Tunguskas .. Oh no not that again...

[GGTharos]

LOL. Yes! 100%!

 

Nah, just describing the flight path :)

[S77th-GOYA]

because it's locked on a stationary target.

Not necessarily. The Mav could very well be on another target besides the Tung, which doesn't have move on fire capabilities for missles. I've seen plenty of Mavs get shot down going after moving targets in game.

 

Reaction time issue and ECCM are for a separate analysis.

And those analyses could not possibly help the pk figures.

[SwingKid]

(shaking head)

 

Oh dear... Now that I read the Russian text again, it seems that Tunguska DOES need optical tracking for use of missiles, FAS was correct the first time!

 

This is a job for EvilBivol - we need someone who can really read this Russian text and make sense out of it. :(

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

Kashtan

(note Kashtan - not upgraded Kasthan-M)

 

Here's something you might like:

 

http://ship.bsu.by/main.asp?id=1000005

 

It seems from this text that both are correct - if my Russian has not completely disappeared, the missile has an expanding rod warhead packed inside a fragmentation layer.

 

Great video of the missiles in action!! (the third one at bottom).

 

I'm not sure it resolves any of our debates though - the missile containers are shown in the reload position for a moment, but this doesn't resemble any of the previous images that lacked missile containers.

 

The missile also seems to follow an erratic path, but eventually appears that it DOES hit the target despite this. The target seems to resemble more of a drone helicopter carrying a big flare (to aid optical tracking?) than an incoming missile, but that's just my opinion. You can also see the cameraman can't keep the video camera still on the target, so I don't know how manually-controlled optical tracking with 8x magnification should be kept steady against an incoming missile.

 

Fun to watch, anyhow.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Actually the cameraman has nothing on a stabilized optical tracking system. I've used one.

 

I think the flight path is due to the missile trying to stay in the beam.

[bSr.LCsta]

Can we make this thread a sticky????

I am going to be sad when its not on the 1st page anymore. :P

[SUBS17]

I host a pretty agressive A2G mission on HL. I have had to increase the difficulty thanks to people like Maton and Shepski (My desktop is screenshot of Shepski taking out a KUB site with cluster).

 

There are Tor and Tunguska. Neither provide problems. Most of the time I will even risk a single shot on em.

 

Now that patriot site....whoooh!!! Now that baby consistantly nails every missle I send his way.

 

One thing that woud be awsome to see modelled is what SUB17 speaks of, the SAM radar going on/off.

 

Also modelling of EO and ground command launches for missles that support it, I read article about SAM officer who shot down F-117 with SA-3 did so with EO lock and ground command.

 

I've heard several versions of that F117 incident one which involves a Mig21 using an r60 which damaged the aircrafts RCS enough for an SA3 launch.

[Alfa]

(shaking head)

 

Oh dear... Now that I read the Russian text again, it seems that Tunguska DOES need optical tracking for use of missiles, FAS was correct the first time!

 

This is a job for EvilBivol - we need someone who can really read this Russian text and make sense out of it. :(

 

-SK

 

Yes it does need optical tracking for missile guidance - but, as I read it, not as a seperate manually operated meassure :) . The radar and optical components are part of an integrated system - during missile launch there is a constant communication between radar and optical components via the firecontrol computer:

 

From warfare.ru: I highlighted the passages relevant to missile guidance)

 

The radar system includes a target detection and designation radar, ground radar interrogator and a tracking radar. The radar system detects, identifies and tracks targets, determines their dynamic parameters and sends them to the digital computer which computes the control and firing commands for the weapons and the guidance commands for the missile.

 

The digital computer is designed to generate control and stabilization commands for the weapons systems, optics and radars, as well as to check the SPM systems for functioning. The computer stabilizes the line of sight and the line of elevation, generates missile guidance commands and computes the time of impact. While generating the weapons control commands, the computer allows for weather conditions and muzzle velocity, and while performing the system's scheduled checks, it runs a self test, analyzes the missile control circuits and carries out an overall SPM checkout.

 

The optical sight, weapons laying and stabilization system, and the coordinates discrimination equipment serve to detect and track targets over an optical channel, determine dynamic parameters of the tracked target and of the fired missile, and send this information to the onboard computer. The coder is designed to convert missile guidance and control commands to coded pulse trains and furnish them to the radar for subsequent transmission to the missile over a radio link.

 

In motion, the vehicle's pitch, roll and course angle measurement system is activated. The optical, radar and weapons systems are stabilized on the basis of the data generated by the measurement system. The hydraulic laying drives are designed to turn the turret in the horizontal plane and operate cannons and missile launch guides in the vertical plane.

 

[snip]

 

The vehicle belt-fed cannons fire a 30mm unified round. The twin barrel cannon pattern provides for a rate of fire of 5,000 rds/min. The evaporation-type liquid cooling system makes the maintenance of the cannons easier, reduces their overall weight and increases the consistency of fire.

A surface-to-air missile (SAM) is held in a container-launcher. It is a bicaliber missile with a separable booster. The launch weight of the missile has been reduced by one half in comparison with the single-stage missiles having similar characteristics. The booster accelerates the missile to a speed thrice the velocity of sound. The sustainer stage has a smaller diameter. It maintains a high speed throughout the flight, making its optical guidance possible. The missile warhead is of a fragmentation rod type. It is characterized by a high length-to-diameter ratio and large weight. The missile is steered towards its target semiautomatically over radio command and optical links. A luminous flux emitted by a light source, carried by the missile, enters an optical detector which is mounted coaxially with the optical sight, where it is converted to an electrical signal proportional to the amount of missile deviation from the line of sight. The electrical signal is fed to the digital computer which generates correction commands. Then, the guidance commands are coded and sent to the missile as coded pulse trains via the target tracking radar.

 

The missile onboard equipment decodes the incoming pulse trains and generates commands for the control surface actuator. Consequently, the missile is guided precisely along the sight line. The missile impact and proximity fuzes ensure that the warhead is detonated either on impact or in the event of a near miss of up to 5 m.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[S77th-GOYA]

The missile is steered towards its target semiautomatically over radio command and optical links.

 

So, what makes it semiautomatically?

[Force_Feedback]

So, what makes it semiautomatically?

 

That the missile itself has no homing device, i.e., the combined radar/optical guidance system sends the commands to the missile, which in turn sends back its own position for the optical system by the means of either a lamp or a pyrotechnical tracer light.

[Alfa]

Here's something you might like:

 

http://ship.bsu.by/main.asp?id=1000005

 

Nice find! - I havent seen that site before :) .

 

It seems from this text that both are correct - if my Russian has not completely disappeared, the missile has an expanding rod warhead packed inside a fragmentation layer.

 

Yes thats how I understand it as well :)

 

Great video of the missiles in action!! (the third one at bottom).

 

Yup it is - I have seen this video before, and I believe it is footage of a Kashtan firing test onboard the Neustrashimy - judging from the shape of the bow and mast/radar config seen at the beginning of the video :) .

 

I'm not sure it resolves any of our debates though - the missile containers are shown in the reload position for a moment, but this doesn't resemble any of the previous images that lacked missile containers.

 

Well I think that the passage showing the containers in reload position do indeed resemble the previous images "lacking missile containers" - because the passage in question would be the one where they arent visible at all ;) .

 

I must admit that I havent previously paid much attention to the loader system of the Kashtan complex, but from memory(the very edge of) I seem to remember that the 9M311 missiles come in pre-sealed canisters and reloading the Kashtan combat module with missiles works by tilting the missile containers to vertical and then lowering the whole container cluster below deck to the magasine for replacement. As a matter of fact I dont think the missile containers are in place on the combat module unless this is in an "active state of readiness" :)

 

The missile also seems to follow an erratic path, but eventually appears that it DOES hit the target despite this. The target seems to resemble more of a drone helicopter carrying a big flare (to aid optical tracking?) than an incoming missile, but that's just my opinion. You can also see the cameraman can't keep the video camera still on the target, so I don't know how manually-controlled optical tracking with 8x magnification should be kept steady against an incoming missile.

 

Well as far as the Kashtan system goes, there is no manual operation at all - it is 100% automated.

 

In regards to the Tunguska, given the description I quoted in my above post, I am not convinced that the optical tracking is manually controlled either - at least not while the tracking radar component is fully operational - sounds more like a back-up procedure in case of ECM interference.

 

Fun to watch, anyhow.

 

Sure is! :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[S77th-GOYA]

That the missile itself has no homing device, i.e., the combined radar/optical guidance system sends the commands to the missile, which in turn sends back its own position for the optical system by the means of either a lamp or a pyrotechnical tracer light.

 

 

What you just described sounds like a completely automatic process to me.

[GGTharos]

Anyway, we got the word from someone in the know that the Pk would be incredibly low so as to make the attempt would be effectively suicidal.

 

The explanation was very short and in some cases implied, but effectively gave a godo idea of what the involved factors are (specifically the fuze) ... which leads me to believe there's a good reason for readio fuzes to be preferred over laser fuzes against missiles.

[Alfa]

Anyway, we got the word from someone in the know that the Pk would be incredibly low so as to make the attempt would be effectively suicidal.

 

The explanation was very short and in some cases implied, but effectively gave a godo idea of what the involved factors are (specifically the fuze) ... which leads me to believe there's a good reason for readio fuzes to be preferred over laser fuzes against missiles.

 

Well I think everyone was aware that the PK of the Tunguska against small missiles would be low - as far as I am concerned the question was how low :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[S77th-GOYA]

Anyway, we got the word from someone in the know that the Pk would be incredibly low so as to make the attempt would be effectively suicidal.

 

[GGTharos]

Well I think everyone was aware that the PK of the Tunguska against small missiles would be low - as far as I am concerned the question was how low :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

Yes, I think this shows us how important it is to model missile components properly. :)

 

Eg. As I understood it the fuze on that missile, assuming it intercepted the maverick, would liekly reject it as clutter due to the ultra-short duration of the disruption - if it sensed it at all. By comparison closure against a helo would be 2/3s of the mav closure, a significant difference.

[S77th-GOYA]

Unless there are still folks who are not ready to give up the fight, the question now is: Will it be fixed in 1.12?

[Force_Feedback]

Yes, I think this shows us how important it is to model missile components properly. :)

 

Eg. As I understood it the fuze on that missile, assuming it intercepted the maverick, would liekly reject it as clutter due to the ultra-short duration of the disruption - if it sensed it at all. By comparison closure against a helo would be 2/3s of the mav closure, a significant difference.

 

Yes, and cruise missiles are twice as big as helicopters and fly two times faster...

 

And, a fuse can't look back in time and say: oh damn, 1/100th of a second ago, I should've detonated.

[GGTharos]

Umm...they're not quite that big ... plus the Helo has more surface area for the fuze to 'catch' typically, In addition CMs are easier to sort out from clutter in a lot of cases IIRC.

 

As for it being fixed, that would mean taking away the quite realistic capability of the Patriot and S300, which would again make things incorrect. Couple it with SAMs being otherwise sitting ducks, my vote and guess is 'no', until various properties of the SAMs can be modelled better, as well as defensive measures.

[S77th-GOYA]

I'd be willing to bet that there are many more instances of Mavs and Kh-29Ts being fired at smaller SAMS than ARMs being fired at the big SAMs. So, removing it altogether would be less unrealistic than leaving it. I know this was a pet project of yours, GG, but it affects many more players adversely than it helps. My vote is, when ED can add it correctly, then they should do so. But for now, it should be removed.

 

Hopefully, it's not such an all or nothing situation and it can be added relatively quickly.

[D-Scythe]

I'd be willing to bet that there are many more instances of Mavs and Kh-29Ts being fired at smaller SAMS than ARMs being fired at the big SAMs. So, removing it altogether would be less unrealistic than leaving it.

 

But both big and small SAMs have their own defenses against ARMs and Mavs/Kh-29Ts that are not modelled in LOMAC. So wouldn't leaving *all* SAMs completely defenseless against A/G missiles be more unrealistic than to give *all* SAMs a limited ability to defend itself by shooting the missiles down?

[Guest ruggbutt]

I think it's better erring on the difficult side of the equation. If you don't want Tungs engaging incoming missiles, don't set them to excellent. They ignore them otherwise. I think it's a great compromise.

[S77th-GOYA]

...a limited ability to defend itself by shooting the missiles down?

 

The big problem is that that ability isn't all that much limited. And it is not realistic. If the probability was reduced by 10% for an AGM kill it might make it more interesting, but it would still be unrealistic in the way it was accomplished. Give us smoke, give us taking evasive action behind obstacles, give us any and everything that is realistic. We've got too many unrealistic things in this game already.

 

Rugg, average/excellent doesn't make much difference that I can see. Average Tungs still engage Mavs shot at them in every trial I've given them.

[Guest ruggbutt]

Make them stupid then. They still engage aircraft, it only affects their missile intercept function.

[Guest IguanaKing]

There's no problem in the Tunguskas engaging the Mavericks, its just the PK that should be a concern.