Tunguskas shooting down Mavericks?

[Guest IguanaKing]

Actually, it is better than you realize...we're talking sensor limitations here. :D

[GGTharos]

You mean the same sensor which I /personally/ have seen plot leaves swaying in the wind?

 

That was a pretty power-delimited and low-tech radar, too, compared to what the AD stuff is using.

 

Insofar as initial detection goes, you will -probably- be looking at the shooter already.

 

 

As I said, wha's happening in LOMAC is an attempt at simulating self-defense the only way possible.

 

It isn't perfect, but it isn't half as far-fetched as you seem to think it is.

[Guest IguanaKing]

GG, you haven't really posted anything other than an incident in which a weapons system improperly identified a target, and then hit something MUCH larger and MUCH slower than what it "thought" the target was. Again, I guess I have to reiterate, I'm not denying that its a possibility, I'm just saying that it is actually a low PK. We can quote specs until we're blue in the face, but until it is actually done, in a combat situation, I am...well...skeptical. ;)

 

Any detail beyond that...your AD buddies shouldn't be sharing with you in the first place. :tongue:

[SwingKid]

If Strelas are shooting down Mavericks, then that's probably a bug that slipped past us. Both Strela-1 and Strela-10 should have too slow reaction time for this and weren't intended to have the capability AFAIK.

 

Although my personal hunch is that even a Patriot is limited to intercepting only the slowest, largest ARMs, and nothing should stop a Maverick, the evidence seems to be that there is some capability. I couldn't even get a Stinger operator who felt the same way at first to say that he couldn't hit a Maverick, after considering its speed and flight profile:

 

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=95013

 

So, let's approach this topic with research and solid data, it seems to be a difficult one that can't be decided on "gut feelings" alone.

 

Some people also still believe in "burn-through".

 

-SK

[Guest IguanaKing]

You mean the same sensor which I /personally/ have seen plot leaves swaying in the wind?

 

I thought I was pretty clear on this...I'm not talking about the AD system's radar. I am talking about the sensor limitations of an AGM-65, and the real-world range at which it is launched. It doesn't give anybody a whole lot of time to swing things into an exact position and punch the button. ;)

[tflash]

You mean the same sensor which I /personally/ have seen plot leaves swaying in the wind?

 

That was a pretty power-delimited and low-tech radar, too, compared to what the AD stuff is using.

 

Insofar as initial detection goes, you will -probably- be looking at the shooter already.

 

 

As I said, wha's happening in LOMAC is an attempt at simulating self-defense the only way possible.

 

It isn't perfect, but it isn't half as far-fetched as you seem to think it is.

 

In fact, it was a very, very bad idea. Again, instead of only fixing known bugs and improving on performance - imho the only things belonging in a patch -, a losely founded decision was made to add a highly questionable capability that in fact, again, could affect gameplay adversely.

 

I don't think it is such a drama because the effect will be rather limited, but it is a wrong approach. As to the "attempt at simulating self-defense": this is an attempt that in no way matches the standards for realism that ED normally sets for itself. What we need is AD that shuts down when an ARM is heading their way, not star wars AD's that can annihilate A/G missiles.

 

Again, like before, this patch risks to turn into controversy where it shouldn't have been so.

[Starlight]

 

keeping in mind that AGM-84 is one of the smallest ASM in service, ASMs are a lot bigger than AGMs. The AGM-84 is actually twice the size of the Maverick. Given that both missiles don't feature stealth designs and that the Harpoon has twice the size and the wings of the Maverick, I assume its RCS is quite bigger, maybe twice. And that makes difference.

I knew that the Tunguska derives its systems from naval ones, but the way one system is designed/tailored usually reflects its employment. I don't think that was just a copy&paste from naval to land system.

 

CIWS are something like videogames (even if they're deadly games). Most if not all of them are automatic systems, fully "hands-off", because a ship is supposed to be targeted by more missiles at once and the defense systems must be quick and precise, like no human could be. CIWS however are a "last-ditch" weapons, which may work if the outside layer of ship-mounted SAMs has worked too. No CIWS system could handle a full attack aimed at a single ship.

 

Tunguskas are still manned weapons systems (while surely filled with automatic and computer-aided devices), and its operators I suppose are trained for anti-aircraft purposes. I think that Tunguska could detect missiles like AGMs, but I don't think they could easily track and destroy them in a modern battlefield, which is definitely not an ECM-free environment.

 

So what could happen in quiet system trials in Moscow outskirts (but I've not seen yet any proof of Tunguska shooting down a Maverick-sized target) I don't think could really happen in RL on a crowded FLOT, so I think it wasn't needed to be implemented in Lomac.

 

If you read first-hand accounts of SEAD battles in the last four decades, you see that the most usual reaction to ARM/AGM launches (ground crews can't know what's coming off the wing of attack aircraft and who is targeted to, since most are passively guided weapons) is the shutdown of the system, in the hope that the attack weapon misses its intended target, if it was the AA system.

 

Over Vietnam (1965-72) and Egypt (1973), Syria (1982), Libya (1986), Iraq (1991) and former Yugoslavia (late 90s) there were some of the most efficient AA umbrellas ever seen in the world, yet I've not read any account of ARM engaged by AD, whatever it was, SAM or triple-A. Sure, they hadn't the Tunguska, but I don't think it's just a matter of hardware, I think it's more a matter of mission, training and opportunity. The AD task is to protect land forces from fixed and rotary wing aircraft. And I think that's enough. And would you risk such a valuable asset to engage an AGM instead of engaging an aircraft?

 

Anyway, when ground operators learn what an ARM is, they simply shut down their radars or change frequency (but that usually is made in automatic preset modes) whenever they see a possible ARM launch. Over Iraq, during Desert Storm, F-16 armed just with iron bombs, when threatened by SAMs, just used typical ARM-launch calls over radio frequencies monitored by Iraqis, and that often was enough to have the enemy radars shut down. And also in many other air wars, just the presence of a Weasel aircraft in cover pattern was enough to keep silent enemy radars.

Again, another Weasel pilot told that the Shrike was a very inefficient weapon, yet the North Vietnamese often shut down their radars when they saw it coming off the wing of an aircraft.

 

That is just my theory, but after some reading I'm pretty much convinced that is closer to RL than Tunguskas and Strelas shooting down AGMs.

 

Notes:

The drawing comes from "Modern MIlitary Aircraft: A-6 Intruder" Squadron/Signal Pubs

Most of the first-hand WildWeasel accounts are taken from "Iron Hand: Smashing the enemy's air defences" - a wonderful book about SEAD that I've already mentioned in some other posts.... but it's really wonderful!

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yup, shut-down of the transmitter would be a good technique, but many modern ARMs are equipped to deal with that, and often go on inertial guidance which would be highly effective against a stationary radar that just went cold. Even more effective, however, in the case of either a stationary or moving radar is distortion of the side-lobes of the radar energy. This attempts to fool the ARM into improperly tracking the center of the radar emitter as a point in space outside the actual vehicle. Hence, it doesn't hit its target. But, aside from the EW corrections, I fully agree with what you said, Starlight. :cool:

[Kula66]

Although my personal hunch is that even a Patriot is limited to intercepting only the slowest, largest ARMs, and nothing should stop a Maverick, the evidence seems to be that there is some capability. I couldn't even get a Stinger operator who felt the same way at first to say that he couldn't hit a Maverick, after considering its speed and flight profile:

 

Bear in mind SK, that a SeaWolk missile intercepted a 4.5" shell ... and that was with 1980s technology ... so why not?

[SwingKid]

The AGM-84 is actually twice the size of the Maverick. Given that both missiles don't feature stealth designs and that the Harpoon has twice the size and the wings of the Maverick, I assume its RCS is quite bigger, maybe twice. And that makes difference.

 

Setting aside the logical pitfalls of equating size with RCS in the first place - from a frontal aspect, the fins contribute almost nothing.

 

Secondly, even if the RCS of the Maverick was half, that difference is only 3 dB. Low-observables need to have their RCS reduced by several orders of magnitude to make a substantial difference, more than "half". A 3 dB reduction is practically irrelevant in this case because (assuming my math is right) it would only reduce detection range by 15%. And we can assume the Harpoon is detectable beyond the radar horizon because it needs to fly a sea-skimming flight profile to avoid detection. 15% closer than the radar horizon would extend the radar detection of a Maverick to beyond the range that would make a difference.

 

So it's theoretically detectable...

 

Tunguskas are still manned weapons systems (while surely filled with automatic and computer-aided devices), and its operators I suppose are trained for anti-aircraft purposes. I think that Tunguska could detect missiles like AGMs, but I don't think they could easily track and destroy them in a modern battlefield, which is definitely not an ECM-free environment.

 

I don't know about Tunguskas but Patriot operators are definitely trained to engage ARMs... this is now known from declassified incident debriefings. From what I understand, ED also has access to training materials for S-300 crews.

 

If you read first-hand accounts of SEAD battles in the last four decades, you see that the most usual reaction to ARM/AGM launches (ground crews can't know what's coming off the wing of attack aircraft and who is targeted to, since most are passively guided weapons) is the shutdown of the system, in the hope that the attack weapon misses its intended target, if it was the AA system.

 

This is what I would've expected too, but the Patriot training makes it clear that's no longer the case in modern times. It may have something to do with the new ability to conduct search and track functions against multiple targets simultaneously - a limitation of older systems.

 

Over Vietnam (1965-72) and Egypt (1973), Syria (1982), Libya (1986), Iraq (1991) and former Yugoslavia (late 90s) there were some of the most efficient AA umbrellas ever seen in the world,

 

This is pure hyperbole for news reporters and book authors to parrot... The truth is it didn't matter how dense were the SA-2s, 3s and 6s, those systems could be effectively neutralized by chaff and jamming. No quantity of them could compare to even a single S-300 guarding Moscow or Murmansk, because they had no multi-target or frequency-agile capability. The double-digit SAMs are vastly more efficient.

 

So what could happen in quiet system trials in Moscow outskirts (but I've not seen yet any proof of Tunguska shooting down a Maverick-sized target) I don't think could really happen in RL on a crowded FLOT, so I think it wasn't needed to be implemented in Lomac.

 

I agree with your conclusion! Practically, I don't think this is realistic, and I think it's especially tragic that Strelas are now engaging Mavericks as a result. But the particular arguments you've chosen aren't very convincing. Better to acknowledge the true capabilities of modern systems and focus on their own weaknesses in this regard for what they really are - detection time, reaction time, proximity fuze sensitivity, blast radius, etc. Rather than trying to extrapolate SA-2 tactics into Patriot tactics. The modern world is a different ballgame from what we're used to from history books and sims.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

The diameter of the maverick and the harpoon differs only by about 4-5cm. (About 30 vs 34cm). They should be equally detectable head-on just from that figure - of course, other factors may apply.

 

And as I have -already- said, shooting down ARMs is at the same time a placeholder for shutting down radars (and likely moving, for the systems that are capable of this, as well as buddy illumination to draw the missile elsewhere and radar emitter decoys) WHICH AT THIS POINT IS NOT SUPPORTED by the AI code.

 

I realize a lot of people would have preferred the SAMs to continue being sitting ducks.

[SwingKid]

Bear in mind SK, that a SeaWolk missile intercepted a 4.5" shell ... and that was with 1980s technology ... so why not?

 

Good point. I would counter that it knew the shell was coming ahead of time.

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

I realize a lot of people would have preferred the SAMs to continue being sitting ducks.

 

The Strela-1 should be a sitting duck... at night...

 

Don't you go grouping all SAMs together in the same basket now, either!

 

-SK

 

self-appointed moderator of this thread only :)

[Guest IguanaKing]

The diameter of the maverick and the harpoon differs only by about 4-5cm. (About 30 vs 34cm). They should be equally detectable head-on just from that figure - of course, other factors may apply.

 

And as I have -already- said, shooting down ARMs is at the same time a placeholder for shutting down radars (and likely moving, for the systems that are capable of this, as well as buddy illumination to draw the missile elsewhere and radar emitter decoys) WHICH AT THIS POINT IS NOT SUPPORTED by the AI code.

 

I realize a lot of people would have preferred the SAMs to continue being sitting ducks.

 

Who would have preferred that? Some of us just don't happen to like that the ducks are now super ducks armed with sniper rifles. It sounds like they have an unlimited supply of ammo as well.

[GGTharos]

The Strela-1 should be a sitting duck... at night...

 

Don't you go grouping all SAMs together in the same basket now, either!

 

-SK

 

self-appointed moderator of this thread only :)

 

Heh, I know, I know ;)

 

On the other hand, it shouldn't be too easy to find either. It's hard enough finding them in daylight from A-10's, at least insofar as I can tell from the A-10's over Kosovo PDF.

[GGTharos]

Who would have preferred that? Some of us just don't happen to like that the ducks are now super ducks armed with sniper rifles. It sounds like they have an unlimited supply of ammo as well.

 

In a way yes ... they do have to reload, which ends up being 'dead time'.

 

Or you can just double-tap it from the get-go and get rid of it.

 

I agree that some SAMs shouldn't even be trying, but it was known that there would be compromises. I doubt the situation is half as bad as you're making it sound - I've used mavericks against ships and sunk them (I think the K might be sporting a bigger warhead now - not sure) and some were shot down by the ship, but not all.

 

I haven't tried dueling a tunguska yet, though I'm aware the strelas are engaging mavericks, and that was a bit of a surprise. On the other hand, they weren't hitting my missiles too often - depends on what you set their skill to I think.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Bear in mind SK, that a SeaWolk missile intercepted a 4.5" shell ... and that was with 1980s technology ... so why not?

 

A 4.5" shell from what? Was this in a combat situation, or was it a trial?

[Kula66]

Good point. I would counter that it knew the shell was coming ahead of time.

 

-SK

 

True ... I'm sure it was a nicely staged test ... but it still would have to track it to get an exact plot for an intercept, and this was the old non-VLS weapon ... I don't know what speed a 4.5" does ... 3000fps? and MUCH smaller than a Mav. Shame it suffered so many glitches during its live debut!

[Kula66]

A 4.5" shell from what? Was this in a combat situation, or was it a trial?

 

Naval gun ... 114mm probably a Mk 8 ...

[Guest IguanaKing]

In a way yes ... they do have to reload, which ends up being 'dead time'.

 

Or you can just double-tap it from the get-go and get rid of it.

 

I agree that some SAMs shouldn't even be trying, but it was known that there would be compromises. I doubt the situation is half as bad as you're making it sound - I've used mavericks against ships and sunk them (I think the K might be sporting a bigger warhead now - not sure) and some were shot down by the ship, but not all.

 

I haven't tried dueling a tunguska yet, though I'm aware the strelas are engaging mavericks, and that was a bit of a surprise. On the other hand, they weren't hitting my missiles too often - depends on what you set their skill to I think.

 

The re-load time should be limited by vehicle and troop movement, should it not? Heh...I know I'm being too critical now. ;) I just think the magical, Star Wars stuff is just a little over-the-top.

[GGTharos]

Good point. I would counter that it knew the shell was coming ahead of time.

 

-SK

 

Yes, that's a pre-requisite for the C-RAM as well ... they tend to get their data from a bigger surveillance radar first.

 

THat's why I'm saying, when you launch a maverick at a Tunguska in LOMAC you can consider that it's already 'looking at you' and it sees the missile separation.

 

Maybe in the future a scan pattern can be implemented for some of the SAMs, and they may have to limit where they're looking to get reasonable tracking and so on ;) For now, they insta-see everything.

[S77th-konkussion]

I might bite on a TUNG detecting & shooting down a Maverick launched at it from an aircraft that it KNEW was there over a long & clear line of sight (open area without obstacles & terrain) I think the very best of circumstances would be needed, and a helluva lot of luck, too. I don't buy that it could possibly find & engage a maverick with any of these ideal conditions removed. The human factor alone casts incredible doubt to me.

 

Strela? That's simply laughable.

 

edit- but I should add that I understand there's only so much you can do with AI being the way it is.

[GGTharos]

The re-load time should be limited by vehicle and troop movement, should it not? Heh...I know I'm being too critical now. ;) I just think the magical, Star Wars stuff is just a little over-the-top.

 

Yes, and SA-6 and SA-11 on-the move shouldn't be transmitting either. They should also know how to break-up their setup and move and set-up elsewhere properly.

 

And so on and so forth ;)

[504 Wolverine]

I would agree with GG here. IMHO People are really making a moutain out of a mole hill.

 

Afterall Excellent skill means just that, excellent.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Naval gun ... 114mm probably a Mk 8 ...

 

Was this from an enemy vessel in a combat situation? That was the point of my question. ;)