Tunguska's 9M311 missile max altitude

[Gloom Demon]

I have created a mission with me flying directly at a Tunguska at different altitudes. I am being hit at up to 4500 m. At an altitude of more than 5000 m the Tunguska is just following me, without firing. The Wikipedia suggests that the 9M311 missile has a maximum altitude of 3.5 km. The same is stated by the missiles_data.lua file - "H_max = 3500.0"

 

Is this a bug? Or is this done for gameplay reasons?

 

And another thing - supposedly, the 9M311 guidance is semiradiocommand with an optical line. I can understand that a missile can be fired at me optically without any warning on the RWR, but shouldn't I get a warning when it gets active? I don't. In the Su-25T I am painted by radar, than it stops painting and I get hit.

 

Can someone, please, explain this to me?

[Grimes]

I was under the impression that the radar acts as a search radar to acquire targets and then the site launches and tracks you with the optical sensor. It used to give launch indication, but that was changed when the optical tracking was implemented, I think.

 

As for the altitude, it depends on how much energy the missile has. It may lose effectiveness past a certain altitude/travel distance, but it still could have the energy to hit a target.

[vicx]

Dead on Grimes.

 

The Tunguska missile is one of only two missiles for ground units that has an advanced flight model. In DCS the 9M311 is modeled with as much fidelity as the AMRAAMs.

[Fri13]

Tunguska has search radar and targeting radar.

 

Search radar is used to find targets at long range and targeting radar is used to fire the cannons. The missile is guided optically so you don't get any warning about missile being fired or flying at you. Tunguska can even turn off its search radar once it has found heading and distance to you so it can optically find and track you.

 

Then when you get closer and it wants to use cannons, then it needs to turn both radars on and operator just selects you as target.

 

Very nasty SAM as you really need to use eye balls to detect the launch and see the missile.

[Gloom Demon]

Just for information - the site of Tunguska's developer - Instrument design Bureau lists 3,5 km as maximum ceiling for the SAM.

 

http://www.kbptula.ru/en/productions/air-defense-weapon-systems/tunguska-m1

[vicx]

You won't find any ED devs here to argue with but I think I know the company line by now.

 

If you are being hit by a Tunguska at 4,5km AGL then you are adoing something wrong. I think I got the tone right.

 

Why not post a Tacview of the engagement so that we can see exactly what is happening. If the missile is hitting you carrying crazy energy you might be right? Post a Tacview -- it will make your point a lot better than words.

[Gloom Demon]

vicx Thanks for Your comment :-)

 

I am not trying to argue with ED - after all it's just a game that I play. I recall a thing some guy said about some other game: "The zombies are unrealistically fast". That is funny, because there are no real life Zombies. I am not sure I want to live to see a real zombie to consider whether it's speed is realistic or not, however I would like to have realistic expectations in DCSW. I want to know the real range that I can be shot at, so that I can fly above it, or avoid it.

 

And if the game has certain approximations, that is not a problem to me, as long as I am aware of them. But, strangely enough, I am not. If in the game a Tunguska shoots at 4.5 km it's fine with me. What puzzles me, is that the .lua file, which supposedly contains information of the Tunguska's tactical characteristics, shows a ceiling which does not correspond to ingame experience (3.5 km)...

 

P.S. I am bewildered. I have just checked the ingame Encyclopedia and it states a 6 km ceiling for the Tunguska...

Edited February 20, 2015 by Gloom Demon

[fltsimbuff]

vicx Thanks for Your comment :-)

 

I am not trying to argue with ED - after all it's just a game that I play. I recall a thing some guy said about some other game: "The zombies are unrealistically fast". That is funny, because there are no real life Zombies. I am not sure I want to live to see a real zombie to consider whether it's speed is realistic or not, however I would like to have realistic expectations in DCSW. I want to know the real range that I can be shot at, so that I can fly above it, or avoid it.

 

And if the game has certain approximations, that is not a problem to me, as long as I am aware of them. But, strangely enough, I am not. If in the game a Tunguska shoots at 4.5 km it's fine with me. What puzzles me, is that the .lua file, which supposedly contains information of the Tunguska's tactical characteristics, shows a ceiling which does not correspond to ingame experience (3.5 km)...

 

P.S. I am bewildered. I have just checked the ingame Encyclopedia and it states a 6 km ceiling for the Tunguska...

 

I wonder what the conditions are for the 3500m limitation. If you consider, for instance, that it can hit a target moving away at 500kts at 3500m (completely made-up numbers), then a target flying away at under 400kts would probably be able to be engaged at higher altitudes.

 

Same if you're moving toward the launcher at above 3500m, it may have the energy to get to you at a higher altitude. The same may hold depending on the horizontal range to you.

 

Unless they base the 3500m limit on a target hovering directly 3500m above the launcher (forgetting about maximum launcher elevation angle), it stands to reason it might be able to do better than that under various parameters.

 

One final thought... Do you know what the elevation of the launcher was? Was your 3500m reading from radar altimeter or barometric?

[Wrecking Crew]

It used to give launch indication, but that was changed when the optical tracking was implemented, I think.

 

I had the impression that a launch detection is based upon the rocket motor flare. That's why we get a launch detection from ground based anti-tank missiles and other a/c Mavericks.

 

?

 

WC

[vicx]

Please post a Tacview recording. I am not joking about that. I am curious.

[King_Hrothgar]

The sensors on these planes don't detect the rocket motor (honestly, how could it tell what's a rocket and what isn't?), they detect radio signals. These signals can be a radar dish tracking you or a command guidance system between the launcher and its missile. Anything that is genuinely passive however should not provide any warning, just like unguided weapons. That said, the Tunguska, since it uses radio command guidance, should provide a launch warning. The ground based anti-tank missiles use laser guidance, some aircraft (namely the Ka-50 in DCS) are equipped with a laser warning system. These can't detect the launch, but they can detect being painted.

[fltsimbuff]

The sensors on these planes don't detect the rocket motor (honestly, how could it tell what's a rocket and what isn't?), they detect radio signals. These signals can be a radar dish tracking you or a command guidance system between the launcher and its missile. Anything that is genuinely passive however should not provide any warning, just like unguided weapons. That said, the Tunguska, since it uses radio command guidance, should provide a launch warning. The ground based anti-tank missiles use laser guidance, some aircraft (namely the Ka-50 in DCS) are equipped with a laser warning system. These can't detect the launch, but they can detect being painted.

 

Completely incorrect. The A-10C MWS uses infrared sensors to detect the launch:

 

http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-warning-system-has-been-identified.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AAR-47_Missile_Approach_Warning_System

 

This is the model installed on A-10Cs

Edited February 20, 2015 by fltsimbuff

[Grimes]

I had the impression that a launch detection is based upon the rocket motor flare. That's why we get a launch detection from ground based anti-tank missiles and other a/c Mavericks.

 

I meant RWR launch indication, not MWS. Anything that has a smoke plume can cause a MWS, but not everything will cause the RWR to give an alert.

[PFunk1606688187]

The SA-19 still uses the tracking radar to transmit guidance signals to the missile. I would assume a modern RWR would be able to detect this and differentiate that from standard pre-launch emissions.

[King_Hrothgar]

Completely incorrect. The A-10C MWS uses infrared sensors to detect the launch:

 

http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-warning-system-has-been-identified.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AAR-47_Missile_Approach_Warning_System

 

This is the model installed on A-10Cs

 

I was talking about RWR's, though I didn't specify it. In any case, MWS isn't some magical item that detects all missile launches. It can see the IR radiation off the heat plum under a limited set of conditions at short range. A Tunguska shooting straight up at an A-10 4km above it probably isn't in that set of conditions.

[fltsimbuff]

I was talking about RWR's, though I didn't specify it. In any case, MWS isn't some magical item that detects all missile launches. It can see the IR radiation off the heat plum under a limited set of conditions at short range. A Tunguska shooting straight up at an A-10 4km above it probably isn't in that set of conditions.

 

Sorry, I guess I was confused when you said "the sensors on these planes" instead of RWR, as that sounded all-inclusive.

 

It is probably best not to speculate on what it can and can't see in reality. One of the 4 sensors on the A-10C points straight down, after all.

 

Newer versions of that system can even detect tracer rounds and RPGs, so it's not unlikely it could see the launch of a rocket motor.

 

Even if it doesn't see the launch, it can sense approach, so even if it can't see it 4k below, by the time it gets closer it could very well be seen.

 

If the SAM fired by a Tunguska is sometimes missed by the MWS that is one thing, but if the Op is saying it is never detected, that could be a problem.

[Mike5560]

Are you positive of the actual elevation above the SAM? You mentioned SU-25, so it was unlikely that you were able to determine the SAMs elevation relative to yours unless you paid specific attention to it.

 

Also, what fltsimbuff said; "max altitude" is highly dependant on the aircraft speed, especially with CLOS guidance systems like SA-19. Those advertised specs could be against a mach 1 target, for instance. Firing from a higher elevation helps its range too. Heck, baseballs fly noticably further in Colorado. Air density means so much to a mach 2+ missile.

[PFunk1606688187]

Whether the target is maneuvering or not is also hugely important. Since countermeasures don't have an effect against the missile then maneuvering is hugely important for defeating an SA-19. A non maneuvering target can be hit much further away than one that is forcing the missile to bleed most of its energy to maintain pursuit.

[Gloom Demon]

Here is a track. Su-25T is flying at 4500 meters and getting nailed by the Tunguska.

Tunguska 4500 Track.trk