Missile navigation question

[zzzspace]

A missile navigation question.

 

Watching a lots of missiles bite the dirt via trying to lead-nav on diving targets. I just saw a TOR fire, and the missile arced up then immediately arced-down at a steep angle, and it hit dirt about 1.5 km away from its launcher. Fine, that's not a gripe, just an observation of what the Ai does.

 

But what occurs to me about this behaviour is, if the TOR system designer (or any other GBAD designer for that matter) already knows that defeating a SAMs is often done in conjunction with the target diving for the deck, wouldn't the designers quickly realise they need to equip the missile engagement system on the SAMs, with a 3-D digital terrain-model, for the current area of operations, that automatically predictively anticipates, from the concurrence of that terrain's surface, and the observed vector of the target, where therefore that target is next most likely to fly or turn to.

 

Or to at least, and at a minimum, determine which direction and intercept location a valid target track definitely won't turn towards.

 

i.e. The system decides that F-16C will definitely not be flying towards an intercept point BELOW the surface of the digital terrain model, that it's pointed at right this moment of the missiles flight, so therefore (says the TOR to itself) I won't aim this missile to intercept a point where I already know a valid target will never reach. Therefore, concludes the TOR's logic, I will navigate this missile in flight to place where this target is most likely to turn toward, if the F-16C in fact misses the ground.

 

It would seem to me that this sort of navigation logic would have been integrated on all these systems a very long time ago.

 

Or is this not the case?

 

I strongly suspect this will be the case, in actual operation.

Edited August 9, 2012 by zzzspace

[Eddie]

Nope. Such a system would be expensive and very complex, especially if the thing you're going to install it in has a flight time of mere seconds. It's far more important for missiles to be (relatively) cheap and simple to manufacture so that they can be supplied in large numbers. And that's before you factor in the expense of creating such a terrain model.

 

Something often forgotten in the sim world is that an AD system does not need to kill the target to be effective, it simply has to stop the target accomplishing its mission.

 

That said, command guidance systems could employ such logic, at least in theory, but again why make a system more complex (and therefore prone to failure) than it needs to be. In fact, such as system could actually make it easier to defeat the missile, as it will no longer be following the most efficient intercept course.

[Revelation]

If the missile had a sustained thrust or longer burn time, sure. You have to remember that most missiles burn up their fuel very quickly and are simply using energy to fly towards a target.

 

If a missile "plans" to be at point A due to terrain and vector of target, well it won't have enough energy to change course if the AC is at point B - after the missile regains "sight" of the target.

 

The process is actually a lot more complicated than what I just mentioned, but hopefully it helps.

[winz]

Nope. Such a system would be expensive and very complex, especially if the thing you're going to install it in has a flight time of mere seconds. It's far more important for missiles to be (relatively) cheap and simple to manufacture so that they can be supplied in large numbers. And that's before you factor in the expense of creating such a terrain model.

Isn't TOR radio command guied? If so, there is no reason why such system should be present in the missile. And there is no reason why such system couldn't be present in launching platform. It isn't exactly rocket science...especially in digital age.

My wild guess would be that TOR actually does have terrain avoidance capabilities and it's just that EDs implemented only a simple lead-pursuit guiding for all of their missiles.

Edited August 9, 2012 by winz

[sobek]

In fact, such as system could actually make it easier to defeat the missile, as it will no longer be following the most efficient intercept course.

 

Quite the contrary, since you give the missile some boundary conditions on where the target can definately NOT go, you enable the missile to not waste energy flying towards a point in space that neither the missile nor the target can reach, therefore at the point where the target has to maneuver to not hit the ground, which causes the theoretical intercept solution to move above ground level again, the missile won't have to maneuver as hard and still has more energy availabe to defeat the target (also, it won't have already steered into the ground).

 

I would assume that some of the more advanced long range missile systems have some capability to detect their height above ground level to reject flight paths that the target can not follow for the entire missile time of flight. Otherwise they would never be able to achieve such high pks.

Edited August 9, 2012 by sobek

[zzzspace]

Nope. Such a system would be expensive and very complex, especially if the thing you're going to install it in has a flight time of mere seconds. ... |snipped| And that's before you factor in the expense of creating such a terrain model. ... |snipped| ... That said, command guidance systems could employ such logic, at least in theory, but again why make a system more complex (and therefore prone to failure) than it needs to be. In fact, such as system could actually make it easier to defeat the missile, as it will no longer be following the most efficient intercept course.

 

Forgive my snips, I just want to keep focused on this for a bit.

 

The thing is I don't see where the great expense and complexity necessarily is. It's basically software comparing a vector (that it already has) to database in memory, and deciding if the missile flying along the intervening track can hit the object, if its projected to go under the ground.

 

Digital terrain models are comparatively cheap-as-chips to acquire and these days using long ago fielded digital recon systems able to record then create high-res stereoscopic 3-D imagery on the fly. So I don't think that presents a technical impediment or onerous costs. Indeed, I think a small team could have the bare bones of such an adjunct to existing SAMs worked out very quickly and cheaply. I don't see any major changes in hardware here, for the command system. As all you'd be doing is telling the missile where not to fly to, and then adjusting navigation profiles and altitude, to suit where it definitely can't get to.

 

I take you're point about mission-kills of course, but, isn't this like comparing SEAD to DEAD? Isn't DEAD the more ideal outcome and doctrine. The TOR crew might agree with me here, regards the desirable logic of killing DEAD-capable aircraft. So would it not be better for the SAM to kill an F-16, rather than just go for giving it a tactical setback, that it will bounce back from, fast?

 

And given the missile system can't hit targets, by driving missiles into the ground, why is the risk of lower-reliability a dominant consideration, if the missiles are cheaply and reliably aiming a large number of missiles to collide with targets under the ground?

 

I won't do that, and I suspect the designers and those setting the goals and requirements of such systems wouldn't want it to do that either, especially if they are trying to improve the statistical POK of their system.

 

Plus how would it be easier to defeat the missile if such a system never opted to point the missile into a steep angle towards the ground when near to low altitude, in the first place. Would it not make rational sense to gather some altitude and wait to see what the target will most likely go, and then drop in on that area, with the energy conserved, rather than to just immediately crash (dangerously) into the deck near to where your own ground forces will be distributed?

 

I can't see why this is necessarily prohibitively complex, or expensive, nor less than a far more desirable capability in a cheap and reliable SAM system (or in an expensive and heavy SAM)

[zzzspace]

Isn't TOR radio command guied? If so, there is no reason why such system should be present in the missile. And there is no reason why such system couldn't be present in launching platform. It isn't exactly rocket science...especially in digital age.

 

The logic of it also applies to look-down shoot-down engagement.

[RIPTIDE]

meh... even in the SA-2 simulator you can select the type of trajectory that the SAM follows depending on target type.

[zzzspace]

I would assume that some of the more advanced long range missile systems have some capability to detect their height above ground level to reject flight paths that the target can not follow for the entire missile time of flight. Otherwise they would never be able to achieve such high pks.

 

Good point, I've thought much the same thing for a while.

 

The first thing a designer of an MLU upgrade is going to do is to work out what tactics and techniques have been developed or would be used to defeat the system, then devise ways to circumvent all such attempts to lower POK. Thereby raising it, to keep the system fresh and competitive until retired.

 

Given advanced systems like TOR and Tunguska carry a small number of missiles and support reloads, and say, two are launched at each target engaged, why would you ever accept into operation a software logic that fires them into the ground, needlessly?

Edited August 9, 2012 by zzzspace

[Exorcet]

Given advanced systems like TOR and Tunguska carry a small number of missiles and support reloads, and say, two are launched at each target engaged, why would you ever accept into operation a software logic that fires them into the ground, needlessly?

The guys firing the missiles are the ones that make the decision. If they want to get a kill, they probably won't let the target get into a position to run the missile into the ground.

 

As for long range missiles, they usually loft, so there isn't a need for terrain avoidance software. A bigger terrain issue for them would be the target finding cover behind a mountain or something like that and avoiding lock on.

[zzzspace]

The guys firing the missiles are the ones that make the decision. If they want to get a kill, they probably won't let the target get into a position to run the missile into the ground.

 

As for long range missiles, they usually loft, so there isn't a need for terrain avoidance software. A bigger terrain issue for them would be the target finding cover behind a mountain or something like that and avoiding lock on.

 

Fair enough on the first bit, if/i] they can react that fast. I doubt they can, to a manoeuvring fastjet, with little warning, and situational awareness in very short supply.

 

The implication of long-range missiles not lead navigating and loosing range and energy prior to interception, is that the software system is not allowing it to follow and inefficient and self defeating trajectory that lowers POK. At least not until the terminal phase of flight.

 

So why would a system like the TOR not do the same thing, especially given the TOR's greatest asset and bragging-rights, is it's extraordinary range for a mobile SHORAD?

 

So why would systems competing with TOR not do the same thing? i.e. try to increase range and lethally using such code and DTM implementations?

 

I've come to the view that they do, simply because they must, just to get the job done effectively.

[GGTharos]

There is absolutely zero need to do such a thing. You just program the missile to keep the target on or just under the horizon (there are several algorithms for accomplishing this, and the details of how high the missile flies, where and when exactly it dives down onto the target, etc, depend on the physics of your system - ie. radar capabilities, solutions to radar multi-path issues and other fun stuff).

 

Can it be programmed into DCSW? For sure, some day. This stuff is simple in concept, but non-trivial to implement, especially if the system has to make choices between guidance methods.

 

'All in good time.'

 

The thing is I don't see where the great expense and complexity necessarily is. It's basically software comparing a vector (that it already has) to database in memory, and deciding if the missile flying along the intervening track can hit the object, if its projected to go under the ground.

[zzzspace]

There is absolutely zero need to do such a thing. You just program the missile to keep the target on or just under the horizon (there are several algorithms for accomplishing this, and the details of how high the missile flies, where and when exactly it dives down onto the target, etc, depend on the physics of your system - ie. radar capabilities, solutions to radar multi-path issues and other fun stuff).

 

Can it be programmed into DCSW? For sure, some day. This stuff is simple in concept, but non-trivial to implement, especially if the system has to make choices between guidance methods.

 

'All in good time.'

 

Then we'll see how well we can dodge missiles ... :D

[GGTharos]

I think first they should implement some cleverness regarding IADS type datalinking of targets anod not blasting your radar all over the place, telling people where you are ... this would instantly change SEAD and SAM evasion in the game. Of course, ECM and expendables need to be better modeled for this as well.

 

The guidance stuff is important but, compared to that, it can wait a bit.

[zzzspace]

I think first they should implement some cleverness regarding IADS type datalinking of targets ... The guidance stuff is important but, compared to that, it can wait a bit.

 

Yes, sure, I would readily agree with that, and I like your reason - a change in tactics, to something more real.

 

And that's also what causes me to ask about this, because I think the tactics, weapons and teamwork of beating that threat is where the fun is.

[Eddie]

Forgive my snips, I just want to keep focused on this for a bit.

 

The thing is I don't see where the great expense and complexity necessarily is. It's basically software comparing a vector (that it already has) to database in memory, and deciding if the missile flying along the intervening track can hit the object, if its projected to go under the ground.

 

Digital terrain models are comparatively cheap-as-chips to acquire and these days using long ago fielded digital recon systems able to record then create high-res stereoscopic 3-D imagery on the fly. So I don't think that presents a technical impediment or onerous costs. Indeed, I think a small team could have the bare bones of such an adjunct to existing SAMs worked out very quickly and cheaply. I don't see any major changes in hardware here, for the command system. As all you'd be doing is telling the missile where not to fly to, and then adjusting navigation profiles and altitude, to suit where it definitely can't get to.

 

I take you're point about mission-kills of course, but, isn't this like comparing SEAD to DEAD? Isn't DEAD the more ideal outcome and doctrine. The TOR crew might agree with me here, regards the desirable logic of killing DEAD-capable aircraft. So would it not be better for the SAM to kill an F-16, rather than just go for giving it a tactical setback, that it will bounce back from, fast?

 

And given the missile system can't hit targets, by driving missiles into the ground, why is the risk of lower-reliability a dominant consideration, if the missiles are cheaply and reliably aiming a large number of missiles to collide with targets under the ground?

 

I won't do that, and I suspect the designers and those setting the goals and requirements of such systems wouldn't want it to do that either, especially if they are trying to improve the statistical POK of their system.

 

Plus how would it be easier to defeat the missile if such a system never opted to point the missile into a steep angle towards the ground when near to low altitude, in the first place. Would it not make rational sense to gather some altitude and wait to see what the target will most likely go, and then drop in on that area, with the energy conserved, rather than to just immediately crash (dangerously) into the deck near to where your own ground forces will be distributed?

 

I can't see why this is necessarily prohibitively complex, or expensive, nor less than a far more desirable capability in a cheap and reliable SAM system (or in an expensive and heavy SAM)

 

With larger, long range systems (SA-10 for example) such things are indeed possible., but when you get down to smaller sizes it becomes difficult.

 

Remember, while it might be "easy" to do with modern technology, very few SAM (or any other military system for that matter) use "modern" technology. Most military tech is already "old" compared to what is technically possible when it enters service. Maybe more of the SAMS we see in years to come will have such capability.

 

Besides, although such diving tactics might be prevalent in DCS, you shouldn't assume they are IRL. In reality dealing with ECM is far more important than the chance of someone dragging a missile into the ground.

 

It's worth remembering that in reality, if you defeat that SA-11 by causing it to impact the terrain, the SA-11 operators will probably have a smug grin on their faces, because they know that they've just forced you into the WEZ of all the IR systems.

 

As GG mentioned, with a functioning IADS system those IR systems (and other RADAR systems) will know you're there, and they'll be waiting for that SA-11 (or whatever) to force you down low.

 

Then of course there is the fact that you might not even know there is a missile heading your way, as it may have been launched ballistically, with the SAM crew only guiding it at the last possible moment so you don't have time to drag it into the ground etc.

 

In summary, you're looking for a solution to a problem that either doesn't exist IRL, or is far less significant than you assume.

[Exorcet]

So why would a system like the TOR not do the same thing, especially given the TOR's greatest asset and bragging-rights, is it's extraordinary range for a mobile SHORAD?

 

So why would systems competing with TOR not do the same thing? i.e. try to increase range and lethally using such code and DTM implementations?

 

I've come to the view that they do, simply because they must, just to get the job done effectively.

What's efficient and what's not will change with the situation. Long range missiles will probably avoid lofting at short range, as there will be no benefit and possibly even detriments.

 

I'm sure that TOR and similar systems try to be as efficient as possible, although I don't know how they achieve this specifically. I don't think that a ground avoidance systems is absolutely necessary for a missile to perform well however. Driving them into the ground is relatively easy in DCS because SAM's announce themselves to the world, but in reality, they can sneak up on you. Another reason to simulate IADS.

 

that's also what causes me to ask about this, because I think the tactics, weapons and teamwork of beating that threat is where the fun is.

I agree there.

[zzzspace]

... because they know that they've just forced you into the WEZ of all the IR systems.

 

As GG mentioned, with a functioning IADS system those IR systems (and other RADAR systems) will know you're there, and they'll be waiting for that SA-11 (or whatever) to force you down low.

 

Then of course there is the fact that you might not even know there is a missile heading your way, as it may have been launched ballistically, with the SAM crew only guiding it at the last possible moment so you don't have time to drag it into the ground etc.

 

In summary, you're looking for a solution to a problem that either doesn't exist IRL, or is far less significant than you assume.

 

 

Which is fine, and possibly so, but as GG also points out, the real situation can easily be far nastier than what's modelled now, (and that missiles don't and won't be face-planting all the time), and that's the point of my question, to tease that possibility out a bit.

 

One thing I do know about capability change though, is the rate of change is getting faster/shorter, and new code and capabilities in existing systems are often invisible to the eye ... until it kills you (the TOW B2 discussion in the CA forum is a good example).

Edited August 9, 2012 by zzzspace

[Eddie]

Indeed, but it's a DCS modelling limitation rather than a real life issue. And until we see more realistic SAM implementation (which as GG said would also require realistic ECM and expendable countermeasures modelling) it won't change. But when it does change (and I'm sure it will, eventually) this issue will largely go away simply due to the way air defence will operate.

[zzzspace]

Driving them into the ground is relatively easy in DCS because SAM's announce themselves to the world, but in reality, they can sneak up on you. Another reason to simulate IADS.

 

Good point! ... and stuff like optically-guided Tunguska ...

[zzzspace]

Indeed, but it's a DCS modelling limitation rather than a real life issue. And until we see more realistic SAM implementation (which as GG said would also require realistic ECM and expendable countermeasures modelling) it won't change. But when it does change (and I'm sure it will, eventually) this issue will largely go away simply due to the way air defence will operate.

 

Yes, I agree, a totally different pardigm then.

[Bushmanni]

Can Tor missiles be dragged to ground in DCS? Can any other missiles besides IR SAMs be dragged to earth in DCS? Last time I tried with Tor in 1.1.0.8 or something they flew CLOS trajectory that keeps them on a line connecting the target and the launcher. Unless the target flies behind a hill it would be most probably the target that hits the ground first if it tries to drag the missile into the ground. Question to the OP: Was there any countermeasures involved when the Tors missile went into the ground or was it only maneuvering that made the missile to fly into the ground?

 

To my knowledge only missiles using PN trajectory can be in theory fooled to fly into the ground. I would expect IR missiles to do this in the real life but radar command guided ones can have a feature in the guidance radar system that keeps them over the horizon until close enough for a final dive. Air launched missiles are rarely launched in a situation(very low alt target and launcher and long enough range) where it would be possible to try to fool the missile into the ground despite PN trajectory.

 

In the video you can see several engagements by Tor M2 against different training targets. Against high flying target it flies CLOS trajectory and against low altitude target it flies at a set altitude and then dives to the target when sufficiently close. Relevant stuff for the discussion at 0:50 and 3:15. Tor in DCS is the oldest one which I'm not sure uses this min altitude method to avoid colliding with ground but I know it's not used in DCS. CLOS trajectory makes it still very hard to make the missiles to fly into the ground though.

 

z_Rg5Oot8aY

[GGTharos]

That's one way of doing things. The devil is always in the details. As for IR/PN missiles, just because they're PN doesn't mean you can't modify the algo to keep the target on the horizon when diving.

[zzzspace]

Question to the OP: Was there any countermeasures involved when the Tors missile went into the ground or was it only maneuvering that made the missile to fly into the ground?

 

It was a case of an F-16 that had already been hit on approach to a column, at around 4k feet up by an 9M330, and had started to go down, still about 3 to 4 km away from the TOR and it was beginning to break apart and fall more steeply. The TOR launched again as it was starting to fall more steeply, and the missile quickly arced up then just as quickly nosed over into the ground, while still short of the falling F-16 which also hit the ground seconds after. There was a low rise in the land between the TOR and where the F-16 and the missile crashed. It just got me thinking about why it would do that.

[zzzspace]

Air launched missiles are rarely launched in a situation(very low alt target and launcher and long enough range) where it would be possible to try to fool the missile into the ground despite PN trajectory.

 

Just to clarify what I'm getting at, about AAM applications of such a terrain avoidance capability (in whatever way or technique it is implemented).

 

I'm not concerned about the perspective of the target's pilot trying to drive the AAM into the ground, because this, as you rightly say, is unlikely and fairly hard to do, especially if over flat terrain.

 

What I was getting at instead, is the resulting effect on missile trajectory, of the (DCS) AAM deciding not to follow a PN trajectory, because it's logic has realised that it would intercept below ground level, so therefore takes a predictive flight path that's far more likely and optimal to intercept the target above ground, in the most probable location that target will turn to, if manoeuvring at low level (so again a DTM could help the system's logic to evaluate and predict the most likely direction the target will turn to, to evade).

 

This is the way in which I would see it being applicable to AAMs, in look-down / shoot-down engagements. Which is why I originally called this thread a missile navigation question.

 

Again, I would be surprised if AAMs also don't have a similar capability for that reason (however it's technically implemented as an algo), to optimise their navigation and POK.

Edited August 10, 2012 by zzzspace