correct as is Can GBU 38 be taken out bij SA15?

[Michel0079]

Hi, 

Just wondering about a GBU 38 that seemed to be taken out by a SA15 before hitting my target.

Is this a bug or can this be real?

 

TY

[Northstar98]

So long as it can detect and track it, it can theoretically engage it. It doesn't really answer your question, but until there's more data about it we probably won't know.

Of course, it may have systems that filter out bombs even if it can otherwise detect and track them - we just don't know.

Right now, I'd probably lean on the side of yes, but that isn't based upon anything other than speculation at this point.

[BarTzi]

Should be possible on paper. Based on the in-game wiki, the version included in DCS is the 9K331 Tor-M1. This version is capable (again, on paper) of engaging small targets and rockets, so a small bomb is not out of scope. However, this system is also capable of engaging two targets at the same time, which is not something that we see in DCS. So what we have might be a mix of Tor and Tor-M1 in terms of capabilities.

Edited October 28, 2023 by BarTzi

[Michel0079]

Ok thx. Then i'll better capet bomb next time 

[Northstar98]

17 minutes ago, BarTzi said:

Should be possible on paper. Based on the in-game wiki, the version included in DCS is the 9K331 Tor-M1. This version is capable (again, on paper) of engaging small targets and rockets, so a small bomb is not out of scope. However, this system is also capable of engaging two targets at the same time, which is not something that we see in DCS. So what we have might be a mix of Tor and Tor-M1 in terms of capabilities.

I'd take the in-game encyclopaedia with a few helpings of salt, because it sometimes contradicts itself or gets information flat-out incorrect for what's actually depicted or what the unit is called. A particularly bad example is the Chieftain Mk 3 (which is wrong for a number of reasons). Though sometimes the encylopaedia is correct, but the model depicted in DCS, is not.

For the Tor it states that vehicle is 9A331, but in the same breath that it fires 9M330 (though there doesn't seem to be much difference between them apart from accuracy, at least according to this). If it is supposed to be 9K331 Tor-M1, then it should fire 9M331 and if it's just supposed to be the baseline 9K330 Tor, the TLAR should be 9A330. Perhaps, it would be an idea to copy and paste the unit, but change one to be capable of engaging 2 targets simultaneously - that'll give us 9K330 and 9K331.

Given the fact it can only engage one target simultaneously, I'd put it more on the side of being a 9K330 (9M330, only capable of engaging a single target simultaneously).

[BarTzi]

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

I'd take the in-game encyclopaedia with a few helpings of salt, because it sometimes contradicts itself or gets information flat-out incorrect for what's actually depicted or what the unit is called. A particularly bad example is the Chieftain Mk 3 (which is wrong for a number of reasons). Though sometimes the encylopaedia is correct, but the model depicted in DCS, is not.

For the Tor it states that vehicle is 9A331, but in the same breath that it fires 9M330 (though there doesn't seem to be much difference between them apart from accuracy, at least according to this). If it is supposed to be 9K331 Tor-M1, then it should fire 9M331 and if it's just supposed to be the baseline 9K330 Tor, the TLAR should be 9A330. Perhaps, it would be an idea to copy and paste the unit, but change one to be capable of engaging 2 targets simultaneously - that'll give us 9K330 and 9K331.

Given the fact it can only engage one target simultaneously, I'd put it more on the side of being a 9K330 (9M330, only capable of engaging a single target simultaneously).

It's the only source we have, but I agree. If it's the 9K330, then I'm not sure it should be capable.  

[Michel0079]

Chat GTP tells me this:

 

Yes, in theory, a JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) bomb could be intercepted and destroyed by a SAM (Surface-to-Air Missile) system if certain conditions are met. Here are a few factors to consider:

1. **Detection and Tracking**: The SAM system would need to detect and continuously track the JDAM. JDAMs are relatively small compared to aircraft and are unpowered (they glide), which might make them harder to detect on radar, especially at low altitudes.

2. **Engagement Window**: Once released, a JDAM will reach its target in a relatively short amount of time, depending on the altitude from which it was dropped. This gives the SAM system a very limited window of opportunity to engage and intercept the bomb.

3. **Missile Agility**: The SAM would need to have sufficient agility to intercept a fast-moving, potentially maneuvering target like a JDAM. This would depend on the specific type of SAM and its capabilities.

4. **Operational Scenario**: SAM systems are primarily designed to target aircraft and missiles. Intercepting a bomb, especially one as small and fast as a JDAM, would be an unconventional use of a SAM and might require adjustments to the system's operational software and tactics.

5. **Cost and Practicality**: Using an expensive SAM missile to intercept a bomb might not be cost-effective or practical in many scenarios. The decision to use SAMs in this manner would also depend on the tactical situation and the value of the target the JDAM is trying to hit.

In conclusion, while it is theoretically possible for a SAM to intercept a JDAM, doing so would be challenging and would depend on multiple factors. It's also worth noting that using SAMs to intercept bombs is not a typical or primary mission for most SAM systems.

[Hobel]

Intresting post about Sa-15