneuvering involved in the last stages of flight, but the RAM would not be spoofed...that was an 'anti-phalanx' technique and assuming this is a future game, would not be effective.
So I definitely agree with VLadapo63 and Rear Commander...some bugs/issues to fix
Only the SM-3 has a kinetic warhead, and it's meant to be used on potentially exo-atmospheric targets - Ballistic Missiles. Rather than theater air defense like SM-2. The SM-2 and SM-6 both have he-frag warheads. In all cases, they should be leading their targets, so if the target is flying straight the missile will as well. This leads to the shortest flight path, the least maneuvering, and the longest range/endurance. With an exception for targets going outside seeker cone when it switches from command to sarh guidance.