Tunguskas .. Oh no not that again...

[Guest ruggbutt]

Well, out of 4 missions with nothing changed I got 2 (mavs) for 2 (kills), 3 for 2 twice and 4 for 2.

 

Same flight profile for all of them. Frankly, it made the mission more exciting cuz an 8km launch range just makes the Tungs a sitting duck. It's nice to know that I'm not guaranteed a kill every time I lock something up.

[S77th-GOYA]

A Tung that doesn't kill every Mav fired in it's general direction sucks? What does it kill at 50%? 7 out of 10? And that sucks? Please.

 

Why are you defending a mistake?

[D-Scythe]

A Tung that doesn't kill every Mav fired in it's general direction sucks? What does it kill at 50%? 7 out of 10? And that sucks? Please.

 

Why are you defending a mistake?

 

Please, explain why is it a mistake? I mean, sure, the Tungs might be killing Mavs with unrealistic efficiency, but what is to suggest that the Tunguska physically cannot engage a Maverick if the conditions are right? If you have proof that this is the case, please post it for ED and I'm sure they'll fix this bug immediately.

 

You are absolutely correct in that two wrongs don't make a right. But this is not really the case with Lock On - it's more of a compromise due to gameplay reasons and resource/time issues. Current AD systems don't have the ability to defend themselves very effectively from SEAD aircraft, so it was decided that, in order to balance things out without an extensive re-write of code, to give some AD systems the ability to defend themselves based on the fact that some weapons, like Patriot, S300 and Tor (and maybe even Stinger, I'm not sure) are documented as being capable of doing so.

 

Some systems, like the Tungunska and Strela, were also given this ability, although I don't think it was ever explicitly stated in any official source. So yes, you're obviously right, there is no obvious proof that some of these systems can defend themselves in such a manner, but given the circumstances, and the inability of any AI ground unit to defend themself from an aircraft with a suitably ranged A/G missile, it was felt that the best compromise/solution to this was to give these units the very same defense that other contemporary systems have.

 

Sure, maybe some units need tweaking (like Tunguska, or Strela). But in no way was this a mistake, and so far, there is no reason why even a Stinger cannot pick up a Maverick all heated up after its motor had burnt out.

 

Just think of it this way: had the appropriate defenses been programmed into the SHORAD units, you'll likely waste both your Maverick plus the SAM not only saves a missile, but also gets to concentrate fully on you and your flight. As it is modelled in LOMAC now, the SHORAD system has to concentrate on the Maverick and waste its SAMs, leaving you more time to re-attack. Plus there are tactics to get the SAM to focus on you rather than your Maverick.

 

Believe it or not, it could be a lot worse.

[Krendel]

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.....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.....

http://www.metrowagonmash.ru/gm5975.htm - it's a producers site.It states that Tunguska-M1 can shoot down ALCMs.But you need to know russian to read it:).(you can find abbreviation ALCM in the text)

 

P.S. Chizh said that the ability to engage mav's will be removed for some systems(he mentioned strela-10), or they will be able to do this only with CP like Ranzhir.

[S77th-GOYA]

Please, explain why is it a mistake? I mean, sure, the Tungs might be killing Mavs with unrealistic efficiency, but what is to suggest that the Tunguska physically cannot engage a Maverick if the conditions are right?

 

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.

 

If the conditions are right?

 

You yourself just said that Tungs are killing Mavs with unrealistic efficiency. So you're telling us that they were given that unrealistic power on purpose? No mistakes?

 

I'm willing to concede that a Tung might engage a Mav under certain conditions, even though I've yet to see any real reason to concede that, but what's happening in this game is fantasy. Common sense tells me that.

 

Of course I don't have proof that Tungs can't engage Mavs. I also don't have proof that Santa Claus doesn't bring presents to children all over the world.

 

You want to win me over? First tell me what the radar return of a mav in flight looks like on the Tung's radar.

[D-Scythe]

If the conditions are right?

 

You yourself just said that Tungs are killing Mavs with unrealistic efficiency. So you're telling us that they were given that unrealistic power on purpose? No mistakes?

 

Don't twist my words or take them out of context. I did say that some things may need to be tweaked.

 

I'm willing to concede that a Tung might engage a Mav under certain conditions, even though I've yet to see any real reason to concede that, but what's happening in this game is fantasy. Common sense tells me that.

 

Common sense also tells us that AI airplanes shouldn't know where we are exactly at all times. There are lots of things "wrong" in LOMAC if you really want to nitpick - so why just focus on this one?

 

Of course I don't have proof that Tungs can't engage Mavs. I also don't have proof that Santa Claus doesn't bring presents to children all over the world.

 

And there is no way I can know what a Mav return looks like on the radar scope of a Tunguska - I actually have no proof that the radar can pick it up and lock it, for that matter. Somethings there just aren't any proofs for - you're just told they work by people in the "know." And if these people aren't saying anything, well then look what happens next: people guess and make compromises.

 

That is exactly what happened here, and in many cases in Lock On. TBH, if you really wanted, you can generalize your argument for all sorts of things in Lock On. Can a Vikhr-M really hit an A-10 air-to-air? Just what would an F-117 look like on the scope of an S-300PMU? How come it takes two direct hits from a Vikhr/Hellfire to take out a tank when one should be enough?

 

Can you provide me an answer as to why none of the things above are questioned? Generally, no. People just accept them for what they are, whether an S300PMU shooting down F-117s is realistic or not.

 

And Santa Claus is fake - the proof is relatively simple: just don't buy presents ;)

[EvilBivol-1]

IIRC it is mainly the "older generation" SAMs which were "allowed" this capability by mistake. The Tunguska, by common agreement, is advanced enough to have the capability of shooting down incoming missiles in the class of the Maverick.

 

Obviously, it shouldn't be able to do this 100% of the time. But, I agree with GG here, that is a result of your personal game setting, not a modeling problem. What *is* a modeling problem is that the -120 is "underpowered" in the 50% setting. Under current conditions, I guess that means you have to switch the slider, depending on the mission you're flying.

[SwingKid]

The Tunguska, by common agreement, is advanced enough to have the capability of shooting down incoming missiles in the class of the Maverick.

 

"During the entire flight time of the missile, the gunner must constantly maintain the crosshair of the optical sight on the target; the deviation of the missile's flight path form the line-of-sight is automatically computed and used to generate course correction signals. These are then transmitted to the missile in flight through the tracking radar, which during a missile engagement sequence doubles as fire-control radar. Missile employment is only possible in daylight and fair visibility conditions, because the target needs to be tracking with the optical sight for the entire duration of the engagement sequence."

 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/2s6rpt.htm

 

-SK

[EvilBivol-1]

Thanks, but I always thought the system's primary means of anti-missile fire would be through the guns. Also, the -M1 version is capable of receiving targeting data from the CP. I'm not sure what kind of an impact this would have on engaging incoming missiles.

[Alfa]

"During the entire flight time of the missile, the gunner must constantly maintain the crosshair of the optical sight on the target; the deviation of the missile's flight path form the line-of-sight is automatically computed and used to generate course correction signals. These are then transmitted to the missile in flight through the tracking radar, which during a missile engagement sequence doubles as fire-control radar. Missile employment is only possible in daylight and fair visibility conditions, because the target needs to be tracking with the optical sight for the entire duration of the engagement sequence."

 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/2s6rpt.htm

 

-SK

 

Andrew - what system exactly does the above describe? ;)

 

You will notice that it says "Pantsyr S1", which is a truck mounted AD system. Although this does resemble the "Tunguska" in some ways, it is in fact an entirely diffferent system. The "Pantsyr" uses a missile called 57E6 and guns called 2A72, while the "Tunguska" and "Kasthan" use the 9M311 "Kortik" missile and 2A38M gun(Tunguska) or Gsh-6-30K(Kashtan).

 

The engagement procedures of the "Pantsyr" may have relevance for the "Tunguska" too - but then again it may not. You will also find that the above link is used for the "SA-N-11", which is the naval "Kasthan" system.....and it certainly isent relevant for that! :D

 

Finally this for "Jinker":

 

Snip from manufacturer´s description of the 2K22M1 "Tunguska-M1" AD system:

 

"Intended to protect tank and motorized rifle units of the ground forces in all forms of combat and small-sized objects from air-attack weapons, primary fire-support helicopters and defeat lightly armoured ground and surface targets".

 

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[S77th-GOYA]

Don't twist my words or take them out of context. I did say that some things may need to be tweaked.

I didn't. I quoted you exactly and asked a question that you didn't answer.

 

Common sense also tells us that AI airplanes shouldn't know where we are exactly at all times. There are lots of things "wrong" in LOMAC if you really want to nitpick - so why just focus on this one?

Two main reasons. 1. This affects me more than the other things you mention and 2. This "wrong" was added recently and I want these "wrongs" to stop being added to LOMAC. There's a group of people that decided to add this and when questioned, none of those people have been able to show one speck of evidence to support it. It's a tendency I do not want to see propagate. Mavs that hit 100% of the time is wrong. Fix that, don't take shortcuts that make things more wrong. Not enough time/money? Then leave it alone.

 

And there is no way I can know what a Mav return looks like on the radar scope of a Tunguska - I actually have no proof that the radar can pick it up and lock it, for that matter. Somethings there just aren't any proofs for - you're just told they work by people in the "know." And if these people aren't saying anything, well then look what happens next: people guess and make compromises.

Where are these people "in the know" and why haven't they shown any proof here?

 

Can you provide me an answer as to why none of the things above are questioned? Generally, no. People just accept them for what they are, whether an S300PMU shooting down F-117s is realistic or not.

The AI has been written off by most of the community as [pick your own bad word]. I've chosen my battle here. It's a fresh wound and can be healed.

[Guest ruggbutt]

First tell me what the radar return of a mav in flight looks like on the Tung's radar.

A little green dot traveling close to mach? :D

[Yellonet]

A little green dot traveling close to mach? :D

Yep, the Tunguska's maximum target speed is 2500 km/h, so the speed is not an issue, and the radar should be able to pick up a Maverick, it's quite large after all.

 

And if the Maverick is launched at 9 km's away (which I think is the maximum egagement range for the Tunguska) and it travels at an average speed of 1000 km/h the tunguska will have 32 seconds to do something about it.

 

Detection... maybe 10 seconds? 6 kilometer away

Lock... 5 seconds 5 kilometers away

Lauch.. at 4 kilometers

BOOM! One mav down ;)

[Force_Feedback]

the tunguska has a reaction time of 8 seconds, don't know how reaction time is defined though.

[Guest Jinker]

Guys, This is how I see this after reading and taking everyone's comments.

 

1. A Tung might be able to do this.

2. It should not be able to shoot down a single Mav 100% of the time or 2 of 4. That Pk is too high.

3. A Mav should not have a 100% Pk either. In real life, they might have a high Pk, but nothing (in either arsenal) has a 100% Pk. There are failures, and missles can fail in transit. They can also mechanically fail (i.e. fin or rolleron fractures, or guidance system/seeker failures). Heck a bug or bird could damage the seeker. It happens.

 

I now see both sides to this, and have removed the blinders. I think the Pk (IF this is kept in the simulation) should be very low. In real life, human factors are going to keep a shot percentage like that very low. You cannot program 'fear' into a simulation. Fear is a random element. It will affect different Tung crews differently. SOme will react to the threat with alarming quickness, while others will be in shock for a second. Tung crews perobably are not trained to do thois sort of thing. They would only be going into "survival mode" if they attempted it. Personally, I'd get out of the coffin and run like hell! LOL Let the friggen thing get blown up. I'd rather live to fight another day then save some dang vehicle. I'd be willing to bet, that in real life you'd see just that 9 times out of 10. :)

[Whisper]

Don't AI skill level influence Tung effectiveness vs Mavs? In which case, stop using "excellent" Tungs!

[Yellonet]

the tunguska has a reaction time of 8 seconds, don't know how reaction time is defined though.

I'm guessing that reaction time is the time from detection of the target till launching/firing of the weapon.

[Gazehound]

Don't AI skill level influence Tung effectiveness vs Mavs? In which case, stop using "excellent" Tungs!

Yes that is the case! And its the best advice so far.

An average one will lie down and die for you when you point and click your mav, as you are used to, if thats what you want.

[S77th-GOYA]

I did some testing last night. A Tung set to average with the missle slider at 50% shot down 4 of 6 Mavs.

[Gazehound]

(Ok I take it back)

[GGTharos]

Now go ahead and bait it first, then shoot it. ;)

 

What range are you launching from?

[Whisper]

I did some testing last night. A Tung set to average with the missle slider at 50% shot down 4 of 6 Mavs.

Same test and I did not have the same result at all! more like 1/4 or 1/3

[SwingKid]

Andrew - what system exactly does the above describe? ;)

 

I have the original Russian text on which that web page description is based, where it's made clear they are talking about Tunguska.

 

The irony is that the Pantsyr system they thought they were describing IS the system that was developed in late 90s to have anti-missile capability... it was developed specifically because Tunguska has NO such capability.

 

Fair question though, their mistake.

 

-SK

[S77th-GOYA]

Now go ahead and bait it first, then shoot it. ;)

 

What range are you launching from?

 

You don't need to give me tips on how to get mavericks through. That is not the point at all. Neither is the range.

[Yellonet]

I did some testing last night. A Tung set to average with the missle slider at 50% shot down 4 of 6 Mavs.

I made a test right now and and I got 6 of 6 Mavericks shot down.

 

This is how I did it:

Missile effectivness slider at 50%.

A Tunguska at average skill.

Maverick D.

 

I flew right at the Tunguska and as soon as I got a good lock with the IR seeker I fired the missile, this was at about 13 km.

I made a sharp 180 degree turn so that the Tunguska can't fire at me.

However as the aircraft has disapeared from the Tunguskas vicinity it can now concentrate completely (it doesn't seem to detect it very far out though) on the incoming missile and consequently it destroyed the Maverick in 100% of the tests.

 

If you keep flying straight however, the Tunguska will likely launch at you instead of the missile and then not have time for a second launch.

Or to be sure you could just wait and not launch at the Tunguska until it has fired at you, then it should not have time to launch at the missile.