Tunguskas shooting down Mavericks?

[Guest IguanaKing]

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

 

You are entitled to have your opinions of course. ;)

[192nd_Erdem]

I saw a Tunguska hit 3 mavericks with one missile yesterday,Russian engineers said they did it very overmodelled ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

[SwingKid]

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.

 

IMHO the trouble is not with locking onto the Harpoon, but rather with not locking onto the launching aircraft that is also 3 nm away, flying at a similar speed and inbound direction, presents an even more appealing target, and may be using ECM. None of that co-bearing distraction exists when dealing with standoff ASMs, so parameters like minimum range resolution or bearing separation for detection don't affect the engagement.

 

-SK

[Manny]

IMHO the trouble is not with locking onto the Harpoon, but rather with not locking onto the launching aircraft that is also 3 nm away, flying at a similar speed and inbound direction, presents an even more appealing target, and may be using ECM. None of that co-bearing distraction exists when dealing with standoff ASMs, so parameters like minimum range resolution or bearing separation for detection don't affect the engagement.

 

-SK

 

 

Unfortunately none of this information presented today helps poor Goya get his Mavs on target :icon_frow .

 

Perhaps using an Su-25T is a better choice for delivering weapons

[Guest IguanaKing]

So...the Tunguska can intercept one AGM, but it can't intercept another? Its capabilities are not only exagerrated in LOMAC, but they are biased in favor of Russian equipment, apparently. Sensor capabilities of this system only matter when they are considered along with all of the other variables. An SA missile is not guiding right out of the can, it takes a few precious seconds for it to accelerate, stabilize, and start guiding. By that time, the intercept angles will often exceed the maneuvering capabilities of the interceptor. ;)

[SUBS17]

The bias extends to Russian equipment as well;) Su25T firing vhikrs still fails if a search radar is present. In real life it has to be said that IR missiles are not used to intercept incoming missiles(I'm mainly refering too vehicle and hand launched weapons). It has never happened in any war, the primary target is the launch aircraft. Its impossible to get a growl on an incoming missile with such a weapon. IRL you would wait and use it on an aircraft. 2S6 I can understand so long as a search radar is present or the attack vector exceeds the radar search beam(yes I've seen that this is modeled):D

[Gazehound]

Ah c'mon. Its still easier by several lightyears to take out a bunch of defended targets with a mav wielding A10. Im talking stability agility, acceleration climb rate and lack of AFM.

 

You tried flying NOE in a fully loaded T?

 

Add to that the ordanance limitations on the Su25T - you can have 2 tv guided missiles that only work in the day on stationary targets, perhaps include some laser guided stuff which is not exactly launch and leave, and maybe some AR missiles which are pretty useless against strelas avengers and iglas.....

Compared with the point and click and split S maverick/a10 combo :icon_roll

[Force_Feedback]

The Igla has a datalink capability, capable of receiving up to 4 different targets (and their positions) from a search radar and to engage cruise missiles. However, attacking fast flying missiles is questionable, but possible (not talking about the pk, which is in either case lower than 0.4)

[Ironhand]

From some very limited experiments last evening, it seems that the arrival speed of the AGM--at least where the Tunguska is concerned--is a critical factor in whether or not the unit will attempt to shoot down the missile. If, when the range to the missile is approximately 3 km, the missile is traveling less than approximately 1010 km/hr, the Tunguska always attempted an intercept. This was true of both NATO and Russian ARMs. I was also surprised to see a Roland ADS system intercept a Kh-29T. The Kh-29L is launched from closer range and, so, arrives at a higher (above 1010) terminal speed.

 

The critical terminal speed, if there is one, actually falls somewhere between 1010 and 1100. I didn't have any missiles arrive between those two speeds to allow any refinement.

 

Rich

[504 Wolverine]

Oh great, this is turning into a "they are biased in favor of Russian equipment" thread again. :icon_roll

[SUBS17]

Not really its in fact SAMs and AAA are defeating both sides weapons. This makes the missions alot more difficult to defeat. The main factor causing it is the use of serach radars. With out one they are much easier to beat, missile detection and defence is much more intense.

[SUBS17]

Ah c'mon. Its still easier by several lightyears to take out a bunch of defended targets with a mav wielding A10. Im talking stability agility, acceleration climb rate and lack of AFM.

 

You tried flying NOE in a fully loaded T?

 

Add to that the ordanance limitations on the Su25T - you can have 2 tv guided missiles that only work in the day on stationary targets, perhaps include some laser guided stuff which is not exactly launch and leave, and maybe some AR missiles which are pretty useless against strelas avengers and iglas.....

Compared with the point and click and split S maverick/a10 combo :icon_roll

 

Yup, I have done it using NOE in all 3 A-10, Su25 and Su25T. The results will still be the same, flying like that you will get shot down unless you're in a mountainous or hilly region.BTW 25T kills more since it carries more:D

[S77th-GOYA]

Yup, I have done it using NOE in all 3 A-10, Su25 and Su25T. The results will still be the same, flying like that you will get shot down unless you're in a mountainous or hilly region.BTW 25T kills more since it carries more:D

 

That's absolutely not true. Hell, I've taken out an S-300 with F-15 cannons flying NOE across flat land. And went past a Tung and Strela to get there. NOE works very well. Just dolphin a bit and put each launch in the dirt.

[dynamocl]

In the next patch, will the sams be able to intercept and destroy dumb bombs as well?

 

I think that they should be able to destroy incoming FABs and Mk82s etc, because they are too effective against SAMS also. And don't even start on the gun pods.

[Yellonet]

In the next patch, will the sams be able to intercept and destroy dumb bombs as well?

 

I think that they should be able to destroy incoming FABs and Mk82s etc, because they are too effective against SAMS also. And don't even start on the gun pods.

If given enough time, I guess they should, the Mk-82's and smaller bombs might be a too small target.. but large bombs dropped from good altitude should be a valid target.

It's not possible to intercept the 23mm rounds from the gunpods though.

[SUBS17]

That's absolutely not true. Hell, I've taken out an S-300 with F-15 cannons flying NOE across flat land. And went past a Tung and Strela to get there. NOE works very well. Just dolphin a bit and put each launch in the dirt.

 

We're talking mud movers here, and BTW what patch are you using and what skill level is the S300? Was the terrain flat or were there hills to hide behind?

[SUBS17]

In the next patch, will the sams be able to intercept and destroy dumb bombs as well?

 

I think that they should be able to destroy incoming FABs and Mk82s etc, because they are too effective against SAMS also. And don't even start on the gun pods.

 

If the aircraft is close enough for dumb bombs then its likely that the SAM would engage the aircraft.

[S77th-GOYA]

We're talking mud movers here, and BTW what patch are you using and what skill level is the S300? Was the terrain flat or were there hills to hide behind?

 

Yes, so am I. I've taken out a KUB or BUK (I forget) across flat land in an A-10 several times in a row. The S-300 is either high or excellent, and I already said the terrain was flat. Wanna see a track of the F-15 / S-300 kill? The S-300 is a bit north of Majkop and the 15 is coming from Sochi. After the mountains and foothills are gone, there are quite a few miles of flat ground.

 

I could have made that S-300 MUCH harder to kill by putting an Igla in the middle of it.

[Gazehound]

Yup, I have done it using NOE in all 3 A-10, Su25 and Su25T. The results will still be the same, flying like that you will get shot down unless you're in a mountainous or hilly region.BTW 25T kills more since it carries more:D

You can fly at an excellent TOR/OSA, NOE on flat ground and punch it in the face.

Of course im talking a10 here :) Flying NOE is very effective against these, and since you can split s from about 500m (im guessing there) in a hog to the weeds in seconds, you can dodge anything they throw at you - either by terrain masking behind a molehill or as Goya said, leading the missile into the ground. Or outrunning it.

[GGTharos]

Here I'll note that the missiles flying into the ground is an issue that was resolved a long time ago, if certain declassified US NAVY documents are to be believed. I am hoping it will be solved in 1.2 for LOMAC's SAMs also.

[Yellonet]

Hawk sites are pretty easy to disarm too... pop up - they fire - sink down - they loose lock and the missiles explodes. Rinse, repeat. And once in a while the back missile wagon fires right into his pal infront of him :icon_lol:

[MBot]

In the next patch, will the sams be able to intercept and destroy dumb bombs as well?

 

I think that they should be able to destroy incoming FABs and Mk82s etc, because they are too effective against SAMS also. And don't even start on the gun pods.

 

You might be closer to reality than you actualy think :) Like I already mentioned earlier on the topic, the argentinians claim to have shot down a 1000lb bomb tossed on Port Stanly airfield with a Roland SAM.

I am not suggesting that this should be the norm, but in war sometimes strange things happen...

[SUBS17]

You can fly at an excellent TOR/OSA, NOE on flat ground and punch it in the face.

Of course im talking a10 here :) Flying NOE is very effective against these, and since you can split s from about 500m (im guessing there) in a hog to the weeds in seconds, you can dodge anything they throw at you - either by terrain masking behind a molehill or as Goya said, leading the missile into the ground. Or outrunning it.

 

Yeah I've nailed Tor and OSA with the A-10, you can pick them off with mavericks. The important thing is to know exactly where they are, same applys for any sam/AAA unit. If you know where they are then it is easier to pick them off. Whether its high alt or low/med but if you're flying low level blind its quite easy to fly into a SAM/AAA units range and get picked off;) . This especially applys to missions that don't show threat locations. Flying low level in an F-15 is quite different, you're flying at much higher speed which has a big impact on SAM/AAA reaction time. Of course I've seen tracks of F-15s and Migs doing that, so far with v1.11 I've found low level is good if there is an enemy cap in areas where there are mountains survivability is increased but locating targets is much harder.

[dynamocl]

You might be closer to reality than you actualy think :) Like I already mentioned earlier on the topic, the argentinians claim to have shot down a 1000lb bomb tossed on Port Stanly airfield with a Roland SAM.

I am not suggesting that this should be the norm, but in war sometimes strange things happen...

 

I also know that currently in development is a single shot active tank defense weapon. Its a box like thing, that hold a fair few thousand rounds - each fired electricly. The unit has a small radar system that can track incoming tank shells. The unit when fixed on a tank will track fired shells. If it detects an incoming shell (i.e. something heading towards the tank). This box will aim at the shell and fire all (I think 200K rounds) in less than 2 seconds at the incoming shell.

 

The thoery is that it shreds the incoming shell. This is a one shot defence weapon and requires to be replaced every use.

 

It was in development about 3 years ago, not heard much since, and I can't find any relevant links for you.

[GGTharos]

The US AD corps has already tested the C-RAM, which is essentially a vehicle-mounted naval CIWS system.

 

It gets it's initial data from something like a Sentinel radar (just like the Avengers do) and is meant to destroy artillery shells, mortars, and AGMs inbound on the position it's covering.