Tunguskas shooting down Mavericks?

[Alfa]

CIWS work in a different way than AD do. CIWS' job is to intercept missiles aimed against the ship they have to defend, while ADs usually engage aircraft flying over the FLOT. I think that their systems/radars also reflect their job.

 

That is a much too general view Starlight. Ships carry AD systems for different purposes, and their characteristics and capabilities are very divers and often contradictory in nature.

 

If we look at the Russian naval AD systems, you have the long range Rif (S-300F) "theatre defence" system with a powerful search radar + target acquisition radar supporting large 5V55 or 48N6E missiles for long range interception of missile carrying aircraft and large cruise missiles - i.e. for creating a safe area of operation for large naval formations. The 5V55 and 48N6E missiles are optimised for range rather than agility.

 

The Shtil "area defence" system(naval version of "Buk") is a system deployed by ships with the task of protecting near-by vessels from enemy aircraft and cruise missiles at medium range - i.e. a system for ships with a "bodyguard" type of role. The 9M38M1(or 9M317 on later version of the system) is a more agile missile with a huge rocket engine to allow it to make a series of high-G turns to position itself into the path of a missile aimed at a near-by vessel.

 

The Klinok and Kashtan(naval versions of Tor and Tunguska respectively) are close-in "point defence" systems designed to defend the ship on which they are installed from saturation attacks by small anti-ship missiles - i.e. are self protection systems. The missiles they deploy - 9M330 and 9M311(for Klinok and Kashtan respectively) are very small and highly agile but also very short ranged. The missile flight characteristics as well as their associated radar/optical target acquisition systems are optimised for interception of multiple small low flying threats at point blank range and backed by fast firing gatling type guns as a "last resort" if the missiles fail - the Klinok system can automatically take control of AK-630 mounts when necessary, while the combat modules of the Kashtan system integrate two water cooled Gsh-6-30K guns with the 9M311 launch canisters to form a combined unit.

 

The Kashtan system works in the following way:

 

Initial threat data is obtained via the ship´s main 3D air/surface search radar - this data is passed on to a Kashtan command module(a dome shaped structure, which can support up to 6 combat modules) - this in turn distributes the threat data to the appropriate combat module depending on threat bearing. The selected combat module is traversed in this direction and attempts to acquire the target with its onboard tracking radar - once the target is acquired and it falls within engagement range of the 9M311(up to some 8 km), the combat module will launch two 9M311 missiles with app. 1 sec interval for increased PK. If the missiles fail to intercept the target by the time this passes the minimum engagement range(app. 1.5 km) of the 9M311 missile, the guns are employed - these have an effective engagement envolupe from ~1500 down to 300 m. Each Gsh-6-30K has a firing rate of some 5000 rds/minute and can deliver bursts of up to 4 seconds in duration - sending a hail of 30 mm HE rounds into the path of an incoming missile.

 

In other words the naval variants of the Tor and Tunguska are not only capable of intercepting small missiles, but are in fact meant for this particular purpose. As far as I can see, the only "deductive factor" for such capability of their landbased "cousins" would be the nature(detection range) of their onboard 3D search radars - to the extent they manage to pick up an incoming missile threat in time to react, they should be more than capable of intercepting it :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[tflash]

Tnx for the very interesting info, Alfa!

I wonder if the fact Tunguska's in FC 1.11 can engage mavericks is just a consequence of other radar performance tweaks or was it really meant as an added capability? The latter seems unjustified.

[aimmaverick]

 

In other words the naval variants of the Tor and Tunguska are not only capable of intercepting small missiles, but are in fact meant for this particular purpose. As far as I can see, the only "deductive factor" for such capability of their landbased "cousins" would be the nature(detection range) of their onboard 3D search radars - to the extent they manage to pick up an incoming missile threat in time to react, they should be more than capable of intercepting it :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

 

True, but Anti-ship missiles are anything but small while AGM are and also fast and have short flying time combined with clear practical reasons- AD site cannot know which missile is aimed at them and which is friendly. They are meant for ARMs not AGMs.

[TucksonSonny]

Seriously? :(

 

I have not yet heard complains about the fact that CVN-70 carrier his 4x6-20mm Vulcan Phalanx gun takes out the Mach 2.5 kh41 with more than 90% accuracy;) .

[Weta43]

That's because:

A/ the Kh41 is big, (although I read - I think at globalsecurity.org - somewhere like that - that at the speed it travels it takes less time for the missile to travel from detection range to a ship than it takes for a ships defence systems to become active.)

&

B/ it's American technology shooting down Russian missiles, which everyone knows is more realistic than Russian technology shooting down American missiles - Ha - the very thought of it...

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yes it can.Stop moaning :)

 

You too,it doesn't have to have a slower rate of fire.

 

 

http://rusarm.ru/p_video/v_files/tungm1.wmv

 

Yes, impressive video...too bad we don't actually see them intercepting anything. Like I said before, interception of a small missile like a Maverick, which, due to its own sensor limitations has an EXTREMELY short flight duration...is possible, but not likely. Now, if this system (regardless of quotes from super, whiz-bang PR material ;) ) is intercepting 65s at the high rate seen by another poster here, that is complete horse puckey. Using a radar directed cannon system to shoot down a missile is a last-ditch effort, even against slower moving, MUCH bigger, cruise missiles which have been tracked for hundreds of miles at subsonic speeds...that's why it is called a CIWS (close-in weapon system), which actually means "I hope like hell that we hit it this time". ;) If a system such as this is being portrayed as some kind of anti-AGM sniper...that's definitely not accurate. Aside from all that, I'm still not sure why anyone would think of using something like that as a credible defense against ARMs when certain electronic methods are actually more effective. :D

[Alfa]

Tnx for the very interesting info, Alfa!

I wonder if the fact Tunguska's in FC 1.11 can engage mavericks is just a consequence of other radar performance tweaks or was it really meant as an added capability? The latter seems unjustified.

 

You are welcome :)

 

It is a consequence of the new ARM interception feature of SAM systems.

Basically the level of interceptability is down to missile RCS and speed, so to the extend a SAM system is capable of intercepting ARMs, it would also be able to intercept similar sized AGMs fired at similar range.

 

But I can tell you that the number of SAM systems with the ability to intercept AGMs was reduced before patch release - giving benefit to the doubt in regards to associated radar´s ability to detect smaller AGMs.

 

The Tunguska and Tor are exceptions to this and so I believe they should be - these are recent state-of-the-art point defence systems and, as mentioned in my above post, the only "deductive factor" in regards to their ability to "mimic" the missile interception capability of their naval counterparts would be down to the power of their associated 3D search radars.....i.e. how much head notice they would get to react. But then I dont think this is all that significant - even with a very sophisticated and powerful 3D radar, the question is what addition detection range it could provide against an AGM-65 sized objects anyway :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[504 Wolverine]

Haven't seen anyone ask a vital question on this subject.

 

What was the skill setting of said AD site? Average or as I suspect Excellent.

[Gazehound]

Its all just speculation and design and politics.

 

It was well known that partriots were used to intercept SCUDs during the Gulf War. But also there have been independent scientific investigations into their efficacy with one paper describing the Pat's capability (then) to do this as good as hitting one by chance.

 

The ability of the system to do it in 1.11 is very closely related to skill level of the unit as Wolverine pointed out.

[Alfa]

True, but Anti-ship missiles are anything but small..

 

The type of anti-ship missiles the Soviet navy were most likely to face in a would-be cold war conflict(back when their AD systems were developed), would be volleys of airlaunched Harpoon sized weapons - hence the reason for AD systems optimised for short range interception....i.e. at a range where there is an actual chance of detecting them.

 

The USN was more likely to face volleys of very large supersonic anti-ship missiles launched from warships and submarines hundreds of kilometers away - size and speed making them more detectable at range, but the same speed and sheer number of missiles expected to be launched making them difficult to intercept - hence the reason to go for a system centered around very a powerful and sophisticated radar(AEGIS) capable of detecting such threats as far away as possible and fire long range missiles at a high rate against them.

 

Different approaches to different types of threats.

 

...while AGM are(small)

 

The Harpoon might be physically bigger than the Maverick, but how much bigger is its RCS?

 

...and also fast and have short flying time combined with clear practical reasons

 

Short flying time? - I would say that an AD system would have more time to react to an AGM launched from an aircraft at altitude, than a small AShM "hovering" a couple of m above sea level and, out of nowhere, popping up over the "radio horizon" at short range. Besides, there are quite a few anti-radar and anti-ship missiles which are considerably faster than any AGM!. Look at the "nose cone" of an AGM-65 and tell me again that this is a faster missile than a Mach 3(+) Kh-31A, Kh-31P or Kh-58 ;)

 

..AD site cannot know which missile is aimed at them and which is friendly. They are meant for ARMs not AGMs.

 

How exactly do you expect an AD site to figure out that an ARM is aimed at it? - ARMs use passive radar homing by definition.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[aimmaverick]

OK. What about Strela shooting down them also? Whats A-10 role gona be?

No standoff capability. And its much easier to intercept a missile on sea that on land. Sea doesnt have any geo-obstacles other than radio horizon. Its perfect 3d space. As you said ships have very advanced 3d radars and they detect threats soon enough to react. The problem is quantity of threats heading towards them at speed from different direction or altitude. Whilst AGM appear all the sudden this gives you much less time to react we agree?

[Guest IguanaKing]

I certainly agree with that. Not only are there human limitations, but the mechanical limitations in bringing the business end of the weapons to bear on a small, supersonic target that just appeared above the ground clutter at a much different bearing than the one at which the weapons system is pointed. CIWS systems on ships have never really been fully tested either and, due to their placement, they have a MUCH smaller piece of sky to watch.

 

Edit: Sorry to jump in...just adding to what you said.

[GGTharos]

Let me clear a few things up since I was somewhat insistent on this feature.

 

First, LOMAC's AI doesn't have the ability to shut down radar, distort the sidelobes, or anything else like this. Nor are vehicles capable of popping smoke or other decoys to avoid ARMs.

 

To replace some of the lack of this capability, some SAMs were made capable of shooting down ARM-sized targets.

 

I found testimony that the Patriot not only -could- but -would-, among other measures, fire missiles against ARMs (the tornado that was shot down in GF2 BTW was identified as an ARM by the Patriot's AI).

 

There is additional information form someone serving with US ADA that the Stinger is a pretty capable weapon against /any/ low-altitude target that its seeker can lock onto - if you see it, you can usually acquire it. Naturally, no Pk was offered.

In essence, the Avenger (and by logical extension, strela/igla) is used to intercept all low-altitude threats and high-speed, high-altitude threats are left to the big systems like Patriot and S300, and medium altitude threats to systems like the HAWK and BUK or KUB.

 

The US AD forces are also currently training with C-RAM, which is a truck mounted naval CIWS which is apparently VERY successful at taking out incoming artillery shells, AGMs, and aircraft so long as something like a sentinel radar feeds it incoming target data ahead of time.

 

INsofar as LOMAC's weapon systems engaging AGM's go, that's not too far fetched given the issues we face with LOMAC AI /and/ given some of these RL facts /and/ given that this weapon is already looking towards the shooter, and if you were an operator on that weapon system you would see the video separation of the missile from the aircraft on your radar (or visually/thermally, if on a passive system) and GIVEN NO OTHER choice, you would fire on it.

 

Missiles are pretty easy to intercept if you can lock onto them - the real problem is actually /hitting/ them, which being real small, you might not, then fuzing in proximity, which again, given their size, might not happen.

 

LOMAC may not portray all of this with complete realism, but it's not totally fantastic, either.

 

Edit: Either way, if that Strela's -really- bothering you, just punch off two mavericks at it. Yes, it means you can't take out the entire enemy army on one payload. And you'll probably need a wingnut to help you.

[tflash]

It is a consequence of the new ARM interception feature of SAM systems.

Basically the level of interceptability is down to missile RCS and speed, so to the extend a SAM system is capable of intercepting ARMs, it would also be able to intercept similar sized AGMs fired at similar range.

 

But I can tell you that the number of SAM systems with the ability to intercept AGMs was reduced before patch release - giving benefit to the doubt in regards to associated radar´s ability to detect smaller AGMs.

 

This makes sense to me. It is unavoidable that when more refined misisle logic is implemented new boundary conditions emerge that can have somewhat surprising results. I'm sure gonna try this all out!

[Guest IguanaKing]

 

I found testimony that the Patriot not only -could- but -would-, among other measures, fire missiles against ARMs (the tornado that was shot down in GF2 BTW was identified as an ARM by the Patriot's AI).

 

 

So...it was improperly identified as an ARM and shot down, and this somehow means it could do the same with an actual ARM? :confused: I could improperly identify a model airplane as a fly and hit it with my rifle. Granted, I have demonstrated a capability of trying to shoot a fly, but did I actually hit one? No, I hit something MUCH bigger and slower. (Not talking about a higher performance RC aircraft ;) ).

[Force_Feedback]

Just tested it, and on average setting, it's pure bullshit (the starter of this thread), I fired mavs at both the Tunguskas themself and at other targets, guarded by tunguskas, they did try to intercept them, but without success (none of the agm-65D were hit in any way).

 

So I think the tunguskas were set on excellent and the missile difficulty bar was set on high (mine is at 90 %). Yes the tunguskas try to intercept the missile, but they always fail (on average)

[GGTharos]

So...it was improperly identified as an ARM and shot down, and this somehow means it could do the same with an actual ARM? :confused: I could improperly identify a model airplane as a fly and hit it with my rifle. Granted, I have demonstrated a capability of trying to shoot a fly, but did I actually hit one? No, I hit something MUCH bigger and slower. (Not talking about a higher performance RC aircraft ;) ).

 

Ah no, that was just an interesting tidbit (for me)

There is testimony that states in no uncertain terms that the Patriot would have engaged any Iraqi ARMs that would have been fired against it.

 

Given that it can hit much faster ABMs, I don't see that as a problem.

 

Additionally, they seemed to imply that they had a fair amount of time to authorize the shot (the testimony comes from the tornado shoot-down) ... on the order of over 30 seconds from the time of detection.

 

Note that the tornado shoot-down was followed up by the same Patriot battery's radar being nailed a short while later by an F-16 which apparently misidentified the patriot radar as an enemy SAM - with a HARM missile.

At this point the HARM wasn't detected, or the crew didn't fire on it because they thought it could have been another mis-identified ally, is anyone's guess.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Which seems like a realistic setting to me. Set AI to average if you want more-realistic AD behavior. Heh...I remember there was a diffculty level in the C64 version of Gunship in the 80's that was called "Suicidal" (Even had a likeness of Rambo next to the selection :D ). It was a level you could play if you wanted to go against opponents with superhuman abilities. :icon_jook

[Guest IguanaKing]

IRBMs and SRBMs are, again, HUGE targets and are tracked on radar for quite a while. But, like you said, its possible...just not very likely. ;) What I meant to say in all of this discussion is that I can't imagine a battlefield AD weapon which is designed to have ARM interception as one of its primary capabilities. No such, proven, thing as an anti-missile sniper though. BTW...I had mentioned electronic methods in reference to RL...nobody could accurately model side lobe distortion in a sim because the exact method in which its done is HIGHLY classified. :cool:

[GGTharos]

Uh. ARM interception capability is -never- a primary mission of any battlefield AD system. THey just happen to be capable of it ;)

 

As for SRBM's being much larger - a lot of ARMs and AGMs are quite large themselves - what the Pk against a target with a specific RCS/Thermal Signature and physical size is, for a given missile system, is also pretty classified, but as I already said, if you see it, you can fire on it ;)

 

As I /also/ said, this is a method chosen for self-defense in the game due to unavailability of other methods at this time.

[Gazehound]

Just tested it, and on average setting, it's pure bullshit (the starter of this thread), I fired mavs at both the Tunguskas themself and at other targets, guarded by tunguskas, they did try to intercept them, but without success (none of the agm-65D were hit in any way).

 

So I think the tunguskas were set on excellent and the missile difficulty bar was set on high (mine is at 90 %). Yes the tunguskas try to intercept the missile, but they always fail (on average)

 

I found Patriots, S300s, Hawks and Kub sites to shoot at but miss ARMs on 'average', so if you do not want this happening put the units on average. They do not by any means shoot down incoming missiles every time on excellent - single missiles get through sometimes (mav vs tung).

[Guest IguanaKing]

Uh. ARM interception capability is -never- a primary mission of any battlefield AD system. THey just happen to be capable of it ;)

 

Yup, which goes back to my fly analogy. I have better vision than the average person, 20:10, so I can shoot at the fly at twice the range anyone else (with the same marksmanship skills...mine are only slightly above average, don't practice as much anymore) can. Can't hit it though, except with a lucky shot. But, if that fly was carrying enough explosives to kill me, you're darn right I'd try to shoot him. :D

[Weta43]

I couldn't hit a fly with a rifle, or a bb gun, but I might with a shotgun - & looking at the part of that video where the Tunguska fires away from the camera, it's a shotgun, not a rifle.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Good point, Weta. That certainly increases the chances, but it doesn't make it a guarantee, especially when the fly is coming from an unknown direction. The wake turbulence coming from each of the pellets may cause the fly to crash though. :D OK...now I'm just being silly. :icon_jook

[GGTharos]

Yup, which goes back to my fly analogy. I have better vision than the average person, 20:10, so I can shoot at the fly at twice the range anyone else (with the same marksmanship skills...mine are only slightly above average, don't practice as much anymore) can. Can't hit it though, except with a lucky shot. But, if that fly was carrying enough explosives to kill me, you're darn right I'd try to shoot him. :D

 

What if you had a guided missile meant to intercept bumblebees?

 

Your analogy isn't any good.