Jump to content

Will the ASE in this version be able to pick up SA19 / 2S6 Tunguska tracking ?


poochies

Recommended Posts

For ED reason, tunguska never use tracking radar for missile firing
And tracks only for gun firing if target is below 15deg elevation

It actually can fire a missile without radar tracking IRL, but its very inaccurate against fast moving targets.

So in DCS Apache will be able to detect missile launch only by CMWS 


Edited by N8AHbl4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
5 minutes ago, hotrod525 said:

Aint the Tunguska missile SACLOS ? Meaning their are optically guided

SACLOS is one of the methods of guidance, which is optical-guidance without radar.  But the missiles and guns can also be directed by the radar, like the ZSU-23-4.  As for whether the DCS Tunguska changes radar modes when locking/launching to the point any RWR can detect the changes, I couldn't tell you since I haven't tested it in the past couple patches.


Edited by Raptor9

Afterburners are for wussies...hang around the battlefield and dodge tracers like a man.
DCS Rotor-Head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can kill them a number of different ways if we know they are there (e.g. buddy lase, KH25ML) or with team tactics. 

But yeah, a 'surprise' SA19 is going to be certain death. 

If I knew where one was and was part of an Apache AWT, I would probably buddy lase it from out of range, and have a closer Apache put a hellfire up toward it, onto my laser. 

Assuming it works that way in the 64 in general terms.

 

Banner EDForum2020.jpg

Have fun. Don't suck. Kill bad guys. 👍

https://discord.gg/blacksharkden/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

We can kill them a number of different ways if we know they are there (e.g. buddy lase, KH25ML) or with team tactics. 

But yeah, a 'surprise' SA19 is going to be certain death. 

If I knew where one was and was part of an Apache AWT, I would probably buddy lase it from out of range, and have a closer Apache put a hellfire up toward it, onto my laser. 

Assuming it works that way in the 64 in general terms.

Well the benefit in DCS is if it doesn't work you can try something else right? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2022 at 8:33 PM, Raptor9 said:

SACLOS is one of the methods of guidance, which is optical-guidance without radar.  But the missiles and guns can also be directed by the radar, like the ZSU-23-4.  As for whether the DCS Tunguska changes radar modes when locking/launching to the point any RWR can detect the changes, I couldn't tell you since I haven't tested it in the past couple patches.

Actually, while they're SACLOS, Tunguska's missiles are normally guided by the radar, the commands are sent to them by radio, from the radar antenna. This system is not unlike how an AMRAAM gets its midcourse updates. I don't know if the optical tracker can be used with the radar turned off, but either way, it seems to be more for things the radar can't lock (say, due to being jammed) rather than for being sneaky. I don't know the specifics, but I don't think you'd get any lock/launch warning, Tunguska's radar is pretty advanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
45 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Actually, while they're SACLOS, Tunguska's missiles are normally guided by the radar, the commands are sent to them by radio, from the radar antenna. This system is not unlike how an AMRAAM gets its midcourse updates. I don't know if the optical tracker can be used with the radar turned off, but either way, it seems to be more for things the radar can't lock (say, due to being jammed) rather than for being sneaky. I don't know the specifics, but I don't think you'd get any lock/launch warning, Tunguska's radar is pretty advanced.

Yes, the missiles are steered via command-guidance, but the method of targeting (and generating steering commands) is either Automatic Command Line-Of-Sight (ACLOS) when using the radar, or SACLOS when optically-directed.  SACLOS means some operator input is constantly required to provide guidance while missile is in flight, in this case the gunner keeping the optical sight on the target in lieu of radar-tracking generated steering signals.  Just like the ZSU-23-4, the radar isn't necessary to be used to employ the Tunguska, it just provides a more accurate firing solution for the guns, and more accurate/rapid command-guidance steering commands to the missiles. 

The fact the Tunguska has two radars, one for search and the other for engagement, to me would imply an ability to passively detect an additional and distinct radar signal to set off a RWR indication when the engagement radar begins tracking the target prior to and during an engagement.  Again, not required for an engagement, but if the radar is being used for the engagement, the second radar system should be detected (depending on the capabilities and settings of the RWR of whatever aircraft it is, of course).

Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if there was some intermediate targeting mode that allows the search radar to cue the gunner to the azimuth so he can then optically-guide the missile, without even transmitting from the engagement radar.

Afterburners are for wussies...hang around the battlefield and dodge tracers like a man.
DCS Rotor-Head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Just like the ZSU-23-4, the radar isn't necessary to be used to employ the Tunguska, it just provides a more accurate firing solution for the guns, and more accurate/rapid command-guidance steering commands to the missiles. 

I was referring to the fact the missile steering commands are transmitted by the radar. You're talking about where they come from, but they also have to get to the missile somehow. Which is accomplished by transmitting a radio signal through the radar antenna. No wires or lasers involved, as in many other CLOS systems.

I don't think it's possible to operate Tunguska's missiles without the engagement radar powered on, for the simple reason that they won't know where you've pointed your optical tracker if there's no way for the system to talk to them. Guns can be used in a purely passive mode, but not missiles, because they require a radio signal to tell them what to do.

As far as the radar goes, you could probably tell the engagement radar is tracking you, but nothing more. Of course, that in itself is cause for alarm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

It uses a separate antenna for missile uplinks than the tracking radar; and yes, it can guide missiles optically.  But whatever, believe what you want. 🤷‍♂️

Afterburners are for wussies...hang around the battlefield and dodge tracers like a man.
DCS Rotor-Head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this went down the drain quickly...

Bottom line : Tunguska can and will engage you trought SACLOS method in DCS. It will only been brought to RWR "lock warning" if it use the guns and we are most likely to die to pretty nasty SHORAD - IADS in the DCS Apache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hotrod525 said:

Well, this went down the drain quickly...

Bottom line : Tunguska can and will engage you trought SACLOS method in DCS. It will only been brought to RWR "lock warning" if it use the guns and we are most likely to die to pretty nasty SHORAD - IADS in the DCS Apache.

The missiles are always SACLOS. They aren't SARH or ARH.

Normally, the tracking radar automatically takes over to send SACLOS guidance commands to the missile, but SACLOS is not a fallback mode for the missile, it's the only guidance mode.

The issue is that optical guidance is a fallback mode for the operator, requiring manual target range input. As for DCS, it seems to always use this mode and never use the radar tracking, except for the gun solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2022 at 7:06 PM, toilet2000 said:

The missiles are always SACLOS. They aren't SARH or ARH.

Normally, the tracking radar automatically takes over to send SACLOS guidance commands to the missile, but SACLOS is not a fallback mode for the missile, it's the only guidance mode.

The issue is that optical guidance is a fallback mode for the operator, requiring manual target range input. As for DCS, it seems to always use this mode and never use the radar tracking, except for the gun solution.

Isn't this a DCS limitation in that you can't specific two difference guidance types for one missile on a ground unit.  I guess given the choice whoever originally made it chose the optical instead of the radar.  I don't know of any DCS air-defence that actually has different sensors modelled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 1/4/2022 at 7:03 PM, BaD CrC said:

Tunguska are so deadly for choppers that they are not anymore added as a threat in our missions. Optical guidance, smokeless missile and the short range means you have almost no time to react. So none of our missions designers are using them anymore because it usually turns into a slaughter.

 

Actually, depending on the weather, altitude, etc... the range is "medium" with 10km+ range (missiles). Besides optical guidance, radar acquisition and smokeless missiles, the missiles travel at mach 3+ speed at sea level. When you get a MWS-warning, you have 3-4 seconds to react at max range (10km+), before you get a highly manoeuvrable missile served splash-close. It´s a AAA/SAM that has to be respect highly, if you are to survive, however it´s doable.

 

Good tactics and methodology in spotting are essential! This assumes absolute master-control of your aircraft. It´s definitely no arena to be "fighting the AP".


Edited by zerO_crash

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2022 at 8:06 PM, toilet2000 said:

The missiles are always SACLOS. They aren't SARH or ARH.

Normally, the tracking radar automatically takes over to send SACLOS guidance commands to the missile, but SACLOS is not a fallback mode for the missile, it's the only guidance mode.

The issue is that optical guidance is a fallback mode for the operator, requiring manual target range input. As for DCS, it seems to always use this mode and never use the radar tracking, except for the gun solution.

I was killed by a Tunguska a few days ago, sitting in a Hind. I was flying in IMC and the only thing I could see was a bright spot getting bigger.
So either the DCS Tunguska uses radar tracking or the AI is unimpeded by visual conditions..


Edited by Rongor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rongor said:

I was killed by a Tunguska a few days ago, sitting in a Hind. I was flying in IMC and the only thing I could see was a bright spot getting bigger.
So either the DCS Tunguska uses radar tracking or the AI is unimpeded by visual conditions..

 

When it's your time, it's your time I guess

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2022 at 5:21 AM, Rongor said:

I was killed by a Tunguska a few days ago, sitting in a Hind. I was flying in IMC and the only thing I could see was a bright spot getting bigger.
So either the DCS Tunguska uses radar tracking or the AI is unimpeded by visual conditions..

 

AI is currently unimpeded by weather. This was the biggest limitation of the new weather effects and engine and ED have said they are working on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/10/2022 at 1:23 PM, toilet2000 said:

AI is currently unimpeded by weather. This was the biggest limitation of the new weather effects and engine and ED have said they are working on it.

Not only weather but also nighttime conditions in addition to their already inhuman accuracy. You can fly during new moon when it's absolutely pitch black outside and any type of unguided gun, whether emplaced or on a vehicle, will have no problem tracking you visually and firing with laser like accuracy from miles away.

  • Like 1

-Col. Russ Everts opinion on surface-to-air missiles: "It makes you feel a little better if it's coming for one of your buddies. However, if it's coming for you, it doesn't make you feel too good, but it does rearrange your priorities."

 

DCS Wishlist:

MC-130E Combat Talon   |   F/A-18F Lot 26   |   HH-60G Pave Hawk   |   E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound   |   EA-6A/B Prowler   |   J-35F2/J Draken   |   RA-5C Vigilante

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ignoring the DCS Tunguska for a second, I'm curious about the real item:  when in SACLOS no radar mode,  does the gunner have to manually track the aircraft?  Or is there a computer optical tracking of the aircraft shape/image/movement? 

 

Just curious... and while I'd expect that to be more accurate than a human operator, it's not always true in the real world....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. To summarize: the SA19 is an effective SAM that's difficult to defeat when it gets the jump on the player, and so most players in this thread don't like it in missions. I hate to be captain obvious, but it seems necessary in this case. If you see a SAM, any SAM, on your RWR (assuming you have one), you should probably treat it with a bit of respect and proceed cautiously. The SA19, unless something changed, will light you up with its search radar from plenty far away. You should know it's there long before it becomes a threat. The scary thing for the apache shouldn't be radar SAMs, but manpads. Those things are evil.

  • Like 1

System specs: i5-10600k (4.9 GHz), RX 6950XT, 32GB DDR4 3200, NVMe SSD, Reverb G2, WinWing Super Libra/Taurus, CH Pro Pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am 19.2.2022 um 12:05 schrieb WHOGX5:

Not only weather but also nighttime conditions in addition to their already inhuman accuracy. You can fly during new moon when it's absolutely pitch black outside and any type of unguided gun, whether emplaced or on a vehicle, will have no problem tracking you visually and firing with laser like accuracy from miles away.

I agree that the AI sight is a big problem. It gets more problematic the closer you get to the ground. I am playing a lot of Combined Arms and you have to design missions extremely careful to be fun. If a T-72 kills you with a laser-guided AT-11  even though 2 forests with dense vegetation are between you and him, the fun gets killed too.

However, the accuracy of the units is not laser like. I was under the impression myself, until I had a discussion in this thread:

It mostly boils down to the AI being able to spot you extremely fast and seeing you without any problems at any weather and light condition. That might give one the impression the AIs aiming is godlike, but it really isn't. Also note, that many modern vehicles have good optics, FLIR and targeting computers. If you hover for too long over the same spot or fly in a straight line, you are basically inviting a tank to shoot you down, and it is not particularly hard if some constraints are met.

 

vor 4 Stunden schrieb BeastyBaiter:

Interesting discussion. To summarize: the SA19 is an effective SAM that's difficult to defeat when it gets the jump on the player, and so most players in this thread don't like it in missions. I hate to be captain obvious, but it seems necessary in this case. If you see a SAM, any SAM, on your RWR (assuming you have one), you should probably treat it with a bit of respect and proceed cautiously. The SA19, unless something changed, will light you up with its search radar from plenty far away. You should know it's there long before it becomes a threat. The scary thing for the apache shouldn't be radar SAMs, but manpads. Those things are evil.

^^^ I think this is a good summary.

I think the problem is that most DCS pilots are used to fixed wing aircrafts where you kill your targets from long distances with enough reaction time to go defensive in case a SAM shoots you. Doesn't work for choppers. Recon is key to survive down in the mud. I think it mostly depends on the mission designer to always keep in mind how threatening the assets are that he uses. A Tunguska or MANPADs can still "be fun" if used wisely. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't they use some kind of contrast lock to steer the missile without radar? Why would you manually guide the missile with optics when you can have automation be more reliable and accurate? Especially in this day and age.

 

On 2/22/2022 at 7:07 AM, BeastyBaiter said:

The scary thing for the apache shouldn't be radar SAMs, but manpads. Those things are evil.

 

Manpads in DCS are really easily spoofed by the flares. They always seem to go out for those in 95% of the cases and their range really sucks, too. You can snipe them with guns from 4km away in the kamov and not get shot at. of course your accuracy sucks and you have to put 20-50 rounds downrange, but it's still better than wasting a missile that is better served for a real threat (like a tunguska) or even a tank or ifv with guided missiles. We need some more modern stuff for manpads.


Edited by FalcoGer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 10 Stunden schrieb FalcoGer:

Manpads in DCS are really easily spoofed by the flares. They always seem to go out for those in 95% of the cases and their range really sucks, too. You can snipe them with guns from 4km away in the kamov and not get shot at. of course your accuracy sucks and you have to put 20-50 rounds downrange, but it's still better than wasting a missile that is better served for a real threat (like a tunguska) or even a tank or ifv with guided missiles. We need some more modern stuff for manpads.

 

But in contrast to a Tunguska or other SAM/AAA systems, you don't get a warning that they are there and they are easily overlooked. The threat is their "stealthyness", not the missile they fire. I think that's what @BeastyBaiter was referring to.


Edited by Wychmaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...