Tunguskas .. Oh no not that again...

[Guest ruggbutt]

I'll be including a Tung on excellent settings in some of my LMR missions. Frankly, having Mavs almost never miss just didn't feel right. Having read A10's over Kosovo the pilots stated that sometimes they couldn't get an IR or TV lock, depending on conditions. With the Tungs shooting down incoming it makes the missions more fun, instead of knowing that as soon as you get a lock it's mission over, you win.

[Weta43]

But RuggButt, then Jinker won't want to play your missions - He doesn't seem to like the idea of flying against ground units that defend themselves. He wants the feeling that come with one shot - one kill certainty. That "I'm flying an invincible American killing machine against sub-standard foreign crap, how can it possibly defeat me" certainty...

[Guest Jinker]

I'll be including a Tung on excellent settings in some of my LMR missions. Frankly, having Mavs almost never miss just didn't feel right. Having read A10's over Kosovo the pilots stated that sometimes they couldn't get an IR or TV lock, depending on conditions. With the Tungs shooting down incoming it makes the missions more fun, instead of knowing that as soon as you get a lock it's mission over, you win.

 

I would definitely not say that they should have a 100% Pk either. That's not real either. I've sot a bunch of them, and they do seem to score pretty well. I've had a couple misses, but I was at 6x on those, and I'm not real sure they were not locking onto something else. I cannot be 100% certain becasue i was too far away. I had to rely on what the TVM and the hud was telling me. The targets were "dots". The cross flashed, and I let them fly. No Tung's were around on those missions, so I have to wonder. I could not find the impact point so I'm not even sure it hit the ground.

[Guest Jinker]

But RuggButt, then Jinker won't want to play your missions - He doesn't seem to like the idea of flying against ground units that defend themselves. He wants the feeling that come with one shot - one kill certainty. That "I'm flying an invincible American killing machine against sub-standard foreign crap, how can it possibly defeat me" certainty...

 

Nah, that's an inaccurate assumption. See the post above. :)

[Guest ruggbutt]

I rarely miss with Mavs. Last time was a couple months ago.

[Guest Jinker]

I'll be including a Tung on excellent settings in some of my LMR missions. Frankly, having Mavs almost never miss just didn't feel right. Having read A10's over Kosovo the pilots stated that sometimes they couldn't get an IR or TV lock, depending on conditions. With the Tungs shooting down incoming it makes the missions more fun, instead of knowing that as soon as you get a lock it's mission over, you win.

 

Lemme know when you get them. I'll be glad to fly them. I've got a few tactics for them. That's the whole point. I'll use what I got to work with, and it's more than sufficient as long as I fly it right. If I don't, I'll get shot up. It's happened many times before, and I'm sure it won't be the last. :)

[GGTharos]

That's because it was a moot point, and was off topic in that thread. He showed absolutely no evidence that a Tunguska had any capability at all to shot down missiles.

 

He tried a tangent of his own argument (again off topic) by citing sources for a Naval version of the weapon that doesn't even use the same radar, and nowhere in those sources did it have any info at all on land based Tunguska's other than the fact that the system they talked about was based on it.

 

See my post above. If somebody can show me a source that states otherwise, I will be glad to change my beliefs, but until that happens I have seen no evidence that they can, so like was stated, arguing with a troll about it is pointless.

 

His argumentative attitude not only got him put on Ignore, I was also notified that he got the thread closed down, and not to engage in any further discussion with him...by two or three different people. I took their advice.

 

I'm not gonna sit there and waste my time arguing with somebody. It's stupid. If it's not any fun for them, why do they do it? I don't come onto a hobby related forum to get drug through the mud. I got better things to be doing with my time, and i definitely am going to have fun doing this. If I have to put the chronic complainers and naysayers on Ignore, even if I have to put every single on of them on Ignore I will. I don't wanna have to do that, but I'm not gonna let those types waste my time. I don't waste theirs, and I don't expect them to waste mine. I feel like that is pretty fair.

 

No, it isn't.

 

Look - you've been saying that there's no way (my perception of what you're saying) that a Tunguska can shoot down a missile.

You ask for the proof that it can, but you have not found evidence to support your own point either.

 

The maverick is pretty slow as missiles go, and it's fairly large - it's head-on RCS is probably not too small. It really doesn't matter much if you're operating near land or sea, the clutter is going to be the same for the purpose of this exercise.

 

AFAIK the missile used in both versions is the same - this is what counts, here ... the missile's ability to intercept another missile.

 

The radar just has to track it, and assuming it can (it's a fair assumption, given that these things likely track aircraft targets for practice which probably are about as big as the mav head-on and moving at low altitudes to simulate helos) it all becomes an issue of priorities and reaction time, not system capability.

 

Now I'll point out that a missile may not have a very high pk against a maverick, granted - so you would launch multiples.

I'll also grant that this would not be the first thing a targeted 2S6 would do - they'd likely kick in the smoke and back up into it.

Also, they would likely now target the carrier aircraft first, not the missile (and you can force the LOMAC 2S6 to do this).

 

So, the real deal ehre is that the AI has superfuman SA and reflexes - in reality the crew would be lucky to react quickly enough to shoot down the missile. ESPECIALLY since the Mav shots are likely to occur at some 3nm, not the 8 people shoot at right now. If the mav had to fly 8nm, it likely would get targeted and shot if they thought that was the way to go.

 

There has been a trend lately in battlefield AD weapons gaining anti-ballistic capabilities, and I don't mean TBMs. I mean arty shells and missiles. Compared to those things, the maverick is a pretty easy target.

 

In light of this, I think you should reconsider your evaluation of both yours and other people's arguments.

 

Such discussion can be very fruitful, has already occured a number of times and has led to some interesting things - so I hope you'd like to be part of it.

 

 

But again, this doesn't mean that the system lacks capability.

[Guest ruggbutt]

In my SEAD mission with a KUB site and 2 Tungs (excellent) they engage with guns.

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

I rarely miss with Mavs. Last time was a couple months ago.

 

cuz u use the uber leet mav h4x, the one where mavs travel across the whole map and can turn right angles :)

 

I must of deleted that from my pc, cuz i cant seem to find it no more, along with my a2a amraams that explode with a 1kt nuke warhead

 

I r sick :( :rolleyes: :)

[Guest ruggbutt]

ph33r me

[GGTharos]

In my SEAD mission with a KUB site and 2 Tungs (excellent) they engage with guns.

 

It's probably inside min missile range when they engage it, so that makes sense.

[Guest Jinker]

:icon_pray Let's get those tactical nukes out there. You know...those "special weapons".

 

Get those suckers yeah! lol

[Sealpup]

:icon_pray Let's get those tctical nukes out there. You know...those "special weapons".

 

Get those suckers yeah! lol

 

Er...no.

[Ironhand]

I can tell you this much. I searched and searched lastnight for that info, and found nothing that stated or showed that a Tunguska can shoot down missle threats. The closest thing i came to was a naval system based on that, and it used a different radar...

 

(snipped)

 

...I did find alot of information on the Tunguska and it talked about it's envelope and everything, but no mention at all that it had shot down missles, or that was even capable of it.

Well, FWIW, about 5 minutes of searching 8 minutes ago provided the following: "Compared to the Tunguska-M, the Tunguska-M1 system ensures::

 

...— engagement of small targets (cruise missiles of the ALCM type) owing to the use of a radar proximity target sensor (PTS) with circular radiation pattern;..."

 

Source: Warfare.ru

 

Rich

[S77th-GOYA]

Cruise missles and Mavericks are very different animals. About the only thing they have in common is terminal velocity.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here but it was posted that this situation is an unintended outcome of trying to make larger SAMs engage ARMs. Why are people trying to defend it?

[Ironhand]

S77th-GOYA,

 

Don't know if that was directed at me. My link was a response to a specific statement about Tunguskas and "missiles" not Mavericks. While I happen to like the extra challenge FC's Tunguskas now provide, I'm not arguing either side of the real-life equation.

 

Rich

[S77th-GOYA]

Rich, it was not so much directed at you but more of a general comment. And I enjoy the challenge as well, but the challenge shouldn't come from fantasy Tunguskas. Until it is proven that Tungs can shoot down Mavs with 100% accuracy, what we have in LOMAC are fantasy Tunguskas.

 

I've yet to see any proof, only conjecture.

[Ironhand]

OK. In the long term I'd love to see an accurate portrayal of ADS on the digital battlefield. In the short term I guess I'm willing to settle for fantasy Tunguskas, if that's what they are.

 

BTW, 100% accuracy? I've seen that stated a couple of times in this thread without anyone questioning it. Is that what you're seeing? I haven't seen it anywhere near that high myself. 100% engagement, yes. 100% success, no.

 

Rich

[GGTharos]

Possibly 100% success when you push the missile slider to 100%?

[Ironhand]

That would probably be the difference. :) Mine's set to 50%

 

Rich

[Guest ruggbutt]

LOC and I flew a quick mission I made w/2 tungs. They were dead after 4 mavs, and that was the worse case scenario. Once I shot them both with 1 each. My missile slider is set at 50%

[D-Scythe]

Possibly 100% success when you push the missile slider to 100%?

 

Bingo. Putting the slider to 100% ensures a 100% kill rate against any non-maneuvering target like a Maverick, ARM or cruise missile.

 

IMO, most problems can largely be solved if some sort of delay was incorporated into AI decision making to reduce its instant reaction time and super SA, for both fighters and SAMs. I think that in ideal conditions, most short-range SAMs should be able to engage A/G missiles and even guided bombs with some sort of success, but it's just that the ranges are often too short to allow for the SAM operators sufficient time to engage such a threat effectively. Long-range SAMs like Patriot and S300 are afforded this luxury because they can attack from so far away that there is plenty of time to destroy its target, be it plane or missile.

[GGTharos]

I think there's more to it than just that ... remember, reaction time is already 'built in' ... but when you have warning afforded by the radar in your group, you react much sooner to the threat.

 

In any case, the mavs, from what I've gathered, are capable of being launched from too anyway, so fantasy defense against fantasy capability is fine by me.

 

Also, I believe all these things are tuned for the 50% missile slider position, so if some people like to play with the slider set at 100% which takes away all guidance drift, they should be prepared to pay the consequences - it's simply an artifact of the simulation and right now not much can be done about it as I understand it.

 

Eventually I think AI units may get allowable 'gimbal limits' and 'IFoVs', and a few other goodies that may make them behave more realistically - but at the same time, weapon capability will also need to be reduced and AI will need to be given defensive measures.

 

Right now, the 'shoot back at your weapon' capability isn't the most terrible self-defense stand-in there could be.

[S77th-GOYA]

So we're back to two wrongs making a right and I just don't buy it.

 

I also play at missle effectiveness 100% because I just don't believe AMRAAMS and R-77s suck.

[GGTharos]

And that's the problem. You don't believe that AMRAAMs and R-77's suck, but you believe that Tunguskas should.

 

Things aren't that black and white ;)

If you play at 100%, the tunguskas will kill missiles - I don't see any reason for removing their ability to attempt engaging airborne missiles they can detect, especially when those missiles are fairly slow.

 

You can play at 100% all you want - it's your preference, and that's fine. But don't expect the entire game to be tuned to it. If you want suckier tunguskas, you'll need suckier AMRAAMs and R77's. They don't seem to do all that bad to me though.

 

Currently the missile model doesn't support making that much of a difference from missile to missile, as far as I can tell. There are some very interesting things being discussed about missile guidance that would make a difference, but no one really knows if they'll ever 'take' or not.

 

At the very least there is an idea to implement a table with various signatures from each target (rcs, ir, visual) and some sensor models for the AI, but it's all a very huge amount of work and probably won't happen any time soon.

 

Disclaimer: And just because I said there are things being talked about doesn't mean they'll ever happen. They're just ideas that are being proposed.