Tunguskas .. Oh no not that again...

[SwingKid]

Will you guys knock it off? FF is almost at the good part!

 

Any second now, he'll chime in to say I was right...

 

Any second now...

 

:)

 

(eats popcorn)

 

-SK

[Guest IguanaKing]

Never doubted you for a second SK. :D

[Force_Feedback]

When firing with guns, the digital computer system solved tasks of round encounter {shell, bullet encounter} with the target and determined the kill zone with data coming from the output of the target tracking station, from the system that corrected angular signal errors and from the rangefinder, BUT also from the inertial angle measuring system {of the vehicle itself} and from the course of the warmachine.

 

In the event of intensive jamming by the enemy, the tracking with the rangefinding channel (auto-rangefinder) switched to manual rangefinding, and even when the manual mode is unaccessible, then by means of the distance from the search station {search radar} or on inertial tracking. In a heavy ECM enviorement the angular target tracking for azimuth and area angles is done with the optical system, and in the event of a bad visibility: inertial (from the digital computing system 1A26M).

When firing missiles the target tracking is done wtih the help of the optical channel. After the launch, the missile appeared in the field of view of the optical receiver of the missile guidance system. By means of a light signal from the tracer of the missile, the system determined the missile's offset from the line of sight at the target (in angular coordinates), the information of which went into the computing system. The computing system generated missile guidance commands, which went into the cypher, where they were coded into impulse packets, and through the transmitter of the target tracking system they were transmitted to the missile.

The movement of the missile was offset from the target trajectory at 1.5 d.u., to lower the probability of a lock on a target's dispensed flare. The entry of the missile on the target's line of sight was initiated 2-3 seconds before impact. When the missile neared the target at a distance of less than 1000m, the laser non-contact fuse was activated. When the missile, according to the Tunguska's tracking system, merged with teh target, automatically another missile was targeted at the target coordinates.

 

In a difficult jamming enviorement, in the event of an abscense of the range information in the computing system from the radar detection means, an additional mode was used of missile guidance, in which the missile was targeted directly at the line of sight and the laser fuse activated at 3.2 seconds after the launch of the missile, and the preparation of a second missile was done by calculating the maximum missile flight time.

A group of four warmachine complexes "Tunguska" were able to participate in a SAM battery, consisting of a squad of SAM "Strela-10SV" and a squad of "Tunguskas". The battery is part of of a tank battalion. As a battery command point, the control centre "PU-12M" is used, which was linked with the commanding unit of the SAM devision; the commanding officer of the SAM battalion. As a commanding point for the SAM devision an "OVOD-M-SV" (mobile reconaissance and control unit for "PPRU-1") or its modernized variant: "Sobaka" (PPRU-1M).

After then the warmachines of the "Tunguska" comples were supposed to work together with the unified battery command point "9S737" ("Ranzhir"). During the linkage of the "Tunguskas" complex with "PU-12M" control commands and target designation commands were transmitted from the "PU-12M" to the "Tunguskas" were transmitted with voice commands, and with the linkage of the command point "9S737", with the help of codes, made by the datalink devices. In the event of group control by the battery commander, the assertation of the aerial situation and target designation all the complexes were ordered to fire at that coordinate at once.

The warmachines were to scan for targets, and the command complex was to judge if those targets were destroyed. A direct linkage of each warmachine with the Anti Air commanders' command point is proposed with the use of a telecode datalink.

 

after this, there's a further explanation of the various support vehicles and after that the Kortik system is explained, which I will translate later on...

[SwingKid]

When firing missiles the target tracking is done wtih the help of the optical channel.

 

This is the section that is giving me all sorts of trouble, thanks for translation.

 

First problem: the target is tracked by the optical channel? Or the missile? Or both (i.e. there are two optical channels)? FAS seems to suggest the operator must manually hold the target in the optical tracking to measure its angular position, but from this Russian text we could almost conclude that it's the missile that needs to be tracked optically, by its tracer - and that it may even be "automatic" optical tracking, since there is concern about "locking" onto a flare if the missile is along the same LOS, which would be unlikely if a human operator were at the control. More to the point, how can we measure the angle to the missile and the angle to the target simultaneously with one optical tracking system, while they are 1.5 minutes apart?

 

So, this led to my confusion, about whether FAS was correct or not. Something, somewhere, has not been written very clearly. :(

 

-SK

[Force_Feedback]

There is a mode in which the missile can be pointed manually, but that's only when all the automatic modes fail (heavy ecm). The optical system is uded to deduct teh missile's position, not to guide it (it can, but as a last resort by a optical targeting reticle, and not the optical guidance system)

 

So there are 2 optical systems, one that is always used when firing a missile, and an other one, that is used to guide the missile manually with a joystick.

 

Where do you get the 1.5 minutes from? 1.5 D.U. is some kind of optical measurement system standard (sorry, don't really know what it means, I'll Google it up).

[Whisper]

From what I understood, you don't have issues in ECM-less environnements, as your optical channel is free to track your missile for guidance, and it's your radar that gives you all the tracking information needed.

After that, depending on how heavy is the ECM, you must partly rely on your optical channel for target tracking, because you lack range information from your radar.

BUT, not sure at all, but isn't the missile supposed to be kept inside the FoV of your optical tracking system?

[SwingKid]

There is a mode in which the missile can be pointed manually, but that's only when all the automatic modes fail (heavy ecm). The optical system is uded to deduct teh missile's position, not to guide it (it can, but as a last resort by a optical targeting reticle, and not the optical guidance system)

 

I thought this at one point also, but I don't think it's correct. The text in your previous message seems pretty clear that the optical target tracking is used whenever missiles are used - not only when there is ECM.

 

The reason for this may be insufficient angular resolution of the radar tracking system for CLOS guidance. For example, how can you direct the missile to fly "1.5 d.u." off of the LOS until just before impact, when the average error of the tracking radar is itself more than 1.5 d.u.? It doesn't make any sense. So, probably FAS is correct, and the target needs the operator to manually track the target with the optical sight for greater precision at missile range.

 

Where do you get the 1.5 minutes from? 1.5 D.U. is some kind of optical measurement system standard (sorry, don't really know what it means, I'll Google it up).

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=134236&highlight=Tunguskas#post134236

 

-SK

[Whisper]

The text in your previous message seems pretty clear that the optical target tracking is used whenever missiles are used - not only when there is ECM.

No, see "Mode 1" tracking method in the second text translated.

Optical is used at launch to get the angle offset from missile to target.

If "Mode 1" is usable, you'll have all the information on target coming from your radar (position, speed vector and distance), you use optical systems to retrieve only the angle offset between the missile path, and ideal interception trajectory deducted from target informations, so you get a correction to be given to the missile, through "impulse packet".

Once you're facing ECM, you'll fast loose the range information about target. Optical sights are then used (from what I understood you can gather range information through optical means by using 2 different methods) to get the needed information. After that everything is the same, provided that you can keep your optics onto target (to get the target range) all the while seeing the missile trails in your FoV.

Hence my question : isn't the missile supposed to be kept in the optical seeker FoV when this seeker is locked on target?

[Alfa]

First thanks for the translation FF :)

 

There is a mode in which the missile can be pointed manually, but that's only when all the automatic modes fail (heavy ecm). The optical system is uded to deduct teh missile's position, not to guide it (it can, but as a last resort by a optical targeting reticle, and not the optical guidance system). So there are 2 optical systems, one that is always used when firing a missile, and an other one, that is used to guide the missile manually with a joystick.

 

Yes that is also how I read the English text I quoted earlier :) - missile guidance is essentially radio command with the optical system as a correctional messure for increased accuracy - i.e. based partially on target parameters obtained via tracking radar and actual missile flight path after launch as recorded by the optical system, missile guidance signals are generated by the firecontrol computer and then transmitted to the missile via tracking radar(radio command).

 

First problem: the target is tracked by the optical channel? Or the missile? Or both (i.e. there are two optical channels)?

 

The latter(both) as I understand it. The radar tracks the target and alligns the optical system with this, which in turn tracks both the target and the missile in relation to target, providing input to the firecontrol computer in order for this to derrive more accurate radio command signals. This would also explain why the missile component of the system can be used only in daytime conditions - i.e. if the optical system only tracked the light source emitted by the missile, there would be no reason why it shouldnt be able to do this at night.

 

But, again as I understand it, it is not a manual operation since the radar already tracks the target and thus can allign the optical sensors with the target automatically - i.e. manually operated optical tracking is a back-up mode necessary only when the radar is hampered by ECM and thus cannot perform this task automatically.

 

Anyway thats how I read it :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[SwingKid]

But, again as I understand it, it is not a manual operation since the radar already tracks the target and thus can allign the optical sensors with the target automatically

 

I'm not sure I understand - in message #242, the optical tracking is specified as "semi-automatic" without exception, while radar tracking is specified as "automatic". Is there some factual disagreement with this, or with the FAS description of operator control? Or, it's an issue of choice of words?

 

To me, "semi-automatic" always implies a manual operation. How can the radar automatically align the optical sensors to better than 2 minutes precision, when it can't even measure the target's angular position to such precision? :confused:

 

-SK

[Force_Feedback]

I think what they imply with semi-automatic is that the missile itself is not guided by the optical system (for example, with the Strela-1 missile it is guided by an automatic optical system, just like the Shkval on the su-25t, but in the missile head), thus the semi-automatic.

 

Alfa got it about right in his latest post. I konw my translations are far from perfect, but that's because I really wanted to keep the structure of the sentences in order to prevent confusions, but since the sentences in that article are very long, and it seems like they were copied from the Tunguska operations manual, as such recurring pieces of text are the way those manuals are written (I conclude this on the basis of the su-27s and mig-29a manual), so sometimes the exact meaning gets lost in translation. I guess I'll never get to work with the UN as a translator :p not that I wanted to, but still...

 

Ok, Kortik and that Tunguska "successor" (that mobile mountable platform) are coming up.

[SwingKid]

I think what they imply with semi-automatic is that the missile itself is not guided by the optical system (for example, with the Strela-1 missile it is guided by an automatic optical system, just like the Shkval on the su-25t, but in the missile head), thus the semi-automatic.

 

Hmm, it may be then a semantic problem with our definitiions. Have you ever heard of Shkval optical tracking (or any other type of "lock", optical or radar) as "semi-automatic"? I haven't. I only heard of Mi-24 SACLOS optical tracking as semi-automatic, in which operator must align crosshairs on the target manually.

 

-SK