Tunguskas .. Oh no not that again...

[Force_Feedback]

About the 9m311 warhead, the warhead is of the expanding rod type, with smaller cluster fragments (cubes of around 3 grams each), just like on the RVV-AE, designed to create a ring of fragments that will cut through any incoming projectile in a 5m radius. So basically it's a 5m wide cutting explosive travelling at mach 1.5.

Now why would this missile be ineffective? And for the record, the Kashtan system has a 2-3 meter wide margin of error in radio command mode and 1m in optical guidance modes.

[GGTharos]

Aside from the Tunguska-Maverick discussion, this comment got me interested.

I am an almost exclusive A-G player in Lock On and I haven't expierienced any reaction time of air defense systems yet ( this is actualy one of my biggest wishes for A-G combat improvements ).

From my expierience, once you leave the cover of the terrain, you get locked up by any AD unit that is in range instantly. The only thing that could be called reaction time is the time it takes for the launchers to rotate in your direction ( not for vertical launched systems ), then you get shot at almost imediatly. I have not expierienced any reaction times in target search, target aquision or launch preparation of AD units expect turret travers time.

 

On what expieriences do you base your above statement ? Or do you perhaps have to use certain settings to get the desired effect ?

 

Sorry for going slightly OT.

 

No problem. The reason I say this is that grouping a unit which is unable to react in time to a high-speed thread with another unit which has a greater sensor range, causes the lesser unit to react to that threat in time.

It isn't easy to observe and most jets aren't fast enough to bring this quality out.

 

The other reason you don't exprience the reaction time is that LOMAC's AI sensor modelling has the unfortunate benefit of being all-knowing.

 

IMHO, and just IMHO, you may not hear the lock when there's a mountain between you and that OSA, and it may not be 'tracking you' with its guns, but once you're in its sensor range, it knows your coordinates, and is therefore fully prepared when you 'pop up'.

 

When/if a new sensor model for the AI is implemented, this problem should go away.

[SwingKid]

About the 9m311 warhead, the warhead is of the expanding rod type, with smaller cluster fragments (cubes of around 3 grams each), just like on the RVV-AE, designed to create a ring of fragments that will cut through any incoming projectile in a 5m radius. So basically it's a 5m wide cutting explosive travelling at mach 1.5.

 

It's like the case of a rifle vs. a shotgun, or rate-of-fire vs. . The expanding rod warhead reduces the likelihood of damage by concentrating the firepower into a narrow band, but increases the damage if a hit occurs. This is useful against a large target, but against a smaller one the problem is not how to cripple it, but rather just how to hit it.

 

Now why would this missile be ineffective? And for the record, the Kashtan system has a 2-3 meter wide margin of error in radio command mode and 1m in optical guidance modes.

 

At what range? Command-guidance accuracy varies according to distance, decreasing linearly the further you go.

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

Now the guns of the Pantsir have a combined firing rate of some 1400 rds/min versus some 5000 rds/min of the Tunguska.

 

Are you sure about this?

 

The number "1400" appears in my Russian reference as the size of the Pantsyr's magazine, not rate of fire. Maybe another mistake of English translation? :confused:

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Speaking of design objectives, let's compare the Tunguska's 9M311(M) missile, which was designed to keep helicopters out of ATGM range, to the Pantsyr-S1's 9M335 and 57E6 missiles, which were designed to hit incoming missiles.

 

Specifically harpoons and other maneuvering flying projectiles which are designed to shake their booty during terminal homing - right?

 

(a) Both Tunguska and Pantsyr missiles are beam-riders. However, the Tunguska radio antenna generates a beam that is 2x2 degrees wide (~200 meters radius at 6 km range). For higher precision (comparable to Su-25T's "Vikhr"), at the terminal phase, the Pantsyr's missile is beam-riding on a laser.

 

I think you can better evaluate how well the missile would sit in the 'center' than I can, but I'm pretty sure you can provide evidence against yourself in the suggestion that the missile would have a 200m CEP at 6km ;)

 

(b) Tunguska missiles use a laser proximity fuse. In the Pantsyr, the fuze was changed back to radio, to prevent small targets slipping between the radar beams.

 

Somewhat pure speculation: It's rather likely that water reflects the laser quite strongly compared to say, radar. I'll have to check though, it really depends on the laser wavelength.

Besides which, I doubt they're just using straight laser spokes when they're so easy to scan and capture a larger area.

 

© Tunguska missiles carry a 9 kg expanding-rod warhead with 5 m kill radius. The expanding rod warhead is meant to cut hydraulic lines and helicopter rotors. The Pantsyr's 9M335 and 57E6 have fragmentation warhead about doubled to 16 and 20 kg respectively, to ensure proximity kills against targets too small to hit (despite increased-accuracy laser guidance!)

 

Difference: One missile's maneuvering and maintaining velocity, the other one isn't - as long as we're talking about ASMs like Harpoon v. Maverick.

 

(d) Speed of Pantsyr's missiles increased 20-40% with respect to Tunguska's, to improve reaction time.

 

(e) Range of Pantsyr's missiles increased by 50-150% with respect to Tunguska's, to improve reaction time.

 

(f) New multi-channel radars allow simultaneous guidance of missiles to two targets.

 

Doesn't -everything- get upgraded at some point in time?

 

(g) Even with all these improvements, the Pantsyr's anti-missile capability is only advertised against long-range radar missiles like HARM, which must be fired upon from 8 km range to ensure sufficient reaction time, separation of SAM from booster and guidance to the intercept trajectory. There is still no advertised anti-missile capability vs. Maverick and ATGMs because these are launched from shorter ranges. Instead, Pantsyr operators are specifically instructed to shoot down the aircraft carrying these weapons, before they can fire back.

 

Right, so you're saying that if a Maverick was fired in its high-lofting profile from 8+km away, the Tunguska wouldn't be able to do anything with it? At all? Despite it being half the speed (or less) of the HARM, and flying a rather predictable profile.

You have to realize that in LOMAC those mavericks are let go from quite far. Aren't you the one who suggested this may be rather unrealistic?

 

(h) By contrast, Tunguska SAM has advertised 60% hit probability against helicopters, and is rather promoted on the strength of its multi-role capability to hit ground vehicles and (for Kortik, which uses same missile) small ships.

 

Kinda like the ADATS. However I still don't see how that prevents it from engaging a maverick.

 

The design requirement of the Tunguska, in operation since early 80s, was simply - to counter ATGM-carrying helicopters, that were destroying Shilkas with impunity. Nothing more. The chances of this system to hit a Maverick missiles is practically zero.

-SK

 

I don't think so. Especially in the case that is presented here, that being certain people wishing to attack SAMs with impunity because they can lock and launch their weapons from ranges beyond which those weapons can supposedly handle.

 

IIRC, these aircraft should be in the engagement envelope and getting fired on already when delivering mavs. Or am I wrong here?

[Yellonet]

No problem. The reason I say this is that grouping a unit which is unable to react in time to a high-speed thread with another unit which has a greater sensor range, causes the lesser unit to react to that threat in time.

It isn't easy to observe and most jets aren't fast enough to bring this quality out.

 

The other reason you don't exprience the reaction time is that LOMAC's AI sensor modelling has the unfortunate benefit of being all-knowing.

 

IMHO, and just IMHO, you may not hear the lock when there's a mountain between you and that OSA, and it may not be 'tracking you' with its guns, but once you're in its sensor range, it knows your coordinates, and is therefore fully prepared when you 'pop up'.

 

When/if a new sensor model for the AI is implemented, this problem should go away.

But if they make a new sensor model they will also need to make a new prediction algorithm and 'human simulation' for AI aircraft.

 

Maybe they could make AI 'systems' have different stages of awareness and according reaction times. When for example a SAM site have not detected any enemy aircraft their reaction time should be low, but when it detects an enemy aircraft the reaction time increases as the crew will prepare for the launch. When the aircraft goes away, they will 'relax' after a few minutes and again lower their reaction time. So if you can avoid the search radar long enough to get close, you should be able to pop up and cluster their behinds before they can shoot you down...

[GGTharos]

I agree with the spirit of what you're proposing, but I don't agree with making SAMs even more of a sitting duck than they already are - so I disagree with your implementation.

 

What's needed is a complete AI overhaul and nothing less - no 'half-features'.

[S77th-GOYA]

So far, I've seen SK offer some very good reasons why Tungs don't kill Mavs. I've yet to see anyone's reasons why they can. To have added this to LOMAC, someone must have presented ED with some data.

 

So let's see it.

 

There's no reason why the burdon of proof should fall on those that are opposed to this fantasy.

 

Show us all some documentation that states a Tung's missles can hit an incoming Maverick or another missle of similar size and speed coming from the same range. All I've heard so far is that it can hit a cruise missle which is a big fat pigeon compared to a Maverick

[GGTharos]

Originally Posted by S77th-GOYA

So far, I've seen SK offer some very good reasons why Tungs don't kill Mavs. I've yet to see anyone's reasons why they can. To have added this to LOMAC, someone must have presented ED with some data.

 

So let's see it.

 

Where's your research?

 

There's no reason why the burdon of proof should fall on those that are opposed to this fantasy.

 

Actually yes, there is EVERY reason for this. SK is a nice guy and he's curious as well, so he does a lot of research. Why do you think we should be digging up proof for YOU when your ultimatum is 'I think it's fantasy, prove me wrong'.

A number of people have done a significant amount of research, and have often come to different conclusions. What do YOU know that we don't, to call this a fantasy?

 

Show us all some documentation that states a Tung's missles can hit an incoming Maverick or another missle of similar size and speed coming from the same range. All I've heard so far is that it can hit a cruise missle which is a big fat pigeon compared to a Maverick

 

Show me that it can't. While SK has made valid points, he has also mentioned things that can support a tunguska hitting a maverick.

What the Pk of this would be no one really knows, but it is fair to assume a low Pk. It isn't correct, however, to throw the idea out the window just because YOU said it's fantasy, and just because you like to read comments only from the side which supports your theory.

 

I respect SK's knowledge and research; he's pushed me to do better work myself, and neither of us are always right, nor do we always obviously come to the same conclusions.

 

And we're not the ONLY ones working on these things, either.

[Alfa]

Are you sure about this?

 

No....:biggrin: .

 

But thats what it says here:

 

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/index.html

 

It does sound very low to me - maybe its the combined firing rate and they forgot a zero.....I dont know :)

 

The number "1400" appears in my Russian reference as the size of the Pantsyr's magazine, not rate of fire. Maybe another mistake of English translation? :confused:

 

Well in the above link the magasine capacity is stated as being 750 rounds per gun, so.....:icon_neut .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Guest Jinker]

I'm gonna ask real nicely. Not ultimatums or anything.

 

Is there any solid evidence that these things do indeed have this capability. Could the one's who are curious see it? Please?

 

I'm asking, so we could get some idea of what the actual Pk of this should be, if it is shown they can do this.

 

I've seen no evidence yet that it can. I've seen evidence that it is a *possibility*, but still no solid evidence of it.

 

SK has indeed dug up alot of useful info, and BTW THANKYOU SK! You have made my flying better, becasue I now know approximately how far away to stay from these threats.

 

I do believe that it might be a possibility that a Tung can do this, but Lock On is know for it's accuracy. I think we should have an accurate representation of what is actually out there, or at least strive for that.

 

I can also say that 4 out of six Mav's were shotdown on my last mission by Shilka's! From all I have read, that should not be happening at all.

 

I also did a test run in a training mission where I fired 10 of the IR guided Mav's. I fired 6 of them in groups of two as quick as I could get a lock on the tung, and two of those got got shotdown. I also fired 4 single shots and all of those got shot down. I fired each from approximately 8mi away, and between 7 and 8 on the two shot "quick shot" deal.

 

Missile slider at 50%.

[crazyleggs]

This is from Jane's:

 

"Russia developed a tube-launched low-altitude missile, designated SA-19 'Grison' by NATO, for use on the 2S6 Air Defence Gun/Missile System, which the Russians called 'Tunguska' or 2K22 Treugolnik. It was designed as a replacement for the ZSU-23-4 'Shilka' for use against low-flying aircraft, helicopters and air-to-surface missiles. It is believed that the system also has a secondary capability against armoured fighting vehicles and similar ground target."

 

Jane's is not always 100% correct but is the most trusted unclas source available.

 

I too find it hard to believe that the 2S6 can detect, track and kill an AGM but it is surely plausible (this would make a great Mythbusters).

 

And after watching Ironhand's tutorial on how to handle the 2S6 with the Hog, I have no problem plugging that expert 2S6 with a Mav.

[GGTharos]

I'm gonna ask real nicely. Not ultimatums or anything.

 

Is there any solid evidence that these things do indeed have this capability. Could the one's who are curious see it? Please?

The only solid evidence that I was able to find was a military document stating anti-ARM capability for the Patriot. THat was pretty clear, black and white. Nothing for the SA-19 either way - not by me anyway.

 

I'm asking, so we could get some idea of what the actual Pk of this should be, if it is shown they can do this.

Well... read on: The US Navy conducted some research a while ago which indicated that SACLOS (essentially command-guided systems) were not very suitable against sea-skimmers.

The funny thing is, that 50 years down the road, those systems weren't replaced - they were upgraded, and just now they are being switched to the reccomended SARH or other homing guidance models.

 

The US Navy could have certainly come up with a new SARH weapon quickly to fill that role, no? So now it's a question of are they really that bad, or were they able to adequately improve on them?

 

I've seen no evidence yet that it can. I've seen evidence that it is a *possibility*, but still no solid evidence of it.

For most things, there either evidence of the possbility, or that it flat out can't do it. FInding out exact capabilities is rare and difficult. You can't even really trust every source, unless it's something FOIA unclass and you manage to glean something - and that's for US sources ... Russian is more difficult (from where I am)

 

SK has indeed dug up alot of useful info, and BTW THANKYOU SK! You have made my flying better, becasue I now know approximately how far away to stay from these threats.

Yep, he's quite a busy bee and he always inspires everyone to look further :)

 

I do believe that it might be a possibility that a Tung can do this, but Lock On is know for it's accuracy. I think we should have an accurate representation of what is actually out there, or at least strive for that.

We can't really have that until certain things about missiles are modelled, but there's a discussion. Until that is decided, we live with the current compromizes. But the idea is to always go forward.

 

I can also say that 4 out of six Mav's were shotdown on my last mission by Shilka's! From all I have read, that should not be happening at all.

No, it shouldn't ... like I said ... compromizes.

 

I also did a test run in a training mission where I fired 10 of the IR guided Mav's. I fired 6 of them in groups of two as quick as I could get a lock on the tung, and two of those got got shotdown. I also fired 4 single shots and all of those got shot down. I fired each from approximately 8mi away, and between 7 and 8 on the two shot "quick shot" deal.

 

Missile slider at 50%.

Well, 8nm is approximately 15km. If you want to give the Mav an average velocity of say, 300m/s, you're looking at about 50 seconds of flying time. Realistically you're probably looking at a little more than that. That's almost a whole minute for the TUnguska to detect, track, and fire on your missile. If you assume a minimum range of 2km, then the Tunguska needs to fire within 35-40 seconds of launch.

 

Is that really probable? I don't know. Will command guidance suffice against such a fast target? I couldn't really tell you that either, although the pervasiveness of SACLOS systems on Naval vessels whose business is specifically intercepting incoming fire, would indicate that they're not incapable of doing the job.

 

Also keep in mind that I'm generalizing. Just because one SACLOS system can do something, doesn't mean another can - the devil is in the details.

[EvilBivol-1]

SK,

 

Судя по последним рекламным проспектам КБП, ЗРАК "Панцирь С-1" в окончательной конфигурации будет иметь боевой модуль, внешне очень напоминающий боевой модуль ЗРАК "Тунгуска", одноствольные зенитные автоматы 2А72 предполагается заменить на двухствольные 2А38, хорошо зарекомендовавшие себя на "Тунгуске".

 

http://pvo.guns.ru/panzir/index.htm

 

EDIT:

For the non-Russian speakers, the quote says that it looks like the final configuration of the Pantsir's weapon module will be very similar to the one on the Tunguska, including the replacement of the 2A72 guns with Tunguska's 2A38s and fielding 8 missiles instead of 12.

 

There is also metion on another page of the same website that the Phazotron radar seen in most photos of the system has in fact been "de-selected" by the manufacturer. Replacement unknown. Perhaps the existing Tunguska radar?

 

Also, looking at the specs table in the link, I think you will see where some of the confusion regarding the firing rate and ammo came from. In short, the two different gun options.

 

Finally, looking at the descriptions of both the Tunguska and the Pantsir on some of the relevant websites, there is a definite emphasis on the latter's capability to intercept "pin-point" weapons. The only similar mention for the Tunguska, as already pointed out, talked about "some cruise missiles". But, at the same time, at least in my mind, we're not talking about a *certain* capability on the part of the Tunguska to intercept incoming missile with great efficiency. IMO, if it can be reasonably surmised that it is even possible, then implementing it in LO is acceptable, because, in agreement with GG, it introduces a balancing effect into the game-play. With proper technique, killing Tunguskas is not much harder then before, but at the same time, there is a greater workload forced onto the pilot. It may not be the same workload that a real A-10 driver has to deal with, but at least there is some workload.

[Guest Jinker]

I know this much This has been a really good thread. I hope it stays that way. :)

 

We're getting alot of good information, and also getting some good tactics on how to avoid them. I know i've been alot alot against them just to test things and see what happens.

 

I'm not real good at evading yet. I have successfully evaded them at 3-4 miles, but I can't do nay testing like that because it's too risky for me personally at this point.

 

These discussions are quite helpful, and have helped me a great deal. These are the kind of discussions I like to see.

 

I don;t know how things work here as I haven't been around long, but maybe some mods ought to start giving some "vacations" from here, when things get out of hand. I know on another forum I go to that that is real effective at keeping the piece. People actually think before clicking the reply button. It also quells any "revenge" because the tone seems to be alot nicer. People also respect that forum because of it. Just a thought. :)

[504 Wolverine]

Well the majority of the forum members here already respect the forum already. Ruling the forum with an iron fist will achieve nothing.

[Guest Jinker]

I didn't say running it with an iron fist. What I was suggesting was more along the line of a warning=>3day vacation=>10 day vacation=>30 day vacation=> and after somebody has been booted off that mnay times it's pretty appearant that they'll never starighten up.

 

That's pretty lenient. I've seen moe posts get closed here in a week than gets closed in 3 months on a forum that has over 60,000+ users. One tipic had to be banned. That's really poor to ban discussion when it't the troublemakers that should be banned. If we keep getting topics banned, it won;t be long before there is nothing left we can discuss. And for what? Nothing but a bunch of chidish arguing.

 

Basically, I'm sick of seeing it. This is one of the few threads wher it hasn't happened, and it's welcome relief. Everybody agrees to the rules here, but there are a few that know they don't have to follow them, because they aren't enforced.

[Guest ruggbutt]

You're exaggerating about threads removed and such. And you just happened to show up here when some fanbois from another forum/sim decided to come over and start yet another comparison thread. A thread that always ends up being locked whether it's on this forum or on UBI.

[Guest Jinker]

What about the "weapons release demonstration thread, or the R77 and AIM 120 thread, or the thread you posted about "Things We Don;t need here" which is exactly the things I'm talking about.

 

I'm a member of a forum that has 60,000+ users the lst time I looked. You almost never see a thread get locked unless it's a sticky not meant for discussion. I think I've seen 3 get locked in the last year there. People know better than to flame there. They know they best reply politely or they won't have the ability to reply again for awhile, and for a select few, it ended up being never again for them.

 

That's great. The Internet can do without all the trash talking. I can gurantee that some of the stuff I have seen that has actually "passed" here would get the user kicked out in 3 seconds on that other forum. They will not tolerate it.

[GGTharos]

Thread hijack OFF.

 

Back to Tunguskas:

 

I did some tests myself, and I will definitely agree that the Pk is too high at practically 80-90% intercept rate (the range at which you fire the mav is critical ... specifically if the Tunguska reacts too late, the missile ends up with a sizeable miss distance) for shots beyond 4nm.

 

However, as I said before, the solution is to simply bait your target ... fire the mav at 4.5nm and press in, lett he tunguska fire, turn tail, and you're safe - and so's your mav.

 

It should be a workable work-around for now - the missile hit rate is definitely too high - I'd expect a Pk in the range of 20-30%, not 90. Either way, this isn't someting that is easy to fix.

[Guest Jinker]

"Fishbait 1 to Frybaby 2, I'll bait 'em, you cook 'em" LOL

 

I just got back from flying a ground attack mission in the missions folder for the A-10.

 

I can get in there about 3 miles. They don't seem like they want to fire very much at me. I'll get the occasional shot. It might be the way that particular mission is setup.

 

I'll get a missle warning and can make a sweeping 180 popping chaff and flares along the way and keep get away from them.

 

I don't feel real comfortable getting in there any closer than about 3 miles on that mission though. That's about as much as I wanna push it right now.

 

I really need to DL some of the training misions the guys have done up, and fly some of those. Some of the missions for evading those things will be a big help.

 

Well, I gotta get some work done now. I would love to fly some moe, but if I don't get my work done, I won;t be able to afford these things anymore. hehe

 

Edit: BTW, the mission was called A-10a_vehicle hunt in the A-10 missions folder.

[GGTharos]

It looks like indeed the fix for any of this will be very, very difficult ... the Tunguska's success is related to its intercept speed, AFAIK, and the missile guidance timing step. This is pretty fundamental in LOMAC so I'm not sure if/when it'll be fixed.

[Guest ruggbutt]

You don't need to get more than just inside their engagement zone. Let them fire first! While they're tracking you and paying attention to the bad man, the Mav is inbound hot. I flew my quick Tung mission a few times. Here's what I got: rugg 2, Tungs none. 3 times. I almost got lunched on the second one cuz I forgot that I was carrying full fuel.

 

Here's the tracks.

[SwingKid]

Aww shucks, you guys are too nice... How am I supposed to argue? :)

 

Gift for EvilBivol to translate:

http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/scans/tung.zip

 

Note consistent introductory sections regarding how Tunguska launch range requirement evolved from inability of radar-cued guns (ZSU-23-4 Shilka) to protect against helo-launched ATGMs.

 

-SK

[S77th-konkussion]

It looks like indeed the fix for any of this will be very, very difficult ... the Tunguska's success is related to its intercept speed, AFAIK, and the missile guidance timing step. This is pretty fundamental in LOMAC so I'm not sure if/when it'll be fixed.

 

LOL was this miraculous ability not just added?