Tunguskas shooting down Mavericks?

[Yellonet]

Wrong. The AGM-65E was the first Maverick with the large warhead, IIRC.

You are correct.

[Yellonet]

I'll go sit in the corner now. ;)

No, let's play some more ;)

Not that I know much... I'll just read stuff off of some suspicious site :icon_redf

[S77th-GOYA]

I've done some testing on the mission that I originally noticed this problem. It's a group of vehicles with 2 Tunguskas and 2 Strelas. In the original run in an A-10, I fired 5 Mavs and every one of them got shot down. Recent testing was in a T-Frog. Kh-25MPUs fired at the Tungs not only hit every time, they were never engaged. Kh-25MPUs are slower and longer than the Mav. They do have a slighter smaller diameter.

[192nd_Erdem]

Well,I just did some testing too.I noticed both Tunguska,Tor or other SAM like KUB and BUK,doesn't fire at SEAD or SEAD like missiles like KH-25MPU,Kh-25ML and AGM-88.

 

I don't if it's a bug,realistic or not;but only logical explanation I can give is,all the missiles mentioned above are fast missiles always approaching their target no less than Mach 2+.

 

BUT both Tunguska and Tor fired at Kh-29 and KH-29T variations,which are nearly identical to Mavericks.

 

Kh-25MPUs are slower and longer than the Mav

 

They're longer,but they don't move as clumsy as Mavericks and Kh-29T's.Please don't look at their max speeds,but their approach speeds.

 

I mean 25MPU max speed is slower than Mavericks,but a MPU fired at max range,when it's booster is silent approaches at Mach 2+.Though a Maverick and KH-29T makes it's approach with nearly 800km/h.

 

I say way too slow for such a big missile to avoid detection ;)

[Force_Feedback]

How did you put the 25t and tunguska on different sides? Attacking friendly targets in lomac gives strange results, that is clearly seen with the plane AI, as it takes a lot longer to start defensive manoeuvers, thus being shot down a lot easier than an enemy AI fixed wing unit.

[Maverick-90]

Georgia has -25Ts ;-)

[S77th-GOYA]

Well,I just did some testing too.I noticed both Tunguska,Tor or other SAM like KUB and BUK,doesn't fire at SEAD or SEAD like missiles like KH-25MPU,Kh-25ML and AGM-88.

[snip]

I mean 25MPU max speed is slower than Mavericks,but a MPU fired at max range,when it's booster is silent approaches at Mach 2+.Though a Maverick and KH-29T makes it's approach with nearly 800km/h.

 

After a little more research, the Kh-25MPU is a much faster missle than the mav. I was going by the info provided in the LOMAC encyclopedia. Silly me.

 

The whole reason for this [whatever bad word you want to call it] was that SAMs were supposed to shoot down T-Frog ARM missles to help even gameplay. Now the only stand-off weapon the A-10s have has had it's effectiveness diminished and the T-Frog can still kill Tungs at will with one shot.

[Force_Feedback]

Georgia has -25Ts ;-)

 

Yes, Ukraine got them as well, but neither of them are ingame.

[EvilBivol-1]

Georgia has -25T in game...

[Guest IguanaKing]

After a little more research, the Kh-25MPU is a much faster missle than the mav. I was going by the info provided in the LOMAC encyclopedia. Silly me.

 

The whole reason for this [whatever bad word you want to call it] was that SAMs were supposed to shoot down T-Frog ARM missles to help even gameplay. Now the only stand-off weapon the A-10s have has had it's effectiveness diminished and the T-Frog can still kill Tungs at will with one shot.

 

Yup. Which is...and I'll say it again...complete horse puckey.

[MonnieRock]

So is the tung radar the latest software version like 2005 and the weapons against it like the 1980's?

[Yellonet]

Yup. Which is...and I'll say it again...complete horse puckey.

What is?

[Force_Feedback]

Georgia has -25T in game...

 

Yeah, sorry, lol :p I played 1.1 for that long without knowing Geargia had such nice skins, and "Amerikanskaya Betty" :p

 

BTW, the Tungs don't engage the kh-58 or kh-25mpu at all. The BUK-M1 tries, but since it launches its missile when the kh-58 is 8km away, it has one shot, with a average pk of 0.6 (after 20 firings in 14 missions). All were set at excellent and the missile slider was at about 90%

[Manny]

Yup, AGM-65s are supersonic, their top speed of course...is classified. Its such a small target also that I would have to file its successful interception by AAA or SAMs under "possible but not likely." Especially considering sensor limitations and human reaction times. Remember, the Maverick also has a MUCH shorter flight duration than a TLAM. Why would someone build a missile for engaging ARMs and take that capability seriously? Do they not know how to distort their side-lobes? I think there is some rather fanciful public speculation about IADS capabilities out there. ;)

 

Edit: I just realized the Tunguska also has the 30mm. Slightly more likely if they don't mind burning a whole bunch of ammo, like a vehicle-mounted CIWS.

 

The 2K22 "Tunguska" (Russian 2К22 "Тунгуска" - Tunguska River, NATO reporting name SA-19 "Grisom") is an Integrated Air Defense System.

 

The system carries six (2S6) or eight (2S6M/2S6M1) 9K111 missiles in two banks of two pairs, each pair being able to be elevated independently.

 

Effective engagement ranges are 2.4 to 8 km (1.5 to 5 miles) and altitudes are 15-3500 m (50-11,500 ft). Each missile is 3.2 m (10.5 ft) long, weighs 65 kg (143 lb) with a warhead of 16 kg (35 lb), flies at around Mach 3.5 and can engage targets flying at up to Mach 1.5.

 

The 2S6 vehicle carries two radars collectively known to NATO as "Hot Shot":

 

1RL144 E-band target acquisition radar with a maximum detection range of 20 km (12 miles)

 

1RL144M J-band target tracking radar with a maximum engagement range of 18 km (11 miles)

 

It also incorporates the 1RL138 C/D-band IFF system and an optical tracking system. The 2S6 is able to use these systems to guide missiles to the target using radio command guidance in combination with automatic optical target tracking, or can feed the data into the fire control computer for aiming the guns, which consist of a four-barreled, high rate-of-fire (700 rounds-per-minute combined) 30mm cannon battery. (Reminds me of the deadly Shilka )

 

 

The missiles are detonated using a proximity system when they are within 5 m (16 ft) of their target and have a kill probability (PK) of around 0.65. Note that missiles can only be fired while the 2S6 system is stationary and due to the optical tracking method have extremely limited viability at night.

 

The 2S6 system has also been mounted on ships. The naval version is the 3K87 "Kortik" (Russian Кортик - dirk) and has the NATO reporting name SA-N-11. It is installed on Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers. It is said to have a role similar to that of the American Phalanx CIWS system, able to shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles as well as aircraft. The export version of the Kortik is called "Kashtan" (Russian Каштан - chestnut).

 

I would state that ED modeled the behavior of the tunguska correctly :icon_jook

[S77th-GOYA]

I would state that ED modeled the behavior of the tunguska correctly :icon_jook

 

Have you ever seen a LOMAC Tunguska kill a Maverick? If so, how did it kill it?

[SwingKid]

I would state that ED modeled the behavior of the tunguska correctly :icon_jook

 

Where does it say it can detect Mavericks along ECM bearings?

 

-SK

[Manny]

Have you ever seen a LOMAC Tunguska kill a Maverick? If so, how did it kill it?

 

Goya, I will preface my response with background and try to answer your question. Bear in mind the context of Maverick engagement has its' foundation in an Eagle Dynamic's simulation. The verification of Tunguska ability to defend itself and assets in such a manner is simple in the real world: Establish a convoy protected by two Tunguskas. Have Maverick deployable platforms engage the convoy. Record the results. Any volunteers? :rolleyes:

 

When I obtained the Su-27 1.0 demo product, I was hooked. I observed the evolution of the game from retail product version 1.0 through 1.5, 2.0 through 2.5, LO-MAC through 1.11. The Tunguska has evolved. If I am not mistaken, it all began with 2.0.

 

The Strela is a man-portable surface to air missile system (Currently IR only) and I do not expect it to be employed against air to surface missiles. Aircraft, however, I do.

 

In the Flanker product since 1.0, nearly any deployable anti-shipping weapon was engaged by either ship-born missile or rapid-fire, High Explosive, systems. The ships tended to use Tunguska and Tor equivalent protection if Russian. US ships employed Sea Sparrows and Phalanx systems. It did appear nothing was highly effective against ships and their defensive systems. Thus employing more than one air to surface missile was a very good tactical decision.

 

However, I have observed Cruisers and Battleships, even Carriers knock out all my missiles.The only weapon that appeared capable was one operating at multiples of Mach numbers such as the Kh-41 3M82 MOSKIT - SS-N-22 SUNBURN anti-ship missile. Even then, attempts were made to destroy it but it simply flew too fast most of the time for it to be engaged.

 

Translate this simulation to land-based equivalents and one begins to see the apparent equivocacy. A Maverick engaged by a Tunguska, Tor, even Shilka system. All these platforms employ multiple target acquisition and tracking radars, and sophisticated fire control systems. In the mind of the product manufacturer, this weapon platform will do just that. In the mind of Eagle Dynamics, sure, absolutely and let us put it in the simulation.

 

Is this at all possible given a real world scenario? That is best left to the volunteer Tunguska and convoy crews. There appears enough real world data to conclude it is possible and its inclusion in the sim appears justified.

I know the annoyance this can be Goya especially if yer chucking limited ASMs at stuff. There are more ways than one to destroy these systems including the 30mm, depleted uranium, shell the A-10 fires at well over a mile away.

[SUBS17]

Have you ever seen a LOMAC Tunguska kill a Maverick? If so, how did it kill it?

 

I have seen one use both missiles and cannon, a dog ear search radar was present at the time. Best way to kill'em is with cluster bombs from high altitude.

[Yellonet]

However, I have observed Cruisers and Battleships, even Carriers knock out all my missiles.The only weapon that appeared capable was one operating at multiples of Mach numbers such as the Kh-41 3M82 MOSKIT - SS-N-22 SUNBURN anti-ship missile. Even then, attempts were made to destroy it but it simply flew too fast most of the time for it to be engaged.

The Vinson destroys Kh-41's with ease... realistic or not? I don't know.

[GGTharos]

It should ... Russian tactics were to swarm a US CV battle group with such missiles, not jsut fire 3-4 at a time. We're talking unloading an entire Oscar's payload (with several other Oscar's doing the same ;) ) which is somethign like 20 missiles per boat.

[Manny]

Where does it say it can detect Mavericks along ECM bearings?

 

-SK

 

Swing I cannot say for sure in the presence of Electronic Countermeasures whether the aquisition and tracking radars will be effectively "jammed." I do know certain weapons employed by the Russians are jam-proof. Does this tech translate into jam-proof, jam free operation of air defense systems? I Ido not have sufficient information.

 

however, these systems do employ optical sights. If I was operating a Tor, Tunguska, Shilka, etc. and observed a Maverick come off the rails of an A-10, I would certainly not hesitate to pop that Hog with some SAM and utilize my fire-control system to pick up that mav and knock it out of the sky.

[SwingKid]

Translate this simulation to land-based equivalents and one begins to see the apparent equivocacy. A Maverick engaged by a Tunguska, Tor, even Shilka system.

 

Try launching a Harpoon against the naval systems from 3 nm away. It won't get locked fast enough. Therein lies the difference.

 

-SK

[Manny]

The Vinson destroys Kh-41's with ease... realistic or not? I don't know.

 

Well thing is it self-guides, steady and at low altitude. It then goes balistic and makes an over-the-top pass at the ship. The only time it can be destroyed is if a ship detects this missile early in its' trajectory, at low altitudes and high speed. Not difficult given the size of the weapon and using Doppler-Shift Radar.

 

However, once the missile goes ballistic, all bets are off. It is pulling too many gs and at too high an aspect angle for effective destruction unless a Phalanx gets a good lock.

 

In the real world, this missile is touted as the most deadly anti-shipping missile in the world.

[Manny]

Try launching a Harpoon against the naval systems from 3 nm away. It won't get locked fast enough. Therein lies the difference.

 

-SK

 

Is this a fact in the simulation? I find it hard to believe a weapon as large as the Harpoon and its' near straight-and-level trajectory would make such an appealing target difficult to lock onto. If this is true, then balance is in order since no Russian anti-ship missile goes unengaged except the Kh-41 given time and distance to target, i.e. within minimum enagement distance and short flight time of the Kh-41. Not the Harpoon like trajectory, low over the sea, steady, non-evasive, and lookin to hit home.

[S77th-GOYA]

Manny, you never answered the questions you quoted. SUBS17 did answer it, but maybe not exactly. I've seen Tungs use both cannon and missles as well, however I've never seen the cannons actually hit the Mav. Only the missle has been effective in destroying the threat. If anyone has seen the cannon get one, say so, or post a track. Another thing to note, a Mav-D can be fired at 8 nm, and that is before being spiked from the Tung.